Are people who don't have kids selfish?

[August1991]

As someone who is pretty vocal in his life about his desire not to have kids, I completely own up to the fact that my reasons are completely selfish. I simply don't want the responsibility, the hassle, the expense that goes along with having kids. Having a kid would mean giving up the lifestyle I enjoy on the off chance that I might find parenthood even more rewarding (though research has shown that parents are far more likely to be depressed than the childless). I certainly get the notion that having kids helps keep this great machine of society chugging along, but I don't see why that's my responsibility . I'd definitely point out that having kids in order to have someone to look after you when you are old is hardly a selfless act. I'm fortunate to live in an age when we can choose to have kids or not. I refuse to apologize for wanting to exercise that right in a way that benefits me.

So, you're an Ayn Rand objectivist. Big deal.

Others would describe you as a narcissist. So what?

----

My take? The world has 7 billion people. (There are about 350,000 people born every day.)

The world does not need more human beings. It needs more educated human beings.

Edited September 24, 2012 by August1991

[Bonam]

My take? The world has 7 billion people. (There are about 350,000 people born every day.)

The world does not need more human beings. It needs more educated human beings.

The world may not need more human beings, but Western nations do, and the more of them are home made rather than brought in through immigration the better off we're likely to be.

The whole "world already has too many people" argument sickens me. It is the resigned cry of someone awaiting their own extinction.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest Manny]

The majority of people living in the world are in those poorer regions. India, Indonesia have some of the most populous cities, and are among the poorest in the world. It's inevitable that "white" north americans, sorry for the distasteful term but meaning the descendents of early europeans, generally those of british or french culture in Canada, they will become a minority.

The question is how does that threaten the culture, and do we owe it to the culture to see to it that it cannot be changed? "We stand on guard for thee..." , or not??

[August1991]

The whole "world already has too many people" argument sickens me. It is the resigned cry of someone awaiting their own extinction.

Extinction?

This world does not lack for human beings. We have (too) many of those.

It lacks for well-educated human beings.

----

We don't only create children, and pass on our genes. We also pass on to future generations our accumulated knowledge, experience of life.

Edited September 24, 2012 by August1991

[Bonam]

This world does not lack for human beings. We have (too) many of those.

Who are you to stand in judgment over the masses of the world and decide that they are unneeded and unwanted?

[Bonam]

It's inevitable that "white" north americans, sorry for the distasteful term but meaning the descendents of early europeans, generally those of british or french culture in Canada, they will become a minority.

They already are a minority, a pretty small one at that.

[Guest Manny]

They already are a minority, a pretty small one at that.

ok, but that wasnt the question, was it.

[Bonam]

ok, but that wasnt the question, was it.

Ok...

The question is how does that threaten the culture, and do we owe it to the culture to see to it that it cannot be changed? "We stand on guard for thee..." , or not??

Yes, becoming a minority threatens any culture. We don't owe anything to "the culture", however. The culture is merely an abstraction, an ideal. What we do owe something to is ourselves. Do you want to live in a world dominated by Chinese or Islamic or African culture? It is a matter of self-interest, depending on one's age, either interest for one's self or for one's children or grandchildren.

But the demographics are too far gone already. People of Western culture won't become a world majority simply by a few more people having kids. The best Western nations can hope, if they see changing demographics as a threat, is to keep those demographics under control at home by reducing and restricting further immigration.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Bonam

[August1991]

Who are you to stand in judgment over the masses of the world and decide that they are unneeded and unwanted?

Uh, we have too many kids. Too many people.

We are like a wine bottle with too many bacteria eating sugar.

----

Do I advocate killing people, abortion? No. Do I advocate giving birth to fewer children? Yes.

More pertinently, I argue that we don't need more kids in general, we need more "smart/educated" kids.

Bonam, what do you advocate?

Edited September 24, 2012 by August1991

[Bonam]

Uh, we have too many kids. Too many people.

Says who? Some old study based on a stack of dozens of assumptions any one of which could be wrong and against many of which I could make a plausible argument off the top of my head? Sorry but that doesn't convince me.

More pertinently, I argue that we need more "smart" kids.

I fully agree. But guess what, for there to be smart kids, there have to be kids.

Bonam, what do you advocate?

Letting people make important life decisions, such as whether / how many kids to have, for themselves. That and not parroting silly propaganda about there being "too many people" as part of some self-defeating guilt agenda. You have every right to express that opinion, but I have every right to disdain it.

[August1991]

Letting people make important life decisions, such as whether / how many kids to have, for themselves. That and not parroting silly propaganda about there being "too many people" as part of some self-defeating guilt agenda. You have every right to express that opinion, but I have every right to disdain it.

There are some 7 billion people in the world. Would you let all of them make a decision about having another child? God knows where that will lead us - given the fact that many people can't understand my argument.

Returning to BD's OP, as I say, the world does not lack for children. It lacks for educated children.

[Bonam]

There are some 7 billion people in the world. Would you let all of them make a decision about having another child?

You mean as opposed to trying to impose my will upon them? Damn right I would. Sorry but fundamental human freedom trumps your unsupported claims.

Returning to BD's OP, as I say, the world does not lack for children. It lacks for educated children.

Repeating the same platitude over and over does not make it true. If you think the world has too many people, prove it. And even if it does, I challenge you to find an ethical or moral basis for not "let[ting] all of them make a decision about having another child".

Edited September 24, 2012 by Bonam

[-TSS-]

I just don't think the number of population of the nation or a possible threat of extinction of the nation is the first thing in anyone's mind when deciding whether to have children or not, or at least it should not be. Neither is the worry about future tax-payers.

[Black Dog]

So, you're an Ayn Rand objectivist. Big deal.

No. Just...no.

Others would describe you as a narcissist. So what?

You tell me since you felt compelled to comment.

[bleeding heart]

No. Just...no.

You know, you didn't really strike me as an Ayn Rand fan, BD.

[-TSS-]

People who have children often have a very hostile attitude towards those who choose not to have any children. This thread is just another example of it. However, thinking about it, such an attitude doesn't make any sense, does it? You'd expect exactly the opposite as all people want the best possible future for their children, therefore one would expect that they would thank those people who have not had children to compete for the diminishing resources and scarce jobs and student-places with the children of those who decided to have children.

[RB]

People who have children often have a very hostile attitude towards those who choose not to have any children.

Not true. There is no ulterior motive towards folks who are not desirous to have kids. Like amen to those who want no kids or have no sort of parental craving..

Kids come with lots of responsibilities. I'd be ok if I did not have a kid. Come to think of it, I am not sure if I would have been further along in a career path, or would have accumulated more wealth without the kid. As a young one, I didn't have much of an ambition to tell the truth. So, I must have tried harder to be who I am because of the kid - for example I recall now I registered for university while on Mat - my headstart to something.

I have one child, now in medical school (ha ha expensive now - yesss). So kid is educated, yes - wise and street smart - don't know when - must be that it comes with time.

The word "selfish" is kicked around here - I find kids are very selfish initially - this changes as they experience life.

[Guest American Woman]

People who have children often have a very hostile attitude towards those who choose not to have any children. This thread is just another example of it.

Do you have tunnel vision?

However, thinking about it, such an attitude doesn't make any sense, does it? You'd expect exactly the opposite as all people want the best possible future for their children, therefore one would expect that they would thank those people who have not had children to compete for the diminishing resources and scarce jobs and student-places with the children of those who decided to have children.

Wow. Just wow.

[Mr.Canada]

Probably. But I wouldn't think that selfish people would raise very good children and future taxpayers anyway. So, I would think, we're better off leaving the re population of this country to those that actually want to take an active role in parenting.

[kraychik]

As someone who is pretty vocal in his life about his desire not to have kids, I completely own up to the fact that my reasons are completely selfish. I simply don't want the responsibility, the hassle, the expense that goes along with having kids. Having a kid would mean giving up the lifestyle I enjoy on the off chance that I might find parenthood even more rewarding (though research has shown that parents are far more likely to be depressed than the childless). I certainly get the notion that having kids helps keep this great machine of society chugging along, but I don't see why that's my responsibility . I'd definitely point out that having kids in order to have someone to look after you when you are old is hardly a selfless act. I'm fortunate to live in an age when we can choose to have kids or not. I refuse to apologize for wanting to exercise that right in a way that benefits me.

No need to apologise. Parenthood isn't for everyone. It's completely unsurprising, by the way, that a leftist like you thinks that way. Totally expected.

[kraychik]

I am curious what age bracket you are in.Im now in the 50+ bracket (barely )

I too subscribed to much the same, although I dont think in my earlier life that I considred any of the whys about why no kids.

But as I age , I find myself with a healthy does of doubt with 'did I do the right thing?' Being around all my friends kids, and now some of them are having kids, I see a lot of value and pleasure in my friends lives.

Again, I am completely unsurprised that another leftist sees things the same way. At least age has given you a shred of insight and wisdom into the consequences of your choice, and what you missed out on if raising a family was actually something that would've been good for you.

[kraychik]

Those who don't have kids are often the most awesome parents though. They usually have very correct ideas about what actual parents are doing wrong and how they could improve.

What? Yeah, because it's oh-so-easy to pretend to know how to be a parent when you've actually never had a shred of similar responsibility. If a parent needs advice on parenting, he or she should consult with people who have experience. What a ridiculous statement.

[kraychik]

We'd better hope more and more people are being selfish. 7 billion and counting is way too many already. The argument that we need more and more kids to support all the old folks, then those kids get old and require even more kids to suppors them, breaks down at some point when the planet just can't support more people. I think we're seeing that already and it will only get worse.

Then do the world a favour and don't have any children if you haven't already become a parent.

[kraychik]

this is totally backwards.... he pays the same as someone with children, but, as a household, would use them much less. So, in fact, he is paying more than he should, if it were measured on a per person or household use of services basis.

He pays for teachers as much as someone with kids, but gets absolutely no benefit, other than a societal benefit. He also doesn't get the tax breaks someone with kids would get. This means that those without kids pay more taxes just because of the fact that they don't have kids.

I am not saying it should be measured that way... we should all contribute regardless, because it is for the betterment of society, not necessarily the individual.

Great argument. Everyone should follow in BlackDog's footsteps and not have any kids.I mean, we'd all be more of an asset to society that way, right? Let's see how long that lasts.

[kraychik]

Well maybe you should pay closer attention to the original material.

Yeah: and? I'm not advocating everybody stop having kids.

Again: I'm paying for that stuff with my own tax dollars. And I may not be providing labour, but neither am I sticking society with the cost of creating more cogs for the machine (such as education). And I'm subsidizing other people's kids while I'm at it.

And when you retire and you start pulling on CPP and OAS (which typically pay out more than was paid in)? What about the tax money that was poured into servicing you as a child, assuming you went to public schools? You're not on any moral pedestal with respect to economic productivity via your choice not to have kids. It's probably a good choice for you, by the way, but don't try to sell it to us as if you're doing Canadians an economic favour.