Is it selfish to have children?

[icomeanon6]

So then why should it be a basic human right? The burden of proof lies on the affirmative party; if you claim it's a human right, there should be a good reason why it ought to be other than "it will upset some people if it's not."

When it comes to natural rights the burden of proof lies on those who want to restrict them. I don't buy into the notion that human rights are just something that humans made up. Governments do not grant rights, and ideally they protect them.

If that doesn't satisfy you, then producing children is a basic human right because to claim the power to dictate the size of a family is to claim ownership of that family. No nation is justified in claiming ownership of its citizens.

I think one-child incentives are a perfectly reasonable way of implementing population controls; people are still free to have more than one child, they just won't receive government help for it. At worst, a few people would be upset for maybe a generation or two, after which it would be the norm and nobody would mind.

Oh. Well, if you're just talking about government discouraging people from having more children without ever infringing upon their right to do so, that's a bit better. What I'm talking about is more China's one-child policy and the fines, forced sterilizations, and forced abortions that come with it.

 

[Yoshikko]

I don't think it is selfish, no. As a matter of fact, I think that as an individual, human being, you are allowed to think more about yourself than the rest, in the end, it's your life which it should be about, from ones own point of view. Other people's problems or lives, shouldn't have priority over your own.

People call it selfish when you care more about yourself than others, when you put yourself ahead of others, or when you don't think about e.g. people who need food or water. I don't think that this is selfish, I think it's normal, it's the default, and it is good when someone puts others ahead of themselves, but it is not selfish if they don't. It shouldn't even be expected of someone that they give up something like having children, for the sake of others. An example, is organ donation. I've heard a lot of people say, that it is selfish when people don't want to put their organs up for donation. The thing is though, that it is a privilege when someone is willing to donate their organs, it is not at all a right, there is a big difference between those two. It is completely normal when someone doesn't want to donate, we should begin by assuming no one wants to donate their organs, make that the default, and then be thankful when someone does want it, instead of taking donation for credit.

I took this example, because it is a partly the same with having a child, while knowing that there are children up for adoption that need care, and thinking that is selfishness. It is not selfish when a person wants to have a child, my god, that is what nature has created us for. It is not selfish when someone wants a child of their own, instead of adopting a child. It is a privilege when someone is willing to adopt a child, it is normal when someone doesn't want that, and wants a child of their own. Another person's child, that is not your problem by default. It is good that some people are willing to take responsibility for it, but you are not at all obligated to do so. You come in the first place, unless you choose to do different, which is good, but people have started to assume this as default, people have started taking this for credit, and then when someone puts themselves first, people call it 'selfish', while actually it is completely normal.

This was more pointed at the 'selfishness', than having children and overpopulation, but I think that is what the question comes down to. Also, this is my opinion, I don't mean to offend anyone.

 

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

Then you completely missed the point. The point wasn't that they're related, it's that just because we have the capacity to do something doesn't mean we should go and do it. It wasn't that murder is somehow related to reproduction (that's silly).



Overpopulation is not a problem in some areas of the US and yet. Places like Detroit have major problems with overcrowding. Give it a few years and it'll get worse in other places. You're pushing the problem on to future generations and saying "well, since it's not here, I don't really care." That's a very selfish attitude.

I'm sorry, but I just can't 100 percent agree with the bolded part. If you have the capacity to eat, does that mean we shouldn't? If you have the capacity to drive, does that mean we shouldn't? I'd probably agree if the "something" that you mentioned is doing something bad, like killing, stealing, etc. But I do not think reproduction is a bad thing at all. It's what brings the next generation.

On the second paragraph, I've never actually experienced living in any overcrowded countries or cities, so I really have no idea how living in an overpopulated area actually feels like. Some might care about overpopulation, some might not. Overpopulation right now is on only few parts of the country, so personally I don't see overpopulation as an imminent danger, but if in the future (about 300-400 years from now) the entire world starts getting overpopulated and if it does get to be a problem, then there could possibly be a limitation on how many children that a family can have, but right now it's not a problem in most parts of America.

 

[Yoshikko]

Overpopulation is not a problem in some areas of the US and yet. Places like Detroit have major problems with overcrowding. Give it a few years and it'll get worse in other places. You're pushing the problem on to future generations and saying "well, since it's not here, I don't really care." That's a very selfish attitude.

Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with selfishness. If people would get kids, for the sake of just getting more kids into the world, it would be selfish. But since people take children because it is simply in our nature, instinct, and because we were given the option to conceive children, by nature, it is selfless. People don't do it with the idea of pushing a problem onto the next generation. I don't even think that we should have to bear the responsibility of what's going to happen in the next 100 years, considering reproducing.

I agree on that overpopulation is a problem in some areas, and that there are restrictions that should be made to prevent it from getting out of hand, but we are talking about a world-large scale here. I don't think that people, who don't live in overpopulated areas, should be held responsible. If you live at the other side of the world, there's nothing that you could, or even should do to prevent overpopulation in that country miles and miles and miles away, imo. But I agree on that it is a problem in some places.

 

[Esper]

I'm sorry, but I just can't 100 percent agree with the bolded part. If you have the capacity to eat, does that mean we shouldn't? If you have the capacity to drive, does that mean we shouldn't? I'd probably agree if the "something" that you mentioned is doing something bad, like killing, stealing, etc. But I do not think reproduction is a bad thing at all. It's what brings the next generation.

What he's saying is that you have a have a good reason for something aside from just having the ability to do it. You don't eat because you can. You eat because you need to do that to survive. You don't drive because you can, but because it's quicker or more convenient, though there are downsides as well that you should think about.

You shouldn't have kids just because you have the biological capacity. There has to be more reason for that because we have the capacity for thought and we can think about consequences of doing or not doing something.

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Having one or two children, not really selfish
Having 3+, possibly it is selfish.

 

[DowntownDumpling]

I don't plan to have any kids. It may be a little selfish, but I'm not going to yell at people who have kids, in front of their kids no less.

 

[Musanim]

No, it isn't really. Especially those little babies! :) :D =D =)

 

[Ice Car]

This is a hard one. Our population is indeed climbing too fast. Eventually the Earth will not be able to support the population with its resources and we will slowly die out. We should be preserving our resources and not be wasting them so much. Too many people live in the moment, not for the the future. Too many people care more about themselves than they do about anything else, just self-centered and not having giving a crap about what kinds of effects they may be having on things.

Sorry, kind of went off topic there. Anyhow, we shouldn't be having children so much. We all want to live longer, and we all want children, sure, but both allow for large increases in population. People are living longer, and children are being born more often. The death rate, affected by diseases, wildlife, and Survival of the Fittest as seen with "animals in the wild" (Which we still are technically) are supposed to balance out things and keep the population down.

We have cured diseases, kept dangerous wildlife out and sometimes even made them extinct, and Survival of the Fittest hardly matters in terms of life or death, and in our world at this current time is more based around surviving the world, the industry, getting a job, retiring, etc. You almost never face any real danger in our society. This is a problem. People need to die. As harsh as this sounds, it's true. You can't deny the effects we have on the environment, so how can we deny the fact that our growing population of people doing the exact same thing isn't affecting it even more?

It's not selfish to have children, it's just not something that we should do so often. It seems like every couple has one. Not everyone has to have a child to be happy, and what bothers me more is that people find it "cruel" that a parent has only a single child and not another sibling. People are ENCOURAGING it.

 

[Shining Raichu]

/late

We have cured diseases, kept dangerous wildlife out and sometimes even made them extinct, and Survival of the Fittest hardly matters in terms of life or death, and in our world at this current time is more based around surviving the world, the industry, getting a job, retiring, etc. You almost never face any real danger in our society. This is a problem. People need to die. As harsh as this sounds, it's true. You can't deny the effects we have on the environment, so how can we deny the fact that our growing population of people doing the exact same thing isn't affecting it even more?

I do very much agree with this statement. The one thing I would ask though, is whether the world should prioritise those currently living or the unborn children who strictly speaking don't need to exist. If we are focusing on preventing overpopulation, would it be more prudent to "kill off" the elderly people who no longer contribute anything to the human race, or prevent further humans from being created?

Personally, I lean more towards the latter. Even with the moral and logistical problems of murder set aside, longevity in life is something most people strive for. All the advances we have made in medicine and science to prolong life would have been for nought if we begin to feel as though people are now living too long. The unconceived children - the people who have never existed - needn't necessarily exist at all. Not every sperm has to become a baby.

what bothers me more is that people find it "cruel" that a parent has only a single child and not another sibling. People are ENCOURAGING it.

Again, I totally agree. This attitude is a real problem. Only-children can grow up just as normal and well-adjusted as children with siblings. The logic behind it is warped, and it has bothered me ever since my parents told me that the reason they had me was to be company for my older sister. Now, while I'm certainly happy to exist, if that is the only reason you want more children then you have no business having more children.

You want company for your child? Fine, what you do is this: you go to a playgroup; you send them to daycare; you send them to school; you buy them a plushie; you buy them a dog/cat/rabbit/pony/really energetic goldfish; you sit them down and help them invent an imaginary friend named Boris who works the register at McDonalds and is a part-time astronaut. What you don't do is drop another sucker into that mess. Kids don't like their siblings anyway.

 

[Kura]

There are so many blurred lines when it comes to this discussion.. but what's for sure is that if parents have children only for tax breaks from the government.. then yes that's pretty selfish indeed.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

There are so many blurred lines when it comes to this discussion.. but what's for sure is that if parents have children only for tax breaks from the government.. then yes that's pretty selfish indeed.

Selfish and stupid. I would imagine the cost of raising and supporting a child would be greater than any tax relief

 

[Lalapizzame]

Children are necessary to ensure a vibrant working society. The old live off the fruits of the youth's labor, and the young will raise another generation to replace the frail or dead.

There is no economic incentive to have children just to receive tax breaks. That is not greed and selfishness, that is stupidity and bean counting (incorrectly, I might add).

Most population growth is centered in rural and relatively undeveloped places, like Africa. Africa does need to bring down its explosive fertility rate unless it can master modern agriculture and industry, otherwise it will have no way of feeding a larger population when it's already facing agricultural deficiencies now.

The problem is that Africa relies on manual agriculture. The family relies on children to bring in additional income and help relieve the workload during a harvest, which is good. The problem is, African agriculture is so poor and inefficient compared to western agriculture the marginal benefit of having children as farm labor is much smaller than they would imagine. Not to mention farmers are deprived of their livelihoods when western agriculture would be able to outcompete them in a free market quite easily, due to scale of production and a relatively low cost of production. Africa must modernize, or starve in its tradition. It makes for great tourism, but not great feasts.

On the other hand, the Western world should be embracing reproduction. The developed and rapidly-developing world faces a lack of fertility, and many countries have dropped below the replacement rate, especially in Europe. We will face a labor shortage if the birth rate continues to decline, and the social programs we hold so dearly in the west will be unsustainable if new labor cannot replenish the monetary aspect of these ideas. Obviously, raising a child is expensive in terms of both time and money. Tax breaks are like offering quarters and one-dollar bills to a performer: symbolic gesture, but not much in practice. That is, unless they are truly that large. In either case the tax breaks and other government proposals are unlikely to compensate for the cost of having children and raising them through adulthood. Higher education is especially costly.

 

[Kura]

Selfish and stupid. I would imagine the cost of raising and supporting a child would be greater than any tax relief

It IS stupid. But not untrue! I've seen and heard it with my own eyes and ears more than once and it was more than surprising- though not surprisingly it came from those already on welfare.


I think the problem is also that the Western world is also somewhat having an economical decline (in more places than others) so those in developed countries don't want to have children because it is much too expensive (cost of living etc) already.

 

[Lalapizzame]

More of an inevitable relative decline than an absolute one. The debt and general difficulty of outgrowing developing economies is an acute problem for the West though.

 

[Ho-Oh]

The unconceived children - the people who have never existed - needn't necessarily exist at all. Not every sperm has to become a baby.

Doesn't everyone deserve a chance at life? With that in mind, consider all the "greats", the people who have literally changed the world as we know. Scientists, doctors, etc, the ones who have literally made breakthroughs, saved lives, brought about equality somewhat and so on. If their parents thought "oh hey I want to become pregnant again and have another child, but overpopulation is an issue, so we must have no more children", really, if you consider that idk where our world would be at if everyone had that mindset. And as you brought up in the other part of your post in reference to being born for the siblings: not everyone who has changed the world is a firstborn, so. :x

It's like trying to fight fate, go with your initial instincts and have another kid if you really want to, if you second guess it, idk. I feel like when that moment comes... it's hard to explain. If it's someone's destiny to exist then they should exist and just not exist for overpopulation purposes (wow that sounds awkward but I hope that makes sense).

And yes you could bring about lots of "bad" people to disagree with this, but the amount of good people in the world outweighs the bad in my opinion.

 

[Rogue planet]

Selfish and stupid. I would imagine the cost of raising and supporting a child would be greater than any tax relief

Try living in a welfare state
like Britain for example
You can see it everywhere you go. I have no doubt for a second that a fair percentage of mothers here aren't mothers because they like children.

 

[Briar]

Doesn't everyone deserve a chance at life? With that in mind, consider all the "greats", the people who have literally changed the world as we know. Scientists, doctors, etc, the ones who have literally made breakthroughs, saved lives, brought about equality somewhat and so on. If their parents thought "oh hey I want to become pregnant again and have another child, but overpopulation is an issue, so we must have no more children", really, if you consider that idk where our world would be at if everyone had that mindset. And as you brought up in the other part of your post in reference to being born for the siblings: not everyone who has changed the world is a firstborn, so. :x

It's like trying to fight fate, go with your initial instincts and have another kid if you really want to, if you second guess it, idk. I feel like when that moment comes... it's hard to explain. If it's someone's destiny to exist then they should exist and just not exist for overpopulation purposes (wow that sounds awkward but I hope that makes sense).

And yes you could bring about lots of "bad" people to disagree with this, but the amount of good people in the world outweighs the bad in my opinion.

just my two cents, but i personally think that "greatness" (as you have said) has more to do with how you were formed by your environment than destiny or fate. ever heard of the saying "environment forms character"? although some people were born with biological disadvantages/advantages, that still doesn't mean they should just let "destiny take its course" and not do anything about it. what i'm getting from this post is, since we all have potential superstars just waiting to be produced, we should all just go and have lots of children. personally, i disagree with that mindset. overpopulation is real, and so is its relationship with depleting resources and climate change. if you want to have a child, fine, but just make sure that you have enough resources to keep your family alive, and that you rear your future children correctly.
in reply to the topic itself, i don't think it's selfish for parents to want children. i mean, having children entails a lot of responsibilities, and as a woman (yes, i would like to think of myself as that), it's really a sacrifice on the mother's part. that's why i personally think that, if they're ready for it, and if they have enough resources to support a larger family, and if they're mentally and psychologically capable, then by all means, go and have kids.

 

[Shining Raichu]

Doesn't everyone deserve a chance at life? With that in mind, consider all the "greats", the people who have literally changed the world as we know. Scientists, doctors, etc, the ones who have literally made breakthroughs, saved lives, brought about equality somewhat and so on. If their parents thought "oh hey I want to become pregnant again and have another child, but overpopulation is an issue, so we must have no more children", really, if you consider that idk where our world would be at if everyone had that mindset. And as you brought up in the other part of your post in reference to being born for the siblings: not everyone who has changed the world is a firstborn, so. :x

It's like trying to fight fate, go with your initial instincts and have another kid if you really want to, if you second guess it, idk. I feel like when that moment comes... it's hard to explain. If it's someone's destiny to exist then they should exist and just not exist for overpopulation purposes (wow that sounds awkward but I hope that makes sense).

And yes you could bring about lots of "bad" people to disagree with this, but the amount of good people in the world outweighs the bad in my opinion.

There are several flaws in this argument. Firstly, in relation to "doesn't everyone deserve a chance at life?" I'd say that this is an incredibly slippery slope. That's an argument more suited to a debate about abortion - and even then I'd disagree with it - but I won't go too deeply into that. When talking about whether or not to create a new life (as opposed to terminating one that is arguably already forming) the argument of "doesn't everybody deserve a chance at life?" means - at least to my mind - that every menstrual cycle, every protected sexual encounter and every masturbatory emission of sperm that does not culminate in the genesis of a foetus would be considered "wasteful" at best or "abandonment of a child" at worst.

A lot of the world's current problems result from caring about things that never existed, so the moment we begin to worry about potential children that have not yet even begun to form (let alone live) is the moment we open a Pandora's Box so lethal that we might as well call the whole thing off and resign the Earth to destruction.

Now, in regards to your arguments about destiny - the fact that you successfully pre-empted a rebuttal means that you too saw the flaw in what you were saying. Yes, your child could be the next Isaac Newton - but they could also be the next Saddam Hussein. You just don't know. And when considering this while having a child (and I'm sure many parents-to-be consider what their potential children would grow up to be) the idea that they could be the next "great" is not enough basis alone to make such a decision, especially when you consider the flip side. Though to be honest, the likelihood that they will be either the next "great" or the next "great horror" is not very high at all. It is far more likely that they will be neither. They could even be the next great gas-station owner.

Also, if you believe so strongly in destiny, did you ever stop to consider that it could be my destiny to warn people and stop overpopulation?

 

[Lalapizzame]

I have already stated my main post here, which was not really an argument in any case.

Sentimental arguments are a dangerous thing to play with. One spark of sentiment can start a wild fire if left unattended to.