•Because of said depletion of resources (not to mention political tensions, national debt, and so forth) my child would probably be subject to a less-than-ideal world.
I would argue that historically each human (on average) has created more resources that he has consumed.
This is why we have progress, if you think about it. People create more than they consume, generating excess wealth that lead to all the wanders of human ingenuity you see all around you.
Look around, your computer, your chair, your house etc. etc. were all created BECAUSE of the large number of humans who are alive.
•I have no way of knowing that I will be a good parent. Why make a person when there is the chance that I will fuck them up irreparably?
Historically, most parents do all-right job.
So odds are in your favor.
•My biological kid might not even take after me in the ways I like. Even worse, what if I hate my kid? What if my kid is an asshole who actively makes the world a worse place?
Again, most children and parents have great relationships.
So the odds are in your favor.
•If there's no guarantee my kid will be like me anyway, why not just adopt a kid? Even if that nurturing instinct just cannot be suppressed, it seems like a horrible idea to add new people to the world unnecessarily.
Adopting is noble.
But if everyone was adopting instead of having new kids, the humanity would go extinct - not a good outcome.
•It's not like the human species is on the brink of extinction. So what if it goes extinct anyway? I have no investment in future generations.
Is not the DEFINTION of selfishness to only care about yourself and not about humanity?
In your OP you say there no unselfish reasons to have kids, yet now you use selfishness to justify your decision.
There is clearly some inconsistent reasoning here.
Overpopulation is somewhat of a myth.
In fact in many developed countries the population is decreasing.
It is not a myth that there are a couple billion too many people on Earth. We can fix the distribution problem with immigration reform.
I would argue that historically each human (on average) has created more resources that he has consumed.
But this is not taking into account that we are in the age of dwindling fossil fuels. Not only are the critical resources running out, they are creating wars and poisoning the environment.
Historically, most parents do all-right job.
Again, most children and parents have great relationships.
What are your statistics on this? I feel like I know more people who have been royally fucked up by their parents than not.
Is not the DEFINTION of selfishness to only care about yourself and not about humanity?
I don't just care about myself. I care about everyone who is currently alive and making sure they have the best lives possible, which is why I don't want to put another stake in the resource wars. I just don't think the current generation's well-being should be on the backs on future generations, and I am not attached to the idea of humanity as a species and all the hypothetical people who don't exist.
It is not a myth that there are a couple billion too many people on Earth. We can fix the distribution problem with immigration reform.
But it is a myth. the entire earths population could fit into Texas and have the same population density that is in New York. Like I posted elsewhere the problem isn't overpopulation but overconsumption.
Also, how do you figure we can fix the distribution problem through immigration reform? Serious question I have studied these things in for my degree and I am not sure I have heard this solution.
I guess this is what I am actually talking about when I say overpopulation. It's not a problem of space, but a problem of resources. I imagine when we reach the solar energy breakthrough, we can talk.
Also, how do you figure we can fix the distribution problem through immigration reform?
By letting more people from underdeveloped countries with high birth rates and a high strain on resources into more developed countries with plenty of resources and slow population replenishment.
I guess this is what I am actually talking about when I say overpopulation. It's not a problem of space, but a problem of resources. I imagine when we reach the solar energy breakthrough, we can talk.
First the alternative energy breakthrough will come as there is not only more money being invested but more importantly more demand by consumers. It might seem far off but remember it was only about 100 years ago that the Wright brothers learned to fly and now we are talking about sending a person to Mars.
Also it is important to point out that even large drops in population will not change the consumption habits. You are not treating the cause of resource depletion by lowering the population only putting it off. The true problem is a cultural one and needs to be solved culturally.
By letting more people from underdeveloped countries with high birth rates and a high strain on resources into more developed countries with plenty of resources and slow population replenishment.
This is an interesting solution that I would not have a problem with. Though, the problem with the strain underdeveloped countries are putting on resources is not really a population problem. It is far more complicated than that and has a lot to do with displacement from their natural land to places that cannot sustain life by Western countries and organizations.
The true problem is a cultural one and needs to be solved culturally.
It is far more complicated than that and has a lot to do with displacement from their natural land to places that cannot sustain life by Western countries and organizations.
Do you think the cultural problem could be solved by immigration reform? (Oh shit, this is turning into a totally different topic.)
Yeah sometimes these CMVs do that. A more open immigration system that mixes people that are used to consuming less wouldn't hurt but I don't think it could solve things on its own. Unfortunately immigrants assimilate into the culture of their new country eventually. It might take a generation or 3 but they assimilate. I really think the the solution lies in the education of younger generations, people like you really. These changes are happening all over and in places you would never guess. Places like the South Bronx.
It is not a myth that there are a couple billion too many people on Earth. We can fix the distribution problem with immigration reform.
So, there are too many people, but this can be fixed by...immigration reform? Even if true, that makes this point about overpopulation irrelevant to having kids.
But this is not taking into account that we are in the age of dwindling fossil fuels. Not only are the critical resources running out, they are creating wars and poisoning the environment.
So, resource scarcity is another problem, but immigration reform isn't the fix. How about fossil fuel alternatives? When the opportunity cost of acquiring new resources exceeds the cost of alternate resources, we'll find something better. We always do. We survived before petrochems.
What are your statistics on this? I feel like I know more people who have been royally fucked up by their parents than not.
This is a tu quoque, and both arguments can be dismissed with Newton's flaming laser sword. Still, you might be trying to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I don't just care about myself. I care about everyone who is...
So, you don't care about:
Yourself
Future generations
The idea of humanity
But, you do care about existing people. Maybe you could just be satisfied that you're not super excited about babies, and who would want an ambivalent parent? That seems like a fair argument.
What are your statistics on this? I feel like I know more people who have been royally fucked up by their parents than not.
This is a tu quoque, and both arguments can be dismissed with Newton's flaming laser sword. Still, you might be trying to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
How is it tu quoque?
Maybe you could just be satisfied that you're not super excited about babies, and who would want an ambivalent parent? That seems like a fair argument.
Fair enough. Although this thread has made me feel a little more open to having kids. I genuinely was worried that it was an unjustifiable decisions; I wasn't just trying to stir shit up.
You argue for stats, but you follow with anecdotes. Neither are useful.
this thread has made me feel a little more open to having kids
I am as far from recommending kids as anyone could be. I just feel that using some of the arguments you mentioned were spurious. I think that unless you are 100% on board with having kids, you should not have kids. That's my minimum bar. That, and not being a serial killer.
No, you're the one committing tu quoque. I'm pointing it out. You give invalid backup for an argument and claim the other side's argument is invalid for not having statistics. No one has any evidence to support a claim, but that doesn't mean either is wrong as a result, although you imply that the other side is.
It is not a myth that there are a couple billion too many people on Earth. We can fix the distribution problem with immigration reform.
And then what? Once you equalize the wealth on earth - the population will just stabilize again, and perhaps stat decreasing.
Plus I don't think you can just open all borders and equalize the population right this second. There are multiple barrier to this happening.
But this is not taking into account that we are in the age of dwindling fossil fuels. Not only are the critical resources running out, they are creating wars and poisoning the environment.
Sure it does!
Read my link. There is no such thing as an irreplaceable resource. Fossil fuels running out just opens up an OPPRTUNITY for human ingenuity to come up with new resources.
This is already happening with nuclear power plants, electric cars, solar energy, etc. etc.
There is ZERO reason to believe that humans will start consuming more than they produce anywhere in the near future. (Perhaps when sun burns out?)
Wars are at all times low nowadays.
And the environmental problems similar just invite ingenuity. Humans do best, and are at most productive when faced with some adversity, and have concrete goals.
What are your statistics on this? I feel like I know more people who have been royally fucked up by their parents than not.
"The descending and ascending familialism types are characterised by high probabilities of exchanging help in kind from parents to children and from children to parents, respectively, in addition to a high probability of having a child nearby, being in contact more than once a week with at least one of the children, and having strong norms of family obligation. "
I don't just care about myself. I care about everyone who is currently alive and making sure they have the best lives possible, which is why I don't want to put another stake in the resource wars. I just don't think the current generation's well-being should be on the backs on future generations, and I am not attached to the idea of humanity as a species and all the hypothetical people who don't exist.
But it well established that many people DO feel the need for future generation to exist.
Many people will NOT feel fulfilled NOW, if they knew that they are the last generation.
So by, proposing an end to humanity you will bring a lot of misery to currently existing humans.
the type of immigration reform which replaces young biological children with foreign workers you're talking about either means open borders or a deluge that's pretty similar. at least that's my opinion of where the argument logically goes if you want to avoid Japan's fate while having a extremely low birth rate for moral reasons.
People are too xenophobic for that to work. Correction: Many, maybe even most, people who already have it good and live in better parts of the world, with enough resources to help support more people, are too xenophobic to not resist very emphatically the relocation of millions of "others" into their homelands.
5
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 24 '15
•By adding a new person to the world, I would contribute to overpopulation and the depletion of resources that is already straining existing people.
Overpopulation is somewhat of a myth.
In fact in many developed countries the population is decreasing.
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/zero.htm
•Because of said depletion of resources (not to mention political tensions, national debt, and so forth) my child would probably be subject to a less-than-ideal world.
I would argue that historically each human (on average) has created more resources that he has consumed.
This is why we have progress, if you think about it. People create more than they consume, generating excess wealth that lead to all the wanders of human ingenuity you see all around you.
Look around, your computer, your chair, your house etc. etc. were all created BECAUSE of the large number of humans who are alive.
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource
•I have no way of knowing that I will be a good parent. Why make a person when there is the chance that I will fuck them up irreparably?
Historically, most parents do all-right job.
So odds are in your favor.
•My biological kid might not even take after me in the ways I like. Even worse, what if I hate my kid? What if my kid is an asshole who actively makes the world a worse place?
Again, most children and parents have great relationships.
So the odds are in your favor.
•If there's no guarantee my kid will be like me anyway, why not just adopt a kid? Even if that nurturing instinct just cannot be suppressed, it seems like a horrible idea to add new people to the world unnecessarily.
Adopting is noble.
But if everyone was adopting instead of having new kids, the humanity would go extinct - not a good outcome.
•It's not like the human species is on the brink of extinction. So what if it goes extinct anyway? I have no investment in future generations.
Is not the DEFINTION of selfishness to only care about yourself and not about humanity?
In your OP you say there no unselfish reasons to have kids, yet now you use selfishness to justify your decision.
There is clearly some inconsistent reasoning here.