Having Children

Maybe as a way to harvest organs for myself when mine start to fail but other than that I see no reason.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

While I'm all for personal pride, I think you're grossly overestimating the role genetics plays in intelligence and underestimating the role a decent upbringing plays. I don't think two people who happen to be intelligent and able can secure that their child will also be intelligent and able. There are so many factors at play in the raising of a child that you can't possibly foresee, because if child upbringing was actually a precise science, we'd either have a world full of brainwashed slaves or half-decent people. So really I'd say that it's more likely any qualities you have will simply be wasted on raising a child, as the risk of the child veering off into a direction not as useful to society as you might hope, or even not ending up as intelligent as you or your partner might be, is too high compared to the chance that your child will turn out even remotely resembling what you'd like.

Also personal pride dictates that childbearing is in no way beneficial to oneself so yeah.

I didn't say it, but I thought it was implied that I also meant I know my children's upbringing will be superior under my guardianship.

And I disagree. From a fully prideful perspective, hearing that my children are successful hardly gives "no benefit". When I look at a successful person, I always think of their parents and how their upbringing must've been.

Originally Posted by kman7100

As far as the morals of having children goes, I do think we should take responsibility as a species. We shouldn't stop having children, but we should slow down on having so many.

Okay so, slowly crushing the earth with 6+ billion people. It's like:

'One more won't hurt guys!'

Overpopulation is a problem, but the planet will survive. Its been around 4.6 billion years. I'm only saying that we should at lease assure the species longevity. Adoption to me seems to be an effective solution for those who do not want to contribute to overpopulation, but still want to have children.

Originally Posted by kman7100

Overpopulation is a problem, but the planet will survive. Its been around 4.6 billion years. I'm only saying that we should at lease assure the species longevity. Adoption to me seems to be an effective solution for those who do not want to contribute to overpopulation, but still want to have children.

You can't really be entirely sure of that. Sure, its been around for 4.6 billion years, but this is the first time that a world encompassing civilization has been found on this planet, as far as we know. And with the rate that we are growing, we can not be sure how long our resources will actually last.

The limits of earth are still greatly unknown in my opinion. Science has proven many things yes, but it has much more yet to prove/disprove before one can really be totally confident on any actual "limit" to the big ball of water. Honestly for all we know we could be pushing it as is really.

Originally Posted by kman7100

I'm only saying that we should at lease assure the species longevity. Adoption to me seems to be an effective solution for those who do not want to contribute to overpopulation, but still want to have children.

Overpopulation will lead to people killing each other over resources more than the situation now. It wouldn't take much to wipe out the human race.

Originally Posted by Alonely

I didn't say it, but I thought it was implied that I also meant I know my children's upbringing will be superior under my guardianship.

As I've said however, in order to be able to truly perfect your child's upbringing they would have to be under your supervision twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with no unwanted influences. You can't possibly have so much control over a child that you free them from unwanted influences due to the rather unpredictable nature of life itself. Any tiny little thing, anything said to them, anything they might see, could unravel any tightly-knit plan you might have for them.

And I disagree. From a fully prideful perspective, hearing that my children are successful hardly gives "no benefit". When I look at a successful person, I always think of their parents and how their upbringing must've been.

From a fully prideful perspective, you're leeching off of someone else's pride instead of doing something that merits your own pride, which undermines the value of the pride in question (much like National Pride, leeching off something you had little if any stake in purely by the coincidence of your birth, or in the case of this discussion, the coincidence of your common genetic material). Like I told you before, my parents may have set some very basic foundations, but they have little to do with my academic success. If they are proud of who I am, they are deluded in thinking that they had more than a very peripheral role in the product I am right now. Any one of my teachers over the years could probably claim as much stake as my parents have, and even they came and went, even they only contributed a very minor ingredient to the melting pot that is the man I am today. Each one has thrown a stone into the water, but they had no control over the ripples, and there are so many ripples in the water that it's hard to say which ones came from which stones. Yet, they take pride in having thrown those stones.

To me, it's like an artist who has set out to create a work of art, but by accident spilled some paint onto a canvas. Some post-modern art critic comes along and says it's a masterpiece, and the artist suddenly goes "Oh yes, I created that!", taking credit for something so far out of his control that it's almost offensive for him to claim that it's even his creation.

What resources are you speaking of? If you are talking about fossil fuels, the likelihood that we are able to use the rest of them before we destroy the environment is extremely low. We are currently at 389 carbon ppm, with 350 ppm. being the magic number before damage is done. Climate change is already happening at a very fast rate. It rains in Cairo now. Island nations are being displaced because the sea level is getting too high. This is the reason we need alternative fuel sources, not because we are running out of others.

Originally Posted by kman7100

As far as the morals of having children goes, I do think we should take responsibility as a species. We shouldn't stop having children, but we should slow down on having so many.

What responsibility as a species? I think we have a moral imperative not to have children because it isn't worth making them struggle through life.

Creating a person is setting up that person for death. It is effectively GIVING them problems of suffering, pain, and hurt along with everything else. And even given the good things you might say that make up for it, they do not erase those bad things. Never being born, however, is better because they aren't deprived of any good because they have no knowledge of good while averting bad.

It's essentially nigh inexcusable to decide someone else will want life just because you might like yours. There is no duty to create more of us. Just to take care of the people already here.

Sssssooooo....

I hate to be a bother, but my post caused quite a stir, and I didn't really notice until now, so I'm wondering if it'd be worth it to post replies.

Any takers?

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Sssssooooo....

I hate to be a bother, but my post caused quite a stir, and I didn't really notice until now, so I'm wondering if it'd be worth it to post replies.

Any takers?

I know I for one am sure interested in hearing you defend why it is "wrong" to not want kids.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

I know I for one am sure interested in hearing you defend why it is "wrong" to not want kids.

Think about what all living organisms do. No living organism is immortal. So what do they do?

They impart their genes and create another living organism. For every living organism, this is their only goal in life. The most important, protected, and central part of a cell is it's DNA. In philosophical terms, it can be considered the will to life.

Not fulfilling the need to have children goes against our very natures. We are built for having and raising children. Millions of years of evolution have brought you to this point. You exist only because having children was the goal of your parents and their ancestors before them.

Nature is the best "moral standard" I can come up with. By not having children, you are going completely against nature.

When weighed against other moral standards, it makes sense to have children. I for one feel a sense of obligation to have and raise children, because my parents did it, and their parents did it, and so forth.

Of course, the topic creator states some reasons to not have children. I don't think that RAWR EVERYONE SHUD HAVE TEH KIZ BLAARGH, I think that having children should be within the frame of all of our natural instincts. It should be controlled, just like one controls their hunger, or controls their emotions. So, with that in mind, I don't see how anyone could NOT want children. If they don't have the means, well, okay, you don't have the means and you really should think about getting the means (ie, bettering yourself). If you have the means, why not? If you have a brain and can plan it out, why not plan it out?

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Think about what all living organisms do. No living organism is immortal. So what do they do?

They impart their genes and create another living organism. For every living organism, this is their only goal in life.

I stopped reading there, and I was afraid you were going to say that.

My only response is that that's a weak argument to me.
I don't want children, which ties into the fact that I don't want a romantic relationship either. Later on I may technically have the means, but how is it wrong to not act on it? If "our goal is to reproduce" is your only answer, then this is a waste of time.

appeal to nature fallacy, argument invalid.

People go against 'nature' every day, and have done for thousands of years. Consuming medication for illnesses, undergoing operations for injuries, using computers for entertainment purposes and growing crops for food are all such examples. Being 'built' to have children doesn't always mean that everybody should, anymore than being capable of killing someone means you should go out and kill one of your rivals.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

I stopped reading there,

And I stopped reading here.

Originally Posted by Lysis

appeal to nature fallacy, argument invalid.

I can do one sentence posts, too: my argument isn't invalid, try again.

Originally Posted by Emperor Mateus

People go against 'nature' every day, and have done for thousands of years. Consuming medication for illnesses, undergoing operations for injuries, using computers for entertainment purposes and growing crops for food are all such examples. Being 'built' to have children doesn't always mean that everybody should, anymore than being capable of killing someone means you should go out and kill one of your rivals.

As I said, our natural instincts should be tempered. Maybe you should try reading my post.

Originally Posted by Emperor Mateus

People go against 'nature' every day, and have done for thousands of years. Consuming medication for illnesses, undergoing operations for injuries, using computers for entertainment purposes and growing crops for food are all such examples. Being 'built' to have children doesn't always mean that everybody should, anymore than being capable of killing someone means you should go out and kill one of your rivals.

Exactly. We've progressed rather beyond procreation being our major purpose in life.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Of course, the topic creator states some reasons to not have children. I don't think that RAWR EVERYONE SHUD HAVE TEH KIZ BLAARGH, I think that having children should be within the frame of all of our natural instincts. It should be controlled, just like one controls their hunger, or controls their emotions. So, with that in mind, I don't see how anyone could NOT want children. If they don't have the means, well, okay, you don't have the means and you really should think about getting the means (ie, bettering yourself). If you have the means, why not? If you have a brain and can plan it out, why not plan it out?

I don't want children, personally. I don't have any natural "instincts" telling me I should have them.

So, why not? It's just not really something that interests me. It's not in the scope of my life, so to speak.

I mean, what you're saying is basically, we're capable of having kids, and it's natural to do so, so therefore, we should have them. That logic...just doesn't really seem to work. Sorry. :<

Originally Posted by TheBattler

And I stopped reading here.



I can do one sentence posts, too: my argument isn't invalid, try again.



As I said, our natural instincts should be tempered. Maybe you should try reading my post.

I'm sorry, if you want people to buy your view, you're going to have to actually try and validate it. Doesn't quite fly otherwise.
(By the way, the appeal to nature argument does indeed render yours invalid.)

Originally Posted by Astarael

I don't want children, personally. I don't have any natural "instincts" telling me I should have them.

Of course you have instincts toward having children. You were born with them. It's just that we're born in cultures that question having children. Or you could just have been born without that instinct. Then you're just an exception, and I guess I should have stated what is given.

I mean, what you're saying is basically, we're capable of having kids, and it's natural to do so, so therefore, we should have them. That logic...just doesn't really seem to work. Sorry. :<

That logic has been at work for the past millions of years. Sorry.

I can see people saying they don't want to have children. There's usually a reason.

But I can't see people saying that having children is not in our instincts. If someone says that, they're misinformed.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

I'm sorry, if you want people to buy your view, you're going to have to actually try and validate it. Doesn't quite fly otherwise.

I did try and validate it.

(By the way, the appeal to nature argument does indeed render yours invalid.)

No, my argument isn't invalid. Is this some kind of new meme that people quote fallacies without knowing whether or not there is a fallacy in the first place?