Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a very interesting subject for me for some reason. First off, I think it's wrong to insist people have kids if they don't want to, but I would consider myself selfish if my wife and I chose to not have a family.
. . .
Large numbers of "No kid couples" are really just a result of a culture completely obsessed with materialism as the #1 goal in life. They will surely rationalize away but other than couples who physically can't have children, what other reason is there except to "play" without the worries, hassles and expenses of having kids?
It's our nature...the nature of all life to have children. The average human being has a very real, deep-rooted, psychological need to form and maintain deep, meaningful, long lasting relationships with others... and what relationship could possibly be deeper and longer lasting than that of a parent to his/her child? Beyond that, evolution itself drives reprodution and the basic fact (from the natural perspective) remains: we are literally born just to make new "copies" of ourselves over and over through the passage of time.
In other words, the perpetuation of life is our reason to exist (and the only reason life itself still exists). This game plan has been going for over 2 billion years on this planet and didn't stop just because of the current and ultimately temporary circumstances of the world don't exactly favor it.
. . .
How hideous!
Our reason to exist is to produce more offspring? Are you kidding? With the population on the globe so much out of balance with humans as it is?
So you would reduce the value of human existence to that of other animals and you seem so proud of it.
Your arguments are a throwback to the dark ages, even before that.
My husband and I never thought that we should have children, and there are a variety of reasons for that, one of which is that there are just too many people on the planet as it is. Nothing materialistic about it.
If the perpetuation of life is the reason that most have for existence, then couples would have as many children as they possibly could, wouldn't they? Sounds like you are preaching some old failed Catholic doctrine.
At some point nearly every couple decides not to have more kids, and it's usually because it's too damned inconvenient. Did they suddenly become 'materialistic', as you put it? Maybe they just think the payout does not equate with the energy put in - maybe they are exhausted and want time for themselves. Maybe they need to save resources for college and retirement.
What you seem to not comprehend is that the ultimate goal for many is to see human extinction.
This makes any future person of genius in a any filed of science, industry, the arts, etc a moot issue.
Human extinction is exactly that, nothing.
In the movie The Matrix Agent Smith spoke to Morpheus concerning human existence which makes a great deal of logical sense.
Agent Smith -"" I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet. ""
As much as those that are driven to procreate deny this fact, it is the truth.
This is true. I don't think we, as a race, should not exist, but someone took this 'be fruitful and multiply' thing way too seriously. We could do with some counter propaganda, to my way of thinking.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,444,054 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain
How hideous!
Our reason to exist is to produce more offspring? Are you kidding? With the population on the globe so much out of balance with humans as it is?
So you would reduce the value of human existence to that of other animals and you seem so proud of it.
Your arguments are a throwback to the dark ages, even before that.
My husband and I never thought that we should have children, and there are a variety of reasons for that, one of which is that there are just too many people on the planet as it is. Nothing materialistic about it.
If the perpetuation of life is the reason that most have for existence, then couples would have as many children as they possibly could, wouldn't they? Sounds like you are preaching some old failed Catholic doctrine.
At some point nearly every couple decides not to have more kids, and it's usually because it's too damned inconvenient. Did they suddenly become 'materialistic', as you put it? Maybe they just think the payout does not equate with the energy put in - maybe they are exhausted and want time for themselves. Maybe they need to save resources for college and retirement.
Bingo!
It amazes me how anyone could make a silly blanket statement about people who consciously choose to not have children. It is our choice and no one's business...especially if you can't comprehend why we choose not to have them. I am thankful everyday that I am childfree. I pity those who think that is our sole purpose on planet earth.
I personally think people should limit their offspring to one, or better, none because there are just too many of us on the planet.
I do think that there is a horrendous propaganda surrounding being prego and having kids. Almost every portrayal in the movies or on talk shows is just so much schmoozey bs and it is borderline nauseating. It really takes no brains to be pregnant and is not a great accomplishment. The kid could be a great inventor but he could also turn out a Charlie Manson. The state is certainly inconvenient. If most women could have the kid in a test tube rather than in their bodies, they probably would. If most women could afford a nanny to help raise the kid and a housekeeper they certainly would. I don't think most women REALLY want kids - I think it's a sort of social convention and weak minded people or those with little going on in their lives will easily bend that way.
I will certainly grant you that it takes no special talent and certainly no selflessness or foresight to have children. That people are proud of themselves for having sex and getting pregnant has always mystified me. It's something every 12 year old and backwoods hayseed is perfectly capable of.
Most women in my experience have a desire to have their own children that is both primal and unreasoning, although they manage to bring varying levels of awareness to it. I don't know whether most women would use nannies if they could afford them for the simple reason that outside of high society, delegating the raising of your children to hirelings in any big way is considered somewhat uncaring and perhaps the easy way out. Even Moms with full time careers (and these days, that's most of them) feel a lot of guilt for creating a latchkey experience and feel inadequate for their sitter having more face time with the kids than they do.
I am reluctant to judge people for doing the very thing I didn't have the sense to resist until it was too late. Antinatalism is something that's relatively easy to become convinced of after the fact, but in advance, not so much.
I personally think people should limit their offspring to one, or better, none because there are just too many of us on the planet.
I do think that there is a horrendous propaganda surrounding being prego and having kids. Almost every portrayal in the movies or on talk shows is just so much schmoozey bs and it is borderline nauseating. It really takes no brains to be pregnant and is not a great accomplishment. The kid could be a great inventor but he could also turn out a Charlie Manson. The state is certainly inconvenient. If most women could have the kid in a test tube rather than in their bodies, they probably would. If most women could afford a nanny to help raise the kid and a housekeeper they certainly would. I don't think most women REALLY want kids - I think it's a sort of social convention and weak minded people or those with little going on in their lives will easily bend that way.
I don't notice what the child free on this forum notice offline. I don't think you guys should worry about it. Are you an inventor, scientist, physician, whatever? That's what matters not the profession of a child you don't and won't ever know. So, before you even start judging what others are doing and why I think it would be more interesting to hear what you bring to the table.
I will certainly grant you that it takes no special talent and certainly no selflessness or foresight to have children. That people are proud of themselves for having sex and getting pregnant has always mystified me. It's something every 12 year old and backwoods hayseed is perfectly capable of.
It does take careful consideration, rather than talent, to choose the right mate the FIRST time; to plan your life that will be optimal for your children and ultimately foresight to not fumble through it all. That's not about having sex. I also don't understand this "us" "we" etc premise (noted else where in this thread). We're all human, but we're not all the same. One couple having kids is not going to be the same thing as another couple having kids.
Lorees you have a very good point on the immorality of procreation. Having kids is indeed immoral.
But antinatalism is impratical and unhappily it's impossible to criminalize procreation.
As more and more resources are depleted, this could change.
I'd expect the comments here to be pretty much the same as they are every time a "child-free" poster comes here and baits - just waiting for the handful of posters who will say that not having children is wrong/selfish etc. so they can post how awful parents treat them. MOST parents have no problem at all with those who choose not to have children, most parents are more upset with parents who never should have had children. If you don't want them, don't have them. Don't judge me for having them either though. As long as we're both on that page, no problem.
Exactly. It is not selfish to choose to have kids, or not have kids. However it is 100% selfish to have kids if you are not prepared to make sacrifices to ensure they have the best life possible.
As long as they're supporting their own kids, whose business is it whether or not people choose to have children?
In other words, it's not my business...until it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
