Raising a child is a huge responsibility that shouldn't be accrued lightly.
A couple days ago I was talking with my brother about Sparta, specifically their practice of eugenics. Passing on their genes was so important to them that Leonidas would only take the men that already had children with him to Thermopylae (iirc). A large part of me wishes our culture was like this- not pandering to the weak, heavy emphasis on making the next generation better than the last. Instead our society encourages a hedonistic viewpoint of life, where the primary pursuit is personal pleasure/happiness.
The best thing you can do to help the environment is not to have children.
I don't give this argument any weight. By extension the actual best thing you could do to help the environment is to go on a rampage. The truth of the matter is that I don't care even a little about the environment (or the state of this planet) except that maintaining it is optimal for the survival of our race. The people who think that humans should be eradicated because they're 'harmful' to the Earth disgust me (not to imply that you believe that).
I do plan to have children. I'm smart, have healthy genes and I believe I can raise a child well. That, I feel, is the best thing I can do for humanity. An unfathomable number ancestors successfully reproduced and passed their genes, and I don't plan for my line to end with me.
None.
I do plan to have children. I'm smart, have healthy genes and I believe I can raise a child well. That, I feel, is the best thing I can do for humanity. An unfathomable number ancestors successfully reproduced and passed their genes, and I don't plan for my line to end with me.
Oh, the ego. Everyone believes they're the best.
None.
I do plan to have children. I'm smart, have healthy genes and I believe I can raise a child well. That, I feel, is the best thing I can do for humanity. An unfathomable number ancestors successfully reproduced and passed their genes, and I don't plan for my line to end with me.
Oh, the ego. Everyone believes they're the best.
I entertain no more ego than you do in presuming it. I don't pretend to be the best, I do believe I have some beneficial traits to offer (primarily above average intelligence). I don't have a family history of any non-minor (simply being qualitative) genetic diseases and have a healthy, strong body. Contrast this to a family I know where they had 6 children, every one of them entirely dependent on their parents (can't dress or clean themselves), mentally retarded, and half of which require machines to survive.
None.
Adoption seems so much more interesting than producing genetic offspring.
Which means it's only highly unappealing.
I am not confident one way or the other regarding my future feelings on the subject.
None.
Nope. At most, I'll adopt a child.
Also, 19 too many votes for "Yes".
The best thing you can do to help the environment is not to have children.
I don't give this argument any weight. By extension the actual best thing you could do to help the environment is to go on a rampage.
It is. But murdering people to reduce the population isn't moral. Choosing not to increase the population is moral.
The truth of the matter is that I don't care even a little about the environment (or the state of this planet) except that maintaining it is optimal for the survival of our race. The people who think that humans should be eradicated because they're 'harmful' to the Earth disgust me (not to imply that you believe that).
With resource depletion, primarily oil, the next 100 years are going to be marked by massive population die off. In that respect, bringing a child into the world that makes your future survival more difficult, as well as condemns them to a crap-sack world, seems rather cruel.
None.
My thoughts on children: it's a trap!
It's an 18+ year long commitment that will cause incessant worrying, all loss of time for self and personal time, and a few hundred thousand dollars. All because you
feel like it. It's one of the single most irrational things a person can do.
I may adopt a kid though.
None.
I want to have 5 kids if I do have kids
None.
We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch
I may adopt a kid though.
How's that better?
Definitely yes. Once I've matured, explored my spirituality and met the right girl.
I want an odd number of kids with one more of boys than girls.
None.
I may adopt a kid though.
How's that better?
Because it means one less kid has to rot in whatever hellhole I pull him/her out of.
None.
Kinda interesting how the poll doesn't really specify any sort of timeframe. I kinda assumed that it meant RIGHT NOW. But a lot of people are posting about the future...
"If a topic that clearly interest noone needs to be closed to underline the "we don't want this here" message, is up to debate."
-NudeRaider
The best thing you can do to help the environment is not to have children.
I don't give this argument any weight. By extension the actual best thing you could do to help the environment is to go on a rampage.
It is. But murdering people to reduce the population isn't moral. Choosing not to increase the population is moral.
The truth of the matter is that I don't care even a little about the environment (or the state of this planet) except that maintaining it is optimal for the survival of our race. The people who think that humans should be eradicated because they're 'harmful' to the Earth disgust me (not to imply that you believe that).
With resource depletion, primarily oil, the next 100 years are going to be marked by massive population die off. In that respect, bringing a child into the world that makes your future survival more difficult, as well as condemns them to a crap-sack world, seems rather cruel.
These are shocking ideas! Why couldn't somebody have pointed this out 70 or 30 years ago so we could prevent this population explosion? It's like a population bomb!
tits
Well I couldn't eat a whole one.
None.
We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch
Because it means one less kid has to rot in whatever hellhole I pull him/her out of.
Oh, but that wasn't on your list of reasons against having children nor does it invalidates any of them. Why did you even post them when they're so easily ignored?
Oh, but that wasn't on your list of reasons against having children nor does it invalidates any of them. Why did you even post them when they're so easily ignored?
Well, if he thinks that "whatever hellhole" is an appropriate description of a child-waiting-adoption's alternative, then how is one to assume that freeing someone from it is not an uncommonly powerful motivator?
None.
We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch
People are selfish. And the 3 reasons he named sounded very powerful.
These are shocking ideas! Why couldn't somebody have pointed this out 70 or 30 years ago so we could prevent this population explosion? It's like a population bomb!
They did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_GrowthIn 2008 Graham Turner at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia published a paper called "A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality".[5][6] It examined the past thirty years of reality with the predictions made in 1972 and found that changes in industrial production, food production and pollution are all in line with the book's predictions of economic and societal collapse in the 21st century.
In general, people like to ignore bad news and pretend it isn't real, lest it spoils their fun.
None.
Lanthanide
