My parental units divorced when I was six and my brothers and I grew up essentially feral. I was 16yo when my girlfriend got pregnant. After a few weeks she fessed up, and tests later proved, it wasn't mine... I always wore a rubber, the other dude never did. I had my vasectomy at 17 using my fake ID(easy enough in Cal City circa '87) and continued to practice safe sex, JIC. 30 years later, no regrets. I have lived similar to errantspark's minimalist lifestyle for 30 years, watching friends get married, have kids and drifting away while I ride the feast/famine waves of a single independent contractor. It's not as glorious as some outsiders believe, but for an introvert from an abused childhood it is the optimum life I am able to provide for myself. My only advice for my younger counterparts: always have a savings buffer, the 'famine' cycles become exponentially harder to weather the older you get.
Kids are great. I have 3 kids and to me it is nothing like a prison sentence. I love watching them grow up, it is taking me back to the happiness and carelessness of my own childhood every day. It also gives me a sense of purpose that I would have never found without kids and what I gave up in freedom is made up in love, affection and just plain fun.
Based on my experience I am 100% convinced that people that can't find joy in the happiness of others should remain single and even more important: never, ever have kids.
> Based on my experience I am 100% convinced that people that can't find joy in the happiness of others should remain single and even more important: never, ever have kids.
As a counterargument, I've seen a few people turn into complete monsters once their kids were born. Their justification was "I have kids now and I'll do literally anything for my family, fuck everyone else and their needs." (paraphrased). It's all fine and dandy until the instinct for survival kicks in.
Dude. Just because someone is adamantly against having children themselves doesn't mean that they "can't find joy in the happiness of others." My wife and I decided to not have kids. I don't know that I would equate it to "an 18 year prison sentence" but...I wouldn't not call it that. I love all my little nieces and nephews; they're one of the best parts of my life. I also thank the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster every time I'm with them for more than an hour my wife and I made the choice we did.
It was a snotty thing to say. Even making the judgment that a another person is incapable of enjoying the happiness of others is a really judgmental and overall shitty sentiment. It's doubtful the person you are responding to would have the intimate information needed to make that assessment, further people are ever evolving for the most part. Just a shitty thought all around.
Where do I make that judgement? You're turning it around again. Read my comment, there is no judgement of people whatsoever, only the claim that you should not have kids if you're unable to enjoy the joy of others. Because otherwise, yes, they are likely to make you feel like you're subject to an 18 year prison sentence.
English is not my first language, can anyone explain why people read my comment and reverse the sentence structure?
They do because they see the intent to make that erroneous connection with backup plan of telling you 'only' said it one way and not the other (can't tell my self too). Higher order logic.
Kids can make you happy or tired, or both, too many factors for your parenting to go wrong way. Especially if you aren't rich. Imo, friends and gfs are far easier to get mutual happiness with, because they are self-established. I've lost too many friends to happy families they hate now, so personally I don't get your statement any way around.
I wanted kids. I believe your statement is still correct. In my case I subjected myself to prison because of biology ruling over my logical processing unit. Humanity goes on as a result of that, I am quite sure of it. :)
I get that, but my friends are starting to have kids and I'm rather looking forward to being their crazy uncle and teaching them how to solder and take things apart etc. I love kids, I just don't want to be the one primarily responsible for them
I cannot fault you. Most days I wonder why I decided to have kids. I realize that I didn't decide it in any sort of logical manner that implies normal decision-making. If I went purely on logic and rational thought, I certainly wouldn't have done it. Alas, that wasn't in the cards. I wouldn't take it back, but I tell everyone who is on the fence about having kids to very strongly reconsider if they want to go through with it.
On its face, it's an incredibly dumb choice. But biology wins out, sometimes..
It depends how big the field you have to plow is. Having many kids helps in keeping and maintaining the field then using it to grow food (for you and your free plowering kids).
I don't really know about your situation and if you are actually doing it now. But based on experience, people who get married usually dismiss friendship with singles and instead look for friendships with people who have families/kids.
You certain thats not bi-directional, or more likely - the other way around? As a single person who can go do fun things at the drop of the hat without having to get permission from someone else, or set up a babysitter, or any other number of roadblocks, trying to set up an outing with married with kids crowd is incredibly irritating, time consuming and often fruitless.
A lot of this is simple scheduling pattern differences.
As an example, my no-kids friends typically schedule things like dinner parties starting at 8:30pm or so. The ones with kids would aim for 5:30 or 6 instead.
Well... in order for you to wonder at how "biology ruled over your logical processing unit" a lot of people had to sacrifice their freedoms, before you. Don't beat yourself over it, it's such an important thing that it is equal to "being alive". And what you lose as a person, your DNA gains as a living system. DNA is such a chump. I never realized how much work it does. Every protein in our bodies is copied from DNA. It does so much copying and processing, it's amazing. And for such a hardworking pal, it's OK to sacrifice yourself. It's busting its ass too, in order for any of the billions of processes in our bodies to happen.
What if you value your consciousness and the here and now more than the idea of your DNA staying alive well after you're dead?
To me, my consciousness is my identity (myself). The body is just a vessel for it, and once it craps out, and takes the consciousness down with it, I couldn't care less about my DNA (a bit of a tautology, but you get the idea).
Yes, I agree, we can value our consciousness more than the idea of DNA survival, but the reason it exists in the first place is to protect the DNA. It's just a mechanism to adapt and accommodate the organism to the changing external conditions.
I wrote it in so nice way. I'm usually more harsh to people.
Deciding not to have kids because it's too much of an effort is so selfish act. You're throwing away all the effort your ancestors put in to get to the point of you being alive.
Let's not get caught up on what dead ancestors may think. The world is already overpopulated. Overpopulation causes depletion of natural resources, degradation of the environment, conflicts and wars caused by such lack of resources, and there being less resources per capita. Adding people when it is causing problems like these is harmful.
However, people having 2 or 3 or thereabouts children isn't something to be worried about too much, so go ahead if you want to. But people who have lots of children has to stop. This is per person, so it includes men who have children with different partners. If it is left too late, then less can be done about it.
In response to your question, have another question. Does a man having a child with woman mean she won't have other children? I don't see any reason it does.
Would a man having a child with 10 women cause huge social problem? It certainly does. Do you want to be a single woman with kids? Doubt it.
Why should men get special status over women with the number of children they have? I really don't see any reason for that. There are men who deliberately get women pregnant and then leave them because they think they are great and winning life because they have so many children and let other people care for them. Those sort of people would support only having limits applied to women.
Having kids is a far more selfish act than not. Our species and our planet would be way, way better off if about 9/10 of us elected not to reproduce for a few generations.
You are presumably delighted to know that Europe is in fact dying off with only France having a fertility rate of 2.0 (2014) which is not enough to sustain the population. One wonders who's going to be paying those taxes to fund the pensions of the elderly and the other massive liabilities of the European welfare states.
At < 2 replacement rate, the populations of Portugal, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria just won't be around in a few generations. The cultural identity of Europe will disappear on present trends.
Relying on fertility to prop up the welfare state was never a sustainable model to begin with. The adjustment will not be pleasant whoever is left in 200 or so years will be a lot better off because of it. To say nothing of all the non-human species with whom we share the world.
> One wonders who's going to be paying those taxes to fund the pensions of the elderly and the other massive liabilities of the European welfare states.
> I'd put this up there with racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.
This is probably the most offensive thing in this thread.
You are allowed to disagree with other people's choices. You are allowed to voice that disagreement, even publicly. People are allowed to think you're stupid for caring whether or not someone else has children.
Nothing about any of that is even remotely "discrimination" and to imply it's anywhere in the same universe as racism or sexism is offensive to real problems everywhere.
Sure. And women and men can both obviously face discrimination over their reproductive choices. The discrimination just disproportionally falls on women. Ie. less likely to be hired because she may have children. Expected behaviours and judgements if she doesn't.
> In my world view having a kid is similar to an 18 year prison sentence.
Unless something happens to them you have offspring for the rest of your life; not for 18 years. If you're referring to them leaving the house at 18 y.o. The US trend is that 18 y.o. stay living at home. Personally, I expect students to be the exception to that.
Think of kids as cloning yourself, or as close to time travel as your going to get. Your kids let you relive emotions and experiences from your childhood that you forgot about, and you get a chance to guide them through life with benefit of hindsight. I enjoy it. Not to mention free manual labor.
eh, I have kids and don't make that much money, but I think the point is still valid.
My colleague and I were talking about this paper the other day because it led to huge questions about all the assumptions underlying our definitions of "success."
For example, my wife and I's household income was fairly big before we had kids, but not really anything noteworthy. It allowed us to save up enough so that her staying home with them isn't too much of a financial strain. I do worry about the long-term consequences in terms of savings, but I also know that to her, staying home with them at this age means a lot to her, and her going to work to be away from them was miserable when she was doing that. I think she feels lucky.
I could have gone into something more lucrative, and probably could be pulling in more money now, but it would mean less flexibility for me, and more stress, etc. I'd also have about as much independence now at my job as someone could have (for better or worse). Are we not successful? I'm not always sure, because I've thought a lot of changing careers, but one reason I haven't is because I'm not sure it would be worth it on balance. It might be, but it might not be.
To abstract it a bit, think about Donald Trump: is he successful? A lot of people would say yes, but is he a model of who we want to be, or our children to be? Sure, some people would say yes, but more would probably say no. So should income be a marker of success?
One problem with these studies (and I think they're valuable, so I don't mean to suggest otherwise) is that what constitutes success is so variable, and is so detached from income, that I'm not sure how to interpret them.
I mean, sure, all other things being equal, I'd rather have more than less money, but all other things are definitely not equal in life. There's pros and cons to everything. Income is a very weak metric of what an ideal life goal is.
IMO part of my reason not to want kids is the fact that I am doing awfully with money even though I am a programmer in demand (which means I do a lot of things wrong on this platform, which is a fact I became painfully aware of in the last one year)... and thus, any extra expense would literally kill me in the long-term. I barely manage well right now.
That said, I don't think I'll be happy watching my kids wanting a toy, or new boots, or simply a scarf and a hat for the winter, or a cheap gaming console, and me being unable to buy them those. Where's the happiness in seeing your children being miserable? That's the thing that pushes normal peaceful people to attempt robberies!
So your case is anecdotal. Works pretty well for you but I know that for me and many others it won't. So my case is anecdotal as well.
All in all, I do my best not to let hormones or misplaced "duty" principles decide for me, and use my rational thought for my decisions.
