Foxy Methoxy Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I doubt you are actually suggesting that if someone is hopeless or joyless it's because their parents taught them to be that way. . I was just having fun making a corny post pandering for +'s. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. So far, no dice 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I doubt you are actually suggesting that if someone is hopeless or joyless it's because their parents taught them to be that way. . I was just having fun making a corny post pandering for +'s. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. So far, no dice LOL! OK, the man gets a plus from me :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I'm all for people being reflective and being informed and making sound decisions, particularly where others are concerned. No doubt some people should not have children. But if someone claims it is immoral per se to bring children into the world, I can't go along with that. Other than the fact you and your children are happy, and that such happiness is possible, can you tell my why you can't go along with that? I'm not baiting you, honestly -- I'm simply curious. Is it just that you feel the positive life you and your children experience is generally a do-able, have-able thing for most people? Do you think that life is worthwhile for most people and that therefore the odds of it being worthwhile for the children of any given responsible, well-meaning prospective parent is good enough to be worth whatever risk there is? Is there any chance that your calculus is influenced by your fortunate personal experience? No calculus involved. The only point of morals is to make life better for people. No people, no need for morals. Every one of us is a product of a man and a woman who were themselves products of men and women. This goes back until a time before our ancestors were recognizably human. At what point did the process become immoral? The mere suggestion that reproduction is per se immoral for any species seems ludicrous to me. I think a case can be made in specific instances, but not in general. If I believed in objective morality, you might have a shot here. But I don't. Morality is just some made-up shit, and I have my own brand of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 No calculus involved. The only point of morals is to make life better for people. No people, no need for morals. Every one of us is a product of a man and a woman who were themselves products of men and women. This goes back until a time before our ancestors were recognizably human. At what point did the process become immoral? The mere suggestion that reproduction is per se immoral for any species seems ludicrous to me. I think a case can be made in specific instances, but not in general. If I believed in objective morality, you might have a shot here. But I don't. Morality is just some made-up shit, and I have my own brand of it. I'm not sure that, given "nature, red in tooth and claw", it was ever a particularly attractive deal for any remotely sentient creature, however, one could argue that because humans have the unique ability to be self-aware, to have hopes, dreams and aspirations, to actually care, that is the point at which it became problematic. As for objective morality ... I don't know if that's really a requirement. I can't speak for DeGaulle but personally I'm not asking for someone to say that it's objectively / empirically right or wrong, I'm simply looking for how others perceive it in the context of their own morality. Or at least trying to understand how others rationalize it. My basic gripe is that people don't consider the matter sufficiently to even have an opinion -- it's just want you do, because you can, because everyone does, because one would have to countermand one's primal drives to do otherwise. I guess what you're saying, if I'm hearing you correctly, is that so long as one feels that their life is worthwhile, then by extension others, can / should, including your children, or at least the odds are good enough that you would not think twice about having children. (By the way, I was speaking of your calculus of risk vs rewards or benefits vs harms, not your moral calculus per se. In other words you couldn't render a moral judgment, personal or not, without having some sense of what you think the risk / rewards ratio is. Nor could you make an intelligent decision, (im)moral or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazza Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 This is a long thread and i havent had chance yet to read it all but just from the initial post the answer seems obvious to me - if having children is immoral and therefore nobody should have kids - taken to its logical conclusion then that means the extinction of the human race and if this is the goal then why not just blow up the planet now and be done with it I can see the argument philosophically but practically, its a non-starter. So no, i dont think its intrinsically immoral to have kids but it could be in certain situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 This is a long thread and i havent had chance yet to read it all but just from the initial post the answer seems obvious to me - if having children is immoral and therefore nobody should have kids - taken to its logical conclusion then that means the extinction of the human race and if this is the goal then why not just blow up the planet now and be done with it I can see the argument philosophically but practically, its a non-starter. So no, i dont think its intrinsically immoral to have kids but it could be in certain situations. There is actually a South African philosopher named Benetar who advocates this "logical conclusion" in his book, "Better to Have Never Been Born: The Harm of Existence". I agree, however, this is just navel-gazing intellectual masturbation at its worst; the human race is not going to ever agree to off itself. I regard this as simply one of the unsolvable conundrums of existence; existence is so inherently fucked up that here it creates a philosophical argument that you and I can see the point of, but it's not actionable in any realistic sense. It's still at least partially actionable however at the individual level -- you and I can choose not to have children or to adopt, thus doing a better job of reducing the net suffering in the world. Or failing that, we can be much more mindful and selective about having children, thus at least tending to add less suffering than we otherwise would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I've yet to see proof that existence entails net suffering. The claim rests on the subjective position of each individual. If you are a glass half empty type, you may agree with this philosophy. There is no way that I can see to give a valid weight to all of life's ups and downs and conclude from that that the downs outweigh the ups. At the end of the day, life just is. Someone else makes the choice for your own existence. If you choose not to procreate, that's up to you, but we have written in our DNA instinctual impulses much more powerful than human ponderings or persuasion (otherwise good church girls would never get pregnant out of wedlock), so life will go on and will flourish until the earth can no longer sustain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I've yet to see proof that existence entails net suffering. The claim rests on the subjective position of each individual. Suffering is personal and subjective, therefore assessments of degrees of suffering are subjective and personal. On that we agree. I have at different times in my life assessed the "net" of suffering differently, so I can understand both sides of the story. For the past decade my assessment has remained negative. I don't see how that fundamental assessment is ever going to change; too many losses, too little time. But I'm happy, really, genuinely happy for people for whom it nets out well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Forgive the cheese here, as this comes from Dale Carnegie, but I think it illustrates my point. [paraphrased from a 25+ old memory, so it's bound to be corrupted] A man drives into a new town in a station wagon filled with his worldly goods and asks an old man standing on the corner "Is this a friendly town to live in?" The old man asks in turn "Were the people in your last town friendly?" The stranger replied "Oh yes, people there were wonderful, I had lots of friends and people really cared for one another." The old man replied "people here are very friendly too, I'm sure you will fit in well here." A while later another man pulls up to the same corner with a station wagon packed with his worldly good and asks the old man the same question, to which the old man responded in kind by asking about his last town. The stranger replied "Oh, it was a horrible place with horrible people, I couldn't wait to leave." The old man replied "people here are awful as well, you better try your luck elsewhere." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noumena Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Forgive the cheese here, as this comes from Dale Carnegie, but I think it illustrates my point. [paraphrased from a 25+ old memory, so it's bound to be corrupted] A man drives into a new town in a station wagon filled with his worldly goods and asks an old man standing on the corner "Is this a friendly town to live in?" The old man asks in turn "Were the people in your last town friendly?" The stranger replied "Oh yes, people there were wonderful, I had lots of friends and people really cared for one another." The old man replied "people here are very friendly too, I'm sure you will fit in well here." A while later another man pulls up to the same corner with a station wagon packed with his worldly good and asks the old man the same question, to which the old man responded in kind by asking about his last town. The stranger replied "Oh, it was a horrible place with horrible people, I couldn't wait to leave." The old man replied "people here are awful as well, you better try your luck elsewhere." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Forgive the cheese here, as this comes from Dale Carnegie, but I think it illustrates my point. [paraphrased from a 25+ old memory, so it's bound to be corrupted] A man drives into a new town in a station wagon filled with his worldly goods and asks an old man standing on the corner "Is this a friendly town to live in?" The old man asks in turn "Were the people in your last town friendly?" The stranger replied "Oh yes, people there were wonderful, I had lots of friends and people really cared for one another." The old man replied "people here are very friendly too, I'm sure you will fit in well here." A while later another man pulls up to the same corner with a station wagon packed with his worldly good and asks the old man the same question, to which the old man responded in kind by asking about his last town. The stranger replied "Oh, it was a horrible place with horrible people, I couldn't wait to leave." The old man replied "people here are awful as well, you better try your luck elsewhere." Actually I think that's pretty un-corrupt, or else our memories are corrupt in the same way, because that's the way I remember the story. I know what you are saying. My "stepson", a college freshman, complains with some disappointment that college is "boring, just like high school" and we tell him that's because the boredom is between his ears and will follow him wherever he goes until he deals effectively with it. I get that. On the other hand, he is super-intelligent and it's a chore to keep that sort of brain occupied so the other side of the coin is that the banality of daily living and the denseness on average of other people will be harder for him because of it. I don't have the heart to tell him that part of the truth. Might as well let him have hope and by the time he figures out the truth he'll have fewer decades ahead of him to face ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 On the other hand, he is super-intelligent and it's a chore to keep that sort of brain occupied so the other side of the coin is that the banality of daily living and the denseness on average of other people will be harder for him because of it. I don't have the heart to tell him that part of the truth. Might as well let him have hope and by the time he figures out the truth he'll have fewer decades ahead of him to face ;-) wow, that one hit home. I wish I was still trying to figure out this truth myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freespirit Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I'm curious if anyone will be willing to have a rational discussion about this, but I'll put the question out there: Is it moral to have children? Let me explain some: This world is filled with pain and tragedy, and although there is happiness as well, there is no guarantee that a child will experience happiness. The only guarantee is that a child will experience pain and loss, and ultimately death. If the moral thing to do is to try and decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world, isn't it rather selfish and a little immoral to have a child and force it to go through all the suffering of life with no guarantee of happiness? And since a child who is never born (a non-existent being) can't miss out on the few joys that life does offer, not having children certainly doesn't seem to be increasing suffering in the world. I don't know that I would say that having a child is flat out immoral, but I certainly wonder if it isn't perhaps a basically selfish action and is perhaps morally suspect. I had a discussion the other day with someone who said "The world is basically a wonderful place" and went on to tell all the reasons why. It really struck me. I am so used to hearing the other side about how nasty it is. That is what Christians say all the time.....the world is getting worse and worse. What if we changed our attitudes about the world and focused more on it's beauty and how we can change it to make it better? Is it better, according to your view, to annihilate ourselves by believing the world is so awful we refuse to reproduce? I think I am going to try and believe it's more beautiful than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freespirit Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Forgive the cheese here, as this comes from Dale Carnegie, but I think it illustrates my point. [paraphrased from a 25+ old memory, so it's bound to be corrupted] A man drives into a new town in a station wagon filled with his worldly goods and asks an old man standing on the corner "Is this a friendly town to live in?" The old man asks in turn "Were the people in your last town friendly?" The stranger replied "Oh yes, people there were wonderful, I had lots of friends and people really cared for one another." The old man replied "people here are very friendly too, I'm sure you will fit in well here." A while later another man pulls up to the same corner with a station wagon packed with his worldly good and asks the old man the same question, to which the old man responded in kind by asking about his last town. The stranger replied "Oh, it was a horrible place with horrible people, I couldn't wait to leave." The old man replied "people here are awful as well, you better try your luck elsewhere." Actually I think that's pretty un-corrupt, or else our memories are corrupt in the same way, because that's the way I remember the story. I know what you are saying. My "stepson", a college freshman, complains with some disappointment that college is "boring, just like high school" and we tell him that's because the boredom is between his ears and will follow him wherever he goes until he deals effectively with it. I get that. On the other hand, he is super-intelligent and it's a chore to keep that sort of brain occupied so the other side of the coin is that the banality of daily living and the denseness on average of other people will be harder for him because of it. I don't have the heart to tell him that part of the truth. Might as well let him have hope and by the time he figures out the truth he'll have fewer decades ahead of him to face ;-) Or maybe he is waiting for someone to recognize his smartness and validate his struggles. I see both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Or maybe he is waiting for someone to recognize his smartness and validate his struggles. I see both sides. He's always been told he's smart and educated about the unique struggles that brings. He thinks it's empty flattery because he "knows" he's actually an abject failure. This comes from perfectionism and the ideation that anything that's not totally perfect is a complete epic fail. He knows otherwise intellectually but not in his heart :-( Fortunately at university we got him into their anxiety clinic, therapy, etc., and I just came back from a couple days helping him through the decision to cut his credit hours down from 17 to 12 and getting on board with the disabilities office so that he can be accommodated while he gets a grip on all this stuff and learn to pace himself. I love this kid like my own ... no one who knows him can help but love him, but we do worry about him a lot. He is so ready to "make it" in the world but it's so hard for him. There are risks for launching him too soon and risks for him being held back. We're trying to protect him without coddling him. It's a hell of a tightrope walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freespirit Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Or maybe he is waiting for someone to recognize his smartness and validate his struggles. I see both sides. He's always been told he's smart and educated about the unique struggles that brings. He thinks it's empty flattery because he "knows" he's actually an abject failure. This comes from perfectionism and the ideation that anything that's not totally perfect is a complete epic fail. He knows otherwise intellectually but not in his heart :-( Fortunately at university we got him into their anxiety clinic, therapy, etc., and I just came back from a couple days helping him through the decision to cut his credit hours down from 17 to 12 and getting on board with the disabilities office so that he can be accommodated while he gets a grip on all this stuff and learn to pace himself. I love this kid like my own ... no one who knows him can help but love him, but we do worry about him a lot. He is so ready to "make it" in the world but it's so hard for him. There are risks for launching him too soon and risks for him being held back. We're trying to protect him without coddling him. It's a hell of a tightrope walk. Sounds like my son. It's a tough row to hoe. I think my son might have aspergers. At least that explains the high intelligence and inability to cope at the same time. Right now, My son has been taking a break from school. Not sure what the future holds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I had a discussion the other day with someone who said "The world is basically a wonderful place" and went on to tell all the reasons why. It really struck me. I am so used to hearing the other side about how nasty it is. That is what Christians say all the time.....the world is getting worse and worse. What if we changed our attitudes about the world and focused more on it's beauty and how we can change it to make it better? Is it better, according to your view, to annihilate ourselves by believing the world is so awful we refuse to reproduce? I think I am going to try and believe it's more beautiful than ever. I actually am less pessimistic about people than I was as a Christian -- I recognize that Christianity basically regards people as lowly depraved unworthy worms. I believe that most people mean well and try their best to do well. My objection is more along the lines that we all fight with one hand (at least) tied behind our back and it's damned hard and the outcomes far from certain. If someone (say, you) has had decent luck over time you will tend to regard this struggle as noble and if this luck holds you will look back with some satisfaction on a life well-lived, even if difficult. If, on the other hand your luck does not hold well or you have major setbacks, maybe you'll have some reservations. Who wouldn't? It's call reactive depression (as opposed to clinical depression). Another aspect to suffering and pain is the timing and distribution of it. Which would you prefer: a wonderful life for 20 years followed by misery, or a miserable life for 20 years followed by joy? Perceptions favor the latter person for being happy. They have lost only their pain and gained everything, as opposed to losing everything and being left with only pain. It may be that the first person has objectively less misery on a lifelong basis but has a harder time adjusting to / dealing with it. I was speaking with someone yesterday who met a close acquaintance of that violinist who lost her legs in a train accident some years ago -- one of the world's most proficient artists. I forget the name at the moment. Anyway when asked if the accident changed her, he said yes, she's better than ever in terms of proficiency but her playing now is less joyful and much more angry. So it goes for us all. To an extent a forced smile or other efforts applied to "attitude" can help; distractions, hobbies, socializing in general (even if less meaningful than you'd wish) -- these all help. My objection is not so much that life is impossible (it's not always thus) -- it's more that if we spend so much time in opposition to entropy, is that a square deal for anyone, and should it be inflicted on anyone without consent. I would say no ... or at the very least it deserves much more careful consideration than most give it. If that runs counter to instinct or the overpopulation of Earth, so be it; that's irrelevant to the question. To acknowledge the reality of daily life is mixed up with acknowledging our limited time and our mortality, which is something most people avoid thinking about. That's part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Not sure what the future holds. Yeah, I gave up a long time ago any hope of present stability and future expectation of reduced uncertainty. We can't know what the future holds but for what it's worth I wish you and your son well. He is clearly loved and you have his back ... that's a terrific thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freespirit Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Not sure what the future holds. Yeah, I gave up a long time ago any hope of present stability and future expectation of reduced uncertainty. We can't know what the future holds but for what it's worth I wish you and your son well. He is clearly loved and you have his back ... that's a terrific thing. Yes, I was thinking the same of your step son. He definitely seems surrounded by caring people. I think that is a huge thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I dunno, but me and my girlfriend want a child and the sex got even better when we stopped worrying about contraception. It was amazing already, but now it is a whole new level. There must be something highly instinctual about procreation because after being sexually active but careful for 20 years and now having sex with the intent to have a baby has been a totally new experience for me. Perhaps, for all our high minded philosophies regarding antinatalism, it all comes down to animal instinct. If you have it, you breed. If you lack it, you abide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBob Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I dunno, but me and my girlfriend want a child and the sex got even better when we stopped worrying about contraception. It was amazing already, but now it is a whole new level. There must be something highly instinctual about procreation because after being sexually active but careful for 20 years and now having sex with the intent to have a baby has been a totally new experience for me. Perhaps, for all our high minded philosophies regarding antinatalism, it all comes down to animal instinct. If you have it, you breed. If you lack it, you abide. I hate to break it to you, but I would say more or less the same thing about what it was like after I got a vasectomy nearly twenty years ago. My sexual experience did not go from amazing to a whole new level but it at least went from workmanlike to pretty good. I think you may be ascribing to baby-making what is actually coming from removing some constraints to spontaneity. After the baby comes you will experience the romance-elimination vortex and sleep deprivation of having an infant in the mix, plus, unless you want to conceive again immediately, you'll have to become "careful" again. My advice is, enjoy it while you can (or get a vasectomy). Despite what I just said, there is probably a little something to the baby-making aspect all the same. My fiancee is past menopause but if she weren't, I have to admit that the idea of such a creative collaboration has an appeal all its own. We toyed briefly with the idea of fostering a child and even that seemed like it had a primal pull to it, despite the fact that reason prevailed very quickly. Also, I am well aware that most (not all, but most) women have a powerful psychological and emotional need to bear children. I'm put in mind of the book (and movie) Children of Men in which for unknown reasons the entire human race suddenly loses the ability to procreate. It's a world of utterly frustrated women who pay premium money to push kittens around in baby carriages and dress them up in outfits and fantasize that they're human children -- anything to fill the sucking void of needing to nurture something. So we agree on this much -- you aren't going to get humanity to quit breeding to any useful degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy Methoxy Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I used to be completely against breeding and totally cynical about it. Something changed inside me and it wasn't the holy ghost moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noumena Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I'm curious if anyone will be willing to have a rational discussion about this, but I'll put the question out there: Is it moral to have children? Let me explain some: This world is filled with pain and tragedy, and although there is happiness as well, there is no guarantee that a child will experience happiness. The only guarantee is that a child will experience pain and loss, and ultimately death. If the moral thing to do is to try and decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world, isn't it rather selfish and a little immoral to have a child and force it to go through all the suffering of life with no guarantee of happiness? And since a child who is never born (a non-existent being) can't miss out on the few joys that life does offer, not having children certainly doesn't seem to be increasing suffering in the world. I don't know that I would say that having a child is flat out immoral, but I certainly wonder if it isn't perhaps a basically selfish action and is perhaps morally suspect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44AwGqw_F6c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 This is a topic that I've been mulling over for some time: whether or not to have kids. My wife finished school a few years ago, and is well established in her career. I'll be done with school in 2-3 months. We've put off having kids for about a decade, always saying we'll wait 'til we're done with school, have more money, etc. Well now we're approaching both of these benchmarks. And the subject has some up a few times. I don't have a particularly strong desire to have kids. Neither does my wife. We both KINDA want them- but we're both afraid of the commitment and work that that will require. Now don't get me wrong- we're well-equipped for the task (well, much better equipped than most new parents anyway). If she suddenly found out tomorrow that she was pregnant, I'd transform into Superdad and play that role for the next few decades as required- and I've no doubt that she'd take care of a kid just as well as our ridiculously spoiled wiener-dog. But do we WANT kids? SHOULD we want kid? I dunno. IMO it's not a question to be taken lightly. My parents wanted kids, but weren't particularly well-equipped to raise them. My and my brothers' lives have gone well enough I guess (we're not in prison or anything)- but I wouldn't call any of us 'well-adjusted' or particularly 'successful' in any sense. I THINK I could do better than my parents did... but doesn't everybody think that? Would I really want to inflict a mediocre life like MINE onto some unsuspecting kid (MY kid?)? I'm also afraid that I'll end up 60 years old and alone... and regret not having kids. My wife and I are 34, so if it's going to happen... it'll have to be within the next few years. What do ya'll think? Should I make a poll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 I'm also afraid that I'll end up 60 years old and alone.. I felt/feel exactly like you RS. When I was in my early 20s I wanted kids, but didn't really have anyone to have them with. As I grew older I just wanted to travel and live my own life and a house and kids seemed like the worst idea in the world. I'm still not sure I would want kids and it wouldn't be practical for me now as my health is kind of a ticking time bomb, but I'm finding that I'm feeling some regret now that I don't have any kids; even adopted kids. I found that I just love my nieces and nephews much more than I would have expected and somehow I'm naturally good with them. While the adults are all of doing their thing, I end up playing with the kids. Mike Judge pretty much nailed this one with the opening scene in Idiocracy. Think too much about it and it's too late, while your idiot neighbor is pumping them out like popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts