7 ms·

I'm glad the population is mind-bogglingly large so I don't feel obligated to have kids. I can save a lot of money and enjoy peace & quiet while I get better at

I'm glad the population is mind-bogglingly large so I don't feel obligated to have kids. I can save a lot of money and enjoy peace & quiet while I get better at skateboarding and science and playing video games. Plus, no wife. I never have to do things I don't want to. I never have to please anybody. It rocks.

ngngngng 7y ago
You should feel obligated. I believe your opinion is similar to climate change denial since all the experts on the subject disagree with you.
- ecoled_ame 7y ago
  Sounds like extra work and and an unwanted nuisance to my life of leisure. Plus I love alone time, I could never live with a woman long enough to breed with her. Whenever I walk in public, all I can think is jeez ... there are so many random people. Seems like we need better planning. People just have kids on whim, to satisfy themselves, like a life goal. It doesn't make much sense to me. I think mostly ladies want children.
  - glofish 7y ago
    There is nothing wrong with not wanting kids. Makes sense. That being said I would recommend toning down the rhetoric of how much better you're off for not having kids - it rings fake and forced as if you needed to convince yourself repeatedly and it is needlessly antagonistic. The analogy is that of having a dog. I'd like to have a dog. I think it is fun to have a dog. Alas, dogs are not for me, they feel the kind of work and responsibility that I am not ready for. But I respect and admire people that have dogs! I am not going to say that I am so much better off for not having a dog.
    - balfirevic 7y ago
      > I am not going to say that I am much better off for not having a dog. But why not? It doesn't diminish dogs or other people who have dogs in any way, it just means that for you personally disadvantages outweigh advantages. So not having a dog will, on balance, make you... well, better-off.
      - glofish 7y ago
        Because as I pointed out it is already implied and serves no other purpose just antagonize and rub it into someone's face. As a matter of fact it is not even clear that I am better off, I may just think I am, mistakenly. So why reiterate. Finally, the traits that keep me from having a dog are not necessarily virtues, most likely not traits that make a better person.
        balfirevic 7y ago
        > Finally, the traits that keep me from having a dog are not necessarily virtues, most likely not traits that make a better person. Honestly, I wish more people would speak up more about this topic, although not in an antagonizing way that ecoled_ame did. Precisely in order to fight a stereotype that not wanting dogs or children (well, I guess it's more prevalent for the children) makes you a worse person. But I also understand anyone who just doesn't want to announce it or discuss it.
        kelnos 7y ago
        Anyone who suggests that your reasons/traits for not wanting a dog (or children) makes you a worse person needs to shut up and mind their own selves, which are likely filled with a lot of negative traits as well.
    - ecoled_ame 7y ago
      My antagonism is not needless - in fact it serves my purpose. I want to see family values annihilated.
    - buboard 7y ago
      > That being said I would recommend toning down the rhetoric of how much better you're off for not having kids We could also entertain the reverse: that too much emphasis and pressure is being put on someone being a parent. There is a very widespread self-congratulatory element to being a parent (to the point that many people list it as a job title). But having children is something that people have been doing quite easily and nonchalantly from the beginning of time until these last 2 generations, which spend twice as much as before with their kids (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/27/parents-now-spend-twice-as-much-time-with-their-children-as-50-years-ago https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/27/parents-...). There is a parenting bubble that is scaring people away from having children, and maybe it should be addressed as a problem. Edit: Also, i feel a lot of people have dogs because there are no societal expectations about how to raise your dog. They are much easier to have than children.
      - kelnos 7y ago
        I'd like to chime in and agree with this, but perhaps with a bit of a different twist. There are tons of reasons why people are pressured into having kids, and very few people reminding others that having children is a choice, not to mention a huge responsibility. I think we'd have a much happier, safer world if the only people who had kids were those who truly wanted them. Parental, spousal, and peer pressure to have children is very real and very strong, but IMO has no place in being a part of that decision.
        buboard 7y ago
        > is a choice, not to mention a huge responsibility. Actually, i think these two are inversely correlated. The demands from parents have become crazy for no apparent benefit. It's illegal to raise kids as they did 2 generations ago. It would become more of a choice if people at large relaxed a bit and let kids be kids or learn by themselves, or in tiny neighborhood groups.
        kelnos 7y ago
        Not sure I follow. I don't see how the changing legality of parenting style has anything to do with whether or not it's a choice to have a kid or not.
- glofish 7y ago
  don't badger the man, the world (and Earth) is much better off with fewer people, it is called quorum-sensing in science, many organisms stop reproducing then they overpopulate, humanity should do the same, if it is a philosophy that is followed, so much better, everyone is better off
- myu701 7y ago
  I'll bite. Why should that user feel obligated to have children? There are other users on this site (I'm not one of them) that argue that the world is suffering from overpopulation. I'm interested to hear your perspective as to why the opposite is not only okay, but imperative.
aSplash0fDerp 7y ago
You sound like you may fall into the category of having a brood later in life (the 50yo+ untethered sugar daddy demographic). IMO, unless you find a partner that's going the same direction, you're doing the right thing while you're young. Its a nice perk that in modern times we can have children in our 50's and still live long enough to see them into adulthood (though maybe not see them raise a family if they follow in your footsteps). I think the trifecta you're looking for is.. No Kids, No Alimony... And NO CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS during the best years of your life. If they call you selfish, ask them if they regret their freedom of choice. Theres a good chance they were never free.

ngngngng 7y ago

You should feel obligated. I believe your opinion is similar to climate change denial since all the experts on the subject disagree with you.

ecoled_ame 7y ago
Sounds like extra work and and an unwanted nuisance to my life of leisure. Plus I love alone time, I could never live with a woman long enough to breed with her. Whenever I walk in public, all I can think is jeez ... there are so many random people. Seems like we need better planning. People just have kids on whim, to satisfy themselves, like a life goal. It doesn't make much sense to me. I think mostly ladies want children.
- glofish 7y ago
  There is nothing wrong with not wanting kids. Makes sense. That being said I would recommend toning down the rhetoric of how much better you're off for not having kids - it rings fake and forced as if you needed to convince yourself repeatedly and it is needlessly antagonistic. The analogy is that of having a dog. I'd like to have a dog. I think it is fun to have a dog. Alas, dogs are not for me, they feel the kind of work and responsibility that I am not ready for. But I respect and admire people that have dogs! I am not going to say that I am so much better off for not having a dog.
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    > I am not going to say that I am much better off for not having a dog. But why not? It doesn't diminish dogs or other people who have dogs in any way, it just means that for you personally disadvantages outweigh advantages. So not having a dog will, on balance, make you... well, better-off.
    - glofish 7y ago
      Because as I pointed out it is already implied and serves no other purpose just antagonize and rub it into someone's face. As a matter of fact it is not even clear that I am better off, I may just think I am, mistakenly. So why reiterate. Finally, the traits that keep me from having a dog are not necessarily virtues, most likely not traits that make a better person.
      - balfirevic 7y ago
        > Finally, the traits that keep me from having a dog are not necessarily virtues, most likely not traits that make a better person. Honestly, I wish more people would speak up more about this topic, although not in an antagonizing way that ecoled_ame did. Precisely in order to fight a stereotype that not wanting dogs or children (well, I guess it's more prevalent for the children) makes you a worse person. But I also understand anyone who just doesn't want to announce it or discuss it.
      - kelnos 7y ago
        Anyone who suggests that your reasons/traits for not wanting a dog (or children) makes you a worse person needs to shut up and mind their own selves, which are likely filled with a lot of negative traits as well.
  - ecoled_ame 7y ago
    My antagonism is not needless - in fact it serves my purpose. I want to see family values annihilated.
  - buboard 7y ago
    > That being said I would recommend toning down the rhetoric of how much better you're off for not having kids We could also entertain the reverse: that too much emphasis and pressure is being put on someone being a parent. There is a very widespread self-congratulatory element to being a parent (to the point that many people list it as a job title). But having children is something that people have been doing quite easily and nonchalantly from the beginning of time until these last 2 generations, which spend twice as much as before with their kids (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/27/parents-now-spend-twice-as-much-time-with-their-children-as-50-years-ago https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/27/parents-...). There is a parenting bubble that is scaring people away from having children, and maybe it should be addressed as a problem. Edit: Also, i feel a lot of people have dogs because there are no societal expectations about how to raise your dog. They are much easier to have than children.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      I'd like to chime in and agree with this, but perhaps with a bit of a different twist. There are tons of reasons why people are pressured into having kids, and very few people reminding others that having children is a choice, not to mention a huge responsibility. I think we'd have a much happier, safer world if the only people who had kids were those who truly wanted them. Parental, spousal, and peer pressure to have children is very real and very strong, but IMO has no place in being a part of that decision.
      - buboard 7y ago
        > is a choice, not to mention a huge responsibility. Actually, i think these two are inversely correlated. The demands from parents have become crazy for no apparent benefit. It's illegal to raise kids as they did 2 generations ago. It would become more of a choice if people at large relaxed a bit and let kids be kids or learn by themselves, or in tiny neighborhood groups.
        kelnos 7y ago
        Not sure I follow. I don't see how the changing legality of parenting style has anything to do with whether or not it's a choice to have a kid or not.
glofish 7y ago
don't badger the man, the world (and Earth) is much better off with fewer people, it is called quorum-sensing in science, many organisms stop reproducing then they overpopulate, humanity should do the same, if it is a philosophy that is followed, so much better, everyone is better off
myu701 7y ago
I'll bite. Why should that user feel obligated to have children? There are other users on this site (I'm not one of them) that argue that the world is suffering from overpopulation. I'm interested to hear your perspective as to why the opposite is not only okay, but imperative.

aSplash0fDerp 7y ago

You sound like you may fall into the category of having a brood later in life (the 50yo+ untethered sugar daddy demographic). IMO, unless you find a partner that's going the same direction, you're doing the right thing while you're young. Its a nice perk that in modern times we can have children in our 50's and still live long enough to see them into adulthood (though maybe not see them raise a family if they follow in your footsteps). I think the trifecta you're looking for is.. No Kids, No Alimony... And NO CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS during the best years of your life. If they call you selfish, ask them if they regret their freedom of choice. Theres a good chance they were never free.