I am paying it forward. Many people will live better lives because of me. The fact that they share 99.99% of my genes rather than 99.999% is not my main concern.
I don’t understand. You should have as many kids as you possibly can (à la Monty Python) to provide the “gift” as widely as possible? Or you owe other people (mostly ppl you don’t know) the existence of a child for some reason?
I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from?
How did you come to that conclusion, was it something you came to one day after careful consideration or was it something you heard one day and just started saying because everyone else was saying it?
I don't mean that to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Like what's so selfish about it?
If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish?
Is someone who has 10 kids in poverty less selfish than someone not poor who only has 1?
What's the ideal number of children to minimize selfishness?
> If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish?
Probably not (it's a bit judgemental), but if their parents decided to never have children and chilax on the beach instead, they would not have existed at all, and neither would any of their achievements.
Now say the same about (say) Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), etc., etc.: What would have happened if their parents had decided to just chilax on the beach and not have kids? That's right: Their "accomplishments" would never have been "shared" with the rest of us, either.
Yes, it's much harder to invest time, health, money and effort to properly raise kids who do wonders rather than to abuse and to raise fuckups. What is the point you are trying to make, that it's not worth trying?
> I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from?
Why is it so puzzling? You're part of a whole, and producing children is important work to sustain that whole. If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption).
> If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish?
Maybe people like that, with one-in-a-billion achievements, are the exceptions that prove the rule.... except they both also had children.
> If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption).
There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous.
> There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is how much you completely misunderstood my comment. Personal "consumption" has nothing to do with the core idea I was talking about. The only way it factors in at all is like the "insult" in "add insult to injury" (i.e. an ancillary thing that just makes perception of an underlying issue worse).
I don't hold a firm stance on whether choosing not to have children is selfish, though I tend to believe it isn't.
Nonetheless, the most compelling arguments suggesting that it could be selfish include:
- ending the family lineage, despite your ancestors' efforts to preserve it;
- relying on society for support in old age;
- failing to contribute to the growth of a culture, society, nation, advancement or humanity;
- depriving yourself or your partner of the potential fulfilment found in raising children;
- and disobeying a religious divine command to procreate, possibly resulting in negative consequences for humanity prescribed by religious beliefs.
Since these arguments are circumstantial, hinging on factors like religion, culture, technology, and taxation, their strength varies among individuals. For instance, in cultures valuing social cohesion and unity through religion (e.g., Polish culture), these arguments may carry more weight than in cultures prioritizing free choice and individualism (e.g., Western culture and values).
In the West, some might argue that pressuring others to have children is selfish, as:
- there may be personal gain involved, such as parents wanting their children to have kids for their own enjoyment or to pass on their values;
- it disrespects personal autonomy and choice of would-be parents;
- it exacerbates future environmental and population issues for short-term personal happiness or fulfilment;
- it ignores a child's right to a good quality of life in cases where parents might struggle to provide it;
- it diverts resources from other families in need.
However, the strength of these arguments also varies among individuals. For example, someone who firmly believes that God prescribed procreation to humanity and that it will ultimately benefit everyone might not find the arguments against pressuring others to have children convincing.
There is also often a significant amount of hand-waving on both sides of these arguments. For instance, some individuals defend their stance by suggesting that society should adapt to accommodate their position (e.g., addressing societal and ecological issues related to procreation through means other than discouraging procreation).
Numerous related arguments inevitably also get invoked in these discussions, like whether and in what circumstances we should advise others on having children. For example, some argue that if prospective parents have a high likelihood of passing on a hereditary disease, they should refrain from procreating. This concept, known as eugenics, is controversial. Critics argue that it restricts bodily freedom and carries negative historical connotations, while proponents claim that it benefits society by easing resource scarcity and reducing the ecological strain on the planet.
There are so many different aspects and strong opinions involved in the question of whether it's selfish not to have kids that it's really difficult to come up with a definitive answer. I am not convinced that the position that not having children is selfish is indefensible or stupid, even if I personally do not agree with it.
I think this is an excellent summary of the perspectives.
I agree that it is difficult to come up with a definitive answer.
(That said, trying to persuade reluctant persons that they should have children seems like a really bad idea (not to imply that anyone here was doing this). And, while I chose to be a parent, it seems to me that those who choose to not have children are making a responsible decision for themselves.
(Edit to add: FWIW, while I try to approximate selflessness as much as I can, I consider my decision to have children to have been selfish on my part. (I'm not saying all/other parents are selfish for having kids, just that I feel selfish for having made the decision I did.))
> trying to persuade reluctant persons that they should have children seems like a really bad idea
Indeed, persuading hesitant individuals to have children could be detrimental, as it might interfere with their varied values and beliefs.
For example, convincing a financially insecure (and aware of it) person to have children would make them act against their principles. This situation may result in considerable practical difficulties, of course, but also significant moral suffering.
With that said, some cultures do not care about the beliefs and values of individuals as much as the collective. Religions have an element of this, too. In that case, is it right to persuade someone reluctant to have children? I am way out of my depth to even try and answer that.
I almost always take religious arguments out the question of 'should I have children'. Successful religions are almost to a tee going to have the two following properties. 1) Have children. 2) Teach those children your religion. The religion has transcended human desire and become a self reinforcing meme at that point, a system serving unto itself. Nations do the same thing to ensure their success, and especially in the case of ethnostates take it to extremes.
Going beyond human behavior, life itself is a very bad example to use to answer the question 'should I have children'. In the vast majority of animal populations if you have food, water, shelter/space until they point they affect the biosphere around them and collapse the population.
The systems we created in the past needed/wanted to maximize the number of people because we died in mass for varied reasons (quite often around childbirth itself), when we 'solved' this suddenly we had massive population growth that would become unsustainable, as they say, exponential growth cannot go on forever. Old systems will have to change to deal with the new reality, or experience dangerous collapses.
I didn’t ask for the gift and I don’t owe anyone anything for it. If you want to treat life as some kind of exchange, you at least need consent from the parties to it.
That’s assuming the human race naturally reducing or eventually dying out is considered selfish in the first place. We really place too much longevity of humans while extinguishing animals for sport.
That’s not necessarily true. The biggest resource constraint on the earth we can’t live without is food and we are extremely inefficient at producing it. Right now it takes large fields of biological crops, but the future might solve that problem.
That's a good point. The more I think about it the more what I said was a way of rationalizing not agreeing with the parent comment. Even if there were no ressource constrains it still doesn't feel selfish to me not to have children.
That would be assuming that we've not already overshot sustainable population. With every biodiversity marker pointing that we're in the middle of a mass extinction, it really does seem like that may be the case.
