Let's Calmly and Reasonably Discuss if it's Consciable to Have Children

[Amake]

Because the chat is too hot at the moment, and I want to go through the arguments for and against this carefully.

There's an argument to be made that having children, or even adopting them from starving countries, as a privileged first world citizen, is selfish and wrong. It has to do with the unsustainable resource consumption of the first world, which we may only be able to limit by limiting our numbers. If you care about the long-term existence of life on this planet and want to make it your responsibility to limit the damage to our environment as far as you're personally able, your family life may have to take a back seat.

There's an argument against this that seems to amount to "other people are doing worse things", which is true as far as it goes. There's to my knowledge nothing that you and your family unto seven generations combined could possibly do to hurt this world that's even comparable to the auto industry or any one of like five hundred different very large businesses. But if you want to do what's good to the best of your abilities, that should not matter.

Other than that, I don't know anything.

It's my belief that having more human life in the world is in itself a worthwhile pursuit. That comes with being a humanist. There is of course a point where that's just not realistic, because the world - particularly the first world - can only support so many of us. Many bright environmentalists tell me we're already far beyond that point. I want to get this straightened out. I'm sure you have many different well-informed opinions on the matter.

[Krylo]

Argument against is actually this:

Is it selfish to have a kid? Maybe.

However, firstly: Population dropping too quickly in first world countries (or any country) = economic collapse as that there's too many old people with not enough young people to support them. Thus population decreasing too quickly = worse times for everyone.

Secondly: Population is already decreasing in most first world countries at a rate where if it dropped much faster the thing in the first point would happen.

Thirdly: There's an argument to offset this with immigration, but immigrants are just going to be using the same resources as a natural born person, and are more likely to have more children due to the culture of most second and third world countries, and that culture is more likely to spread into the first world. In other words you're risking a first world population explosion if you allow too much immigration into the first world. Plus: Population growth beyond what a region can handle can also cause economic collapse, so too many immigrants can cause bad shit to happen before you even get into them having children.

And Fourthly: The global population crisis is, more or less, a giant curtain being drawn in front of us by the mega rich so that we can feel guilty/angry at our peers and at african children instead of directing our ire toward the top 1% who are hogging almost all the resources that could easily be used to feed, clothe, and otherwise help along a huge number of people globally. In other words, instead of attacking the people who are using more resources than they could ever possibly need, we're attacking people who wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for the aforementioned group.

So it's not "Other people are doing worse things" it's that "Not only does this not really help, it potentially makes things worse, and by talking about it and attacking people over it you're just playing directly into Rupert Murdoch's greasy murder hands".

[Aldurin]

I don't feel it's as much about "Is it detrimental to the economy to have children?" as much as it's "Can you not raise your kids to be unproductive dumbasses if you choose to have them?". While population can end up growing, this is offset by an increase in output by the extra people that work (assuming it's not a severe return of the Baby Boom).

[Amake]

I have a feeling it's really more of a question of if you can be not terrible parents than if your minuscule contribution to the world's resource distribution and intranational population balances actually matters in any measurable way. I mean I was thinking of "first world citizens" as a collective of equals but most of us here could probably squirt out literally hundreds of babies and have an objectively less awful effect on the economy, the environment or anything else that matters to society than if let's say Donald Trump has one child, even if the effect they have is demonstrably negative.

But I guess I wanted to cover every angle. I do entertain some dreams of introducing my mom to her grandkidlets one day you know.

[Ecks]

I'm in the "for having children" group. Mostly because I have to have something to unleash hell on this unsuspecting globe and it sure as hell isn't going to be a doomsday device or a multinational corporation. So yes, I'm going to procreate instead and the Bastard Spawn of Ecks will be the scourge of planet Earth.

Oh wait the thread title said something about taking this seriously. Well, I'm of the persuasion that it's less harmful for one person of average means to have several children and raise them to be productive members of society than for rich douhebags to have one pompous spoiled brat to pass all their fortune and connections on to. Personally, heirs to fortunes should be appointed and trained to use their inheritance responsibly. But this is just me rambling, so whatever.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Man we already had this discussion in massive form in chat. Doing it in the forum is so 2006.

[Osterbaum]

It wouldn't hurt if especially the third world countries had a bit less children either.

[Thadius]

I'm in the "for having children" group. Mostly because I have to have something to unleash hell on this unsuspecting globe and it sure as hell isn't going to be a doomsday device or a multinational corporation. So yes, I'm going to procreate instead and the Bastard Spawn of Ecks will be the scourge of planet Earth.

Pretty sure there's an approval system for people who want to have spawn and know it'd be detrimental to the survival of civilization.

Oh wait I founded it MOVING ON.

Man we already had this discussion in massive form in chat. Doing it in the forum is so 2006.

Because the chat is too hot at the moment, and I want to go through the arguments for and against this carefully.

Pictured: Proof Smarty is blind. Moreso than normal.

As for on-topic discussion: I'm for having kids. Mainly because if raised properly, there is no end to the amount of things your kids could grow up to be. A scientist, an engineer, an Olympic athlete, a fireman, a policeman, anything. And the fact that it would be your child doing these things...I want to be able to feel that proud of something I've done and not go 'Oh we're using up all the resources oh no' instead.

Granted, there is the other side of the coin, in that if you fail to raise a child properly, there's no end to the things they can do then, either. Really sort of a risk/reward thing, there.

[Osterbaum]

Your kids will grow up eating all our resources.

[Nique]

The global population crisis is, more or less, a giant curtain being drawn in front of us by the mega rich so that we can feel guilty/angry at our peers and at african children instead of directing our ire toward the top 1% who are hogging almost all the resources that could easily be used to feed, clothe, and otherwise help along a huge number of people globally. In other words, instead of attacking the people who are using more resources than they could ever possibly need, we're attacking people who wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for the aforementioned group.

Basically this, although I don't know if it's an intentional curtain, but "overpopulation" is only an issue because other issues have made it so, the huge imbalance in how resources are distributed on a global scale being chief among them.

I think that it's kind of stupid (calm and reasonable; HA!) to say that it's unconscionable to have children. We are basically still animals and until the great technological singularity carries us unto him in his cold heartless bosom, a lot of us are still going to want to sex each other and go gaga over our disgusting offspring. It's what humans do and instead of trying to stop humans from doing what humans do we should be figuring out ways to better sustain humans doing what humans do.

[Magus]

Eh.

It's probably okay to have one.

Maybe two if you live in Japan or something.

THAT'S LIKE IT THOUGH.

Also more people should overcome their baser natures and adopt, but you know that probably won't happen...probably easier to convince them to just not to have 5 or 16 or whatever.

Really having a multitude of children is usually either a trait of the massively impoverished or the massively overprivileged. Solve economic inequities and you'd probably solve the population crises around the world.

I think 4 billion was asserted as the max population that can be adequately sheltered and fed from the earth's resources one time, did they alter this? In any case we have artificially increased this through science, no reason we can't keep artificially increasing it while at the same time cutting back on having kids as much as possible. I think we can solve this problem in...200 years.

Shit, it's too late, isn't it?

[Ecks]

Magus it was too late decades before either of us were even thought of much less conceived or given birth to.

[Bobbey]

I've already established in a past thread that, for the moment, I do not wish to have any kids, my main reason being that I do not like children in general and prefer to not having anything to do with them. Amongst the many reasons I told myself that I don't want kids was the whole "you know, there's already enough people in the world anyways, why add another?" discussion, but this was one of the very minor reasons, really. I do not think that having a kid nowadays is a selfish thing at all, I mean, if it's what the couple wants and they both feel the need to parent a child and make it themselves, it's only natural and part of human (and animal) nature. However, it is also their responsibility to raise their child well and make them a good staple in society, which could eventually help us in the current situation in one way or another. My biggest fear in having a child is this really, not being able to raise it well because of a lack of discipline, or the contrary, too much discipline because I'd punish him/her for every little thing and making him/her miserable on the long run.

[Fifthfiend]

The global population crisis is, more or less, a giant curtain being drawn in front of us by the mega rich so that we can feel guilty/angry at our peers and at african children instead of directing our ire toward the top 1% who are hogging almost all the resources that could easily be used to feed, clothe, and otherwise help along a huge number of people globally. In other words, instead of attacking the people who are using more resources than they could ever possibly need, we're attacking people who wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for the aforementioned group.

Came here to post this, hit quote, left satisfied.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The more kids people have the higher chance there will be a smarty 2.0

[Ecks]

The more kids people have the higher chance there will be a smarty 2.0

Welp I'm off to get my vasectomy gents, see you fine fellows later.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

I'm not adverse to the idea of having children in the sense of raising a family, I'm just adverse to the idea of physically bearing them. If I ever get to a point where I feel like I have the resources to give a kid a healthy upbringing I'll look into adoption.

[Ecks]

Yes I believe Mitch Fatel said something to the effect that giving birth creates bad vaginas or something. And we all know bad vaginas are reason enough to swear off the childbearing.

[Aldurin]

Babies are loud and demanding, why would you ever think of having one?

[Krylo]

left satisfied.

They always do.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

I'd prefer to give a child who already exists and needs care now the chance to get that care rather than squeeze out a brand new one just to cater to some outdated need for genetic ties.

[Ryong]

What do you mean you people don't want to have ~4 years of pure stress? How dare you not want to have a baby!

[Ecks]

Ryong where did you learn how to count? That's a lifetime of stress there dude, people can't even get the hell out of their parents' houses these days.

[Magus]

I was going to say, there is a great debate about which is more annoying, the baby or the teenager. Now we can include manchildren in the debate!

[Ryong]

Ryong where did you learn how to count? That's a lifetime of stress there dude, people can't even get the hell out of their parents' houses these days.

At least you are able to get sleep later.

[Ecks]

Point taken.

[tacticslion]

Krylo, Thadeus, and Nique pretty much said what I would have, only better and more clearly and concisely, when taken together (though I might not agree 100%, it's close enough).

BUT THAT'S NEVER STOPPED ME BEFORE!

Short(er) version: I have a kid and I love every minute of it. Am I "good enough" to be a father? I've no idea. I'm going to be my best and raise him as best I can. I'm going to teach him right from wrong, good from evil, and to choose what is right and good. I'm going to teach him to be honest, to love everyone (even if he doesn't like them), and I'm going to try to be be a strong, authoritative figure, but one with compassion and love. I can't make his long-term decisions for him, but he doesn't really have to know that until he gets old enough. At which point, I have to hope and pray that all that I did prior was enough to make him a better person than I.

What I realize he does not have to be:
* smarter than I am (raw mental ability)
** correlation: nor more educated than I am (though I hope so)

* more physically capable than I am (though his health needs to be more important to him than it has been to me)

* anything that he does not have the capability, wherewithal, or drive to be

* me (please, let him not be me-part-two, for his sake), only better

* the proud owner of too much stuff

The above is a short list of where I've seen many parents, even people I like, go wrong. They want their children to have it "better" than they... and so do I, honestly... but have no real concept beyond "more stuff/money/easier life" of what "better" is. For me, "better" refers to moral character, personal integrity, spiritual strength, and kindness. The "stuff" is great; there's nothing inherently evil about it, and I'll get him some "stuff". But it's very low, over-all, on the priorities list. If his needs are met, he needs to learn to be a good person. Too many parents just don't do that. I might not be able to succeed, but I'll work harder at it than anything else in my life, aside from my marriage.

So, yeah. Am I a perfect father? Already (just seven months in!): no. But, I'm going to work at it and get better. And the best part is, despite how scared out of my mind I am at the prospect of messing stuff up, in the long run I don't have to be perfect. I have to be "good enough", and, when I include my wife and family, I believe that I can be, because I love that kid more than my own life, and I trust my family to help keep me on the right path and to have shown me a basically correct way to live.

And that's basically, from what everyone tells me, the only way to do it.