5 ms·

I think not having children is incredibly selfish. Life is an incredible gift. It is, after all, the substrate upon which all of our hopes and dreams are built

I think not having children is incredibly selfish. Life is an incredible gift. It is, after all, the substrate upon which all of our hopes and dreams are built. And we were given this gift. Many people made many sacrifices so that we could be here, alive, enjoying life. To decide, then, to not share this gift with your own children, well... I can't conceive of anything more selfish.

ciokan 10y ago
I don't think you can be selfish by not sharing something...with someone who doesn't exist. Not everyone "enjoys life" the same way as you do. There's no selfishness in here, just decisions that I chose to respect. And why do you call it a gift? Given? By whom?
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  There is a fork in the road. Along one fork, there are additional humans (your children!) who exist. Along the other fork, they do not exist. Deciding which fork Existence takes as it unfolds is entirely up to you. But, sure, believe there are no moral consequences to this decision if that makes you feel better.
  - ciokan 10y ago
    This is no "Schrödinger's cat" which is both alive and dead. There is no fork if one decides to not have children. Decision was made so your fork is a straight line. Let's not dive into parallel universes spawned each time we make a decision.
    - toasterlovin 10y ago
      Isn't the whole reason we punish people for murder based on the idea that if the murderer had chosen not to murder (in other words, if they had taken the other route at the fork in the road) then the victim would still be alive? Obviously, murdering an already alive person is not the same thing as not having children, but is not the reasoning the same? Am I missing something?
      - rootusrootus 10y ago
        We punish people for crime (including murder) to deter them from doing it, because such behavior is detrimental to society. I think you're reading far too much into the life part, and you are particularly far out there on the idea that not having children is akin to murdering them.
        toasterlovin 10y ago
        > you are particularly far out there on the idea that not having children is akin to murdering them I specifically pointed out that the two are not the same thing.
      - ciokan 10y ago
        Nope, the punishment is a reaction to an action (the murder). First there's the virus then comes the anti-virus. Without the action there is no punishment. You can twist this idea for as long as you wish, your point is still wrong as it's based on parallel universes and "what ifs" all the time. You remind me of the late Christopher Hitchens debates (go watch that man on youtube, also Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss) where the religious arguments are always based on the premise of "prove me that God doesn't exist" while nobody can actually prove it exists neither. I know a gypsy family in my country (it's been aired on TV 2 weeks ago - there are many such examples) which has 12 kids, all of them sent in Paris and Berlin to beg on the streets for money. Back home they have a palace and 4-5 cars each above 30-40k euros from everything they raised over the years. Most of those kids bring zero value to the society (it's not their fault - it's how they were raised), even worst, "it takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch" meaning that I see a trend in the youth to go for the "easy money" which brings us to the top of the list when it comes to fraud, identity theft, credit card theft, hacking and so on. This is just an example (and there's plenty more I can think of) but I want to ask you...are they a gift? To whom? To their parents maybe...in which case, isn't it selfish in some cases to make more kids than none at all? Aren't you just subjective by using yourself as an example to all arguments? As a father myself, I don't see a goal in "preserving my bloodline" at all. The bloodline doesn't matter. I always go for quality over quantity. I don't need to pay tribute to anybody (ancestors). I didn't ask anybody to bring me into this world. A gift is something that you're offered, never imposed.
knz 10y ago
Some people just aren't equiped to be parents and others recognize the significant burden and sacrifice to have them. Others have concerns about the world and choose not to. Some choose not to because of health concerns or because of past unsuccessful pregnancies. I don't think it's selfish at all to choose not to bring a child into the world when there are still 6+ billion of us to carry the species forward. I love my kids immensely but also respect my friends who choose not to have them.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  > I don't think it's selfish at all to choose not to bring a child into the world when there are still 6+ billion of us to carry the species forward. But my argument is not about survival or wellbeing of the species. It's about denying life to your children.
asdfklads 10y ago
So how many children do you have? Why not more? You're not sharing gifts with as many children as you can conceive. You are selfish in that regard according to your own basis.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  Believe me, after I convince everybody to have children, I'm gonna work on convincing them to have lots of children :P That's certainly my own plan. Just welcomed number three into the world last week. Definitely have plans for more, but, you know, babies generally come one at a time.
  - foobarian 10y ago
    Luckily the process scales horizontally quite well. Also see e.g. Genghis Khan.
    - toasterlovin 10y ago
      Well, it does for half the species. In theory. The other half kind of acts as a damper on things, especially if you value things like women's rights, etc.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
minusf 10y ago
it might be selfish in the sense that by refusing to procreate you remove yourself from the gene pool your ancestors worked so hard to keep a presence in. on the other hand you have siblings and they did procreate, problem solved.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  You do make an excellent point about kinda owing kids to your ancestors, but I think having your own children is the better strategy. After all, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush...
mnm1 10y ago
Who is more selfish: the person who has children, can't take care of them, and lets them die a horrible death by malnutrition or the person who decides not to have kids? Or perhaps the person who tries to dictate others' actions so that they conform to his or her own values? I'd say it's this last one.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  A couple of things: 1. Most people in the developed world who decide not to have children are not doing so to prevent their children from experiencing a life of suffering followed shortly by death. They are choosing not to have children because there are other ways they would rather spend their lives. 2. I'm not dictating anybody's actions. I'm making a moral argument on the internet.
Gatsky 10y ago
I don't think you can make a value judgement on the character of people who decide not to have kids. Remember that they still contribute to society in a myriad of ways, including playing inportant roles in the lives of children that belong to friends or family. On the other hand, there are many selfish people who do have kids but make poor parents.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I am only making the argument that the decision not to have kids is selfish. I am not making a larger statement about the people who make this decision.
the_gipsy 10y ago
The same can be said: it is incredibly selfish to produce offspring for the various reasons you think it will make you happier/improve your life/entertain you.
- ambicapter 10y ago
  That's...not what toasterlovin said.
Spooky23 10y ago
It an alien idea to me, but I don't think its selfishness... more an anxiety or fear that can be controlled. We live in a strange transitional era, and are still coming to grips with the notion that women have careers and that we don't really need to work as much as we do. As half of a couple who struggled to have a family (because we waited too long to meet goals that ultimately didn't matter too much), I think a lot of the child free rhetoric is just that. Sometimes when you discover that getting and staying pregnant at 40 isn't a sure thing, it's easier to move on and make the best of things.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
I always find this an offensive stance. Naturally, I'm in that category. I'm female. I've never wanted children. I hid that for some time, as people acted like I just lied to them or something was wrong with me. I've been called selfish and childish. Some people think that is confirmation of not really being straight enough, somehow. But no one cares why I don't want children or anything like that before they say these things. It is confusing. I'm not questioning why people want kids nor thinking folks are selfish for doing so, even though it could be argued. I care that the schools are good, that families have more time off from work than I, and so on because society depends on it. I married a like-minded man, so that this decision isn't negatively affecting someone else's happy life dream. There are lots of reasons for me not to have children, including thinking I'd be a bad parent and actually being afraid of being pregnant, especially for mental health reasons (I have trouble with birth control and pms hormones..). Found out a few years back that it really isn't recommended by the doctor either (Relief for me). But most importantly of all this: I simply don't want children. At all. No drive, no biological clock. I don't feel a duty to have children since we aren't in danger of dying out: In that case, I'd happily do what was best for humanity, despite my personal urges. But as it stands, there are other ways to contribute to humanity and humanity's future.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  A couple of things: 1. It's your life, live it in a way that you will be satisfied with on your death bed. I brought up this POV, because I see lots of people making the decision to have (or not have) children based on how it affects them. To my mind, though, the more important consideration is the fact that not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less. I understand that this is a stark way to view things, by it's also, you know, the truth. And I think people should walk into major life decisions with both eyes wide open. 2. My point is not really about survival of the species. It's more about the moral issue of denying life to other humans.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less. Who don't exist. You can't take rights away from those who don't exist. And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child?

ciokan 10y ago

I don't think you can be selfish by not sharing something...with someone who doesn't exist. Not everyone "enjoys life" the same way as you do. There's no selfishness in here, just decisions that I chose to respect. And why do you call it a gift? Given? By whom?

toasterlovin 10y ago
There is a fork in the road. Along one fork, there are additional humans (your children!) who exist. Along the other fork, they do not exist. Deciding which fork Existence takes as it unfolds is entirely up to you. But, sure, believe there are no moral consequences to this decision if that makes you feel better.
- ciokan 10y ago
  This is no "Schrödinger's cat" which is both alive and dead. There is no fork if one decides to not have children. Decision was made so your fork is a straight line. Let's not dive into parallel universes spawned each time we make a decision.
  - toasterlovin 10y ago
    Isn't the whole reason we punish people for murder based on the idea that if the murderer had chosen not to murder (in other words, if they had taken the other route at the fork in the road) then the victim would still be alive? Obviously, murdering an already alive person is not the same thing as not having children, but is not the reasoning the same? Am I missing something?
    - rootusrootus 10y ago
      We punish people for crime (including murder) to deter them from doing it, because such behavior is detrimental to society. I think you're reading far too much into the life part, and you are particularly far out there on the idea that not having children is akin to murdering them.
      - toasterlovin 10y ago
        > you are particularly far out there on the idea that not having children is akin to murdering them I specifically pointed out that the two are not the same thing.
    - ciokan 10y ago
      Nope, the punishment is a reaction to an action (the murder). First there's the virus then comes the anti-virus. Without the action there is no punishment. You can twist this idea for as long as you wish, your point is still wrong as it's based on parallel universes and "what ifs" all the time. You remind me of the late Christopher Hitchens debates (go watch that man on youtube, also Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss) where the religious arguments are always based on the premise of "prove me that God doesn't exist" while nobody can actually prove it exists neither. I know a gypsy family in my country (it's been aired on TV 2 weeks ago - there are many such examples) which has 12 kids, all of them sent in Paris and Berlin to beg on the streets for money. Back home they have a palace and 4-5 cars each above 30-40k euros from everything they raised over the years. Most of those kids bring zero value to the society (it's not their fault - it's how they were raised), even worst, "it takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch" meaning that I see a trend in the youth to go for the "easy money" which brings us to the top of the list when it comes to fraud, identity theft, credit card theft, hacking and so on. This is just an example (and there's plenty more I can think of) but I want to ask you...are they a gift? To whom? To their parents maybe...in which case, isn't it selfish in some cases to make more kids than none at all? Aren't you just subjective by using yourself as an example to all arguments? As a father myself, I don't see a goal in "preserving my bloodline" at all. The bloodline doesn't matter. I always go for quality over quantity. I don't need to pay tribute to anybody (ancestors). I didn't ask anybody to bring me into this world. A gift is something that you're offered, never imposed.

knz 10y ago

Some people just aren't equiped to be parents and others recognize the significant burden and sacrifice to have them. Others have concerns about the world and choose not to. Some choose not to because of health concerns or because of past unsuccessful pregnancies. I don't think it's selfish at all to choose not to bring a child into the world when there are still 6+ billion of us to carry the species forward. I love my kids immensely but also respect my friends who choose not to have them.

toasterlovin 10y ago
> I don't think it's selfish at all to choose not to bring a child into the world when there are still 6+ billion of us to carry the species forward. But my argument is not about survival or wellbeing of the species. It's about denying life to your children.

asdfklads 10y ago

So how many children do you have? Why not more? You're not sharing gifts with as many children as you can conceive. You are selfish in that regard according to your own basis.

toasterlovin 10y ago
Believe me, after I convince everybody to have children, I'm gonna work on convincing them to have lots of children :P That's certainly my own plan. Just welcomed number three into the world last week. Definitely have plans for more, but, you know, babies generally come one at a time.
- foobarian 10y ago
  Luckily the process scales horizontally quite well. Also see e.g. Genghis Khan.
  - toasterlovin 10y ago
    Well, it does for half the species. In theory. The other half kind of acts as a damper on things, especially if you value things like women's rights, etc.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

minusf 10y ago

it might be selfish in the sense that by refusing to procreate you remove yourself from the gene pool your ancestors worked so hard to keep a presence in. on the other hand you have siblings and they did procreate, problem solved.

toasterlovin 10y ago
You do make an excellent point about kinda owing kids to your ancestors, but I think having your own children is the better strategy. After all, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush...

mnm1 10y ago

Who is more selfish: the person who has children, can't take care of them, and lets them die a horrible death by malnutrition or the person who decides not to have kids? Or perhaps the person who tries to dictate others' actions so that they conform to his or her own values? I'd say it's this last one.

toasterlovin 10y ago
A couple of things: 1. Most people in the developed world who decide not to have children are not doing so to prevent their children from experiencing a life of suffering followed shortly by death. They are choosing not to have children because there are other ways they would rather spend their lives. 2. I'm not dictating anybody's actions. I'm making a moral argument on the internet.

Gatsky 10y ago

I don't think you can make a value judgement on the character of people who decide not to have kids. Remember that they still contribute to society in a myriad of ways, including playing inportant roles in the lives of children that belong to friends or family. On the other hand, there are many selfish people who do have kids but make poor parents.

toasterlovin 10y ago
If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I am only making the argument that the decision not to have kids is selfish. I am not making a larger statement about the people who make this decision.

the_gipsy 10y ago

The same can be said: it is incredibly selfish to produce offspring for the various reasons you think it will make you happier/improve your life/entertain you.

ambicapter 10y ago
That's...not what toasterlovin said.

Spooky23 10y ago

It an alien idea to me, but I don't think its selfishness... more an anxiety or fear that can be controlled. We live in a strange transitional era, and are still coming to grips with the notion that women have careers and that we don't really need to work as much as we do. As half of a couple who struggled to have a family (because we waited too long to meet goals that ultimately didn't matter too much), I think a lot of the child free rhetoric is just that. Sometimes when you discover that getting and staying pregnant at 40 isn't a sure thing, it's easier to move on and make the best of things.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

I always find this an offensive stance. Naturally, I'm in that category. I'm female. I've never wanted children. I hid that for some time, as people acted like I just lied to them or something was wrong with me. I've been called selfish and childish. Some people think that is confirmation of not really being straight enough, somehow. But no one cares why I don't want children or anything like that before they say these things. It is confusing. I'm not questioning why people want kids nor thinking folks are selfish for doing so, even though it could be argued. I care that the schools are good, that families have more time off from work than I, and so on because society depends on it. I married a like-minded man, so that this decision isn't negatively affecting someone else's happy life dream. There are lots of reasons for me not to have children, including thinking I'd be a bad parent and actually being afraid of being pregnant, especially for mental health reasons (I have trouble with birth control and pms hormones..). Found out a few years back that it really isn't recommended by the doctor either (Relief for me). But most importantly of all this: I simply don't want children. At all. No drive, no biological clock. I don't feel a duty to have children since we aren't in danger of dying out: In that case, I'd happily do what was best for humanity, despite my personal urges. But as it stands, there are other ways to contribute to humanity and humanity's future.

toasterlovin 10y ago
A couple of things: 1. It's your life, live it in a way that you will be satisfied with on your death bed. I brought up this POV, because I see lots of people making the decision to have (or not have) children based on how it affects them. To my mind, though, the more important consideration is the fact that not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less. I understand that this is a stark way to view things, by it's also, you know, the truth. And I think people should walk into major life decisions with both eyes wide open. 2. My point is not really about survival of the species. It's more about the moral issue of denying life to other humans.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less. Who don't exist. You can't take rights away from those who don't exist. And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child?