5 ms·

> People with no kids... As a parent, I find these individuals to be the most aggravating. Also aggravating: parents who call childless couples selfish. Like n

> People with no kids... As a parent, I find these individuals to be the most aggravating. Also aggravating: parents who call childless couples selfish. Like not spitting one out is somehow cheating life, and having kids makes you a kinder person. Both sides are equally self-interested, neither are totally selfless or selfish. I'll concede that a lot of parents will shift their energy from themselves to their child's well-being, but that's where the selflessness ends and they often become a sinkhole for other people's energy. They're gifting no one except their own inner circle, which is fine - that's how life works for most people.

humanrebar 10y ago
"Selfish" isn't fair, but some else's kids are paying future taxes, performing future surgeries, and fighting future wars. Existing social and fiscal expectations have a certain birth rate built in.
- slavik81 10y ago
  New members of society add value. They will do a lifetime worth of work. New members of society have a cost. They will use a lifetime worth of services. On average, those will be about the same. There is probably an ideal population count, but without actually figuring out what that count is and showing we're below it, that's not a worthwhile discussion.
- skewart 10y ago
  That birth rate depends on there not being too many kids too. School districts benefit from childless residents who pay taxes to support schools but don't impose any costs. Also, there are many ways to contribute to the development of young generations other than simply having biological children. Even aside from adopting, lots of childless people I've known have been great mentors and teachers. (Not that you'd necessarily disagree, just your post could kind of be interpreted that way).
dleslie 10y ago
Did I say anything about selfishness? Regardless, consider that your future comfort relies on someone else having a child. When you're old and everyone who cares for you is younger than you, thank those who had children and raised them well enough to be able to care for you.
- stbtrax 10y ago
  Your present comfort to some extent relies on people not having tons of kids. We'd be overcrowded and resource-constrained. It's great that you have kids but it's not like a it's a public service you're performing. Unless you adopted a bunch or something. We can always get younger immigrants to come fulfil those jobs.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Idk what makes a service "public", but it certainly is a service. My parents have served me more than any other human.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- greesil 10y ago
  I'm be sure to thank the robots.
- ido 10y ago
  It's not like we have a shortage of people though.
- wott 10y ago
  I'm so glad people bring up new offsprings all the time. Thanks to them, despite our supposedly declining demography as a sad ageing country, we destroy one extra percent of my country's land every 8 years, just for housing (and that's a much bigger percentage of the truly usable land). Since my mother's youth, the available surface by inhabitant has decreased from 3.5 to 2 acres, and the usable ratio of this 'available' surface has dropped too. Infrastructure can't follow, it is a rat race with public spending that can never catch up with the population increase and concentration, that create exponential problems. I am so glad our African neighbours still fuck like rabbits, in order to produce an extra +20 million people every year, on a land (and a society political organisation) that cannot support half of them, destabilising all countries there by internal migrations; and another million or so having to move to Europe every year, destabilising the social systems there which are not designed to accommodate such influx. I'm so glad that people keep pretending the demographic problem is a supposed decrease in population when it is actually always increasing, and the continuous increase is the problem. I'm so glad they use 2-century old rhetoric on demographics and do not notice that there has been a small change in productivity per human being since those days.
snuxoll 10y ago
I always found this aggravating. I had a child because I was selfish, I wanted to reproduce - to put another life on this planet that will consume resources, and eventually die - she had no choice in the matter of whether she was born or not, I did. People who don't have kids are no less selfish than I am, either - there's a reason any individual chooses to have kids or not, and the only moderately selfless reason (population control) is still selfish because you are making the choice for your own convictions. The decision to have children or not is selfish period, everyone should stop giving a fuck about what choice they made, because none of them are "correct".
- nercht12 10y ago
  I think you mean "non-altruistic", not "selfish". In my book, at least, "selfish" is thinking ONLY of oneself. If you think it'd be nice for your child to enjoy life, why not give them the blessing of existence? Sure, it puts a smile on your face too so-to-speak, but that's a far cry from "selfish".
tropo 10y ago
You might be selfish, and you might not be selfish. Consider your answer to these two questions: 1. Do you produce kids? 2. Given your qualities as a potential parent, are your kids likely to produce more for society than they take? If you answer those in the same way, you are not selfish. If your answers don't match, then you are.
- jstandard 10y ago
  That's a strange way to evaluate selfishness. Question 2 has virtually infinite factors impacting it, making it useless in any practical sense. How about those who participate in activities that enrich the lives of others, such as volunteering, teaching, or giving aid? What if their country has an overpopulation problem resulting in major constraints on resources and infrastructure?
- icanhackit 10y ago
  In a game theory setting, i.e. highly constrained and not tainted by that annoyingly complex and unintuitive stuff that is reality, you'd be correct. It also ignores the fact that the vast majority of people don't make new humans as a selfless public service, thus "selfish" takes on a new definition which can be translated as "doing what people do", at which point it loses all meaning. In poor countries making new humans is a necessity, in rich countries it's a natural desire, and in all cases it's a fundamental human right even if the offspring take more than they give as everyone is a product of circumstance. Exercising the option to not make any is equally valid.

humanrebar 10y ago

"Selfish" isn't fair, but some else's kids are paying future taxes, performing future surgeries, and fighting future wars. Existing social and fiscal expectations have a certain birth rate built in.

slavik81 10y ago
New members of society add value. They will do a lifetime worth of work. New members of society have a cost. They will use a lifetime worth of services. On average, those will be about the same. There is probably an ideal population count, but without actually figuring out what that count is and showing we're below it, that's not a worthwhile discussion.
skewart 10y ago
That birth rate depends on there not being too many kids too. School districts benefit from childless residents who pay taxes to support schools but don't impose any costs. Also, there are many ways to contribute to the development of young generations other than simply having biological children. Even aside from adopting, lots of childless people I've known have been great mentors and teachers. (Not that you'd necessarily disagree, just your post could kind of be interpreted that way).

dleslie 10y ago

Did I say anything about selfishness? Regardless, consider that your future comfort relies on someone else having a child. When you're old and everyone who cares for you is younger than you, thank those who had children and raised them well enough to be able to care for you.

stbtrax 10y ago
Your present comfort to some extent relies on people not having tons of kids. We'd be overcrowded and resource-constrained. It's great that you have kids but it's not like a it's a public service you're performing. Unless you adopted a bunch or something. We can always get younger immigrants to come fulfil those jobs.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Idk what makes a service "public", but it certainly is a service. My parents have served me more than any other human.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
greesil 10y ago
I'm be sure to thank the robots.
ido 10y ago
It's not like we have a shortage of people though.
wott 10y ago
I'm so glad people bring up new offsprings all the time. Thanks to them, despite our supposedly declining demography as a sad ageing country, we destroy one extra percent of my country's land every 8 years, just for housing (and that's a much bigger percentage of the truly usable land). Since my mother's youth, the available surface by inhabitant has decreased from 3.5 to 2 acres, and the usable ratio of this 'available' surface has dropped too. Infrastructure can't follow, it is a rat race with public spending that can never catch up with the population increase and concentration, that create exponential problems. I am so glad our African neighbours still fuck like rabbits, in order to produce an extra +20 million people every year, on a land (and a society political organisation) that cannot support half of them, destabilising all countries there by internal migrations; and another million or so having to move to Europe every year, destabilising the social systems there which are not designed to accommodate such influx. I'm so glad that people keep pretending the demographic problem is a supposed decrease in population when it is actually always increasing, and the continuous increase is the problem. I'm so glad they use 2-century old rhetoric on demographics and do not notice that there has been a small change in productivity per human being since those days.

snuxoll 10y ago

I always found this aggravating. I had a child because I was selfish, I wanted to reproduce - to put another life on this planet that will consume resources, and eventually die - she had no choice in the matter of whether she was born or not, I did. People who don't have kids are no less selfish than I am, either - there's a reason any individual chooses to have kids or not, and the only moderately selfless reason (population control) is still selfish because you are making the choice for your own convictions. The decision to have children or not is selfish period, everyone should stop giving a fuck about what choice they made, because none of them are "correct".

nercht12 10y ago
I think you mean "non-altruistic", not "selfish". In my book, at least, "selfish" is thinking ONLY of oneself. If you think it'd be nice for your child to enjoy life, why not give them the blessing of existence? Sure, it puts a smile on your face too so-to-speak, but that's a far cry from "selfish".

tropo 10y ago

You might be selfish, and you might not be selfish. Consider your answer to these two questions: 1. Do you produce kids? 2. Given your qualities as a potential parent, are your kids likely to produce more for society than they take? If you answer those in the same way, you are not selfish. If your answers don't match, then you are.

jstandard 10y ago
That's a strange way to evaluate selfishness. Question 2 has virtually infinite factors impacting it, making it useless in any practical sense. How about those who participate in activities that enrich the lives of others, such as volunteering, teaching, or giving aid? What if their country has an overpopulation problem resulting in major constraints on resources and infrastructure?
icanhackit 10y ago
In a game theory setting, i.e. highly constrained and not tainted by that annoyingly complex and unintuitive stuff that is reality, you'd be correct. It also ignores the fact that the vast majority of people don't make new humans as a selfless public service, thus "selfish" takes on a new definition which can be translated as "doing what people do", at which point it loses all meaning. In poor countries making new humans is a necessity, in rich countries it's a natural desire, and in all cases it's a fundamental human right even if the offspring take more than they give as everyone is a product of circumstance. Exercising the option to not make any is equally valid.