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.
Anecdotal statements are OK, but what is your point?
This is what I thought when I read the topic of this discussion.
I am 44, do not have any kids nor do I want any. The reason had nothing to do with economics, but rather that when I was young enough to be interested in having them, I hadn't met a girl who I would want to spend my life with, nor did I have the resources to afford a child. Now that I have met my wife and could afford children, I am old enough to realize that the last thing I want to be dealing with at 60 is a petulant teenager's self-centered drama.
Why are Bob and Sara listed as negative numbers while the offspring are positive numbers? They are all human beings and all subjected to the same parameters: birth, life and then death. The analysis should be as follows since Bob, Sara and the children (or their real world counterparts) will be sharing the earth together for many years, in most cases. Your analysis omits the very important reality that multiple generations exist at the same time and it is NOT the case of the offspring simply replacing Bob and Sara.
You can't arbitrarily make some people negative and others positive to suit your preconceived outcome.
Bob and Sara decide to have 0 children. 2 + 0 = 2
Bob and Sara have 1 child. 2 + 1 = 3
Bob and Sara have 2 children 2 + 2 = 4
Because Bob and Sara will die. If they do not reproduce, humanity lost two people without adding another. Like I said, people shouldn't be this bad at math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Let's make this easy to understand. Bob and Sara will be our couple. Negative integers, as 100% of humans die.
Bob and Sara decide to have 0 children. -2 + 0 = -2
Bob and Sara have 1 child. -2 + 1 = -1
Bob and Sara have 2 children -2 + 2 = 0 (no net gain)
No, it's a recipe for disaster. Look at China, Japan, or any of the old Western Europe countries and you'll see the results of this kind of decadence.
Correct. Spot on, mate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
I agree! The European countries do not reproduce and now have to import foreigners just to survive.
Correct!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle
For me, children are just too much work and expense. And honestly, I don't care where society will be 40 years from now because I will no longer exist.
This is the thinking that will cause economic decline. You are well within your right to feel this way. It is just ironic that so many people are against immigration yet hold beliefs that there are no consequences for choosing to not have kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
I'm a successful intelligent adult that is childless by choice. You're reading WAY too much into most people's choices. I just didn't want kids. It's that simple.
This is what I thought when I read the topic of this discussion.
I am 44, do not have any kids nor do I want any. The reason had nothing to do with economics, but rather that when I was young enough to be interested in having them, I hadn't met a girl who I would want to spend my life with, nor did I have the resources to afford a child. Now that I have met my wife and could afford children, I am old enough to realize that the last thing I want to be dealing with at 60 is a petulant teenager's self-centered drama.
Perfectly OK, I see no issues.
But, the theme of the thread is not about our personal individual choices. The thread has to do with the consequences of a society where the number of children is going down.
Disclosure: I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned and I have two kids.
The main problem is the people who choose not to have kids would be the responsible parents and the people that choose to have 7 kids are the least responsible parents.
Everyone should be limited to two kids then sterilized. If you have the means and are living a responsible life you could apply for a waiver to possibly have three kids. It is 2015 and no ones genes are special enough for them to reproduce 7 or more times. There are limited resources and you are doing humanity a disservice by breeding that much.
Disclosure: I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned and I have two kids.
The main problem is the people who choose not to have kids would be the responsible parents and the people that choose to have 7 kids are the least responsible parents.
Everyone should be limited to two kids then sterilized. If you have the means and are living a responsible life you could apply for a waiver to possibly have three kids. It is 2015 and no ones genes are special enough for them to reproduce 7 or more times. There are limited resources and you are doing humanity a disservice by breeding that much.
Excellent post.
In theory if couples had two kids and no more the humans would become extinct. Because of infant mortality and other issues the population maintenance rate is a bit more than two kids per couple.
The world fertility rate is on the decline even in 3rd world countries. The only exception is Sub-Sahara Africa. In places like India the fertility rate has decreased markedly since the 1940s.
The world fertility rate has decreased from 4.95 in 1950-55 to 2.36 in 2010-2015 (WIKI). The minute it gets below 2.0 we will start to see a decline in world population. Probably a good thing in the 3rd world but devastating in developed nations who are already struggling and unable to replace the population.
Well, I was not returning, but since you ask what I meant by your "beating a dead horse" - it is due to this:
Your topic reads: "Couples who do not want children. Are they doing the right thing?". You ask this, then make statements repeatedly based upon your unusual stance and reasoning, expecting or insisting that all agree with you.
After many respond with honest answers and good reasons for many not having children, you ignore it and persist that the topic has "nothing to do with personal choices", but refers to something else (that many do not relate to or care about, because lets face it, people raise children not for the reasons you are sharing and insisting one should).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
But, the theme of the thread is not about our personal individual choices. The thread has to do with the consequences of a society where the number of children is going down.
Hence the "beating a dead horse".
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.
