Is it selfish to have children?

[Oryx]

Guess I misunderstood it. I thought he was mentioning that acts of depopulation should be endorsed. Of course if you support the fluoride in the water you're really no different.

What he was doing was showing the two options for lowering the population, and logically explaining why, since one is immoral and cannot be done, the other is necessary for the survival of the human race (or at least to lower the population).

 

[Oryx]

But it's not a human's right to dictate who should have kids no matter what you say or how you feel about it.

But I think the point was more that it is selfish to have children because not having children is the only way to decrease the looming threat of overpopulation. I don't think he was lobbying for a full-out ban on having children (well it's possible with his stance on kids :P), but more so relating to the argument of "not having children is the only way to stop overpopulation issues, you choose to still have children, therefore you're thinking about yourself and not the rest of the world, which is selfish".

 

[Dakotah]

But I think the point was more that it is selfish to have children because not having children is the only way to decrease the looming threat of overpopulation.

While the population level is pretty high, this is quickly being offset by the fact we are facing an ever increasingly aging population. More and more people are becoming senior citizens, while less and less people are having children. So while it is true that this world does have more people on it than have ever been on it before, unless we start having more children, the number of people in the world will soon begin to reverse, and we'll see a population decline rather than an increase.

 

[Shining Raichu]

But it's not a human's right to dictate who should have kids no matter what you say or how you feel about it.

I'm not dictating who should have kids. I'm not discriminating. I'm saying everybody needs to slow it down. In any case, I'm expressing an opinion - and while I wish the world would actually listen to what I have to say, I am under no impression that I have the power to stop anybody from doing anything.

While the population level is pretty high, this is quickly being offset by the fact we are facing an ever increasingly aging population. More and more people are becoming senior citizens, while less and less people are having children. So while it is true that this world does have more people on it than have ever been on it before, unless we start having more children, the number of people in the world will soon begin to reverse, and we'll see a population decline rather than an increase.

Excellent!

 

[phonastik]

I've been thinking about this for a while. I think that there's a certain selfishness about it. There is no reason to bring a child into a world which cannot support it, especially when there are millions of children who are suffering the effects of overpopulation, overfarming, water shortages, et cetera.

And also, there's a certain arrogance about the fact that two people think they're so fantastic that there should be a person in the world that's basically them combined. :P

 

[Esper]

Now that I've been thinking about this topic for a little bit I'm starting to feel that having children isn't inherently selfish, but that there are a lot of factors that play into it which make having children more or less selfish.

For instance: if you already have three children I'd give your idea of having a fourth one a +1 selfish score. If you're also living on minimum wage jobs I'd give that another +1. But if, say, it was your first child and you had waited to save up money despite working minimum wage jobs I'd call that a -1 on the selfish scale since you planned ahead.

I still believe that in most cases it's going to be selfish because there are just too many cases where people don't plan ahead and don't think about the consequences of having children - both for the world as a whole and for themselves and their child's sake.

 

[-ty-]

Now that I've been thinking about this topic for a little bit I'm starting to feel that having children isn't inherently selfish, but that there are a lot of factors that play into it which make having children more or less selfish.

For instance: if you already have three children I'd give your idea of having a fourth one a +1 selfish score. If you're also living on minimum wage jobs I'd give that another +1. But if, say, it was your first child and you had waited to save up money despite working minimum wage jobs I'd call that a -1 on the selfish scale since you planned ahead.

I still believe that in most cases it's going to be selfish because there are just too many cases where people don't plan ahead and don't think about the consequences of having children - both for the world as a whole and for themselves and their child's sake.

I agree that it all depends on the circumstances. I know several parents that live off government checks and child support, and essentially, are financially set because they have several children. The children, however, have a poor upbringing both financially and a lot of time it is lacking emotionally. Also, unless you are raking in six figures, it could be a bit selfish to have more than 5 kids.

In other circumstances, parents give up a lot in order for their children to have better lives; that sacrifice is an exemplary display of a selfless parent. Before I think about having kids I have some planning ahead to do, as Scarf states; I would have to have a stable well-paid job. I am not saying that money is the only thing that goes into selfless parenting, but it is a prerequisite if you want them to feel safe, happy, and to help them strive toward their dreams and goals.

 

[chella182]

People who "crank out kids" are probably doing it for the money. In this country, anyway. Honestly, if you're under 25, not disabled, not a parent and not living with your parents you barely have ANY way of making proper money to pay your rent and bills. Having children is a sure fire way of getting money like child benefit and a house if you need one! And, of course, it's better than disabling yourself!

I'm not sure where I stand on the "it's selfish to have children if you just want to be a parent" thing... I mean, I don't really want to be a parent, but it's a bit of an... "out there" thing to claim, that parents who just wanna be parents are selfish, so I'm not sure.

 

[lacella]

i'm just going to say, that i don't think overpopulation is the problem - i think it's the mismanagement of wealth, land and resources.

but seeing the state we currently are in, i'd have to agree with toujours - selfish things are done every day, and i'd say having a baby is one of the least on that list.

do i think it's selfish? kind of. but i also think shopping for clothes just because is selfish, when that money could be used to donate to charity, so, you know.

the only time i'd REALLY say it was selfish to have kids, was if the parents knew beforehand that they could not take care of it. condoms, peeps!

 

[c l e a r]

Personally, their children laws are too lax all around the world. You got people that are incapable to raise children have children, and there is nothing to can be done about it; mostly due to the stupid laws and standards that have been made.

 

[Livewire]

Speaking of having too many Children, the Duggar's 20th child was miscarried. People like them would fit the bill as selfish, as the OP suggested.

 

[Mr. X]

For most couples I'd say 'Sorry for your loss'

I don't care if you think im a insensitive prick but you know what I say about the Duggars? Better luck next time. Know why I say that? Because, as history shows us, they will keep having children for as long as physically possible.

Although, I do feel sorry for them. With all the children they have, imagine the number of grandchildren they will get. I can say now, family reunion's and family gatherings are going to be pure hell due to the immense size.

Still, I've nothing against a couple having kids. Want some kids? Go ahread, have a few. But that doesn't mean you should keep making them just because you still have the ability to.

 

[Nihilego]

Personally, their children laws are too lax all around the world. You got people that are incapable to raise children have children, and there is nothing to can be done about it; mostly due to the stupid laws and standards that have been made.

How do you judge if someone is fit to raise a child? I don't see how you could distinguish a capable parent from an incapable one in such a way that a law could be made against incapables ones having children. And then suppose the incapable one becomes pregnant anyway. Forced abortion? That's not something I'd ever like to see.

 

[Nick]

I remember about five or six years ago (maybe more), my only thought about sex was: Why would anyone want to have it if they don't want to have a child? Since most humans are very, very sexual beings, having sex would mean that children would be the outcome so it just seemed logical to me that when people had sex, they were trying for a baby.

Is it selfish to not have children? I know I don't want children, and while that may change in the future, that's how I feel about it now, but this question and my feelings on having children makes me wonder if that's selfishness on my part. Isn't it within the 'cycle of life', if you will, to be born into a family, be raised by their parents, find someone they care about, settle down, have kids and start a family, and repeat the process they lived as a child, only assuming the opposite role? It seems selfish to me to not have children, as opposed to having them.

 

[doesn't matter]

Wait... do people seriously think that global overpopulation is a problem? Honestly?

Now I know none of you are posting from Africa or Asia, where there is severe overpopulation problems, but none of you are talking specifically about those areas of the world either.

The West, where most of us come from and currently reside, has absolutely no current problem with overpopulation. Nothing, nadda, zilch. Any fears you have are drummed up by special interest groups (environmentalists being the main culprits), to gain support for their proposals. Governments love it because its a way for them to increase their power - just look at China for instance.

If you really wanted to curb population growth in the West, then you should be anti-immigration. They are responsible for most of the population growth in Western countries, both through arrivals and their above-average birth rates. Women in Western countries, on the other hand, are having so few children on average that in a couple of decades a population decline is expected. You don't notice this however because we keep on replacing the local population with immigrants.

In any case, overpopulation is a self-regulating problem, that is, once it becomes a problem, it solves itself. How do you ask? Well if there isn't enough for everyone to survive, then the excess members of the population will die, immediately rectifying the "overpopulation problem".

But still, if you're gullible enough to believe the world is in danger of being overpopulated, then just do what they did in the West - encourage feminism. It's the only proven way to reduce the number of children a woman has in her lifetime.

 

[Esper]

But still, if you're gullible enough to believe the world is in danger of being overpopulated, then just do what they did in the West - encourage feminism. It's the only proven way to reduce the number of children a woman has in her lifetime.

The slight about being gullible aside, this is quite honestly the best solution (and I don't just mean to overpopulation). When women have the freedom to decide how many children they want to have (as opposed to having however many children they end up with because of lack of availability/knowledge of contraception and so on) they tend to have have fewer children than they would otherwise.

 

[doesn't matter]

The slight about being gullible aside, this is quite honestly the best solution (and I don't just mean to overpopulation). When women have the freedom to decide how many children they want to have (as opposed to having however many children they end up with because of lack of availability/knowledge of contraception and so on) they tend to have have fewer children than they would otherwise.

Why put it aside? Overpopulation is not a problem at all, and yet everyone seems to fall for the fear mongering. Our countries are suffering from decreased fertility rates anyway, and the only reason why population numbers are still increasing so much is because we keep on importing foreigners (who tend to have more children since they haven't been indoctrinated into feminism). If you are so concerned about overpopulation, then you should be anti-immigration. Then we will experience a decline in population as fertility rates will go below the replacement rate (along with a decrease in productivity as our population ages... unless we start using more robots, which is what Japan is doing).

It's not completely to do with "freedom to decide", but the pressures to put aside family for a career. However, they can't resist the natural yearnings in their womb for a family, and once they start hearing that biological clock of theirs ticking in their 30s ;), many start to have families then. Of course, by that age they are quite old and can't have as many children, hence the decline in fertility rates that are evident in countries afflicted by feminism.