But why is it a problem if i want to enjoy myself and not have kids?
My nephews think i am a great uncle, and i enjoy spending quality time with them.
I think some people just don't have the maternal urge.
😀

Cos of the kids you mean, oh yeah I forgot..

again:

Back to tons original post. Yes that bloke sounds like a tool!
I still don't want kids though, and that doesn't change who i am.
I am still a kid myself and i am 37! 😉

What a very bizarre thread. I'm convinced most STW'ers could start an argument in an empty room… 😯

[selfish b'stard]Married, two kids[/selfish b'stard].

Teagirl, why on earth do you think you have been selfless?

Being selfless would be not actually wanting to be a parent but it being decided (god knows by whom) that your genes in particular need propergating and you begrudgenly go through with it for the greater good.

Being selfless would be really, really wanting to experience the highs and lows of being a parent yourself but electing to not do so and investing the cash and time otherwise spent on children in supporting someone else have that experience because you think they would be better at it than you.

What you have done (I presume) is decide you would like to experience being a parent and then have done so. From what every parent I know keeps telling me it's a life choice that is hard work and requires sacrafice, but is ulimately hugely rewarding. I'm struggling to see where you have been selfless.

Convert, my selflessness stems from bringing up my children, giving up my time, energy and finances to bring on the next generation. Watching them grow is priceless, encouraging them to understand how the world and it's inhabitants work, see and accept differing perspectives, make the right decisions, hoping their education is well-balanced.

It's my 8yr olds birthday today, it's been a joy watching him and his siblings making a Lego Star-Wars landing craft. Sadly I'll have to give up this entertainment and put them all to bed………..

From, Rose tinted glasses,grey matter left in delivery suite. 😉

This is why population control rarely gets raised in global warming debates. For some reason people get very excited. It is blindingly obvious that a rapidly shrinking population would solve climate/resource problems much more easily than any other approach.

How about trading 'offspring' rather than carbon? Selfish (and why not) rich people could buy the rights to extra children off poor people solving world poverty at the same time. The poor of the world will be most affected by climate change so as an added bonus they'll be gone in a generation.

Excellent thread! Not sure that whether people are being selfish or not really matters. It's a selfish choice whichever way you go. I've got 3 kids and we had them because we wanted them.

Many people who choose not to have kids are being self-indulgent and fair play to them if they would rather spend their cash on toys for themselves instead of kids. I'd be loaded if I didn't have kids so I can see the attraction.

The problem of numbers of kids in this country and most of the western world isn't an issue as the avarage has fallen below 2.1 so we are only maintaining our levels its the third world countrys adn the emerging ones where they have lots per couple.
I love my kids and are currently planning on more plus i see all of my time as me time its just that some of it happens to revolve around my kids some my wife aand some me (with the rest going to work 😉 )

ScoobysM8

quite right, it can be construed as selfish either way. At the end of the day I think we (people, STW forumites and the troll family) forget we are all still just animals living in a eco system. Ok we may be a bit difference in that we have some awareness and understanding of what we are but on the flip side we as a species have basically the rights to exist and thrive as any other plant or animal. It's not right or wrong, just is. Are the grey squirrels being selfish whilst expanding their poplation at the expense of the reds?

"Many people who choose not to have kids are being self-indulgent"

What bollocks. What utter numbskulled bollocks.

For not having children to be "self indulgent", procreation would need to be a duty, a duty neglected by those who have chosen otherwise.

As far as I know, there is no reason anyone should feel obliged to breed. It's not as though the world is suffering from a falling population making a comfortable and sustainable way of life impossible.

Therefore, it's hardly "self indulgent".

Can't be arsed to read all this but can we not just have a 3rd world war and kill huge amounts of people thus freeing up farmland.

procreation would need to be a duty, a duty neglected by those who have chosen otherwise.

not a duty no, but essential for the advancement of the species. It is innate in all of us (sex drive).

The most successful in various species are the ones that effectively procreate. The difference in humans is that we can create reasons such as choosing against or political reasons to justify why we are unsuccessful within society 😉

For not having children to be "self indulgent", procreation would need to be a duty, a duty neglected by those who have chosen otherwise.

Not sure I follow your logic Sodafaris. I don't see that self-indulgence and dereliction of duty are the same thing at all.

We have 1 child and don't wish to have anymore, what does that make us?

As far as I know, there is no reason anyone should feel obliged to breed. It's not as though the world is suffering from a falling population making a comfortable and sustainable way of life impossible.

For comfortable read self-indulgent Western lifestyle.

And if your not having kids, why does it need to be sustainable?

"The most successful in various species are the ones that effectively procreate. The difference in humans is that we can create reasons such as choosing against or political reasons to justify why we are unsuccessful within society"

A difference between humans and other species is that many of us can predict the long term consequences of our actions, and attempt to act accordingly to reduce or negate them.

And there is also a tendency amongst the less evolved of our species to react negatively to suggestions contrary to their belief systems and attempt to utilise what they consider to be insults to avoid engaging in discussion with their evolutionary superiors, especially when it comes to their utterly selfish and shortsighted overbreeding activities.

What bollocks. What utter numbskulled bollocks.

And there is also a tendency amongst the less evolved of our species to react negatively to suggestions contrary to their belief systems and attempt to utilise what they consider to be insults to avoid engaging in discussion with their evolutionary superior

Couldn't agree more 🙄

OOOhh, lots of pent up anger, and resentment there! Touched a nerve?

It will come down to survival of the fittest, whats the matter? Not confident you can hack it?!

And there is also a tendency amongst the less evolved of our species

pardon me, but surely we're all equally evolved for good or ill? One might convincingly argue that the less effective we are as people the more beneficial we are to the ecosystem as a whole, but of course evolution is the outcome of the selfish gene… but it is only in hindsight that the future course of our development, and which of us is closer to that can be known

"And if your not having kids, why does it need to be sustainable?"

Strangely enough, some people care for other people.

Who said I wasn't breeding though? I can't see anything "wrong" with having one child, or two as an ideal. Global overpopulation is the problem. Stabilising and ideally reducing global population by increasing education and "ironically", life expectancy in the third world, would be what any intelligent animal would do if that intelligent animal were human and concerned with the long term continuation of the species.

"but it is only in hindsight that the future course of our development, and which of us is closer to that can be known"

I'm afraid I disagree in this instance. Considering that we are aware of the concept and likely consequence of global overpopulation, surely those that recognise this and act accordingly, including attempts to educate the less aware members of our global mountain biking community as to the probable end result, are exemplars of the species in that they are carrying the impulse that may provide the human species with a chance to be around in a couple of hundred years time.

including attempts to educate the less aware members of our global mountain biking community as to the probable end result, are exemplars of the species

too abstract – evolution is entirely pragmatic – and individuals are mere grist to its wheel – what comes after might be a sea creature (quite likely one feels) or a beast of burden for a hyperevolved rat…

Considering that we are aware of the concept and likely consequence of global overpopulation

Yes, but the species will adapt and evolve to cope with the changing environment. What concerns me is the advocating of 'going against' and repressing natural urges and innate behaviour. The resultant outcome is deviancy.

"What concerns me is the advocating of 'going against' and repressing natural urges and innate behaviour. "

There's nothing "deviant" about having one or two children.

Anyway, I repress plenty of natural urges every day, don't you?

What concerns me is the advocating of 'going against' and repressing natural urges and innate behaviour. The resultant outcome is deviancy.

absolutely. That's why you should mate with as many females as possible, whether they like it or not; fight aggressively with any males of breeding age in your territory and kill any babies that were not sired by you.

After all, that is natural innate behaviour and it would be deviant to do otherwise. 🙄

I'm quite surprised at the fuss this thread has caused: my wife is pregnant with our first and I fully realise that we're being environmentally selfish by opting to have ANY children. Not sure why this is so painfully upsetting to some.

You miss my point. Think Priests etc.

Anyway, I repress plenty of natural urges every day, don't you?

Yes in civilized society, but on an animalistic level it is a natural innate drive to procreate. You can't beat nature!

"too abstract – evolution is entirely pragmatic"

Evolution favours that which continues the species possibility of continuation. In our case it's knowledge and the ability to reject communal assumptions. We are a complicated beast and the means of our long term survival will probably not resemble evolution as we have observed it, at least from our perspective.

That's why if you should mate with as many people as possible, whether they like it or not; fight aggressively with any males of breeding age in your territory and kill any babies that were not sired by you.

After all, that is natural innate behaviour and it would be deviant to do otherwise

Extremely disingenuous. Deviancy is a direct result of repression.

Yes, but the species will adapt and evolve to cope with the changing environment.

why is our species blessed with this magically quick evolution when so many other species have already been made extinct by changes in their environment?

Extremely disingenuous. Deviancy is a direct result of repression.

how so?

What we call rape and infanticide is very common in other animals. So are they just repressed?

Depends whether you believe that the change in environment will be so quick and catastrophic as to wipe out the entire human race a la the dinosaurs. If not procreation will enable the continuation of the species even if many don't survive.

and the means of our long term survival will probably not resemble evolution as we have observed it, at least from our perspective.

good point, but in that case calling on evolutionary theory becomes spurious and tends to eugenics 🙁

Society determines deviancy.

It just seems that you are deliberately misinterpreting my posts and taking them to ridiculous extremes.

"You miss my point. Think Priests etc."

Ok, so those of us that repress our natural urges, and only have none, one or maybe two children are PAEDOPHILES!

"Anyway, I repress plenty of natural urges every day, don't you?
Yes in civilized society"

And where do you live then?

"You can't beat nature!"

Yes you can, if not most of us would be dead by 40.

You're wrong mate. Apologise and I'll forget it.

BTW, The reason I can't "quote" properly is that due to my banning a few weeks ago I use a system to circumvent that terrible decision that for some reason limits my means of expression.

I can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread in detail, but Ton/Teagirl: the problem is we've outgrown our niche. Every species has one – or place, if not niche, and there's a balance between them and other species. In the case of mankind we're actually *too* good at exploiting our environment, at the cost to both that environment and its other inhabitants.

>Global overpopulation is the problem
Partly, not completely. Bear in mind the minority of the world's population (ie the developed world) use by far the majority of the worlds resources.

BTW, The reason I can't "quote" properly is that due to my banning a few weeks ago I use a system to circumvent that terrible decision that for some reason limits my means of expression.

ouija board ?? It does however make it very hard to work out which bits are you 🙁

I most certainly will not apologise.

I am basing my arguments on well established theory.

limits my means of expression

And ability to intellectually engage in debate obviously.

Ok, so those of us that repress our natural urges, and only have none, one or maybe two children are PAEDOPHILES!

What?

people change when they have offspring and it certainly isn't for the better, they become even more blinkered, self centered and ignorant of the world around them.
they think their children are wonderful but the reality is they are often little shites.