Having children and selfishness

[The Batorys]

A whole lot of nihilism and anti-natalism in this thread

No one made you read it.

[Dark Socialism]

A whole lot of nihilism and anti-natalism in this thread

No one made you read it.

I made me read it.

[The Batorys]

No one made you read it.

I made me read it.

Well that wasn't being very nice to yourself, was it?

[Darussalam]

In a healthy society, natalism is enlightened self-interest - it is beneficial as a long-term investment for both the parents and the society around them. Unfortunately, the present society, especially in the West, is not very healthy for reproductive interests.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

In a healthy society, natalism is enlightened self-interest - it is beneficial as a long-term investment for both the parents and the society around them. Unfortunately, the present society, especially in the West, is not very healthy for reproductive interests.

Blame those who made raising children unaffordable, then. You can't "invest" money you don't have.

[The South Falls]

In a healthy society, natalism is enlightened self-interest - it is beneficial as a long-term investment for both the parents and the society around them. Unfortunately, the present society, especially in the West, is not very healthy for reproductive interests.

Blame those who made raising children unaffordable, then. You can't "invest" money you don't have.

Apparently, kids are free money.

wait...

[Valentine Z]

I think it's all just down to whether someone wants the life of a parent, and there's no judgement or a gauge of selflessness for that.

I will probably be a rather poor parent, so why should someone force me to raise a kid, then blame me for giving him a poor childhood?

[Darussalam]

In a healthy society, natalism is enlightened self-interest - it is beneficial as a long-term investment for both the parents and the society around them. Unfortunately, the present society, especially in the West, is not very healthy for reproductive interests.

Blame those who made raising children unaffordable, then. You can't "invest" money you don't have.

I agree. I do believe that the inflating cost of education and housing are among things responsible for depressing natality rate. Women liberation movement and immigration restrictions are also not blameless, either.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Blame those who made raising children unaffordable, then. You can't "invest" money you don't have.

I agree. I do believe that the inflating cost of education and housing are among things responsible for depressing natality rate. Women liberation movement and immigration restrictions are also not blameless, either.

Then in what sense do you blame them?

[Darussalam]

I agree. I do believe that the inflating cost of education and housing are among things responsible for depressing natality rate. Women liberation movement and immigration restrictions are also not blameless, either.

Then in what sense do you blame them?

Banning marriage and thus making family structure essentially unsustainable is one thing.

Incompetent immigration laws make it difficult to lawfully employ domestic assistants, although they would be a great help for working women who want to be mothers.

[Greed and Death]

Then in what sense do you blame them?

Banning marriage and thus making family structure essentially unsustainable is one thing.

Incompetent immigration laws make it difficult to lawfully employ domestic assistants, although they would be a great help for working women who want to be mothers.

I do wish they had easier to use temporary Au pair visas.

[The New California Republic]

Then in what sense do you blame them?

Banning marriage and thus making family structure essentially unsustainable is one thing.

...wait, who has banned marriage?

[The Free Joy State]

Banning marriage and thus making family structure essentially unsustainable is one thing.

...wait, who has banned marriage?

Women's liberation apparently, but it seems someone didn't send me the memo that that happened.

[Infected Mushroom]

I can’t say decisively whether it’s selfish or not...

But like the lyrics to Bohemian Rapsody:

“I sometimes wish I’d never been born at all!”

Did you know that my mother had the second child aborted? If only I could switch places, I’d never have been trapped on a wheel of pain...

Many a day I wish for liberation. I do not have the strength to do it myself (which is the ultimate tragedy) but a part of me hopes someone else has that strength. On my last name day I made a birthday cake wish that someone evil would find me, take me into a forest, and execute me by gunfire. My life instincts would take over and my programmed terror would overtake me, but deep down I would understand this was for the best.

[Lost Memories]

It's extremely simple to answer actually.

Having kids and raising them, requires commitment and sacrifice, you sacrifice your time, resources, and some possibilities, to give them to the kids. That commitment and sacrifice can be read and selflessness, of the parent toward the kid.

For the same reason, who refuses to have kids, on the basis of not wanting to commit or sacrifice anything of themselves, are selfish.

"Not having kids" isn't a choice detached from everything, that's why it's valued in relation to "having kids". "Having kids" require much more effort than not.

[Darussalam]

Banning marriage and thus making family structure essentially unsustainable is one thing.

...wait, who has banned marriage?

No-fault divorce essentially outlaws marriage.

[The New California Republic]

...wait, who has banned marriage?

No-fault divorce essentially outlaws marriage.

Ha. No. That's as stupid as saying "the power to revoke driver's licences essentially outlaws driving".

[Lithuania and Samogitia]

How can something as human as having children be immoral for humans to do if we were made to want to do so?

[Darussalam]

No-fault divorce essentially outlaws marriage.

Ha. No. That's as stupid as saying "the power to revoke driver's licences essentially outlaws driving".

Marriage is a private contract - no-fault divorce means that the contract is unenforceable, even if both parties agreed beforehand to enforce the contract in the future. An unenforceable contract is not a contract.

[The New California Republic]

Ha. No. That's as stupid as saying "the power to revoke driver's licences essentially outlaws driving".

Marriage is a private contract - no-fault divorce means that the contract is unenforceable, even if both parties agreed beforehand to enforce the contract in the future. An unenforceable contract is not a contract.

The ability by either party to revoke a contract isn't the same as outlawing something. Hyperbolic nonsense.

[Page]

It's extremely simple to answer actually.

Having kids and raising them, requires commitment and sacrifice, you sacrifice your time, resources, and some possibilities, to give them to the kids. That commitment and sacrifice can be read and selflessness, of the parent toward the kid.

For the same reason, who refuses to have kids, on the basis of not wanting to commit or sacrifice anything of themselves, are selfish.

"Not having kids" isn't a choice detached from everything, that's why it's valued in relation to "having kids". "Having kids" require much more effort than not.

Does the question of whether one is selfish not relate to the interests of others? If I share an apartment with someone and refuse to ever clean it in any way, because I don't want to make the effort, and my roommate who can't tolerate the place being a mess takes on the task of cleaning it, then you could call that selfish because my lack of willingness to commit to cleaning the room has given my roommate more work to do.

If I'm hanging out with friends and we usually smoke weed, and I have weed to bring but I don't because I count on someone else bringing weed and I want to keep all my own weed for myself, you could call that selfish because my friends are disproportionately spending their money on drugs we all take, you could call that selfish.

But in each of these cases, there is a common element. Another person is deprived of something or forced to do more because of me prioritizing what I want. That factor is essential to determining whether a thing is selfish or not.

Not having kids cannot be selfish, because if I don't have kids, they don't exist. I cannot deprive my hypothetical kids of a life. They don't exist and therefore are not stakeholders. Only people who exist are stakeholders, and without the involvement of a stakeholder, no action can be selfish. That having kids takes commitment and sacrifice is not enough to prove it it selfish to not have kids. It would take commitment and sacrifice to put together one thousand puzzles by the end of the year, or to clean your entire home with just a toothbrush. But if you don't want to do those things, and there are no stakeholders who benefit or suffer based on whether you do those things, are you not justified in refusing?

Real selfishness when it comes to the issue of having kids is on those who have a kid expecting the kid to be a carbon copy of the parent and then treat the kid poorly when they exhibit personality of their own, any differing interests and values. Because in those cases, the kid exists and is a stakeholder. But for those of us who have not brought another being into existence, we haven't done anything harmful to those hypothetical beings. Schroedinger is not guilty of animal abuse, why? Because his cats don't actually exist.

[Jebslund]

Ha. No. That's as stupid as saying "the power to revoke driver's licences essentially outlaws driving".

:roll:

Marriage is a private contract - no-fault divorce means that the contract is unenforceable, even if both parties agreed beforehand to enforce the contract in the future. An unenforceable contract is not a contract.

The ability to revoke a contract does not make the contract unenforceable. Either I or my employer can revoke my employment contract at any time for any reason or none at all. That does not mean I cannot have my employment terminated and/or be sued should I breach the terms of said contract, or sue my employer should they fail to uphold their end. MOST contracts, public AND private, can be revoked by either party at any time, many for any reason. No-fault divorce is a means of revoking the contract *without* breaking the terms of said contract. If one partner or the other cheats, the other partner can still initiate an at-fault divorce in which the other party is at fault. The no-fault part simply means for marriage what At-Will Employment means for employment contracts: That, while it is still possible for the contract to be terminated with cause, no cause is needed. It does not mean the contract cannot be enforced (the non-compete clause in my contract, for example). It simply means that there is the option to end it without there needing to be a breach in contract first.

[Jebslund]

It's extremely simple to answer actually.

Having kids and raising them, requires commitment and sacrifice, you sacrifice your time, resources, and some possibilities, to give them to the kids. That commitment and sacrifice can be read and selflessness, of the parent toward the kid.

For the same reason, who refuses to have kids, on the basis of not wanting to commit or sacrifice anything of themselves, are selfish.

"Not having kids" isn't a choice detached from everything, that's why it's valued in relation to "having kids". "Having kids" require much more effort than not.

All this answers is whether or not refusing to have kids constitutes laziness. Page explained why your argument that being the opposite of having kids is not enough to constitute selfishness on its own well enough, so I won't retread that territory, but I will point out that selfishness/selflessness are not a binary where anything that isn't the one is automatically the other. There are choices and actions that are neither. Eating, for example, is neither selfish nor selfless. Going to school, sacrifices that it requires, is also neither selfish nor selfless, unless you're putting someone else's needs ahead of your own by doing so (selfless) or denying someone else's needs with no intention of better filling them in doing so (selfish). Raising kids, believe it or not, is also not inherently selfless. Whether or not it is depends on your reason for having them. There are plenty of people in the world who see having kids as a chance to live the lives they, through chance or through poor choices, never got to, and only have a kid so they can create a substitute for their dream of being a successful businessperson, a star athlete, a famous actor/actress, a household name artist, etc, or in the hopes of using the idea that a lot of people believe, as you do, that parents are inherently selfless and can do no wrong to elevate their status with their peers, or because they never got to have power in their own lives and a child is something they can control as they please, or because they think, going in, that having children is easy money from the government and they don't like having to work to not be poor (those often neglect their children out of the same laziness that lead them to have them in the first place).

[Napkiraly]

So why is this the case, that the decision to have children is seldom regarded as selfish, yet the decision not to, often is?

Because having children is a sacrifice.

[Jebslund]

So why is this the case, that the decision to have children is seldom regarded as selfish, yet the decision not to, often is?

Because having children is a sacrifice.

Only for those who care about their children and want the best for them. For many, that's simply not the case. They have kids and only do the bare minimim because their reasons for having kids were purely selfish ones