View Full Version : Go forth and multiply
(Note: This is a thread seeking advice on whether to have children. You'll probably want to skip it unless that interests you.)
My wife and I both turned 31 within the last few weeks. We've been together since we were 21 and we've been married since we were 26. We have talked about having children many times over the years. Our conclusions have always been the same: we're pretty sure we want a single child (just one) eventually, but we know we don't want it now. Something about 31 has made this conversation warp a bit this time around. My wife has numerous medical concerns, both for the baby and herself, that make her believe that she should not have a baby after age 35. I do not disagree with this, but 31 is a lot closer to 35 than 26 was. Uncomfortably closer, for both of us.
The problem is that our opinions haven't changed. Neither of us want a child right now, we know that for sure. We are both lawyers, we both work full-time, and we are simply having a lot of fun in life right now. With two incomes, we have a very decent lifestyle and are both upwardly mobile within our own careers as well. We enjoy our freedom, both physically and financially, and we are totally content with each others' company.
A child seems very threatening to our lifestyle. We will lose our freedom almost completely for several years, and it will be reduced from its current level even after the child is no longer an infant. We will certainly be able to afford the child, but there's no question it will result in a significant impact on our finances. We simply won't be able to spend like we do now, take the types of vacations we want, and do other frivolous things whenever we feel like it. In addition, we will rarely ever be alone again. We are best friends in addition to spouses, and we enjoy spending a lot of time alone.
Thus, we are both very concerned that a child will damage a lot of the aspects about our lives that we value very highly. At the same time, there are many reasons to have a child. I have a great relationship with my parents and I would love to be able to share that kind of life with a child of my own. Both my wife and I find the prospect of teaching a child about the world and watching them grow up to be somewhat thrilling. We think that raising a child together and seeing him/her grow into a successful adult would add another layer of bonding to our already close connection. We both want to share things that we enjoyed as children with a child of our own: holidays, camping, bedtime stories, etc. Society as a whole also seems to proclaim that having children is a great and rewarding thing and that it brings with it joy that we’d have to be fools to miss out on.
My wife has her own particular concerns about children. She does not think her parents have ever been happy since she was born, and while she knows they love her, she's not sure they love each other. She is very much afraid of losing her identity; she is a smart, capable and ambitious attorney with a strong career and hobbies that she enjoys. She definitely does not want to give that up to raise a child, but she constantly sees women around her changing from being 'Emily' or 'Susan' into 'Mom' or 'Mother.' She told me that a great number of her female work colleagues are consumed by maternal guilt and feel horrible if they do anything for themselves or put the baby down for even a minute to do something as innocuous as take a shower. She is also greatly concerned about the physical changes it will have on her body. She spent a lot of her life feeling unattractive and uncomfortable with her body. That is no longer the case. She is, to be blunt, thin, attractive, in great shape, and fashion-conscious. Feeling good about her appearance has done wonders for her self-esteem. The prospect of having a lot of that permanently altered by the physical process of pregnancy and childbirth is understandably frightening to her.
In addition, both of us have observed alarming changes in some of our friends when they have children. Honestly, most of them become boring and annoying and cannot talk about anything in life other than their kids. We have drifted away from several couples we used to be friends with because after they had a child, spending time with them became uncomfortable because the only thing they could talk about was something we can’t relate to. While if we had a child, our childfree friends would surely think the same of us, we don’t want to be that way all of the time. We have some friends that we would like to continue seeing, even if we have kids and they don’t, or if our kids are different ages.
So, what this all comes down to is that we don't know whether we want to have children or not. The clock is ticking away on us, and there simply isn’t enough time left to fit in all the things we want to do in life before age 35. Thus, we are now faced with deciding whether to choose a child over our own lives. We are very happy with our lives at the moment and we are afraid of losing that. We hear and read a great deal that indicates that having a child can be extremely rewarding, but we also read things that say that most people are less happy after they have children (http://www.livescience.com/culture/090408-kids-marriage.html). We are attracted by the idea of creating a new person and introducing them to this world, but we don’t want to lose our freedom, our traveling, our lifestyles, and especially ourselves.
I would appreciate advice and perspective from anyone who has gone through this process themselves; whether you chose to have children or chose not to. What decision did you make, why, and how happy are you now in comparison to how you were before? Also if you chose to have children, how old were you?
Adrian II
08-31-2009, 19:59
(Note: This is a thread seeking advice on whether to have children. You'll probably want to skip it unless that interests you.)Your post is very rational and sensible. Forget all about it. Because both of you want a kid, right? So just have the kid and deal with all the rest later on. Sure, it may 'cramp' your lifestyle, but not having it will cramp the rest of your life.
Life is cup, should not remain undrunk. :chinese:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-31-2009, 20:30
Your future can be controlled by your children, or by someone else's children. Your choice.
As a person who hadn’t children of his own (as far as I know as I speak to a lawyer) but now I have a parental duty as my wife’s daughter being a teenage pregnant…
I have to say it wasn’t a choice at first, not to have children. I got divorced then I did a lot of things. No child means I went to a lot of countries, did some dangerous jobs, risked my life few times and almost lost the gamble…
It was great: the wind of Bosnia, Sarajevo when sun rises, the dolphins in the Red sea, the mud and the rain in Zaire, the snow in Russia and others things. That is for the no-child option.
I was free, enjoyed it.
Now, when I put my grand-daughter to bed, when I dry her tears, when a little mouth is quietly sucking her dummy, I know why I did all what I did.
When her little arms are around my neck, when her small breath calm down and she goes to sleep, sure to be protected, sure that nobody will come to arm her, I find the reasons why I joined the Army long time ago.
I can’t describe the feeling to have her, to see her moving, thinking, being a human in motion. Her cheekiness, the fact she know she is ruling over me, and the love I have for her…
So, when walking from work, from a usual job, not a job where I save the victims of cataclysms (human made or nature made) I wonder when I was happy.
Well, in both.
When I had the adrenalin rush, when I saved lives, when I run under shells and bullets I was.
When I cover her small body with her blanket, when I give her the good night kiss, I am happy.
It is not or.. or..
It is instead. There is no unique answer.
Our future is in (mostly) in our hands. We can be happy with or without children…
Don’t be scared. It is just another life where priorities are different, where entertainment is different, where all is different.
Now, I heard a lot of colleagues who refer to the life before kids as the Golden Age, ignoring the fact that they didn’t do a lot of things at that time.
They idealised these moments so spoil the moment they live now.
I remember one of my friends driving me to the airport for an overseas mission. He envied me. But the night before, when I saw him with his young baby I was crying of jealousy.
For me, to have kids or not was never a choice. Life did it.
So, you want a kid, just do it. Yes, it will change your life but nobody can tell you if it will be for the best or the worst.
In life there are no if no but. What if I have chosen the Foreign Legion? What if I didn’t divorce? What if…
Whatever the choice you will do, you will never be able to be sure it was the right one.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-31-2009, 21:44
Well, I don't have any experience with having children. But I think all your concerns are very valid, and it seems like the health concern with age thing is what's putting the pressure on. How viable a choice is adoption instead of having your own child? You could decide to adopt if you ever reach the point where you really want kids.
The Celtic Viking
08-31-2009, 22:26
Personally, I have decided not to have a kid. I understand the appeal that they can give, and I like kids, but babies are a pain in the ass, they cost too much and I want to live my life wholly for myself. You will forever be giving up the life you live now if you have a baby; it will change dramatically, and I would argue for the worse. Mostly because you will likely join the child-worshipping zombies you speak of. :shame:
(As an added bonus for not having a baby, it's better for the environment.)
If you are not 100% sure that you do want a baby, I would strongly advice against having one, because having a baby is not something you should take lightly; they don't call it a lifetime job for nothing. If you do pass the age of 36 and then decide you want one, you can adopt a kid instead, but I want to stress how important it is for you to be sure about it first; both for your own sake, and for the baby's. Anything else would be irresponsible.
I have also decided against children. I'm a fairly selfish person with my time, I understand what sacrifices are necessary to raise a child properly, and I don't think I am willing to do it. Better to not have any kids than to raise them half-*****. But that's just me.
Your take on what happens to people with kids is pretty accurate. As I've gotten older, and friends have given in to their reproductive urges, I've seen how they change, and while I understand the need, it's not good. Babies have a way of turning fully functioning adults into babbling fools. :clown: Groups of friends will quickly split into the child-laden vs the childless.
Don't wait too long if you are sure you want a child though. You don't want to fight off your teenage daughter's suitors or try to control your hooligan son when you are pushing towards 60. :no:
I love kids, I want to have tons of them but really not at the moment. Being single makes the decision easier. Maybe when I am 40.
Adrian II
08-31-2009, 23:26
Babies have a way of turning fully functioning adults into babbling fools. :clown:Those people are mostly fools to begin with. Give them a cat or a dog and they will drool over that.
'Oh look, Fifi wants you to get up so she can sit in her favourite chair. Yes, she knows we're talking about her. Don't you, Fifi?'
:brood:
Most of my friends had children before me, some started only recently. I'd say one in five suffered from the babbling syndrome and was quickly ostracised, the others are still as close as ever.
GeneralHankerchief
08-31-2009, 23:30
I think it comes down to the fundamental question of whether you want to make the necessary changes to your lifestyles in order to experience all that comes with raising a child. I'm not even going to attempt to give you advice, as you're a successful, worldly 31-year-old lawyer and I'm a 19-year-old college student who is currently attempting to scrounge up enough money to buy a cheeseburger. However, I do have an anecdote:
This summer, I worked two jobs. One of them was the night shift in a tollbooth. Eight hours a day, five days a week. Not too bad, but not the ideal way someone my age wants to spend a summer. But for three weeks, I doubled up, returning to a 5-hour-a-day camp for three weeks. This meant I was working thirteen hours a day, and I very quickly realized that I would need to empty my reserves in order to survive the three weeks.
It was tough. The weather was hot, the kids were as bratty as usual, and for those three weeks I had absolutely no free time. But at the same time, it was rewarding. I befriended a kid who was far from in the best physical shape, but always tried hard whenever we would get an athletic event together. I gave him a nickname, "Terminator", which he enjoyed. We talked about things together, and near the last day of camp, we put together a contraption designed to keep an egg from breaking as it was dropped from progressively higher distances.
On the last day of camp, I was looking forward to a celebratory meal, followed by sleeping for the entire weekend. But right before I left, the kid came up and gave me something. It was a piece of paper, the tough, pretty kind, with two pictures attached to it and a bit of artwork. They were of our contraption and the unspoiled egg. It said "Patrick and GH, 1st place, egg drop."
Was it taxing? Yes. But was it worth it? Absolutely.
Rhyfelwyr
08-31-2009, 23:32
I wouldn't worry about the babbling syndrome, if you're both lawyers you are probably cold, harsh, bloodsuckers anyway. :clown:
And listen to Adrian, do not become one of those couples that raise pets as if they are children, gah! :no:
If you do not want a child do not have a child.
Keep your freedom, enjoy it and the time you and your woman have free to yourselves. I've got two kids and all I know is that there is life before kids, and there is life after kids, and one has no relation to the other. Don't get me wrong, I love my kids, I'm just saying that taking care of them year after year really is a big deal and it absolutely changes your entire life. So if you ain't ready for it, don't do it.
"Adopt" a couple of kids in the Foster parents Plan, help out local kids charities. If you've got some cash there are millions of kids who are already alive and desperately need help. You and your wife could be saints and help those kids out. That's no small thing.
Those people are mostly fools to begin with. Give them a cat or a dog and they will drool over that.
'Oh look, Fifi wants you to get up so she can sit in her favourite chair. Yes, she knows we're talking about her. Don't you, Fifi?'
.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I have a friend just like this.
Centurion1
09-01-2009, 01:06
You said you wanted a kid eventually right. your wife said she was worried about health riskas which are valid starting around 35. now i don't mean to be rude but i assume you are taking measures to not have children (contraceptives), so why not stop using prevention and just see what happened. Maybe you will have kid right away and maybe you won't. Just because you may want a child doesn't mean yo have to go all out trying. The truth is that while you may think you don't want a child right now, if it is born you will love it just as much as if he or she was planned out.
Don't wait too long if you are sure you want a child though. You don't want to fight off your teenage daughter's suitors or try to control your hooligan son when you are pushing towards 60.
My dad is around 60 and he can kick the lving &%^# out of me......
And i take krav maga classes and my lifelong dream is to a infantry officer
Papewaio
09-01-2009, 02:22
I'm 36 in October. Have a 4 year old. So similar age to yourself when the main event kicked off. Life doesn't stop, it does get more draining and demanding but the ROI is often massive.
Now he could pronounce Games Workshop since age 2, and has been helping me basecoat minatures since 3 and a half. I like teaching him not to be so rigid in his thinking and to understand alternatives can be fun. At the same time he can be exhausting and getting time to watch movies with my wife or have a quiet coffee together is interesting from a logistics point of view. I am now an expert in running kids ragged until they fall down in a comatose sleep so I can have a quad-shot cappucino and talk with the wife.
Learning is Life, Life is Learning. Teaching is a great way to Learn. One thing I have found is that I have a much better relationship with my parents and appreciate what they did for me (and I didn't leave home till I was 26).
The only real bit of advice that I can give you if you intend on having kids is.
1) Get fit, they really can drain you and being unfit will just highlight this and be a poor example to them.
2) Enjoy your sleep now. There is nothing like a 1m tall organic alarm clock that gets into bed in the morning, puts its cold feet on the small of your back and tells you to get out of bed and go to work so they can snuggle up to mum.
pevergreen
09-01-2009, 02:25
Now he could same Games Workshop since age 2, and has been helping me basecoat minatures since 3 and a half.
I wish I was babywaio. :laugh4:
Must...hold...brush..steady...Argh! Stupid metal sword bretheran.
If you do not want a child do not have a child.
Keep your freedom, enjoy it and the time you and your woman have free to yourselves. I've got two kids and all I know is that there is life before kids, and there is life after kids, and one has no relation to the other. Don't get me wrong, I love my kids, I'm just saying that taking care of them year after year really is a big deal and it absolutely changes your entire life. So if you ain't ready for it, don't do it.
"Adopt" a couple of kids in the Foster parents Plan, help out local kids charities. If you've got some cash there are millions of kids who are already alive and desperately need help. You and your wife could be saints and help those kids out. That's no small thing.
I agree with this. Plus the adopted kid doesnt have to be a little baby, could be as old as 7, probaly alot easier then a baby.
My advice though is to not have a baby. Seems like your life is already pretty happy.
HoreTore
09-01-2009, 09:00
My advice? Start "experimenting" with the contraception.
Play "condom russian roulette", where you have 6 condoms, one that you've punctured with a needle. Thrown them on the floor, then pick a random one. Similar method with birth control pills.
If a pregnancy occurs, then it occurs. If not, then it doesn't. Stop planning, let nature decide.
"Adopt" a couple of kids in the Foster parents Plan, help out local kids charities. If you've got some cash there are millions of kids who are already alive and desperately need help. You and your wife could be saints and help those kids out. That's no small thing.
Ya I got a few. Well two. I also have two Moldavian grannies of which one turned out to be dead for quite some time. Ahhh charity organisations.
InsaneApache
09-01-2009, 09:38
Prepare to be tired out for the first two years. Also be prepared to be skint for another sixteen on top of that. I won't mention all the mess, vomit, :daisy: and piss. Oh go on then I will! :laugh4:
On a serious note, don't stop at one. An only child is tantamount to child abuse in my book. :book:
Adrian II
09-01-2009, 11:53
Ya I got a few. Well two. I also have two Moldavian grannies of which one turned out to be dead for quite some time. Ahhh charity organisations.I pictured you sitting in your nice Amersfoort apartment writing checks to a dead Moldavian granny. And fell off my chair laughing. Fragony finally decides to do something for mankind: he draws his wallet. And fires a blank.
:rolfcopter:
Vladimir
09-01-2009, 12:57
TC, if you don't have children, this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)is what you'll be contributing to.
KukriKhan
09-01-2009, 14:33
"Go forth and multiply". I'm glad you named your thread with that title, because it points up your (our) dilemma: going forth and multiplying was unavoidable until 50 years ago, unless you decided to live alone as a hermit in the woods. It was a "command" driven by biology, and a duty incurred by merely breathing/existing.
But not anymore. Now we can choose. Therefore, we must choose; a situation not encountered by our great-grandfathers.
So, you started out with 2 jobs: son, and human. Human is always gonna be there. "Son" takes up less time now than it did 20 years ago. You took up "Husband" 10 years ago, and "Lawyer" pretty soon afterwards. Both volunteer jobs. And apparently mastered well enough that you now have enough free time that you're thinking about another volunteer job: "Father" (and good on ya that you understand your Husband job entails thinking about your spose's prospects as "Mother", too.).
Will the "dad" job interfere with your other jobs? Sure, but you'll get the hang of it, just like you did with Lawyer and Husband. After the initial shock of just how much time and treasure is involved, you'll slide into the role just fine, cuz... well, we're designed for it. And you're a mindful kinda guy, as evidenced by your OP thoughts, so I'm not in the least worried that you'd be neglectful or abusive, or anything but a fine Father.
So, my advice? I see nothing holding you back.
Here's a tip from an old guy: the real payoff on the Dad gig is grandkids. After 2 decades of commitment to your kids, and maybe a little gratitude along the way, being a respected, trusted, relied-upon grandfather to your grandson, pays double for all the misery, toil, and drudgery of fatherhood.
All that said: I know you'll make the right decision for the missus and you, and back up whatever you decide 100%. Best of luck, whichever way you go.
And I'm intrigued by HoreTore's idea of condom russian roulette. :)
-edit-
You asked for perspective and backround. I chose to have kids at age 22 (spouse 20). Am the bio-Dad of 2 girls, from that decision. Have been the step-dad of 4 others, after the divorce of that original marriage. Now the grumpa of 2 7-year old boys, one from the bio-daughter, 1 from a step-son.
I think you sum up the factors in making a decision about having children well. But you have to decide.
If you decide to have children - the decisions start to come thick and fast - with everyone and no-one having all the answers :laugh4:
Furunculus
09-01-2009, 17:02
(Note: This is a thread seeking advice on whether to have children. You'll probably want to skip it unless that interests you.)
I sympathise.
I am early thirties, my better half is the same age, and we are as yet childless. I too have a great life without children, I enjoy my us-time, my pub time, my mountain bike time, my computer time, my reading time, and my just want to be alone time, and i definitely see this as being wrecked by child time.
My better half has shall we say; a greater enthusiasm for parent-hood and a similar sense of time running out, however there are no deadlines or demands on her part.
I also get distinctly bored by typical conversation and lack of options with people with kids (tho maybe not a representative sample IRL), and certainly don't want me and the better half to end up the same way.
I have nothing in principle against the idea of being a dad, but no enthusiasm either, and certainly the answer is always "not now" whenever the question has been considered.
In short, matters are unresolved, and while they remain unresolved we continue to have a good life, can you see where this is going*? :juggle2:
* rapid separation is one possibility :p
Vladimir
09-01-2009, 17:14
So overall it seems that the more selfish you are the less likely you are to want children. I wonder if this is the foundation for those who try to live vicariously through their children.
I'm trying to avoid a rant here but I can't say I'm impressed.
Life changes when you have children. You see things differently.
Adrian II
09-01-2009, 19:25
Life changes when you have children. You see things differently.Yeah, with green baby doodoo on your spectacles and two inch bags under your eyes for lack of sleep, you see things very, but very differently. Don't worry, you'll come out a stronger and better man.
Many thanks for the replies, it's good to know our feelings are not unusual. My wife and I are not sure what we'll do yet, and we likely won't know the answer for several years yet, but just talking about it in detail is cathartic.
On a serious note, don't stop at one. An only child is tantamount to child abuse in my book. :book:
That's very amusing, because my wife and I are both only children. We love being only children a great deal, and that's one of the main reasons we would only want one child at the most. :laugh4:
Furunculus
09-01-2009, 20:53
So overall it seems that the more selfish you are the less likely you are to want children. I wonder if this is the foundation for those who try to live vicariously through their children.
I'm trying to avoid a rant here but I can't say I'm impressed.
not impressed with whom?
Yeah, with green baby doodoo on your spectacles and two inch bags under your eyes for lack of sleep, you see things very, but very differently. Don't worry, you'll come out a stronger and better man.
I never said you would be stronger or better. I just said you see things differently. Don't get touchy.
KukriKhan
09-02-2009, 15:00
Tin Cow got the feedback he sought, so maybe we can move the conversation on: over here (US) featured on TV is the Duggar (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-19kids_02tex.ART.State.Edition1.4baad86.html) family, who have just announced the wife's (age 42) 19th pregnancy.
Contrary to the usual "What are they, Catholic or Mormon?" question, it turns out that they are part of a sect or movement among conservative christians known as Quiverfull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull), which eschews any type of birth control or family planning, taking literally TC's thread title "Go forth and multiply" as a commandment from God - and children are a blessing, not a burden.
These folks see child-bearing as a moral obligation.
Q: Do you think there is any moral obligation, or civic duty to have children?
GeneralHankerchief
09-02-2009, 15:03
Q: Do you think there is any moral obligation, or civic duty to have children?
Well, there's definitely something. Otherwise we'd all die out.
Vladimir
09-02-2009, 15:14
not impressed with whom?
Not impressed by the fact that selfishness seems to be the primary motivation for not having children. I don't care how successful you are in life, your genetic legacy is the only one that endures. No matter how much of a "winner" you are in life you loose it all when you die.
What is the meaning of life? The answer is in the question. Most people confuse that question with "What is the meaning of your life?"
Furunculus
09-02-2009, 15:26
fair enough.
Craterus
09-02-2009, 16:24
Well, there's definitely something. Otherwise we'd all die out.
Hardly. There's absolutely no chance of us dying out.
Moral obligation or not, people are going to keep having children and the world population will keep booming.
Now if there were a moral obligation to not reproduce... :idea2:
Louis VI the Fat
09-02-2009, 16:45
Q: Do you think there is any moral obligation, or civic duty to have children?Well...
I'm starting to think there is one. As it is, the norm for educated Frenchmen is to die childless. University educated women will not have children. Half of them none whatsover, the other half overwhelmingly one child, a small minority two.
No government program manages to remedy that. I do think there is a price to pay for society for this. For three generations now, the brightest 10 to 20 percent genocides itself. This will have an impact.
I hate to be a social Darwinist, but I just can't help to wonder what it means in the long run for a society if the lowest educated twenty percent have 3,5 children per woman, and the highest twenty have 0,5.
TinCow and his wife are rather representative of a wider phenomenon. Both are university educated, and their choice is 'one or none at all' children. Can I bring up the Bell Curve in this thread?
Vladimir
09-02-2009, 17:06
Some time ago I watched a History channel program where they covered this phenomenon. It's quite normal. In a sense, it's advantageous for this to happen. It facilitates the process of social if not biological evolution.
HoreTore
09-02-2009, 21:11
Not impressed by the fact that selfishness seems to be the primary motivation for not having children. I don't care how successful you are in life, your genetic legacy is the only one that endures. No matter how much of a "winner" you are in life you loose it all when you die.
What is the meaning of life? The answer is in the question. Most people confuse that question with "What is the meaning of your life?"
We do not have an obligation to anyone high above to reproduce ourselves. That decision is ours alone, and if we do it, it will be because we want it ourselves.
Selfishness? Oh please. Those who choose not to have kids are doing you a favour, by freeing up resources for and your mini-versions. In fact, we'd do the entire world a favour if we dropped our baby-rate quite a bit.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-02-2009, 21:16
Well...
I'm starting to think there is one. As it is, the norm for educated Frenchmen is to die childless. University educated women will not have children. Half of them none whatsover, the other half overwhelmingly one child, a small minority two.
No government program manages to remedy that. I do think there is a price to pay for society for this. For three generations now, the brightest 10 to 20 percent genocides itself. This will have an impact.
I hate to be a social Darwinist, but I just can't help to wonder what it means in the long run for a society if the lowest educated twenty percent have 3,5 children per woman, and the highest twenty have 0,5.
TinCow and his wife are rather representative of a wider phenomenon. Both are university educated, and their choice is 'one or none at all' children. Can I bring up the Bell Curve in this thread?
The Norm, really? We have the same issue over here, but among my generation, or people slightly older, women have begun to eschew high-flying jobs in favour of having children earlier. I think this has to do with a number of women from the previous generation coming out and saying that "success" made them pretty miserable.
Louis VI the Fat
09-02-2009, 22:11
The Norm, really? We have the same issue over here, but among my generation, or people slightly older, women have begun to eschew high-flying jobs in favour of having children earlier. I think this has to do with a number of women from the previous generation coming out and saying that "success" made them pretty miserable.French birthrates are actually soaring as of late too. It is not entirely clear what is owing to belated demographical trends (women going for their last chance), a swing back towards having children, succesful government stimuli, or the influence of minority groups.
We're predicted to take over Germany in population size in the not too distant future. Then we'll invade and they'll be sorry for all of it and
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-02-2009, 22:16
French birthrates are actually soaring as of late too. It is not entirely clear what is owing to belated demographical trends (women going for their last chance), a swing back towards having children, succesful government stimuli, or the influence of minority groups.
We're predicted to take over Germany in population size in the not too distant future. Then we'll invade and they'll be sorry for all of it and
About 1/3 of births are to first generation immigrants here, even so, I think my generation is generally marrying younger and having more kids. Myself, 2 to 4 would be nice and I'm nearly a Masters Graduate looking towards a Doctorate.
Louis VI the Fat
09-02-2009, 22:21
You are Christian! You always outbreed us!
See, that's why atheism can never win. :cry:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-02-2009, 22:25
You are Christian! You always outbreed us!
See, that's why atheism can never win. :cry:
No that's just Catholics, and they have Monks and Nuns as well. Marrying Jesus greatly reduces the chances of corporeal nooky. He's more of a metaphysical nooky kinda guy.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-02-2009, 22:46
I consider having children a duty to my nation, the human race as a whole, and most importantly, to myself and my family. However, I also see having children as a blessing. I simply cannot fathom why some people see them as a curse. Maybe that's just me, and I certainly mean no offence to anyone, but it strikes me as a little selfish when people won't give up something to have children. Or, perhaps, pity, as they will never know the joy of having a child.
Papewaio
09-03-2009, 02:32
TinCow and his wife are rather representative of a wider phenomenon. Both are university educated, and their choice is 'one or none at all' children. Can I bring up the Bell Curve in this thread?
Of course you can bring up the Bell Curve since we are talking about ringing Bells after all. 'Ring my bell, ring my bell.' :2thumbsup:
Not impressed by the fact that selfishness seems to be the primary motivation for not having children. I don't care how successful you are in life, your genetic legacy is the only one that endures. No matter how much of a "winner" you are in life you loose it all when you die.
To be or not to be is not a legacy of a great writer, Laws only exist whilst the maker lives?
No, we leave more then our genetic legacy there are our memes. Nor do all have to breed for the next generation to exist and excel. Ants far outweigh us as do other limited breeders. Not everyone needs to breed.
Our moral drive should not be to have a next generation, but to look after it.
Not impressed by the fact that selfishness seems to be the primary motivation for not having children. I don't care how successful you are in life, your genetic legacy is the only one that endures. No matter how much of a "winner" you are in life you loose it all when you die.
That may be, but your genetic legacy can pay off the monstrous debt it will face. Mine wants no part of it. ~D
For three generations now, the brightest 10 to 20 percent genocides itself. This will have an impact.
I hate to be a social Darwinist, but I just can't help to wonder what it means in the long run for a society if the lowest educated twenty percent have 3,5 children per woman, and the highest twenty have 0,5.
TinCow and his wife are rather representative of a wider phenomenon. Both are university educated, and their choice is 'one or none at all' children. Can I bring up the Bell Curve in this thread?
Did you ever watch Idiocracy (http://www.livevideo.com/video/1EFA01743AB2491F99D063C46158820B/idiocracy-intro.aspx)*? It takes a humorous approach to the phenomenon. A good movie, btw. :2thumbsup:
*Language warning on the video clip.
Vladimir
09-03-2009, 14:26
We do not have an obligation to anyone high above to reproduce ourselves. That decision is ours alone, and if we do it, it will be because we want it ourselves.
Selfishness? Oh please. Those who choose not to have kids are doing you a favour, by freeing up resources for and your mini-versions. In fact, we'd do the entire world a favour if we dropped our baby-rate quite a bit.
Why is it that whenever I talk about belief you always think I'm talking about God?
--Paraphrase from Serenity
You have an obligation to yourself and humanity to reproduce. Even in the absence of a divine creator the failure to reproduce = epic fail. It's like a sad honorable mention at the Darwin awards. It's all down to personal choice (which, in your mind, automatically translates to "free will") we all loose out in the long run.
Dropping the "baby rate" isn't helping Scandinavia, Europe, or Japan. Look at what societies are doing to counter falling birthrates (or negative growth rates). They're consuming more resources and producing less. Don't do me any favors.
Strike For The South
09-03-2009, 15:56
I have 19 pairs of aunts and uncles, 56 cousins, and 6 (including myself) siblings.
Yet I don't think I'll ever have children. I can't see myself giving a child what it would need to be succesful. I just can't emotionally attach myself that way.
Adrian II
09-03-2009, 16:11
You have an obligation to yourself and humanity to reproduce.A moral obligation? A legal one? How? Why?
The only basis for such an obligation would be religious. Without a godly precept, man has no reason whatsoever to procreate.
Certainly no Darwinist ever said 'Go forth and multiply', even if survival were somehow a moral obligation it does not follow that multiplication is the way to go for a particular individual. Evolution works on the group level as well.
Survival depends on adaptation to (changing) circumstance. Circumstance may demand many or few children. In today's society the raising and enculturation of succesful off-spring is so labor-intensive that maybe (even probably) 'less is more'.
In short, a childless couple of lawyers who contribute the maximum to society may be more instrumental to group survival than a couple that devotes itself to kids.
Vladimir
09-03-2009, 16:41
A moral obligation? A legal one? How? Why?
The only basis for such an obligation would be religious. Without a godly precept, man has no reason whatsoever to procreate.
Certainly no Darwinist ever said 'Go forth and multiply', even if survival were somehow a moral obligation it does not follow that multiplication is the way to go for a particular individual. Evolution works on the group level as well.
Survival depends on adaptation to (changing) circumstance. Circumstance may demand many or few children. In today's society the raising and enculturation of succesful off-spring is so labor-intensive that maybe (even probably) 'less is more'.
In short, a childless couple of lawyers who contribute the maximum to society may be more instrumental to group survival than a couple that devotes itself to kids.
Adrian, you're too intelligent for my post. I'm not talking about the human constructs of morals, laws, and whatever keeps us civilized. I'm talking about A, C, G, T. Without a godly precept, what reason does anything have to procreate?
Come on now, these are the basics.
Adrian II
09-03-2009, 16:45
Without a godly precept, what reason does anything have to procreate?So we agree?
So we agree! :medievalcheers:
Vladimir
09-03-2009, 16:57
:inquisitive:
P1: Without a godly precept, there is no reason to procreate.
P2: If humans fail to procreate, humanity will perish.
C: Therefore, one must believe in God (or a god, or godly precept) or else humans will go extinct.
Is that right? Anyway...
Or maybe you're mentioning the word "reason" for a, um, reason. Does there need to be a reason? How many of us have inhibited our higher cognitive functions in order to help satisfy our desire to procreate? After all, inhibiting those functions usually increases that desire.
:chinese:
+
:barrel:
=
:gorgeous:
+
:dancing:
then
:zzz:
Adrian II
09-03-2009, 17:14
:inquisitive:
P1: Without a godly precept, there is no reason to procreate.
P2: If humans fail to procreate, humanity will perish.
C: Therefore, one must believe in God (or a god, or godly precept) or else humans will go extinct.
Is that right? Anyway...May I propose the following alternative?
1. Without procreation there is no reason for a god.
2. Whenever god fails, humans just can't believe it.
3. If all else fails, procreate! :sneaky:
Rhyfelwyr
09-03-2009, 17:36
What about all the fuss with overpopulation? I heard someone on the news recently say it is immoral to have more than one child.
Also, what if trends continue and all the population growth continues to be in poorer areas, both on the global and regional level? Will it lead to increasing gaps between the rich and poor? Or will it increase social mobility for the poor when the less populous middle/upper classes leave more room for the lower classes to climb the social ladder? Or will it be a bit of both, depending on how the situation is managed?
Louis VI the Fat
09-03-2009, 20:26
Did you ever watch Idiocracy (http://www.livevideo.com/video/1EFA01743AB2491F99D063C46158820B/idiocracy-intro.aspx)*? It takes a humorous approach to the phenomenon. A good movie, btw. :2thumbsup:
*Language warning on the video clip.I had never heard of the movie before. I just read up on it on Wiki. It's already the greatest movie I've never seen!
It hits the mark perfectly. Such a good portrait of my dystopian nightmares! What's funny, is that Fox buried the movie, because of the movie's (accurate, methinks) portrayal of Fox in the dumbing down of America.
I'm so going to rent it on DVD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
I have 19 pairs of aunts and uncles, 56 cousins, and 6 (including myself) siblings.
Yet I don't think I'll ever have children. I can't see myself giving a child what it would need to be succesful. I just can't emotionally attach myself that way.Lemme guess: you are easily one of the brightest and highest educated in your family?
Edit: I thought that its religiosity made America more resitant to the phenomenon?
HoreTore
09-03-2009, 21:43
Why is it that whenever I talk about belief you always think I'm talking about God?
--Paraphrase from Serenity
You have an obligation to yourself and humanity to reproduce. Even in the absence of a divine creator the failure to reproduce = epic fail. It's like a sad honorable mention at the Darwin awards. It's all down to personal choice (which, in your mind, automatically translates to "free will") we all loose out in the long run.
God? Who's talking about god?
And as I said, I certainly do not have an obligation to myself or anyone else to reproduce. The only obligation I have, is to enjoy my life. Period. We're no longer animals, survival isn't something to strive for anymore.
Dropping the "baby rate" isn't helping Scandinavia, Europe, or Japan. Look at what societies are doing to counter falling birthrates (or negative growth rates). They're consuming more resources and producing less. Don't do me any favors.
That's because we're racists and consider the Poles untermenschen. We could solve the problem by simply importing a bunch of them, no need to reproduce ourselves, there are more than enough unemployed people in the world.
No matter how much of a "winner" you are in life you loose it all when you die.
I suppose, if I should walk the childless path, that I shall feel a sting in my rotting heart some time in 2309 AD when I realize that I have failed my genes.
We're no longer animals, survival isn't something to strive for anymore.
Great. Here I was thinking that I was getting hungry; but thanks to you, I now realize that such primitive instincts are way below me and those of my kind. :bow:
HoreTore
09-03-2009, 22:31
Great. Here I was thinking that I was getting hungry; but thanks to you, I now realize that such primitive instincts are way below me and those of my kind. :bow:
Survival of the human race is what I was talking about of course, and you knew it :whip:
I had never heard of the movie before. I just read up on it on Wiki. It's already the greatest movie I've never seen!
So to the point. It perfectly portrays my dystopian nightmares. What's funny, is that Fox buried the movie, because of the movie's (accurate, methinks) portrayal of Fox in the dumbing down of America.
I'm so going to rent it on DVD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
Xiahou beat me to this. That movie is disturbing and hilarious at the same time.
Major Robert Dump
09-03-2009, 22:50
The thing about babies is that they don't speak English and can't eat normal food like pizza and french fries and you have to change their diapers twice a week. But once you get past that phase, they can be pretty cool because you can put them to work, like grinding your WOW character for you.
Survival of the human race is what I was talking about of course, and you knew it :whip:
But we are still no longer animals? Hm...
Oh well, I shan't digress with semantics. I shall not breed just yet either; despite knowing that tomorrow might be my last day as a psychopath on the run from a failing psychiatry decide to push me into the metro tracks right before the train. The solution to this overwhelming danger, is obviously to donate to a sperm bank; knowing that my genome is safe, and that I won't have to go through the process of bringing up any children myself.
Strike For The South
09-04-2009, 15:18
Lemme guess: you are easily one of the brightest and highest educated in your family?
Edit: I thought that its religiosity made America more resitant to the phenomenon?
Yea, I read at like a 5th grade level.
Louis dont you in ten years time everyone will be Mexican and will all be speaking spainish. All becuase whites don't have babies
:mexico: VIVA LA RAZA :mexico:
Adrian II
09-04-2009, 15:23
The thing about babies is that they don't speak English and can't eat normal food like pizza and french fries and you have to change their diapers twice a week. But once you get past that phase, they can be pretty cool because you can put them to work, like grinding your WOW character for you.I don't 'do' sigs from other members. But if I did, this would be it. :laugh4:
Vladimir
09-04-2009, 16:04
Xiahou beat me to this. That movie is disturbing and hilarious at the same time.
:inquisitive: Vladimir beat you all in post 22.
HoreTore
09-04-2009, 18:13
But we are still no longer animals? Hm...
No, we are not. Animals aren't bright enough to care about anything other than survival and reproduction. Humans, on the other hand, are bright enough to enjoy life as it is, without needing to worry about petty things like reproduction, it's both irrelevant and unnecessary for us now, unless that is what we want to make our lives more fulfilling.
Louis VI the Fat
09-04-2009, 23:02
Vladimir beat you allWhat's a 'Vladimir'? ~:confused:
Oops, I missed your link the first time round. Didn't click on it. :oops:
No, we are not. Animals aren't bright enough to care about anything other than survival and reproduction. Humans, on the other hand, are bright enough to enjoy life as it is, without needing to worry about petty things like reproduction, it's both irrelevant and unnecessary for us now, unless that is what we want to make our lives more fulfilling.
You might not think of it, but naturally the millions of years of evolution that eventually lead to humanity has made it obsessed by reproduction and survival. What makes a human feel fulfilled is always linked to survival in one way or another; it be a good meal, a nice car or an attractive person of the opposite gender; the goal is to stay alive as well as passing genes on. Whether the latter is achieved or not is irrelevant; it's just what the drive and the instincts tend to end up with no matter what the personal motivation is.
I doubt having offspring is too much in the mind of animals in the mating season; it's not really like falling in love with another person makes your head go "kids kids kids", either.
Adrian II
09-05-2009, 00:59
What makes a human feel fulfilled is always linked to survival in one way or another; it be a good meal, a nice car or an attractive person of the opposite gender [..] Or getting stone drunk, or smoking cigarettes, or driving recklessly, or ..
Nah, humans clearly have a self-destructive streak that is in no way linked to survival. The balance is different in each individual, but it's there.
the goal is to stay alive as well as passing genes onGo tell that to homosexuals.
EDIT
By the way, haven't you heard of the theory that genes really use humans to pass themselves on, not the other way around? It's all the rage since 1976 and the publication of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-05-2009, 01:01
Or getting stone drunk, or smoking cigarettes, or driving recklessly, or ..
Nah, humans clearly have a self-destructive streak that is in no way linked to survival. The balance is different in each individual, but it's there.
Go tell that to homosexuals.
Well, I don't know. You could look at the self destructive streak as a way to weed out the weak.
Go tell that to homosexuals.
Homosexual's could play a role in society, looking after children who lost their parents, like adopting/fostering.
Adrian II
09-05-2009, 01:04
You could look at the self destructive streak as a way to weed out the weak.That contradicts Viking's statement that survival motivates every individual. You don't survive if you weed yourself out, do you?
Adrian II
09-05-2009, 01:07
Homosexual's could play a role in society, looking after children who lost their parents, like adopting/fostering.Some already do. But what counts is that apparently they don't give a hoot about their genes, and I strongly suspect that the same applies to all of us.
I think it is Ants, which have a similar system. The instinct to protect the species is greater then the instinct to protect themselves. Many people would save the lives of children, even if they are not their own, over themselves. It is a social evolutionary trait, bringing survival to the species. Homosexuals can still have a role in this regard.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-05-2009, 01:23
That contradicts Viking's statement that survival motivates every individual. You don't survive if you weed yourself out, do you?
Group survival as motivation?
You realise I'm siding with Proffessor Dawkins here?
Adrian II
09-05-2009, 01:32
Group survival as motivation?For smoking? :mellow:
You realise I'm siding with Proffessor Dawkins here?I do, I do. I just sent Richard an email and he is delighted.
Louis VI the Fat
09-05-2009, 01:39
Or getting stone drunk, or smoking cigarettes, or driving recklessly, or ..
Nah, humans clearly have a self-destructive streak that is in no way linked to survival. The balance is different in each individual, but it's there.
Go tell that to homosexuals.
EDIT
By the way, haven't you heard of the theory that genes really use humans to pass themselves on, not the other way around? It's all the rage since 1976 and the publication of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.Didn't one of the 3419 books you've read since 1976 mention sexual selection?
Jared Diamond explains the phenomenon succinctly in his 'The Third Chimpansee' of 1992, in chapter eleven. One does not pass on traits that benefit survival, one passes on traits that make breeding more likely.
This is why peacocks have those clumsy, yet fantastically attractive tails. It may not be handy when dealing with a tiger with a taste for Bengali Fried Peacock, but it sure catches the eye of the females. This is why humans have similar destructive traits.
Smoking, recklessness, alcohol and drugs show that your genes are so superior, that you can afford to waste, and still function.
Alcohol also has the added benefit of reducing sexual inhibition, thus increasing the chance of pregnancy, which in turn passes on the genetic combination that likes alcohol.
These phenomena are well-recorded throughout the animal world. (Including the use of drugs). I shared the genetic advantages and the widespread occurance of homosexuality throughout the natural world in another thread.
Also, I remember you once praising Stephen Jay Gould's infinitely more refined mind over that of Dawkins? Or was that reserved for Dawkins the atheist activist, but not aimed at Dawkins the evolutionary theorist?
Anyway, breeding stupidity is not limited to the human world. Evolution does not 'better' a species, it increases the number of the individuals in a species, to breaking point. Wretched, hungry, miserable creatures, that is what the earth is inhabited with.
The reckless, stupid, beer guzzling and risk-taking trash is evolutionary programmed to outbreed the others, and will continue to do so as long as it doesn't tilt a breaking point for his group. It is the same for many species.
Adrian II
09-05-2009, 02:26
One does not pass on traits that benefit survival, one passes on traits that make breeding more likely.I didn't have to wait for Jared Diamond. One of the 5600 books I read since the age of 15 was Darwin's The Descent of Man, where the peacock's tail occurs already. Diamond merely copied it and extended it to man.
Alas, science progresses:
The elaborate train of male Indian peafowl, Pavo cristatus, is thought to have evolved in response to female mate choice and may be an indicator of good genes. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of the male train in mate choice using male- and female-centred observations in a feral population of Indian peafowl in Japan over 7 years. We found no evidence that peahens expressed any preference for peacocks with more elaborate trains (i.e. trains having more ocelli, a more symmetrical arrangement or a greater length), similar to other studies of galliforms showing that females disregard male plumage. Combined with previous results, our findings indicate that the peacock's train (1) is not the universal target of female choice, (2) shows small variance among males across populations and (3) based on current physiological knowledge, does not appear to reliably reflect the male condition. We also found that some behavioural characteristics of peacocks during displays were largely affected by female behaviours and were spuriously correlated with male mating success. Although the male train and its direct display towards females seem necessary for successful reproduction, we conclude that peahens in this population are likely to exercise active choice based on cues other than the peacock's train.
Source (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9W-4RWC89K-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a9f337cb14a463a3e510c01e3aa34686)
P.S. And by the way, peacocks' tails are genetically encoded physical features, smoking and drinking are behaviours and they are not genetically encoded.
P.P.S. Gould and Dawkins differed on the issue of evolutionary scales. Dawkins (almost) uniquely emphasises the genetic level and is a gradualist, Gould recognized at least six levels from genes to clades (species groups comprising all descendants of a single ancestor) and argued that evolution progresses by leaps and bounds.. He also opposed the gradualist assumption that evolution results in smarter, more complex individuals. It can just as well work the other way and result in simplification and 'dumbing-down'. This might - tentatively - support your view about a possible 'degradation' of the human race.
HoreTore
09-05-2009, 07:30
Well, I don't know. You could look at the self destructive streak as a way to weed out the weak.
Unfortunately, the weaker you are, the less self-destructive you are.... Generally.
Adrian II
09-05-2009, 11:51
Smoking, recklessness, alcohol and drugs show that your genes are so superior, that you can afford to waste, and still function. Alcohol also has the added benefit of reducing sexual inhibition, thus increasing the chance of pregnancy, which in turn passes on the genetic combination that likes alcohol.
Here is a gallery of your superbreeders, Louis. I can see the ladies lining up for their genes already.
https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7148/drunkyu.jpg (https://img268.imageshack.us/i/drunkyu.jpg/)https://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4209/drunk2.jpg (https://img4.imageshack.us/i/drunk2.jpg/)https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6845/drunk3.jpg (https://img268.imageshack.us/i/drunk3.jpg/)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-05-2009, 14:11
Unfortunately, the weaker you are, the less self-destructive you are.... Generally.
Not really unfortunate, because those men are less likely to get themselves or their mates killed. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Or getting stone drunk, or smoking cigarettes, or driving recklessly, or ..
Nah, humans clearly have a self-destructive streak that is in no way linked to survival. The balance is different in each individual, but it's there.
It's true that many things are not related to survival or reproduction; but the point I was making is that things related to survival and reproduction consumes a lot of the time once you check the causes of the behaviour, the genetic roots. Drugs have a rewarding effect, that's why they are done; chemicals going straight to the brain. Being social also provides chemicals; because it is favourable for reproduction if done "right". Something that today is not favourable for reproduction, may not actually lead to any noticeable evolution because, for instance, the drive for a higher education could simply be one way a very basic drive is put at display; and that it thus will not weed itself out no matter how the birth rates go, since it is present in the entire populace anyway.
Go tell that to homosexuals.
The goal as in "whatever makes those genes stay on the Earth for the next X generations". If it is genetical, it is favoured over something, somewhere, somehow.
EDIT
By the way, haven't you heard of the theory that genes really use humans to pass themselves on, not the other way around? It's all the rage since 1976 and the publication of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
No. I cannot really see the difference between the two, since the gene made the human in the first place..
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.