4 ms·

It’s selfish in the same way that not giving away most of your lifetime earnings to a stranger is selfish. You could call that selfish, but you’d be in scarce c

It’s selfish in the same way that not giving away most of your lifetime earnings to a stranger is selfish. You could call that selfish, but you’d be in scarce company.

sershe 6y ago
This analogy is false, it's nothing like that at all. Giving or not giving up earnings is a massive change in your life. Having an adopted child or your own child is no change whatsoever other than some hormonal high for yourself; for the rest of the society/environment, adding a first world child is actually a negative. If you want a funny analogy, a better one would be giving $1000 to charity (adoption) or giving $500 to charity, setting $250 worth of coal on fire and using $250 to buy weed so you could feel good about that all (your own kid).
- toasterlovin 6y ago
  I'm not sure what to say. We are biological beings and, as such, we are the result of evolution. The vast majority of us prefer our close relatives and, especially, our children by definition. There is no other state of affairs that can obtain. If you want to argue that people who fall in line with this are selfish, then fine. But that is not typically how the word is used. It is typically used to denote people who act selfishly above and beyond the baseline level of preference that we all have for our relatives, friends, and other parochial relations.
  - sershe 6y ago
    Evolution by this rather simplistic understanding also would drive (and does drive) people to usurp maximum resources for themselves and their progeny - so, to do everything from hoarding to nepotism, self-dealing and corruption - basically, the definition of selfishness. Usually, when pretending that child-rearing is not selfish (and IMO it's more selfish than paragliding or eating cake), people refer to making sacrifices towards the child; but that is satisfied by adoption.
    - toasterlovin 6y ago
      There is a difference between an action being selfish in an absolute sense and an action being more selfish than some alternative action. Having your own children is more selfish than adopting children. But neither is selfish.
      - sershe 6y ago
        There's no such thing as selfish in absolute sense, it would still be relative to some threshold. It's the only metric that matters in this case - you have a choice to have your own kid or adopt, you have your own kid. Your motivation for this specific choice is strictly selfish. I'm not saying it's bad - it's your choice. But, don't preach about selflessness like most pro-natalists do; I climb rocks, and I don't preach about it even though it's less selfish (by harm done) than having kids.
        toasterlovin 6y ago
        Okay, starting from the beginning, because we’ve gotten sidetracked here. This is your original comment: > Doesn't that mean that having children is basically selfish? You were not originally making the point that having your own children was selfish compared to adopting. You were stating that it was selfish, in and of itself. Basically selfish. I still maintain that it is not, and I don’t believe you have actually argued successfully that it is. The main argument you seem to be making is that, because having your own children is more selfish than adopting, that makes it selfish in a general sense, since those are the only two options. But another option when it comes to reproducing is not having any children at all. And I can’t really see how you can argue that having your own children is more selfish than not having any children at all, since having children involves giving another person the chance to be alive at great personal cost and not having children involves no personal sacrifice and no other person getting the chance to be alive. So the only viable position that remains is to say that having your own children is more selfish than adopting. If that’s your position, then we are in agreement.
        sershe 6y ago

It’s selfish in the same way that not giving away most of your lifetime earnings to a stranger is selfish. You could call that selfish, but you’d be in scarce company.

sershe 6y ago

This analogy is false, it's nothing like that at all. Giving or not giving up earnings is a massive change in your life. Having an adopted child or your own child is no change whatsoever other than some hormonal high for yourself; for the rest of the society/environment, adding a first world child is actually a negative. If you want a funny analogy, a better one would be giving $1000 to charity (adoption) or giving $500 to charity, setting $250 worth of coal on fire and using $250 to buy weed so you could feel good about that all (your own kid).

toasterlovin 6y ago
I'm not sure what to say. We are biological beings and, as such, we are the result of evolution. The vast majority of us prefer our close relatives and, especially, our children by definition. There is no other state of affairs that can obtain. If you want to argue that people who fall in line with this are selfish, then fine. But that is not typically how the word is used. It is typically used to denote people who act selfishly above and beyond the baseline level of preference that we all have for our relatives, friends, and other parochial relations.
- sershe 6y ago
  Evolution by this rather simplistic understanding also would drive (and does drive) people to usurp maximum resources for themselves and their progeny - so, to do everything from hoarding to nepotism, self-dealing and corruption - basically, the definition of selfishness. Usually, when pretending that child-rearing is not selfish (and IMO it's more selfish than paragliding or eating cake), people refer to making sacrifices towards the child; but that is satisfied by adoption.
  - toasterlovin 6y ago
    There is a difference between an action being selfish in an absolute sense and an action being more selfish than some alternative action. Having your own children is more selfish than adopting children. But neither is selfish.
    - sershe 6y ago
      There's no such thing as selfish in absolute sense, it would still be relative to some threshold. It's the only metric that matters in this case - you have a choice to have your own kid or adopt, you have your own kid. Your motivation for this specific choice is strictly selfish. I'm not saying it's bad - it's your choice. But, don't preach about selflessness like most pro-natalists do; I climb rocks, and I don't preach about it even though it's less selfish (by harm done) than having kids.
      - toasterlovin 6y ago
        Okay, starting from the beginning, because we’ve gotten sidetracked here. This is your original comment: > Doesn't that mean that having children is basically selfish? You were not originally making the point that having your own children was selfish compared to adopting. You were stating that it was selfish, in and of itself. Basically selfish. I still maintain that it is not, and I don’t believe you have actually argued successfully that it is. The main argument you seem to be making is that, because having your own children is more selfish than adopting, that makes it selfish in a general sense, since those are the only two options. But another option when it comes to reproducing is not having any children at all. And I can’t really see how you can argue that having your own children is more selfish than not having any children at all, since having children involves giving another person the chance to be alive at great personal cost and not having children involves no personal sacrifice and no other person getting the chance to be alive. So the only viable position that remains is to say that having your own children is more selfish than adopting. If that’s your position, then we are in agreement.
        sershe 6y ago