Are Kids Necessary (continued...)

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Hsiang-Lin

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking lately: do we really need to have kids? Most people would prob. say yes and I never really questioned it myself before either. I just assumed it was something I would eventually do.

But why do most people want to have children? I think the most common answer is to preserve the family name, genetics, or legacy. I took that further and thought, "Why do we need to preserve such things if we can just adopt?" We can still preserve the family name and legacy through adoption. But some people may argue it's not a true bloodline. But is a bloodline all that important? And then I thought, "If everyone thinks kids are unnecessary, then we would have no Einsteins, Edisons, etc. and no great discoveries, inventions, and achievements."

But all these great achievements are indeed great WITHIN the context of the human species. But how are they great within the context of other species? I'm sure a lot of animals and other species in the rainforests don't take too kindly to our intrusion on their environment. Then I got to thinking, "Is there really some higher reason for purporting the human species rather than other species?" Why do we deserve to live on while other animal species must live under our control or dictations?

Also, problems such as world hunger and competition I think to a high degree are affected by the individual's need and hunger to survive and replicate. Without kids, we would no longer have the problem of overpopulation, world hunger, and limited resources. Ultimately, we may just simply die out as a species. Now is that REALLY that bad? I mean this seriously.

I'm not here to instigate controvery or anything, but it is something that I've thought seriously about and would like to get more perspectives. What I learn I know will play a big part in whether I have kids or not Thanks for reading!

This was the original post.

Original Thread was here but it fell into a discussion on a different topic so the thread has been closed and this one has been started to continue the discussion on the topic at hand.

[stephencp]

"Also, problems such as world hunger and competition I think to a high degree are affected by the individual's need and hunger to survive and replicate. Without kids, we would no longer have the problem of overpopulation, world hunger, and limited resources."

As stated I think in the previous thread, there's ample resources in the world to support ALOT more people. The problem is politics and distribution, not resources.

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

[Andrew Brunelle]

I have the feeling that these resources may be taken away from other species and we have definitely ************ed the planet up big time and now nature is simply a backdrop instead of in the forefront. We've completely standardized this world beyone belief while totally neglecting the beauty of nature and its preservation. We'd rather build condos than keep some bare land for the animals. And it's a damn shame. We need some major paradigm-shifting beliefs that will allow us to be interdependent with nature, not independent of it.

[stephencp]

"We'd rather build condos than keep some bare land for the animals"

If you're an American (or live in an otherwise wealthy country) don't assume that what you see and experience (or even hear about in your own news) is the reality for the rest of world.

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

[Akashic_Librarian]

We are too far gone to fix our problems quickly.

I propose we don't have kids for 15 years...thenI don't know...lets see what happens.

[Michael Chui]

I don't understand this dichotomy between us and nature. Aren't we natural beings, as well?

[stephencp]

"There may be ample resources to support a lot more people, but the rich people are not going to just redistribute their wealth, and I do not dismiss that as "politics." "

If don't care for capitalism (i.e. rich people), what system would you propose?

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics
Personality and Growth Bookshelf

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Listener

Restraining ourselves is natural part of being human.

That's true, but it doesn't explain why everyone should restrain themselves in the same way.

Originally Posted by Listener

Clearly we should restrain our carbon dioxide output, as we seem to have reached levels higher than otherwise seen in 600,000 years, and we are headed straight up to easily double what has ever been that we know of if we carry on.

You should've seen it several hundred years ago, when we were using hay. Gasoline is a step down. See here.

Originally Posted by Listener

Our population is supposed to level out at 8-9 billion.

I vote for spaceships.

Originally Posted by Listener

There may be ample resources to support a lot more people, but the rich people are not going to just redistribute their wealth, and I do not dismiss that as "politics."

How are you so sure of this? Haven't you seen what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is doing? Philanthropy is going through the roof. The question isn't whether people are willing to spend their money on fixing the world's problems; the question is who they should spend it on. There are plenty of phony charities and organizations sucking this money out with no results and turning around to use it for, say, terrorist plots or region destabilization.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Listener

Michael - straw man. I never said everyone should restrain themselves by not having kids (although I won't object).

You made a general statement; I made a general statement in response. Are you sure I'm the one making a logical fallacy? My reply applies equally to any of the subjects you touch upon in the post to which it was directed.

Originally Posted by Listener

Well, the GAteses are great in their philanthropy, but they aren't going to solve the third world water shortages.

They're not trying to. I believe Google's working on that. The Gates appear to be working on death by sex, which is probably one of the more amusing ways to go, if not for its extraordinary success.

Originally Posted by Listener

Back to the original question, people do often assume everyone should have kids. I've certainly been asked with a shocked look many times why I don't have any.

I don't expect to ever have kids, but I'd love to raise some. But I find the arguments building off a notion of sustainability or some kind of antagonism with nature to be ridiculous. The choice to become a parent must be ultimately personal, and I don't want anyone who doesn't want to be a parent to become one.

[TheColonel]

Originally Posted by stephencp

"Also, problems such as world hunger and competition I think to a high degree are affected by the individual's need and hunger to survive and replicate. Without kids, we would no longer have the problem of overpopulation, world hunger, and limited resources."

As stated I think in the previous thread, there's ample resources in the world to support ALOT more people. The problem is politics and distribution, not resources.

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics

Amen compadre.

[TheColonel]

Originally Posted by Listener

people do often assume everyone should have kids. I've certainly been asked with a shocked look many times why I don't have any.

You ought to consider who you associate with. Although this sounds like a comment that would come from a mother.

I'm crowding 40, and I just had my first child 2 years ago. Nobody EVER "asked with a shocked look....why I don't have any kids."

Geez. How ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ rude is that??

[stephencp]

"Well, the Gates are great in their philanthropy, but they aren't going to solve the third world water shortages."

Again I ask, if not philanthropy from capitalists, what do you think will?

Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics
Personality and Growth Bookshelf

[tc33]

Back to the original question...children. I've been thinking about this a lot lately in trying to decide how to lead my life over the next 5-10 years (I'm 28 now). Married, kids, with a boring/stable job (Choice A)? Or single, agile, and variety of low-paying/unstable careers which I want to experience before I die but will be passionate about (Choice B)?

For me, it all comes down to my value hierarchy. At this moment, I value Choice B over Choice A. Someone else might be passionate about having a stable family and being a parent, thus both choices complement each other. In other situations, people may be able to have a family and remain passionate about their life (like Steve & Erin Pavlina). Unfortunately, these situations don't apply to me for a variety of reasons which I won't go into. Moreover, most women my age either have kids or want them (along with the stability), therefore Choice B includes myself sacrificing most types of long-term relationships (which I value highly).

Additionally, I believe that, as living beings, we are hard-wired with the need to procreate in order to ensure the survival of the species. This view is reinforced by the major social institutions across the country. This is why the conscious decision to not have children may seem "wrong" at first, and why people may look at you like a two-headed alien if you tell them you're not interested in having children.

On the other hand, recent credible happiness surveys (can't recall ATM) how shown that people without children are equally as happy as people with them. There's safety in numbers here, I suppose

Having a decent amount of experience with two of my brother's toddlers from their birth until the age of four, I have seen firsthand the tremendous amount of energy required in order to raise a child. I have nothing but respect for parents, especially single parents, who can maintain the levels of stamina required in order to be a good parent and pay the bills at the same time. I do not believe anything less than 100% is an acceptable amount of effort when it comes to one's responsibilities (especially children), so if you're not 100% sure you want kids to be a huge (if not primary) focus of your life, don't have them, IMO.

The other factor is one I call the "look at all the zombies" factor. Take a fresh look at most of those around you -- in a typical office setting, most are married with children. How many of them look truly fulfilled and seem to lead passionate lives? How many parents at Wal-Mart seem enamored with their kids? I'm not saying children = instant and permanent misery, but it seems obvious to me that leading a normal life of "stability", though socially promoted, is not the way to go, at least for me, and I'm betting it's not the way to go for others on this board as well.

Interesting topic. Thoughts?

Tom

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by tc33

I'm not saying children = instant and permanent misery, but it seems obvious to me that leading a normal life of "stability", though socially promoted, is not the way to go, at least for me, and I'm betting it's not the way to go for others on this board as well.

I agree with you. There's really no good reason for everyone to be having kids. It's also one of the most basic things humans can do. It always reminds me of what my father told me when I was learning how to drive and failed the first time I took the on-road license test -- "driving a car doesn't require a lot of intelligence; anyone can be taught how to do it so don't get too preoccupied with it." I feel a similar way about having kids. It's a the simplest thing that humans can do (having kids that is, raising them is another story). It seems like there're plenty of people out there having kids as it is, and whether or not I do it won't change the world.

On the other hand, if I do have kids I'll have to spend a lot of energy on them until they're old enough to fend for themselves. This is time and energy I can spend making a contribution through my work. Finally, our species isn't about to become extinct -- we survived with just a few hundred million humans for thousands of years, versus the 6 billion we have today. So if anything, not having kids is going to be good for the environment and this planet in the long term.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Baltar

There's really no good reason for everyone to be having kids.

With this statement I wholeheartedly agree. But I also disagree with the concept of a nuclear family; children shouldn't be raised in silos.

And while I think I already know the answer, I'd like to throw out an alternative question to the one Steve addressed a while back. And that's, "If everyone awakens, will we go extinct?"

Naturally, I'm going to sit out the discussion for a while. Have fun.

[julien]

Well, this is not a question of will. If the human species survived until now, that's also because it is written deep inside our genes that we have to repoduce. This goes far beyond any kind of logics or societal model. I was amazed at reading in this thread how absence of reproduction would deprive us of geniuses like Eistein. This would suppress the human race !!!

[Paul C]

Even if all of humanity was to awaken together, the primal longing to reproduce and to have a partner will still be present. The difference would be that the common individual wouldn't feel obligated to do so.

Maybe even some peoples life purpose will be to raise the young, regardless of the parent. Taking into account the current population of the world, there would be a number of people with such a calling.

If the population does become dangerously low within a highly conscious society a number of people will take it upon themselves to procreate (taking into consideration personal goals and life situation). I really couldn't envision such a society that would allow their own extinction through the simple neglect of reproduction (assuming that within this scenario humanity has stopped and reversed their damage to the environment and become stewards to nature, as I like to think we should be).

And on another note, I believe that Steve already gave a scenario in which all mundane appearing work is replaced by automated machines. Which would allow everyone to follow what they most desire, unless, someone out there feels that their calling is to stack shelves, etc.

Thinking about it. I could see self-sustainability playing a major part within a highly ascended society. Each household able to supply its own electricity, water treatment, food, etc. Personal and/or community kitchen gardens for every neighborhood, teach generations of humans the importance of nature and good food. Automation once again playing its part if one doesn't like to spend their time doing maintenance around a highly efficient house. This is assuming that most people by then will be either vegetarian to some degree, or at least raise their own livestock (little stuff like chickens and fish, hydroponics come to mind as well).

Many of these technologies could become common place if governments foot the bill (I can dream).

So to answer this question:

"If everyone awakens, will we go extinct?"

I say no. I think human civilization as a whole will become far more quality over quantity.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Baltar

There's really no good reason for everyone to be having kids.

There is, however, a bad one: if the birth rate goes down significantly, politicians start freaking out about fueling the engine of capitalism with workers and begin offering 'baby bonuses' to bribe families to have kids.

I'm pretty sure it was someone on the forums who put it perfectly:

- The economy is a part of the environment, not the other way around...

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Paul C

Maybe even some peoples life purpose will be to raise the young, regardless of the parent. Taking into account the current population of the world, there would be a number of people with such a calling.

*nods* That was the answer I had in mind. Assuming these people were conscious, I think they'd do a splendid job even with kids that weren't theirs by birth. I would envision people, knowing they don't want to raise kids, who would give birth and then surrender them to an organization of parents dedicated towards doing precisely that.

Originally Posted by Paul C

Which would allow everyone to follow what they most desire, unless, someone out there feels that their calling is to stack shelves, etc.

Having stacked shelves, I feel obligated to say that it's actually kinda fun. I volunteered at a library for a couple years.

[toomuchtoabsorb]

For me, children are wonderful, and I deeply desire to have my own some day. However, I also see the issues that would help create, and how I could improve the life quality of someone by adopting them, and I would gladly do so.
However, and this is a bit of a pinch for me, my loved one doesn't agree with me. She wants kids just as much as I do, if not more, and she's going to have her own children. Four of them, if she gets to decide.
That's... probably not so good, if you ask me. I'm more in favour of the "two parents, no more than two children" policy. If we're going to have four children, I'd like to have a 50/50 split of adopted and our own children. At least.

[Michael Chui]

I strongly dislike the notion that two parents are a sufficient number of persons to raise any number of children. It takes a village, like they say, and I'd suggest that there only be two people with ultimate responsibility, but a network of ten, fifteen, thirty people who the child knows on a first name basis. (Or at least pseudo-Uncle and faux-Auntie.)

I would hazard the position that the actual number of children won't seem to matter so much.