On not having children. Some discussion.

[falconcrest]

if you are insane in the brain like myself,kids are not a good idea:thats why i dont have any.I am the type that lashes out at any one around me when angered:i dont want a child to have to go through what i went through

 

[Hungry Friend]

I feel ya there man. I've got a serious temper too and although it's not nearly as bad as it was when I was like 17-22, I get pretty scary when I'm really pissed. That's actually one of the reason I don't want kids also because I don't think I'd be a very good father, being impatient and all. Thankfully my girl knows and accepts that I don't want kids.

 

[Lacius]

The decision of whether or not to have children is a paradox for me.

1. I don't want to have kids because I don't want to contribute to the world's overpopulation problems.
2. After reaching this conclusion, however, I start to think that maybe I'm more predisposed to altruism than the general reproducing public due to genetic predispositions.
3. I begin to think I should propagate those altruistic genes through reproduction.
4. Once I reach this conclusion, I realize my new-found desire to reproduce makes me no better or worse than anyone else, and I go back to 1.

I'll let you know whether or not I decide to have kids once I wake up from this paradox-induced stupor.

 

[_Mary_]

On some forums they have a ban on talk of politics and a ban on talk of religion, for some this topic is probably worse. Fortunately for me this is not one of those forums.

Anyway cracked had an article where one of its writers had apparently been called selfish for not having/wanting children. I have seen some people look people oddly for not wanting children (the favour is returned in kind) but that one was new to me. About the closest I ever got was my mum jokingly said I want grandchildren one day when we were in a restaurant, I retorted "you should have raised different kids then". I got the dirtiest look from the people on the table behind me.

Anyway thoughts, opinions and elaborations upon them if you like.

well there are people who doesn't want kids at all. One of them was inf , yeah him lol and that's our problem. I already have 3 and were having a bad moments everytime the kids are with us or were talking about them. idk . its hard to explain. that's why we just decided not to be in a relationship anymore. Well Ill just respect anyone's decision . ^^ its not being selfish, don't worry about it

 

[XDel]

I cringe at bringing a child into this world...
...at the same time, being 40, I long to raise a child of my own.
Yet at the same time, it's hard to find the kind of woman now a days that I'd want to raise a child with, it would seem all the good ones are taken, and all the crazy ones are more than willing to dump their trash upon your lap.

They say parenthood changes you, but you got to want it, and you got to love it, else it will leave you cold, harsh, and unpleasant.

 

[Foxi4]

I always wonder by whose authority or arbitrary rules we've decided that the world is overpopulated. Western countries produce more food than their citizens are able to consume, a big portion of it is either burned on tips or subsidized. Here's a mind-bender for ya - wanna be scientists? Here we go! We only have one sample of humanity, we have nothing to compare it to. We don't know if our population is too large or not, we don't know if we're advanced for our time, we don't have anything to compare ourselves to.

 

[mightymuffy]

Woah, this one's quite a read! Honestly though I've only skimmed through some posts, but we're getting on to copying the film Interstellar at one point? Christ was that a boring movie!
But I digress: OP.... I can't believe some people find this topic 'selfish' these days, Christ it's like we're still in the dark ages! Either you want kids, or you don't - end of! Nobody on this planet will go up or down in my opinion with either choice. I've got 2 now-teenage-lads, and neither were planned: I just like shagging too much really! But neither would I be without either of them - massive money drain/PITAs they are. Pretty sure if I hadn't had any kids I wouldn't be stuck with depression or summat either though....
End of the day, fukk it, it's your life, you can do whatever the hell you like with it regarding these sorts of topics, and all this leaving a mark on the world, who cares? When yer dead, yer, er, dead.... (oh aye, I can go as deep and meaningful as I want me... )

 

[sarkwalvein]

I always wonder by whose authority or arbitrary rules we've decided that the world is overpopulated. Western countries produce more food than their citizens are able to consume, a big portion of it is either burned on tips or subsidized. Here's a mind-bender for ya - wanna be scientists? Here we go! We only have one sample of humanity, we have nothing to compare it to. We don't know if our population is too large or not, we don't know if we're advanced for our time, we don't have anything to compare ourselves to.

You don't live on food, you only survive on food (given your air and water are still clean enough).
Anyway, it is well known that the current production levels are insane and unsustainable in the long term, the world as we know it is doomed.

 

[FAST6191]

Anyway, it is well known that the current production levels are insane and unsustainable in the long term, the world as we know it is doomed.

Usually the solution to an issue, assuming it is one (and I have not seen much in the way of evidence that it is the case here), is more science. Such a thing having "saved" us all the previous times that then current production levels would not have sustained projected (and actual) increases.

Anyway overpopulation is probably not a term I would use seriously, with that being said though the world does not seem to be suffering a lack of people.


"Interstellar .... Christ was that a boring movie!"

Agreed. It is not one I regret watching and some of the behind the scenes stuff was interesting but I feel no need to ever watch it again or suggest someone watch it.

 

[Lacius]

I always wonder by whose authority or arbitrary rules we've decided that the world is overpopulated. Western countries produce more food than their citizens are able to consume, a big portion of it is either burned on tips or subsidized. Here's a mind-bender for ya - wanna be scientists? Here we go! We only have one sample of humanity, we have nothing to compare it to. We don't know if our population is too large or not, we don't know if we're advanced for our time, we don't have anything to compare ourselves to.

Whether or not one considers the world overpopulated depends in part on how people are living. If everyone on Earth lives like people in third-world countries, the Earth can support more people. If everyone on Earth lives like Americans, the Earth can obviously support fewer people.

That being said, we can all acknowledge that the Earth has a finite number of resources. To the best of our knowledge, the Earth can support around 10 billion people given the amount of resources we use and the amount of resources there are, and that's assuming people aren't living like Americans and other first-world countries. What's more alarming than our current population (about 7.2 billion people) is the rate of population growth. If one takes the average of many projections, we will reach a population of 10 billion by 2080, and that average assumes we slow down our rate of growth.

Ignoring concerns about Earth's resources, more people also means more electricity is needed. Unless something changes regarding the ways we use and/or generate power, more people will also mean a proportional increase in greenhouse gases and global warming.

 

[sarkwalvein]

"Interstellar .... Christ was that a boring movie!"

Agreed. It is not one I regret watching and some of the behind the scenes stuff was interesting but I feel no need to ever watch it again or suggest someone watch it.

It was Meh... I don't know, all Nolan movies seem pretentious Meh for me, this is just another average Nolan movie.
Christopher Nolan is to my eyes just a pretentious version of Michael Bay that doesn't want to recognize he makes average films that just go along with popcorn and beer.

 

[FAST6191]

That being said, we can all acknowledge that the Earth has a finite number of resources. To the best of our knowledge, the Earth can support around 10 billion people given the amount of resources we use and the amount of resources there are, and that's assuming people aren't living like Americans and other first-world countries. What's more alarming than our current population (about 7.2 billion people) is the rate of population growth. If one takes the average of many projections, we will reach a population of 10 billion by 2080, and that average assumes we slow down our rate of growth.

Ignoring concerns about Earth's resources, more people also means more electricity is needed. Unless something changes regarding the ways we use and/or generate power, more people will also mean a proportional increase in greenhouse gases and global warming.

Ignoring the minute fraction that gets shot into space then most resources are endlessly recycled, the recycling part just having to get less costly than digging up new stuff.

"Unless something changes regarding the ways we use and/or generate power"
Nuclear not an option?

 

[sarkwalvein]

endlessly recycled

Entropy wants to talk with you.-

 

[Lacius]

Ignoring the minute fraction that gets shot into space then most resources are endlessly recycled, the recycling part just having to get less costly than digging up new stuff.

When I say "finite number of resources," I mean at any given point in time.

Nuclear not an option?

It very well could be. For all I know, nuclear power, other renewable energies like solar, or some combination could be what save us all. I said, "unless something changes."

Entropy wants to talk with you.-

Unless you want to pretend the sun doesn't exist, entropy is irrelevant to the timescale of this conversation.

 

[sarkwalvein]

It very well could be. For all I know, nuclear power, other renewable energies like solar, or some combination could be what save us all. I said, "unless something changes."

IMHO, more efficient and safe nuclear technology, already in development as it never stopped development, is the way to go to avoid energy crisis for now.
Other renewable forms of energy, and specially solar power could play an important role in the perhaps far future, but today the technologies are too infant and are not efficient enough (too costly to produce, creating a solar panel uses a lot of resources, it doesn't produce much energy but uses a lot of land area, they only produce when sunlight is available so if you really want to use energy evenly you need accumulators/batteries that add to the price and resources needed... but battery technology is improving).

 

[Foxi4]

See, this is why I'm banking on technology and expansion, all in. We can put our reproduction to a grinding halt and that'll perhaps extend our stay on this planet, but it won't do much to fix the problems that bother it, not to mention that as I've said before, it's ultimately doomed. Everything we're so desperately trying to protect will ultimately be destroyed by the sun, so our efforts should be aimed at getting off this planet along with whatever we care for, not discussing petty matters like the supposed overpopulation and scarcity of entirely renewable resources. We have food, we burn it on tips because we can't handle our own overproduction - we're fine. As for the claim that "more people = more electricity required", that's not necessarily true. We're making strides in lowering our energy footprints with each passing decade - just compare computers of today to computers of yesterday if you need evidence. Mobile CPU's can work perfectly fine at no more than 15 Watts under stress, in the past they used to require ten, bah, twenty times more energy. One generation created a precipitous difference between energy use then and energy use now, who's to say that in 20 years from now we won't be using a fraction of that energy to power our machines? Slowing down expansion serves only slowing down progress and with no progress there can be no solutions.

You don't live on food, you only survive on food (given your air and water are still clean enough). Anyway, it is well known that the current production levels are insane and unsustainable in the long term, the world as we know it is doomed.

Why does it matter if it's doomed anyways? And it is doomed, we've extablished that.

 

[Lacius]

See, this is why I'm banking on technology and expansion, all in. We can put our reproduction to a grinding halt and that'll perhaps extend our stay on this planet, but it won't do much to fix the problems that bother it, not to mention that as I've said before, it's ultimately doomed. Everything we're so desperately trying to protect will ultimately be destroyed by the sun, so our efforts should be aimed at getting off this planet along with whatever we care for, not discussing petty matters like the supposed overpopulation and scarcity of entirely renewable resources. We have food, we burn it on tips because we can't handle our own overproduction - we're fine.

Is the Earth doomed? Sure, but we still have hundreds of millions of years, if not a billion years, before that happens, assuming we don't screw everything up. That's a pretty long time from now. Instead, we're focusing on problems tens or hundreds of years from now. Also, assuming we do get to a state of overpopulation, being a scarce renewable resource doesn't make it any less scarce. It might be true to say "we're fine" now, but if we don't change anything, that won't be true in the near-ish future.

As for the claim that "more people = more electricity required", that's not necessarily true. We're making strides in lowering our energy footprints with each passing decade - just compare computers of today to computers of yesterday if you need evidence. Mobile CPU's can work perfectly fine at no more than 15 Watts under stress, in the past they used to require ten, bah, twenty times more energy. One generation created a precipitous difference between energy use then and energy use now, who's to say that in 20 years from now we won't be using a fraction of that energy to power our machines? Slowing down expansion serves only slowing down progress and with no progress there can be no solutions.

Can we make things more energy efficient? Sure, but that only goes so far before we run into barriers keeping us from making things more energy efficient (e.g. the laws of physics). In reality, despite our new technologies, energy consumption has increased per person over the years, and the population of people is increasing.

 

[cvskid]

None of us will even be alive to see something like that happen to the earth anyways.

 

[ody81]

Making them is the best part.

Practicing is the best part

 

[JaapDaniels]

i do completely understand the dicision of not wanting kids, and no you won't get regrets that's nonsense. those little wonders you call them are only here making the world a little worst than it's now, we already consume too much of energie, food, water and everyone knows this but noone is trying to fix the main problem more isn't better for the world, you should try and find some answers for those problems and as soon as you look around you'll find making kids won't help you, your plannet, or your kids, cause the world isn't gonna last this much if we don't stop making a lot o babies!