[Closed] More than 1 child.............selfish??

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: [img] [/img]

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 [b]very[/b] 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?

"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 [i]a la [/i]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

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.

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.

Not really. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct.

Look around the world and you will species that are on the verge of extinction due to changes in their environments.
Over population is one common cause

It seems somewhat unlikely that the human species will fair better.

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

well if society determines deviancy and a large part of that society believe in limiting population then how is that deviant?

And are repressed societys, like say the Victorian era Britain (blush at an uncovered ladies ankle), more deviant than less repressed ones, like say the Romans (regularly bugger young boys, kill people for amusement, have sex with animals)??

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.

a gross generalisation - it can happen but need not

they think their children are wonderful but the reality is they are often little shites.

the kind of people who dislike their children tend to die out...

well if society determines deviancy and a large part of that society believe in limiting population then how is that deviant?

What large part of society? Are they a majority? Majority rules in a democratic society.

Deviancy is a subjective concept depending on the norms of the time.

Although it wasn't deviance that I was bringing to the debate, I was merely using it as an example of behaviour that results from repression of innate natural needs (in this case procreation).

@jackson pollock

"am basing my arguments on well established theory."

What theory? You did suggest that only having one or two children was repressing your urges, and that would lead to consequences similar to that of "priests"? I can only assume that you meant PEADOPHILIA!

I suppose if you meant something else you will let us know.

the kind of people who dislike their children tend to die out...

and the little shites prosper.

What theory?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism ]Behaviourist Theroy[/url]

Where?

 

"the kind of people who dislike their children tend to die out... "

?

Everybody, and their children die in the end. And their children's children. It's horrible. It doesn't matter if the parents like the children or not.

What large part of society? Are they a majority? Majority rules in a democratic society.

So if you don't agree with the majority then you are "deviant"??

That's a pretty broad definition of deviancy and democracy!

"You did suggest that only having one or two children was repressing your urges

Where? "

Do you remember your post suggesting that repressing what you call natural urges would lead to priestly behaviour?

That one.

 

[b]"the kind of people who dislike their children tend to die out... "[/b]
Everybody, and their children die in the end. And their children's children. It's horrible. It doesn't matter if the parents like the children or not.

I mean it's not a genotypic survival trait, so parents are highly selected to favour their children

But why is death horrible beyond its immediate actuality - would you prefer everyone to hang around forever? Were it not for death and aging decrepitude, the accumulation of experience and ruthlessness would give the old unlimited wealth and power over the rest of us. The thought of death doesn't bother me apart from its temporary inconvenience.

This is going way off beam! Deviancy is contrary to social norms. Social norms are decided by the majority. It follows therefore that deviancy is against the norms of the majority. Deviancy is not necessarily 'bad' or crime merely a 'deviation' from social norms.

Not really relevant to the thread though, probably a little abstract on my behalf. 🙂

"But why is death horrible beyond its immediate actuality - would you prefer everyone to hang around forever?"

Sorry Simon, I was being sarcastic. The thought of death doesn't bother me either, apart from the pain felt by the multitudes when I move on.

Do you remember your post suggesting that repressing what you call natural urges would lead to priestly behaviour?

Generally as a species. It is you that has applied it to yourself. I've made no mention of amount of children. My point was reaction to some people on here who say that we shouldn't be allowed to 'breed' in order to save the world, as they see it.

Deviancy is not necessarily 'bad' or crime merely a 'deviation' from social norms

ahh but see you're changing tact now and going for the very broad definition of "deviancy" just being something outside the norm, but you suggested earlier that repressing "the need to procreate" [u]caused[/u] deviancy, which is quite a different statement from simply saying that not procreating means you are in a minority.

Night all, don't think Im gonna be successful in the procreation stakes tonight. Repression won't wash with her neither! 😆

Sorry Simon, I was being sarcastic. The thought of death doesn't bother me either, apart from the pain felt by the multitudes when I move on.

Ooops, I didn't get that! I imagine a street party in my case 🙂

My point was reaction to some people on here who say that we shouldn't be allowed to 'breed' in order to save the world, as they see it.

well, pardon me for homocentricity, but I couldn't give a flying **** for the planet without us on it - how many billion planets are there in the galaxy ?

outside the norm, but you suggested earlier that repressing "the need to procreate" caused deviancy

It does cause deviation from the norm. Norm being the innate need for the species to procreate! Not changing tack at all. You're just picking holes in my wording.

No not you SFB, I'm agreeing with you!

No not you SFB, I'm agreeing with you!

yes I know - I was just using your remark to provide context 🙂

Oh 😳 😆

Yep, I have a strong natural urge to go to sleep...

I'll leave with a quote from some old nutter who knows a thing or two about nature:

"There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago.
...
The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us and it is the poor people of the world who will suffer most.
...
I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people"

-- Sir David Attenborough, father of two and patron of [URL= http://www.optimumpopulation.org/ ]The Optimum Population Trust[/URL]

Me
"Do you remember your post suggesting that repressing what you call natural urges would lead to priestly behaviour?"

Jackson pollock
"Generally as a species. It is you that has applied it to yourself"

Now you have suggested that repressing ones breeding urges may lead to "priestly behavior".

And now you are saying I'm applying that suggestion to myself...

So, which would you prefer, PEADOPHILE! rapist, or someone prepared to limit his inate urges to procreate in order to correspond with an understanding of the situation the human species may well be facing as regards global overpopulation?

There is another option, that of ****less breeding, but it generally only invites contempt here on STW when it involves poor people.

Go on, say sorry.

Apologise for what? - your ignorance... oh go on then, I'm sorry you're an ignorant konb!

Go on Jacko, say sorry. There's no need for insults.

The thing about curbing procreation is that we think other people should be doing it, but it's observable that in the rich countries, it has already dropped near or below replacement level - so instead of trying to get poorer people to not have so many children, it would make more sense to share the wealth and then they'd do it by choice 🙂

For what? Playful banter thats all 😉

"The thing about curbing procreation is that we think other people should be doing it, but it's observable that in the rich countries, it has already dropped near or below replacement level - so instead of trying to get poorer people to not have so many children, it would make more sense to share the wealth and then they'd do it by choice "

An approach to curbing global overpopulation suggested by..sodafarls on the previous page. Damn, that boy is good.

"For what? Playful banter thats all"

Apologise for your playful banter and tell me why you are sorry.

**** me, you guys take things so so seriously.
lighten up................. 😉

I am not reading the rest of the post's but on this guys basis I have twins so at birth I should have decided which one lives and which one will have to be smoked to save the planet. But smoking one will add to global warming as well to dispose of child which is not allowed to live. Perhaps said person should be smoked slowly which removes an annoying boil off the face of the planet.

**** me, you guys take things so so seriously.
lighten up.................

says the bloke who said anyone not wanting kids was a "sad f*ck" who should kill themself?

..at birth I should have decided which one lives..

Hyperbole much?

Using up all the earths resorces = poor argument!

Does anyone really think there is any chance of saving the planet....its just a matter of time. I often wonder whether there is any point to all the recycling I do and attepts to reduce the energy I use 😥

Have as many children as you want, just make sure they're well looked after, loved and do your best to make them turn out decent human beings!

I often wonder whether there is any point to all the recycling I do and attepts to reduce the energy I use

well there definitely isn't if you decide to have 15 kids 🙄

amazing...

But smoking one will add to global warming as well to dispose of child which is not allowed to live. But smoking one will add to global warming as well to dispose of child which is not allowed to live.

Children are actually a large percentage fat, given a decent wick they'll burn nicely under their own steam, wasting very little in the way of non-renewable fuels.... 😆

[url=

onwards....[/url]

Good vid cofeeking!

Children are actually a large percentage fat, given a decent wick they'll burn nicely under their own steam, wasting very little in the way of non-renewable fuels...

Also, unless your wife had cravings for coal during pregnancy, babies are carbon neutral when burnt (perhaps ignoring any tertiary carbon spent during "extraction") 😉

😀 that whole series (of 8 ) vids is well worth the watching!

I've got 4 kids, I love them all to bits, and you know what? I dont give a fiddler's **** whether or not anybody thinks I'm being selfish!

Blimey is this still going?

People are selfish and care nothing for the planet. Thread closed.

Yoshimi - we don't have to "save the planet", it will take care of itself. What we're actually talking about is "saving" humankind (from itself largely!). Just another example of grandiose human thinking! 🙂

Lets all save the planet. And slowly wipe out the human race in the process. So why did we save the planet?