Thread: For chuff's sake... why are people still having fucking children?

Once again a whole bunch of ad hominem attacks and no actual attacks on the arguments which I pose.

Look at this:

"If I teak this FUCKING ball and rese my FUCKING hand into da FUCKING air and drop da FUCKING ball it will forl to da FUCKING grownd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Has all of the erroneous spelling, excessive capitalisation use, lack of punctuation etc. etc. changed the fact that the ball will fall to the ground? Will the ball now begin to fall upwards simply because I presented the scentence in an undesired fashion?

Black_Eagle: "Yes it is selfish to have a child of you're own biological rearing, but it makes no difference"

It makes a difference for the child that you won't adopt, it makes a difference for the environment and it makes a difference for the economy. That's the whole point.

I have already explained and repented from my assholeness which I forced everyone to endure at the beginning of the thread, I'm going to stop acting that immaturely (unless I get excessively pissed off), which is more than we can say for users like juiceyfruit1714.

No no, i agree...please see comment below said "attack"

Originally Posted by Idolfan

Is it selfish to want specifically YOUR OWN children? Yes.
Is it selfish to want to know the feeling of giving birth? Yes.
They are selfish because the only person who will benifit from these things is you. The baby can't benifit from these things because it doesn't even exist yet. You can't have a baby in order to benifit something that doesn't even exist. It is far less selfish to adopt a child which is already there.



You're doing it again! Why do people keep telling me that I'm immature when they can't give a plain reason for why? What are you hiding from me!?

the benefits don't only apply to me. my future child would benefit from being with it's biological mother...thus me. and it would seem selfish to adopt a child cuz yeah they are getting a home, but why are you adopting? obviously because of the "selfishnes" that you talk about. you want a child, thus you adopt? that seems a bit selfish,, i guess really looking at it in an abstract way.
i personally do not feel that it is selfish to use your ability of child bearing if you are planning to keep it.
yeah it sucks that there are so many children without parents, but i am not responsible for that so there's no reason to take on such a burden out of guilt.

Originally Posted by Idolfan

Once again a whole bunch of ad hominem attacks and no actual attacks on the arguments which I pose.

Look at this:

"If I teak this FUCKING ball and rese my FUCKING hand into da FUCKING air and drop da FUCKING ball it will forl to da FUCKING grownd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Has all of the erroneous spelling, excessive capitalisation use, lack of punctuation etc. etc. changed the fact that the ball will fall to the ground? Will the ball now begin to fall upwards simply because I presented the scentence in an undesired fashion?

Black_Eagle: "Yes it is selfish to have a child of you're own biological rearing, but it makes no difference"

It makes a difference for the child that you won't adopt, it makes a difference for the environment and it makes a difference for the economy. That's the whole point.

I have already explained and repented from my assholeness which I forced everyone to endure at the beginning of the thread, I'm going to stop acting that immaturely (unless I get excessively pissed off), which is more than we can say for users like juiceyfruit1714.

What I meant by saying "...but it makes no difference" is that people can adopt AND have biological children. You're thinking in terms of left vs. right, but this issue is not about that. Both courses of action can take place without conflicting each other, believe it or not.

I already did make actual rebuttals of the arguments you posed. In fact, I think I pretty much destroyed them. I don't think you read it. You have not made any actual attacks on the arguments that I pose.

Just to make sure you've read it: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...9&postcount=92

Now, I'd love to hear your rebuttal.

It may not change the content of your argument, but it definitely colours the responses you're going to get because it's completely unneccessary, and indicative of- you know what, forget it.

Originally Posted by Adam

Tell me you feel the same in 10 years...

He might not understand, he's only 16...maybe he's still a virgin lol

Sometimes people don't "choose" to have children either...it could happen by accident.

Your young though, you'll understand when your older.

No one is just going to NOT have a baby just because the earth is overpopulated, this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard lol

because sex without a condom feels better.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

He might not understand, he's only 16...maybe he's still a virgin lol

Sometimes people don't "choose" to have children either...it could happen by accident.

Your young though, you'll understand when your older.

No one is just going to NOT have a baby just because the earth is overpopulated, this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard lol

HW That's a pretty condescending thing to say wether you meant to or not. To think that just because a person is at a certain age or point in their life that they have no foresight into what the possible outcome of their's and other's possible choices are.

This is one thing that i am personally sick of hearing from one beligerent 'elder' to the next, who always is 'one step' ahead of myself in physical age..."oh, you'll change your mind, you'll get it later on ....when you're older".
I have heard this since i reach an analytical perception of not only my life but the lives of those interacting around me (roughly around 16-17).
And look ...i am still developing my own intuitions and perceptions of the world around me! HUHHHH!!! :O. Bu-Bu-BUt i'm supposed to have reached Their point of development and fall into place with their interpretations of the world around them...wha?wha happuned?

I can say that i am much older than that now but i am NEVER going to tell someone that BS that has been soo graciously passed down to me at every chance from some shortsighted and narrowminded "elder".

(btw, referring to elders, i do not mean 100% of ALL people older than me. Just the ones who fit this description, the ones who chew the cud of their previous generations expectations...) ( btw i hate having to explain this afterthought because some jerk will jump on my statement saying something along the lines...."well that ignorant! that you think that all people older than you dont have some idea of what life is about....and blah blah blah)

If everybody stopped having children, there would be no more people left in a century and a half.

Finally someone that thinks the same as me! I've had countless discussions with people about how having children is selfish-I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but really no one can argue that it isn't selfish can they?

I mean, you're bringing a creature into the world that wouldn't exist otherwise to feel pain and misery. If it doesn't exist it doesn't care that you don't want it.
If you bring a kid up in a loving environment and it has a great life-fantastic, but what if you die unexpectedly? What if that poor kid has to go into an orphanage or be brought up by foster parents who abuse it?
People have children because either they want them (selfish) or because it was an accident (again selfish-not thinking about contraception etc.) No one actually thinks "I'm going to bring a kid up to benefit the world" do they? They think "aww babies are soooo cute, I really want a baby."

I never want kids (I guess I can't say that for definite because I might change my mind, but as I am now I really don't see it ever happening. I'm 21 btw) I don't want them because I want to reduce my carbon footprint by at least 100%-by not having another me or more) I don't wanna go through the pain of childbirth and have to look after a screaming baby and annoying kid for 18 yrs-hey I'm selfish, but it doesn't matter because this selfishness of mine doesn't affect anyone else. And erm, well I have no interest in children-nothing against em, just don't want them.

So I completely agree with the OP, but I couldn't care less how many other people have kids-well I don't want the world over-run by chavs so that problem kinda needs sortin but yeh. People are always gonna have kids cos they want them, humans are ultimately selfish. That being said, I don't have any maternal instinct whatsoever so I can't say how it feels to have one. Plus, most people expect you to knock out a couple of kids in your lifetime, and if everyone else is doing it, most people don't see anything wrong with it.

It is selfish tho! I don't care how much money u spend on ur kid, it's there because you wanted it there to make your life better, not for any other reason!

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Your young though, you'll understand when your older.

Why not just explain that there is a strong instinctual urge to have one's own children to benefit the replication of one's selfish genes? Or whatever the "reason" is. The point if there any actual reason is must be logically explainable even if you have to reduce to just "some instinct, we don't know where it comes from". Saying "you'll understand when you experience it" is the lazy option, and makes you sound like a condescending tool.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Why not just explain that there is a strong instinctual urge to have one's own children to benefit the replication of one's selfish genes? Or whatever the "reason" is. The point if there any actual reason is must be logically explainable even if you have to reduce to just "some instinct, we don't know where it comes from". Saying "you'll understand when you experience it" is the lazy option, and makes you sound like a condescending tool.

I think they have a point with the when you get older comment, not usually is it something to bring up.. But when it comes to having children, you really should wait and see. Ten to twenty years, peoples minds can change a lot.

Change will always come, that is for sure. As for change surrounding the decision to not have children: i believe this decision is very much tied into knowing yourself to the degree that it can be placed at par to knowing that you do not have it in you to kill another human being.
That is a kind decision that you base the essence of your self on and the image that you choose to project. To consciously make a committment, no matter what kind of committment, relies heavily on the will of the specific person.
Not everyone can hold that kind of committment as strongly as others.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Saying "you'll understand when you experience it" is the lazy option, and makes you sound like a condescending tool.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If everybody stopped having children, there would be no more people left in a century and a half.

No shit, did you stay up all night contemplating that?

EDIT: I thought I posted this comment before I went on holiday but obviously not.

@ Black Eagle: Having one biological child and adopting one would indeed be a better message to send out. I know, I could have thought of that a wee bit earlier but it just slipped my mind. I personally wouldn't even have a biological child but since it accomplishes the same goals I think that your idea is actually better; simply because people are more likely to subscribe to it. It would be odd if I went around to people trying to convince them to go extinct .

Originally Posted by Idolfan

No shit, did you stay up all night contemplating that?

EDIT: I thought I posted this comment before I went on holiday but obviously not.

@ Black Eagle: Having one biological child and adopting one would indeed be a better message to send out. I know, I could have thought of that a wee bit earlier but it just slipped my mind. I personally wouldn't even have a biological child but since it accomplishes the same goals I think that your idea is actually better; simply because people are more likely to subscribe to it. It would be odd if I went around to people trying to convince them to go extinct .

Originally Posted by Idolfan

No shit, did you stay up all night contemplating that?

Oh, I was thinking you posted this thread with the intention of getting the opinions of others about your comment. As you admit, you needed to think about what you posted because your very title overlooks what you just so rudely said is obvious. Think before you act next time. I am sorry I did not take the time to read all 116 posts in your holy thread of tremendous special importance.

If all couples who have children just have one child while of course not everybody is going to have any at all, the population would slowly shrink out of existence and humans would become extinct. I guess you needed to think about that idea too. Think a little longer and get your concept straight.

I'm sorry Universal Mind, but I cannot imagine how the human race could go extinct besides a nuclear war, pandemic or tremendous natural disaster.

The thing about antinatalism is that it doesn't expect to be too successful. That's the whole point. I would only expect a few percent of the population to subscribe to it, if even that! Maybe even one percent or less... but that's a lot of people. I just find it absolutely unfathomable how the human race can possibly become extinct through slowing population growth. Would we really LET the human race go extinct? Would people be so stupid that they wouldn't be able to tell that the population is plummeting (which it won't)?

Originally Posted by Jules2007

Finally someone that thinks the same as me! I've had countless discussions with people about how having children is selfish-I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but really no one can argue that it isn't selfish can they?

I mean, you're bringing a creature into the world that wouldn't exist otherwise to feel pain and misery. If it doesn't exist it doesn't care that you don't want it.
If you bring a kid up in a loving environment and it has a great life-fantastic, but what if you die unexpectedly? What if that poor kid has to go into an orphanage or be brought up by foster parents who abuse it?
People have children because either they want them (selfish) or because it was an accident (again selfish-not thinking about contraception etc.) No one actually thinks "I'm going to bring a kid up to benefit the world" do they? They think "aww babies are soooo cute, I really want a baby."

I never want kids (I guess I can't say that for definite because I might change my mind, but as I am now I really don't see it ever happening. I'm 21 btw) I don't want them because I want to reduce my carbon footprint by at least 100%-by not having another me or more) I don't wanna go through the pain of childbirth and have to look after a screaming baby and annoying kid for 18 yrs-hey I'm selfish, but it doesn't matter because this selfishness of mine doesn't affect anyone else. And erm, well I have no interest in children-nothing against em, just don't want them.

So I completely agree with the OP, but I couldn't care less how many other people have kids-well I don't want the world over-run by chavs so that problem kinda needs sortin but yeh. People are always gonna have kids cos they want them, humans are ultimately selfish. That being said, I don't have any maternal instinct whatsoever so I can't say how it feels to have one. Plus, most people expect you to knock out a couple of kids in your lifetime, and if everyone else is doing it, most people don't see anything wrong with it.

It is selfish tho! I don't care how much money u spend on ur kid, it's there because you wanted it there to make your life better, not for any other reason!

My thoughts exactly. People will continue to have kids and I don't expect to stop that.

I however do have pretty strong paternal instincts. I'm only sixteen but I do really want to raise a child. However, because of my own ethical reasons I will simply never have one of my own. It's really not that hard to transfer your emotions onto someone elses child. I am speaking from my own opinion of course... for some people I'm sure it is a lot harder. Inevitebly, these people will continue to have children.

i will propose an idea for you. when deer or elk population are high, we hunt them or put more wolves in the area. you know what would be a faster and (according to only animalistic ways, thus natures way) easier to just start picking one another off. we can have a huge game of the most dangerouse game... it'll be fun.

sorry saarcasm got the best of me. but on a more serious note, overpopulation is just a figment of people's imaginations. if you took the time to calculate the liveable areas of the world, and the people on the earth, you would find that overpopulation is not the problem, kind of like i stated earlier and what it said in the article i put up...

Originally Posted by aorozco

. if you took the time to calculate the liveable areas of the world, and the people on the earth, you would find that overpopulation is not the problem, kind of like i stated earlier and what it said in the article i put up...

Do not take this the wrong way as if i am patronizing you, but have you performed this calculation? If so, can i see some data on it? This interests me since i believe that the world is fast becoming overpopulated.

Factoring in only 'livable areas' is very narrow. What about the waste that is produced from soo many humans? The increasing of socially inept behaviours that eats away at the fabric of scoiety? The lack of land needed to create edible foods while also proving areas to live while we consume these things?

If the trend as i see it now (IMO) continues, we will be a world society of consumers for the sake of consuming. We will surround ourselves with gadgets, gizmos, whatchamacallits and things of simple ornamental value until they become boring and are tossed away.

Also, we have to take into account the areas of the world that are not able to be inhabited by humans or many animals. Even these are necessary for our survival in the livable areas. If those areas are off-balanced by the effects we have in the livable areas then soon the blowback will come for us where we live.
An example of this is the ecosystem of the Sahara desert. The winds that circulate through that area eventually bring precipitation to the drier areas and allow for life to flourish for a brief period of time before it has to migrate on again.
If humans take up all the livable space and leave areas like this alone, the impacet will be quite intense. The animals that can only survive in that area of the desert because of yearly precipitation will not be able to move on to the more lush areas of land in the dry season since it may be occupied by all these humans trying to survive in greater and greater numbers.

Originally Posted by Idolfan

I'm sorry Universal Mind, but I cannot imagine how the human race could go extinct besides a nuclear war, pandemic or tremendous natural disaster.

The thing about antinatalism is that it doesn't expect to be too successful. That's the whole point. I would only expect a few percent of the population to subscribe to it, if even that! Maybe even one percent or less... but that's a lot of people. I just find it absolutely unfathomable how the human race can possibly become extinct through slowing population growth. Would we really LET the human race go extinct? Would people be so stupid that they wouldn't be able to tell that the population is plummeting (which it won't)?

I was just talking about what would happen if humanity as a whole followed what you were talking about and kept following it for long enough.

But that's absurd... The whole point of antinatalism is that the world is overpopulated, therefore we should reduce the population. If it got to the point where extinction was even remotely likely, people would start having kids again...

Of course, thats assuming everyone on earth doesn't stop having kids for long enough that when the population looks "right" everyone suddenly realises that the only people still alive are over 60 and can't have children anymore. Oops!

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

But that's absurd... The whole point of antinatalism is that the world is overpopulated, therefore we should reduce the population. If it got to the point where extinction was even remotely likely, people would start having kids again...

I know that. I was talking about what would happen if Idolfan's proposed policy never ended. Idolfan did not at first mention that he beleived in ending the plan, so I brought up that need for it to end at some point. Of course it is unrealistic to think the policy would not end. In fact, it is unrealistic to think all couples who have kids are going to have just one even for a year. We are talking about specific hypotheticals.

I think the risk of my policy never ending is less than the risk of the Hadron Collider ending the world. I can't practically imagine how that would happen.

Of course the policy, if it even becomes one, would end. I don't want humanity to just disappear from the Earth. Some antinatalist groups like the VHEMT do though... but I don't know what drives them really. I never want to be confused with them; humanity is precious and must be preserved.

As for overpopulation: Living space is not even in the top ten of things wrong with overpopulation. The main problem is humanity's guzzling of the Earth's resources as well as multiple economic problems such as unemployment.

One vital problem with my proposal however is the risk of an aging population. This is a BIG problem. However, I think that the longer we wait, the higher the risk of this being a major problem. If (nationally) population increase were to slow down we would have economic problems for perhaps a generation or two. But if you put things into perspective, if we waited for two hundred more years, the number of pensioners would have increased (remember medicine plays a big factor) so the crisis would be even worse! I think it is safer to act as soon as possible.