heywood on 9/7/2009 at 06:01

---

I agree with Starfall (the greatest, naturally), henke, Chade, and others who think that it's a personal decision others should accept and respect. I've never really met anybody with an attitude either way about it, so I'm surprised to read some of the judgmental comments in this thread.

I wish I could leave it at that, but I just came home from drinking and can't help but ramble until :eww: or :bored:

[ramble on]



Perhaps it has always been that way. Maybe one of the driving factors behind economic inequality throughout history, including the development of the caste system, feudalism, etc. is the disparity in birth rate. Let's say there is a finite amount of time, attention, and resources available for a family or society to spend on the development, health, and education of children. Then the fewer the children, the more healthy and educated they are likely to be, and the less they will have to compete with each other for economic opportunities. Have you noticed that most of the cultures which currently enjoy political stability, high standards of living, health, and education also have low birth rates? And at the local level, the fewer number of children per capita, the smaller the school size, which tends to be an educational advantage.

A good case study for the effect of birth rate is China, which was a 3rd world nation until the one child policy (which is still wrong even though it worked). Now, it's relatively full of upwardly mobile urban families with well educated, overachieving children. My brief visit there was shocking - these children are going to build a Chinese empire, I swear.

Back to my point: It seems inevitable that disparate birth rates among different subcultures, combined with immigration, is going to cause the US and many other Western nations to tend back towards historical norms of inequality. It took two major world wars in the first half of the 20th century to break from that norm, but we're headed back there, and after the "baby boom" generation dies it's only going to accelerate. I don't think the solution is for every religion and culture to try to out-breed each other. That would be a race to the bottom. Nor do I think government should intrude upon family planning. Instead, the future is largely going to be a product of individual choice, which is the way it should be.

[ramble off]

BTW, personally, I want children but I feel like I'm running out of time. I'm in my mid-30s and just went through a difficult breakup with my long-time wife, largely over the issue of wanting children. I think if I get to 40 without having kids, or at least being married with the intention of having them, then I'll have to accept life without them. Though I do have a never ending supply of hobbies & interests, so it won't be tragic if I don't.

TJKeranen on 9/7/2009 at 07:33

---

An opinion is good, and letting others know your stance is even better, but it amuses me to no end, how with a topic as flammable as this even the usually-sorta-kinda-smartish people can flash their inner asshole in such a self-righteous manner.

So happy to see so many sane opinions here, though. It's your own damn life and you live it for yourself, not to fulfill society's expectations or to stack up cannon fodder against all those evil foreign types breeding like rabbits under their oppressive religions/regiments -- unless that is what you genuinely want to do.

And luckily people are flexible. Even if they get a kid by accident after years of wanting nothing more than to see the hellspawns next door spit-roasted, they may find themselves thinking later on that their own kid was the best thing that ever happened to them.

Life is fucking hilarious.

(also, Sexy Losers <3)

Scots Taffer on 9/7/2009 at 09:19

---

So, I really am struggling to understand what your point is, because at the end of it all if it boils down to: why are you having kids? My answer above still stands (still don't want an abortion debate either).

As I say, I don't care either way if people have kids or not as long as they aren't making a here-and-now decision versus a rest-of-your-life decision (and I only care in that regard insomuch that I'd hate to see them unhappy later in life - if they'd make good parents, that is). Like you say, it's better if you realise you are a certain type that would not ever be happy or good at raising children and simply not do it in the first place - I applaud that, really. Not enough people can be that honest with themselves.

I merely point out here and there, in this thread not in real-life, some of the fallacies associated with being a parent and having a child simply aren't the case in general.

Oh yes, and thanks for reminding me how awesome Sexy Losers is, Kolya. It's been a while.

Vasquez on 9/7/2009 at 09:37

---

I'm so not following you, and I also give up on repeating my point since you seem unable to grasp it. It almost feels like you want to see me as someone making gross generalisations, and I'm not.

Of course I realise I can never understand on emotional level why people want kids, because I have never had even a fleeting moment of "what if..?". But I can understand it on thought level. Even though having kids is one of the strongest norms, and also a natural, biological thing, still - to my experience - most childfree people do not have any better reasons for not having kids than people who have kids. It all boils down to an emotional "I want to" or "I don't want to". Somehow, for certain type of people who ask the WHY-question, that just isn't good enough an answer.

Of course there are those who think they'd like kids at some point, but "forget" to have them in time for career or such, but in my books that's not really voluntary childlessness.

Thirith on 9/7/2009 at 11:25

---

Because stupid stereotypes can still be unfair and hurtful. You explicitly pointed out that stereotypes about parents being selfish are fallacies, so I really don't see what's so difficult to understand about Vasquez pointing out the same about the selfishness of childless couples. Your posts above seem to be all confrontational about Vasquez saying, from the very beginning, what you say later (although perhaps not all that clearly at first, because you obviously misunderstood it).