Are large differences in opinion desirable?

[DaleCooper]

Surely they are the ones who need to hear the message the most? The crazy thing is, they are convinced that having children will make them happy yet after a few months or years they often envy the carefree lives of the child-free.

No, the reason people have children is that it is the most fundamental driving force of any life form. Do you suppose rabbits breed like rabbits because they think it will make them happy?

 

[radamfi]

No, the reason people have children is that it is the most fundamental driving force of any life form. Do you suppose rabbits breed like rabbits because they think it will make them happy?

There is an urge to have sex and throughout most of human history that meant babies, but now we have the education and freedom to have sex without the downside. Nowadays most people choose to have children or not. Most people in the developed world have very few children, typically 0, 1 or 2, and it is very common for people to wait until late into the 30s to have them. So if people are prepared to live for 35+ years without children, then you can't exactly say they are required for life. It is essentially a lifestyle choice.

Of course, there are now a heck of a lot of people not having children by choice. It is no longer socially taboo.

 

[backontrack]

Is it just me or is this quite off-topic from whether large differences in opinion are desirable?

Ten pounds for the first 'no it isn't' response.

 

[DarloRich]

This entire thread seems to be a vehicle for Radamfi to spout his sillyness about humanity and how it would be better if we all agreed just to stop existing.

While he is welcome to hold and express those views I maintain the right to express my contempt for them using this smiley thingy: :roll:

 

[Groningen]

Is there a need that ISIS adjust to the West or otherwise around? That will never happen. So take it or leave it!

 

[radamfi]

Having children is more of a sacrifice than not having any. Not having children makes life a lot easier. It is not like the old days where you needed children to plough the fields.

What is the lifetime CO2 emission of a child born in the UK?

 

[ComUtoR]

Having children is more of a sacrifice than not having any.

That is one opinion. I would say that the 47,422 women in 2012 who had IVF would disagree with you. Having children is not a sacrifice. Children can enrich your life and make you a better person.

Not having children makes life a lot easier.

In what way ? What happened when I'm old and decrepit ? My kids will look after me and make my life easier.

It is not like the old days where you needed children to plough the fields.

Are you suggesting we bred children for slavery ? I bred mine to make me tea in the morning, clean the house, and provide and extra source of vital income. As well as a council house...

There are some that breed kids for replacement organs. Maybe if we bred humans for replacement parts then the organ donation register would no longer be required.


Humans do, as well as other animals, have sex for pleasure. We are also driven by a biological urge to reproduce. That orgasmic bliss you and your partner feels is natures way of telling you that you done it right and makes you want to do it again.

Birth rates are, in nature, driven by longevity and survivability. Animals and humans are biologically driven to reproduce to help prevent extinction. In the developed world we have kids later in life because we can. Health, wealth, science etc all allow us to reproduce later in life. Reproduction is not a lifestyle choice. It is an essential survival trait for a living species.

 

[radamfi]

In what way ? What happened when I'm old and decrepit ? My kids will look after me and make my life easier.

There is no guarantee that people will look after you when you are old, especially if the children have got children of their own they have to look after. I was reading a forum post by someone who has experience of working in a nursing home and many of them have no visitors at all and at best they generally get visited once a week for a few hours.

Health, wealth, science etc all allow us to reproduce later in life. Reproduction is not a lifestyle choice. It is an essential survival trait for a living species.

If having children was so great then we would all start having them in our teens and keep popping them out, regardless of the expense and logistical difficulty. People have already massively reduced their fertility meaning that in most western countries population will fall without immigration. So many people have no children now and some others only have children because of social/family pressure.

You will die if you don't eat or drink but you won't die if you don't have children.

 

[ComUtoR]

There is no guarantee that people will look after you when you are old, especially if the children have got children of their own they have to look after.

Its a western society thing.

If having children was so great then we would all start having them in our teens and keep popping them out, regardless of the expense and logistical difficulty.

As I stated there is a biological urge and that it is linked to longevity and survivability.

If you are not expected to live past 40 then you have babies pretty early. If you look at history there young women were married in their late teens and knocking out kids.

Another link to life expectancy is that having children later in life increases longevity and may be another reason why humans are reproducing later in life.

People have already massively reduced their fertility meaning that in most western countries population will fall without immigration. So many people have no children now and some others only have children because of social/family pressure.

Because biologically your ripe for plucking when young and tender. Human lifespans have been artificially extended by science and technology. Biologically we aren't designed to have children at a later date.

You will die if you don't eat or drink but you won't die if you don't have children.

Individually yes. As a species...

How many people are so driven by the need to have children that when they cant it causes depression and in some cases suicide ? How many people lose their children and grief pushes them to suicide ? I would argue that lack of children can cause death.

 

[northwichcat]

Even people who appear have a lot in common on the surface, such as rail enthusiasts, disagree with such venom on some issues such as DOO.

In my town 75% of residents want a town centre street pedestrianised, while 75% of the traders on that street don't. A working group came up with a compromise which makes things better for some people, especially disabled people and parents with young children without pedestrianisation. Most residents were happy to accept that as an alternative but the traders aren't. This disagreement doesn't seem that different to DOO - the people who want DOO will accept DCO, the people who don't want DOO won't accept DCO either.

The above led to one business owner (not on the street where pedestrianisation is planned) standing for election as a local councillor (not in the ward he lives or the ward where his business is) without saying any views on pedestrianisation and alternatives. Then after he got elected he said he was opposing any changes. The words most people in this ward use to describe him wouldn't be permitted on this forum.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you look at history there young women were married in their late teens and knocking out kids.

Two points there:

1. There was a high mortality rate compared to today so if you wanted at least one child living long enough to be able to have children of their own then you needed a few children.
2. In some areas a church had a strong influence. Celine Dion's parents had 14 children and historically that was not unusual due to the Catholic church in Quebec encouraging married couples, where the woman was of child bearing age, having one child per year. Any concerns about financial problems were dismissed as it was claimed the church will look after them. I understand that was due to wanting to retain a high concentration of people of French origin at the same time as there were a high number of celibate religious people.

 

[ComUtoR]

Two points there:

1. There was a high mortality rate compared to today so if you wanted at least one child living long enough to be able to have children of their own then you needed a few children.
2. In some areas a church had a strong influence. Celine Dion's parents had 14 children and historically that was not unusual due to the Catholic church in Quebec encouraging married couples, where the woman was of child bearing age, having one child per year. Any concerns about financial problems were dismissed as it was claimed the church will look after them. I understand that was due to wanting to retain a high concentration of people of French origin at the same time as there were a high number of celibate religious people.

Many more than two points you could add but yes I agree. Especially point One. If you look at the *animal kingdom. Large clutches, spawns etc are mostly due to survival rates. Humans are no different, just limited by gestation and offspring numbers (can't remember the technical term for numbers at birth)

I've met a few people who have a child die in infancy and they are driven to have another child. Myself and my partner suffered with a miscarriage. That drive to replace the baby almost destroyed our relationship and she was suicidal.

Point 2 I'll leave as I chose to go down the biological need for kids rather than the plethora of other factors; including the less pleasant ones.


*curse David Attenborough for making such good documentaries !

 

[radamfi]

Its a western society thing.

But people shouldn't feel obliged to look after their elderly relatives because they didn't choose to be born. If people have children in the hope that they will look after them that is hardly altruistic.

How many people are so driven by the need to have children that when they cant it causes depression and in some cases suicide ? How many people lose their children and grief pushes them to suicide ? I would argue that lack of children can cause death.

A lot of that is down to culture, even in the west. Women in particular still have a lot of pressure to reproduce and when a woman enters her late 30s a lot of people still give them grief for not having kids. Just look at the abuse that Lucy Worsley has got because she has chosen not to have them. There may be a "maternal instinct" that makes some women broody for kids, but I'm a man in my 40s and I haven't experienced any such biological longing. Men essentially go along with their partner's desires because they fear the woman will leave them otherwise. It is up to men to stand up to that.

 

[Gutfright]

What is the lifetime CO2 emission of a child born in the UK?

According to one of the best British television shows of this century, it's 515 tonnes...

[youtube]rcx-nf3kH_M [/youtube]

 

[ComUtoR]

But people shouldn't feel obliged to look after their elderly relatives because they didn't choose to be born. If people have children in the hope that they will look after them that is hardly altruistic.

So it is not acceptable for culture and society to decide if we should or shouldn't have children but acceptable about its treatment of its elders ?

... but I'm a man in my 40s and I haven't experienced any such biological longing. Men essentially go along with their partner's desires because they fear the woman will leave them otherwise. It is up to men to stand up to that.

Men don't. We aren't designed that way. Our nature is to leave our seed in as many places possible. Eats, shoots and leaves...

We have millions of sperm and can reproduce quite late in life. Nature gives us the ability to reproduce and does everything it can to ensure life is created.

Men and Women stay together for many many more reasons than fear. If you took out social convention then men wouldn't give a toss.

 

[radamfi]

So it is not acceptable for culture and society to decide if we should or shouldn't have children but acceptable about its treatment of its elders ?

Eh? If a person causes someone else to experience extreme pain and death, the victim should be forced to wait on them hand and foot? That's kicking someone when they are down. Society looking after elders is OK, but not because someone is a family member, otherwise people without families would be discriminated against.

Men don't. We aren't designed that way. Our nature is to leave our seed in as many places possible. Eats, shoots and leaves...

We have millions of sperm and can reproduce quite late in life. Nature gives us the ability to reproduce and does everything it can to ensure life is created.

Men and Women stay together for many many more reasons than fear. If you took out social convention then men wouldn't give a toss.

We now have the knowledge and technology to defy nature. We can get all the orgasms we want without it ending up with a child. Just because something is "natural", it doesn't mean it is desirable. Nature can be brutal.

 

[DarloRich]

I would suggest not trying to argue the OP using logic and reason. You are wasting your time. He has a very odd and lonely approach to life and seems to resent being born. note:

Eh? If a person causes someone else to experience extreme pain and death

I'm a man in my 40s and I haven't experienced any such biological longing. Men essentially go along with their partner's desires because they fear the woman will leave them otherwise. It is up to men to stand up to that.

If having children was so great then we would all start having them in our teens and keep popping them out, regardless of the expense and logistical difficulty....You will die if you don't eat or drink but you won't die if you don't have children.

etc etc etc

 

[DaleCooper]

He has a very odd and lonely approach to life and seems to resent being born.

Either that or the OP is just winding us up.

 

[DarloRich]

Either that or the OP is just winding us up.

possibly - but it is long running wind up based on other threads.

 

[Railops]

Either that or the OP is just winding us up.

Attention seeker of high quality.

 

[Gutfright]

I would suggest not trying to argue the OP using logic and reason. You are wasting your time. He has a very odd and lonely approach to life and seems to resent being born.

There are others who share the OP's views though. There are presumably many emo bands that I'm not cool enough to name that would nod in agreement with him, not to mention at least one well-known poet:

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

 

[Harbornite]

Not always, but sometimes it does.



Surely they are the ones who need to hear the message the most? The crazy thing is, they are convinced that having children will make them happy yet after a few months or years they often envy the carefree lives of the child-free.

Not always. Some people cherish their children. I'm beginning to think that you had an unhappy childhood and this is your way of expressing it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would suggest not trying to argue the OP using logic and reason. You are wasting your time. He has a very odd and lonely approach to life and seems to resent being born. note:

etc etc etc

I agree. There might be underlying issues here

 

[radamfi]

Loads of people are against childbirth. The movement is particularly prevalent among environmentalists. And of course, a huge proportion of the population don't have children by choice.

I'm beginning to think that you had an unhappy childhood and this is your way of expressing it.

Is it ethical to make force people to have unhappy childhoods?

 

[ComUtoR]

Loads of people are against childbirth. The movement is particularly prevalent among environmentalists.

I suppose that one way to save the planet would be to slowly remove all the humans.

 

[Harbornite]

Loads of people are against childbirth. The movement is particularly prevalent among environmentalists. And of course, a huge proportion of the population don't have children by choice.



Is it ethical to make force people to have unhappy childhoods?

I don't quite follow you in the last sentence.

 

[radamfi]

I don't quite follow you in the last sentence.

If people decide to continue reproducing, that will inevitably lead to more unhappy childhoods. Is that a price worth paying?

 

[Darandio]

If people decide to continue reproducing, that will inevitably lead to more unhappy childhoods. Is that a price worth paying?

We have three young children, we devote everything to them, our children are very happy.

Is that a price worth paying for us? Or does it annoy you that we (and them) could be happy?

 

[ComUtoR]

If people stop reproducing the species will inevitably become extinct. Is that a price worth paying ?

 

[DaleCooper]

If people stop reproducing the species will inevitably become extinct. Is that a price worth paying ?

I think that is radamfi's goal.

 

[DarloRich]

If people decide to continue reproducing, that will inevitably lead to more unhappy childhoods. Is that a price worth paying?

So because your childhood (I suppose) was unhappy we should therefore either:

A - make sure all children should are unhappy or

B - to prevent the risk of any unhappy children we should stop having children

Crackers :roll:

 

[backontrack]

Why is radamfi continuing with this completely futile argument? Has it not occurred to him yet that he's got six or seven people all arguing against him and that he's not going to convince a single one of them to agree with him?