The west needs to grow up and have kids

[ScottSA]

I can't think of worse reasons to have kids than having them out of a sense of duty or obligation, or because other races are having more, or because they'd get some kind of kickback from the government. The only reason to have kids is because the people making that choice want them.

That I think says better than anything I ever could about why the west is in decline. Abrogating the classical sense of duty to self interest, and then actually celebrating it as morally just is the hallmark of any society at its crest. It's a shame.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE(American Woman @ Sep 22 2007, 09:50 AM) * I can't think of worse reasons to have kids than having them out of a sense of duty or obligation, or because other races are having more, or because they'd get some kind of kickback from the government. The only reason to have kids is because the people making that choice want them.

That I think says better than anything I ever could about why the west is in decline. Abrogating the classical sense of duty to self interest, and then actually celebrating it as morally just is the hallmark of any society at its crest. It's a shame.

I'm not thinking of "self" interest when I say that-- I'm thinking of the children who would be brought into the world for such reasons. I think every child first and foremost deserves to be wanted, and if they aren't wanted, then I think it's making the responsible choice not to have them.

[Renegade]

That I think says better than anything I ever could about why the west is in decline. Abrogating the classical sense of duty to self interest, and then actually celebrating it as morally just is the hallmark of any society at its crest. It's a shame.

Actually I would say that even people who have kids do so out of self-interest. Either they value the experience of being a parent, or they possess a drive to propagate their DNA, or maybe even it is just a basic sexual drive. Either way they are doing so in most cases out of self-interest. The difference for those who don't have kids is that they have decided that their self-interest don't align with having kids.

[Renegade]

Also, seems to me we had to reach a point where there had to be a slow down in population growth or the world would become overpopulated.

It seems to me that we qare well past that point. Our planet is already overpopulated and the underlying cause of the severe environmental damage. Given the world's population can anyone rationally defend that having more kids is a good thing?

[ScottSA]

It seems to me that we qare well past that point. Our planet is already overpopulated and the underlying cause of the severe environmental damage. Given the world's population can anyone rationally defend that having more kids is a good thing?

Yes.

[Renegade]

Yes.

Let's hear it.

[geoffrey]

No doubt but the point is what are your personal ambitions and where did they come from?

My personal ambitions? Experiencing the most out of life possible, travelling, being academically involved. Maybe a few third world development projects. Where does that come from? The luxury of living a country where my next meal is a certainty and where I don't have to die to make a political point.

Most of us like potato chips but we all know what happens if you eat too much of them.

Eh?

In any case, the world's problem is arguably not a lack of kids. We've got too many of them. Our problem is that we don't have enough educated kids. People like Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton didn't just wake up one day.

Nor were they necessarily the most successful people in traditional education streams (Einstein in particular).

[ScottSA]

My personal ambitions? Experiencing the most out of life possible, travelling, being academically involved. Maybe a few third world development projects. Where does that come from? The luxury of living a country where my next meal is a certainty and where I don't have to die to make a political point.

Eh?

Nor were they necessarily the most successful people in traditional education streams (Einstein in particular).

Note that everything is about "you." It's a shame we're losing the sense of duty and sacrifice that made this country the way it is, so that you don't have to worry about your safety or your next meal.

[August1991]

Women are delaying having kids now because they realize they have other choices, and that's a good thing-- having choices. People are having less kids now, too, because they want to give their kids the best life they can. That also is a good thing.

Realize? I don't know if that's the word that I would choose.

Even as recently as 1960, if a woman chose to stay at home, she sacrificed at most a low paying job. Her time was more valuable in housework. Nowadays, a woman who chooses to stay at home (and presumably have kids) is sacrificing much more. Her possible salary in the paid labour force is much higher and her efforts at home less valuable.

IOW, women forty years ago were just as smart and "self-realized" as they are now. Modern technology however and economic growth have changed the choices in front of them.

Actually I would say that even people who have kids do so out of self-interest. Either they value the experience of being a parent, or they possess a drive to propagate their DNA, or maybe even it is just a basic sexual drive. Either way they are doing so in most cases out of self-interest. The difference for those who don't have kids is that they have decided that their self-interest don't align with having kids.

This is my thought too. We are, as Richard Dawkins would say, mere vessels for our genetic code. This code has had about a billion years to refine its ability to replicate itself so I doubt that we can stymy its intentions.

That I think says better than anything I ever could about why the west is in decline. Abrogating the classical sense of duty to self interest, and then actually celebrating it as morally just is the hallmark of any society at its crest. It's a shame.

Give it a break, Scott. When an argument falls to telling me that I'm not thinking of the greater good, then usually it means I'm being taken in.

---

My personal ambitions? Experiencing the most out of life possible, travelling, being academically involved. Maybe a few third world development projects. Where does that come from? The luxury of living a country where my next meal is a certainty and where I don't have to die to make a political point.

Let me answer this idea this way. In the fullness of time, you may realize that the only way you can fully experience life is if you have children.

I meant the same with the potato chip example. We are programmed to like certain things but in this modern world, these things don't necessarily lead us to the results that make us happy.

Nor were they necessarily the most successful people in traditional education streams (Einstein in particular).

Newton received a good basic education (for the 17th century). At the time, very few people would have had the opportunity to be so educated. For example, literacy rates were in single digit percentages.

Einstein had at least the chance of going to high school and obtained the equivalent of a teacher's certificate. In the late 1900s, that was remarkable in Canada (and even Europe). (Gauss is sometimes described as being an auto-didactic but even he had a basic education.)

Around the world today, most children get a rudimentary elementary education but little beyond that. Geoffrey, I don't know if you've ever been in a classroom in a poor country. For a Canadian, it is like travelling back in time. Indeed, I suspect that even Newton got a better rudimentary education.

Argus argues that we shouldn't accept illiterate, uneducated "goat-herders" as immigrants to Canada. I don't know. Maybe this is the best way to educate their children. Amongst these kids, there might even be a Newton or an Einstein in the bunch. But unless they get a basic education, we'll never know.

Edited September 23, 2007 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Sep 22 2007, 12:50 PM)

Women are delaying having kids now because they realize they have other choices, and that's a good thing-- having choices. People are having less kids now, too, because they want to give their kids the best life they can. That also is a good thing.

Realize? I don't know if that's the word that I would choose.

Even as recently as 1960, if a woman chose to stay at home, she sacrificed at most a low paying job. Her time was more valuable in housework. Nowadays, a woman who chooses to stay at home (and presumably have kids) is sacrificing much more. Her possible salary in the paid labour force is much higher and her efforts at home less valuable.

IOW, women forty years ago were just as smart and "self-realized" as they are now. Modern technology however and economic growth have changed the choices in front of them.

Women as recently as 1960 were nurses and teachers, which weren't exactly low paying jobs, but for the most part you are correct in saying that the best they could hope for was "at most" a low paying job, and at best very limited career choices; so women definitely had less choices than they do today-- which supports my statement.

But here's the thing. A woman's "efforts" when choosing to stay home nowadays are just as valuable as they have always been. Raising kids is not "less valuable" because there isn't a paycheck involved. What about women who work? They sacrifice time with their children. Do you see the loss of a bigger paycheck as a bigger "sacrifice" than the loss of time with one's children?

But yes. Women today realize that they do have more choices, and as I said, that's a good thing. They aren't raised with the idea that when they reach a certain age, getting married and having kids is the normal/expected path to follow. They realize they have the option of a career too, just as a man does. Girls today are 'expected' to go on to college as much as boys are, and when they do, the aren't asked if they are going to university to get their MRS degree. And that's a good thing.

Edited September 23, 2007 by American Woman

[Wilber]

All this talk of women, the ultimate consequences for our society will be the same for men. Someone will have to produce the children who will grow up to maintain the society that present and future generations will need to survive when they are no longer in the workforce. They will either have to come from within the country or be imported from elsewhere.

[ScottSA]

Realize? I don't know if that's the word that I would choose.

Even as recently as 1960, if a woman chose to stay at home, she sacrificed at most a low paying job. Her time was more valuable in housework. Nowadays, a woman who chooses to stay at home (and presumably have kids) is sacrificing much more. Her possible salary in the paid labour force is much higher and her efforts at home less valuable.

IOW, women forty years ago were just as smart and "self-realized" as they are now. Modern technology however and economic growth have changed the choices in front of them.

Women as recently as 1960 were nurses and teachers, which weren't exactly low paying jobs, but for the most part you are correct in saying that the best they could hope for was "at most" a low paying job, and at best very limited career choices; so women definitely had less choices than they do today-- which supports my statement.

But here's the thing. A woman's "efforts" when choosing to stay home nowadays are just as valuable as they have always been. Raising kids is not "less valuable" because there isn't a paycheck involved. What about women who work? They sacrifice time with their children. Do you see the loss of a bigger paycheck as a bigger "sacrifice" than the loss of time with one's children?

But yes. Women today realize that they do have more choices, and as I said, that's a good thing. They aren't raised with the idea that when they reach a certain age, getting married and having kids is the normal/expected path to follow. They realize they have the option of a career too, just as a man does. Girls today are 'expected' to go on to college as much as boys are, and when they do, the aren't asked if they are going to university to get their MRS degree. And that's a good thing.

Everybody has choices and always did. It's just that somewhere along the line the feminist movement destroyed the sense of obligation that has to go with all the "choices."

[Guest American Woman]

Everybody has choices and always did. It's just that somewhere along the line the feminist movement destroyed the sense of obligation that has to go with all the "choices."

What sense of obligation is that? And how does "obligation" fit in with "choices?" If women are obligated to do something (ie: have kids), which is what you seem to be saying, seems to me that would greatly affect their choices.

[ScottSA]

What sense of obligation is that? And how does "obligation" fit in with "choices?" If women are obligated to do something (ie: have kids), which is what you seem to be saying, seems to me that would greatly affect their choices.

Yes, it would, wouldn't it? Kinda like paying child support affects men's "choices." But you know what? There's more to life than satisfying one's id, as surprising as that may seem.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, it would, wouldn't it? Kinda like paying child support affects men's "choices." But you know what? There's more to life than satisfying one's id, as surprising as that may seem.

When men pay child support, it's because of the choices they made. They chose to create a baby, or at the very least chose to engage in sex. They didn't feel obligated to do it; they chose to. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that women should be obligated to have babies, which certainly is in direct contradition to your claim that "everyone has choices ...." not to mention is just plain nuts.

[ScottSA]

When men pay child support, it's because of the choices they made. They chose to create a baby, or at the very least chose to engage in sex. They didn't feel obligated to do it; they chose to. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that women should be obligated to have babies, which certainly is in direct contradition to your claim that "everyone has choices ...." not to mention is just plain nuts.

I see. So if women choose to engage in sex, they should have babies too? Oh, no wait. They don't have to worry about that choice, do they? Only dad has to worry about that choice, and he doesn't have a choice. It's the woman's body an' all, until it's time to pay up, and then all of a sudden it's the mnan's sperm? Does the man have the same choice? What if he wants the baby and the mother doesn't? Hmmm, well, how sad...

[Higgly]

He's coming, folks. He's gonna get to me yet. It's like waiting for the Jolly Old Elf!

[geoffrey]

Note that everything is about "you." It's a shame we're losing the sense of duty and sacrifice that made this country the way it is, so that you don't have to worry about your safety or your next meal.

That's nonsense. Better outcomes are nearly always acheived when people do things they want to do, rather than do something for a flag. You'll never see me doing something just because it's good for the country. I'm about living my life, and if I help other people along the way, I'll just be that better off for it. I don't do anything for Canada though, not directly. That's silly.

Let me answer this idea this way. In the fullness of time, you may realize that the only way you can fully experience life is if you have children.

I may indeed realise that and in that situation I'd have kids. But to suggest people have a duty or obligation to feel that way or to produce children is immoral.

I meant the same with the potato chip example. We are programmed to like certain things but in this modern world, these things don't necessarily lead us to the results that make us happy.

How does this apply to children? Are you saying we are programmed to want to have children, but that won't neccessarily make us happy?

Newton received a good basic education (for the 17th century). At the time, very few people would have had the opportunity to be so educated. For example, literacy rates were in single digit percentages.

Einstein had at least the chance of going to high school and obtained the equivalent of a teacher's certificate. In the late 1900s, that was remarkable in Canada (and even Europe). (Gauss is sometimes described as being an auto-didactic but even he had a basic education.)

I'll give you that. I am under the impression that education was different then compared to now. I think today is too based in hard science at an early age. No doubt it should be stressed in high school, but the basic education should cover literacy and perhaps a venture into philosophy (logic and ethics) through science and social sciences. But the focus should be on rational thought and literacy, not the specifics of how many protons are in a cesium atom. Education seems to be directed towards producing university students. And I don't think that's correct. I don't think Einstien, Gauss or Newton would have excelled in today's education system.

And that's a signficant problem.

Around the world today, most children get a rudimentary elementary education but little beyond that. Geoffrey, I don't know if you've ever been in a classroom in a poor country. For a Canadian, it is like travelling back in time. Indeed, I suspect that even Newton got a better rudimentary education.

I can't say I have.

Argus argues that we shouldn't accept illiterate, uneducated "goat-herders" as immigrants to Canada. I don't know. Maybe this is the best way to educate their children. Amongst these kids, there might even be a Newton or an Einstein in the bunch. But unless they get a basic education, we'll never know.

I have very little objection to having a basic education as a fundamental human right.

[Black Dog]

In the fullness of time, you may realize that the only way you can fully experience life is if you have children.

Pardon my French, but screw that. Folks need to stop dressing up a basic biological imperative as a moral or political one.

[Wilber]

Pardon my French, but screw that. Folks need to stop dressing up a basic biological imperative as a moral or political one.

I agree on the moral but it will be very political. The fact is, at our present birth rate, in twenty years we will be an old society with more people dieing than being born. That's just a reality we have to deal with.

[capricorn]

Here's something.

Deep-voiced men 'have more kids'

"There are a lot of reasons why lower pitch and reproductive success could be linked," said Coren Apicella, from the Department of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, US.

Bass voices are suggestive of increased testosterone levels, which could lead females to perceive such men as better hunters and therefore better providers, she told the BBC.

"Or it could be that men with deeper voices simply start reproducing earlier. We really don't know what is behind this yet."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7013136.stm

Could these science shattering findings on reproduction hide the answer to our low birth count? Or could this actually harm our quest for population growth? I can just see it now. Women asking suitors to take audio tests to measure the tone and pitch of their voice. Another tool available to women to find Mister Right? It could backfire though if women who want just a couple of kids or, g-d forbid, none, seek out the squeaky voice.

[August1991]

All this talk of women, the ultimate consequences for our society will be the same for men. Someone will have to produce the children who will grow up to maintain the society that present and future generations will need to survive when they are no longer in the workforce. They will either have to come from within the country or be imported from elsewhere.

When you say produce, I'm assuming that you refer to the cost of raising and educating the children to turn them into intelligent, thoughtful members of a civilized society.

Just having babies is a relatively small cost compared to education.

But to suggest people have a duty or obligation to feel that way or to produce children is immoral.

I wouldn't advise having children out of any sense of obligation. I am suggesting that to live life fully, one has to raise children or be involved in their education.

How does this apply to children? Are you saying we are programmed to want to have children, but that won't neccessarily make us happy?

No, I meant that an egotist and freedom go together like a hungry teenager and a bowl of potato chips.

In the end however, the chips don't really satify one's hunger.

Pardon my French, but screw that. Folks need to stop dressing up a basic biological imperative as a moral or political one.

I suppose you're right...

But from my perspective, no one has fully participated in life unless they have been involved in extending life to others. For those who don't get involved, life is a form of egotistical narcissism.

Maybe I should clarify. Thinking of Madonna, it's one thing to adopt a designer kid or two in Africa or Asia and foist them off on a nanny. And quite another to get involved in their life as they grow up.

Anyway.

Edited September 26, 2007 by August1991