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".

[Nique]

Originally Posted by Krylo

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.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Krylo

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.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

left satisfied.

They always do.

[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.