Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70

Thread: Serious philosophical question

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,778
    To be honest, if we assume a fair chance of serious unrest in the next generation or so, it really calls into question the idea of having children. I mean, how goddamn selfish to bring someone into the world for your own joy, knowing full well that you'll be gone before things get ugly and they'll inherent a very unstable and dangerous world, through no fault of their own.

    This doesn't even touch on the fact that obviously you're contributing to the over-population thing.

    This is going to sound extremely fascist, but sometimes it's really nauseating how we seem to take this right to spread around our DNA through offspring as such an inherent right. Yeah yeah, I know, I won't understand unless I actually have kids, I don't get it, bundle of joy and all that. Sorry folks, I have to maintain the position that your mini-me is no more a unique snowflake than anyone else's. In fact, sadly, they're probably destined to be plowed to the side of the road and mixed in with a bunch of dirty grime from the pavement.

    Dear god I'm being pessimistic. I need a drink. Ah, I've already had one, excellent.

  2. #22
    Jedi Cam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    5,615
    Having one child is not contributing to overpopulation. If you and your mate had two children, that would simply maintain the current population.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,778
    Still seems irresponsible from an ethical standpoint. You're forcing someone into a world which has a reasonable chance of becoming very difficult and dangerous within their lifetime. You can argue that that risk it's always there, but that comes back to my original question.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,171
    Can't speak for others, but I was always under the impression a significant point of having kids was to put what you've learned in your life into their life, so that in some small way you might steer the boat. I don't feel I have anything useful to contribute to the next generation, or more accurately put, I don't have the interest in dialing that in and sharing it, so I'm not reproducing. If I thought I would be a good parent, with good things to say, and that I might create something that would do future good I'd be cranking them out. But I don't, so I'm not.

  5. #25
    Relaxing and enjoying life MR2 Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    Posts
    5,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Cam View Post
    Having one child is not contributing to overpopulation. If you and your mate had two children, that would simply maintain the current population.
    I think I posted this before on another thread but it's worth watching...it's partially about religion and babies but mostly about the peak of babies being born compared to 4 different factors.


  6. #26
    Senior Member G'day Mate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,271
    That visualisation is really interesting!!

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Cam View Post
    Having one child is not contributing to overpopulation. If you and your mate had two children, that would simply maintain the current population.
    Not exactly.
    There are several other factors.
    Mr2fan video right at the end explains how there is a "fill-up". It's due to previous generations having higher birth rate. So if birth rate now was exactly 2, then over then next 50 year the total population still grows as you rebalance the age distribution.

    Other factors can be increased lifespan. Still have 2 kids, but live longer, population growth. That has happened in some places.
    Think of it as more generations alive. More great grandparents (and great great grandparents)

    Balancing that is that many western countries are now having children later. This decreases the population by having less generations. More people live to 90 but each generation has kids at 30, that's less generations than having them at 20 and only living to 80.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,991
    Maybe some countries will end up with Idiocracy.

  9. #29
    Member Member 21Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Orange, CA, USA
    Posts
    5,307
    Not to mention the fact that people aren't dying fast enough now-a-days... There are way more old people than there was 50 years ago

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,293
    Quote Originally Posted by 21Kid View Post
    Not to mention the fact that people aren't dying fast enough now-a-days... There are way more old people than there was 50 years ago
    Which is a combo of longer life expectancy AND the "fill up" as the birth rate decreased.

    This has a big impact in many western nations as an ageing population puts a bit strain on resources. Higher health costs with a bigger percentage of people not working.
    What happens when your retired population becomes 30% of your population? That's a big load to carry.
    (Quick google, the U.S. Over 65 is about 13% as of 2010, but it's still increasing and probably won't peak for another 50 years)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •