Is there any rational reason for having kids?

And here... we.... go!

http://www.toxicshock.tv/news/wp-content/uploads/heath_ledger_as_the_joker.jpg

If you don't want them, don't have them.

OK, 100+ internet tuomas meme's to follow?

What on earth do you mean by "rational" in this context?

You seem to have narrowed its concept so much (I mean, who says that the instinctual drive to propegate genes can't be rational) that it has become meaningless.

Apart from anything else, apply the categorical imperative - what if *everyone* decided not to have kids?

And what on earth does continuing one's bloodline have to do with an afterlife?

Sounds like you need to lay off the Dawkins, man.

And anyway, I'm not sure if it the extinction of the human race would necessarily be a bad thing, if it was a voluntary decision

Thanks for that one

I think the rationale is that unprotected sex is fun. The rest follows causally.

Finnish kids are fairly entertaining, cross-country skiing and the like

Anyway, come back in 10 years time and Tuomas will have a wife and two kids, I'd put money on it

If your sole and only reason for having kids would be some kind of "rational" decision, then you're right, you probably shouldn't have kids. Because having kids and raising them is a decision and process that involves a whole bunch of totally subjective and "non-rational" things like unconditional love and devotion and loyalty and, from what it sounds like, fairly unrewarding hard work.

So this isn't really something to which you can apply rationality. In a purely reductionist, rationalist, materialist universe, love doesn't exist at all. So don't bother. Please.

If you don't want them, don't have them.

Yeah, I know, but I was just interested in general rationalizations of having or not having kids.

I mean, who says that the instinctual drive to propegate genes can't be rational

In what way would it be rational then, from an individual's point of view?

I think the rationale is that unprotected sex is fun. The rest follows causally.

But you can have unprotected sex without having kids.

But you can have unprotected sex without having kids.

-- Tuomas, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 11:39 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

http://leftistmoon.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/head-against-wall.jpg

Is there any rational reason why we shouldn't all just walk off cliffs now? The impact would be painless and no one will remember most of us in 100 years anyway.

In a purely reductionist, rationalist, materialist universe, love doesn't exist at all.

But love and having kids aren't necessarily related. Anyway, love as a psychological/physical/sociological phenomenon seems much harder to control than having kids... It's quite hard to decide not love based on rational reasons (though I guess it's possible), whereas these days having kids seems to be decision you can apply rational thought to.

My kids are great.

Apart from that, I have nothing useful to say here.

Really, when it comes down to it, at the end of the day, is there any reason NOT to watch a chimpanzee have sex with a frog?

http://www.noob.us/entertainment/chimp-uses-a-frog-as-a-sex-toy/

You need to spend quite a lot of money if you have kids, it helps the economy.

Not having a lot of people about tends not be a good idea, economically

I remember my decision to have a kid. I was doing my lady, as I recall, and, through a complex logical process, elected to shoot my entire load at the promise of a future generation.

So, is there any rational reason for having kids?

How else will you be having sex with a baby watching? I mean, shit, I doubt any of your friends will lend their baby but then you do live in Sweden.

I was doing my lady

don't confuse us with your elaborate euphemisms

I HAVE A HERNIA

But love and having kids aren't necessarily related.

Exactly. If you're not prepared to love the kids you produce (what, with love being a totally non-rational process) then DO NOT - REPEAT DO NOT - have children. End of.

They're not some rationalistic science project you can cancel when they get boring or don't go the way you planned.

This is not a decision you can make with rationality. In fact, if you are trying to make it based solely on rationality, it is a lose-lose proposition. There simply *is* more to it than that.

Anyway, I'm going to get off this thread before it goes all nasty.

I actually misread that as "I was doing my laundry" and was all like WTF he squirts his load in his soiled jeans?

Popped it in the machine and an hour later a BABY EMERGED

Okay, maybe "rational" was bit of a bad choice of words here, but what if we apply utilitarianism here? According to utilitarian principles it makes sense for me to get the maximum amount of pleasure from life while at the same time causing minimum amount of displeasure to others. So jumping from a hill would not make sense, because it would waste my potential for pleasure. But would not having kids cause displeasure to me or others?

Not to press the point, but, for me, the moment of decision was actually quite pleasureable.

So the question you're asking is... justify this perfectly natural process than many, many people do on a regular basis on perfectly good reasons, by some obscure and debunked piece of philosphy that I don't actually believe in.

I'm not actually *that* bored at work. Sorry.

Yes, but with the wonder of the pill you can have the same pleasure without needing to make that decision.

(x-post)

So the question you're asking is... justify this perfectly natural process than many, many people do on a regular basis on perfectly good reasons

What are these perfectly good reasons then?

Perhaps you could send them to work in a big industrial house of some kind, or maybe clean your chimney once in a while?

Not having kids might have well been boring.

Having kids has been a pleasure. The number of things I have found out about myself, thinking that my tastes, sense of humour, skills and talents, all of which I had always thought were obtained or assumed, I have noticed are within them before any such indoctrination from me or anyone else.

This thread is golden!

That's actually quite a good reasoning, Mark. But I guess the problem is that I can't know beforehand whether my life would be more pleasurable or less pleasurable if I would have kids.

thinking that my tastes, sense of humour, skills and talents, all of which I had always thought were obtained or assumed, I have noticed are within them before any such indoctrination from me or anyone else

oh come on, you've clearly brainwashed them to like YOUR CD collection

(x-x-x-x-x--x-post) Ah well, not everyone can take the pill, or wants too. In my case, though, I actually like the thrill of unprotected sex. The thought that every orgasm could make me a father really gets me off. Also, I've found that I can make my lover come by threatening to make her pregnant. I guess you didn't want to know all this, but what the hell, I told you anyway.

Tuomas, you never explained why a lack of belief in the afterlife would stanch your desire to "continue your bloodline". I've never thought about it this way before, but wouldn't it be more likely to be the opposite? That is, if you knew god didn't exist and that once you're dead you're dead - wouldn't that make the prospect of death with no children even more of a lonely prospect than it would be otherwise?

I guess the problem with the utilitarian approach is that it's quite hard to measure "pleasure" when thinking of a decision like that.

(xx-post)

I think you need to start the measurement from the perineum.

Anyone watched the chimpanzee video yet?

with pleasure... XPOST!

I've never thought about it this way before, but wouldn't it be more likely to be the opposite? That is, if you knew god didn't exist and that once you're dead you're dead - wouldn't that make the prospect of death with no children even more of a lonely prospect than it would be otherwise?

The way I think it is, if I won't be around to see my bloodline continuing, what does it matter if it continues or not? As for death, everyone dies alone, does it matter who's with me when I die? As long as I'd still have friends - and hopefully a partner too - at old age, I wouldn't necessarily need kids.

Sickie, okay, dude, that was disgusting.

Blame my girlfriend's brother.

I just saw the chimp video. Quite an eye opener. I doubt I will ever be able to look at frogs in quite the same way again.

He gave the chimp the frog.

Tuomas will have successfully cloned himself in ten years anyway

You'd be sitting with your s/o at the age of seventy going "oh shall we go off to the lake district/fjords again? naah. Fancy another cuppa tea/lager/shot of absinthe?"

How do you 'book' your pleasure a decade ahead? What to ah bollox 2 it....................

Hang on Tuomas, I may have a rationale for having kids after all - they may help to secure you a degree of care and comfort in your old age. That's a rather cold thought isn't it? but I'm just lobbing it up there as a possible candidate answer to your question.

LOL @ Tuomas' belief that Finland's welfare system is eternal

tuomas deserves some kind of excellence in trolling award

same thing my husband has been saying

I do wonder though if we should collapse Tuomas's question into the bigger one it implies: Since we are all going to die soon, what is the point of doing, or not doing, anything? I haven't found an answer to that one, but maybe that's because I haven't read enough Deepak Chopra. He seems to know what he's doing.

How is this trolling exactly?

(xx-post)

LE SIGH. have some kids; they'll explain it to you

'Back off Tuomas: There is only one Finntroll'

http://www.spinefarm.fi/metal/metalpress/finntroll/finntroll_bandphoto.jpg

LE SIGH. have some kids; they'll explain it to you

But you can't?

OK, if you want a utilitarian, "scientific" reason for having kids, I'll give you the "duty" reason that was suggested by scientist relations.

It isn't nice, it smacks quite honestly of eugenics and definitely of utter snobbery, but it was certainly effective in persuading a couple of dithering friends to breed.

Effectively it goes something like...

In a modern society, with reasonable access to birth control, the most "rational" (or intelligent) members of society will choose to restrict or even curtail their offspring for all the reasons you list above, and more.

Which will leave the only people left having large numbers of children to be those who are too ignorant, too stupid, too poor or too indoctrinated by religion to use birth control.

This may function as some strange kind of actual Devolution, with the human race becoming more ignorant, more stupid, more impoverished or more enthralled to fundamentalist religions due to these various selections.

So, if you have a superior intelligence, you have the genetic duty to improve the quality of the gene pool of the next generation with your superior genes (education, money, whatever produces intelligence...) so that Devolution doesn't destroy the human race and the earth forever and ever, amen, praise Darwin.

Let me emphatically state that I do NOT believe in this personally, so please don't flame me as if I did. I'm just saying that this is the (ultra-reductionist) kind of attitude with which my family tried to persuade me to have kids.

There you go.

Surely, Tuomas, you must have accidentally left some fertile spurm in a fecund uterus at some point?

That's Social Darwinism, Kate, the survival of the fuckiest.

We must fight it by spawning with toffs.

Louis get off Nick's computer.

I do wonder though if we should collapse Tuomas's question into the bigger one it implies: Since we are all going to die soon, what is the point of doing, or not doing, anything

My philosophy is, while we're still alive we have the potential to get pleasure out of life, so it makes sense to use that potential the best way we can. However, the exact problem is that I don't know whether having kids would make life more or less pleasurable in the long run.

Fuckybumbooboo.

I think if Tuomas doesn't care whether the human race dies out then he won't care if they become increasingly stupid either.

For what it's worth, I don't think this question is dumb or trolly, and as someone who is never going to have kids I'm interested in the answers being given.

Kate, I know that theory, but I'm not sure how valid it is (for example, I'm not quite sure if stupidity really is inherited.) Anyway, it still doesn't give a rational justfication for me to have kids, since this theoretical "generation of idiots" would rule earth only years after I have died, and wouldn't therefore concern me.

(several x-posts)

It's all 'me me me' with you

I thought you were supposed to be a Socialist?

Well, this is the problem with pure rationalism and pure utilitarianism - it produces things like Social Darwinism. Which is totally rational and utilitarian. It's just... you know... wrong.

Because there are certain things which should *not* be decided purely by Rationality and Utilitarianism.

The decision to have children being one of them.

I'm just showing the awfulness to which one can descend when one makes this decision on those basises. (Bases?)

Ah, I think I understand where you're coming from Tuomas. Well, that's a tough one. I suppose you have to weight up the pros and cons, taking into account everything you know about yourself, your lover, and your circumstances, and then just take a punt one way or the other. Of course, once you decide to have a kid, there's no going back, whereas if you decide not to, you may (may being an important qualification) be able to revisit the question over and over again, for a while at least.

How does utilitarianism lead to social Darwinism, I can't really see the link?

Well, Tuomas, this "generation of idiots" would actually be the ones signing your pension cheques!

(btw, hi Kate! Long time no see on thread).

Well, Tuomas, this "generation of idiots" would actually be the ones signing your pension cheques!

I don't really think such a radical change would really happen in just one generation.

don't have kids, you'd just over-think every step of their development.

Actually, I have promised to donate my semen to this lesbian friend of mine, if she ever decides to have kids with her girlfriend. So maybe that would be the optimal solution? I could still give the kid Christmas presents and take her to the zoo, but I wouldn't have to take care of her every day. And if the Finnish welfare society collapses during my lifetime, I can hope that she'll look after me when I'm old. Also, I'd make a couple of friends happy, sounds like a good utilitarian solution to me.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414ANESNCXL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

If you have sex with a lesbian, she'll produce a daughter?

I could still give the kid Christmas presents and take her to the zoo

They'd only have a female child then? That's enlightened of them.

(x-x-x-post) A gay friend of mine did exactly that, with a lesbian couple, and he hasn't looked back so far. It's a perfectly good solution as far as they're concerned. The kid is now only two years old so obviously there's many an adventure ahead and it's hard to say anything for certain - but you could say the same about a conventional family arrangement.

Actually, I have promised to donate my semen to this lesbian friend of mine

Does she know about it?

The exact problem is that I don't know whether having kids would make life more or less pleasurable in the long run.

Do you like spending time with your mom and dad, siblings, cousins, etc? Do you like that atmosphere around the table? That may (or may not) answer your question.

That is a good way of approaching the question.

Just to make things clear: I'm not a totally cold and rational person, and if I come to a situation where I actually need to make this choice (it's not like that now, I don't even have a girlfirend at the moment), it could very well be I will make it on a less rational basis. But I do think it's interesting to think about it on a more theoretical level before the choice is actually immediate.

But I guess the problem is that I can't know beforehand whether my life would be more pleasurable or less pleasurable if I would have kids.

You can't know beforehand whether your life would be more pleasurable or less pleasurable before doing anything at all. If you could know to any certainty, the phrase "it seemed like a good idea when I thought of it" would never have been spoken.

No kids here, btw -- I don't know whether I decided "rationally" or not, I just decided very early on that knowing what I know about myself, I would be a shitty father, so why subject kids to that?

Do you like spending time with your mom and dad, siblings, cousins, etc? Do you like that atmosphere around the table?

Actually, most of the time I don't. I've nothing against my parents or other relatives, but I don't really connect with them. However, I can't really know whether I'd connect with my theoretical future kids, can I?

You can't know beforehand whether your life would be more pleasurable or less pleasurable before doing anything at all. If you could know to any certainty, the phrase "it seemed like a good idea when I thought of it" would never have been spoken.

Well yeah, but few decisions in life are as dramatic and irreversible as having kids, which makes it much harder to make.

(x-x-x-post) That's the thing - you may meet a woman so beautiful, and you will be so beautiful to her, that the hormones will take over and the two of you will be basically gazing into each others' eyes going 'let's spawn NOW'. It happens.

do you really not care what happens to the world after you're gone?

Moley speaks much sense on this thread, it seems to me.

Sonderborg, you could say he does and that's why he remains childless.

For what it's worth, I don't think this question is dumb or trolly, and as someone who is never going to have kids I'm interested in the answers being given.

I'll toss the question back to you (and Tuomas): why don't you have kids? I am actually more interested in the emotional reasons, less so in the rational reasoning behind it.

I would be a shitty father

You don't know until you are a father. This works in the same way thinking you'll be a great dad/mom. Having kids is a real eye opener. I'm not sure every parent really has this, but I have learnt a lot about myself in the way I communicate with my kids. Even having two kids: I approach my youngest differently. This is not bad in any way, I find, you can't relate to two peple in the exact same way. In a sense I find that having children has enabled me to thinking less of me as well.

he said he doesn't care

i don't mean that's related to having kids or not having kids, i just think that attitude is unconsciounable

do you really not care what happens to the world after you're gone?

That's really the big underlying question here. I'm a fairly ethical person, for example I do try to live in an environmentally sound way, which I guess means I do care about the world after I'm gone. But on the other hand, if you're an atheist and don't believe in any sort of afterlife, why should you really care about what happens after you've died? It's kinda hard to reconcile these two worldviews.

because a sense of compassion enriches your life here and now, and necessarily include people still to live. imo.

So the time spent with your kids (and others) during your life really doesn't matter to you, oh atheist? (I'm also an atheist, but I like to spend my time on the planet with my kids and others.)

Maybe care a bit more about the life, the here 'n' now and less about y'know that what isn't, namely the non-existent afterlife.

Yes, I think that nails it.

I'll toss the question back to you (and Tuomas): why don't you have kids? I am actually more interested in the emotional reasons, less so in the rational reasoning behind it.

That's quite easy to answer: kids would limit in significant manner the way I prefer to live my life right now. Whether or not this will change in the future, I don't know, but I do think it's a perfectly valid reason for me or anyone else not to have kids.

Anyway, I see no proper reason why I can't be a compassionate person and care about other people as well as the future of the planet without wanting to have kids myself.

Of course you can. The question of whether you have kids or not has no relatio to your level of compassion. Kids do limit your life in various practical ways - however, they also expand it in other ways. Time for the antipodeans to go to bed. Goodnight all.

There can be some "rational reasons" for having children, but most of the reasons -- most of the good reasons, at least -- aren't based on notions of "rationality." If you need "rational reasons" for having children, you're probably not ready to have children.

And, obv., it's okay to not want children.

But you don't care about the future of the planet and you don't care whether the human race survives or not

But you are a socialist apparently...

Man am I glad I'm reading this instead of sleeping

But on the other hand, if you're an atheist and don't believe in any sort of afterlife, why should you really care about what happens after you've died?

Because I still have relatives via my sister and others, and I care what kind of planet they live on after I die. If I didn't, I'd be a Republican.

You don't know until you are a father.

True enough, but it wasn't a risk I was willing to take. If I did turn out to be a shitty father, it would be the kids who would have suffered most, and they'd have had no choice in the matter.

What in the hell does this question have to do with "the future of the planet" or "the afterlife" ..? :/

(I mean, aside from Kate's pleasingly bonkers vision of an idiocracy apocalypse)

xpost See, I think that's great reasoning. I have a friend who hates babies crying. She said she was afraid it would also be the case when her own kids cried. I can totally understand.

Anyway, I see no proper reason why I can't be a compassionate person and care about other people as well as the future of the planet without wanting to have kids myself.

So what you're basically looking for is a rational way to cover up your selfish ways? WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE

Okay, I just copied and pasted the wrong sentence. ARGH

That's quite easy to answer: kids would limit in significant manner the way I prefer to live my life right now.

But you are a socialist apparently...

Yes, like I said socialism and atheism are kinda hard to reconcile. However, I do think it's possible the care for the planet without caring for the human race, even thouh this is not really my position.

Yes, like I said socialism and atheism are kinda hard to reconcile

What? Tell that to Karl Marx!

What in the hell does this question have to do with "the future of the planet" or "the afterlife" ..? :/

Very much, because several justifications for having kids have to do with what happens to the next generation after you've died. If you don't believe in afterlife, what reason is there to care about what happens after you've died?

What's the rational reason for being an atheist socialist feminist if it doesn't provide guidance for your major life decisions?

Scary (xp)

xxpost The rational is that when having kids you are more concerned with diapers than afterlife.

i'm an atheist and i care deeply about what happens after i'm gone. the fact that i won't experience it means nothing. i won't experience the suffering of another being on this planet, but it still matters to me.

this isn't about having kids or not, or is there an afterlife or not, it's just about caring for people while you're alive.

Aaaahhh... went to lunch and came back to find the thread of course exploding, but just wanted to address this before going back to read the rest of the madness:

Well, Tuomas, this "generation of idiots" would actually be the ones signing your pension cheques!

I don't really think such a radical change would really happen in just one generation.

You don't? Even if it were not actually genetic, it could certainly be cultural. vis a vis within one human lifetime the welfare cheques being signed by the WWII generation being refused to be honoured by the Thatcher generation.

You really want to bank on Finland's politics staying stable if the idiocracy have greater demographics in the coming elections?

ha ha, I love being Devils Advocate here.

What's the rational reason for being an atheist socialist feminist if it doesn't provide guidance for your major life decisions?

It does, and on a personal level I do care about what happens to the planet and the human race in the future. But on a more theoretical level I don't see any proper justification why an atheist should care about what happens after his death.

(though, interestingly, the actual evidence seems to point in the complete opposite direction... because the population as a whole isn't actually stopping having children, but having *less* children - which leads to a higher standard of living for the fewer children that are produced. See also the argument in Freakonomics that the only statistic that fits with the decreasing US crime rate is the rising US abortion rate. etc. etc.)

((However, this only works if the population continues to have fewer children rather than no children - look at the Shakers for what happens in a procreation free utopia.))

http://www.vhemt.org/

(I mean, aside from Kate's pleasingly bonkers vision of an idiocracy apocalypse)

ha-HEM. Kate's family's pleasingly bonkers vision of an idiocracy apocalypse, please.

Or Kate's pleasingly bonkers family's vision of an idiocracy apocalypse - whichever makes more gramatical and logical sense.

Kate, you could also put it this way: in the current situation wealthy people are less likely to have many kids than poor people. The kids of wealthy people are more likely to support capitalism and other inequal forms of distribution, because they directly benefit them, whereas poor people are more likely to favour socialism and other systems that distribute wealth and other benefits more equally. So if poor people have more kids than wealthy people, maybe it'll lead to a more egalitarian world?

The kids of wealthy people are more likely to support capitalism and other inequal forms of distribution, because they directly benefit them, whereas poor people are more likely to favour socialism and other systems that distribute wealth and other benefits more equally.

You clearly don't pay much attention to US electoral politics.

What makes you think that poor people aren't raging capitalists in waiting the moment they get some spare cash? Vast members of the working class voted for Thatcher, after all.

The only way to ENSURE that there are future socialists is by raising your kids to be so!

(And even this may not work.)

You clearly don't pay much attention to US electoral politics.

I'm unconvinced Tuomas pays much attention to anything that's going on outside his head

Else Finland is just a very weird place!

What makes you think that poor people aren't raging capitalists in waiting the moment they get some spare cash? Vast members of the working class voted for Thatcher, after all.

In general it seems poor people are more likely to support more egalitarian forms of wealth distribution, for the obvious reason that it benefits them more than inegalitarian liberalist capitalism. Of course there are some people who will "jump to other side" among the poor and rich too, but I don't think they'll ever be the majority, at least not in the long run.

It is an interesting question, this, for the simple reason that (and I don't know if this is being disingenous, which people are interpreting as trolling) it takes conventional wisdom and stands it on its head. Most people are pressed to find reasons why they have *not* procreated.

And you can't just write that off to societal pressure - it's one of the fundamental definitions of Life itself - the ability to self-replicate. (And a few other things, besides, so we elimate viruses and prions from the biological fort.)

Lifestyles change, over time. As do priorities. You have drawn the longstraw, in this dilema, Tuomas, as you are male - there is no short window of time where you *have* to make the decision.

Women have sometimes found that by the time the lifestyle/priorities have shifted, the window has closed.

So perhaps I have different motivations for my reasoning, based on different experiences.

Socialism and atheism and all these other ILX bugbears are just red herrings all over this thread becuase ILX likes to puff up hysterically over such issues.

That's right, people always do what is obviously beneficial for them

x-post...

In general it seems poor people are more likely to support more egalitarian forms of wealth distribution, for the obvious reason that it benefits them more than inegalitarian liberalist capitalism. Of course there are some people who will "jump to other side" among the poor and rich too, but I don't think they'll ever be the majority, at least not in the long run.

Tuomas, this is simply wishful thinking, which is totally not borne out by reams of experience in both the US and the UK. Go and read the demographics of who actually voted for conservatives such as Reagan, Thatcher and the Bushes. Don't come back to this thread and spout such naivety until you've done so.

If anything, it's been my experience that only the more well-off are likely to be Socialists at all.

At least in Finland whether you support the righ or the left correlates strongly with your income level, I assume this is so in many if not most other countries as well? Or at least in countries where there is a clear left/right division.

(xx-post)

Also... WHAT ON EARTH DOES SOCIALISM HAVE TO DO WITH THE DECISION TO HAVE CHILDREN OR NOT!?!?!?

Stop with the red herrings and ILX strawmen, please?

Yeah, I'm not sure about the US, the left/right division seems much more muddy there than in Europe. But where the poor in Britain really more eager to vote for Thatcher than the wealthy? Are there any statistics for this?

Who said they were more eager?

This is getting silly now, stop it

(x-post)

I was making a counter-argument to the "if the wealthy don't procreate, the world will get worse" theory you mentioned, that's the connection.

Who said they were more eager?

Kate seem to imply that, in response to my argument that the poor are more likely to vote left than right.

tuomas why don't you try answering your own question instead of passive aggressively driving everybody who comes on your thread crazy

The theory was NOT "if the wealthy don't procreate, the world will get worse..." - it was "if the INTELLIGENT don't procreate, the world will get worse".

The class element only came into it as recognition of the environmental effects such as education and standard of living, etc. on intelligence.

And no, I was disagreeing with your assertion that "the poor" were likely to be a cohesive enough demographic to vote in any which way - left or right!

Now there is some controversy on whether reproduction is actually a criteria for Definition of Life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

Because it gives him utilitarian pleasure to do so? (xp)

Anyway, my key point was that in the long run the poor are more likely to vote for the left. There might be some paricular situations (like the failure of a leftist government) where they might support the right, but in the long run they usually realize the right isn't really interested in making their lives better.

(xxx-post)

Where do you actually live Tuomas, Narnia?

If you had a kid you could attempt to unmake all the mistakes that were made when you were brought up.

or at least some of them...

you assume that "the left" or "the right" will have ANY meaning at all in the long run. I mean, when the Hadron Supercollider kills us all, what will political affiliation matter?

The only way that ideologies can carry on is if there are people around to propegate them. So you better get working on them. I want you to have FOUR KIDS by tomorrow to ensure the survival of socialism as an ideology.

Anyway, why am I talking to you? According to the strict biological definition of Life, you do not reproduce, therefore you are not alive. I do not discourse with non-living beings. (Except my computer and on occasion the fridge.)

Wait, according to the strict definition of life, I'm not alive, either!!!

::vanishes in a puff of strict, rational logic::

The theory was NOT "if the wealthy don't procreate, the world will get worse..." - it was "if the INTELLIGENT don't procreate, the world will get worse".

Fair enough, but because intelligence is hard to measure, the only statistically valid statement you can make at the moment is that the wealthy are having less kids than poor. I'm sorry if I didn't read the theory properly and mixed up the two, that wasn't my intention, since I don't think these qualities necessarily correlate.

is there any rational reason for discussing things on the internet?

It might relieve boredom at work and therefore give you pleasure. Like this thread has done for me.

Well, just think - if you had offspring, you might just have to take the day off to look after them, as my boss has just done today! Whole free day off work!!!

But more seriously, I think it's interesting to discuss things like these with a variety of different people. Most of my friends don't have kids and/or are quite anti-having children, so I thought I might find a better balance of opinions here.

(x-post)

(i'm on holiday! idiot masochistic ain't i?)

The funny thing is, in the Guardian Family section (I know, I know, I mainly read it to feel smug about not having one) this past weekend, there was a whole article about a harried mother and a free-living singleton swapping lives for a weekend.

After reading the whole article, I thought to myself "why on earth would ANYONE ever have children? It sounds like a nightmare you can't wake up from."

One of my best friends has just had a child, the first baby I've ever actually held/interacted with, etc. And they are actually fascinating. Babies are one of those things, like fires and the sea, that you can look at for hours without ever getting bored.

But then again, this friend is a single mother - she has an absolutely amazing Scandinavian maternity package, plus a very large and supportive extended family (live in aunt and uncle of child) - but I wouldn't be able to take on that responsibility.

It's not a rational decision, it's a leap of faith and hope driven by hormones and biological urges. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't necessarily be done if you feel like taking that leap.

Most of my friends don't have kids and/or are quite anti-having children

I think you'll find positions shifting over the years

I kinda hate the idea of not having kids one day. It seems like a meaningful thing to do, and I'm pretty childish, so I reckon I'd be a good dad.

(I'm on holiday too!)

Unsurprisingly, this thread grew massively since I went for lunch.

Kate's vision of an idiocracy apocalypse isn't that odd; a friend of mine wrote about the theory in his dissertation years ago. I'm sure other people have expressed the idea. it seems pretty self-evident to me.

The whole de-evolutionary theory was expanded at brief in "Jocko Homo" by the de-evolutionary band.

i believe in an average intelligence increase worldwide

Yeah, what is round at the ends and high in the middle? (xp)

oHIo?

No de-evolution in your household I see!

alt:

I believe in an average intelligence increase worldwide

-- blueski, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 13:20 (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Teach them well and let them lead the way..

Is there any rational reason to love someone?

No. Romantic love is a delusion based purely on neurochemistry and exploited by the patriarchy into a cultural meme which should be stamped from the face of the earth if I had my way! Some day I'll write a best-selling book called "The Atheist of Love" and make millions divesting people of this foolish delusion...

Other than yourself? Doesn't look like it.

well there's an evolutionary reason. pairing off with someone better equips you for environmental challenges, and increases your chance of survival by your combined resources.

and makes it easier to get a place to rent.

That doesn't hold true, Surmounter. Why two, in that case?

ya, rent!

i don't know, i mean polyamorous relationships are another thing...

Pair bonding on a sexual level is because the human child is born comparatively helpless and stays that way for quite a long time. Two parents are certainly better than one on that level.

However, romantic love is a very recent (in evolutionary terms) invention - combined with industrialisation to produce the nuclear family with disasterous results for women and children.

Anyone who believes themselves to be "in love" is under the neurochemical influence of oxycytocin as interpreted by modern cultural influences. Romantic love is a myth.

right but why is it mythical just cuz it's physiological?

What definition of "myth" are you using here? Hell, what definition of "romantic love" are you using?

(BTW, I am trolling, using typical Dawkins style "atheism" arguments to negate the meme of romantic love, which is far more recent cultural invention than organised religion.)

(ok right)

(That doesn't mean I don't personally believe it, but I do also recognise that the experience of "romantic love" is something which means a great deal to a lot of people, and seems to even do some good for some people, even if I don't personally belive in it.)

you know, i am so scared of ever having kids. i rly think i would look them in the eyes and poof they're fucked up.

those are some powerful eyes

i see my friends adorable kids and find the amount of work they require in equal combination with the amount of profound joy they frequently provide utterly maddening. soooo not ready.

Oh, thread don't fail me now. I need something to entertain me for the last two hours of the day now I have nothing to dooooo!

xpost Hah. It does require a lot of work (and worry) but trust me the joy of having'em is so wonderful. Pure XTC. :-)

Assume that you belong to a tribe, a distinct and cohesive social/cultural group, whatever it might be. Assume that competition between tribes is a primary factor in determining how successful any given tribe will be. Assume that greater proportional representation for your tribe in the world at large will enable it to more effectively compete with other tribes. Finally, assume that you feel some sort of pride on behalf of your tribe, hoping for its success both in the present moment and in the generational long run. If you're willing to grant those assumptions, there's a perfectly rational reason to have kids: to aid your kind, your tribe. This is true no matter how you define your tribe: by ability, by religion, by nationality, by genetic profile, by race, etc.

Personally, I'm not sure that all those assumptions hold up. Rapid reproduction by a given group could tax or exhaust local resources, hindering its success. Tribal affiliations are not of equal importance to all individuals, and success can be measured any number of ways. But even if you kick all that garbage to the curb, you might still rationally decide decide to have children simply on the basis that it will make you happy to do so.

Unfortunately I don't have any strong tribal affiliations. I couldn't care less if I was the last member of my family, or if all Finns would eventually become extinct. I do feel a strong affinity to my particular circle of friends, but I don't think having kids would help to reproduce that particular "tribe", since it's a voluntary and not cross-generational one.

Why should a person like Tuomas have kids? Because the future will be full of internets. You owe it to humanity.

there is so much for future generations to not know

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/386116523_071244db1d.jpg?v=0

having kids, like life, is not rational.
it's one out of endless illusions of beating death,loneliness and the meaningless of all.
it's important to follow an illusion goal but on the other hand to be aware of the fact that it's "just an illusion":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57ETflPIxoI

In summary: don't have kids just because you can.

Tuomas's tribe is finnished.

And he don't care

Tuomas you are a ding dong.

a rational reason to have kids? you get to make someone where funny hats for years! hours of entertainment, i'm telling ya. making little people do things for you - like fetch beer, for instance - is a totally underrated perk. and completely rational too. butlers cost a bundle these days.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/199/498218830_bcbb025e71_o.jpg

Are Childless Couples Happier Than Parents?

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Americas/June-08/Are-Childless-Couples-Happier-Than-Parents.html

another rational reason: you never know when one of their inventions will pay off. i'm crossing my fingers for a future payday. probably just as rational as playing the lottery anyway.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2176/2048797298_198d32fa9c_b.jpg

It's interesting to see the parallel development of this thread and the "old friends who have lost their minds" thread.

where can I buy kerbanger hingetar

deciding not to have kids is easy.
finding a mate with similar believes is harder.

you can sell babies on the internet for mad $$$

deciding not to have kids is easy.
finding a mate with similar believes is harder.

Uh... WHAT?

Population figures would suggest otherwise

I'm surprised no-one has yet brought up the sustainable/environmental side to having children.

Presumably, we can all accept that the world is finite, with a finite amount of resources. If population expansion continues, it will necessarily (at some point) reach a limit which is unsustainable (a Malthusian catastrophe if you like).

If it wasn't for the 'green revolution' of farming in India and Mexico it is likely we would have already reached that point.

Combine this with the issues of peak oil and climate change, both of which will get worse through higher human populations, and you have good rational arguments for wanting to at least reduce the rate of population growth.

If, as a couple, you have 2 or less children, you won't contribute to the growth of the population.

"Population figures would suggest otherwise"

but...

"The world's population, on its current growth trajectory, is expected to reach nearly 9 billion by the year 2042.[1][2]

That's certainly an argument for having *less* children. But I can't see it as an argument for having *no* children.

(All of these things are in general - but I suppose the idea is that in this question, there is no real "in general" - you have to make your own decision, based on whatever tools you find necessary.)

Can you have less children? "Don't mind Herbert, he's the .25"

You can choose to have 2 children instead of 8, yes, you can.

fewer
/pedant

Though it'll be interesting to track the effects of China's only child generation through their lifetimes.

Presumably, we can all accept that the world is finite, with a finite amount of resources. If population expansion continues, it will necessarily (at some point) reach a limit which is unsustainable (a Malthusian catastrophe if you like).

If it wasn't for the 'green revolution' of farming in India and Mexico it is likely we would have already reached that point.

I dunno, isn't this just because so many more people want to/are forced to live and work in cities? Plus the waste culture of so much food production/commerce, and loads of other factors which distort the idea that there's not enough space, food and water on the planet.

Dudes I know you don't do this but if I a family has 3+ kids, plz don't tell the parents they're contributing to overpopulation. It is impolite at best.

plz don't tell the parents

I've always found it more effective to tell the kids that they are responsible for the end of the world.

deciding not to have kids is easy.
finding a mate with similar believes is harder.

Uh... WHAT?

-- Masonic Boom, Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:26 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

nah, this is pretty true in my experience. most (not all, but most) girls i meet want kids at some point.

I'd never criticise anyone's personal choice to have as many children as they can support - however, I do very much criticise right-wing fundamentalists who want to inflict their beliefs on the rest of the world. (Especially when those beliefs have the added political weight of wanting to keep certain parts of the world in poverty and women without power.)

I've dated a few girls who've said they never want to have kids, plus several of my female friends have said the same. So I don't think it's that hard to find a partner with similar beliefs, at least among the sort of people I hang around with. Of course their beliefs might change in time, but so could mine, that's a risk you have to take.

And THAT is why you can't get a vasectomy before you're 25.

at least among the sort of people I hang around with

Okay we're all guilty of this but at least most of us aren't from a cave. On Mars.

i don't have children and i'm not sure if i do want to have them.

but fucking a. so many challops it's not even funny.

threads like this always make me want to have like a zillion kids.

it's like the old "i don't own a television" crowd's new thing or something.

I just a little over 25 when I got my vasectomy, but I had already been married for three years.

plus tuomas if no one had any more babies, you wouldn't have any infants left to masturbate in front of!

Yes, thank god that joke hasn't been made before, at least not on this thread.

If there is a story that goes with that, please let there not be a story that goes with that.

at least among the sort of people I hang around with

Okay we're all guilty of this but at least most of us aren't from a cave. On Mars.

What do you mean? What I was trying to say is that, among my friends and acquaintances there's a significant percentage of women who say they don't want to have kids.

Skipping 121 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

yeah no thanks dude

Contenderized, I was defending the idea that a baby probably wouldn't be traumatized if someone masturbated in front of it when someone else asked about it. I never claimed this is something I would personally do, but people have here been reminding me of those comments for the last 2-3 years now.

Is that really such a controversial thing to contend? I think there must be more to this story.

Everyone who's busting Tuomas's balls for saying he's not sure if "the extinction of the human race would necessarily be a bad thing, if it was a voluntary decision" is a complete and utter hypocritical fuckface. Loads of ILX regulars have said the same thing, repeatedly, and no one got on their nuts; hell, loads of ILX regulars have advocated killing off humanity involuntarily. Why it is OK when they say it?

We're not the Misanthropy Police?

i guess i should send back these matching windbreakers i had made up for us then.

Is that really such a controversial thing to contend? I think there must be more to this story.

Well, here's the original thread, judge for yourself:

Is it bad for a baby to see you masturbating?

It seems to me the thread title contains a subtle fallacy. There can be good reasons and bad reasons, faulty reasons, expedient reasons, rigorous reasons, but I am not sure there can be irrational reasons.

For example, suppose a person were to reason thusly: All babies are cute and cuddly. Cute and cuddly babies make me feel good. Feeling good is a desirable benefit. Therefore, I should have a cute , cuddly baby and reap the benefit of feeling good.

While this is not the strongest reasoning process, it is a rational process and therefore provides a "rational" reason for having a baby.

^^^Did not realize which thread title you were referring to, did not like where post was going.

bahahahahaha

I've dated a few girls who've said they never want to have kids, plus several of my female friends have said the same.

Well, 1 they said they didn't want to have kids with you and 2 they're still in university where it's the "hip" thing to say. Trust me, once they leave university, they'll be breeding like mad.

I think I have two (female) friends who don't want kids and I s'pose never will because they already hit their fourties so I doubt it'll change. That said one is having doubts or should I say she realizes that if she does want one (or more) she'll have to do it NOW.

what people want out of life changes over time. Is this really so mysterious.

Well, 1 they said they didn't want to have kids with you and 2 they're still in university where it's the "hip" thing to say. Trust me, once they leave university, they'll be breeding like mad.

Er, 1) why would my friends want kids with me? Even the couple of girls I've dated who don't want kids are pretty firm that they don't want to have kids with anyone. I don't think they were just trying to say they don't want kids with me. And, 2) even though it's not impossible their minds might change (and they probably know it themselves), all the girls I know who say they don't want kids have given the idea a lot of thought. I don't think they say it just because it's "hip" (is it really?), and to claim so would be disrespectful towards them.

But what about these lesbians?

More than once, I've heard 28 cited as the magic age by which a woman knows for sure whether she wants kids. Several women I know have said that around that time, they started getting massive baby-making impulses out of nowhere. YMMV.

But what about these lesbians?

What about them?

freestyle on them.

More than once, I've heard 28 cited as the magic age by which a woman knows for sure whether she wants kids.

Whew. Turned 30 this year, still don't want 'em!

Tuomas what seems like a well-reasoned decision RIGHT NOW may not seem so well-reasoned when these girls (or you) are a bit older. Do you still want the same things you wanted when you were 14? Or 20? Why would you expect to want the same things you want now when you're 35? or 50?

when i say "freestyle on them" I do not mean "on" them.

or "freestyle".
or "them".

I used to wanna have kids so I wouldn't have to die alone, but now I don't think it's worth it.

Combine this with the issues of peak oil and climate change, both of which will get worse through higher human populations, and you have good rational arguments for wanting to at least reduce the rate of population growth.

sounds more like rational arguments for space travel/moon colonies to me!

Trust me, once they leave university, they'll be breeding like mad.

Well, no, some people genuinely just don't want to have children.

the point is there's no rational reason to do anything.

it's irrational to get married, over half of marriages end in divorce

it's irrational to climb a mountain you might fall

it's irrational to write or make music or do anything

if people are happy without kids that's great. they shouldn't have them.

if people want to have kids that's great too.

but i hate the condescending stuff that goes on on both sides, people that look down on folks that don't want to have kids....or people that wanna get smug as if they are "saving the planet" or some shit.

M@tt OTM

(multi-xpost - undoubtedly, by the time I post it)

The core difficulty with Tuomas's position is that it takes this as its axiom: the only "rational" good is pleasure. (Which is nothing new,; it is pure epicureanism.)

To this he adds one minor accretion, the quasi-mathematical formula spawned by utilitarianism: the only ethical pleasure is that which adds to the total pleasure experienced by everyone within a society. Thus, if killing people gives you pleasure, but gives pain to others, it is not ethically justifiable, as it leads to a net loss of pleasure within a society.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this ultra-simplistic philosophy is sophomoric in the extreme.

Pleasure is no more "rational" than any other emotion and is a notoriously shifting sand upon which to build one's house. Pleasure can attach itself to anything at all, wily-nilly, like a duckling imprinting upon a dog, a pig, or a hand puppet as its mother. So, pleasure has no invariable referent and is totally solipsistic.

Moreover, the exact same action that gives pleasure today may not give pleasure, (or may even give pain) tomorrow. Therefore, pleasure is a completely unpredictable enitity. And it is irrational to predicate one's choice of future actions based on a prediction of future pleasure in the outcome, which is so uncertain as to be baseless.

So, Tuomas, all your arguments are founded upon a bankrupt set of assumptions. It is senseless to expect people to accept your premises, since they are demonstrably corrupt and can only lead to faulty conclusions. Masonic Boom has said as much half a dozen times already in this thread.

Which isn't to say you are not falling for a fallacy that a few million other people haven't already fallen for at some time in their lives. But, as a basis for debate it is: garbage in, garbage out.

it's irrational to get married, over half of marriages end in divorce
False statistic!

I used to wanna have kids so I wouldn't have to die alone, but now I don't think it's worth it.

-- ian, Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:38 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

xpost

maybe i have no idea. that's just what ppl always say.

but a lot do, my point remains.

I'd rather regret not having kids, than regret having kids.

Thus, if killing people gives you pleasure, but gives pain to others, it is not ethically justifiable, as it leads to a net loss of pleasure within a society.

Not if you pick the fcukers carefully.

Hope I haven't given the idea that I'm condescending towards people with kids. I have nothing against other people having children, I was merely talking about my personal rationalizations for having or not having kids here. I do agree that both sides can get condescending towards the other, to me "Oh, you'll realize how great it is to have kids when you grow a bit older!" is just as bad as "You're dooming our planet by having kids!".

(xxx-posts)

Aimless, I said ages ago in this thread that I'm not sure whether kids would bring me more pleasure or displeasure in the future, that's why I'm not sure whether or not I want to have kids. Of course I realize ones sources of pleasure can change throughout ones life, that's why I haven't made any strict decisions about this issue yet. You are right that my premises are very simplified, but that's because this thread is merely about theoretical discussion on the different rationalizations for having or not having kids. It isn't about me actually making that decision tomorrow.

I think people would be a lot less freaked out if Tuomas had said "You know, looking at my life and beliefs, I don't think it would make a lot of sense for me to have kids. (gives reasons) Are there any arguments I should consider, or things I should think about, that might make me change my mind?"

the point is there's no rational reason to do anything.

I don't agree with this at all. Maybe no solely rational reason, but that's something else entirely. I like the line from the Wikipedia article on rationality --

All that is required for an action to be rational is that if one believes action X (which can be done) implies Y, and that Y is desirable, he or she does X.

I assume Tuomas is basically asking "Am I overlooking anything under Y?"

(No chromosome jokes, kthxbye)

Robbing banks implies I would have more money. Having more money would be desirable, ergo it is rational for me to rob a bank.

Hopefully this explains why using rationality as the sole basis of your decision-making process is a bad idea.

lolz

i have no breeding urges. i actually think newborns are creepy looking. toddlers and little kids are cute, but then teenagers are terrible and gross. and they will hate you at some point.

i think other people should have kids but not me.

Rational reasons are not really what you want when you have a baby, or buy a record for that matter. Rational reasons are good for buying cars and ovens.

slightly off topic, but i really think it's time for the govt to foot the bill for sperm banks where an adolescent man, say around 13 or so, can come drop off his dudes to be frozen and kept indefinitely. then he is treated to a complementary vasectomy. once he makes the conscious decision to become a father, he returns to the bank and retrieves his sperm. next, the girlfriend/wife/whatever, if so willing, is inseminated. all publicly funded, of course. it may even behoove the proposed system to sweeten the deal with monetary compensation (e.g. a substantial deposit into an interest bearing college fund, etc.), as many young men could be a little skittish about undergoing such a procedure.

and voila, the number of "unwanted" children drops precipitously and everybody lives happily ever after...

I mean, outside of the obvious Orwellian implications, am I psychotic in thinking this little project (completely voluntary, btw) is pretty awesome?

maybe don't answer that

Robbing banks implies I would have more money. Having more money would be desirable, ergo it is rational for me to rob a bank.

Hopefully this explains why using rationality as the sole basis of your decision-making process is a bad idea.

That's certainly a bad idea, but a decision-making process that doesn't involve rationality would look something like:

"I need money to pay my rent this month, or I'll be evicted tomorrow. Therefore, I'm going to wank out my window until my wank somehow transforms a passing chipmunk into money, which will float up into my window. I don't actually think this'll work, but hey, I could use a wank."

Similarly, an irrational process for having a baby might be:

"Oh, God, I love you so much, let's not use a condom, we'll graduate from high school later."

Asking for rational reasons to have kids makes perfect sense. After all, we're often reminded of the (supposedly) rational reasons not to have kids: overpopulation, global warming, resource depletion, etc.

Problem is, there aren't any. Not at least on the grand, global level. World just doesn't desperately NEED more kids. Still, no harm in asking, right?

I, for one, support mass tax-funded sperm banking

Rational reasons are not really what you want when you have a baby, or buy a record for that matter.

Again, this is a really weird argument: people buy records for a completely rational reason, i.e. because they think they'll get pleasure from listening to it! Whether or not it's reasonable, or their premises are sound, is a totally different argument.

Okay Orwellian and like eugenics aside, I don't love the medicalization of otherwise mostly natural life events. It wasn't awesome when the healthcare system turned pregnancy into something they could manage like a business meeting, and it wouldn't be awesome for insemination either.

i don't know if this is rational exactly, but having kids definitely can reduce the "what am i doing with my life" angst. because what you are doing with your life is defined in 15-minute increments of addressing one need after another.

I am pondering how bad sex would have to be for me to ponder my academic future while I am having it. I'm thinking "wading in a tepid pool" bad.

what if you're having sex with your high school biology teacher?

I am pondering how bad sex would have to be for me to ponder my academic future while I am having it.

Funny, Naomi Wolf said the same thing.

xpost!

like, while you're in hs, or say 20 years later?

xp

NO curtis. i loved ms. martin but not like that.

(Although I suspect it would've been Naomi who felt like she was wading in a tepid pool o' Bloom, had she gone through with it that is.)

having kids definitely can reduce the "what am i doing with my life" angst. because what you are doing with your life is defined in 15-minute increments of addressing one need after another.

sometimes i think this is the worst reason to have kids

yeah but i feel like all reasons are the worst. i mean all this talk about how you shouldn't have kids for selfish reasons. aren't all the reasons selfish?

Rationality has been disproved by science; apparently we're just a bunch of meatbags programmed to do shit by birth. We have kids because our bodies tell us to. Some people don't have kids because they fulfill other social roles, fine tuned through millions of years of evolution. Not much to discuss here.

there are plenty of rational reasons for having kids and plenty of rational reasons for not having kids and they should not be conflated with the irrational reasons people have for inflicting their views on childbirth on others

There have been times and places where having kids could totally be construed as selfless, or at least as an act that served people other than oneself. Is it Russia that has a "please make babies!" campaign afoot right now?

Rationality has been disproved by science; apparently we're just a bunch of meatbags programmed to do shit by birth. We have kids because our bodies tell us to. Some people don't have kids because they fulfill other social roles, fine tuned through millions of years of evolution. Not much to discuss here.

</passthebowlman>

(Also, Israel to thread!)

sometimes i think this is the worst reason to have kids

well yeah. it's not strictly speaking a reason. more like a predictable side effect.

the reasons to have kids are personal, emotional and no doubt vary a great deal from parent to parent. i have a friend who ended up married with two kids without necessarily having set out through life with that goal in mind. i remember saying to him (this was before i had kids), "well, but it's worth it, right?" he just sort of looked at me and shrugged and said, "i don't know what 'worth it' means. it's just something you do. they're there, you take care of them."

There are plenty of rational reasons for <almost anything> and plenty of rational reasons for not <almost anything> and they should not be conflated with the irrational reasons people have for inflicting their views on <almost anything> on others.

i have no breeding urges. i actually think newborns are creepy looking. toddlers and little kids are cute, but then teenagers are terrible and gross. and they will hate you at some point.

i think other people should have kids but not me.

-- bell_labs, Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:01 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

bell, I thought this way at 29 too. hell, i thought this way up to one month before getting pregs.

so, you know, WATCH OUT

there are plenty of rational reasons for having kids and plenty of rational reasons for not having kids and they should not be conflated with the irrational reasons people have for inflicting their views on childbirth on others

OTM

Asking for rational reasons to have kids makes perfect sense. After all, we're often reminded of the (supposedly) rational reasons not to have kids: overpopulation, global warming, resource depletion, etc.

Problem is, there aren't any. Not at least on the grand, global level. World just doesn't desperately NEED more kids. Still, no harm in asking, right?

-- contenderizer, Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:06 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

but procreation is our primary purpose, just like any other species, right? thats pretty global

i never ever would have had kids with anyone but maria. before i got together with her i had zero interest in children and had never even held a baby. or even knew any babies. i thought most kids were dull-witted and that people, if they had to have kids, should stop at one and keep them away from society (and me) as best they could. i never wanted to hear about people's kids and i usually didn't think they were cute. but with maria it didn't even seem like a question. we didn't even really talk about it. the fact that it felt "right" with her is a big understatement. let's start something. let's live together. let's get married. you're pregnant? cool! it was a totally primal biological feeling.

(though i think we both wish that we'd had maybe a year or two more of blissful childless married life than we did. she got pregnant, like, two weeks after we got married.)

there are so many reasons to have children. bad ones. good ones. indifferent ones. it's a case by case kinda thing. and the overpopulation thing...i dunno. smarter people than me will have to figure that out.

Scott also OTM (fwiw overpopulation arguments are bullshit fuck a Malthus)

the weird thing about overpopulation arguments is that they always focus on how much people CONSUME and tend to completely overlook the fact that people also PRODUCE

(ie its a question of efficiency, not quantity of available resources)

If over-population arguments are bullshit, explain how the finite world we live in can sustain the expanding population indefinitely. People can't produce from nothing. I'm not sure of the figures, but I'd have a good guess that despite the higher populations, there are less people working in agriculture / food production than their used to be (certainly as a proportion of the total population) so its not numbers of people labouring which determines how much is produced.

The current food price rises would hardly be helped by more humans around the world to feed (the rises were largely caused by all the bio-fuel malarkey but thats another story).

I'm not saying people shouldn't have kids; its just something to think about.

I defer to Buckminster Fuller on this subject.

We had another thread on which we discussed the point Tracer Hand made waaaay above here, that having children is the creation of a family, bringing with it meal-time and holiday togetherness, for instance. That's as close to a reason I can point to as to why *I* wanted children. But not everyone wants to be part of a family, and I gather that's (part of) what Tuomas is saying.

Also, romantic love and family life are pretty exclusive things: when two people love each other, those on the outside can never be a part of it (if they were, it wouldn't be the love those two people share). Ditto for family life. So if your politics run e.g. socialist, you might think families or even monogamous two-person love are a threat to your ideal political order, because they form a barrier to the kind of society-wide solidarity that you think is best. I don't know if that's what Tuomas was getting at, but it's cogent.

I see your Buckminster Fuller and I raise you:

The pace of growth of the world’s population increased markedly throughout the last century and we can anticipate a further 50% increase in the world’s population by 2050. Many experts agree that world population growth poses serious threats to human health, socioeconomic development, and the environment.

Report of Hearings by the All Party Parliamentary Group on
Population, Development and Reproductive Health
January 2007

explain how the finite world we live in can sustain the expanding population indefinitely

like I said, its about efficiency. the real problem is waste - generating pollution that clogs up the world's systems, generating unequal distribution of resources, etc. I'm not proposing some kind of soylent green solution or anything but you know people are made up of the same building blocks that food and energy are composed of (carbon, nitrogen, H20, etc.), resources are not "lost" when people consume, they are just converted into a no longer usable state. The trick is to figure out how to get that unusable stuff (shit, CO2, plastic, whatever) back into the cycle, rather than just dumping it somewhere and hoping it goes away.

x-post

Many experts agree that world population growth poses serious threats to human health, socioeconomic development, and the environment.

I don't disagree with this but its pointing the finger in the wrong direction - ie, at the number of people, and not at the woefully wasteful and inefficient systems of production, distribution, and consumption that we are currently operating with.

this quote i read today was an eye-opener:

"If everybody switched to organic farming, we couldn’t support the earth’s current population — maybe half."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/science/19conv.html?ref=science

I wonder if any other organisms even kind of think about this.

I was going to start a thread like this! but less trolly and more about how few kids there'd be in the world if everyone decided whether or not to have kids purely on a 'logical' selfish basis. The "cons" are very obvious from the beginning - you basically have to give up your life and lots of your money for a long time. The "pros" e.g. joys of parenthood etc are more vague, well maybe not vague, but something you won't have experienced before so who can weigh up if it will be 'worth it'?

If you had to decide whether to give up everything you have to give up for any other 'thing' that may or may not give you undetermined amounts of joy in the future, people would think you were crazy.

This came about when I started feeling the very tiniest inklings of broodiness and realised what an all-powerful urge it had the potential to be - then I thought that this was probably necessary for a lot of people to decide to have kids.

Do men get properly broody like women (can)?

The decision to have kids is obviously completely personal and something I'm quite interested in hearing people's views about - why they did/didn't/will/won't.

I don't disagree that technological advancements could solve some of the problems caused by population growth; but these 'increased efficiencies' aren't guaranteed whereas the population is growing.

It's an easy solution to say that efficiency will be increased (e.g. how can we offer tax cuts and increased public spending at the same time?)

as if getting people to stop fucking and having kids is easier than developing renewable resources or showing people how to grow their own food lolz

(btw re: Fedoroff, among other points, you don't need land to grow food. But I've never liked her and her GMO-apologist tack)

I dunno there's just this huge failure of imagination when it comes to this stuff, it seems to me.

many x-posts

well also the obvious way to slow down population growth is to increase prosperity. birth rates fall as people become more educated and affluent.

that too

ie, yeah once people stop seeing children as a financial investment and guarantee of future security they tend to have less of them

One way to make people have less kids is to make them more well off - but I suppose people have been trying to redistribute wealth and that hasn't turned out to be so easy. The Catholic anti-contraceptive thing seems perversly destructive in terms of both AIDS and population growth.

I don't like preachy people (who does?) - I'm really not trying to say that people shouldn't have children; but I do find the subject interesting and slightly taboo.

xxxp

Is it Russia that has a "please make babies!" campaign afoot right now?

I'm not sure if the campaign is still ongoing, but a couple of years back the overall Russian birth/death ratio was skewed such that some demographers claimed that Russia's population would decline by one-third by 2050. Economic gains and less poverty has raised the birth rate, not sure how the life expectancy has changed.

how can tuomas masturbate in a room with a baby if he doesn't have kids?

he's been sneaking into your house at night

russia still very much on the procreate for the motherland tip.

The BMFuller argument would hold water if humans were already doing even a half-decent job of using efficient, humane technology to keep pace with the environmental damage caused by human growth. Since we're failing at a catastrophic level to apply technology to existing population-related/caused problems, suggesting that we don't need to worry because we can fix things in the future seems irresponsible. In the meantime, until we get smart, population is a very real problem.

Man, it wld kind of kill the sexoring, the specter of Putin over your utes the whole time.

putin yutes!

Animals love Putin. I'm just sayin'.

oh I think we very much need to worry contenderizer, I'm just sayin I think its more feasible to alter man-made institutions and technologies than it is to fundamentally limit or alter humanity's most basic biological drive.

I mean you are never going to get people NOT to have kids by some kind of magically convincing rational argument. It just isn't going to happen. You wanna limit how many kids people have, your options get pretty draconian pretty fast.

Agree about the draconian, but dragons get a bad rap.

lots of you are overlooking that being a parent is actually great fun! you never run out of people to play lego and video games with and go to picnics in the park and have geeky conversations about the wonders of the universe and all the things that other adults think they're too cool or grown-up to do.

But I've never felt I'm too cool or grown-up to do those things!

me neither!

but when your friends start to be all "career, house prices and DIY" its good to have some non-boring people to goof around with.

oh yeah, that and yay unconditional love.

Unconditional love goes out the window the moment they become teenagers! Come on! A good reason for me to have never had kids - I would never ever want another human being to hate me as much as I hated my parents during certain stages of my life.

ha yes I worry about the "difficult teenage years", not quite there yet tho. did your parents take your flouncing seriously (mine didn't), how do you get on now?

jumpin back to the original question - rationality is about how you go about achieving your goals, but it does not tell you what your goals should be in the first place. If your goals are to party all the time and travel the world, then having children would be rather irrational. If, however, your goals include having children, then having children would be a rational way of advancing this goal.

sorry if someone has already said this, I am skipping to the end of a long thread.

it's not a given that if you hated your parents, your kids will hate you.

also, stomping ones feet at the top of the stairs and shouting "I HATE YOU" is not incompatible with unconditional love.

It was quite a lot more serious than "flouncing" - on both sides.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons I've never had children - being aware that things like abuse, mental illness, etc. are cyclical and repeatable, I don't ever want to have to be in a position to repeat them. (I'm not sure how easily these cycles are broken.)

Which brings up another issue. I can think of a quite rational reason for me, specifically, *not* to breed, in that I carry at least two genetic disorders - well, one obviously genetic disorder (colour blindness) and one disorder with a strong genetic component (bipolar disorder). Knowing that I have a very high statistical probability of passing these on to potential offspring, would I choose to propegate them, or try to eliminate my faulty genes from the gene pool?

OK, colour blindness isn't particularly serious or life threatening (unless you are a train driver) but what about other illnesses with a strong genetic component? Obviously, it would be totally wrong for some totalitarian government to impose some eugenics program, but what about voluntarily removing yourself from the gene pool?

ouch yes sorry, your comment made me think of comedy tropes like "kevin the teenager" etc , of course I don't know anything about the problems you had in your adolescence...

but when your friends start to be all "career, house prices and DIY" its good to have some non-boring people to goof around with.

See, at the ripe old age of 39, I still love playing video games, having geeky conversations, etc. Hell, I collect toys! My boring friends who are no fun to good around with are . . . all the ones who are now raising kids.

good goof around with . . .

if theyre so boring why are they your "friends"

You don't have any boring friends? You're really fortunate!

I don't choose my friends, or keep them, by how personally exciting they are to me, but chacun ses gouts, you know.

I dont have any friends! but I cant imagine your friends would be thrilled to know you dont like being around them.

true, but I doubt they know him as "Pancakes Hackman"

I imagine they probably feel the same way about him! Though maybe it's nice for them that he and their kids have the same toy-collecting interests.

well, whatever. what i really wanted to say is we have a kid and still play videos and goof around all the time. kids dont stop EVERYTHING.

i am excited for when my friends have kids, esp since i don't want any myself but want to live vicariously through others

I dont have any friends!

-- sunny successor, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:14 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

!

I dont have any friends!

-- sunny successor, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:14 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

that's my point. just make some more!

loneliness, another great reason to have kids

Wait when did I say I don't like being around them? I said we don't "goof off together." You can actually do other things with friends besides goof off.

My friends w/o kids are the ones who I can call on the spur of the moment and say, "Hey, lets go goof off!" My friends with kids are the ones I can say, "Hey, if you can get a sitter we can do X," or "Bring the kids over and we'll do Y." Kids love my house BECAUSE IT'S FULL OF TOYS AND VIDEO GAMES.

These concepts are not hard, people.

I imagine they probably feel the same way about him!

Your problem appears to be that you imagine a lot of things about people. Try spending less time in Imaginationland.

(xxp)haha. i missed the lonely gene. in fact the only problem I have with being a parent is I dont get alone time anymore.

(xxp)okay. i just assumed if you found someone boring you wouldnt want to be around them? i dont know.

I'm being told to get out of "imaginationland" by a 39 year old man who collects toys?

Where's that "so not gonna happen" pic?

neither children nor ilx are a substitute for having friends.

"Boring" is shorthand for "lacking compulsive free time" or "having a regular first priority that is not 'doing shit with friends.'"

xp Well my mind doesn't work real well with symbols, you know, so whatever. Can you tell me what the winning lottery numbers are going to be, Kreskin?

As a parent, let me say: yes, parenthood is exhausting and infuriating and money-and-time-draining and so on, yes yes yes. It is also more fun than you could ever possibly imagine.

The general biological imperative is not just to have sex, it's to keep the resulting offspring around. This manifests itself in kids being AWESOME.

Perhaps you would do better if you learned the difference between symbolism and mentalism, my friend.

No, no, you appear to have all kinds of valuable insights about me and my brain so I figure you must be TEH SYLVIA BROWNE or something and can see the future. So dazzle me.

OH NOES HE COLLECTS TOYS HOW OUTRÉ I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS ADULTS COLLECTING TOYS! Plz to understand difference between "collecting" and "playing with."

neither children nor ilx are a substitute for having friends.

-- Jordan, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:49 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

right, but like children and ilx, friends arent by any means necessary.

Pancakes - gotcha. I misunderstood.

Plz to explain point of "collecting" and not "playing with."

Well, when you go home to have a tea party with all your stuffed animals totally grown up and adult toy collection, you can tell them all about how you scored one for Atheism on the internets today. I'm sure they'll be proud.

i think friends are pretty necessary, actually.

not in the food and shelter sense, but to long-term happiness.

xp not my beef so I'll step right in regardless. why shouldn't Pancakes continue to collect ( and play) with toys? From what I've read you're keen on collecting and playing with guitars and effects pedals, that's not exactly dissimilar is it?

"Is there any rational reason for collecting toys?" thread coming in 5...4...3....

"is there any rational reason for having fun?"

I'm not sure if that's addressed to Mark G or me, but, well - I don't collect guitars and pedals - I *play* with them. Myself, I tend not to collect anything I don't actually use - i.e. books, CDs, guitar pedals. - for reasons of space and money rather than any philosphical reason.

And I'm not actually insulting anyone for collecting anything. I'm just playful-beefing carrying on from playground insults started on the rationality thread. Forgive me if I misread the general tone of conversation.

i think friends are pretty necessary, actually.

-- Jordan, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:08 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not in the food and shelter sense, but to long-term happiness.

-- Jordan, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:09 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

this has been quantified! and it's true, ppl with stronger and larger social networks are happier. it's a correlation /= causation thing, but the link is there

See also: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

From what I've read you're keen on collecting and playing with guitars and effects pedals

I do this too . . .

Plz to explain point of "collecting" and not "playing with."

Yeah, and what's with all those people who collect money that they don't even spend? And those fucking weirdos who collect stamps and never even mail a letter with them?

Do you understand what "collecting" is? It would appear not.

Well, when you go home to have a tea party with all your stuffed animals totally grown up and adult toy collection, you can tell them all about how you scored one for Atheism on the internets today. I'm sure they'll be proud.

Wow, I must've really touched a nerve, huh? Well, if you're half this clever at home, I suppose that's some consolation.

goole, thats bullshit.

I admit my post should have ended with ... toys.

OK, if they are 'nice to look at' then fine.

hey don't argue with me, like i said, it's been quantified... by someone... somewhere. it's no the only indicator of overall happiness but it's a strong one.

okay. sounds kind of dumb to me though.

I think it makes a lot of sense to me. Why would it be bullshit?

Ya can't fight with SCIENCE.

How many?

Enough to be The Beatles? The Osmonds? The Polyphonic Spree?

are you kidding? is being in a band your only conception of having friends or is there another joke there

I've read the same research, though I don't recall where.

Though I would stress again that correlation does not imply causation. It could just be that happier people tend to attract and keep larger social circles.

I'm not saying you have to be those bands.

I'm quantifying vaguely.

OK, trans:

3? 6? 45?

Kate, you strike me as having a large amount of friends...

I just meant it makes sense to me on very common sense level. Do you think there are many people with no friends or other social networks who are happy with this fact? I've always thought socializing with people and having people around to offer support when you need is almost a basic need.

(xxx-post)

Though I would stress again that correlation does not imply causation. It could just be that happier people tend to attract and keep larger social circles.

-- Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:27 (29 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

or that "more sociable" people are less likely to admit that they're unhappy?

Do I?

Then why am I not happier? Oh yeah, that dasturdly disease. Dammit! ::shakes fist::

x-posts to Mark G

tbh, i can't rly bring myself to skim through these responses, or even tuomas' opening paragraph, cuz i feel like the question is so bizarre. everytime i see it i think "um of course, what?"

::shrugs:: carry on

anyroad. it's 5:30!

we're out!

I would have thought it is perfectly possible to be happy with your own company. I can't prove this with science though, so it's bound to be WRONG.

it just makes basic common sense to me. for one thing it's good to have people you can talk with who aren't involved in the daily pressures of kids/relationships/money etc..

xxxp

I think, actually, I might have a causation flow indicator, though... if it's true that I have a large number of friends (though friends are not the only component of a social network) - even though I'm naturally quite a loner, a good social network is an effective way of fighting off the sense of isolation that aggravates that depression. Hence why I go out of my way to try and meet friends.

So that might be on to something...

but will have to wait until later to think about it more, as eep, network clock has just gone 5.30 and I, also, am out of here!

-having a sense of mutual respect and affection with a number of people ie 'friends' for the uninitiated
-sex & love
-fulfillment in work
-play activities that provide a sense of flow ie exercize of talents and absorption in an action, outside of time
-material needs met

that's about it, mix and match as needed. this is a very pop reduction of 'happiness studies.'

why trying to put numbers on any of these meets with immediate suspicion and resistance is a mystery to me...

i would think most people would only need a couple of those things to be happy

I agree they're of different importance to everyone, but I think all thoe points are basic to satisfaction with life?

Lots of people life with being vaguely (or not so vaguely) UNsatisfied with their lives and whether that's desirable is maybe another conversation. Ie sometimes as Dennis Leary says, "Happiness comes in small doses. It's a cigarettes, or a five-second orgasm, or a chocolate-chip cookie. So you smoke the butt, you come, you eat the cookie, and you go to bed and get up in the morning and GO TO WORK. That's all there is. It's a short list, people." Etc.

Ugh god sorry, in a hurry.

Denis Leary, ugh. that guy should be shot

I think pretty much any one of those from that list there would result in happiness index getting switched to acceptable levels for most people.

– Awesomeness

is one I need.