Antinatalism

[Mike D]

I don't think it's a question of some greater morality, I think it's an individual personal decision.

 

Or not, if you just happen to enjoy some good sport fucking and don't like condoms or birth control.

 

Having said that, I personally would never knowingly bring kids into this world, mainly because I find existence absurd and futile. We all scurry about each day like rats, doing whatever we can to make ourselves feel useful and/or important to justify another day of the same pointless behavior. All that bother, and for what ultimate fate? A grisly, horrific death? I would rather not subject someone else to that. But that's just me, maybe I picked up some bad DNA somewhere along the line.

 

I wondered if my shitty/negative attitude came as a reaction to the Bible/Christianity and the whole "go forth and reproduce" or whateverthefuck that verse is. Not sure.

[RankStranger]

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.

 

Not sure of your exact age, but I think I'm about 8-10 years behind you and having much the same experience (minus health problems).

 

My friends and family aren't a particularly fecund bunch, so I'm not around kids that often. But when I am, I find that I get along well with them, and they like to hang around me. One of my wife's friends brought her kid with her for a weekend while back (they live a few hundred miles away)- he's 11, and a lot like I was at that age in terms of interests and aptitudes. I took him fishing and took him to the local space museum (Kansas Cosmosphere), and we had a great time. The kid is kinda starved for attention IMO- long story, but his dad doesn't seem to take a lot of interest in him, and they don't have much in common. He had never caught a fish before for fuck's sake. Anyhow, he sent a card a week later (I know that 11 year old boys don't send cards- his mom made him do it) and wrote in it that I was like a second dad to him.

 

WTF? I'm not worthy! But it does feel good to do something nice for a kid.

 

The wife and I could easily produce our own nerdy kid that I could take fishing and the like. But there's a lot of work and WORRY involved, too.

 

 

 

I don't think it's a question of some greater morality, I think it's an individual personal decision.

 

Or not, if you just happen to enjoy some good sport fucking and don't like condoms or birth control.

 

Having said that, I personally would never knowingly bring kids into this world, mainly because I find existence absurd and futile. We all scurry about each day like rats, doing whatever we can to make ourselves feel useful and/or important to justify another day of the same pointless behavior. All that bother, and for what ultimate fate? A grisly, horrific death? I would rather not subject someone else to that. But that's just me, maybe I picked up some bad DNA somewhere along the line.

 

I wondered if my shitty/negative attitude came as a reaction to the Bible/Christianity and the whole "go forth and reproduce" or whateverthefuck that verse is. Not sure.

 

Yeah, I feel much the same way. And I think I owe it to any potential offspring to at least consider the implications that our silly existence holds for THEM. But then again, my response to the absurdity/futility amounts to this: I'm here, and I've got nothing better to do... might as well make myself comfortable and try to enjoy what I can. Could this extend to any potential offspring?

 

 

I've also considered this: Should I want to pass on my awesome genes and combine them with my wife's awesome genes? We really might produce some Übermensch offspring if we magically hit the right combination of our respective traits. Isn't that what we ogranisms do and strive for? Biologically speaking, isn't that pretty much the purpose of life?

 

But I have some counter-arguments to that. First of all, my genes aren't anything special- 99.9999% of them are being passed on in various combinations by other people. And even if there WAS something special about my or my wife's genes- what duty do we have to biology anyway?

 

Really, based on my own (conscious) values and approach to life, it would probably make the most sense to adopt. But I feel like if I'm going to invest two decades of my life into raising a kid, I want it to be MY kid. My wife has said much the same thing. Why? I'm not exactly sure... but I think it's some sort of vanity.

[Foxy Methoxy]

My wife and I are 34, so if it's going to happen... it'll have to be within the next few years.

 

 

 

I know that feeling. I'm 35 and it's either now or never. At this age, I still feel young, but it's becoming very evident it won't last forever. I want to still be young enough to have fun with my kids while I raise them.

[AKR]

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've had this view since I became an adult. At 32, I am child free and plan to remain so for the rest of my life. If I ever want kids, which I highly doubt I will, I'll adopt. There is more to the argument, as well, although, the one you give is sufficient enough. There is also the fact that there are WAY too many humans on this planet and we cause so much pollution and use so many resources. Considering both arguments, I find it "wrong" to have kids. It's definitely done through selfishness. If a child doesn't exist yet, you can't be doing it for them. It's a selfish instinct.

[AKR]

In addition, I reject Overcame Faith's "joy" arithmetic. Can we really balance suffering and joy? If a person is born, grows up, and is subsequently raped, is there any joy in this life that can make that rape "okay"? I would say not. I would say that a person may learn to live with suffering, but no amount of joy cancels suffering out.

 

Perhaps for you once something terrible happens in your life, the "joys" of life can never overcome the terrible event. That's sad and I hope you learn differently as you continue to live and learn. But the way you feel cannot be applied across the board to others. There clearly are people who are raped and still find great joy in life. I reject your entirely pessimistic view of the joys of life.

 

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there are people who are raped and enjoy life. The fact is many people end up killing themselves or spend their lives wanting to kill themselves. You can't justify having a kid because SOME people enjoy life. Not having a child that would be happy does nothing to hurt them, since they don't yet exist. But having a child risks having one that will end up killing themselves. It's an unnecessary and unjustified risk.

[Ro-bear]

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?

 

Ambivalence is not exactly a ringing endorsement for having children, but it might work out regardless. My wife and I hemmed and hawed, each asking what the other wanted to do. Th clock was ticking. If you wait for the "right" time, it doesn't happen. I suspected my wife wanted this more than I. But one night I had a dream of a little boy with my wife's eyes. He was a splendid little fellow, and it was a beautiful dream. I woke up the next day and thought "Let's go!"

 

We were real good at getting pregnant but not so at carrying to term. Third try, though, we got a little girl with my eyes. A couple of years later, another little girl, much like the first. Becoming a parent was the best decision I ever made.

[RankStranger]

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?

 

Ambivalence is not exactly a ringing endorsement for having children, but it might work out regardless. My wife and I hemmed and hawed, each asking what the other wanted to do. Th clock was ticking. If you wait for the "right" time, it doesn't happen. I suspected my wife wanted this more than I. But one night I had a dream of a little boy with my wife's eyes. He was a splendid little fellow, and it was a beautiful dream. I woke up the next day and thought "Let's go!"

 

We were real good at getting pregnant but not so at carrying to term. Third try, though, we got a little girl with my eyes. A couple of years later, another little girl, much like the first. Becoming a parent was the best decision I ever made.

 

I've been told that several times by several people, and I think it's true. There is no 'right' time for a decision like that.

[Onyx]

Frankly, even though I wanted to kill myself twice, I realised that if I wanted to have a better life, I must fight for it. That was my epiphany yesterday. But I also realised that it is no good stewing in your own misery. It's not easy to have a commonplace reality be presented to you as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I am a slow learner.(Thanks, Pynchon) But depression will do that to you. It muddles you, it makes you angry and sad, lethargic and at times hopeless. I think I have done the impossible, I have stared into the abyss and said no to it, I was wrestling with monsters and they were mine. (thanks, Nietzsche) I owned them. But they are not my monstrous children anymore and I disown them for the world to see. Depression is an ugly, ugly existence. I do not wish the very worst person to have that. It really is a bottomless pit, it's darker than dark, it's squalid and more gory than the goriest death in that it devours your mind and you are living through it. Not even Cthulhu would glory in it. Save anybody from that, anything but that.

But hope can come from the most unexpected places, it can even come from the same mind that is plaguing you. So yes, life is not a futile and absurd existence. Even if depression tries to make you think that. O save yourself from the flood, but raise yourself to a mountain. And it was done.

 

And so, on anti natalism, I think it has to be a personal choice. It is much more better than abortion because I am in two minds about abortion already. Women's bodies should be that, their bodies. But abortion is an ugly and sad procedure that is yet necessary and should given to these who need it. If antinatalism has a less of a taboo affixed to it, then women will catch onto it. It's less painful than abortion and more philosophical. But this does not necessarily means that the world is such a miserable place that it is not worth raising children in it. With youth comes changes in society, mostly for the better. Millennials, I hear already that they are less homophobic than their parents. But it doesn't negate the premise that women should think more carefully about raising children. The less gormless children the better. The more openminded children the better. Because there should be no repeat of the ultrareligiosity of these political parties lately. We need to have a more open, more accepting world rather than sliding back into a new version of Dark Ages.

[Mike D]

my response to the absurdity/futility amounts to this: I'm here, and I've got nothing better to do... might as well make myself comfortable and try to enjoy what I can.

This is my sentiments exactly. Although i've considered offing myself a couple of times (and who knows, that might be how I go in the end), as long as I find something about life even remotely interesting enough to defer the ugliness of the dying process, then for now i'll just make the best of it and forge onward.

 

And I don't believe I owe anything to biology, whether genetically or for any other reason.

 

Creating life just for the sake of sustaining life, isn't really a good enough reason (in my opinion) to subject another human to the bother of existing - and dying.

[Foxy Methoxy]

No one is obligated to reproduce. At least they shouldn't be. But in some way, shape, or form, many of us are compelled to.

[RankStranger]

my response to the absurdity/futility amounts to this: I'm here, and I've got nothing better to do... might as well make myself comfortable and try to enjoy what I can.

This is my sentiments exactly. Although i've considered offing myself a couple of times (and who knows, that might be how I go in the end), as long as I find something about life even remotely interesting enough to defer the ugliness of the dying process, then for now i'll just make the best of it and forge onward.

 

And I don't believe I owe anything to biology, whether genetically or for any other reason.

 

Creating life just for the sake of sustaining life, isn't really a good enough reason (in my opinion) to subject another human to the bother of existing - and dying.

 

I see things much the same way sometimes- though it seems to be getting better as I get older.

 

But once in a while I find myself fascinated with life, history, and the future. I don't see much point to existence except to continue the 'story' and see where it leads 'us'. Unless there are some tremendous medical advances over the next few decades AND I have the money to take advantage of them... I'll never see what comes 'next' for humanity (beyond a few more decades). But in some ways, raising a kid is how you continue your existence. Sure, the same consciousness isn't transferred from parent to child- but they are the same organism in a sense. And to choose NOT to continue my existence (by reproducing- especially when I could do so pretty easily) feels a bit suicidal. It feels like giving up. Not saying there's anything WRONG with that if that's your choice... I'm just not sure that it's my choice.

[Mike D]

to choose NOT to continue my existence (by reproducing- especially when I could do so pretty easily) feels a bit suicidal. It feels like giving up. Not saying there's anything WRONG with that if that's your choice... I'm just not sure that it's my choice.

I guess I don't see it as suicidal because you are not terminating a life. The other thing i've considered as well is that when you bring a life into the world, you are doing so without consent [of that life]. Personally had I been given the choice along with an accurate picture of the potential risks and rewards of existence, I would have opted out - the "rewards" are really too little to justify existing, IMO. One of my favorite activities in life is sleeping, presumably because I am not cognizant of anything. That tells me lots....

[Vigile]

Life's greatest irony is most people are too young to raise kids when they are in their 20s and biologically best suited for the task because they haven't yet got all their emotions yet straightened out, which carries over to the kid, perhaps giving him a shitty outlook on life. I personally wouldn't have been ready for it. When they reach an age where they have grown more patient and have perhaps a bit more wisdom to impart, they are far less biologically suited for the task.

[paul34]

^^ Most likely a product of evolution. The younger parent is better able to protect and provide for their young compared to the older parent. It's only today, in our kind of society, that such things aren't as useful as they used to be. A 20 year old parent or 40 year old parent are both equally able to go to the grocery store to buy things.

[Ro-bear]

Life's greatest irony is most people are too young to raise kids when they are in their 20s and biologically best suited for the task because they haven't yet got all their emotions yet straightened out, which carries over to the kid, perhaps giving him a shitty outlook on life. I personally wouldn't have been ready for it. When they reach an age where they have grown more patient and have perhaps a bit more wisdom to impart, they are far less biologically suited for the task.

 

 

There's a pretty generous window of opportunity, really. I was sufficiently mature and settled down by thirty or so. I married at 32, had the first kid at 36. I was plenty young enough to play with them when they were little. I still am. I'm 52 but I'm still up for physical stuff, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I can still outrun my daughters, but that gap is closing.

[DesertBob]

I'm also afraid that I'll end up 60 years old and alone... and regret not having kids.

Dying itself doesn't bother me at all, only the process of dying and the prospect of facing my final dissolution with no one having my back. The scenario you and I are wanting is for me represented by a night a few months ago when I was on volunteer duty at my local hospice house. A guy was in the final stages of dying over in room 4 and he had this gigantic Italian family in attendance -- kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews -- he was basically unconscious but there was never a time when one of them was not sitting next to his bed, attentively holding his hand and murmuring to him. The rest of them were just having a quiet party, reminiscing and celebrating his life. They invited me to join them for pizza and to debate the merits of local pizzarias.

 

Meantime, over in room 5, the scenario you and I fear was playing out. Some vacant-eyed, slack-jawed gentleman was struggling to draw breath in a dark, empty room. That guy is most likely me some day, not the room 4 guy. I will probably be able to afford to have hospice or nursing care but there will not be a loving family gathered 'round.

 

But wait a minute -- between us, my fiancee and I have four grown kids. Doesn't that make a difference?!

 

Well, frankly, no. In hopsice I have met people who will frankly tell you that their kids hate their guts and in some cases the feeling is mutual. Some of those people have loving friends or siblings and some do not. Kids are not a guarantee that you will be the revered elder presiding with satisfaction over an extended family of decent human beings who respect and honor you and who will all be there for you when you're ill or dying and will then mourn you and build monuments to your memory.

 

Nor is it a matter of raising them well. Nature trumps nurture, I'm afraid. Here is our personal inventory:

 

My daughter: very aggressive, self-absorbed person despite all my best efforts; mostly a case of too many of her biological mother's genes. A sense of entitlement a mile long means that if I have an appropriate relationship with her, I will never provide enough money and rubber-stamp validation for her. She's honest, law abiding, tax paying and gainfully employed as an oncology nurse and I'm very proud of her in that regard but I would not trust my care to her in my dotage. She's the sort of person who I've learned not to give her kids gift certificates at birthdays because she's apt to spend some or all of the $$ for things for herself.

 

My son: very respectful of me but due to borderline Asperger's Syndrome there's little emotional connection or sharing to be had. We have good interactions as long as I initiate virtually all of them. Frankly he just doesn't know how to reach out or what to do in uncomfortable situations. Despite the love that's there it will always be a one way street from me to him.

 

Her son: a towering intellect with generalized anxiety disorder and OCD. Because he's a very gentle, loving soul, this is the one kid of the four who will probably "give back" to his mother and I to an extent but may also be very limited by his own issues and struggles and may always need more from us over the years.

 

Her daughter: still 17 and in her last year at home but unless something changes she is a self-absorbed, controlling, bullying personality who loves to make everyone around her walk on eggshells. I wouldn't want her without five miles of my death bed, thanks very much. I try to be scarce when she's around as it is -- for her own safety, lest I strangle her.

 

Salient point: Her 19 year old son and 17 year old daughter were raised in the same home by the same parents in the same way (and from everything I can tell, both parents were pretty damn good). One loves my fiancee and is loyal to her and one treats her the way you'd expect to be treated if you'd been abusive or neglectful as a parent. My 32 year old daughter and 25 year old son were raised in the same home by the same parents in the same way; again, my son is respectful and responsive to me subject to his limitations and my daughter has some ill defined vague floating resentment toward me and can say only that I'm "never there for her", a statement that neither I nor anyone who knows us can even begin to get our arms around and which she cannot really articulate. The only reason I have a tolerable relationship with her is because, perhaps foolishly, I've invested hundreds of hours over the years talking things out with her and making sure she feels heard and constantly reassuring her that she's unconditionally loved so that she at least half believes it.

 

All of the above is either unattributable to upbringing or parental characteristics, or in some cases it's the influences, genetic or otherwise, of exes, or to mistakes we made in youthful ignorance that are no more egregious than the ones most people manage to make, or to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. The thing is that with kids, like with everything else, there are no guarantees. You could have kids who are a joy to be around and a balm in your old age, or you could have kids who make you go, meh, what was the point, or you could have kids that suck the will to live out of you and you breathe a sigh of relief to send them into the world and hope they don't call or write often. And that range of outcomes has astoundingly little to do with your sincerity, diligence, or skill as a parent.

 

So don't choose to have kids or not based on the hope of living out some kind of white picket fence fantasy with them in your twilight years. For that matter, don't choose to have kids based on living out such a fantasy at any time, particularly between the ages of 2 and 4 or most anytime during the teen years.

 

I think that our children are just another immortality project, as Ken Wilbur likes to put it. Another ill-fated attempt to soften the reality that we live and die alone and are forgotten relatively quickly. Don't put your hopes in your kids in this regard; love them as best you can, have zero expectations, and accept in any given moment whatever successes you have in the enterprise of raising them, and let the rest go. If you can do that and you're fairly optimistic and self-actualized you may well enjoy parenting. But do it so that you can have the June and Ward Cleaver nice orderly progression of events, and you will be bitterly disappointed.

[DesertBob]

to choose NOT to continue my existence (by reproducing- especially when I could do so pretty easily) feels a bit suicidal. It feels like giving up. Not saying there's anything WRONG with that if that's your choice... I'm just not sure that it's my choice.

I guess I don't see it as suicidal because you are not terminating a life. The other thing i've considered as well is that when you bring a life into the world, you are doing so without consent [of that life]. Personally had I been given the choice along with an accurate picture of the potential risks and rewards of existence, I would have opted out - the "rewards" are really too little to justify existing, IMO. One of my favorite activities in life is sleeping, presumably because I am not cognizant of anything. That tells me lots....

THANK YOU for that post. Someone at least gets it.

 

Is not reproducing "giving up"? Depends on what you were holding on to. Not choosing to reproduce could reflect one or both of two things: a lack of personal interest or at least insufficient "fire in the belly" for such a big and important responsibility; and/or, a lack of hope. My brother, Bill, 10 years my senior, never had kids and told me a couple of decades ago it was "because I didn't want a bunch of little Billys running around". At the time I didn't understand the statement but now I do. He wanted to have his own existential house in order before helping someone else build theirs. I don't think Bill ever got his existential house in order, only learned to cope with it. I am the same, and I wish I had possessed the self-awareness Bill did, back when I made the decision to have kids.

 

Here in this thread we're posing a third reason for not having kids, which is basically that it's an imposition on the kids. Forget about your own optimism or lack thereof, or your own level of interest. What about them?

[Ro-bear]

The thing is that with kids, like with everything else, there are no guarantees. You could have kids who are a joy to be around and a balm in your old age, or you could have kids who make you go, meh, what was the point, or you could have kids that suck the will to live out of you and you breathe a sigh of relief to send them into the world and hope they don't call or write often. And that range of outcomes has astoundingly little to do with your sincerity, diligence, or skill as a parent.

 

Another ill-fated attempt to soften the reality that we live and die alone and are forgotten relatively quickly. Don't put your hopes in your kids in this regard; love them as best you can, have zero expectations, and accept in any given moment whatever successes you have in the enterprise of raising them, and let the rest go. If you can do that and you're fairly optimistic and self-actualized you may well enjoy parenting. But do it so that you can have the June and Ward Cleaver nice orderly progression of events, and you will be bitterly disappointed.

 

 

The first sentence I agree with: there are, indeed, no guarantees. The last sentence I vehemently disagree with. It is entirely foreign to my experience. I'm not just talking about my personal experience, either; I'm talking about what I know of my extended family, going back for generations, and the experiences of other families close to mine. Environment makes a big difference.

 

Being a parent entails risk. Part of that risk is the hopes we as parents invest in our children. You could not be more wrong when you recommend "zero expectations". My teaching failures are peopled by innumerable children whose parents robbed them of focus and motivation by having zero expectations. The happiest, most successful kids I have seen are those with parents who have clear, high expectations of them and provide the necessary support to help their children realize them.

 

Your tale is a very sad one, and, I think, atypical. Parenting, like many worthwhile endeavors, entails risks. But risks are manageable. I have no doubt at all that my own final scenario will be that of the Room 4 guy. So will those of my brothers, sister, cousins, aunts, uncles, mother, and father. That is the only scenario acceptable in my family.

 

Odd we should speak of this today. My brother and I are about to go to the hospital to see old Uncle Ed. The poor man is over ninety and likely will not recognize us or even realize his legs are gone. But he won't be alone. His kids are there, along with a couple of brothers, several nieces, nephews, spouses, grandchildren, etc.

[Mike D]

 

Meantime, over in room 5, the scenario you and I fear was playing out. Some vacant-eyed, slack-jawed gentleman was struggling to draw breath in a dark, empty room. That guy is most likely me some day, not the room 4 guy. I will probably be able to afford to have hospice or nursing care but there will not be a loving family gathered 'round.

With regard to dying alone without having anyone there (like your kids), even if you have kids who love you that is still no guarantee.

 

My father passed away 9 months ago from cancer and he died in the hospital. Luckily my sister and brother in law were there with him, but I personally couldn't be there, even though I loved him dearly and would have wanted to more than anything. Why? I live 500 miles away and even though I was planning a trip in the next few days, he died much quicker than anyone anticipated. Unfortunately death doesn't work around anyone's schedule, nor does death give a shit who can or can't be present when the actual time comes. While I don't feel guilty for not being there (I know he would have completely understood), it still makes me very sad that I couldn't be there with him. But, I am thankful my sister was there at least.

 

One thing I do wish I could convey to my father is how much I miss him - I think about him literally almost every day. So even though I wasn't with him in the end, he was very much loved just the same.

[DesertBob]

The first sentence I agree with: there are, indeed, no guarantees. The last sentence I vehemently disagree with. It is entirely foreign to my experience. I'm not just talking about my personal experience, either; I'm talking about what I know of my extended family, going back for generations, and the experiences of other families close to mine. Environment makes a big difference.

It sounds to me like you have a strong extended family dynamic that my fiancee and I both lack. I grew up in an intact functional family unit where I knew I was loved, but even at that, we were in many ways isolated from extended family -- my Dad kept his side of the family at arm's length for reasons I never understood or was apprised of but I suspect had to do with covert alcoholism he experienced in childhood or something. My Mom was closer to her family but by the time I came on the scene she had abandoned her childhood Lutheran heritage for fundamentalism and we were somewhat pariahs because of it -- and come to think of it my Dad abandoned Catholicism to marry Mom and then became a fundie to boot, so that couldn't have helped matters with his family. So I know nothing of that extended support system and have always functioned on an island so to speak. What it does tell me though is that sometimes those extended support systems come with certain ironclad demands / requirements like adherence to an ideology, and some people are cast out for not conforming -- so you have to wonder how genuinely loving those situations are in the first place.

 

I have no idea if extended family dynamics accounts for the high success rate that you describe but whatever it is, all I can say is, count yourself incredibly fortunate. I certainly expected what you described, as I didn't smoke, chew, or go with girls that do, I loved God, yadda yadda, and besides, I had a very high-minded vision for family life and it was my top priority. I wasn't that guy who worked 18 hours a day six days a week and then wondered why his family went to shit. I'm a loving, caring, gentle soul and I did my best to pass on those values. Where I fundamentally went wrong is in making bad relationship choices; the mother of my children was a terrible choice. Without that being right you can only accomplish so much. Throw the inevitable divorce into the mix and it doesn't get any better.

Being a parent entails risk. Part of that risk is the hopes we as parents invest in our children. You could not be more wrong when you recommend "zero expectations". My teaching failures are peopled by innumerable children whose parents robbed them of focus and motivation by having zero expectations. The happiest, most successful kids I have seen are those with parents who have clear, high expectations of them and provide the necessary support to help their children realize them.

When I speak of zero expectations I do not mean to expect or demand nothing of your children or to be laissez-faire about their development. You expect them to do their chores, respect their elders, complete there homework before hanging out on FaceBook, all of that stuff. You expect them to be their best selves. You do not enable them. However, eventually they are responsible for their own decisions -- or more accurately as they grow older they are more and more personally responsible -- and this leaves open the possibility that they will fail those responsibilities. You cannot have expectations beyond a certain point or else your love becomes conditional and believe me there have been times when the healthiest thing for me personally would have been to have nothing to do with my daughter and to cut off all ties with her. It is entirely possible for children to abuse their parents. The only way forward for me with her (and the only way forward for my fiancee with her daughter) is to relinquish our hopes and dreams for an ideal, comfortable, naturally flowing relationship and let it be what it is. We cannot control the (re)actions of others, we can only remain present for them and maintain healthy boundaries. The rest is not in our hands.

Your tale is a very sad one, and, I think, atypical. Parenting, like many worthwhile endeavors, entails risks. But risks are manageable.

Until they aren't. If I allowed myself to go such places I could turn myself into a weepy pile of mush for all that could have / should have been entirely manageable and yet refused to be managed.

 

I suppose part of this is expectations. I have a friend back in AZ who reminds me very much of you. Married to the same woman his whole life, two bright, adoring children now out of the nest. It brought tears to my eyes when he showed me the scrapbook his son and daughter put together for Father's day one year, full of pictures and reminisces of life with Daddy. So loving and warm, and he looks forward to seeing his kids, they look forward to seeing him, and soon he'll be a grandpa. He's on track to having the whole friggin' story arc -- and I'm frankly jealous.

 

But look closer. He chain smokes. He struggles with a gambling addiction. He's under-achieving in his retirement years -- a former captain of industry, retired at 55 but now managing the customer desk at a self-storage place, largely because he's completely traumatized by corporate politics. I suspect he may be a functional alcoholic. He, too, comes from a big "happy" extended family but one of his sisters is a source of deep shame to him since she murdered her ex-husband and new wife in an (in)famous case back in the 70's, and he was obliged to raise one of her sons who was a total hellion. He is living the dream, on the surface, but he carries a lot of pain too.

 

So I don't think that my story is atypical -- I think yours is. And/or, you have easy going, low expectations of life and don't even know it. But don't change a thing ... you gotta do whatever works, and clearly, whatever you're doing is working.

[DesertBob]

With regard to dying alone without having anyone there (like your kids), even if you have kids who love you that is still no guarantee.

Oh, I get that. For me it's not so much that they are literally all there in my final moments as that they care enough to be there if they can, like you did. Like your Dad, I'd totally understand why you weren't there.

 

All anyone really wants is a sense of belonging and place, and to have that feel stable and sustainable. I've never had that, and it's starting to look like I never will. Most people in my life today have their own issues and limitations, but I'm damaged goods by now too, so there are limits to who I can inflict myself on. At this point in my life, I'm ready to let go of the dream of better things just around the corner and just let it be what it wants, for whatever reason, to be. I haven't got any more fight in me to keep chasing a brass ring that may not even be real.

 

There is a certain amount of freedom in letting go of all that striving.

[asanerman]

With regard to dying alone without having anyone there (like your kids), even if you have kids who love you that is still no guarantee.

 

Oh, I get that. For me it's not so much that they are literally all there in my final moments as that they care enough to be there if they can, like you did. Like your Dad, I'd totally understand why you weren't there.

 

All anyone really wants is a sense of belonging and place, and to have that feel stable and sustainable. I've never had that, and it's starting to look like I never will. Most people in my life today have their own issues and limitations, but I'm damaged goods by now too, so there are limits to who I can inflict myself on. At this point in my life, I'm ready to let go of the dream of better things just around the corner and just let it be what it wants, for whatever reason, to be. I haven't got any more fight in me to keep chasing a brass ring that may not even be real.

There is a certain amount of freedom in letting go of all that striving.

 

Wow ~Bob! Light at the end of the tunnel?

 

Maybe Viktor Frankl was on to something when he said;

 

"Man/Woman is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. Man/Woman does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment."

 

"By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at any instant....Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect of responsibleness."

 

"The meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment."

 

"To be sure, people tend to see and forget the full granaries of the past into which they have brought the harvest of their lives: the deeds done, the loves loved, and last but not least, the sufferings they have gone through with courage and dignity."

 

"..the dream of better things just around the corner" has always been the illusive brass ring that has frustrated my primary motivation for living--the will to meaning!

 

saner

[DesertBob]

Wow ~Bob! Light at the end of the tunnel?

The light at the end of the tunnel is good news, unless you hear a train horn coming from the same direction!

Maybe Viktor Frankl was on to something when he said;

 

... blah blah ...

 

"To be sure, people tend to see and forget the full granaries of the past into which they have brought the harvest of their lives: the deeds done, the loves loved, and last but not least, the sufferings they have gone through with courage and dignity."

I have always had a malfunction with Frankl and it is just the above, the fallacy that suffering is ennobling. My suffering has been a gross indignity, thank you very much. I am justifiably proud of the courage and dignity I had in spite of what I was subjected to. Not because of. I am not a better person because I suffered. I am diminished for that. I am a shadow of what I once was or could have been. I have, of course, learned things from it ... I am in some ways even stronger because of it ... but misery is not a requirement for character, knowledge, wisdom or strength. How much more could I have learned and grown if I had not been distracted by various seven-headed hydras?

 

Frankl was one of those people who have a faux moral high ground because they went through some horrific experience and came out the other end sane, as if that's some kind of accomplishment. He was forced into a prison camp and his freedom was taken from him. He did the only thing people could do in that situation: survive. He was among the lucky (?) ones who succeeded in surviving and among the even fewer who had enough of a mental and emotional constitution to not be completely compromised for life with PTSD or worse. The only way his claims would impress me is if he would demonstrate them by willingly submitting to confinement, starvation and torture. THEN he'd prove to me that none of those things really matter. But of course, no one, including Frankl, does that, at least not sane people.

 

Guys like Frankl say in effect, "Cry me a river, I can top your story. If I got through what I got through, anyone can get through anything". What they never understand is that everyone's suffering is just as big to them as years of want and torture in a Nazi concentration camp. It's all relative.

 

My fiancee, for all her wit and intelligence, has a charming affectation for reality TV. Last night I was pretending to watch one such show with her while actually giving her a foot rub. I was tempted to judge some whiny woman on the show who was always bellowing about how everyone makes fun of her and no one goes through what she goes through and no one understands and everyone is mean. All this while she actually has a pretty attentive husband and also a loving family that is fabulously wealthy, is getting a degree of her choice, is young, pretty, and healthy, and pretty much has nothing to actually worry about. But you know what? She's right. No one gets your own suffering but you. And no one has a right to judge it.

"..the dream of better things just around the corner" has always been the illusive brass ring that has frustrated my primary motivation for living--the will to meaning!

To hell with intent -- I want the actual meaning. But yes, that meaning is found amidst chaos in this insane world and I have to learn to seek it out regardless of what scimitars are poised over my head at any given moment. Sort of like memorizing poetry with a gun to your head.

[Ro-bear]

I was tempted to judge some whiny woman on the show who was always bellowing about how everyone makes fun of her and no one goes through what she goes through and no one understands and everyone is mean. All this while she actually has a pretty attentive husband and also a loving family that is fabulously wealthy, is getting a degree of her choice, is young, pretty, and healthy, and pretty much has nothing to actually worry about. But you know what? She's right. No one gets your own suffering but you. And no one has a right to judge it.

 

I think you were on the right track when you were tempted to judge her. The right to have an opinion about others is just as sacrosanct as the whiny rich chick's right to complain.

[DesertBob]

I was tempted to judge some whiny woman on the show ... no one has a right to judge it.

I think you were on the right track when you were tempted to judge her. The right to have an opinion about others is just as sacrosanct as the whiny rich chick's right to complain.

The problem with these things is that particularly with women it's never about what they're actually talking about. The stated complaint is nearly always some symbolic substitute for the REAL issue. The woman's pain was real and not fake -- even if the stated reason for it was bogus.

 

As a dude it took me literally decades to figure out that the things my partners would complain about had nothing to do with what was actually bothering them. I'm not saying that guys never do this ... but we are much simpler and more literal creatures on the whole :-)