Is It Wrong to Have Children?
By Daniel Miessler on December 13th, 2007: Tagged as Philosophy | Society
I’ve thought a lot about having children over the years. Not so much whether I wanted to have them, but why people in general want to have them. More specifically, I’ve been trying to determine whether or not it’s becoming immoral to do so.
Everyone knows that once a good parent has a child they become rather selfless. We often hear things like, “It changes everything”, or, “…all you care about is the baby.”, etc. That’s fair enough and quite admirable, but what about before you had the child?
What are the modern reasons for having kids in the first place? I have some rather unflattering ideas on how most people answer that question.
Everyone Else Was Doing It
Typical groupthink. Chris and Julie had a child and it was just precious. It seemed to make them happy. Maybe we should do that too?It Just Happened, and I’m Glad It Did
Typical adolescent mentality. I wasn’t really planning on this, but I can definitely see the attraction now that I’m committed. I guess I’ll just go with it and embrace parenthood. It’s not like I have much of a choice at this point, and I was probably going to do it later anyway.It’s What You’re Supposed to Do
Typical mature conservative. Grow up, go to college, get a job, get married, have kids. Natural. Basic. Timeless. That’s what we’ve been doing for thousands of years. It’s what we’re supposed to do.
Ok, so if I’m arguing that these are not good reasons (although the “nature” argument is the best of them), then what are good reasons for having a child? That’s my problem — I don’t really see any. Not in today’s world anyway. I see excellent reasons for being a good parent once you have a child, but not for bringing a new life into the world in the first place.
I’m toying with the idea that having children in a world where there are children awaiting adoption (and where overpopulation is a real issue) ultimately reduces to selfishness. I think the reason people become parents comes down to one thing: desire. People want kids. They want their own kids.
That’s perfectly understandable, of course, as we are programmed to want things that help us survive as a species. But that doesn’t make it right. We have plenty of other desires given to us by our biology that we control for the benefit of society. Perhaps the desire to procreate is simply one to be added to that list.
It’s a strange thing to contemplate, but the real reason we seek to bring children into the world is for our own benefit. Children bring us joy. They’re there to take care of us when we age. Children are selfish expressions all the way up until they are born. At that point we become mostly selfless, but we can’t use our selflessness after they are born to justify the selfish act of bringing them into the world.
In earlier times we needed to reproduce in order to keep ourselves alive. We have plenty of people now. Some believe that they’re providing a service to humanity. They feel their belief system needs to be expanded, and that creating a few offspring is the best way to make it happen. Aside from the highly self-important slant of that approach, i.e. I’m going to help better the world with my seed, it doesn’t seem very efficient.
So what are good reasons for logical and compassionate people, living in today’s world, to have children?:
--
So what would you have? Would you rather have selective breading by the wealthy and adoption by everyone else to support those that produce children with out resources? Would you rather stop producing now and have a crisis later?
Every country that has tried to place birth limits and restrictions has found themselves with a generation of young men with no women and crime and abuses has increased. The selective breading thing has also been tried. It was in Nazi Germany.
Comment by Ken — 12/13/2007 @ 3:22 am
My main point is that there are children alive already who need homes — tens of thousands of them. And most of them are from poor parents, so I’m not sure how you got to Nazi Germany and eugenics. All I’m asking is why we need to have more children when so many are already alive who need homes.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/13/2007 @ 3:25 am
Comment by Shii — 12/13/2007 @ 3:41 am
The ultimate response I’ve repeated to people when they can’t understand why others have children, much less risk pregnancy and giving birth, that, if they don’t know, and can’t say there is any good reason to have children, then they shouldn’t have them.
It’s simple, and it avoids sharing the motives that might always elude the somewhat hesitant prospective parent. It also obstructs the chances of undue pressure, whether interpersonal, sociological, or cultural, that does serve as a good reason to react negatively to the days when the parent finds themselves forced to be parents, and with doubt. Even when some parents take the time to decide wholeheartedly that they are going to be occupied for a dedicated portion of their lives to the upbringing, care, support, education, and nurturing of children that are surely going to be obstructions to otherwise carefree lives, they find certain days to have tasked them to the brink, and they falter in their resolution. Finally they might give in to the looming option of abandoning this commitment, or drudging through it for some period of time more. Either way, those days exist, and the reality of why to have kids fades with time, as it ceases to be a choice, for most sometime in the pregnancy.
Don’t worry about why you should have kids. If you have enough good reasons to not have kids, don’t feel bad about it.
Check this out; They die. No matter what, they always die. How messed up is that?
Now, I’ve got a bit of a more direct question; Adoption or Pregnancy?
Adoption, you are providing an environment for an otherwise unlucky youth that has a fresh opportunity to break the cycle of his wayward culture, and improve society as a whole. Drawbacks; the youth carries with him genetic and social predispositions that are beyond your own, manipulatable to the extent that the pool provided for you does not represent your heritage, at best. (As an aside, adoptive parents are more regulated by government agencies than are non-adoptive parents.)
Pregnancy, mostly, the opposite. You are represented in the next generation by the similarity of upbringing you are familiar with, and by the blood connection that results in similar ways of thought, actions, and motives that you can interpret better than an adoptive parent. Drawbacks; you are exactly carrying on the cycle of life that brought you about, for good and bad, and for all the attention you squeeze out of every situation and variation of every possible situation of interaction with the child, you are limited by what predispositions you carry with you from your childhood, and are mostly blind to other manners and interpretations of the child’s thoughts, actions, and motives that could in fact be beyond what you could have imagined in your most lucid acid trips.
So, follow your heart. There are good and bad reasons to both. On the one hand, your genetic heritage and potential is expressed in the next generation, and on the other hand, in adoption, that potential might transcend the bonds and limits of genetic legacy.
Marilyn wants me to say, “If you aren’t a parent, you won’t understand how rewarding it is.” I agree, to some extent, and I know this falls into the selfish ambitions of having a baby, but it doesn’t change the sense of pride, accomplishment, and security in the future of humanity having children creates, either method.
But the simple message endures; “You don’t need to understand.”
However, look up “contractualism”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractualism
And see where to engage in the mechanisms of societal proliferation and prosperity, we get to choose what we get in exchange. Sometimes it’s mutual, and in this case, I’m sure it can be said it’s selfish, but we get something in exchange for complying with cultural norms.
We profit from the exchange, and so, certain freedoms persist, the least of which is to participate in overpopulation. In China, I hear, it’s different. Not so much, but the same threats to children and families suffering misfortunes of destitution and death still exist.
If the insurance of a permanent structure for today’s world to stay stable and thrive for all time was in place, I might say, we can do away with all sorts of responsible people having kids.
I want to imagine that for a moment. Everyone who follows ethical rules to stop having kids. Would that have a bearing on evolution, after a few generations?
Let’s ask who would be having kids? People who give into their propensity towards irresponsible actions? The nature of the world would shift radically by each passing generation.
OK. I give up. If I haven’t given you enough to contemplate, it’s really been an entertaining exercise in neither apathy or futility, but a fusion whose trajectory leads past us and onward, farther than our belief in worthy endeavors can make captive.
Peace,
-=T=-
Comment by TIMM — 12/13/2007 @ 5:08 am
“So what are good reasons for logical and compassionate people, living in today’s world, to have children?”
Two words: to learn.
My children are the greatest teachers I have ever had and I have learned more from them than in any classroom I ever sat in during my lengthy education.
To Quote Andrew Vachss: “What children are, more than anything else, is this: another chance for our flawed species to get it right.”
Comment by angerisagift — 12/13/2007 @ 7:25 am
No good reasons in my view.
[Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 (2. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. 3. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.)]
Comment by Markos — 12/13/2007 @ 1:06 pm
I’ve been married for 6 years and my wife and I don’t have kids.
Not that we don’t want a few, just that we don’t have the means.
But i guess the reason I want them, is somewhat of an ego trip. I feel that the world would benefit from another me; but my child would be close enough.
I think if you don’t want kids, it’s due to a lack of confidence in yourself and the world around you. Self defeatism.
Comment by j — 12/13/2007 @ 2:21 pm
How about to better human society? Stupid people reproduce like rabbits and the world is much worse off for it. Someone has to try to keep the gene pool clean! The way i figure it, you owe it to society to spread good genes.
Also, consider the next generation of geeks. Someone has to produce mates for those poor bastards. Will somebody please think of the children!
Comment by Kirt — 12/13/2007 @ 2:46 pm
Hmm… there’s more reasons than those three I think.
Writ small however, it’s just a choice like anything else. If decisions are broken down to ever baser levels, then logic will expose that there is no reason for anything.
Unless one is to lay in bed all day, you’ve got to get up and do something with your time.
As to why everyone doesn’t just adopt someone eles child? Why shouldn’t we also just listen to the songs other people have sung, and read the books others have wrote?
Why even blog when most of these thoughts and questions have been written down thousands of years ago in other texts?
Comment by Chris — 12/13/2007 @ 3:13 pm
What’s wrong with being selfish? Isn’t everyone selfish almost all of the time? What’s the point in watching tv? Isn’t that just ultimately being selfish. Wait, isn’t EVERYTHING we do selfish? I eat, therefore I take food away from someone else… that is being selfish. I’ve got fat on my body, I don’t NEED to eat right now and there are STARVING people in this world. Lets all stop eating… it is selfish.
Again, what’s wrong with being selfish?
Comment by Brock — 12/13/2007 @ 3:22 pm
@Chris
Yes, everything we do is selfish, but there is quite a range between the extremes.
It’s selfish to watch TV and it’s selfish to steal someone’s car. Those are not the same. My argument is that bringing a human into this world, given the chance that they will experience a great deal of pain and/or contribute to the pain of others, is EXTREMELY selfish.
That’s all. We also want to shag other peoples’ women and punch assholes in the face. That’s selfish too, but we don’t do it because it’s bad for society. I’m saying that this is the same kind of thing.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/13/2007 @ 3:37 pm
Ha ha! Selective BREADING? Are you making fish sticks? Well, I guess it’s true–only stupid people are breading :)
Comment by DryQuLa — 12/13/2007 @ 3:41 pm
@Daniel
I’m not sure the word selfish has any intrinsic meaning?
As to experiencing great pain or contributing to the pain of others. Pain and conflict are part of life. If there was no potential for pain or no conflict, then we are back to my not even getting out of bed point. To be alive but to avoid all pain and conflict is a challenging way to live.
As to the shagging and punching. While some may have “altrusistic” motives for not doing those activities, more than not probably just implicitly understand the negative outcomes of engaging in those activites within the social structures of Western society.
Punching an asshole isn’t a problem. Deciding that someone is an asshole and that the appropriate action is to punch that asshole is just not a decision that as a society we have chosen to let all individuals make.
Instead we dress some people in blue and give them a little metal shield and let them drive around with flashing lights on their car. We call them police and empower them in certain situations to freely punch assholes.
And in general I’m ok with that.
um… What was the question again ;)
Comment by Chris — 12/13/2007 @ 4:00 pm
@Chris
You’ve already accepted that having children is basically a selfish endeavor, so I think we’ve covered it. The only thing we disagree on is whether or not it’s ok to indulge in that selfish desire and have children for our own sake.
My point is that it’s not for society (we already have enough kids with no families), it’s not for the children (they haven’t been conceived yet), so it really is for us. That’s ok and debatable of course, but it’s important to recognize it for what it is.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/13/2007 @ 4:07 pm
I am female, do not have children and do not ever intend to. If at some point I do want children, I plan on adopting. In today’s culture and climate, children are being ill-educated, badly raised, and parents are becoming less involved in the raising of their offspring and creating an environment that is pushing towards the softening of America. Can’t circle errors in red ink because Bobby will be offended, can’t boo at sports games because Susie will cry. These are rules on the books in schools around the country, and it makes me cringe.
I am tired of being told that I’m a bad person because I’ve chosen not to have children; I’m frustrated that people don’t understand that this is a choice I’ve made and deem me stupid, inflexible or shallow because I’ve chosen not to breed. Some of us really do not see the need, the reason, or have any desire to have children–so don’t belittle us, berate us, or hate us. We let you make your choice to have them; don’t tell us that “You’ll change your mind” and disrespect our decision to not have our own, or to choose to adopt.
Comment by Deirdre — 12/13/2007 @ 4:29 pm
Children are no more poorly raised today than they ever were in history. There was no golden age of child rearing nor anything else. We know more about nutrition, about safety, about learning, and about human development than ever before, and we apply those things. Historically, the infant death rate has been high, and only recently have we gotten it to drop off, and even then it is only in developed countries. We can do better, but we are doing better than in the past.
The real reason to have children is because we are biologically programmed to do so. Just like having sex, eating, or any other bodily function, we are driven, not just to copulate, but to protect and nurture. Natural Selection has brought this about over millions of years and it should be the start o the argument, not the end.
Is it immoral to have children? A resounding “No!” It is the most moral thing you can do: The word “moral” means nothing with out humans to carry it. “[Hu]Man is the measure of all things.”
Should you instead adopt as opposed to bring your own child in to the world? I don’t think that properly phrases the debate. In a Western Society, it takes a lot of cash to raise a child, so the reality is that you can only handle so many, especially if you wish to provide well for those children. Otherwise, I would say that you should do both: Have your own kids and adopt.
No, it is more important to focus on sculpting the world so that every child is a wanted child, even if they are not planned. Get the social institutions in place so that unwanted pregnancies are minimized, adoption is easy for people that want to adopt, and people can afford to raise children. Every child in this world is reason enough for the world to exist. Wanting to bring your own into this world is fundamental to who we are.
The number of people that chose to adopt over having children of their own are not going to effect the outcome of overpopulation. To affect overpopulation, we have to get the world to accept contraception, or we have to colonize outer space. I support both policies.
Comment by Adam — 12/13/2007 @ 5:31 pm
@Daniel
I do not believe that having children is a selfish endeavor. I would have to know the mind of another individual to say if something is motivated by selfishness.
As to society, that means different things to different people. Some people believe they are part of a world community. Some people have no interest in anyone outside theirselves or their immediate famillies.
For me truth lies in between the two but others milage may vary.
@Deidre
I empathise with both of your paragraphs, but they are somewhat contradictory. In the first you seem to critize people who don’t critique people. In the second, you critize people who critique you. While both are valid staements, there is some irony in their proximity.
On the topic of people critizing others choices I have this similiar tale to relate: I have good friends that are vegetarians. Where as I am vegetable adverse and prefer steak. I enjoy having dinner with my friends, but hate making two different meals. I feel they should eat meat, they feel I should eat vegetables. Honestly though, I don’t really care what they eat, but it would be easier to be socialable if we were on the same page with that activity. Kids are often the same type of thing with friends I think. If one set of people has kids and the others do not, it makes it harder for two to relate on what becomes a large portion of ones life. Some pressure is bound to grow out of that tension.
As with anything, hopefully the good of a thing out ways the bad of a thing.
This is a very interesting thread.
Comment by Chris — 12/13/2007 @ 5:32 pm
@Chris
You say you can’t know if a decision to have children is selfish or not because you can’t know what they’re thinking. Well, try it this way — give me an example of a non-selfish reason. That’s the whole focus of my post.
I think the only solid reason is to better society, and that doesn’t seem to withstand scrutiny because we already have so many children without homes. So if the goal is to raise good children, adopt a child that’s already in the world and raise them well. Would that not be a more socially responsible solution?
Every other reason I can think of revolves around the parent getting something out of the deal. Whether that’s joy in seeing their children do well, having security later in life, or learning about life through watching children grow — either way it’s for the parent until the child is born.
So again, what reasons exist for bringing a NEW child into the world given the fact that so many are already here and unwanted? We all accept that raising children is amazing and a wonderful choice; the question is why we should be making new children instead of trying to give happiness to those already with us.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/13/2007 @ 6:55 pm
EVERYTHING YOU DO IS SELFISH AND HERE IS WHY…
You want to do an unselfish act like giving food to the hungry. Why do you want to do that? So you can feel good about yourself doing an unselfish act… that is selfish.
Everything (I cannot stress that enough) is ultimately motivated by selfish intentions. Everything.
So, maybe one example that you can maybe claim as an unselfish reason for having kids is that you believe the morals you implant in the child will ultimately help the world… isn’t this ultimately selfish? Who is to say that your morals are better than anyone elses? Isn’t it selfish to want to convert the world to your moral standard?
You say that once you become a parent, you are ultimately unselfish because everything you do is for the kid. Isn’t this being selfish? For your own personal advantage (having a well raised, grown kid) you are being selfish.
There is nothing wrong with being selfish. Of course, maybe I’m taking the definition of selfish too far?
Comment by Brock — 12/13/2007 @ 7:10 pm
I think you would find this site interesting http://www.vhemt.org/
Comment by Brock — 12/13/2007 @ 7:13 pm
At the risk of my words being twisted, let me throw out a hypothetical.
Let’s suppose that all of the best and the brightest bought into your premise that they should adopt rather than have children of their own.
Discuss.
Comment by Carl M — 12/13/2007 @ 7:53 pm
@Carl
Actually, that’s pretty much what’s happening, isn’t it? The countries that are “doing well” in the world are the ones with the lowest birth rates. In fact, most of them are facing population shortages and are taking extreme measures such as paying people to reproduce.
So yes, I agree, but I consider that a separate argument.
Are you basically saying (I’m asking) that the world NEEDS the best and brightest to be selfish in order for our civilization to succeed?
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/13/2007 @ 8:08 pm
I merely threw out a hypothetical.
But, IF one believes that the world would benefit from the DNA of the best and brightest remaining in the gene pool, then one could argue that their willingness to do so is not necessarily a selfish thing.
In a separate direction … I think it could be argued that many of those who choose NOT to have children do so for selfish reasons. (I apologize if this was already mentioned above.) The logic might go like this: Having a child and raising that child properly requires an enormous sacrifice. I’m not willing to make that sacrifice. (Isn’t that selfish?)
Comment by Carl M — 12/13/2007 @ 8:36 pm
@Daniel
So who should be allowed to reproduce? Should it be people who can ensure that there children will not experience pain or cause pain?
Comment by Ken — 12/13/2007 @ 8:37 pm
Well, children do change everything. It good ways and bad.
I have two young kids. They are great fun and also very trying. I have grown up so much in the last few years, you have to grow up. You have little humans that rely on you to teach them everything. They look up to you. They love you.
You will never love another living thing like you will love your child. There isn’t even a second thought when it comes to their safety. It’s a strange feeling. BUT, and I can’t stress this enough, They also make you angrier than any other living thing when they are being evil.
I’ve known really great people that chose not to have children. They would have made great parents, but it wasn’t for them.
I would like to have more children, but I think that after two we would stop having our own and adopt.
There are hordes of bad parents out there in the world. It’s sad. It’s horrific what some kids go through. But I think if you take the cynical approach of not bringing any life into the world because the world is a bad place, you’ve admitted defeat. We need more good people, not less.
Of course what I think a lot of people fail to realize is that the world hasn’t become more violent than it was thousands of years ago.
That doesn’t mean that good parents don’t raise bad people, but it helps to have good parents to teach people to make good choices.
It’s totally up to the individual, but I think you miss out on something wonderful not having kids. They have made my life exponentially better, but that’s me. It isn’t always good for people to have kids.
Comment by Eamon — 12/13/2007 @ 8:37 pm
@Daniel
I’m not sure if I’m using the same definition of selfish.
I’m using:
selfish - concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others.
So here is a hypothetical. Let’s say there is a couple where the woman enjoys the process of becoming a mother, a biological ability that she can perform. She also enjoys taking care of children and wants to have a second child. Let’s say she’s married to a man who is happy with the one child they already have but they are doing well financially and although otherwise personally indifferent, he chooses to participate in having another child to make his wife happier.
Perhaps it gives this couple joy to see another individual that represents a mix of both of them: her smile, his eyes, a laugh that reminds them of a grandparent.
Are they selfish in this situation? Must they solve all the unfortunate circumstances in the world before taking actions toward their own benefit or desire or to benefit those closest to them?
The man harms no one in the above senerio. Neither does the woman. Neither of these people created the orphan, so I do not see the individual responsibility you seem to suggest they have to the nameless orphan.
That does not mean that there isn’t a collective responsibility to the orphan, but then you have to decide what is the collective? The collective can not be Billions of people, we’re not biologically formed to operate on that scale, nor would we really want to.
On a global scale it’s not practical, adj. used to describe properties which have to work in real life when used , for the individual to live like that.
And maybe that’s where it rests, Idealism vs. Practicality?
Comment by Chris — 12/13/2007 @ 11:38 pm
@Ken
I’m actually not taking this in the direction of what should or should not be done in terms of being “allowed” to have children. That’s some heavy stuff. All I can really say on that point is that in a world where so many children don’t have families, adoption should be more of an option than it is. Of course, there are major problems with the adoption system, so that in itself is nearly enough of a reason to avoid it and have your own children.
Other than that I wasn’t touching at all what people should or should not do in a practical sense. In a practical sense I think what we’re already doing is perfectly fine…
My point was simply that the desire to have children is simply one of many biological desires, and that some of those we need to learn to control. The idea here is that perhaps given our current environment (too many people, so many babies with no parents) it may be higher ground to choose to adopt rather than have your own.
For the record, however, I don’t think I could do it. The part of me that wants children truly wants to know I’m looking at my own blood. I want that bond. So I doubt I’d be able to put this into practice myself — especially with the state of the adoption systems today.
@Carl
Yes, often times, as in my case, I don’t have children because I AM selfish. Or, to put it in a nicer way, I don’t have children because I think you need to be ready to stop thinking about yourself before doing so — at least for those who are mature enough to understand what they’re giving up. It’s really a different type of selfishness, though, because it doesn’t contribute to overpopulation, it doesn’t add another carbon footprint, and that sort of thing. In other words, it’s not a GOOD selfish, but it is a NON-BAD selfish.
Look, the bottom line is that children bring joy to people, and some are so taken by the desire to have them that they can scarcely wait to get started. That’s fine. In fact it’s great. As someone has said, we all indulge our desires to one degree or another.
All I’m saying is that the choice is, fundamentally, selfish. It’s an internal desire left over from long ago designed to keep us from dying off vs. predators. Like many of our other desires we need to contemplate when it’s important to control it as a remnant of a time long past. That time may not be now (I can think of a great argument for why it’s not), but it’s definitely worth having the discussion.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 12/13/2007 @ 11:42 pm
Maybe you have this irrational belief in humanity and want to make sure that it is filled with people like you instead of people who give up their children to for someone else to raise.
Comment by Justin — 12/14/2007 @ 1:49 am
“All I’m saying is that the choice is, fundamentally, selfish. It’s an internal desire left over from long ago designed to keep us from dying off vs. predators. Like many of our other desires we need to contemplate when it’s important to control it as a remnant of a time long past.”
What you’re describing in this quote, Daniel, is an instinctual drive, not selfishness. I think that it’s a bit of a stretch to call it selfishness to not make the decision to overcome instinct.
I don’t think that most new parents rush headlong into parenthood because they just can’t wait. I’ve no idea what the percentage of such parents is, but I seriously doubt it is significant. As for the overpopulation argument (and I’m a BIG believer that the world would be better off with fewer and not more people), I’ve always thought that 2 makes sense and more is overkill. I like Eamon’s idea that if you want more after 2, adopt. I do think that there is something to be said for keeping the best and the brightest in the gene pool, but I think it is just wrong to suggest that anyone should not be allowed to reproduce as Ken seemed to suggest someone believed with: ”So who should be allowed to reproduce? Should it be people who can ensure that there children will not experience pain or cause pain?”
So, in a nutshell … Yes, Daniel, I think that this is an important discussion. I would suggest that if you really want it to be a discussion, you might leave out loaded terminology such as “selfishness.” Your logic seems to be “There are too many people in the world. Intelligent people must surely recognize this. Intelligent people seem to be having babies. These intelligent people must be doing so for entirely selfish reasons.” Why not just stick to the first sentence: “There are too many people in the world.” ANd, add a question: “What is the solution?” I bet that this would generate an interesting discussion (and it would hit on more than just the birthrate in different countries).
Comment by Carl M — 12/14/2007 @ 2:44 am
ok, i’ve thought about it. it’s a question of value.
if you see the genetic offspring as more valuable than the adopted child, then you would go with that. that, i’m sure, is a kind of preference that doesn’t necessarily need rationalizing. it’s equatable to like red instead of blue.
if you don’t, and you see the inherent value in raising a child out of the depraved slums and into the suburban slums, then the two types of children are equal, and the course is clear.
there is always some level of compromise between the two, but i’m sure the basis would be the strength of the value placed in genetic children. as a follower of statistical curve, i believe a gradient should be plottable.
basically, an instinctive propensity towards natural pregnancy and genetic link to the child, or not.
-=T=-
Comment by TIMM — 12/14/2007 @ 6:01 am
Please explain how overpopulation is actually a problem, or even real. Large parts of the world are DEPOPULATING. Europe, Russia, Japan. China, with its one-child policy, is approaching this point. In almost every other part of the world where birth rates are above replacement rate, those rates are decreasing rapidly.
Furthermore, even at today’s supposedly high world population, every person on earth could fit in Texas with 1000 square feet per person. In a three-dimensional model, every person on earth could fit in the grand canyon with 10×10x10 cubic feet volume per person. I know this because a friend of mine taught math to seventh graders for a while and he made these assertions to wildly disbelieving students. He then went to do the math and prove it them.
Comment by Scott — 12/14/2007 @ 7:45 am
OK, I did the math for the Texas claim. It’s right, but entirely irrelevant. For the record, 1000 square feet is a square approximately 11 yards on a side. My driveway is over 2000 square feet. Not that it’s relevant anyway, but 1000 square feet is not a lot of space.
Furthermore, the fact that PARTS of the world are depopulating isn’t relevant either. The world population is growing (at a rapid rate).
Here are the UN population numbers (and estimates).
1950 2 535 093 1955 2 770 753 1960 3 031 931 1965 3 342 771 1970 3 698 676 1975 4 076 080 1980 4 451 470 1985 4 855 264 1990 5 294 879 1995 5 719 045 2000 6 124 123 2005 6 514 751 2010 6 906 558 2015 7 295 135 2020 7 667 090 2025 8 010 509 2030 8 317 707 2035 8 587 050 2040 8 823 546 2045 9 025 982 2050 9 191 287
In any case, the issue isn’t elbow room. It’s availability of resources (food, fresh water, energy, etc.).
Comment by Carl M — 12/14/2007 @ 1:55 pm
Pardon the formatting in the population numbers there. That is NOT how they appeared before I clicked “Submit.” ANother try:
1950:2,535,093 1955:2,770,753 1960:3,031,931 1965:3,342,771 1970:3,698,676 1975:4,076,080 1980:4,451,470 1985:4,855,264 1990:5,294,879 1995:5,719,045 2000:6,124,123 2005:6,514,751 2010:6,906,558 2015:7,295,135 2020:7,667,090 2025:8,010,509 2030:8,317,707 2035:8,587,050 2040:8,823,546 2045:9,025,982 2050:9,191,287
Comment by Carl M — 12/14/2007 @ 1:57 pm
I suggest you check out the VHEMNT web site. The Voluntary Human Extiction Movement. And they’re not kidding. I, personally, support them fully. Jim
Comment by Jim Piver — 12/16/2007 @ 4:58 am
Overpopulation is NOT the problem; depopulation is the problem. Birth rates are plummeting in first-world countries. The average age is increasing steadily. Within the century, we will be a nation of retirees. Meanwhile, it is only religious fundamentalists like the Mormons that are reproducing enough to increase their proportion in the population. I think that avoiding a democracy run by religious fundamentalists is good enough a reason to encourage people to have children. (See the work of Phillip Longman for more information on this problem.)
Comment by Ellliottt — 12/17/2007 @ 8:12 am
Having A Baby…
Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments….
Trackback by Having A Baby — 3/14/2008 @ 8:30 pm
It’s strange how defensive people get when you say your not into having babies.
It makes me sick how some people here are suggesting that the “wrong” people are having babies so the “right” people need to have more. It would be like a never ending arms race if we did that.
Comment by Alan — 4/1/2008 @ 7:04 am
I find it absurd that someone intelligent could suggest not having children. An intelligent person not having a child decreases the overall intelligence of the gene pool. This is rendered more problematic by the fact that people of low intelligence have many children and generally don’t wish to participate in voluntary extinction. I do, however, advocate banning the disabled (of those disabled genetically and not through experience) from having children, because that improves the well-being of the overall species.
Comment by A — 4/1/2008 @ 1:42 pm
Seems like an incredible over-simplification. I myself have had the same thoughts before, but minds change. Have you seen Idiocracy? That is what happens when people act on the ideas you are rambling about. I got some news for you, the world is not going to end. Your loved ones will live on past you. The vast majority of people (which are stupid) are not going to stop making babies, and if you give a crap about humanity, you will help the gene pool by embedding some loved, well-educated humans of your own. Unless you don’t care about humanity at all, in that case, kill yourself please, you are stinking up our pool.
Comment by Tseaworthy — 4/4/2008 @ 3:25 pm
Let’s asume that we all stop having babies. So let’s say in 90 years 100 years there will be no human kind. In every aspect you choose to look at it, having babies is a natural next step. In wild nature, adult males fight to have their genes create the next genaration. So for someone who doen’ believe in God, nature gives the answer. In religion (Christianity), God Himself gave the order to create kids.
And even if you write some reasons, for someone to have a child it’s not the only ones.
Comment by NikHell — 5/28/2008 @ 5:35 pm
You show me an adoption agency that will give a child to an unmarried woman who makes 20,000 a year, and I’ll get right on that. life is not that simple. and it’s not that logical. And I don’t think it should be. Poor people have to make their own babies. And unfortunately, poor, ignorant, too-young, and drug addicted people are too damn good at it. It’s the rich people who go through in vitro fertilization and end up with triplets that I’m mad at. They have the possibility to adopt an already-born child, and they throw their money away to make a brand new one.
Comment by marie — 8/26/2008 @ 11:35 pm