Go forth and multiply

[Idaho]

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]

Tin Cow got the feedback he sought, so maybe we can move the conversation on: over here (US) featured on TV is the Duggar 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, 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]

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]

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]

fair enough.

[Craterus]

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...

[Louis VI the Fat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You are Christian! You always outbreed us!

See, that's why atheism can never win.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are Christian! You always outbreed us!

See, that's why atheism can never win.

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]

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]

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.'

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.

[drone]

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.

[Xiahou]

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*? It takes a humorous approach to the phenomenon. A good movie, btw.

*Language warning on the video clip.

[Vladimir]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Without a godly precept, what reason does anything have to procreate?

So we agree?

So we agree!

[Vladimir]

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.



+



=



+



then

[Adrian II]

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!

[Rhyfelwyr]

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]

Did you ever watch Idiocracy*? It takes a humorous approach to the phenomenon. A good movie, btw.

*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]

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.

[Viking]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

Survival of the human race is what I was talking about of course, and you knew it