Do you want children?

MistressNomad said:

That would be valid if I were talking about a family in India, but I'm not. You're simply dodging the argument. It is mind-numbingly obvious that someone with children uses more resources than someone without, in the same country.

Several of your assumptions are wrong. I do use public transit, but that's because I don't drive, which are far more wasteful than public transit. And in my city, we have hybrid buses.

Click to expand...

I am not dodging since I didn't realize that aspect of it.

I would say that you are correct in many cases, but in many you are not. It is not an absolute thing, it is probably not even a general thing. In Orange County where I was raised, there are thousands upon thousands of individuals (single people) that use up so many resources that it isn't funny, and compared to some economically deprived Latino family in Santa Ana, the individual does use far more resources. They also travel more (jets, cars, ships) buy more etc etc.

cpwill said:

that is what is going to happen here unless we get smart and get smart very soon.

Click to expand...

And what do you mean by that...

Get smart = American women breeding more and out breeding immigrants

Bodhisattva said:

I am not dodging since I didn't realize that aspect of it.

I would say that you are correct in many cases, but in many you are not. It is not an absolute thing, it is probably not even a general thing. In Orange County where I was raised, there are thousands upon thousands of individuals (single people) that use up so many resources that it isn't funny, and compared to some economically deprived Latino family in Santa Ana, the individual does use far more resources. They also travel more (jets, cars, ships) buy more etc etc.

Click to expand...

Generally? Yeah, it's true. Any given individual with or without kids? Definitely true.

Most of those really rich people probably had kids, too. It's not as though excess is limited to any given parity.

evanescence said:

I'm glad you've given up the argument that the childless surpass us breeders in intelligence.

Click to expand...

It isn't my fault you freaked out over studies saying women with higher educations tend to have fewer children. It's not anyone else's job to stroke your ego about what you've decided to do with your life.

Look since you all continue to have a **** match after I tried to back down from my own pissing contest let me just say this--Ive done lots of great **** in my life and I won't dodge it, things you will never have the chance to even hope to do. I've been featured in over 30 magazines, been on trips at the expense of fortune 500 companies that you only can hope to win in sweepstakes back in the day at least 6 times a year. I sold that business before the bubble around the business crashed, so the first few years of my adult life was an incredible tale that would probably fill most of yours entire lives. And let me tell you--being there to see your child be born, being there for her, and raising her is much greater than any of that ever will be, so **** you if you think you can ever do anything better than being a good parent and make a difference in your childs life. PS I might be a bit drunk but this HNIC does not lie.

JohnWOlin said:

Look since you all continue to have a **** match after I tried to back down from my own pissing contest let me just say this--Ive done lots of great **** in my life and I won't dodge it, things you will never have the chance to even hope to do. I've been featured in over 30 magazines, been on trips at the expense of fortune 500 companies that you only can hope to win in sweepstakes back in the day at least 6 times a year. I sold that business before the bubble around the business crashed, so the first few years of my adult life was an incredible tale that would probably fill most of yours entire lives. And let me tell you--being there to see your child be born, being there for her, and raising her is much greater than any of that ever will be, so **** you if you think you can ever do anything better than being a good parent and make a difference in your childs life. PS I might be a bit drunk but this HNIC does not lie.

Click to expand...

I'm not so insecure that I have to rattle off what I've done in my life to "prove something to the internet." That is, assuming any of it's true. Even if it is, I don't get the point and I'm not very impressed. We have some people who didn't do much to earn the media attention they got. What does that prove? All it really proves to me is that you photograph well and someone thought you would earn them a few bucks. Beyond that, says nothing. Seems like you're just clutching to past glories. And furthermore, it has nothing to do with whether you're correct or not. If that's all you've got to support your statements, then you haven't got much.

And you're not making much of a case for how "special" it supposedly makes you.

"All you childfree people are MEANINGLESS compared to the SUPERIORITY of doing something anyone on earth with functional gonads can do... and by the way I'm drunk..."

Right.

:lamo

JohnWOlin said:

Look since you all continue to have a **** match after I tried to back down from my own pissing contest let me just say this--Ive done lots of great **** in my life and I won't dodge it, things you will never have the chance to even hope to do. I've been featured in over 30 magazines, been on trips at the expense of fortune 500 companies that you only can hope to win in sweepstakes back in the day at least 6 times a year. I sold that business before the bubble around the business crashed, so the first few years of my adult life was an incredible tale that would probably fill most of yours entire lives. And let me tell you--being there to see your child be born, being there for her, and raising her is much greater than any of that ever will be, so **** you if you think you can ever do anything better than being a good parent and make a difference in your childs life. PS I might be a bit drunk but this HNIC does not lie.

Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself, and I have never attacked you or anybody else for having children... with that being said, why do you seem angry that other people don't want children? For some people, having children isn't for them.. Some people aren't meant to be parents, nor are all people good parents. I am glad you love being a parent btw. That's great. I am not going to attack you for having kids, but can you respect people who don't have kids?

SheWolf said:

I can only speak for myself, and I have never attacked you or anybody else for having children... with that being said, why do you seem angry that other people don't want children? For some people, having children isn't for them.. Some people aren't meant to be parents, nor are all people good parents. I am glad you love being a parent btw. That's great. I am not going to attack you for having kids, but can you respect people who don't have kids?

Click to expand...

I'm not attacking you at all. I will leave it at that.

SheWolf said:

so you think working, childless women are less valuable to society?

Click to expand...

all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not.

SheWolf said:

A lot of countries are experiencing the same problems, but it's not my duty, as a woman, to go out and get pregnant.

Click to expand...

:shrug: no one ever said that it was.

Their are many reasons why people don't have kids

Click to expand...

yes, and most of them tend to be of the self-fulfillment vein. we don't see birthrates increase as people become more affluent, we see them decrease.

some just aren't fit to parent, some don't like kids, some can't have them, but the birth rate is dropping because costs are increasing in this country and middle class people can't afford to have 3 to 4 kids now.

Click to expand...

yet the poor can? your argument that people are choosing to have or not to have children based on their economic situation is precisely the opposite of the relevant statistics - the poor have higher birthrates than the wealthy, both here in the US and internationally. while we can (and should) try to find ways to reduce the cost of child-rearing in this nation, that doesn't translate to "more money" = "more kids"

cpwill said:

all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not.

Click to expand...

Society gives more to people who produce and raise children than it does to those who do not.

People who produce and raise children have more optimistic assumptions about society (and the future of it) than do those who consciously choose not to have children.

And so on and so forth.

MistressNomad said:

Damn, SheWolf was bang-on! So it's an issue of out-breeding those dirty towel-heads, eh? Guess what. I really don't care what color the majority of people in this country are. And Arab people are not as scary here in the West as they seem to be in your imagination. They tend to be... darker Westerners.

Click to expand...

]

no one mentioned race. we are talking about culture which is quite different.

Oh please. While it's true raising kids requires sacrifice, every life path requires sacrifice, and there is no unselfish reason to have them, let alone pit expectations upon them. You're not doing anything valiant by puttering along the biological script. And the only way you could even be considered to be doing something noble is if you take credit for your childrens' accomplishments. Which is not only fallacious, but extremely egotistical.

Click to expand...

on the contrary, being a good parent is an exceedingly noble calling - and a difficult one at that. in not a few ways, war was easier. "every life path" does not require equal sacrifice, and a parents' life entails a good deal more sacrifice to others than a non-parents life; which is (again) why many do not want to be parents. they have Things They Want To Do, and don't want to sacrifice the Things They Want to someone else.

Again, it's not expecting "someone else's children" to pay for me if I've been paying for it my whole life.

Click to expand...

you haven't been paying for it your whole life. you have been paying for your parents and grandparents your whole life. they had and raised kids, thus ensuring support for those social safety nets. if you get to that point childless, then you have not, and it is you who have broken the "intergenerational bargain", not someone else's kid.

Yes, of course, all of Greece's problems come from the birth rate. If they would just breed beyond their means everything would be perfect

Click to expand...

not any more - they would have needed a stronger birthrate 30 years ago. if they had produced more children then, they would have more workers now, and be able to afford their system. they didn't, and so they can't, which means that system will be drastically curtailed.

Here's the thing about people who would regard it as a good thing: history is WHY they regard it as a good thing. At the root of it all, there isn't a deeper logic behind "the race must continue." It's a biological drive. It has no reason and no meaning. That leaves its validity open to interpretation. Some people think it has no validity.

Click to expand...

you are confusing birthrates with the biological drive to have children, which aren't quiiite the same thing. The Human Race in general, I hope, yes, does survive and continue to thrive; and I hope that my Country, and it's Ideals do as well. I would not want a future for the human race in which the ideals of individual liberty, freedom of speech, representative limited government are lost and replaced with slavery, theocracy, and military dictatorship.

Neomalthusian said:

Society gives more to people who produce and raise children than it does to those who do not.

People who produce and raise children have more optimistic assumptions about society (and the future of it) than do those who consciously choose not to have children.

And so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

how in the world is having an optimistic outlook on life a gift from society?

cpwill said:

all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not.

Click to expand...

That's an impossible assumption to make - unless you assume two things that I think are huge leaps.

1. Childfree people use their extra time, money, and career potential sitting on their hands.
2. Having kids is automatically positive.

Neither is anything even close to true.

SheWolf said:

And what do you mean by that...

Click to expand...

we need to recreate a lot of our torn social fabric in this society. increasingly more of our children are raised in single parent homes and attend poor schools where they learn less. studies of American employment show that the tradable sectors are seeing anemic if any growth - which means we are losing our competitive edge. increasingly the economy will become dominated by an emphasis on intellectual ability, innovation, and world-wide competition. at the same time, we are choosing to balkanize our own society by not teaching the fastest growing large segment of it English - which means that future American prosperity will be hampered by our own inability to coordinate, communicate, and put our human resources to their highest productivity. meanwhile, the costs of our safety nets - designed for an industrial era society marked by higher birthrates and lower life expectancies - are set to explode exponentially.

In short, we are raising a smaller, dumber generation, and we are giving them a heavier burden to carry in a world where their ability to do so will be determined by some of the very attributes we have denied them.


Entitlements have to be reformed to bring them into a post-industrial model. Marriage in our society needs to become prevalent again - critically marriage without divorce in situations where there are young children. Our education system has to be reformed as well to make it and our students more competitive. Our tax and regulatory codes need to be drastically pared down and reformed in order to spur innovation - particularly in capital which will allow non-intellectual-workers to become more productive, increasing their worth in the marketplace. And yes, we need to find a way in our society to start encouraging child-rearing.

we are nearing a tipping point; and each of these factors is synergistic. yes. we have very little time.

MistressNomad said:

That's an impossible assumption to make - unless you assume two things that I think are huge leaps.

1. Childfree people use their extra time, money, and career potential sitting on their hands.
2. Having kids is automatically positive.

Neither is anything even close to true.

Click to expand...

having and raising kids is heavy tilted positive. it could become negative if (for example) you raise mass-murderers; but generally speaking people are a vital and valuable resource for a society. and childfree people probably work - but so do child raisers. given that the child-raiser is not only working, but providing society with full citizens (with all of the increases in productivity, innovation, growth, tax revenue, etc that that entails), it would be rare (and exceedingly difficult) for a childless person to contribute more to society than a parent.



besides, most of our generation that doesn't have kids won't sit on their hands. they will use their hands to look up funny videos on youtube. :mrgreen:

cpwill said:

having and raising kids is heavy tilted positive. it could become negative if (for example) you raise mass-murderers; but generally speaking people are a vital and valuable resource for a society. and childfree people probably work - but so do child raisers. given that the child-raiser is not only working, but providing society with full citizens (with all of the increases in productivity, innovation, growth, tax revenue, etc that that entails), it would be rare (and exceedingly difficult) for a childless person to contribute more to society than a parent.



besides, most of our generation that doesn't have kids won't sit on their hands. they will use their hands to look up funny videos on youtube. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Then you haven't done much research on how the demographics work out. A lot of people who are childfree do it as a sacrifice for pushing their career. Single women and childless married men are the most employable - because they're the most likely to turn up to work, every day, no excuses. The higher up on the education and career ladder you go, the fewer kids people have, and the more people have none.

Likewise, the tendency of having kids as a simple default position really tilts the field in my opinion back towards neutral over-all. The only reason we (as far as you're concerned, anyway) need kids is because we have kids. But let's be honest - how many parents put a whole lot of thought into becoming parents, how many people in general put much thought into anything they do, and how many people can honestly say they've done anything definitively positive for the world? Not many.

Of course, the only reason being childfree is any different is because in most cases you HAVE to think about it. If you were to compare the thoughtful parents vs. the childfree they'd probably work out similarly. Point is, you have to put conscious effort into maintaining it. Therefore, you wind up with a different kind of person making up the bulk of that particular demographic. And there are some pretty damn negative pockets within that demographic too... but they're doing everyone a favor by not passing it on.

In short, that's a ridiculous position. The idea the childfree live "meaningless" lives is nothing but an ego boost people spout to re-affirm their own choices. Reality paints a different picture.

cpwill said:

the decision at that point was already made - the kid was here. :shrug: not that it's terribly pertinent to the discussion - the point being that parenthood is inherently sacrificial, not selfish.



so how do you then justify expecting others' children to take care of you?

in fact it is. generally speaking, non breeding cultures will be replaced by breeding ones. care to place a wager on how individual human rights will be effected once unassimilated Muslims from places like Pakistan become powerful voting blocs in Europe? the culture that isn't replacing itself right now is (broadly) what we know as The West. so if you like things that The West has come up with and promulgated - representative society, individual rights, equality between the genders, abolition of slavery, free speech, etc - then you may consider it rather problematic "in the long run" that currently it is slated to cease existing.



then they should read more history.





hey, will you lookit that!


European Council President Herman Van Rompuy has called an emergency meeting of top officials dealing with the euro zone debt crisis for Monday morning, reflecting concern that the crisis could spread to Italy, the region's third largest economy


Greece and Italy (and much of the rest of Europe, who is only a little bit behind, dependent on the generosity of their retirement entitlements) aren't going to be solved with a bail-out because their problems are structural and inherent to their demographics. thats why you see the riots in Greece - people are being told that the income they depend upon (since they have no offspring, or only one) for survival is getting slashed.


that is what is going to happen here unless we get smart and get smart very soon.

Click to expand...

If the government wants me to breed then they are going to have to make it easier for me to breed and take care of my children.

This means guaranteed government housing for me and my children. This means limited work hours that my boss can make me work so I can spend time with my children. This means government subsidies for local museums so I can take my children to places to get them cultured and educated. This means a government health care plan for both me and my children. This means government subsidies for food and water for me and my children.

Do you really want to the government to provide all those things to all Americans just so we can keep pace with the birth rates of other countries?

MistressNomad said:

Then you haven't done much research on how the demographics work out. A lot of people who are childfree do it as a sacrifice for pushing their career. Single women and childless married men are the most employable - because they're the most likely to turn up to work, every day, no excuses.

Click to expand...

agreed. this is why childless unmarried women earn more than childless unmarried men. however, the value added there is to them personally in the immediate (in the form of increased salary) and to the business in particular. Society, however, see's a net loss - because the value added of the individual is only exceedingly rarely that of the full value added of future citizens. for example, were my two boys to disappear and my wife enter the workforce full time - she would have to make up in the 15-ish years that she would have otherwise been out of it the full work-life value of both of my sons, just for us to break even. Given that the most powerful indicator of a childs' direction is usually the parents, this is a game that one would be extremely unlikely to beat. For example, if Person A would earn a lifetime average of $40K with kids, but $75K without them, and would otherwise have raised two children who each would have earned $50K; then the advantage to society of that person choosing to focus on their work rather than raise children is not $35,000 a year annualized, but rather negative $65K.

The higher up on the education and career ladder you go, the fewer kids people have, and the more people have none.

Click to expand...

which sort of sinks your earlier "people don't have kids because they can't afford to" thesis. people don't have kids because they are more focused on themselves and what they are doing.

Likewise, the tendency of having kids as a simple default position really tilts the field in my opinion back towards neutral over-all. The only reason we (as far as you're concerned, anyway) need kids is because we have kids

Click to expand...

this is incorrect. we need kids because we age.

But let's be honest - how many parents put a whole lot of thought into becoming parents, how many people in general put much thought into anything they do, and how many people can honestly say they've done anything definitively positive for the world? Not many.

Click to expand...

on the contrary, the vast majority of parents have done something definitively positive for the world. it is the childless who generally are more prone to feel that life lacks meaning.

Of course, the only reason being childfree is any different is because in most cases you HAVE to think about it. If you were to compare the thoughtful parents vs. the childfree they'd probably work out similarly. Point is, you have to put conscious effort into maintaining it.

Click to expand...

no more than you do to limit it. few have as many children as possible.

samsmart said:

If the government wants me to breed then they are going to have to make it easier for me to breed and take care of my children.

This means guaranteed government housing for me and my children. This means limited work hours that my boss can make me work so I can spend time with my children. This means government subsidies for local museums so I can take my children to places to get them cultured and educated. This means a government health care plan for both me and my children. This means government subsidies for food and water for me and my children.

Do you really want to the government to provide all those things to all Americans just so we can keep pace with the birth rates of other countries?

Click to expand...

your prescription is off - government did not do these things when our birthrate was higher. this is fundamentally a social problem, not one of governance.

cpwill said:

all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not.

Click to expand...

Except all other things aren't equal.

What good does it do to society if someone raises a sociopath that is only a danger to society?

cpwill said:

your prescription is off - government did not do these things when our birthrate was higher. this is fundamentally a social problem, not one of governance.

Click to expand...

Even so, it is a policy, and if society wants to pursue this policy that is what it will have to get the government to do in order to ensure that policy gets enacted.

cpwill

1. The "can't afford it" wasn't my argument, that was Sam's. But it's sort of true in a round-about way. People who are conscientious enough to know they can't afford it don't. People who aren't wind up in poverty, and sometimes needing government help. So how was the value analysis of yours going again...? Point is, your practically arbitrary example is meaningless and doesn't represent most people anyway. What about the cost of raising kids? What they cost on education? Resources? The list goes on and on.

2. Have you forgotten? In "career" is included things like science and medical research. Also, things like academics WHO WILL EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN. Their future potential is impossible without the people who choose career, and often sacrifice having children to do it. Highly available birth control and people who want to use it is one of the biggest factors that allows having any sort of developed society in the first place.

3. You haven't offered any reason why parents "do more that's positive" for the world other than meaningless conjecture. And actually the childless/childfree tend to be happier than parents with kids in the house. So on that one you are definitively wrong. Having children does not result in more happiness.

4. Your utopian theory that breeding more = old age care is simply wrong. It has been explained to you why it's wrong, and you haven't addressed it.

The entire thing is utopian and wrong, and reaks of you simply trying to validate your own choices.

Your choices are no better or more meaningful than anyone else's. What you value is not what others value. And what you're doing may or may not even relate to what you value.

samsmart said:

Except all other things aren't equal.

What good does it do to society if someone raises a sociopath that is only a danger to society?

Click to expand...

:shrug: what good does it do to society to choose to not have a child and lose the next Thomas Edison? if all you can depend upon is extreme outliers, your argument isn't holding much statistical water.

MistressNomad said:

It isn't my fault you freaked out over studies saying women with higher educations tend to have fewer children. It's not anyone else's job to stroke your ego about what you've decided to do with your life.

Click to expand...

Now you're lying about your original claim which is truly pathetic. Get your facts straight.