3 ms·

having a child is for the parents, not the child. the parents happiness and goals comes first, not the child. its sad that people have forgotten that. the pa

having a child is for the parents, not the child. the parents happiness and goals comes first, not the child. its sad that people have forgotten that. the parents end up miserable, and guess who else will end up miserable? you guessed it, the child. wanting to have a child as to not be lonely in life is terrible? most kids are had for no reason at all, and its not terrible either. plus, I am pretty sure for 3 billion people in asia, this is part of the culture.

yodsanklai 9y ago
> having a child is for the parents, not the child Of course it's for the parents. You can't make a child "for the child", since it doesn't exist (and doesn't care) until you gave life to it. I don't have kids, and I've been told on several occasions that I was selfish for not doing so. Isn't it more selfish to have kids (who didn't ask for being born) for one's own joy?
- icc97 9y ago
  I think the people telling you that you're being selfish are wrong. However I don't think we can call having children a selfish act, it's pretty hard wired in us to do it. It's at least no more selfish than your average human.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > I don't have kids, and I've been told on several occasions that I was selfish for not doing so. Isn't it more selfish to have kids (who didn't ask for being born) for one's own joy? There's a lot of positive things you can do for the environment: less or no (air, car) travel, avoid plastic and downcycling your waste, avoiding meat. As our population size increases the one best thing you can do for the environment is not having kids and if you do have kids stay as close to the amount of 1.
  - chr1 9y ago
    That's a terrible thing to do for the environment, 3bln people can ruin it just as easily as 7bln (maybe a little bit slower). But having less people, especially in rich parts of the world, means they won't be able to develop technology to control the climate and, travel to other planets, and do all the other awesome things people do. Besides whats the point of saving the environment if there are no people to enjoy it.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      > That's a terrible thing to do for the environment, 3bln people can ruin it just as easily as 7bln (maybe a little bit slower). Sure, and one crazy narcissistic politician can also destroy Earth. That's not the point; the point is that on average, a child is going to have an average meaningful impact, and we cannot sustain the projected growth if we keep going on like we are right now. For example, those rich people you're so enthusiastic about are eating a lot of cow meat which has a terrible Co2 footprint. > (maybe a little bit slower). That's a good thing. If we're slower we'll be able to have more advanced technology. Its extremely arrogant to believe that your rich kid is going to make the difference in the world. Statistically, it won't. > Besides whats the point of saving the environment if there are no people to enjoy it. If you decide to not procreate there will still be people to live on Earth. If we destroy Earth for human inhabitation that doesn't equal all life is extinct.
SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
That sounds like a twisted sort of indentured servitude - "I gave you life, so you owe me". I think you might be better served getting yourself a dog.
- autokad 9y ago
  when did I say anything about "I gave you life, so you owe me"? if I have a child for what ever reason, I should still be a good parent. I think the same is true for owning a dog....
klibertp 9y ago
A single downvote is not enough to express how much I hate this mindset. A thousand words would be probably not enough either. > having a child is for the parents, not the child. It's beyond me how you can even write such a statement. Children are not things. They are not property. They are not "for" anything. Children are human. They are independent individuals. You can't own them, you can't abuse them, you can't ruin their lives just because you once decided to have unprotected sex. > its sad that people have forgotten that. That's like saying that it's sad that people forgot how natural and beneficial slavery is. With a mindset like that, I'd say that even a dog would be too big a responsibility. Get a Roomba instead. At least it won't suffer because of you. > and its not terrible either. Oh yes, it is. More often than not. > this is part of the culture That says literally nothing about how good - in just about any sense of the word - it is. I believe you're a strong supporter of death by stoning too - it's a cultural thing, after all.

yodsanklai 9y ago

> having a child is for the parents, not the child Of course it's for the parents. You can't make a child "for the child", since it doesn't exist (and doesn't care) until you gave life to it. I don't have kids, and I've been told on several occasions that I was selfish for not doing so. Isn't it more selfish to have kids (who didn't ask for being born) for one's own joy?

icc97 9y ago
I think the people telling you that you're being selfish are wrong. However I don't think we can call having children a selfish act, it's pretty hard wired in us to do it. It's at least no more selfish than your average human.
Fnoord 9y ago
> I don't have kids, and I've been told on several occasions that I was selfish for not doing so. Isn't it more selfish to have kids (who didn't ask for being born) for one's own joy? There's a lot of positive things you can do for the environment: less or no (air, car) travel, avoid plastic and downcycling your waste, avoiding meat. As our population size increases the one best thing you can do for the environment is not having kids and if you do have kids stay as close to the amount of 1.
- chr1 9y ago
  That's a terrible thing to do for the environment, 3bln people can ruin it just as easily as 7bln (maybe a little bit slower). But having less people, especially in rich parts of the world, means they won't be able to develop technology to control the climate and, travel to other planets, and do all the other awesome things people do. Besides whats the point of saving the environment if there are no people to enjoy it.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > That's a terrible thing to do for the environment, 3bln people can ruin it just as easily as 7bln (maybe a little bit slower). Sure, and one crazy narcissistic politician can also destroy Earth. That's not the point; the point is that on average, a child is going to have an average meaningful impact, and we cannot sustain the projected growth if we keep going on like we are right now. For example, those rich people you're so enthusiastic about are eating a lot of cow meat which has a terrible Co2 footprint. > (maybe a little bit slower). That's a good thing. If we're slower we'll be able to have more advanced technology. Its extremely arrogant to believe that your rich kid is going to make the difference in the world. Statistically, it won't. > Besides whats the point of saving the environment if there are no people to enjoy it. If you decide to not procreate there will still be people to live on Earth. If we destroy Earth for human inhabitation that doesn't equal all life is extinct.

SketchySeaBeast 9y ago

That sounds like a twisted sort of indentured servitude - "I gave you life, so you owe me". I think you might be better served getting yourself a dog.

autokad 9y ago
when did I say anything about "I gave you life, so you owe me"? if I have a child for what ever reason, I should still be a good parent. I think the same is true for owning a dog....

klibertp 9y ago

A single downvote is not enough to express how much I hate this mindset. A thousand words would be probably not enough either. > having a child is for the parents, not the child. It's beyond me how you can even write such a statement. Children are not things. They are not property. They are not "for" anything. Children are human. They are independent individuals. You can't own them, you can't abuse them, you can't ruin their lives just because you once decided to have unprotected sex. > its sad that people have forgotten that. That's like saying that it's sad that people forgot how natural and beneficial slavery is. With a mindset like that, I'd say that even a dog would be too big a responsibility. Get a Roomba instead. At least it won't suffer because of you. > and its not terrible either. Oh yes, it is. More often than not. > this is part of the culture That says literally nothing about how good - in just about any sense of the word - it is. I believe you're a strong supporter of death by stoning too - it's a cultural thing, after all.