Please explain reproduction to me [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Jon_Dahl

2013-09-17, 04:34 AM

I have never understood why people want to have children. And I'm afraid to ask them face-to-face, so I made this thread.

Small children are messy and noisy and consume your time. Then they become teenagers and mostly disrespect you. Then they move out and you die alone, unless they have children too. In that case, you will take care of their messy and noisy offspring.

I just don't get it. I have three nephews and I was close to them when they were little. I told them lots of stories and played with them. I love them, but I would never want to sacrifice my freetime for other people.

People who have children often say that "You will understand when you have your own children". This is something I don't understand, because if I had something nice like a puppy or a car, of course I would appreciate it and take care of it to the best of my ability. But I don't want them, because I don't have enough time to care of a puppy and I don't like driving. Even though we like having things, it shouldn't automatically mean that we should strive to have them at all cost.

I think having children is a thing of the past, when people needed children to support them when they are old. In this modern society there is very little reason to have them, especially since you can use your money and time to do lots of things. I've worked abroad, moved from city to city and I love travelling. If I had children, my life would be more limited. Maybe I had done much less things than I have so far. It just makes me think.

thubby

2013-09-17, 04:38 AM

propagating the species is a thing of the past? seriously? :smallconfused:

BWR

2013-09-17, 04:45 AM

Jon_Dahl

2013-09-17, 04:55 AM

People are still dependant on children. Without a new generation continually taking over, there won't be anyone to take care of the elderly and infirm. Also, not every elderly person is rich enough to get the sort of care they need. Not every society provides adequate care to the elderly. While one may not necessarily be dependant on your own children, you are dependant on society's children.

From my own experience with my grandparents, I can tell you that even in a modern Western society, elderly people can rely very heavily on their children and grandchildren for all sorts of help in daily life.
Apart from mere utility, children are family and a great source of joy and comfort to people.

I don't have children, and I don't think I'd be a good parent, but I can understand the appeal. Sure your social life becomes severely limited, you don't spend as much time and money on luxuries like fancy food, restaurant trips, new books, sleep, but people think it's worth it.

Good points BWR!

A few responses:
In my view, we are not dependant on society's children, because we can easily get immigrant workforce. I don't know where you are from, but let's imagine you an American. If you suffered from the long-term effects of declining birth rates, you can have any employees from any country of your choosing. Do you agree? And the same goes with most Western civilization. I see this happening in my country already.

I can imagine that some elderly rely on their grandchildren, but it's a game of chance. I'm serious. A few weeks ago I was listening to the radio and one old woman said that her children had moved to faraway cities and she was so alone that she just wanted to die. No luck there. Had she saved the money used for her children, she could've afford a proper care.

Strawberries

2013-09-17, 04:56 AM

....weeelll....

...the social pressure to have children because you HAVE to is surely becoming, at least in my experience, a thing of the past. That doesn't mean people will stop having children. Believe it or not, there are people who actually LIKE children. As all things in life, it's something that's appealing to some, unappealing to others.

I personally don't like children much (well, I do like children... other people's, when they are with their own parents, and for a short period of time), and I think I would make a terrible mother, but I do understand how people have the desire to have them.

And come on, messy, disrespectful and leaving you alone to die when you're old? Stereotyping much?

FinnLassie

2013-09-17, 05:00 AM

You are free to have the desire to have no children. Each to their own, nothing wrong with that. Personally I dislike people who say what you expressed, "you can't know unless you have them", because that is certainly not the case - for some, yes, I've witnessed this, but for all, most certainly not. If someone wants to spend their life without having kids that choice should be respected.

I would argue that having children is a thing of the past, though. In my opinion, having a lot of children in some way is, as there are quite a lot of us humans and no sign of extinction, but to generalise it for having any children altogether is a bit too much.

I'm a rather nurturing personality, so for myself I've found it hard to see a future without children, may they be my own blood or adopted. Having children does not make me see life any more limited, but again, it's a feeling I have for myself and others may think differently.

Jon_Dahl

2013-09-17, 05:03 AM

And come on, messy, disrespectful and leaving you alone to die when you're old? Stereotyping much?

That's how children have been IME. I think it was obvious that I was stating an opinion, not saying that they are all like this for a fact.

Ecalsneerg

2013-09-17, 05:05 AM

propagating the species is a thing of the past? seriously? :smallconfused:

Well, having kids solely for that reason pretty much is in modern society.

Strawberries

2013-09-17, 05:15 AM

Well, having kids solely for that reason pretty much is in modern society.

Precisely. That's what I meant when I said "the 'social pressure' to have kids is becoming a thing of the past". Which is, in my opinion, wonderful. It means people that decide to have children will do it because they are seriously committed to it...like FinnLassie.

Also, Jon_Dahl...how do I put this... children are not an investment. You don't have children because you need someone in your old age, or because you need workforce. You have children because you want to bring someone new into the world, because you want to nurture and protect someone, for a thousand other reason... but certainly NOT because they are a benefit to you. That would be selfishness, and having children should be one of the most selfless acts there is.

As I say, it's not for anyone. It's certainly not for me. But there are people out there for which it is a joy.

Spiryt

2013-09-17, 05:27 AM

Well, there's breathtakingly long, impossibly constant line - from tiniest bacteria trough amphibians and proto-manmals trough apes to thousands of humans beings that fathered/mothered you me, whatever.

Against the all odds, against all dangers and catastrophes, against all rivalry for scant resources trough eons, that line of life had survived.

Thinking about it like that, it may seem from unambitious to almost blasphemous to let that lineage, that kin, that blood to die. :smallwink:

And that's, in vast majority of cases, point of sexual drive - to propagate your own genes and to let them survive towards the clouded future.

Grandparents love their grandchildren, since they're all in all, living, active signs that everything goes well, towards the future.

'In the past' people seemed to subconsciously understand it better, when on think about it.

I think having children is a thing of the past, when people needed children to support them when they are old. In this modern society there is very little reason to have them, especially since you can use your money and time to do lots of things.

There's no 'this modern society'. There are many societies, and in most of them people still can't really accumulate enough money/goods to have safe future.

And then they come - illness, Alzheimer, accidents.

Letting alone human need for contact and feelings.

FinnLassie

2013-09-17, 05:34 AM

To jump in to the conversation about having children as a security for your own elderly years...

It's a rather new structure in our society to have a situation where the children are not completely expected to take full responsibility of their parents when they become old. I think my own grandparents are the first generation to fully experience this. People do not remain stationary in the place their family comes from, but move to another city, to another country, to another continent even. They settle down in an area that is alien to their own parents.

This is an observation from my own family, as people have been greeting the Good Ol' Death on a rather frequent basis in the past couple of years. Some find it extremely hard when their older relatives get to the stage where they cannot function by themselves anymore. In this case, the reason has been that they both, say, my uncle and his mother-in-law, really don't want to move from where they are at that moment. The older person does not want to leave the comfort of what they've known all their lives and I completely understand that - adjusting to a new place could make them even more depressed, be it another town or a senior home. My uncle's family then again had settled in the city they live in, their work was there, their own children live there (lucky things!), their whole life is there. It's difficult to get up from that position as well.

Back in the day, it wasn't unreasonable at all for you to drop everything in order to take care of your parent or grandparent. Nowadays the expectations are rather different. At least where I come from, if you want to take a week or two off to take care of a relative, it's rather frowned upon, seen as skipping work, taking a holiday, etc. (this is a generalisation, doesn't happen all the time)

I know my parents will have it hard. Half of their children live abroad, one of them on another continet, and personally I have little interest when it comes to returning to Finland. It's hard for me to think about this, but I have to. They're my parents and I love them and I want the best for them.

... Bah, really, I have no red string in what I say as there's so much I have to say. I don't really know how to end this post.

SiuiS

2013-09-17, 05:36 AM

Spiryt

2013-09-17, 05:45 AM

I can imagine that some elderly rely on their grandchildren, but it's a game of chance. I'm serious. A few weeks ago I was listening to the radio and one old woman said that her children had moved to faraway cities and she was so alone that she just wanted to die. No luck there. Had she saved the money used for her children, she could've afford a proper care.

Uh, how exactly 'proper care' by people who don't really know her, and care about her, could help to avoid loneliness? :smallconfused:

The atomization and general alienation of individuals in society are processes that generally are getting worse due 'money saving' etc. attitudes.

pasko77

2013-09-17, 05:51 AM

Taffimai

2013-09-17, 05:51 AM

You have your own children so you can raise them *your* way. When I see people letting their children run around in restaurants, I find it horribly disrespectful. *My* children are brought up to be mindful of others. If only I could raise all children my way, I'm sure I would like the resulting society much better. Too bad all other people seem to think the same way. The same is true on a larger scale.

The idea that immigration can take care of society's need to replenish its work force is a fallacy, since those people you're importing are somebody's children. Who must've then grown up in circumstances you had absolutely no control over. Health care, nutrition, education,... would have all been taken care of somewhere else. Their values and priorities might be quite different from the ones you and your society hold dear. If, for example, a large part of those immigrants feel that their tax money shouldn't pay for your retirement or medical costs, they'll be able to vote that into effect. Their cultural and religious beliefs (or lack thereof) could influence whether you still have the freedom to do as you please.

Apart from that, I find having children immensely rewarding. Interacting with them is, for me, something I enjoy. I like seeing them grow and improve, try new things and develop their personalities, much more so than with other people's children. This far outweighs the downsides to having children (less free time, restricted social life, mess, financial drain, frustration). It is a personal thing, and you may very well be wired differently. There are plenty of things people spend their money and time on that really don't appeal to me.

Brother Oni

2013-09-17, 06:53 AM

I just don't get it. I have three nephews and I was close to them when they were little. I told them lots of stories and played with them. I love them, but I would never want to sacrifice my freetime for other people.

Except you have sacrificed your freetime in playing and telling them stories.

Evaluating relationships like a product or service ("I must get X value out of this relationship else I won't bother with it") is entirely your right to do so, but in my opinion, is rather self centered, if not outright selfish.

People who have children often say that "You will understand when you have your own children". This is something I don't understand, because if I had something nice like a puppy or a car, of course I would appreciate it and take care of it to the best of my ability.

It's to do with responsibility. It wasn't until the nurse put my daughter in my arms that it actually hit me - I am responsible for this new life now.
There's very little that comes higher on the scale of personal responsibility in my opinion.
When it came time to take her home, I nearly said to the nurse "You're joking right? You're not really going to let me take this newborn baby home to look after? You're going to take her away and I'll come visit, right?"

With a car or puppy, there's always the option of giving it up if it becomes too troublesome, but letting go of a child is nowhere near that easy (bear in mind that you've also spent ~6 months bonding with it while it was gestating).

I think having children is a thing of the past, when people needed children to support them when they are old. In this modern society there is very little reason to have them, especially since you can use your money and time to do lots of things. I've worked abroad, moved from city to city and I love travelling.

As Taffimai said, relying on an immigrant workforce is a fallacy - take a look at the problems Japan is having.

May I ask what generation you are? I'm assuming that you're a Generation X-er, but some of your opinions are very Baby Boomer-ish.

I'd also be very careful about making blanket statements about 'modern society' - modern society varies significantly from culture to culture; certainly Indian and Chinese cultures show no sign of reluctance to have children and if you do rely on immigrants, they'll be bringing their different cultures with them.

If I had children, my life would be more limited. Maybe I had done much less things than I have so far. It just makes me think.

It is your right to do decide whether you want children or not and I'm certainly not going to say "You must have children!".

Some people just aren't right to be parents, whether it's due to their personality, age, circumstances or some other reason. It doesn't make them good or bad people, just different.

Mutant Sheep

2013-09-17, 06:56 AM

A few responses:
In my view, we are not dependant on society's children, because we can easily get immigrant workforce. I don't know where you are from, but let's imagine you an American. If you suffered from the long-term effects of declining birth rates, you can have any employees from any country of your choosing. Do you agree? And the same goes with most Western civilization. I see this happening in my country already.

I can imagine that some elderly rely on their grandchildren, but it's a game of chance. I'm serious. A few weeks ago I was listening to the radio and one old woman said that her children had moved to faraway cities and she was so alone that she just wanted to die. No luck there. Had she saved the money used for her children, she could've afford a proper care.
"We can import people" is not a sustainable society. Assuming that there will always be people coming to your country is hoping other countries do not follow suit with the "No kiddies" plan. It hopes people will leave their country to take care of other peoples old people. And it is presuming that that people even want to come to your country, let alone "have any employees from any country of your choosing". Immigration sustaining a population assumes that people are both hopeful enough of an opportunity in your country to think about doing it, and that they are willing to hazard whatever issues there are with immigrating (Language barriers, cultural barriers, the actual act of migration).

And so you think someone from another country would be willing to move to a country where the jobs are taking care of old people? They can presumably do that back home.:smalltongue:

luciérnaga

2013-09-17, 07:15 AM

When I see people letting their children run around in restaurants, I find it horribly disrespectful.

How people can differ. I find it horribly disrespectful of people to keep their children at the table like keeping them on a tight leash - direspectful of their children of course. I am glad if they are allowed to play freely
Perhaps, we just have a different taste in restaurants, in one of my favorites there is even a toy-corner. ;)

And as someone wo has worked with immigrants/refugees the last three years - lets say, I don't agree with the seemingly same "control" logic you state concerning them. Integration (which does not mean asssimilation) is a way you take from two directions or you don't walk it at all. The distinction from immigrants is artificial mostly - or it does not take into account the distinctions at home.
Living in a heavily overpopulated world ... it would not seem bad to me if the "bell-curve countries" let people from more "pyramid-curve countries" immigrate and would be welcoming them more openly.

At least we agree concerning a rewarding life with children. And also concerning it does not have to be for everyone. Going more far, I'm even glad for all of my (especially female/trans*male) friends that know for themselves they don't want children - and don't let themselves be burdened with these strange "you have to propagate the species/the fatherland/the family" logics. Reproduction is no duty, it should be a free decision. And if seen as the former, I fear the children coming out of such a relation might not have the luckiest childhood ever waiting for them...

Jon_Dahl

2013-09-17, 07:19 AM

Eldan

2013-09-17, 07:21 AM

Look at it from an evolutionary standpoint. Every bloodline that doesn't favour reproduction dies out, quickly.

The simple version is: looking at their own kids floods people's brains with happiness chemicals.

luciérnaga

2013-09-17, 07:32 AM

Look at it from an evolutionary standpoint. Every bloodline that doesn't favour reproduction dies out, quickly.

If it would happily decide to die out, who cares?
Also it seems, recent development takes the opposite direction. ;)

The simple version is: looking at their own kids floods people's brains with happiness chemicals.
So does taking drugs or doing sports. ^^

KuReshtin

2013-09-17, 07:33 AM

I wasn't going to respond to this thread, but the following quote kind of stuck out to me.

A few responses:
In my view, we are not dependant on society's children, because we can easily get immigrant workforce.

Immigrant workforce IS 'society's children'. Just not your immediate, local community.
There will always be a need for new people to enter the world, or we, as a species, will die.

Morph Bark

2013-09-17, 08:13 AM

Elemental

2013-09-17, 08:27 AM

In my humble opinion, there will always be people who want to have children, and there will always be people who don't want to have children. Personally, I am in the latter group as I am very shy and children are too energetic for me, but I do find limited exposure to be entertaining, and often interesting.

Still, desires to have children aside... Society, all societies, will always need to have children. After all, we are all mortal and will all die eventually, and if a society has no offspring, then it will wither and die, a mere footnote in the annals of history.
So in short, children are a necessity, a priceless insurance that our dreams and our values will endure through the ages, continually changing and growing to, hopefully, become better than us.

Edit: Oh, and before I forgot, a final morbid note... As we age, some of us will need organ transplants, and the best source of healthy organs is from young people who die in accidents of one sort or another. Yes, it is a very morbid note, but it all adds to the whole insurance policy thing I mentioned before.

Serpentine

2013-09-17, 08:52 AM

Immigration does work, at least from my point of view. I've been an immigrant worker and I plan to be one someday soon. It's a global world and people shift from country to country. No need to fill every corner with children if you ask me :smallsmile:As other people have pointed out, every one of these "immigration workers" is someone else's child. If everyone in the whole world decides as you do and stops having kids, everywhere in the world will have the same problem you're proposing to solve with immigrant workers: not enough young people to look after the old.
Either you are exclusively speaking about your own immediate, Western, Minority World context - which is fine, just admit to it - or you are somehow expecting Homo sapiens to produce these immigrant workers by... I don't know, magic?

Now, you might be interested in the "voluntary extinction" movement, which suggests that everyone stop having kids, or only have one or two. That's for environmental reasons, though, but it's something I'm kind of interested in. But "if we stop having kids we can just import everyone else's!" is near-sighted at best. Not to mention... well, politics (not necessarily ones I agree with. No further comment).

As other people have mentioned, it's totally fine to not want to have kids. I know a few people who intend never to. I probably will, mostly because I feel like it'd be a waste of these good breeding hips and I think I have some pretty good genes I'd like to pass on. But overall, the answer is simply "biology". People want to have kids because their genes want to be passed on, and the genes dictate almost everything about us and what we do. You may as well ask why humans want to breathe, or why we don't throw ourselves into the nearest lion's mouth: because biology, because survival, because our genes say so. It's not, fundamentally, something we "want" to do, as something that happens because it's part of what we are.

I really am wondering what you're expecting the long-term outcome of this attitude of yours to be. I mean... Do you want humans to go extinct? Or just parts of it? The parts you're in, specifically? Why? It's... okay if your bit of humanity completely disappears because there will be other bits breedin' on? :smallconfused:

valadil

2013-09-17, 10:08 AM

Hi there. My son turned two yesterday and we're expecting another one in January. I feel qualified to try and answer this.

But first, I'm not offended by your question. Kids are messy little time sinks. I don't think people should have kids if they don't want them. I wanted them.

Here's some reasons why.

1. I'm arrogant. I could list some things I'm good at, but that's not really the point of this thread. Bottom line is I'm proud of my genes and I would like to put more of them in the world.

2. I fear regret. Before I had my son I wasn't really sure I'd like being a parent. But I knew I'd regret not finding out.

3. I've heard a lot of people talk about not wanting or not being sure about kids. I can only think of one person who said he regretted having them.

4. They're messy, but worth it. Kinda like relationships. First time I had a girlfriend I thought she would bring me happiness just by being there. No, the whole thing took effort to maintain. Relationships are stress and they are work, but for the right person they're worth it. Kids are the same way, but they're almost always the right person.

My son does eat up all my free time. But he's happy and fun to play with. I've gone through a lot of evenings looking forward to his bedtime so I can finally do something for myself. I'll start playing video games and within 20 minutes I'll get bored and think about waking the toddler. Other things just aren't as fun without him.

Telonius

2013-09-17, 10:40 AM

Some nice things (so far) about having kids:

So far, it hasn't been all that messy. If she gets too noisy I just take out my hearing aids (though this occasionally gets me dirty looks from my wife).

It's great to be able to teach her how to be disrespectful and still get away with it. (It would be a shame if all my acquired knowledge were to sit around unused).

It's nice to have somebody who gets almost all of my jokes.

Future member of my D&D group: 4 years old and she already wants to play.

I get a chance to keep up on children's literature without seeming like a complete weirdo at the library and the bookstore.

Coidzor

2013-09-17, 11:00 AM

A few responses:
In my view, we are not dependant on society's children, because we can easily get immigrant workforce. I don't know where you are from, but let's imagine you an American. If you suffered from the long-term effects of declining birth rates, you can have any employees from any country of your choosing. Do you agree? And the same goes with most Western civilization. I see this happening in my country already.

I can imagine that some elderly rely on their grandchildren, but it's a game of chance. I'm serious. A few weeks ago I was listening to the radio and one old woman said that her children had moved to faraway cities and she was so alone that she just wanted to die. No luck there. Had she saved the money used for her children, she could've afford a proper care.

Where do you think immigrants come from? They're human too, they have to reproduce. Also, the logical conclusion of that stance would be to make the culture that is attracting said immigrants go extinct, barring the acculturation and assimilation of said immigrants happening quickly enough to preserve the culture. Last I checked, people don't assimilate all that quickly.

Life is full of big maybes. Maybe she could have saved that money, maybe it would have just been eaten up by something else. Maybe even if she saved it, it still wouldn't have been enough. Or it would have just meant that her money got eaten up paying for her medication since government assistance wouldn't kick in because she had too much money for government assistance with her medical fees but not enough money to keep it up and have a higher quality of life.

PersonMan

2013-09-17, 11:17 AM

Small children are messy and noisy and consume your time.

They are also very fun to play with and be around.

Then they become teenagers and mostly disrespect you.

Or they become teenagers and respect you more than before, since they can understand your mindset better. You can also do more things with them (try debating with a 5-year-old...it won't work very well).

Then they move out and you die alone, unless they have children too.

Or they stay in the house and you have constant company that you know dearly and can regularly do things with.

In that case, you will take care of their messy and noisy offspring.

In other words, you get to play with the kids and only occasionally take care of the more annoying parts of parenting.

---

If you only show the bad side, it's obviously going to make no sense. If you only show the good side, you get a similarly skewed view.

warty goblin

2013-09-17, 11:38 AM

Good points BWR!

A few responses:
In my view, we are not dependant on society's children, because we can easily get immigrant workforce. I don't know where you are from, but let's imagine you an American. If you suffered from the long-term effects of declining birth rates, you can have any employees from any country of your choosing. Do you agree? And the same goes with most Western civilization. I see this happening in my country already.

Western civilization: too busy watching cat videos to reproduce, so why not outsource that too?

I can imagine that some elderly rely on their grandchildren, but it's a game of chance. I'm serious. A few weeks ago I was listening to the radio and one old woman said that her children had moved to faraway cities and she was so alone that she just wanted to die. No luck there. Had she saved the money used for her children, she could've afford a proper care.
If the plural of anecdote isn't data, the singular certainly does not qualify. That children aren't a particular guarantee of anything isn't news either, very little is. If you're looking for an investment sure to come in useful, I suggest a tombstone. I was going to recommend a coffin, but realized I couldn't rule out being entirely consumed by a polar bear or great white shark, obviating the need for a casket. Life is chancy like that.

Also, strangely enough, maybe the point of having children isn't more, better stuff for the people having them? I'm not trying to paint having kids as some sort of completely selfless act - a lot of people have kids because they want kids* - but it doesn't have to be materially beneficial to be worthwhile. Personally I don't have kids, but I've spent my fair share of time babysitting other people's. It's a hell of a lot of work, but most genuinely worthwhile things are, and I thought that no exception. Even when they were trying to hit me with rakes.

*Of course a lot of people also have kids because of various birth control failures, including the failure to use birth control.

Coidzor

2013-09-17, 11:41 AM

Note to self: Hide the rakes up high somewhere they can't reach. :smalleek:

luciérnaga

2013-09-17, 11:43 AM

Last I checked, people don't assimilate all that quickly.

Also they really don't have to. Why should they if they are not welcomed as equals?
Also... "Immigrants make our culture going extinct"? You should read what you were just writing, sounds like ... eww rather xenophobe. Nobody should have to assimilate themselves to another culture. Culture change, they do all the time, and can exist besides one another, mix, process. They cannot stand still. There is nothing like a "static culture". There is not even "your culture" - because culture is something people create together.
Well people reading webcomics about a group of friends/colleagues from all around the world and even more so, different species, should get this perhaps. ^^

Also it's a rather privileged position to barr people from moving in while supposedly living in one of the richest spots on earth. Because these are normally the spots that see their demographics in danger due to, who knows, rumors people do not get enough ("white"?/"western"?) children. How about people in this thread would be caring less about unborn children you somehow put into "my group of people" and caring more about those already around, who, I don't know, would maybe like a place to live in for them and their parents so badly, that they would even migrate to another country?

The same privileged nonsense would be "immigrants can get here and do the dirty/cheap work" btw (which, for a lot of people, would be care jobs - also showing how much care is worth to their society).

Spiryt

2013-09-17, 11:48 AM

Western civilization: too busy watching cat videos to reproduce, so why not outsource that too?

Pretty golden quote. :smallbiggrin:

Serpentine

2013-09-17, 11:51 AM

Uh... No, he's not talking about "barring" these people from moving in, or demanding that they assimilate, or anything along those lines. He's citing the natural result of what Dahl is suggesting. You stop making more young people in your society, and instead import young people from other cultures to look after all your old people. Those young people will bring their own culture with them, while the old people die off, killing their culture as they go. It's not really necessarily good or bad, and I don't think Coid was necessarily saying it was, but it is the most likely outcome which OP may not have considered. You're pretty much just gonna be sending one group of people, one culture, extinct, and moving other people in to replace them. All pretty pointless, if you ask me.

warty goblin

2013-09-17, 11:58 AM

Note to self: Hide the rakes up high somewhere they can't reach. :smalleek:
One of the charms of life is that sometimes toddlers try to spike you in the crotch with garden implements. It'd be remorselessly dull otherwise.

Also they really don't have to. Why should they if they are not welcomed as equals?
Also... "Immigrants make our culture going extinct"? You should read what you were just writing, sounds like ... eww rather xenophobe. Nobody should have to assimilate themselves to another culture. Culture change, they do all the time, and can exist besides one another, mix, process. They cannot stand still. There is nothing like a "static culture". There is not even "your culture" - because culture is something people create together.

Traditions are real things, and there's nothing inherently wrong or xenophobic about thinking your particular set is worth passing on. I have my cultural traditions that I value and find worthwhile, there's nothing wrong with sticking to those. There's plenty wrong with forcing them on other people at the expense of their own traditions.

The same privileged nonsense would be "immigrants can get here and do the dirty/cheap work" btw (which, for a lot of people, would be care jobs - also showing how much care is worth to their society).
Pay isn't based on how valuable something is to society, it's based on how little the person paying can get away with spending while still getting the job done. Generally speaking.

Spiryt

2013-09-17, 11:59 AM

Also they really don't have to. Why should they if they are not welcomed as equals?
Also... "Immigrants make our culture going extinct"? You should read what you were just writing, sounds like ... eww rather xenophobe. Nobody should have to assimilate themselves to another culture. Culture change, they do all the time, and can exist besides one another, mix, process. They cannot stand still. There is nothing like a "static culture". There is not even "your culture" - because culture is something people create together.
Well people reading webcomics about a group of friends/colleagues from all around the world and even more so, different species, should get this perhaps.

And, perfectly analogically, one culture doesn't have any obligation to get assimilated by another only because that 'other' one is getting numerically superior. It can 'defend' itself too.

And yes, since 'country' or whatever other entity is common good of it's citizens, they have all the right in the world to let immigrants in on terms they want.

Being caring and altruistic only makes sense if it's voluntary. You want to give something to someone for free - go right ahead, but only if it's yours.

luciérnaga

2013-09-17, 12:43 PM

@serpentine:

It's not really necessarily good or bad
Exactly. But you're forgetting that it's still a total hypothetical scenario in which there is a "complete replacement of the following young generation with immigrated people". And even if it where this way ... as above.

@warty goblin

Traditions are real things, and there's nothing inherently wrong or xenophobic about thinking your particular set is worth passing on. I have my cultural traditions that I value and find worthwhile, there's nothing wrong with sticking to those. There's plenty wrong with forcing them on other people at the expense of their own traditions.

Complete agreement here. But that tradition has nothing to do with where people are living, or if there are people with other traditions living nearby. You can stic to your cultural traditions, and know what ... even your biological childdren could not like them, immigrated children could... where's the logic here? Children are not little versions of you.

Pay isn't based on how valuable something is to society, it's based on how little the person paying can get away with spending while still getting the job done. Generally speaking.
Sure. And now you go to the point why you can get away with this in the care-sector, but not, let's say the military...
And also what qualifies "getting the job done" here and what not, and how good the qualifications for that have to be.

@spiryt

And, perfectly analogically, one culture doesn't have any obligation to get assimilated by another only because that 'other' one is getting numerically superior. It can 'defend' itself too.

And yes, since 'country' or whatever other entity is common good of it's citizens, they have all the right in the world to let immigrants in on terms they want.
Wait? What? Oo Honestly, where am I here?
And wtf is "they" here anyway?
Is citizenship "mine" or "yours" to give?

I think I'm out for a while this thread is kinda shocking. I think if i read this one before I would not have joined this forums at all.

@thread topic:
Earnestly, i really hope we agree here that reproduction/getting children is an autonomous decision to take and not a necessary method to "save national demographics/the species" or "getting through at old age". Besides that the first is nonsense, the second should be a basic human right - children are not means to an end, they are not tools - but living, breathing, human beings.
You either bring them into this world because you want to share your life with others, or you better don't.
/out

FinnLassie

2013-09-17, 12:48 PM

@thread topic:
Earnestly, i really hope we agree here that reproduction/getting children is an autonomous decision to take and not a necessary method to "save national demographics/the species" or "getting through at old age". Besides that the first is nonsense, the second should be a basic human right - children are not means to an end, they are not tools - but living, breathing, human beings.
You either bring them into this world because you want to share your life with others, or you better don't.
/out

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Luciér. I think you've put my thoughts together rather well, here.

Coidzor

2013-09-17, 12:57 PM

Also... "Immigrants make our culture going extinct"? You should read what you were just writing, sounds like ... eww rather xenophobe.

That's what happens if a culture/country stops reproducing and relies upon immigrants to replenish their population. The culture ceases to exist. Which may or may not also do something to the rate of immigration. To simply ignore this factor is silly, even taking into account the evolution of culture and society.

Nobody should have to assimilate themselves to another culture. Culture change, they do all the time, and can exist besides one another, mix, process. They cannot stand still. There is nothing like a "static culture".

There is not even "your culture" - because culture is something people create together.

You want to live in another society, you've got to learn to live with it. And unless they don't reproduce or keep themselves secluded then they're going to adapt and become part of the culture of their new homeland with every passing generation.

So there's no such thing as American culture then? You're kind of going against conventional wisdom and the shared consensus of reality with that kind of stance that denies the existence of such a thing as national or regional culture.

Also it's a rather privileged position to barr people from moving in while supposedly living in one of the richest spots on earth.

How on earth are you managing to pull this malarkey out of what I said? I ain't even mad, I just want you to explain your thought process here.

warty goblin

2013-09-17, 01:11 PM

@serpentine:
@warty goblin

Complete agreement here. But that tradition has nothing to do with where people are living, or if there are people with other traditions living nearby. You can stic to your cultural traditions, and know what ... even your biological childdren could not like them, immigrated children could... where's the logic here? Children are not little versions of you.

Actually quite a few traditions are fairly location dependent. Most of mine have to do with various rural, food raising functions which depend on living in an environment where a person can in fact grow particular crops or animals. One cannot very well slaughter and roast a hog in an apartment building, or raise livestock.

And sure, a person's children can reject their traditions, just as a person from another culture can accept and embrace those of a different culture. Life doesn't come with certainties. If you limit logic's domain to the certain, it is a useless calculus indeed. It does however come with probabilities, and the probability of a child finding value in the traditions they grew up with is, I think, probably greater than the probability of somebody adopting another culture's traditions wholesale. There's the logic.

Sure. And now you go to the point why you can get away with this in the care-sector, but not, let's say the military...
And also what qualifies "getting the job done" here and what not, and how good the qualifications for that have to be.
I've known people in the military. Particularly for the enlisted, the pay is apparently fairly terrible.

Getting the job done is not a statement that requires a lot of qualification, a job is simply doing a task in order to accomplish an objective. Either a person can do it or not. For babysitting getting the job done basically just demands keeping the little bastards alive and healthy for some span of hours, without doing anything considered abusive. This can be fairly difficult, but does not require advanced, specialized training, or any of the other things that allow one to demand a higher wage. Most people are actually quite competent at keeping a child alive under normal conditions for a good chunk of the day.

Earnestly, i really hope we agree here that reproduction/getting children is an autonomous decision to take and not a necessary method to "save national demographics/the species" or "getting through at old age". Besides that the first is nonsense, the second should be a basic human right - children are not means to an end, they are not tools - but living, breathing, human beings.
You either bring them into this world because you want to share your life with others, or you better don't.
/out
Biological life is a means to an end: making the next batch of biological life. Humans are just another organism, doing the same thing as the mayflies and the lizards and the trees and the seaweed and the scum sucking bottom feeding fish in the river. Really, everything else is just a story we tell ourselves to feel more important about being human. Including our traditions; a fact which I think gives a useful perspective on them without diminishing their actual importance in our lives.

NihhusHuotAliro

2013-09-17, 01:15 PM

People want to have children because children and babies are cute, and it's a wonderful experience teaching a baby to walk.

Jon_Dahl

2013-09-17, 01:32 PM

Some of have commented on the fact that immigrants need to reproduce too. Yes, of course. People will always reproduce, but they should reproduce less – much less – and we could use this planet’s limited resources much better. I think that would be fair. Planet with 2 billion people, anyone? 1 billion? Less?
And from the selfish point of view the immigrant’s children might not concern the country in which they work. The immigrant can be hired for temporary work, and he/she is a ready-made package of skill and knowledge and can start working immediately. I had one-hour phone interview and then I left my country, and I was an instant addition to the destination country’s workforce for one year. No need to wait for kindergarten, elementary school, high school… “Someday he’s working for his country!” Immigrant labor makes sense. But really, this planet with 4 or 5 billion people less would be… nice. Real nice.

Ahhh, being an immigrant worker was great! I didn't move from a poor country to a rich country; they were kind of equal. 99% of the immigrants (at least the ones that I knew) were childless and unmarried. It was great because the workers really bonded. Now that I'm back to my home country, almost everyone has a family and there is less bonding. People don't care that much about strangers outside their core family. This has given me the reason not to like family life that much. People with children seem so alien to me.

This sounds rather like egotistical loner behaviour to me, to be honest, from this limited thing you say here. Are you in a relationship? Do you often hang out with friends? What do you consider "sacrificing freetime for other people"?

I sense a trap. You call my behavior egotistical, and then you ask me a couple of personal questions. It's all fine, but I just fear that if I answer, I may seem even more egotistical? ;-) Anyway: I'm in a non-serious relationship. I hang out with my friends about 2-3 times a month. "Sacrificing your freetime" means that something consumes all your freetime and you're more or less stuck with it. @Brother Oni: I'm thirty-something.

Oh, and before I forgot, a final morbid note... As we age, some of us will need organ transplants, and the best source of healthy organs is from young people who die in accidents of one sort or another. Yes, it is a very morbid note, but it all adds to the whole insurance policy thing I mentioned before.

An excellent point! Thank you.

I really am wondering what you're expecting the long-term outcome of this attitude of yours to be. I mean... Do you want humans to go extinct? Or just parts of it? The parts you're in, specifically? Why? It's... okay if your bit of humanity completely disappears because there will be other bits breedin' on?

Well, what I wanted was this:
To see that some people at least partially agree with me, and that there are people who do not want children. I’m not alone with my opinions.
What I don’t want:
That all people stop having children and then no one pays for my retirement and I don’t have walking organ banks when I get old. The “one billion people on Earth and people immigrate” could solve all the problems, if executed correctly. Right?

Either you are exclusively speaking about your own immediate, Western, Minority World context - which is fine, just admit to it.

I admit it.

Coidzor

2013-09-17, 01:48 PM

To see that some people at least partially agree with me, and that there are people who do not want children. I’m not alone with my opinions.

What, you'd never heard of childfree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree)or the human extinction movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement)? :smallconfused: Of course there are others who aren't interested in sprogging.

What I don’t want:
That all people stop having children and then no one pays for my retirement and I don’t have walking organ banks when I get old. The “one billion people on Earth and people immigrate” could solve all the problems, if executed correctly. Right?

No, not without a near-extinction event to lower the population or [politics] which would invalidate the whole executed correctly part anyway.

warty goblin

2013-09-17, 02:02 PM

Some of have commented on the fact that immigrants need to reproduce too. Yes, of course. People will always reproduce, but they should reproduce less – much less – and we could use this planet’s limited resources much better. I think that would be fair. Planet with 2 billion people, anyone? 1 billion? Less?
And from the selfish point of view the immigrant’s children might not concern the country in which they work. The immigrant can be hired for temporary work, and he/she is a ready-made package of skill and knowledge and can start working immediately. I had one-hour phone interview and then I left my country, and I was an instant addition to the destination country’s workforce for one year. No need to wait for kindergarten, elementary school, high school… “Someday he’s working for his country!” Immigrant labor makes sense. But really, this planet with 4 or 5 billion people less would be… nice. Real nice.

I'm not going to disagree that the planet would be better off with fewer people on it, but your logic here is flaky. Somebody from another country is a better worker now than an infant yes. So is somebody from this country for that matter. Regardless of which country today's worker is from, he or she isn't going to be working forever, because eventually they will retire or die. Either their job must needs go undone, or they need to be replaced by a new worker; aka today's infant.

Immigrant labor is an argument against reproduction the same way having enough food on hand for breakfast is an argument against having a plan in place for eating ever again. By which I mean it's a very bad argument, because the problem is clearly one that recurs over time.

Ahhh, being an immigrant worker was great! I didn't move from a poor country to a rich country; they were kind of equal. 99% of the immigrants (at least the ones that I knew) were childless and unmarried. It was great because the workers really bonded. Now that I'm back to my home country, almost everyone has a family and there is less bonding. People don't care that much about strangers outside their core family. This has given me the reason not to like family life that much. People with children seem so alien to me.
Wouldn't the sensible inference be that all those people who are primarily socializing within their immediate family are onto something then? Either everybody who has a family is stupid for doing so - which requires a lot of stupid people - or it may just be a more gratifying form of social interaction.

That all people stop having children and then no one pays for my retirement and I don’t have walking organ banks when I get old. The “one billion people on Earth and people immigrate” could solve all the problems, if executed correctly. Right?

I really do not understand this link you are making between immigration and reducing human population. Nobody is having kids to fill jobs now, because babies are really bad workers. Immigrant workers now aren't an argument against having offspring. Immigrant workers eighteen years from now aren't an argument against people having offspring, because those immigrant workers eighteen years hence are somebody's children today.

Morgarion

2013-09-17, 02:17 PM

I've been watching this thread since I saw it this morning and it seems to me that the point has largely been missed.

I never wanted children. Then I met my wife, and I totally got it. We still don't have kids, but I'm actually looking forward to it. I'm terrified, but I can't wait. Well, I can wait, but I wish I was in a position where I didn't have to.

Having kids isn't about some sort of duty to the future of the human race. It isn't about demographic activism. It isn't an insurance plan for your own future. It's not about getting, it's about giving.

Jon_Dahl

2013-09-17, 02:18 PM

Thank you Morgarion, we are back on topic :smallsmile:

Mordokai

2013-09-17, 03:02 PM

Why I don't want children? Because I'm a selfish, bitter wretch of a human being that's always looking out for number one and have never been capable of loving another human being and very much doubt that will ever change. I see children as toys. But toys can usually have an On/Off button. These toys don't and as such, they are useless to me.

I have many faults. But I pride myself on recognizing them and I know that to beget another human being into this world would be a punishment for me and it. And I don't think any human being deserves that. If I can't give child the love it deserves, then I owe to it and myself not to have that child. I'm happy for anybody who thinks they can do it, but I'm not one of them and won't even pretend otherwise.

sktarq

2013-09-17, 05:12 PM

Some observances. ideas etc

There seems to be divergence between a societal or population reason to have reproduction occur and those reasons of individuals.
In addition changes in science, social conventions, and social structures in the last 100 years have changed many or undercut traditional thinking in this area

First and foremost I'd say that the OP is attempting to apply logic to what is often an emotional question in which emotion can either overwhelm logical thought or most logic is being run at a subconscious level. This is highly problematic in a search for logical answers

As for the whole "investment" issue. At one time almost everywhere and still in many places today having children to provide in ones old age is/was highly appropriate thinking and simply taken as an assumption. In many places a particular birth ordered/gendered child was socially given this responsibility (Eldest Son in China, Youngest son in Rwanda, youngest daughter in at least one part of Latin America, for three 20th Century examples). To a significant degree this drive no longer hold in societies that have socialized old age support and non-familial interdependence (classically thought of as "the West" or sometimes "The Economic North"). At a societal level this concept of youth as an investment still holds true everywhere. As the current work of the young supports the material lives of the old. So while that need may drive social policies of immigration, child tax rebates, free child services (incl education) as social good they do not directly drive the want or lack there of to have children which I believe was the thrust of the OP's question.

To a large extent the human sex drive used to cover for a major reason to have children. They were the natural result. Science has thrown that for a loop. "Accidental" children are still common and make a large percentage of people overall-particularly firstborn. Once the children arrive rather different social and even biological pressures take over. Many people like the feelings that small children evoke in them (which can be a factor in want to have them too).

In referring to those later social pressures. Many people include children in their wishes for what they want themselves to be. It is part of what makes them "successful", "adult", or "having achieved my dream"....I'd say this drive is generally unhealthy as it treats the children as things instead of human beings and can lead to twisted parent-child relationships. Then again I've known a couple of people whose life goal was to be a "good mother" or "better dad than my father" whose kids are both a necessary part of their goals but also rather healthy.

Many people find meaning and joy in family life. Particularly if they were raised in a very close (over very distant or non family situation IME) they find that it is an important part of identity. A few I've met have had children as an almost negative identity marker. Either a way to create a new/concrete/self created identity that they like more than their current situation (often more responsible and less drug addled) or proclamation of something they do not wish to be (a loner, selfish, an outcast, etc). Personally I see this as the socially accepted "healthy" version of the above in which direct verbalization is suppressed. But that doesn't mean it is no more valid and can not give those any less joy or meaning. That they do find the trials and tribulations of bringing anther person in the world and society rewarding. Though I would propose that it can lead to marriage problems-couples that are together for the kids and not themselves often divorce and suffer greatly when the children move out.

Others have said to me that it has to do with some sense of sharing themselves and their love of the other parent with the world. Personally I don't understand this one on any kind of emotional level. But the closest mental model I have been able to create has something to do part of affirming ones own choices and feelings in life by imparting them to a larger share of the world and the future, part external marker commitment to each other the concept of love, hope, and faith in the future, and part

A few do so out of drives of power, the want to create or possess. I hazard those don't lead to the most well adjusted kids but really you'd have to ask a developmental psychologist about that.

and that's all I've got for the moment

Hiro Protagonest

2013-09-17, 05:28 PM

Humans want to have kids because humans are systems, systems that stop working but can make other systems that will work for just as long, but came into this world later, and so will leave later assuming death of old age, and they will then produce other systems, and so on, and these systems are integral to our survival as a species, and so it is hardwired into our minds that we should do this.

And it's a valid thing to do. What's not valid for nature is the fact that humans cause entropy; every step towards some sort of society is a step away from the natural order, although at this point it's probably more like a step sideways as we go from one type of society to another. Nature did not intend this to happen. It did not intend for humans to wait until they're thirty, thirty five before having kids. It did not expect that advances in medical sciences and the creation of places for those who are physically weak would drastically reduce child death, leading to our domination of the planet. And unfortunately, nature can only move slowly. We've progressed so much in the past century, while nature is scrambling to rewire our genetics to let us live longer and have less desire for kids.

Of course, that second paragraph is just my theory.

Elemental

2013-09-17, 09:24 PM

Well, what I wanted was this:
To see that some people at least partially agree with me, and that there are people who do not want children. I’m not alone with my opinions.
What I don’t want:
That all people stop having children and then no one pays for my retirement and I don’t have walking organ banks when I get old. The “one billion people on Earth and people immigrate” could solve all the problems, if executed correctly. Right?

No it couldn't. It would take generations of population controls and societal/cultural shift to even approach that number. Otherwise, you're going to have to ask billions of people to willingly let their families die out and have their homes and cities be reduced to crumbling ruins. It's not something that I feel many people would be okay with. That, and it's bound to become corrupted by politics.
And besides... Even if we take steps to reduce the population now, technology in the future could invalidate all the reasons for doing so. Population stabilisation is a much more logical step.

As for the topic of immigrant workers... It causes its own problems and difficulties.

SaintRidley

2013-09-17, 10:25 PM

To add a further cog in the wheel - somebody has to colonize Mars someday. Rather than try and pare down our population, why not try expanding our potential living space instead?

warty goblin

2013-09-17, 10:41 PM

To add a further cog in the wheel - somebody has to colonize Mars someday. Rather than try and pare down our population, why not try expanding our potential living space instead?

Colonizing Mars is like building a house in the Gobi desert. If the Gobi desert was in the middle of Antarctica. And Antarctica was covered in a cloud of asphyxiating gas. And had even worse sandstorms. And had no place to grow food. Or really even convenient water, or decently strong sunlight for that matter. But it does come with extra doses of radiation.

Good luck settling millions of people there.

rs2excelsior

2013-09-17, 10:47 PM

I don't have kids, and I'm not anywhere near doing so in the future. I'm still in college, and haven't even had a serious girlfriend for three, three and a half years now. I have things I plan to do with my life that really don't involve children.

That being said, I hope someday to find somebody, settle down a bit, and have children. Not many, maybe one or two. But I would like to pass on my genes, my blood, to another. For me, for my culture, family means a lot. I would do anything for my family, and they would do anything for me. There's a lot of power and a lot of emotion in that bond. I hope to share it someday with a wife and child(ren).

Part of it is being an only child. If I do not have kids, my branch of the family is dead, because my parents certainly aren't going to be giving me a little brother for Christmas at this stage. I am proud of my family, though we aren't from a famous or powerful one or anything. But I know I can trace my ancestry back all the way to Jamestown. No matter what anyone else thinks, my family is important to me.

I have never looked at having children from a cost-benefit point of view, probably because it has never occurred to me to think that way. Just as I would never analyze the personal costs and benefits of helping a family member or a friend who was in need of my assistance.

I don't know if I can be a good father. Frankly, sometimes it scares the hell out of me. But I think I can, and I know I'd do everything I could for a child to the best of my ability. Because that's just what you do.

I have nothing against those who choose to have no children, but I don't think that's for me. I want to look back at my life and know I've made an impact, and the best way I know how is to have brought a new life into the world.

Also, I don't think children tie their parents down. They do, in a way, but you get to discover the world all over again with a brand new person. I can't think of anything else that would equal that.

Scowling Dragon

2013-09-17, 10:48 PM

Because evolution spent millions of years nailing it hard into our heads that "WE WAN'T CHILDREN!" and that can't be outdone by a few decades of relative luxury.

Also because maybe people LIKE Kids? Maybe the difference is that you DISLIKE kids?

Maybe its about wanting too know how its like being a parent? About accomplishing something?

About love? About wanting somebody TOO love?

SaintRidley

2013-09-17, 11:00 PM

Colonizing Mars is like building a house in the Gobi desert. If the Gobi desert was in the middle of Antarctica. And Antarctica was covered in a cloud of asphyxiating gas. And had even worse sandstorms. And had no place to grow food. Or really even convenient water, or decently strong sunlight for that matter. But it does come with extra doses of radiation.

Good luck settling millions of people there.

Sure, right now. Just wait a few (dozen?) generations until we've sorted out some of those issues and we have underground bubble cities all over Mars. Your ghost will be so embarrassed.

Of course, to make it those few (dozen?) generations, we'll need to have kids.

Scowling Dragon

2013-09-17, 11:07 PM

Once creating something like the Iphone would involve cramming around enough supercomputers to fill manhattan into something handheld, and with a TV screen that you could touch.

Technology moves into the direction we LEAST expect it.

Whiffet

2013-09-18, 12:53 AM

Well, I don't have kids. Maybe someday, if I find someone I would be willing to start a family with, I will. Maybe. I don't think that's something I should decide right now, so I don't know. I should at least get my degree first.

But I have asked my parents why they wanted kids. They used to travel a bit more, see, and do "fun" things like going on long vacations on other continents. They couldn't do that once they had my sister and me. It would use up too much precious time and money. So why would they trade one lifestyle for another? My parents realize that someone who doesn't want kids can't exactly understand why others would. So their answer to this question isn't very straightforward. Instead, their answers are a bunch of little moments and experiences. (Spoilering this, since it's kind of long)

My sister's first word, "Mama," said while being cradled in Mom's arms and looking up at her.

Sitting on the couch as either parent read a book to us just before bedtime.

The first times we each successfully read books on our own and wanted to show them what we could do.

Our toddlers' game of "ATTACK DADDY!" which was basically glomping him when he came home from work.

The crude children's artwork we would make and give to them for the Refrigerator Gallery.

Playing outside with Dad in the evening, and indulging in popsicles or ice cream after we tired ourselves out because Dad will take any excuse for ice cream.

When we each first boarded the school bus.

When we came home in our early school years, proudly showing off what we were doing in class.

Going to the library and letting us pull out ten children's books at a time, then watching us read them all in a day.

Taking us on little trips, trips to science museums and natural wonders, so we could learn to understand and appreciate the world around us.

The time I finally overcame my fear of bicycles and rode around without training wheels.

My sister taking up the flute, and the sound of practicing coming from her bedroom every evening.

The moment Mom realized our homework was beyond her capabilities to help us, and we knew more about math and science than she did.

My sister's birthday when she finally got the cell phone she had been wanting for so long: they hid the phone in a new purse and let her think the purse was the present, and then they called the phone.

The years we got our teachers to help us prank our parents on April Fool's Day; it only worked once on Mom and twice on Dad, but still.

The leisurely walks my dad and I took together, discussing anything from recent movies and favorite books to differing political views.

Stopping by when we got our first jobs (burger joint for sis, ice cream parlor for me) "just to say hi," being fully aware of how annoying we thought it was at the time.

The tears of pride when we graduated high school and received our diplomas.
I suppose, for my parents, parenting was in and of itself a joy. Sure, it had bad moments too, but for them it was all worth it. They... they really loved it. And us.

...

I feel like I need to go give them each a big hug. And tell them "thank you for everything."

Ravens_cry

2013-09-18, 01:20 AM

Larval apelings are awesome.
Sure, they can be little psychopaths, but they also can be so honest and genuine, it's just so endearing.
Their sense of wonder and curiosity is what I find most charming.
They know, really know, that the world is full of amazing things and ideas to discover.
So much of that is all too often lost as they pupate into the adult form.
I hope to have my own pet apeling someday, hopefully one that partially shares my genetic material.

Brother Oni

2013-09-18, 01:55 AM

A point that some people have touched on - a person may not want children now, but given time and experiences, they may change their mind (admittedly it may be somewhat late at the OP's listed age of 30-something).

As Whiffet said, it's not one singular moment but a collection of them that makes all the time and effort suddenly worthwhile.

There's nothing like coming home from a bad day at work and getting unconditional love (and a hug) from a toddler "because you look grumpy".

Knaight

2013-09-18, 01:59 AM

People often complain that society sucks. Society is made of individuals. We can assume that they mean the majority of individuals suck.

A reason to propagate is so that you can influence the pool and alter the balance of suck vs. non-suck. You'll never dilute something without putting a diluting agent in.

That agent would be your children.
So, basically, what you are saying is that you should have children to act as ideological warriors against a society full of evil people? Because there is a major problem here, in that this is extremely dehumanizing to the children in question. They are people, not ammunition for your ideological war - and it's not like this hasn't been tried before, with the effects visible. Said effects tend to include psychological damage to the children in question, probably because being bred as weaponry for somebody else's ideological war has detrimental effects to the psyche. Who knew?

Also, it is very much possible for society as a whole to suck, while still being composed mostly of decent people. There's the matter of people who want, seek out, and find power often being exactly the people who shouldn't be in power; there's the matter of everyone having a lot of things on their plate, which leaves individual aspects of society disproportionately under control of those particularly obsessed with it, there's the matter of humans being human and having flaws, and these flaws being exacerbated, so on and so forth.

Small children are messy and noisy and consume your time. Then they become teenagers and mostly disrespect you. Then they move out and you die alone, unless they have children too. In that case, you will take care of their messy and noisy offspring.
Yes, small children are generally messy and noisy. At the same time, they can also be a joy to be around. The tendency towards bluntness and honesty alone (in lieu of tact) can be refreshing, as can any number of other things. As for teenagers, complaints of "disrespect" have, in my observation, a remarkable tendency to come from extremely authoritarian types who see anything other than constant obsequiousness and servility as disrespect. This isn't necessarily the case for all teenagers, but the categorical statement does have roots in people with unreasonable expectations of being nearly worshiped, along with people who act like jerks towards their kids then get surprised when their kids don't respect them afterwards. As for people moving out and you dying alone, hardly. Complete and utter burning of bridges isn't hugely common, particularly when looking at cases of non-abusive parents. You've listed a bunch of stereotypes that elide everything worthwhile about parent-child relationships, of course that isn't going to look good.

Incidentally, I say this as someone who doesn't particularly want kids. Certainly not for a while.

Killer Angel

2013-09-18, 01:07 PM

I have never understood why people want to have children. And I'm afraid to ask them face-to-face, so I made this thread.

Short version?
Sometime, you want them.
I've never needed children, then at one point of my life, I started to like the thought, and now I am a father.
Seriously, conservation of the species and transmission of genes, are powerful instints.

truemane

2013-09-18, 01:28 PM

The desire to have children is akin to the desire to have sex. If you didn't have a libido, then there's nothing you could say to logic someone into having sex. Seen from the outside, it's either so silly you can't imagine taking it seriously, or so vile and disgusting (you want me to put it where?) that you can't imagine why otherwise reasonable people would do such horrid things.

Having kids is kind of like that. If you have no desire for them, then it seems like the worst idea ever ever ever. Nothing but pain and effort and expense and time and energy for no good gain.

And you're totally right.

Imagine that you were asexual. And then, one day, for whatever reason (probably by accident), you had sexual intercourse. And then, once you did, suddenly you had a crazy overactive libido. And then you're like "Holy smokes! What was that? Can I have more of it? I can't believe I wanted this long to do this! I want to do it all day, every day!"

Same thing.

Before I had kids, I was convinced I would never, ever, ever want them. Now that I have them, my life would feel empty and hollow without them. And it bears mentioning that, despite my constant, trained, educated efforts, both my kids are total train-wrecks. Every day I don't get a call from jail or school is a good day.

And still, they're my whole world.

For women, I think it's a little different a lot of the time. I think they have the urge to have children more often. Purely genetic. For me, I wasn't really a father till I held them for the first time. Until that moment, it was all just something that was happening to someone else.

tl;dr - You're totally right, there's no good reason to have kids. The only good reason is the kids themselves.

obryn

2013-09-18, 02:52 PM

I spent a few years not wanting kids. But I was a different guy back then.

Now? I have two young boys - 3-1/2 and 2 - and they mean the world to me. Yes, there's annoying times. Yes, they are messy. Yes, they can be loud. Yes, I have less free time than I used to. But I've never found anything more rewarding. And seeing my own dad's face when he got to hold his first grandchild for the first time is something I'll hold with me forever.

Not everyone wants kids, and that's cool; I'm only here to talk about my own life, not proselytize. But I've never regretted having my two. Sure, I'm never more than 6' from a Hot Wheels car no matter where I am in the house, but that's pretty great, honestly. (Because Hot Wheels are awesome.)

I'm starting to teach the older one all about dragons and wizards and knights, too. One day I'll teach them all about why Daddy has a lot of friends over every Wednesday night. :smallsmile:

-O

Ravens_cry

2013-09-18, 04:14 PM

Coidzor

2013-09-18, 04:19 PM

CurlyKitGirl

2013-09-18, 04:42 PM

thubby

2013-09-18, 04:42 PM

Ravens_cry

2013-09-18, 04:46 PM

well, sex is pretty gross when you think about it.
Aye. As my pre-puberty, 13 year old, self said, "If it weren't for hormones, no one would do it."

Coidzor

2013-09-18, 05:02 PM

Aye. As my pre-puberty, 13 year old, self said, "If it weren't for hormones, no one would do it."

Whereas my response at 11 was "huh, so that's how the docking clamps work."

well, sex is pretty gross when you think about it.

No more so than the fact that we have to consume other lifeforms in order to survive, and not even vegans manage to be disgusted by that. So, having thought about it and found that it is not objectively disgusting but merely subjectively disgusting to some people, do I then blow your mind or do you just reject my statements as a lie or delusion on my part and that I haven't truly thought about it?

But I digress.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-09-18, 05:26 PM

There's a joke where three engineers are arguing over which kind the divine creator (they say God, but the Jewish/Christian God can do anything and everything so it's kind of a moot point if we're talking about him) is, and the civil engineer goes "God was obviously a civil engineer. Who else would think to put a waste disposal system right through such a great recreational area?".

THAC0

2013-09-18, 08:28 PM

Ultimately?

I woke up one day and really wanted kids.

A little while later, my husband woke up one day and really wanted kids.

And now we will have a kiddo in April.

It's not a decision based on pure logic. Emotions and biology play a heavy, heavy role.

Elemental

2013-09-18, 10:41 PM

Honestly I'm just confused at the apparent lack of asexuals who just don't desire sex rather than being actively repulsed by the very idea. The world seems the poorer for their absence.

Don't worry. We exist. I for one am completely fine with the idea of intercourse, I just don't want to do it myself. After all, that would require an intimate relationship with another human of a kind I would prefer not to have.
So in short, to me, sex is like sky diving. I'm sure it's invigorating, exciting and with only a small chance of death, but it's not for me.

Jon_Dahl

2013-09-19, 04:21 AM

Brother Oni

2013-09-19, 05:23 AM

Some have mentioned the desire to spread their genes. Well, in my case it's the opposite; I have awful genes! I don't have anything serious, but I'm an unusual bundle of minor physical problems that I would not wish on my worst enemy. I think I'm showing more love to the child by not having it than by having it.

That is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting children, although you may be selling your genetic potential short.
I had a professor at university who was a Type 1 diabetic who chose not to have children for exactly this reason (although the potential health issues of her carrying a child to term was an additional concern).

It's just a leap of logic to assume everybody is in the exact same position and have the same conditions that you do (you've accepted that you're speaking from your own immediate minority Western world position).

Spiryt

2013-09-19, 05:34 AM

Some have mentioned the desire to spread their genes. Well, in my case it's the opposite; I have awful genes! I don't have anything serious, but I'm an unusual bundle of minor physical problems that I would not wish on my worst enemy. I think I'm showing more love to the child by not having it than by having it.

Eh, but 'desire' to spread genes generally doesn't have anything to do with ones thinking about their genes... It's not like anyone was thinking about genes trough the billions of years. :smalltongue:

If one doesn't have children mainly/only due to anti-conception, for example, it's rather obvious that their subconsciousness/libido/whatever actually wants to spread the genes, and see what happens at least:smallwink:.

Whether they're actually 'horrible' (whatever that means) or not.

Castaras

2013-09-19, 05:34 AM

Some have mentioned the desire to spread their genes. Well, in my case it's the opposite; I have awful genes! I don't have anything serious, but I'm an unusual bundle of minor physical problems that I would not wish on my worst enemy. I think I'm showing more love to the child by not having it than by having it.

It sounds like you're trying to justify to yourself you not wanting children - which is perfectly fine.

Not everyone wants kids, and despite what people say "You'll want them eventually! Everyone does!" - some never do. And that's okay, and it's not something that needs to be justified. If you have reasons why you don't want them - even if it's just a gut "OH GODS NO PLEASE WHY", then that's reason enough and you shouldn't let other people's thoughts / opinions get you upset. :smallsmile:

BaronOfHell

2013-09-19, 05:48 AM

Life is good, but to bring a new being into a world where its ultimate faith is to be destroyed?

If I can invest myself to give someone else a good life, that's what I'll do, if I can't, I won't. For me, that's all there is to it.

How to do so is a different matter than this topic and much more complex.

Knaight

2013-09-19, 02:22 PM

That is a perfectly valid reason for not wanting children, although you may be selling your genetic potential short.
I had a professor at university who was a Type 1 diabetic who chose not to have children for exactly this reason (although the potential health issues of her carrying a child to term was an additional concern).

This is pretty much where I'm at too. I might adopt at some point (though I have no desire to now), but between a number of minor birth defects, terrible migraines, and a family history of depression that basically spares nobody - which, incidentally, are shared by my girlfriend (other than the birth defects) - odds are not good for biological children ending up with non-crap genes.

Spiryt

2013-09-19, 03:05 PM

This is pretty much where I'm at too. I might adopt at some point (though I have no desire to now), but between a number of minor birth defects, terrible migraines, and a family history of depression that basically spares nobody - which, incidentally, are shared by my girlfriend (other than the birth defects) - odds are not good for biological children ending up with non-crap genes.

Eh, I really feel that most of those (save birth defects, of course), have rather minor chances of actually being genetic.

Particularly depression as a medical terms depends on quite a few other factors.

Obviously, patterns that are, often subconsciously being transmitted via socialization may have just the same effect, but this is actually possible to change, unlike genes.

Coidzor

2013-09-19, 03:54 PM

It sounds like you're trying to justify to yourself you not wanting children - which is perfectly fine.

Not everyone wants kids, and despite what people say "You'll want them eventually! Everyone does!" - some never do. And that's okay, and it's not something that needs to be justified. If you have reasons why you don't want them - even if it's just a gut "OH GODS NO PLEASE WHY", then that's reason enough and you shouldn't let other people's thoughts / opinions get you upset. :smallsmile:

Not wanting children is perfectly fine. Having to justify the decision to one's self suggests that there might be an issue there, even if the issue is merely that one has embraced the incorrect POV that one has to have some profound reason to actively not want to reproduce in order to not want to reproduce at all..

warty goblin

2013-09-19, 05:24 PM

Not wanting children is perfectly fine. Having to justify the decision to one's self suggests that there might be an issue there, even if the issue is merely that one has embraced the incorrect POV that one has to have some profound reason to actively not want to reproduce in order to not want to reproduce at all..

I've never understood the logic that says needing to justify a position implies you have some sort of underlying issue. I attempt to justify all of my positions; it's just good intellectual practice.

bluewind95

2013-09-19, 05:58 PM

I think "I just don't want to" is enough of a justification at certain levels. Certainly when it comes to justifying myself about personal choices with people I don't know very well, if at all, I'd go for the most shallow justification.

When you over-justify things, it tends to mean you might have unresolved doubts and are mostly trying to convince yourself. Obviously not always the case, but pretty often.

Kiero

2013-09-19, 06:36 PM

I am a parent. I'm the father to an amazing/frustrating 3-year-old daughter, and in five weeks a second, as-yet-unnamed, newborn daughter.

People like different things, ultimately. I could ask a similar version of this question about pets, I can't stand animals and have no idea why anyone would want to foul their home and living space up by having them share it. Children eventually learn to clean up after themselves, animals never do.

I feel very strongly about one particular aspect of parenting: active choice. Everyone who has children should be committed to and bought into that notion 100%. Not pressurised into it by social expectations or their own parents whining about grandchildren, not to appease a spouse who wants them regardless of the other party's wishes. If more people actively choice either to have children, or not to have children because they didn't actually want them, the world would be a much better place with many fewer damaged people in it.

For me, the "correct" opinion to have is to know whether or not you want children, and to stick to it. I'll happily support anyone who knows their mind and resists pressure to change it from either direction.

As for why I'd want children myself, I have done for a very long time. It's never been a question for me about whether or not it's something I'd do, only a question of finding the right person to share it all with. It's been an adjustment in a lot of aspects, having to be unselfish with your time and energy, but worth it. There is nothing else I've ever done that I consider as rewarding or worthwhile as moulding a functional human being from scratch.

It helps that most of the things people consider you have to "sacrifice" as a parent I don't care about. Not fussed about material things for the most part; I don't have any acquisitive/collecting hobbies, I don't care much about travel, restaurants, going out and all that stuff. I'd much rather host friends or go to their house than do the pub thing. I don't drink alcohol, smoke or do drugs, so they've not been curtailed, nor am I about to pass any of those habits on.

Children are also the perfect excuse to avoid tedious social occasions without seeming to do so. They drive me to better myself and be a good exemplar, because you naturally become their first role model. No easier way to get a small child to do something than let them witness you doing it.

And I guess ultimately there's a little vanity in there too. The reason you want your own biological children, rather than adopting, is because you believe on some level that your genes are better than anyone elses.

Coidzor

2013-09-19, 06:56 PM

I've never understood the logic that says needing to justify a position implies you have some sort of underlying issue. I attempt to justify all of my positions; it's just good intellectual practice.

A justification is not the same thing as the real reason why something is so, for starters. Justifying your decision to yourself or to others isn't going to tell you the truth, it's just bluster and sophistry. And while, yes, lying is a skill like any other, lying to yourself is generally a bad plan.

So... Semantics, basically!

Nerd-o-rama

2013-09-19, 07:19 PM

You see Jon, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...yeah someone probably already made this joke.

At any rate, there's no one reason why everyone who decides to have children has children - and even that only speaks to those people who make a conscious choice to have them, rather than letting reproductive instinct overtake their ability or willingness to use contraceptives.

There are as many different "reasons" to have kids as there are parents, though. Some people are following social norms or the instinct to propagate the species. Some people want a person they can teach and impart their own experience to in the hopes of making another good, happy person. Some people get a rush of joy at the experience of teaching a mind from scratch or holding the ultimate responsibility of another person's life (at least until the local age of majority). Some people just want to make something and see what will happen, and a baby is more or less automatic in terms of the actual construction process.

I imagine most parents, myself included, have some mix of all of these impulses and about a billion other reasons I haven't listed. Not everybody does, and it's fine. You're not committing a crime by not wanting children, or deciding (probably reasonably) that you're not responsible enough to seek to have one. That said, there are many people who simply think having a child of their own is a good idea for their own largely emotional or instinctive reasons, and I personally fully support the idea.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go stop mine from eating styrofoam.

noparlpf

2013-09-21, 10:14 PM

or you are somehow expecting Homo sapiens to produce these immigrant workers by... I don't know, magic?

Well I'm expecting science to cure our species of intercourse and pregnancy soon. We can make viable zygotes from stem cells (in mice) and we're getting good at making induced pluripotent stem cells from other cells (probably also in mice, I forget what that paper said). And I read a thing from a Japanese team that figured out how to clone multiple generations (of mice) without the serious issues we've seen from previous cloning techniques. (Now we just have to figure out how to do these in humans. And make it legal I guess. Also to do away with the pregnancy part I guess we need to get working on the cloning tube/artificial womb soon. And where's my flying car? It's 2013, darn it.)

Edit: What I'm really hoping for is full-immersion VR with some sort of remote connection (so built like an EEG net instead of having to drill into the head to connect to the brain directly) so we can prolong gestation until adulthood. Simulate life experiences so nobody actually has to deal with kids and teenagers, just bypass all that. I don't know how feasible shortening development time would be though...even if we could speed up the body's growth, I don't know if the nervous system could sort itself out properly at that rate of development. So we'd have to wait twenty years before we had any results to show for it.

warty goblin

2013-09-22, 12:27 AM

I suppose it's a sign of our times that people are hoping to remove any form of human contact from an extraordinarily human form of caring and interaction that has worked really rather well since forever. Because progress I guess.

Coidzor

2013-09-22, 02:58 AM

I can't imagine that society would be improved by completely destroying the family unit considering the precedent set by every other way we've worked to break down the family.

Dallas-Dakota

2013-09-22, 07:10 AM

And then on-topic if you put it out of context award goes to....Obryn!

One day I'll teach them all about why Daddy has a lot of friends over every Wednesday night. :smallsmile:

-O

Mauve Shirt

2013-09-22, 08:54 AM

Why should people have kids?
HOW IS THIS A QUESTION?

So the current batch of youngsters may live til the next millennium.
And if they don't have kids?
Oooookay, bye humans.
Bears are now the dominant species on the planet because it is genetically coded into EVERY LIVING SPECIES to continue existing.
People want to have kids because we want to continue existing.

Seriously, why is this a question? :smallconfused:

Frozen_Feet

2013-09-22, 09:39 AM

Having children is a form of biological immortality. It is the way through which species and cultures transmit their physiological, psychological and cultural traits onwards in time.

Basically, it's about continuation of existence, like Mauve Shirt says. Since existence is our default state (how else would we be writing this?), the question actually becomes "why should we NOT have kids?" There are some valid answers on a personal level. Moving to societal level, you'll run to ethical problems faster than you can say "baby-eating nazi vampires!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgnIjJexut4)

Aliquid

2013-09-22, 11:31 PM

People who have children often say that "You will understand when you have your own children". This is something I don't understand

I understand this type of comment. For me personally, the joy of having a child is something I simply cannot describe. The love and bond I have for my children is something I never even came close to experiencing pre-children. Sure I have experienced love before (my wife for example), but the love you feel for your child is a different kind of love (not better or worse, but quite different). Trying to explain that feeling to someone who hasn’t experienced it first hand… is like trying to explain “blue” to a blind man.

So, “you have to have your own children to understand” is a completely valid comment, because you are incapable of understanding until you have experienced it.

That being said… I understand the “cult like” mindset of a new parent, and how they want to “convert” all other childless people into happy parents, just like themselves. I avoid that mindset, as I understand that not everyone will experience parenthood the same way I have.

Thrawn4

2013-09-22, 11:37 PM

When I saw this thread an hour ago, I was already tired. And now that I have read everything, I would like to participate.
I don't have any children and I have kept saying that I would never want some for quite a long time. But recently, with some family members dying and friends moving away, I realize that it might be nice to have a little family of my own that I can always rely on.
On the other hand, I also have some doubts. I mean, let's face it, sometimes this world is really crappy, and I am not sure why I should toss another being into this mess. I don't mean to say I have a bad life, quite the opposite, but still, life can be messy...
So yeah, not sure about this kid thing, but I think I can find out in the next years.
(On a slightly irritated note: How could some people completely miss the point of the OP and argue with the preservation of the species? Seriously, that's nothing that would help someone on a personal level.)

Brother Oni

2013-09-23, 01:59 AM

So, “you have to have your own children to understand” is a completely valid comment, because you are incapable of understanding until you have experienced it.

Yes, you need the baby to imprint itself on you before you can fully understand how annoying a baby's crying can be... :smalltongue:

Kiero

2013-09-23, 02:11 AM

Well I'm expecting science to cure our species of intercourse and pregnancy soon.

While I can understand that people might want to avoid pregnancy, why would you want to "cure" us of something as pleasurable as intercourse? There's nothing to cure.

Edit: What I'm really hoping for is full-immersion VR with some sort of remote connection (so built like an EEG net instead of having to drill into the head to connect to the brain directly) so we can prolong gestation until adulthood. Simulate life experiences so nobody actually has to deal with kids and teenagers, just bypass all that. I don't know how feasible shortening development time would be though...even if we could speed up the body's growth, I don't know if the nervous system could sort itself out properly at that rate of development. So we'd have to wait twenty years before we had any results to show for it.

Ugh, sound horrific and unnecessary compared to the real thing. When are you supposed to build a relationship in this model?

Hiro Protagonest

2013-09-23, 11:22 AM

While I can understand that people might want to avoid pregnancy, why would you want to "cure" us of something as pleasurable as intercourse? There's nothing to cure.

There is only the weakness seen in the eyes of the uncaring.

noparlpf

2013-09-23, 04:30 PM

While I can understand that people might want to avoid pregnancy, why would you want to "cure" us of something as pleasurable as intercourse? There's nothing to cure.

It's messy and inefficient, and if we're growing humans in jars it's unnecessary.

Ugh, sound horrific and unnecessary compared to the real thing. When are you supposed to build a relationship in this model?

Build a what? Oh, you're one of those people who thinks human interactions are necessary. :smalltongue:

Tavar

2013-09-23, 04:39 PM

It's messy and inefficient, and if we're growing humans in jars it's unnecessary.

So is this website. Or most anything 90% of the world would consider enjoyable.

Build a what? Oh, you're one of those people who thinks human interactions are necessary. :smalltongue:
Considering what happens without interaction...yes, yes it is.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-09-23, 04:57 PM

Build a what? Oh, you're one of those people who thinks human interactions are necessary. :smalltongue:

...I'm still not entirely convinced that this isn't all a satire. I originally thought your first post might be sarcastic, but it wasn't all over-the-top about this viewpoint, so now it's serious, either legit or as devil's advocate.

Human interaction is necessary. Simulation has two options: it's either an AI that's not truly intelligent, or it is and it's not human, because an artificial being that's intelligent is in a far different position than a human. Either way, it leads to your entire first ten to eighteen years suddenly disappearing before your very eyes as you are suddenly thrust into this thing called "the real world".

I have far more human interaction on this forum than I ever would in a virtual reality. This place has helped me learn and grow, because the people I'm conversing with are humans (or at least sapient beings :smalltongue:), humans with different experiences, different views, different learned skills and innate talents, things that couldn't be gotten from simulations designed by any team of programmers.

As for efficiency... that's the talk of governments, things that are forced to remove themselves from the micro to look at the macro. And even they are forced to do stuff like waste tons of our precious wonder resource (petroleum) hauling soldiers back and forth across the Atlantic because we can't just keep them permanently stationed in the Middle East even for just the course of whatever conflict we're involved in now, even though the US government insists on getting involved in every conflict.

If you want to make things more efficient, we have bigger problems. Problems that are affecting us and the world, here and now. And it's not just US war policy.

noparlpf

2013-09-23, 05:41 PM

...I'm still not entirely convinced that this isn't all a satire. I originally thought your first post might be sarcastic, but it wasn't all over-the-top about this viewpoint, so now it's serious, either legit or as devil's advocate.

My first post was mostly sarcastic. I thought the "where's my flying car" bit suggested that. Personally I find the sexual component of reproduction moderately distasteful, but I wouldn't seriously promote a program to prevent other people from doing stuff they like. Human interaction is also obviously necessary for proper neurological development and whatnot.

As for the VR bit, I'm imagining some sort of highly advanced system that can accurately simulate twenty years of life experiences and realistically simulate human interactions with AI. That's probably possible, but it's obviously way off from where our current technology and understanding of humans are, so it's practically a fantasy and therefore can only be jokingly suggested as an alternative.

Brother Oni

2013-09-24, 02:25 AM

Build a what? Oh, you're one of those people who thinks human interactions are necessary. :smalltongue:

While not so applicable to humans, for primates, interaction is vital.

There was an experiment I remember reading where they took infant monkeys (I think capuchins) and put them in a room with two surrogate mothers made out of wire in the same pose (cradling I think) - one dispensed milk, the other had its arms swaddled with soft towels but didn't dispense milk.

The infants overwhelming and repeatedly chose the one with towels, suggesting that nurturing is even more vital than food.

On a more human example, there was a girl (Dani Lierow (http://www.danisstory.org/)) who had been severely neglected by her birth family, reducing her to a feral state. She had severe behavioural, communication and interaction issues, which are only now just being overcome however they don't think she will ever become fully functioning.
There have been a number of cases of feral children over the years and re-integration has always been limited.

Iruka

2013-09-24, 04:06 AM

noparlpf

2013-09-24, 04:08 AM

While not so applicable to humans, for primates, interaction is vital.

There was an experiment I remember reading where they took infant monkeys (I think capuchins) and put them in a room with two surrogate mothers made out of wire in the same pose (cradling I think) - one dispensed milk, the other had its arms swaddled with soft towels but didn't dispense milk.

The infants overwhelming and repeatedly chose the one with towels, suggesting that nurturing is even more vital than food.

On a more human example, there was a girl (Dani Lierow (http://www.danisstory.org/)) who had been severely neglected by her birth family, reducing her to a feral state. She had severe behavioural, communication and interaction issues, which are only now just being overcome however they don't think she will ever become fully functioning.
There have been a number of cases of feral children over the years and re-integration has always been limited.

I think there are also cases of abused children who were basically left in closets for the first few years of their lives. That causes all kinds of issues.

Spiryt

2013-09-24, 04:20 AM

I've yet to meet someone who said they decided to have kids just to ensure the continued existence of the species. :smalltongue:

Close your eyes and think about England... :smalltongue:

And yeah, that's what sexual drive and other related mechanisms are for.

And they mostly don't 'think' about existence of the species of course, rather about existence of their own genes in the future.

SiuiS

2013-09-24, 04:30 AM

Honestly I'm just confused at the apparent lack of asexuals who just don't desire sex rather than being actively repulsed by the very idea. The world seems the poorer for their absence.

Also, the comparison seems the poorer as well, since not all people who don't desire to reproduce hate or are disgusted by children, the act of sprogging, or child-rearing. Or have I been woefully misinformed? :smallconfused:

They're there. I actually know more asexuals who experiment with sex and romance to try and figure out us weird sexual folks, than I do those who are squicked out.

well, sex is pretty gross when you think about it.

Yep.

Whereas my response at 11 was "huh, so that's how the docking clamps work."

PFffffFFFFFFfffffffhahahahahahahahahaha!

Some have mentioned the desire to spread their genes. Well, in my case it's the opposite; I have awful genes! I don't have anything serious, but I'm an unusual bundle of minor physical problems that I would not wish on my worst enemy. I think I'm showing more love to the child by not having it than by having it.

Not genes; Mindset. I for one want ot have kids because I know too many people who raise children to be terrible, terrible human beings. I need to counteract that.

Well I'm expecting science to cure our species of intercourse and pregnancy soon. We can make viable zygotes from stem cells (in mice) and we're getting good at making induced pluripotent stem cells from other cells (probably also in mice, I forget what that paper said). And I read a thing from a Japanese team that figured out how to clone multiple generations (of mice) without the serious issues we've seen from previous cloning techniques. (Now we just have to figure out how to do these in humans. And make it legal I guess. Also to do away with the pregnancy part I guess we need to get working on the cloning tube/artificial womb soon. And where's my flying car? It's 2013, darn it.)

I'm sorry, but you've made a logical misstep. You've made the assumption that even if sex was unnecessary, and possibly even illegal, people with free time would somehow stop doing it?

People who are in the middle of sex will occasionally get distracted by thinking about other sex they want. There's no hope for us. There is no cure. Life is terminal, and unfortunately it's sexually transmitted.

Build a what? Oh, you're one of those people who thinks human interactions are necessary. :smalltongue:

It is.

Considering what happens without interaction...yes, yes it is.

Yay! Someone else knew this!

While not so applicable to humans, for primates, interaction is vital.

There was an experiment I remember reading where they took infant monkeys (I think capuchins) and put them in a room with two surrogate mothers made out of wire in the same pose (cradling I think) - one dispensed milk, the other had its arms swaddled with soft towels but didn't dispense milk.

The infants overwhelming and repeatedly chose the one with towels, suggesting that nurturing is even more vital than food.

On a more human example, there was a girl (Dani Lierow (http://www.danisstory.org/)) who had been severely neglected by her birth family, reducing her to a feral state. She had severe behavioural, communication and interaction issues, which are only now just being overcome however they don't think she will ever become fully functioning.
There have been a number of cases of feral children over the years and re-integration has always been limited.

There was a ... I'll have to check, I want to say Danish? Researcher who raised children without any actual love. They were fed, clothed, sometimes washed, but always with minimum human interaction. They all died. Those who received the same care, but a slightly larger component of interaction (specifically, touch) did not die, but sickness and illness were directly related to levels of positive touch.

Perks of massage therapy license: Having to learn the history :smallbiggrin:
Downsides to be an America: didn't bother to memorize hard enough to count as citation >_<

noparlpf

2013-09-24, 04:58 AM

Brother Oni

2013-09-24, 06:24 AM

Downsides to be an America: didn't bother to memorize hard enough to count as citation >_<

Don't worry, that's what google is for. :smalltongue:

The closest I can find to your example is regarding 22 Greenland Inuit children back in 1951 who were taken to Denmark and raised as Danes. I can't find an English link about the experiment, but I did find a Wikipedia link to a film of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eksperimentet).

As for the monkey experiment (it was rhesus, not capuchin), Harry Harlow was the scientist responsible: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow).

Morgarion

2013-09-24, 11:16 AM

If you're referring to what I believe you are, it was Romania.

But Austrian psychoanalyst and physician Rene Spitz proposed an alternate theory. He thought that infants in institutions suffered from lack of love–that they were missing important parental relationships, which in turn was hurting or even killing them.

To test his theory, he compared a group of infants raised in isolated hospital cribs with those raised in a prison by their own incarcerated mothers. If the germs from being locked up with lots of people were the problem, both groups of infants should have done equally poorly. In fact, the hospitalized kids should have done better, given the attempts made at imposing sterile conditions. If love mattered, however, the prisoners’ kids should prevail.

Love won: 37% of the infants kept in the bleak hospital ward died, but there were no deaths at all amongst the infants raised in the prison. The incarcerated babies grew more quickly, were larger and did better in every way Spitz could measure. The orphans who managed to survive the hospital, in contrast, were more likely to contract all types of illnesses. They were scrawny and showed obvious psychological, cognitive and behavioral problems.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/20/russia-orphanage-adopt-children-opinions-columnists-medialand.html

EDIT: Oops. That doesn't say anything about Romania. Oh well. I remember hearing something about it occurring under Ceasescu. I'll see if I can get my head in the game and find it.

Kiero

2013-09-24, 12:24 PM

Personally I find the sexual component of reproduction moderately distasteful, but I wouldn't seriously promote a program to prevent other people from doing stuff they like.

Even if you were minded to, you'd fail. Attempts to encourage/discourage reproduction throughout history have failed, even China's vaunted "One Child Policy" doesn't actually work.

And that's something people often actively try to avoid happening. Any attempt to prevent sex would be about as futile as trying to prevent eating, sleeping or breathing.

Spiryt

2013-09-24, 12:33 PM

Even if you were minded to, you'd fail. Attempts to encourage/discourage reproduction throughout history have failed, even China's vaunted "One Child Policy" doesn't actually work.

Actually, as mentioned, general cultural, religious, ideological, mental, social etc. factors have obviously huge impact on reproduction.

And those, all in all, sadly can be manipulated, even if it's difficult and limited process. :smallfrown:

See Club of Rome, for example.

Kiero

2013-09-24, 12:42 PM

Actually, as mentioned, general cultural, religious, ideological, mental, social etc. factors have obviously huge impact on reproduction.

And those, all in all, sadly can be manipulated, even if it's difficult and limited process. :smallfrown:

See Club of Rome, for example.

Governments passing laws either encouraging people to have children, or discouraging people to have children have never worked. The Roman Principate tried to encourage people to have children (thus more citizens) through incentives, which did nothing. The Augustan law is one of the earliest documented examples trying to encourage reproduction.

Even bringing that more up to date, the various dictatorships of the 20th century (including, but not limited to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) had similar sorts of inducements for people to have children, which again did little. And in the opposite direction, China's thoroughly broken One Child Policy, which is flouted by anyone with enough money.

Given noparlpf is not a social or religious movement in and of themselves, I'd say their proclamations are about equivalent to governments passing laws, and even that's generous.

Spiryt

2013-09-24, 12:48 PM

Governments passing laws either encouraging people to have children, or discouraging people to have children have never worked. The Roman Principate tried to encourage people to have children (thus more citizens) through incentives, which did nothing. The Augustan law is one of the earliest documented examples trying to encourage reproduction.

Even bringing that more up to date, the various dictatorships of the 20th century (including, but not limited to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) had similar sorts of inducements for people to have children, which again did little. And in the opposite direction, China's thoroughly broken One Child Policy, which is flouted by anyone with enough money.
.

All of those things you mentioned quite often had precisely opposite result - that's why more subtle methods of manipulation are generally being tried.

But you're right in that that they obviously will have limited success as well.

Sadly, I believe that being more specific would quickly led to topics owner of these boards doesn't wish to be discussed on it....