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.
Without replication life ends. All life is inherently programmed to reproduce. It's how we are wired. Not having children runs against our nature. Some achieve this, most do not.
It's wrong to have children because we live in a world full of pain, misery, suffering, violence, bullies, and children are vulnerable to everything. Why do people have children in a world like this? Are they blind and in denial? Parents are aware of all misery that contains in this world and still choose to procreate to please themselves. Having children is an extremely selfish act and it's wrong.
That's why I got fixed when I was 30. I have several personal reasons why I choose not to add to this human race, but I try to keep my black cloud away from others as it's only my own perspectives. I would never tell anyone they shouldn't have children. There are lots of people that shouldn't have children due to economic, mental, and physical limitations but it's not my place to call them out on it. I kind of just live and let live knowing I wont add to the population.
While I side with the "no-childers," I certainly don't think it's immoral to have children, as that's just biology - having kids is going to happen, regardless. As for having kids just to abuse them, or not being able to take care of them, or expecting the state to care for them - that's what I consider immoral and unethical. If humans breed themselves like bacteria in a petri dish and we go into Malthusian meltdown, well, that's just nature doing its job. Nature, as it exists, is neither moral or immoral - it just is. Since humans are part of nature, we just are and having kids is a part of that, and it always will be. This whole notion of "ethics" and "morals" is purely a human invention and it's all relative - there is no "universal standard" that humans are obligated to live by other than what we collectively agree upon oursleves in any given society, in any given point of time.
As for the argument that kids don't get to choose being born, how anyone know for sure that is the case? What if every child born is a spirit that chooses to be born? Even kids being born into broken families may be the result of souls choosing to have that experience to add to their CV of spiritual development. I know there's no way I can prove that, but there's no way it can disproven either.
In addition, I would say that most people enjoy living, despite the pain and suffering, and wish to prolong their life as long as possible. If this wasn't the case, then I would think human beings would lose interest in reproduction and bring ourselves to extinction in short order. The very fact that we're here, 7 billion strong, just indicates to me that being alive as a human is a good thing. We're alive, we're here, and we continue to have children (as a species). That is a fact that can't be revoked, regardless of how much pain and suffering is out there. But what we should do (in my humble opinion) is to work on creating a society that's for the benefit of all, the ever-elusive Utopia that I constantly dream of. We may never get there, but hey, isn't it the journey that counts?
I may or may not have chosen to come to this Earth, but regardless, I'm here, and I'll just do the best I can to mitigate suffering for myself and for others. Although I'm childless and always will be, I'd like to think that there will be a better, more humane world in the future, and once I pass from this life, I might have the chance to come back as a human in a real-life Utopia someday. If everybody stopped having kids...it'd be a bummer, as everything we're worked on for so long would be for naught. Maybe we should just focus on having fewer kids, get the population down gradually to a sustainable level, and not allow a few elite to hog all the goods while the rest of us struggle to survive. That's what I'm focusing my energies on, and it's nice to know that plenty of others that agree with my position.
I think this is the case with any topic. At the very least it leaves a person more well read.
I don't think anything fits the "supposed to" bill in the universal form. In order for you (general you westerner) to live as you do, to communicate as you do, to do most things as a westerner, then you are reliant upon society. That is all. I don't see the need or point in applying external conditions to that.
But I don't believe that society needs to exist for any reason. Humans are very self-centered and arrogant in thinking the world exists for our own collective benefit. Yes, I rely on society in order to live. I am here, now, living in this world, and I actively partake in the machinations of life and living, and that includes relying on other humans and human inventions for my survival. But, I know rationally that there is no justification or reason for me or society as a whole to exist or to continue to exist. If the human species disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't mean much, except to us arrogant humans who act as if the world is our own giant recreational center to do with as we please. We are not that important.
While I side with the "no-childers," I certainly don't think it's immoral to have children, as that's just biology - having kids is going to happen, regardless. Nature, as it exists, is neither moral or immoral - it just is.
Since humans are part of nature, we just are and having kids is a part of that, and it always will be. This whole notion of "ethics" and "morals" is purely a human invention and it's all relative - there is no "universal standard" that humans are obligated to live by other than what we collectively agree upon oursleves in any given society, in any given point of time.
If you think this way nothing could be regarded as immoral since everything that happens in nature is natural... Rape, infanticide, murder etc.. They are quite natural things but it doesn't mean they are good.
It doesn't mean people should be free to cause suffering to others doing whatever we want. Nature is careless, she doesn't care about well-being of its creation but we do. We are not required to bow down to this blind, irrational, crude and selfish DNA molecule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStarDelight
Interesting thread. In addition, I would say that most people enjoy living, despite the pain and suffering, and wish to prolong their life as long as possible. If this wasn't the case, then I would think human beings would lose interest in reproduction and bring ourselves to extinction in short order. The very fact that we're here, 7 billion strong, just indicates to me that being alive as a human is a good thing.
Not everyone enjoys living though. Some people have to bear the horrid burden of existence so others can distract themselves with fleeting pleasures. The joy of the majority doesn't erase the pain of the minority and never will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStarDelight
Interesting thread. We're alive, we're here, and we continue to have children (as a species). That is a fact that can't be revoked, regardless of how much pain and suffering is out there. But what we should do (in my humble opinion) is to work on creating a society that's for the benefit of all, the ever-elusive Utopia that I constantly dream of. We may never get there, but hey, isn't it the journey that counts?
Yeah, we may not even get there. But what's the point of creating a utopia for future distant future generations anway? They don't need to come into existence. And we won't be even here to enjoy it. Why there should be joy in the universe?
But I don't believe that society needs to exist for any reason. Humans are very self-centered and arrogant in thinking the world exists for our own collective benefit. Yes, I rely on society in order to live. I am here, now, living in this world, and I actively partake in the machinations of life and living, and that includes relying on other humans and human inventions for my survival. But, I know rationally that there is no justification or reason for me or society as a whole to exist or to continue to exist. If the human species disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't mean much, except to us arrogant humans who act as if the world is our own giant recreational center to do with as we please. We are not that important.
Ok, but no one is saying you do. I'm not sure why you're making the statement nor as a response to my posts as they do not address what you do or don't believe about society.
If you think this way nothing could be regarded as immoral since everything that happens in nature is natural... Rape, infanticide, murder etc.. They are quite natural things but it doesn't mean they are good.
It doesn't mean people should be free to cause suffering to others doing whatever we want. Nature is careless, she doesn't care about well-being of its creation but we do. We are not required to bow down to this blind, irrational, crude and selfish DNA molecule.
Of course not, we as a society need to define what morals we need to have to live by, such as the creation of common law. It's our responsbility to do that, however, as nature isn't going to do it for us.
Quote:
Not everyone enjoys living though. Some people have to bear the horrid burden of existence so others can distract themselves with fleeting pleasures. The joy of the majority doesn't erase the pain of the minority and never will.
Then perhaps those who are able should do more to help those that are not having a good time of it, like providing counseling, etc. In recent times past, people used to own slaves and treated them in all sorts of inhumane ways. Now, we don't (at least in the US) - I consider it a moral imperative to do what we can to improve the human condition, whether it's to eliminate slavery, educating our children and not allowing a few rich people control how the rest of us live (our most pressing problem of today, IMO.) I'm alive, and I'm going to do my part to alleviate the pain and suffering people are having to endure. I'd rather die knowing that I won't be hated by future generations by making things worse for them, as I know I owe my comfortable existence to all those people who labored to better the human condition in the past. In other words, paying it forward.
Quote:
Yeah, we may not even get there. But what's the point of creating a utopia for future distant future generations anway? They don't need to come into existence. And we won't be even here to enjoy it. Why there should be joy in the universe?
Because I have a belief I might come back someday as a human, and it dammed well be better than what we've got right now...lol. But then again, perhaps there are other sentient races out there I could be a part of. Who knows?
As an aside, a simple and cheap treatment for depression (I've suffered from it in the past, so I know) is to take extra Vitamin D each day. Works far better than any pharma that's out there, and it could really change your outlook on life. Worth a shot, I think.
It's wrong to have children because we live in a world full of pain, misery, suffering, violence, bullies, and children are vulnerable to everything. Why do people have children in a world like this? Are they blind and in denial? Parents are aware of all misery that contains in this world and still choose to procreate to please themselves. Having children is an extremely selfish act and it's wrong.
So, your premise is that children are born into a world of suffering. Somehow, for some reason, they should not live in a world of suffering. Parents are aware of the suffering but still choose to procreate to please themselves. Having children is thus an extremely selfish act, and selfishness is somehow, for some reason, wrong in this context.
I see two value judgments in your post.
1. People should not live in a world of suffering.
2. Selfishness is wrong.
Ethical reasoning will certainly be different than whatever you may expect, if different value judgments are assumed instead.
1. People should live in a world of suffering.
2. Selfishness is not wrong.
In addition, I would say that most people enjoy living, despite the pain and suffering, and wish to prolong their life as long as possible. If this wasn't the case, then I would think human beings would lose interest in reproduction and bring ourselves to extinction in short order. The very fact that we're here, 7 billion strong, just indicates to me that being alive as a human is a good thing. We're alive, we're here, and we continue to have children (as a species). That is a fact that can't be revoked, regardless of how much pain and suffering is out there. But what we should do (in my humble opinion) is to work on creating a society that's for the benefit of all, the ever-elusive Utopia that I constantly dream of. We may never get there, but hey, isn't it the journey that counts?
I disagree with your conclusion. Most of countries with high birth rates are countries where people are not deciding to have children based on a positive outlook of life. Most are poor and underducated and women have limited (if any) access to birth control. Other countries have religions who decide for them how many children they should have.
Most of the Western world where people have more time and resources to analyze this decision have negative growth rates. I think it is quite possible that we will actually bring ourselves into extinction if all countries get the same education and resources as the US, Western Europe and Japan.
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.
