4 ms·

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

by Teever 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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).
twelve40 4y ago
> If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Probably not (it's a bit judgemental), but if their parents decided to never have children and chilax on the beach instead, they would not have existed at all, and neither would any of their achievements.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  Now say the same about (say) Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), etc., etc.: What would have happened if their parents had decided to just chilax on the beach and not have kids? That's right: Their "accomplishments" would never have been "shared" with the rest of us, either.
  - twelve40 4y ago
    Yes, it's much harder to invest time, health, money and effort to properly raise kids who do wonders rather than to abuse and to raise fuckups. What is the point you are trying to make, that it's not worth trying?
    - Teever 4y ago
      No, the point is that you shouldn't cast shade on people who don't have kids and call them selfish. There are a lot of good reasons why individuals decide, or happen through circumstance to not have kids. And not having kids isn't some intrinsic mark of shittiness that people must wear.
clnq 4y ago
I don't hold a firm stance on whether choosing not to have children is selfish, though I tend to believe it isn't. Nonetheless, the most compelling arguments suggesting that it could be selfish include: - ending the family lineage, despite your ancestors' efforts to preserve it; - relying on society for support in old age; - failing to contribute to the growth of a culture, society, nation, advancement or humanity; - depriving yourself or your partner of the potential fulfilment found in raising children; - and disobeying a religious divine command to procreate, possibly resulting in negative consequences for humanity prescribed by religious beliefs. Since these arguments are circumstantial, hinging on factors like religion, culture, technology, and taxation, their strength varies among individuals. For instance, in cultures valuing social cohesion and unity through religion (e.g., Polish culture), these arguments may carry more weight than in cultures prioritizing free choice and individualism (e.g., Western culture and values). In the West, some might argue that pressuring others to have children is selfish, as: - there may be personal gain involved, such as parents wanting their children to have kids for their own enjoyment or to pass on their values; - it disrespects personal autonomy and choice of would-be parents; - it exacerbates future environmental and population issues for short-term personal happiness or fulfilment; - it ignores a child's right to a good quality of life in cases where parents might struggle to provide it; - it diverts resources from other families in need. However, the strength of these arguments also varies among individuals. For example, someone who firmly believes that God prescribed procreation to humanity and that it will ultimately benefit everyone might not find the arguments against pressuring others to have children convincing. There is also often a significant amount of hand-waving on both sides of these arguments. For instance, some individuals defend their stance by suggesting that society should adapt to accommodate their position (e.g., addressing societal and ecological issues related to procreation through means other than discouraging procreation). Numerous related arguments inevitably also get invoked in these discussions, like whether and in what circumstances we should advise others on having children. For example, some argue that if prospective parents have a high likelihood of passing on a hereditary disease, they should refrain from procreating. This concept, known as eugenics, is controversial. Critics argue that it restricts bodily freedom and carries negative historical connotations, while proponents claim that it benefits society by easing resource scarcity and reducing the ecological strain on the planet. There are so many different aspects and strong opinions involved in the question of whether it's selfish not to have kids that it's really difficult to come up with a definitive answer. I am not convinced that the position that not having children is selfish is indefensible or stupid, even if I personally do not agree with it.

by Teever 4y ago

tivert 4y 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 4y 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).

twelve40 4y ago

> If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Probably not (it's a bit judgemental), but if their parents decided to never have children and chilax on the beach instead, they would not have existed at all, and neither would any of their achievements.

dctoedt 4y ago
Now say the same about (say) Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), etc., etc.: What would have happened if their parents had decided to just chilax on the beach and not have kids? That's right: Their "accomplishments" would never have been "shared" with the rest of us, either.
- twelve40 4y ago
  Yes, it's much harder to invest time, health, money and effort to properly raise kids who do wonders rather than to abuse and to raise fuckups. What is the point you are trying to make, that it's not worth trying?
  - Teever 4y ago
    No, the point is that you shouldn't cast shade on people who don't have kids and call them selfish. There are a lot of good reasons why individuals decide, or happen through circumstance to not have kids. And not having kids isn't some intrinsic mark of shittiness that people must wear.

clnq 4y ago

I don't hold a firm stance on whether choosing not to have children is selfish, though I tend to believe it isn't. Nonetheless, the most compelling arguments suggesting that it could be selfish include: - ending the family lineage, despite your ancestors' efforts to preserve it; - relying on society for support in old age; - failing to contribute to the growth of a culture, society, nation, advancement or humanity; - depriving yourself or your partner of the potential fulfilment found in raising children; - and disobeying a religious divine command to procreate, possibly resulting in negative consequences for humanity prescribed by religious beliefs. Since these arguments are circumstantial, hinging on factors like religion, culture, technology, and taxation, their strength varies among individuals. For instance, in cultures valuing social cohesion and unity through religion (e.g., Polish culture), these arguments may carry more weight than in cultures prioritizing free choice and individualism (e.g., Western culture and values). In the West, some might argue that pressuring others to have children is selfish, as: - there may be personal gain involved, such as parents wanting their children to have kids for their own enjoyment or to pass on their values; - it disrespects personal autonomy and choice of would-be parents; - it exacerbates future environmental and population issues for short-term personal happiness or fulfilment; - it ignores a child's right to a good quality of life in cases where parents might struggle to provide it; - it diverts resources from other families in need. However, the strength of these arguments also varies among individuals. For example, someone who firmly believes that God prescribed procreation to humanity and that it will ultimately benefit everyone might not find the arguments against pressuring others to have children convincing. There is also often a significant amount of hand-waving on both sides of these arguments. For instance, some individuals defend their stance by suggesting that society should adapt to accommodate their position (e.g., addressing societal and ecological issues related to procreation through means other than discouraging procreation). Numerous related arguments inevitably also get invoked in these discussions, like whether and in what circumstances we should advise others on having children. For example, some argue that if prospective parents have a high likelihood of passing on a hereditary disease, they should refrain from procreating. This concept, known as eugenics, is controversial. Critics argue that it restricts bodily freedom and carries negative historical connotations, while proponents claim that it benefits society by easing resource scarcity and reducing the ecological strain on the planet. There are so many different aspects and strong opinions involved in the question of whether it's selfish not to have kids that it's really difficult to come up with a definitive answer. I am not convinced that the position that not having children is selfish is indefensible or stupid, even if I personally do not agree with it.