7 ms·

I think it is actually selfish because you were given the greatest gift of all, life, and you should "pay it forward".

saiojd 3y ago
Not really selfish at all when you consider that the Earth's population cannot grow infinitely. Some people have kids, others don't, not a big deal.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  That’s assuming the human race naturally reducing or eventually dying out is considered selfish in the first place. We really place too much longevity of humans while extinguishing animals for sport.
- pokstad 3y ago
  That’s not necessarily true. The biggest resource constraint on the earth we can’t live without is food and we are extremely inefficient at producing it. Right now it takes large fields of biological crops, but the future might solve that problem.
  - saiojd 3y ago
    That's a good point. The more I think about it the more what I said was a way of rationalizing not agreeing with the parent comment. Even if there were no ressource constrains it still doesn't feel selfish to me not to have children.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  Every couple can have 2 kids and it would keep the population constant. In fact everyone having just 2 isn't enough, it has to be slightly higher, even with modern medicine.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    That would be assuming that we've not already overshot sustainable population. With every biodiversity marker pointing that we're in the middle of a mass extinction, it really does seem like that may be the case.
jfengel 3y ago
I am paying it forward. Many people will live better lives because of me. The fact that they share 99.99% of my genes rather than 99.999% is not my main concern.
eyelidlessness 3y ago
I didn’t ask for the gift and I don’t owe anyone anything for it. If you want to treat life as some kind of exchange, you at least need consent from the parties to it.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Sounds like a miserable point of view…
  - eyelidlessness 3y ago
    I’m happy that I’m under no obligation to procreate, nor to raise children I don’t want. What’s miserable about that?
gumby 3y ago
I don’t understand. You should have as many kids as you possibly can (à la Monty Python) to provide the “gift” as widely as possible? Or you owe other people (mostly ppl you don’t know) the existence of a child for some reason?
Teever 3y ago
I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from? How did you come to that conclusion, was it something you came to one day after careful consideration or was it something you heard one day and just started saying because everyone else was saying it? I don't mean that to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Like what's so selfish about it? If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Is someone who has 10 kids in poverty less selfish than someone not poor who only has 1? What's the ideal number of children to minimize selfishness?
- tivert 3y ago
  > I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from? Why is it so puzzling? You're part of a whole, and producing children is important work to sustain that whole. If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption). > If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Maybe people like that, with one-in-a-billion achievements, are the exceptions that prove the rule.... except they both also had children.
  - robotshmobot 3y ago
    > If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption). There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous. What's ridiculous is how much you completely misunderstood my comment. Personal "consumption" has nothing to do with the core idea I was talking about. The only way it factors in at all is like the "insult" in "add insult to injury" (i.e. an ancillary thing that just makes perception of an underlying issue worse).
nunez 3y ago
What does that even mean in this context? How is having kids you don't want "paying it forward?"

Not really selfish at all when you consider that the Earth's population cannot grow infinitely. Some people have kids, others don't, not a big deal.

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
That’s assuming the human race naturally reducing or eventually dying out is considered selfish in the first place. We really place too much longevity of humans while extinguishing animals for sport.
pokstad 3y ago
That’s not necessarily true. The biggest resource constraint on the earth we can’t live without is food and we are extremely inefficient at producing it. Right now it takes large fields of biological crops, but the future might solve that problem.
- saiojd 3y ago
  That's a good point. The more I think about it the more what I said was a way of rationalizing not agreeing with the parent comment. Even if there were no ressource constrains it still doesn't feel selfish to me not to have children.
antisthenes 3y ago
Every couple can have 2 kids and it would keep the population constant. In fact everyone having just 2 isn't enough, it has to be slightly higher, even with modern medicine.
- pixl97 3y ago
  That would be assuming that we've not already overshot sustainable population. With every biodiversity marker pointing that we're in the middle of a mass extinction, it really does seem like that may be the case.

jfengel 3y ago

I am paying it forward. Many people will live better lives because of me. The fact that they share 99.99% of my genes rather than 99.999% is not my main concern.

eyelidlessness 3y ago

I didn’t ask for the gift and I don’t owe anyone anything for it. If you want to treat life as some kind of exchange, you at least need consent from the parties to it.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Sounds like a miserable point of view…
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  I’m happy that I’m under no obligation to procreate, nor to raise children I don’t want. What’s miserable about that?

gumby 3y ago

I don’t understand. You should have as many kids as you possibly can (à la Monty Python) to provide the “gift” as widely as possible? Or you owe other people (mostly ppl you don’t know) the existence of a child for some reason?

Teever 3y ago

I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from? How did you come to that conclusion, was it something you came to one day after careful consideration or was it something you heard one day and just started saying because everyone else was saying it? I don't mean that to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Like what's so selfish about it? If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Is someone who has 10 kids in poverty less selfish than someone not poor who only has 1? What's the ideal number of children to minimize selfishness?

tivert 3y ago
> I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from? Why is it so puzzling? You're part of a whole, and producing children is important work to sustain that whole. If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption). > If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Maybe people like that, with one-in-a-billion achievements, are the exceptions that prove the rule.... except they both also had children.
- robotshmobot 3y ago
  > If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption). There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous. What's ridiculous is how much you completely misunderstood my comment. Personal "consumption" has nothing to do with the core idea I was talking about. The only way it factors in at all is like the "insult" in "add insult to injury" (i.e. an ancillary thing that just makes perception of an underlying issue worse).

nunez 3y ago

What does that even mean in this context? How is having kids you don't want "paying it forward?"