Is Being Childfree Selfish? Debating Time Magazine's Touchy New Issue (morality, life)
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.
Sure, it's all limited, but we have enough information in order to make decisions about our lives that lends to certainty or at least enough certainty that we carry on. Anyhow, off to the gym I go!
Right, you're extremely high probability to be off to the gym for X many more days until one day Y you're dead.
It's called empathy. I am not an irrational selfish animal like yourself only concerned about your own pleasure. You don't give a **** if there are people suffering and dying as long as you are having a great time here. You only care about yourself.
And ultimately that is why I argue. Because Braunwyn is an *******.
You tell me where the meaning is in having 2.2 children of your own.
I did this earlier. Search this thread under my handle, then look for the really long one. Cliff's Notes:
Postulates:
1. The universe exists as a separate entity from sentient beings, but not from animals or creatures that cannot define and express themselves as individuals.
2. Humans are the only sentient entity known to exist (God[s], aliens, etc. are not proven or prove-able).
3. An object, concept, or entity can only be measured by some other entity separate from itself. (In this example, animals are a part of their environment, and cannot define that environment. Humans, as distinguished from their environment by an expressable sense of self, can take the measure of the environment. "That rainbow is more beautiful than the sunrise yesterday." "The sun is 15 billion years old." and the like.)
4. An unmeasured object has no meaning or definition.
Conclusions:
From 1 through 4, it follows that the universe has no definition or meaning without the existence of humans. Human life will end within no more than 150 years after ceasing to reproduce. Therefore, reproduction is an essential function which gives meaning to the universe.
The importance of the definition or meaning is debatable (is defining the universe a good reason to exist). However, there IS demonstrable meaning to having "2.2 kids of your own."
Because of the failure to prove the existence of aliens or God[s], the meaning of the universe to the individual (as a separate entity from the universe) is impossible to quantify. The meaning of the universe to a person is both the most and least important meaning, because it is the ONLY meaning the universe is known have.
Without other sentient beings, the value of human life will always be subjective to each individual. There is no absolute truth in this case, because there are insufficient means of measurement. Therefore, one person can say that human life is not worth the suffering, while another can say that it is, and both can be right. The only form of measurement is comparing each individual's decision to the collective decisions of billions of individuals. Because most people reproduce, then those who choose not to are aberrations. This does not mean that they are wrong, but it does mean that they are, by definition, abnormal.
I predict, with 99.8% certainty that the Lilleputians shall now freak out about being designated "abnormal".
it's certainly not a coin toss, but it is entirely a byproduct of probabilities that are forever beyond our comprehension
Maybe what we are really debating here is the degree of control we have over our lives vs how much our outcomes are a product of chance / luck.
People who really need control and are risk-adverse are going to argue strongly against bad luck and misfortune as a significant factor in life and will want to explain as much human suffering as possible in terms of it somehow being the sufferer's fault, because that allows them the illusion that it's all controllable and that all effort is generally worth it / rewarded.
People who are more adaptable on the one hand, or who are just beaten down with a long string of unsatisfactory outcomes on the other, are going to tend to have more respect for the SFFTS factor (S__t Falling From The Sky). The former will be philosophical about, it, shrug and move on; the latter, tend to just implode from it and give up.
The truth is that life is a big stew full of explicable and inexplicable outcomes, and different personalities reacting to these things in different ways. It falls to us to flex with life, much more than we can really make life flex for us. Those who are flexible, flex; those who are idealists or more rigid thinkers, don't. The latter either insist everything is controllable, or they insist not much is controllable. Which camp they fall into is largely a function of how rationalizable their life-to-date has been for them. We all like to pat ourselves on the back for our brilliance, so if our life is going well, it's tempting to take all the credit for that.
I admit to being an idealist with a tendency to implode. I'm aware of it, but can't entirely help it. On my worst days I just hold on and tell myself, "this, too, shall pass". And it does. Although sometimes what is left behind, is not much to write home about. I skate by on the basis that (1) I've had some highly compartmentalized good fortune as a sort of consolation prize for my troubles and (2) my life is nowhere near the s__tstorm it once was, and is actually pretty decent and stable most of the time, which means (3) I have a pretty good illusion of control / free will at present, making it easy to get out of bed most days.
Were I not a product of my past experiences I'd be highly tempted to tell people to quit whining and take control of their lives.
To bring this sidebar back to the OP, then, I think the quality of our children's lives is not guaranteed and somewhat subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Against this we must weigh the value (or lack thereof) that we place upon the whole human experiment. If you regard life as a kick then you are going to find anyone who is unthankful for it as basically nuts. If you regard your life as a drain of your life force to no good purpose then you are going to think anyone who is thankful for it is basically nuts.
Given that both outcomes are possible, it seems that whichever way you lean, you don't really have a basis to impose anything on others for how they choose to live their lives. I don't personally recommend that people have kids, and I wouldn't repeat the experience, but I have no basis really to judge others for coming to different conclusions.
It's called empathy. I am not an irrational selfish animal like yourself only concerned about your own pleasure. You don't give a **** if there are people suffering and dying as long as you are having a great time here. You only care about yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
And ultimately that is why I argue. Because Braunwyn is an *******.
Come on, as if either of you know the first thing about empathy. How do you manifest compassion in your daily lives? Do you do anything for anybody or is your contribution to the human community blabbering on the Internet about your suffering? The differences between us are not about empathy, but about being real. You think posting here is fighting the good fight for compassion? How completely lame. Get off your lazy asses and go volunteer at hospice like mordant does. Stop eating meat and contributing to the horror show endured by factory farmed animals. Sponsor a child over seas and be sure a portion of your income does somebody else some good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
Right, you're extremely high probability to be off to the gym for X many more days until one day Y you're dead.
I made it to the gym, worked out, and got home. It was randomly magical. Boy oh boy am I lucky that worked out.
Come on, as if either of you know the first thing about empathy. How do you manifest compassion in your daily lives? Do you do anything for anybody or is your contribution to the human community blabbering on the Internet about your suffering? The differences between us are not about empathy, but about being real. You think posting here is fighting the good fight for compassion? How completely lame. Get off your lazy asses and go volunteer at hospice like mordant does. Stop eating meat and contributing to the horror show endured by factory farmed animals. Sponsor a child over seas and be sure a portion of your income does somebody else some good.
You don't know anything about me. You are the one who doesn't get what empathy is. I am a vegetarian because I think eating meat is unethical, and I also volunteer and help people who are in need.
The most important, I didn't bring another human being into this hell hole for my own pleasure.
I am not having a baby to satisfy my egoistical desires, because I am an altruistic, selfless, empathetic person concerned about other's welfare.
Maybe what we are really debating here is the degree of control we have over our lives vs how much our outcomes are a product of chance / luck.
People who really need control and are risk-adverse are going to argue strongly against bad luck and misfortune as a significant factor in life and will want to explain as much human suffering as possible in terms of it somehow being the sufferer's fault, because that allows them the illusion that it's all controllable and that all effort is generally worth it / rewarded.
People who are more adaptable on the one hand, or who are just beaten down with a long string of unsatisfactory outcomes on the other, are going to tend to have more respect for the SFFTS factor (S__t Falling From The Sky). The former will be philosophical about, it, shrug and move on; the latter, tend to just implode from it and give up.
The truth is that life is a big stew full of explicable and inexplicable outcomes, and different personalities reacting to these things in different ways. It falls to us to flex with life, much more than we can really make life flex for us. Those who are flexible, flex; those who are idealists or more rigid thinkers, don't. The latter either insist everything is controllable, or they insist not much is controllable. Which camp they fall into is largely a function of how rationalizable their life-to-date has been for them. We all like to pat ourselves on the back for our brilliance, so if our life is going well, it's tempting to take all the credit for that.
I admit to being an idealist with a tendency to implode. I'm aware of it, but can't entirely help it. On my worst days I just hold on and tell myself, "this, too, shall pass". And it does. Although sometimes what is left behind, is not much to write home about. I skate by on the basis that (1) I've had some highly compartmentalized good fortune as a sort of consolation prize for my troubles and (2) my life is nowhere near the s__tstorm it once was, and is actually pretty decent and stable most of the time, which means (3) I have a pretty good illusion of control / free will at present, making it easy to get out of bed most days.
Were I not a product of my past experiences I'd be highly tempted to tell people to quit whining and take control of their lives.
To bring this sidebar back to the OP, then, I think the quality of our children's lives is not guaranteed and somewhat subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Against this we must weigh the value (or lack thereof) that we place upon the whole human experiment. If you regard life as a kick then you are going to find anyone who is unthankful for it as basically nuts. If you regard your life as a drain of your life force to no good purpose then you are going to think anyone who is thankful for it is basically nuts.
Given that both outcomes are possible, it seems that whichever way you lean, you don't really have a basis to impose anything on others for how they choose to live their lives. I don't personally recommend that people have kids, and I wouldn't repeat the experience, but I have no basis really to judge others for coming to different conclusions.
Your thoughts on flexibility are very insightful. As I mentioned earlier I think our physiology strongly comes into play there.
Oh, so only you're allowed to tell total strangers what they're about, how they believe, etc?
Quote:
You are the one who doesn't get what empathy is. I am a vegetarian because I think eating meat is unethical, and I also volunteer and help people who are in need.
That makes two of us. See how that works?
Quote:
The most important, I didn't bring another human being into this hell hole for my own pleasure.
I am not having a baby to satisfy my egoistical desires, because I am an altruistic, selfless, empathetic person concerned about other's welfare.
Just because life is hell for you doesn't mean it's hell for the next guy. That you want to take a shyte on joy shows what you're really about. And people that shyte on joy don't do good for others, so I'm not buying what you're trying to sell.
eta: to add my own take- life is a miraculous gift that every creature on the planet strives to protect. I cherish it and it leaves me in awe. If I wasn't an atheist I would thank god for it.
Just because life is hell for you doesn't mean it's hell for the next guy. That you want to take a shyte on joy shows what you're really about. And people that shyte on joy don't do good for others, so I'm not buying what you're trying to sell.
Your life hasn't to be hell just because some peoples lives are hell. There is a difference between starting and continuing life. The whole point is that procreation is immoral because it risks to harm some people at the cost of benefiting others. Who I am to gamble with other peoples lives?
Mankind is the curse of the earth, and the curse of mankind is overpopulation.
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.
