4 ms·

I only recently realized* and internalized the fact that I don't need to have children. The social pressure to do it is enormous, even if it is not explicit. Th

I only recently realized* and internalized the fact that I don't need to have children. The social pressure to do it is enormous, even if it is not explicit. This article is yet another data point that it is not a good idea to have kids unless you actually want to. * Through this wonderfully thought-provoking site: http://vhemt.org/ http://vhemt.org/ . Highly recommended read.

wyclif 16y ago
I think you completely missed the irony of the article.
- bajsejohannes 16y ago
  I guess I did, and I still do - I didn't see any irony there, just analyzing and poking fun at the original article. I might have read it a bit to quickly, but what I got out of it was that kids won't make you any more or less happy than you were: The original article stating that you will become unhappy, and this rebuttal saying that your happiness is determined by yourself, not your kid. So my conclusion was -- though poorly worded -- that, if I don't really want kids now, I certainly won't be happier if I DO try to get one now.
barrkel 16y ago
I found vhemt.org unfunny, bleating and dim-witted. The very dogma it attacks is on the basis of another dogma, almost entirely composed out of the naturalistic fallacy and appeal to nature. YMMV.
- bajsejohannes 16y ago
  I certainly agree that they take it too far. I don't see what's so great about a planet with no people, and how it is it better than what we have now. What I do find interesting, is the idea that having a child can be seen in an environmental and altruistic light. For me, it was a new thought that not having kids might be a good choice for myself, my girlfriend and the world in general. An empty world would be a horribly sad thing, but perhaps a billion fewer people would make the world better for the remaining six billion. (And for the record, I'm talking about voluntarily getting fewer, not any forced methods)
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Wouldn't the exact same arguments also work for suicide? Just saying - there might be other aspects we tend to consider when deciding to stay alive.
three14 16y ago
vhemt.org seems like a wonderful Christian-fundamentalist right-winger site. Just persuade all the liberals to stop breeding, and wait a few years.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Unfortunately (perhaps?), those ideas seem to have become very popular (I have heard from many people that they don't want to have children because there already are too many people). Not saying people should have children, but to not have children for ideological reasons seems likely to backfire. The problem with children is that eventually it is too late to change one's mind, at least for women.
qjz 16y ago
The pressure to have children is biological. If you could measure it, there is arguably more social pressure NOT to have children than otherwise.
- telemachos 16y ago
  How about this? The biological pressure is to have sex, and only indirectly to have children. The only direct pressure to have children (as such) is social (people asking about grandchildren, cultural values, tax rates, etc.). I'm not sure if I believe this, but I do want to distinguish the target of the biological drive versus the social pushing. On the other side, why do you think there is more social pressure not to have children? As a (childless) married male in his 40s, I can say I've experienced a ton of social pressure to have children and zero pressure not to. I grant that this is anecdotal, but I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on - no evidence comes to mind.
  - DannoHung 16y ago
    There is a biological pressure to have grandchildren. That is why there is a social pressure to have children.
  - pchristensen 16y ago
    "The biological pressure is to have sex, and only indirectly to have children." I'm guessing you're a man.
    - telemachos 16y ago
      You don't have to guess if you read my response. That said, I believe the same goes for women. The biological push is towards sex; children are a result (sometimes) of the sex. (You can argue about variance of intensity or frequency of desire among males and females, of course. I'm not sure what I think about all that, though my instinct is to say that a lot of the variance is cultural rather than biological. But that's neither here nor there, at the moment.) Here's a way to play with this claim. Imagine you have a person (male or female) in the right age range. Would giving the person a child to care for by itself remove or diminish the person's desire for sex? I'm not so sure. (Note, I'm not talking about exhaustion due to taking care of a child - a clear side-effect, nor about the biological changes that occur after childbirth.) Again, I'm thinking about this issue myself, but I don't think it's cut-and-dried male/female, as you imply.

wyclif 16y ago

I think you completely missed the irony of the article.

bajsejohannes 16y ago
I guess I did, and I still do - I didn't see any irony there, just analyzing and poking fun at the original article. I might have read it a bit to quickly, but what I got out of it was that kids won't make you any more or less happy than you were: The original article stating that you will become unhappy, and this rebuttal saying that your happiness is determined by yourself, not your kid. So my conclusion was -- though poorly worded -- that, if I don't really want kids now, I certainly won't be happier if I DO try to get one now.

barrkel 16y ago

I found vhemt.org unfunny, bleating and dim-witted. The very dogma it attacks is on the basis of another dogma, almost entirely composed out of the naturalistic fallacy and appeal to nature. YMMV.

bajsejohannes 16y ago
I certainly agree that they take it too far. I don't see what's so great about a planet with no people, and how it is it better than what we have now. What I do find interesting, is the idea that having a child can be seen in an environmental and altruistic light. For me, it was a new thought that not having kids might be a good choice for myself, my girlfriend and the world in general. An empty world would be a horribly sad thing, but perhaps a billion fewer people would make the world better for the remaining six billion. (And for the record, I'm talking about voluntarily getting fewer, not any forced methods)
- Tichy 16y ago
  Wouldn't the exact same arguments also work for suicide? Just saying - there might be other aspects we tend to consider when deciding to stay alive.

three14 16y ago

vhemt.org seems like a wonderful Christian-fundamentalist right-winger site. Just persuade all the liberals to stop breeding, and wait a few years.

Tichy 16y ago
Unfortunately (perhaps?), those ideas seem to have become very popular (I have heard from many people that they don't want to have children because there already are too many people). Not saying people should have children, but to not have children for ideological reasons seems likely to backfire. The problem with children is that eventually it is too late to change one's mind, at least for women.

qjz 16y ago

The pressure to have children is biological. If you could measure it, there is arguably more social pressure NOT to have children than otherwise.

telemachos 16y ago
How about this? The biological pressure is to have sex, and only indirectly to have children. The only direct pressure to have children (as such) is social (people asking about grandchildren, cultural values, tax rates, etc.). I'm not sure if I believe this, but I do want to distinguish the target of the biological drive versus the social pushing. On the other side, why do you think there is more social pressure not to have children? As a (childless) married male in his 40s, I can say I've experienced a ton of social pressure to have children and zero pressure not to. I grant that this is anecdotal, but I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on - no evidence comes to mind.
- DannoHung 16y ago
  There is a biological pressure to have grandchildren. That is why there is a social pressure to have children.
- pchristensen 16y ago
  "The biological pressure is to have sex, and only indirectly to have children." I'm guessing you're a man.
  - telemachos 16y ago
    You don't have to guess if you read my response. That said, I believe the same goes for women. The biological push is towards sex; children are a result (sometimes) of the sex. (You can argue about variance of intensity or frequency of desire among males and females, of course. I'm not sure what I think about all that, though my instinct is to say that a lot of the variance is cultural rather than biological. But that's neither here nor there, at the moment.) Here's a way to play with this claim. Imagine you have a person (male or female) in the right age range. Would giving the person a child to care for by itself remove or diminish the person's desire for sex? I'm not so sure. (Note, I'm not talking about exhaustion due to taking care of a child - a clear side-effect, nor about the biological changes that occur after childbirth.) Again, I'm thinking about this issue myself, but I don't think it's cut-and-dried male/female, as you imply.