Is having children selfish?

[Dannichu]

The kind of people I'm thinking of are usually smokers [...] too.

I lol'd. Both my parents smoke, absolutely loads of my friend's parents smoke, and they're all middle-class people who waited till they were 30-something to have children. I think smoking's a dirty, unhealthy habit, but I hate it so much when people are stigmatised and labelled for having one vice when everyone has some kind of (more socially acceptable) unhealthy habit.

Okay, rant over. Smoking-related one at least.

Again, we hear talk about how much of a problem overpopulation is, but is it actually that much of an issue? I haven't seen any evidence that proves that a) the population as a whole are having more children, and b) if such a thing does happen, it will have a negative effect on the country. Last I heard, the UK is relying on immagrants to keep the working population even vaguely stable because (among a whole series of other things) people keep retiring early and living for a much longer time, meaning there aren't enough working young people to support them.

Yes, there are healthcare issues in the UK, but I'm sure that if you look, it's not the kids (yes, even the mountains of kids born to irresponsible, smoking teenage single mothers living in council houses) who are using up the NHS' resources; it's the people who are living way past 80 and are on every kind of medication you can name.

Furthermore, it's probably better, economically speaking, for the working classes to have larger families than the middle- and upper-classes. So many kids from middle-class families are staying in education for far longer, often not entering the workforce till they're 25+ (meaning not only are they not contributing to the taxpaying workforce, they're using up tax money with their education), while most kids who leave school age 16 and start working (albeit on a low-wage job) are of the lower social classes. And then, later in life, you've got the rich doctors, lawyers and so on who retire at 45 because they can afford to, while all the people in lower-class jobs continue contributing to the workforce until retirement age.

(the last two pragraphs are conjecture on my part, only somewhat backed up by research, and while I could be wrong (it's happened before), it also makes sense)

My point is pretty much the same as it was on the previous page; there's no single cause of overpopulation (assuming overpopulation is even happening and, if so, it's a problem), and in order to talk properly about it, one must first have an understanding of all the issues involved - which is nearly impossible, given the sheer breadth and depth of all the contributing factors.

 

[Espeon]

I lol'd. Both my parents smoke, absolutely loads of my friend's parents smoke, and they're all middle-class people who waited till they were 30-something to have children. I think smoking's a dirty, unhealthy habit, but I hate it so much when people are stigmatised and labelled for having one vice when everyone has some kind of (more socially acceptable) unhealthy habit.

Ah, I didn't mean it in that way. I meant that they're generally the kind of people who would smoke around their children because they want to fuel their addiction. I didn't mean to label in that way, was just making a point that it is harmful to the child's health as well as their own.

 

[Mirry]

I can see the point about how "everything humans do is selfish, therefore having children is selfish" isn't quite the kind of discussion the OP was after... I dislike that "selfishness" has a negative connotation, when I see it as a very important (and good) force, but I suppose there's not much I can do to combat the popular perception of selfishness on a somewhat-unrelated forum thread. ;)

As for whether or not having children is BAD, I don't necessarily think that everybody should stop having kids right now or anything. I think you just need to use your common sense... don't have more children than you can support, and it should all work out okay. I don't know if any of you have seen the film Idiocracy, but it's a futuristic film that proposes that because less intelligent people tend to have more offspring than intellectual types, soon society will be composed entirely of drooling idiots. I think it's a bit of an extreme view to take, but that's just my opinion... it would be interesting if anybody had some statistics to see if the average person's IQ is dropping or something, though. My feeling is that there has always been a preponderance of lower class and less intelligent people, with the clever and the rich being a somewhat elite minority.

 

[Jason-Kun]

when you get right down to it, having babies is the most primitive of human instincts. it's the eventual goal of all living things. to make more of ourselves; to maintain our species.

having children is no more selfish than eating food in a world where eating food takes away food from other people. it is just something we do, and have done, and will always do.

'All living things"? 'We'? I like to think that not everyone has a goal of having kids. I certainly don't want kids...or to get married. But this isn't about me so moving on.

Wether having children is selfish or not depends on the reasons behind having kids. I think if you're having them for religious reason or personal gain then yes, that's selfish. But having a child because you genuinely love them wouldn't make oe selfish. That's my two cents.

 

[xkze]

Well yes, by 'all living things' and 'we' I didn't mean you, me, and your uncle steven. I meant 'us as a species'

I understand that every single individual person does not put procreation as their life's most important goal. Humans as a species feel a definite need to reproduce. If we didn't, the human race would not have survived very long. The same can be said about any animal species.

 

[sagefo]

I dont think having kids is selfish, as long as you dont have a ton. Its natural.
Oh, and Idiocracy is f***ing hilarious.

 

[Empoleon]

While reproduction is a natural thing, that doesn't mean we have to do it. What separates us from animals in a general sense is our ability to conquer the instinct. And I don't think we have to worry about continuing our species, as we've sort of taken control of our home planet.

So, I have no problem with people having kids, as long as:

a). They can support then, resource-wise.
b). They don't intend outright harm to their children, i.e. through abuse and so on.

I wouldn't say that everything a person done is selfish. However, every person does do most things for some innate purpose, whether that be selfishness or compassion. However, self-preservation is another basic primitive instinct and you can't pour yourself out to the world if you're empty.

 

[Tarvos]

Religious reasons can be more than just the Catholic or Mormon idea of "go forth and multiply".

 

[Eeveelution]

This would have been a good discussion for Henry VIII. (Divorced and possibly murdered Wife 1, killed Wife 2, mostly divorced after that, and then the wife who gave him a son died from childbirth or something like that.) When he finally got a son (Edward), he died and Edward inherited the throne at the age of 13, and then he died. Then his first daughter Mary ("Bloody Mary") took over, and died from a tumor after getting married. Then Elizabeth took over, so Henry basically went through all that trouble for nothing. -_-;

Anyways, having kids for the sake of having them is just SICK. Some people abuse their kids because they don't really care about them, which makes you wonder WHY they had kids. Some parents are pure evil, other times one parent's evil and the other is too scared to do anything or is dead, while other abuse cases have the parents just ignore the child. It's just sick when it's like that.

 

[Tarvos]

Yeah some families suck but 99% of the time parents are just humans and don't know what the fuck to do when puberty hits. Most cases of "abuse" are just bullshit teenager emodom who in 20 years will realise they were glad to be given what they got.

 

[Slartibartfast]

First, a note on overpopulation:
Currently, the United States has enough land for EVERY PERSON in the country to have seven acres.

Many European countries currently have declining populations due to people having less children.

Africa and parts of Asia are the only places in the world that can really claim overpopulation, and that is because they do not have the technology to support their populations, nor do they have the means to limit their populations. In other words, the only overpopulation is in areas where it couldn't matter less what we do and say.
---
Second, a note about having children: It is one of the least selfish things you can do. If somebody actually has a child and intends to take care of it (which happens quite often), then what they are essentially doing is putting their own goals and desires second to their child's goals and desires.

It isn't even a selfish thing if you consider that that family will have a greater drain on resources, because of the age-dependency factor (not sure if that's the correct term), which states that in general, societies consider it their responsibility to take care of those under fifteen and over sixty-five.

In the short run it would decrease dependency (less under fifteen), but that would come at the price of the high levels of population going over sixty-five, with a much smaller working class to support them. This has already become visible in several European countries.

As for the religious, Go Forth and Multiply idea, that comes about mainly based on the idea that most people have good lives (lives that they enjoy, in other words). It would therefore be more selfish to not bring others into the world who could also enjoy their lives.
---
There's also the whole 'survival of the species' thing, but let's not get into that now.

 

[Werty]

Indeed, it is unselfish to have children and take care of them, but realize it's done by parents for a specific reason; the end result, a reflection upon themselves.

 

[Tarvos]

Loving your children is genetically selfish. It's a way of maintaining your gene pool and hence survival.

 

[apexofawesome]

I think that, "accidental," children is a selfish thing, I am one, and a child to parents that aren't ready for one may never have the same kind of life that a child to well-prepared parents would. Having children isn't selfish, in the interest of keeping the human race alive, but having children to satisfy a need for bonds is selfish.

 

[Dinru]

First, a note on overpopulation:
Currently, the United States has enough land for EVERY PERSON in the country to have seven acres.

Many European countries currently have declining populations due to people having less children.

Africa and parts of Asia are the only places in the world that can really claim overpopulation, and that is because they do not have the technology to support their populations, nor do they have the means to limit their populations. In other words, the only overpopulation is in areas where it couldn't matter less what we do and say.

We all live on an overpopulated area. It's called Earth. You know, the one that's running out of natural resources due to global overpopulation? The one that we've essentially strip-mined? The one who's atmosphere, climate, and general natural balance we are destroying? I don't think those problems are limited to just Africa and Asia. They've happened over several generations. Some continents doing more damage than others, sure, but we're all feeling the effects of overpopulation, I'm sure.

But, anyway, I don't believe having children is selfish if you intend to take care of them. Having children so that you have something to take your anger/frustrations (sexual or otherwise) out on is just sick. Accidental children happen, but if they do, one should be ready to take care of it somehow, be it keeping them and raising them, abortion, or adoption. (The latter probably not being a good idea due to the overcrowding of orphanages, but still...)

 

[Negrek]

I think that, "accidental," children is a selfish thing, I am one, and a child to parents that aren't ready for one may never have the same kind of life that a child to well-prepared parents would.

Err, well, the thing about accidents is that they're... kind of unintentional. I mean, if you're doing something stupid and end up having a kid as a result, I suppose you could go on about how that was wrong for some other reason. I don't think that you can really call having accidental children "selfish," though, because the whole point is that you don't intend to have them in the first place.

We all live on an overpopulated area. It's called Earth. You know, the one that's running out of natural resources due to global overpopulation? The one that we've essentially strip-mined? The one who's atmosphere, climate, and general natural balance we are destroying? I don't think those problems are limited to just Africa and Asia. They've happened over several generations. Some continents doing more damage than others, sure, but we're all feeling the effects of overpopulation, I'm sure.

Would you care to enlighten me as to the effects that you're alluding to, here?

 

[apexofawesome]

Err, well, the thing about accidents is that they're... kind of unintentional. I mean, if you're doing something stupid and end up having a kid as a result, I suppose you could go on about how that was wrong for some other reason. I don't think that you can really call having accidental children "selfish," though, because the whole point is that you don't intend to have them in the first place.

I see your point, it isn't selfish as much as irresponsible.

 

[Tarvos]

How is taking care of a child, especially when you didn't expect it to be there in the first place, irresponsible? If anything, I consider that extremely mature to be able to be dealt the cards like that and take it like that.

 

[apexofawesome]

How is taking care of a child, especially when you didn't expect it to be there in the first place, irresponsible? If anything, I consider that extremely mature to be able to be dealt the cards like that and take it like that.

I don't mean dealing with an accidental child, I mean having the child in the first place. I highly respect people who are able to adapt to situations like that as well, but I hold no sympathy for them if they put themselves in that situation.

 

[Tarvos]

Why not? The whole point is if it is accidental, that it wasn't their CHOICE. THEY ARE NOT TO BLAME.

If they willingly neglected their child for other ends, that is selfish. Having a child earlier than intended, or having a child when you expected not to have any, and still taking care of it is respectworthy. I fell in love with a girl that had a teenage pregnancy and trust me, even though I'm not with her anymore and don't like what happened afterwards I have a trillion respect points for her raising it.