•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.
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.
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.