And even if you write some reasons, for someone to have a child it’s not the only ones.

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.

Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments….

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

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.).

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.

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=-

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).

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.

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?

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.

So who should be allowed to reproduce? Should it be people who can ensure that there children will not experience pain or cause pain?

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?)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.