Selfish breeding

[Romy]

Would you say that not having children is selfish? Would you say having children is selfish? Why?

 

 

My answer (please do not read until you've posted, I'd love this thread to be as objective and opinion-reflecting as possible):

 

[hide] Personaly I think it is selfish.

 

Breeding is a Biological need, that can only be accomplished by having children. It exists regardless of any economical or mental or emotional problems the parents (or in some cases parent) may have.

 

In addition, most (I say most but really think all, I'll keep it at most as I'm not entirely certain I'm correct) societies, whether modern or primitive, live under a sort of consensus in which having children is one of the most important goals in life, if not THE most important one. That's not necessarily a bad thing. However, it causes a Psychological need to breed aswell, and combined with the Biological one, parents (or a parent) may decide to have children regardless of their(/his/her) conditions.

 

Moreover, the children cannot be asked whether or not they want to be born (both because it's impossible, and because if it was possible, their answer couldn't be an educated one). Personaly, if I had the choice today, I have a strong feeling that I'd say "no" when asked if I want to be born (there's a difference between being born and generaly living. I'd rather not get into it, but if someone will really want that here, I'll explain [i have a strong feeling it's going to be a long argument if I will :???:]).

 

Also, this terrible world is becoming less and less suitable for children.

 

Lastly, you can't ever promise that your sons and daughters won't end up with some extremely horrible lives. [/hide]

[warri0r45]

Personally I don't want kids. Perhaps one day, but not for a long time. Is this selfish? Yes, I want to live my own life and enjoy it. I don't think this is a bad thing, however. What's the point of life if you're always giving and not living a little for yourself? Not that selfishness dies when you're a parent, but I just want to achieve a few things before I make that kind of commitment, if I ever want to..

 

Now, as for being a parent, you could say that it's selfish because it's just fulfilling a personal biological desire, but if you don't over-analyse it, you'll see that it's a pretty selfless act.

[Romy]

Now, as for being a parent, you could say that it's selfish because it's just fulfilling a personal biological desire, but if you don't over-analyse it, you'll see that it's a pretty selfless act.

 

Care to elaborate?

[Perakp]

"I'm sorry I allowed your mother to give birth to you, I'm sorry you'll have to suffer this torment of a life, only to one day do the same unrighteous deed I have done today."

[Lenin64]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

[Lateralus]

I don't think it's selfish to excercise one of the very few choices you're offered in life. At this stage I certainly don't want children - Not only am I too irresponsible, but I haven't yet found anything that is worth living for. Doesn't seem fair to bring a kid into the world which you don't enjoy being a part of (on the whole).

[Romy]

I don't think it's selfish to excercise one of the very few choices you're offered in life. At this stage I certainly don't want children - Not only am I too irresponsible, but I haven't yet found anything that is worth living for. Doesn't seem fair to bring a kid into the world which you don't enjoy being a part of (on the whole).

 

Who ever said you will enjoy it?

 

 

Philosophicly speaking, there's no meaning in life, most of us experience life with some worse and some better times, and eventualy find someone to mate with, have kids, and die. Only so that our kids would have pretty much the same course of life. For some bizzare reason, however, the vast majority wants to live, accomplish meaningless goals (meaningful to them, but overall meaningless) in life, and feel like we've "fulfilled our purpose" in life.

[Saru Inc]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

[Romy]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

[Saru Inc]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

 

 

Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up.

[Azvareth]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Yeah, the whole overpopulation thing is pretty much a load of bull.

 

I'd like to have kids one day; not now, but in a future where I am financially stable and responsible enough to raise one. I hate it that some parents neglect this part.

[Racheya]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

 

 

Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up.

Tell that to the dozen overcrowded schools in my area.

 

Overcrowding isn't a problem if you live out in the countryside, but for people in urban city areas it is a very big problem. At least from what I see.

 

I think it can be selfish to have loads of children if you can't support them. I find things like IVF even more selfish. People spend thousands of pounds trying to conceive a child when there are so many children that need adopting.

[Saru Inc]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

 

 

Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up.

Tell that to the dozen overcrowded schools in my area.

 

Overcrowding isn't a problem if you live out in the countryside, but for people in urban city areas it is a very big problem. At least from what I see.

 

I think it can be selfish to have loads of children if you can't support them. I find things like IVF even more selfish. People spend thousands of pounds trying to conceive a child when there are so many children that need adopting.

 

 

Overcrowded schools is a distribution problem, not a population problem.

 

Also, I'm talking overcrowded on a global scale, not urban.

[RexMilotic]

I don't believe it's selfish to not have kids. I don't want kids at all, and there's nothing inside of me telling me I need to do it. Your idea is that nature works in a way similar to a line, when it really branches out. Right now we have too many children being born, and it's only going to increase at this rate. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if nature worked in a way to prevent as many children being born.

[Saru Inc]

I don't believe it's selfish to not have kids. I don't want kids at all, and there's nothing inside of me telling me I need to do it. Your idea is that nature works in a way similar to a line, when it really branches out. Right now we have too many children being born, and it's only going to increase at this rate. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if nature worked in a way to prevent as many children being born.

 

 

Ummmm? First off, are you talking about my idea? Well you're wrong, broseph. No offence. And who says how much children being born is too much? For all the families with 10+ kids, there are tons of families consisting of one kid, or married couples with no kids.

[Romy]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

 

 

Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up.

 

What do you expect? That human-beings would live on every bit of earth on Earth?

 

Currently, many places are over-populated, no matter what you say.

 

 

And even if that wasn't the case, who said human-beings must expand? If some magical barrier on mankind amounts existed, and the world's population couldn't exceed it, I'm not sure it would be too bad.

 

 

 

As for me being selfless by not having kids, I never said that. I only said that by having kids, you're selfish.

[Saru Inc]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

 

 

Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up.

 

What do you expect? That human-beings would live on every bit of earth on Earth?

 

Currently, many places are over-populated, no matter what you say.

 

 

And even if that wasn't the case, who said human-beings must expand? If some magical barrier on mankind amounts existed, and the world's population couldn't exceed it, I'm not sure it would be too bad.

 

 

 

As for me being selfless by not having kids, I never said that. I only said that by having kids, you're selfish.

 

 

How do you expect the human race to survive without kids?

[RexMilotic]

I don't believe it's selfish to not have kids. I don't want kids at all, and there's nothing inside of me telling me I need to do it. Your idea is that nature works in a way similar to a line, when it really branches out. Right now we have too many children being born, and it's only going to increase at this rate. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if nature worked in a way to prevent as many children being born.

 

 

Ummmm? First off, are you talking about my idea? Well you're wrong, broseph. No offence. And who says how much children being born is too much? For all the families with 10+ kids, there are tons of families consisting of one kid, or married couples with no kids.

 

That's cool, but I wasn't talking to you. Second of all, your posts are a disorganized mess that don't seem to have a point, be it for or against the topic. Instead you're discussing how people are ignorant, even though you're the one who seems to be ignorant of what overpopulation means. Overpopulation is a problem, and it doesn't just deal with where people live. It deals with food, water, clothing, wealth, energy, and medicine (probably more).

[Saru Inc]

I don't believe it's selfish to not have kids. I don't want kids at all, and there's nothing inside of me telling me I need to do it. Your idea is that nature works in a way similar to a line, when it really branches out. Right now we have too many children being born, and it's only going to increase at this rate. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if nature worked in a way to prevent as many children being born.

 

 

Ummmm? First off, are you talking about my idea? Well you're wrong, broseph. No offence. And who says how much children being born is too much? For all the families with 10+ kids, there are tons of families consisting of one kid, or married couples with no kids.

 

That's cool, but I wasn't talking to you. Second of all, your posts are a disorganized mess that don't seem to have a point, be it for or against the topic. Instead you're discussing how people are ignorant, even though you're the one who seems to be ignorant of what overpopulation means. Overpopulation is a problem, and it doesn't just deal with where people live. It deals with food, water, clothing, wealth, energy, and medicine (probably more).

 

 

Oh thanks, well first off lets discuss this:

 

Why does the way my posts are organized affect the ideas in them?

 

Who says I don't know what over population is? I'm pretty sure I know more about it then you do, but I may be wrong.

 

And yea, it is ignorant to think that the world is over populated.

[RexMilotic]

I don't believe it's selfish to not have kids. I don't want kids at all, and there's nothing inside of me telling me I need to do it. Your idea is that nature works in a way similar to a line, when it really branches out. Right now we have too many children being born, and it's only going to increase at this rate. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if nature worked in a way to prevent as many children being born.

 

 

Ummmm? First off, are you talking about my idea? Well you're wrong, broseph. No offence. And who says how much children being born is too much? For all the families with 10+ kids, there are tons of families consisting of one kid, or married couples with no kids.

 

That's cool, but I wasn't talking to you. Second of all, your posts are a disorganized mess that don't seem to have a point, be it for or against the topic. Instead you're discussing how people are ignorant, even though you're the one who seems to be ignorant of what overpopulation means. Overpopulation is a problem, and it doesn't just deal with where people live. It deals with food, water, clothing, wealth, energy, and medicine (probably more).

 

 

Oh thanks, well first off lets discuss this:

 

Why does the way my posts are organized affect the ideas in them?

 

Who says I don't know what over population is? I'm pretty sure I know more about it then you do, but I may be wrong.

 

And yea, it is ignorant to think that the world is over populated.

 

Disorganized posts are extremely hard to find the meaning of. Trying arguing with someone who posts in such a mess that you don't understand what exactly they're going for in their post.

 

I say you don't because you seem to be arguing that overpopulation just means the land that people live. Overpopulation deals with more than just land, instead it deals with the conditions that people cause in order to support such a huge group of people. Land, wealth, energy, food, water, medicine, clothing, and possibly more things are conditions that deal with overpopulation.

[Giordano]

 

Overcrowded schools is a distribution problem, not a population problem.

Bingo, somebody nailed it. There is still land availble: a simple road trip across western North America is surely enough for you think otherwise. The problem with urban overpopulation is a different discussion to this at hand and would probably fall under the high density vs. suburbs debate.

 

Farmland is also not an issue. Farms in America make feed an entire continent and then some. Farms in Central America and Asia don't feed as much not because there's a difference of land but because there's a difference in technology. Technology isn't a population problem, but a distribution-economic problem.

 

 

As for the actual topic, my views of it: :wall:

[Romy]

It's almost selfish to have kids. Or, at least, to pop out 18 of them like you're some kind of flying circus with a clown zeppelin instead of a car. We're overcrowding enough as it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't have children, but it's not a bad thing if they don't.

 

 

overcrowded. are you SRS.

 

Definitely 100% yes.

 

 

Wow lol. Thats kind of ignorant. We have so much of the world left. You really honestly believe you're being selfless not having kids? Thats pretty messed up.

 

What do you expect? That human-beings would live on every bit of earth on Earth?

 

Currently, many places are over-populated, no matter what you say.

 

 

And even if that wasn't the case, who said human-beings must expand? If some magical barrier on mankind amounts existed, and the world's population couldn't exceed it, I'm not sure it would be too bad.

 

 

 

As for me being selfless by not having kids, I never said that. I only said that by having kids, you're selfish.

 

 

How do you expect the human race to survive without kids?

 

2 things:

 

1. I never referred to the human race's existence, and never have said or told anyone not to have children. I merely stated my honest opinion, and will do so again for clarification- personaly I think having children is selfish.

 

2. And if the human race wouldn't exist? Then what?

 

Imagine this picture- a world without the human race. Really, don't go with your sudden urge to comment what I said, take yourself a couple of minutes and imagine the world, without the human race.

 

The only problem I can see occuring is a food-chain mess up (since there wouldn't be many humans to eat the animals) which I'm both pretty sure will solve itself eventualy, and that even if it wouldn't, nature is better off without us.

 

But... We're going OT here, so lets drop that discussion.

[Romy]

As for the actual topic, my views of it: :wall:

 

Thanks for the interesting, long, and detailed opinion <3: ...

[Saru Inc]

I don't believe it's selfish to not have kids. I don't want kids at all, and there's nothing inside of me telling me I need to do it. Your idea is that nature works in a way similar to a line, when it really branches out. Right now we have too many children being born, and it's only going to increase at this rate. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if nature worked in a way to prevent as many children being born.

 

 

Ummmm? First off, are you talking about my idea? Well you're wrong, broseph. No offence. And who says how much children being born is too much? For all the families with 10+ kids, there are tons of families consisting of one kid, or married couples with no kids.

 

That's cool, but I wasn't talking to you. Second of all, your posts are a disorganized mess that don't seem to have a point, be it for or against the topic. Instead you're discussing how people are ignorant, even though you're the one who seems to be ignorant of what overpopulation means. Overpopulation is a problem, and it doesn't just deal with where people live. It deals with food, water, clothing, wealth, energy, and medicine (probably more).

 

 

Oh thanks, well first off lets discuss this:

 

Why does the way my posts are organized affect the ideas in them?

 

Who says I don't know what over population is? I'm pretty sure I know more about it then you do, but I may be wrong.

 

And yea, it is ignorant to think that the world is over populated.

 

Disorganized posts are extremely hard to find the meaning of. Trying arguing with someone who posts in such a mess that you don't understand what exactly they're going for in their post.

 

I say you don't because you seem to be arguing that overpopulation just means the land that people live. Overpopulation deals with more than just land, instead it deals with the conditions that people cause in order to support such a huge group of people. Land, wealth, energy, food, water, medicine, clothing, and possibly more things are conditions that deal with overpopulation.

 

 

Oh ok, I can see how you'd get that from my posts. Well here is my idea\opinion

 

 

Humans are animals, though my religion makes me thing we are 'special', but animals none the less. Animals have one purpose in life: Survive, reproduce, live on. So, I do think it is a bit strange to say humans shouldn't reproduce (not necessarily your views, but of ones I've encountered before).

 

Also, I agree with you in that you're right population is more than just land, however I believe they all tie together, and land is a very large factor. Example: Land can make farms for food, water treatment plants\desalinization plants, labs for new medicine, and ofc housing.

[Kenshinjapan]

How is it selfish to have or not to have kids either way?

 

It's a choice in life that no one honestly should have any say on unless you are not physically capable of caring for them.