Having children in today's society

[BobTheCoward]

So what? We're not talking about us, we're talking about our kids. And their potential families.

They will likely be fine, too.

 

[Francesca R]

They will likely be fine, too.

Eventually after enough generations some descendants might perish because of global warming. That will be on us for making a deliberate decision to be their ancestors

 

[BobTheCoward]

Eventually after enough generations some descendants might perish because of global warming. That will be on us for making a deliberate decision to be their ancestors

I wouldn't go that far. For example, we had one member that lived in Thailand. If they had kids that would grow and live there, they would get a lot more of it. So will people in poverty here.

 

[pgwenthold]

Not every personal choice is some grand philosophical declaration.

We don't need to have the "Is mankind worth saving?" discussion here.

Oh, let's.

"We need to do this or our species will die out!"

ME: So what? The survival of the human species is not up to me. I'm certainly not advocating killing anyone, but I see no reason to think that we need to be worried.

It's not going to happen in my generation. Nor in my kids' generation. Nor in my kids' kids' generation. Nor in their grandkids.

If the human race dies out 1000 years from now, why should I actually care? As I said, I'm not for killing anyone off, but why should I worry about people who aren't born?

There is an argument that we need new generations to care for us as we age, and therefore it is important to perpetuate. But that is very different from "if we don't the human race will die out"

 

[The Atheist]

I noticed a strong tendency of people stating that it would be a bad idea to have children in this age.

I'm one of those - I had a thread about it some time in the past.

I also encourage my kids to try to avoid falling into the biological imperative of wanting children by seeing it for what it is - just an evolutionary hangover.

This confuses me since nowadays, a large chunk of the human population has a higher quality of life than previous generations, including life expectancy, access to education, nutrition and safety, as well as basic human rights (regarding the developed world).

Do we really have a greater quality of life, or just quantity?

Moreover, this trend of improved day to day life does not seem to stop any time soon. Compared to the entire history of mankind, objectively speaking, there has never been a time where this many people have led comfortable lifes, despite the existence of suffering, which, if we are honest, will never completely end in the real world.

So, why ruin it by having kids?

Kids are expensive and time-consuming.

Climate change is about to bend our quality of life over and **** it, to be blunt. Any gains we have made as a species will soon be thrown into serious jeopardy. I don't want to make my own people and leave them to suffer through the end of days. Plus, I'm lazy, selfish, and mentally unstable. And I think pregnancy is gross. I don't particularly enjoy being alive, and I think inflicting a condition I don't like on someone else is unethical.

Is it better to be born and die at some point thereafter due to climate change, or never be born?

There was a big fuss a couple of years ago when David Benatar - a South African philosopher - said it's unethical to have children.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh for ***** sake.

 

[Francesca R]

"We need to do this or our species will die out!"

In most biology the drive for evolutionary survival only goes as far as propagating and optimising one's own genes anyway, which involves many creatures killing their species brethren (and/or their brethren's offspring) if these get in the way.

 

[Francesca R]

Do we really have a greater quality of life, or just quantity?

My phone is better than what either of my parents had. But this forum sucks up a crap load of time.*

There was a big fuss a couple of years ago when David Benatar - a South African philosopher - said it's unethical to have children.

I don't find it convincing and suspect that from behind some netherwordly veil of ignorance most agents would opt for birth over continued nonexistence.

*Well not so much lately I was absent for the last several months.

 

[smartcooky]

If humans were immortal (as in, with indefinite lifespans but still able to be killed or die by accident), procreating only to replace members who have been killed, then we might be a lot more careful how we treat the planet given we are the ones who will have to be living on it.

As things stand now, this planet is heading to hell in a handbasket. My hope is that its not yet too late to stop it becoming uninhabitable for human life within a few generations; my fear is that its too late, the tipping point has already passed.

If the latter is true, then at some point in the near future, its going to be very unwise have children because you will be bringing them into a world that will almost certainly kill them.

 

[Butter!]

Is it better to be born and die at some point thereafter due to climate change, or never be born?

Not to be born is best. (Sophocles)

Life is suffering, even if you happen to get an awesome lot. Just possessing a human mind and the capability for abstract thought equals guaranteed misery. I've discussed this with people before, and apparently (to my surprise) most people feel that the "good" in life is worth the rough parts and the ever-present existential dread. I disagree, though, so having kids would be an unethical thing for me to do.

Plus, I'd be a terrible parent because I'm terrible at everything. If you (general "you") KNOW you'd be a bad parent, you shouldn't let loneliness or hormones interfere with or chip away at that knowledge.

I'm in my thirties, and I have a uterus. Of course there are times when I think I want kids. But these are just emotional/chemical brain hijacks. I know who I am, and I definitely shouldn't be anybody's mom.

Plus the whole burning world thing.

 

[Francesca R]

Not to be born is best. (Sophocles)

Life is suffering

Actually I think the latter is Buddha

 

[lionking]

Does nobody here appreciate that world population is approaching a peak some time around 2050? Many nations (including my own and much of Europe) are below replacement birth rates.

My children are having children and good for them. Yes, the world can be a ****** place. But the alternative of just giving up on it????

 

[Butter!]

They will likely be fine, too.

I guess there are a lot of different timelines, but I tend to go with the doomiest.

 

[Butter!]

Does nobody here appreciate that world population is approaching a peak some time around 2050? Many nations (including my own and much of Europe) are below replacement birth rates.

My children are having children and good for them. Yes, the world can be a ****** place. But the alternative of just giving up on it????

Everyone gets to make that choice for themselves. There will always be plenty of optimistic people who actually WANT children to keep the species going. Disturbed, bitter, crazy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ like myself have no business even considering it, whether or not the actual world is objectively going to hell.

My mom always says that the scientists will figure something out in time to save us from the worst of the climate disasters. I hope she's right.

I almost consider the misinformation epidemic to be an equal threat, just less physical, but it remains to be seen where all that goes. Maybe it will be okay in the end too. It's hard for me to even imagine guiding a new human through all that, though.

 

[Butter!]

Actually I think the latter is Buddha

Life is suffering
- Buddha

Life is suffering, and also, I am super lazy and crabby
- Butter

I don't know why I've been having so much trouble getting my cult off the ground.

 

[cullennz]

Is it better to be born and die at some point thereafter due to climate change, or never be born?

I doubt many people are going to die from climate change any time soon.

The other thing about dropping sprogs out.

The more the kids, the more future emissions, the worse the climate change.

Also the harder it is to feed everyone.

 

[dudalb]

If humans were immortal (as in, with indefinite lifespans but still able to be killed or die by accident), procreating only to replace members who have been killed, then we might be a lot more careful how we treat the planet given we are the ones who will have to be living on it.

As things stand now, this planet is heading to hell in a handbasket. My hope is that its not yet too late to stop it becoming uninhabitable for human life within a few generations; my fear is that its too late, the tipping point has already passed.

If the latter is true, then at some point in the near future, its going to be very unwise have children because you will be bringing them into a world that will almost certainly kill them.

That is pretty much the Elves in Tolkien's Middle Earth:Yjey do not age after reaching maturity and do not die of old age but can be killed by physical means.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I was really hoping for less edgy tween-angst "Humans are trash" rationale for all this.

 

[ahhell]

1. A cultural backlash against the assumption/default of child-having as a part of your life, especially (but not completely) with women who are rightfully pushing back against the broad social idea that their default goal in life should be child bearing.

2. Population trends always go down as quality of life gets better. We don't need to have 400 kids so enough of them will survive smallpox to work the farm come harvest season.

Both of those likely figure into to folks choice to have fewer kids or none at all.

3. WE'RE ALL BROKE. People in their prime, physical child bearing age are currently in the worst economic place in history.

That's just silly. Might be accurate to say the worst economic place in the last 30 years or relative to their parents in the last few generations, but in history is fairly silly. The natural human condition is abject poverty. Its only in the last hundred years or so that we haven't mostly been starving most of the time.*

Beyond economics, being pregnant is a nightmare and the amount of unsolicited advice and judgment that gets heaped on parents for everything is not fun either.

Looking around at this and thinking that maybe having more more money and free time is the batter path is pretty reasonable.

Both are true.

I have a 2 year old and I'm 48. I'm pretty sure sleep deprivation gave me brain damage. I love my kid but I l see why people would give this a miss. Especially if you aren't in a position to have kids until your 30s and are (1) less up to it and (2) have gotten to like having personal freedom.

I'm 49 with a 2 and 4 year old.

Not every personal choice is some grand philosophical declaration.

We don't need to have the "Is mankind worth saving?" discussion here.

This is absolutely true. Mostly its folks just making choices for reasons they don't really understand then rationalizing after the fact.

The thought process is mostly, "I don't want kids; therefore, the world is so awful I shouldn't have kids" Not, "The world is so awful; therefore, I don't want kids."

Sure, global warming is going to cause all sorts of havoc, but its very unlikely to cause extinction or even some sort of dark age. Those predictions will likely be added to those of Malthus and Erhlich.

Personally, I had kids because I wanted kids, its a biological imperative and I don't feel I need to rationalize it. It would naturally be a shame to deprive future generations of my obviously superior genetics though.

Amusing side note, according to freakanomics, there's statistical evidence that child car seats are such a pain in the ass that they've resulted in westerners having fewer kids.

*Exaggerated for comic/dramatic effect.

 

[pgwenthold]

Is it better to be born and die at some point thereafter due to climate change, or never be born?

It is not possible to compare existence with non-existence. Existence is a value, non-existence is the empty set. You can's say one is greater than the other.