Azure
G.O.A.T.
I really don't get this. Why is this a problem? Its each one's choice isn't it, as to when to have kids, whether to have kids etc?
What do you think about NOT having children?
- Thread starter acintya
- Start date
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Because they couldn't relate to the young parents at all! Similar issue to what @max talked about. Their friend groups were all around the same age and they all usually had children 10 years older than I am!
The good thing about that is I got coddled a lot as a kid. "Aw he's so cute!". But when I was a kid I hated being called a kid. I wanted to be a grown up!
Now I'd do anything to relive my youth.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Maybe "pitty" is not the right word to describe it, but people that have kids always know a couple of things that the people without kids wouldn't, and since those things are massive, there is a sense that those other people missed on something significant.
The childless people (by choice, not by necessity) don't have anything over the people with kids.
Not anything worth boasting about anyway.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Reminds me of 'To kill a mockingbird'. Atticus is a much older father than the parents of the friends of his children. He declines playing football with his son owing to his advanced age. Even Scout (his daughter) is conscious of her father's age and the two children are a bit ashamed that their father is over 50 when they are not even 10 each. It is only as the novel progresses, that the children realise what a gem of a man their father is and his age fades into the background. The values he stands for, far outweigh the age difference.
In my opinion (my father was 40 when he had me, and that's a little old too), people should have children only when they are mature and ready. I would rather have words of wisdom passed on from one generation to the next, than have them frolicking around with the kids.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Utter nosnsence. You underestimate the depth of our interactions with you and shreushs.
Children just cannot rival that.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Well life expectancy is increasing, 40 to me today is not 40 from 1970 or 1980. A person who is in their late 30s to 40 today can look like they are in their late 20s still. I've encountered this a couple of times. And I'm against drugs and experimenting in that way so hopefully I continue that trend!
I love both my parents. My Dad was 31 when he had me so he was still quite young, but my Mother was 35. They were both generally seen as older parents though, as when I was born, it wasn't like today. People didn't usually have kids later on. My parents were the odd ones out!
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Very well put.
I decided early not to get married or be tied down to anyone, and i've been happy all along. However, there's no dearth of people telling me how I am missing something in life even though those people had disastrous marriages, or bitter divorces etc.
I've derived a huge amount of emotional satisfaction or whatever you want to call it, from bringing up stray dogs, and often myself feel others who don't are missing out on something. So i can sort of get when people think I am missing out on something. I've never thought of these dogs as something less than a human child in any way, and am quite appalled when others imply it, but i just quietly ignore it.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
I understand this. It is the society that states that we should be 22 when we finish undergrad, 25 by the time we finish Post Grad and possibly start a job immediately, buy a car by 27, house by 32 yada yada yada.
Heck Obama became a president at 50 and Trump at 70. Everything has its time. What flies for one, does not for another. Unfortunately the society is such that it does not provide for allowances.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Meh, that's what people do - provide free advice.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
We can live our lives however we choose! If we want to squander our youth we are allowed to! If we want to study hard to get somewhere the option is also there!
I like to think I'm the middle ground between the two. I know what it's like to work hard and sleep like a baby afterward, but I also enjoy cutting loose. I'm sure when I progress in age this will change to suit my needs too though. When I'm 50 I'm not going to be living the life I am now, but whether or not I've achieved everything others wanted me for is a non-issue! As long as I enjoy myself and get the most out of my life I'm content.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Yep that's the perfect attitude, really.
Without question, this world is better than it has ever been in the existence of mankind. The world is better now because of the efforts of good-hearted hard-working people. What if all of our ancestors had said, "no reason to have children, they'll just get eaten by tigers."
Genious at Work
G.O.A.T.
I don't get your angle, sorry. The difference between life (existence) and death (nonexistence) is that if you are alive you at least have the choice to die. Or, even if you don't, you will eventually. Don't you like freedom of choice at least? Unfortunately I can't ask anyone who never existed if they are happy with their nonexistence, but the vast majority of people who are alive much prefer that to be the status quo for as long as possible.
You are one kinky guy aren't you
max
Legend
People are not as different as we tell ourselves at times. We all want meaning, intimacy and virtue in our lives. There is a natural desire for love and family, for education and knowledge, for wisdom. These good things require relationships with people, and perhaps this is why there can be concern if someone we know lives an isolated, distant life. Wanting children isn't selfish, and certainly in modern societies, not much of an imposition, despite the recent political ranting with this idea. The Paul Ehrlich model has been, for a generation now, quite discredited and population projections adjusted enormously downward. I think anyone reasonably looking through references (and it's okay to google stuff if you use good judgement) will find these statements as more than raw assertion. I don't have time to intensively monitor this thread, so don't waste energy banging on what I've said. I can't ensure a response.
junior74
Talk Tennis Guru
Having or not having children is a personal matter.
Not having children is by far the best thing you can do for the world at this point in our remarkable history.
Some choose not to have children of their own, and yet they adopt children in need. My respect for such people is beyond words.
Not having children is by far the best thing you can do for the world at this point in our remarkable history.
Some choose not to have children of their own, and yet they adopt children in need. My respect for such people is beyond words.
I don't get your angle, sorry. The difference between life (existence) and death (nonexistence) is that if you are alive you at least have the choice to die. Or, even if you don't, you will eventually. Don't you like freedom of choice at least? Unfortunately I can't ask anyone who never existed if they are happy with their nonexistence, but the vast majority of people who are alive much prefer that to be the status quo for as long as possible.
Lots of problems with your arguments.
What he said was that non-existence has 0 pain and 0 pleasure, while existence has x pain and y pleasure, with x >> y. This fact is so important that it is the First Noble Truth attributed to Buddha, and is called the "Truth of Suffering."
Your other argument about people clinging on to life: There are people in extreme pain who plead to die, and, those of us who want to remain alive do it because of addiction. Life is the only thing we know, and we become addicted to it. That is all.
Your point about freedom of choice is interesting. Very few countries offer the right to die.
Dogs are easy to manage, given that they were bred for that. Raising children who can talk back at you and facing the financial and logistical challenges of raising them is a whole different proposition.
I had my kid when I was young and immature, working in a contract job, and my wife was not working at all.
When you are mature, you will not have kids because you will be thinking a lot about pros and cons.
Steady Eddy
Legend
Think of it this way. When you read of the 19th century, do you feel bad that you didn't exist then? Not existing wasn't a problem for you, in fact, there wasn't even a you.I don't get your angle, sorry. The difference between life (existence) and death (nonexistence) is that if you are alive you at least have the choice to die. Or, even if you don't, you will eventually. Don't you like freedom of choice at least? Unfortunately I can't ask anyone who never existed if they are happy with their nonexistence, but the vast majority of people who are alive much prefer that to be the status quo for as long as possible.
Not bringing a person into the world, isn't depriving anyone of anything. That's probably all the better I can do at this time.
Genious at Work
G.O.A.T.
Yes, I do agree with that point of view. I actually think I worded the same concept differently, but it seems there was just some misunderstanding. You can't deprive someone who doesn't exist of anything, otherwise each of us would be a serial murderer by virtue of avoiding full throttle procreation (Scarlett Johanssen, I'm looking at you!
)But maybe you are depriving yourself and your significant other of something, maybe you are depriving the community and the World at large. If sensible people stop procreating and only low life morons do, what will happen to the planet? Wait, I think I watched a documentary about it once...
Genious at Work
G.O.A.T.
Existence comes with pain. Sometimes pain exceeds pleasure, but that depends on what you mean by pain and pleasure. If you are talking of pleasure in a sensual type of way, that is a very limited way of looking at things. If nothing and nobody existed there would be no pain nor pleasure, but how is that preferable to existence? Would you rather the Universe didn't even exist?
Life is not an addiction. That is the weirdest definition I have seen anyone give to life. People are not addicted to life anymore than they are addicted to breathing and oxygen. Life is the natural state of the living. Sometimes life comes with pain, and then it is up to the person who has to bear that pain to figure out how to deal with it (including taking their own life if they think they can't manage the pain.) But nonexistence gives you nothing of that choice.
Better in what way? If it's so great,then why do so many people suffer from anxiety and depression and why are suicide rates so high?
Zara
G.O.A.T.
I have recently seen a movie where a mature couple does everything to have a kid and make themselves completely miserable in the process. It was really sad to watch.
I do have great respect for those as well who adopt. I have even seen couples where they not only have their own kids but they have also adopted a couple of more. It was a beautiful sight to observe. People typically infatuated with having their own kids.
Last edited:
Steady Eddy
Legend
Cool movie. To any of you who haven't seen it, check it out.Yes, I do agree with that point of view. I actually think I worded the same concept differently, but it seems there was just some misunderstanding. You can't deprive someone who doesn't exist of anything, otherwise each of us would be a serial murderer by virtue of avoiding full throttle procreation (Scarlett Johanssen, I'm looking at you!
But maybe you are depriving yourself and your significant other of something, maybe you are depriving the community and the World at large. If sensible people stop procreating and only low life morons do, what will happen to the planet? Wait, I think I watched a documentary about it once...
I'm mostly in favor of freedom, but one case where I'm not is in people's freedom to be parents. Shouldn't they have to meet SOME kind of standard to be in charge of a life? Hate reading stories of who treat their children horribly.
Steady Eddy
Legend
So the Buddha agrees. I saw a movie where the Hindi explained, "...that's right, then you don't have to come back." So I was thinking, Asia seems more pessimistic than the West. But on further thought, that's not really so true. The Calvinists believed that you are pre-destined to go to heaven or hell, and that the vast majority will go to hell. That's not very optimistic either. Birth control is often opposed by religious fundamentalists, even though they believe most of those who would get born will only go to hell anyhow. Go figure.
Genious at Work
G.O.A.T.
I have thought about it at some point, but you can't really regulate procreation (unless you are talking about sterilization, and in that case we are done talking, mein Herr.) I think what we do in any civilized nation nowadays (Child Protection Services) is the least of two evils.
Suicide rates are not high.
Anxiety and depression are related to "fight or flight."
If more people were eaten by tigers, there would be less anxiety and depression.
I don't know that being eaten is an acceptable solution for most people.
Suicide rates for different countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suici...edia/File:Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg
https://www.economist.com/sites/def...th/images/print-edition/20160430_USC246_0.png
Last edited:
"Be fruitful and multiply" is an important part of Judeo-Christian religion (and many others). We are now starting to see what happens when people do not follow that. In Japan, Italy, Russia, and other countries, the native populations are starting to die out.
https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2050/
https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2018/
Steady Eddy
Legend
Yes, I've heard that our economy depends on an exponentially growing population. But that can't go on forever, can it?
It doesn't depend on that. Population growth RATES in advanced economies - and now in emerging economies - have been shrinking for generations (only recently have we seen actual reductions in population). Productivity increases have been driving increases in standards of living. An increase in population will give a higher total GDP, but non necessarily GDP per capita.
An actual reduction in population accompanied by the directly related overall aging of the population, is a great danger, however.
Who among the population will bring the intellectual and financial capital to drive greater productivity per worker?
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
So whats your point ?
Or did you totally miss what I was saying ?
You are once again falling for the trap of "whole different proposition" since you are seeing only one angle.
At least a child can talk to you and tell you its problem. An animal cannot.
There are plenty of challenges in bringing up a stray dog too. I am not going to list it all out since you hardly comprehend what others write.
Raising children was very simple in our parent's time. It has only become very challenging in recent times.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
We are all offering you the right to permanently log off the internet but you just wont take it up.
I am willing to throw in some bagels and cream cheese, too. Or maple syrup if you prefer.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I decided not to have children for fear that they might grow up to become overweight recreational tennis players who created silly threads in internet forums, misquoted the Buddha and hit tennis balls on third bounce.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Pity. Now you are old and immature.
Charleneriva
Hall of Fame
I agree and disagree with you both. My view is something in between.
First, having children is a human's right. You can't compare it with having a driver's license. They are simply, fundamentally different in many many ways.
Second, I agree it's a paradox that we have billions of rules and laws for everything. Yet when it comes to having children and raising them properly, for the most part it's still "it's your personal matter".
Third, while I agree there should be certain rules/laws/policies, depending on each country, the fact is they tend to create more problems than they solve them.
Rather, I believe in seeing, understanding the problems and preventing them from the root, in the most natural and 'humane' way, if you will.
Which is always education. Love and education to my <3 self. Education and policies/laws to my practical self. But mostly, yes, it's education.
And by education, I mean both formal education and more importantly, informal education, starting right at home, in our neighbourhood, from everyday life people and things. We help educate each other all the time without being aware of it.
Better yet, be aware of it when it comes to children. Let them feel and learn about the goods, the positive. Encourage independent and critical thinking. Encourage love and sympathy. Teach them self-awareness and self-respect, as well as respect for others and who are and what is different.
Help and nurture them to become good people while still being themselves.
Yes, I believe poor or not really mature people can make the best parents if they are good, kind, thoughtful; have a strong sense of fairness, objectivity and what is right and wrong - NOT because they are "well-equipped" with everything by today's standards before becoming a parent. It's okay for a child not to have everything and to experience some hardship imo. That will help them learn and become stronger.
The best parents are those who have raised and can raise their children to become good, kind, decent, and helpful people.
Whether such people want to have kids of their own is another matter. I respect their opinions and trust their decisions on this matter.
I think srshs, despite some of his language, doesn't mean anything personal. It's his, er, style. He says "you are stupid" all the time but imo he means a particular opinion of a person is stupid, not that they are stupid - does that make any sense? I only ask because some can't understand it for some reason, which baffles me. Even geniuses can be wrong or say baffling things at times.
I can't speak for srshs but since I'm also very straightforward for the most part (more evident irl though), I think I get him a little bit. And I know I never meant to insult anyone. In fact, I'm only most critical at myself. Never told anyone "you're stupid" or similiar, for example. To myself, however - almost everyday! Other strong words - all the time.
Also, you might not agree or want to agree with him sometimes (always), especially with his 'reputation' on here. But I can see he's clearly a thinker. Quite an independent one I would say - and I respect that.
I can't speak for srshs but since I'm also very straightforward for the most part (more evident irl though), I think I get him a little bit. And I know I never meant to insult anyone. In fact, I'm only most critical at myself. Never told anyone "you're stupid" or similiar, for example. To myself, however - almost everyday! Other strong words - all the time.
Also, you might not agree or want to agree with him sometimes (always), especially with his 'reputation' on here. But I can see he's clearly a thinker. Quite an independent one I would say - and I respect that.
Last edited:
Charleneriva
Hall of Fame
We tend to spend more time thinking about and fearing things than actually doing and experiencing them.
I know several once teenager moms who had their children at 17. Needless to say, it's no where near being ideal situations. They were terrified, yet they were brave to keep their babies. They gave birth to them then were able to find a way to adapt. They raised as well as "grew up" along with their children, who are loved, taken cared of and have become good people.
Granted, that only could be done with tremendous help from their families. Still, I find that incredibly brave, touching, and inspiring. I only have huge respect for them.
Everyone has fears and makes mistakes. It's how they face those fears and mistakes; how they learn from them, stand up and become stronger better afterwards are what matter the most imo.
Of course, this is not directed at you, the other Blue. Just expanding the discussion a little bit. : )
Last edited:
max
Legend
I think it's trendy to pooh-pooh having kids. Sounds so wise and "ecological." I think that's a simplistic view, given the thick reality of how human society works. I sense a great anger in the anti-kid perspective.
Children are an enormous resource, and a blessing, and a smile, and the realization that we, our solipsistic, individualistic selves, are just here now and will be passing this stage: we're not the be-all and end-all.
But yeah, I sense the "superiority condescension" and "smarter/holier than thou" business. Again, the over population scare is a hoax. The question for first-worlders is how many kids you'd like, and I'd offer that one or two is a pretty small family and that a really strong family likely takes a few more kids and a few more relatives.
but then, so many people out there are children of divorce and have difficulties in many respects due to this, imho (and I think science has shown this, too).
Children are an enormous resource, and a blessing, and a smile, and the realization that we, our solipsistic, individualistic selves, are just here now and will be passing this stage: we're not the be-all and end-all.
But yeah, I sense the "superiority condescension" and "smarter/holier than thou" business. Again, the over population scare is a hoax. The question for first-worlders is how many kids you'd like, and I'd offer that one or two is a pretty small family and that a really strong family likely takes a few more kids and a few more relatives.
but then, so many people out there are children of divorce and have difficulties in many respects due to this, imho (and I think science has shown this, too).
Azure
G.O.A.T.
You are totally right my friend. There are brave people out there, there also kind souls who both, adopt children and have their own too which is remarkable and some who only choose to adopt. There are the totally different ones who shun attachments and children thereof.
We all make mistakes too and every parent apparently deals better with the second pregnancy that the first. It is an investment of course - emotional, financial and personal. My fear is from the gamble, rather than the effort needed in raising kids and the bond that one invariably establishes in the offspring.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
I think do what's best for you. Personally, I think it's very good if a dysfunctional couple doesn't have kids. It's a heroic act to say I'm not gonna raise a kid in a mad mess. If you're gonna have kids, try to do it right. We have enough damaged people walking about.
People say "OMG another school shooting, another spree killer. How can that be?" Well, no one comes from nothing.
People say "OMG another school shooting, another spree killer. How can that be?" Well, no one comes from nothing.
Zara
G.O.A.T.
Northern
Hall of Fame
If he doesn't agree, maybe throw in a whole mapple tree.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I'm willing to give him all of Canada
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Actually, I DO NOT think about having children in the first place.
But sometimes I do wish I had a dozen grandchildren
Northern
Hall of Fame
You really want to get rid of him so bad? I thought you guys were friends and hang together in that thread you made for him. What happen? Did he eat your turkey?I'm willing to give him all of Canada
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Karma Tennis
Legend
There is an old saying ...
"It takes a village to raise a child".
Unfortunately in many countries (especially many Western World countries), the concept of "village" has disappeared due to insecurity, fear, and mis-trust. I believe this is one reason why it appears to be a lot more difficult to raise children today, than it was in the past.
"It takes a village to raise a child".
Unfortunately in many countries (especially many Western World countries), the concept of "village" has disappeared due to insecurity, fear, and mis-trust. I believe this is one reason why it appears to be a lot more difficult to raise children today, than it was in the past.
Northern
Hall of Fame
What happened to the village idiot? Did everybody drop the ball on that one?
Similar threads
- Poll
