|
Ender.uNF posted:Without kids our genetic line dies out and no one will ever remember or care that we ever existed. Name one of your ancestors who lived in the 16th century without asking Mormons for help.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
thehomemaster posted:I see no benefit to children unless you keep them out of school so that a) they can work and b) they aren't brainwashed/made numb. Possibly the only legit reason, if you are white, is that every other race is pumping them out faster. Your insight on humanity requires expansion. This thread could use really use your input.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
I find it funny that any emotional arguments seem to be overlooked. It's actually very rewarding to take care of and see a child grow up and develop. Like, I actually enjoy being with my child, helping her learn to crawl, seeing her figure things out for the first time. Those things make me feel good. It's like asking why do almost anything that has a negative financial outcome. Why own a pet? Why have a hobby? Why play recreational sport?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:I feel like, I will be able to do so many cool things if I avoid having kids. But most people have them. And probably wanted to have them before they had them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
PotatoManJack posted:I find it funny that any emotional arguments seem to be overlooked. It's actually very rewarding to take care of and see a child grow up and develop. Like, I actually enjoy being with my child, helping her learn to crawl, seeing her figure things out for the first time. Those things make me feel good. A child isn't a pet or a hobby. A child is a sapient being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
downout posted:Your insight on humanity requires expansion. This thread could use really use your input. What the hell, I'm not a libertarian dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:A child isn't a pet or a hobby. A child is a sapient being. Yes, but the reason you have them is the enjoyment you get from watching another being grow and learn. You don't have to have kids, much like you don't need to own a dog, or play baseball, or pursue activities for leisure. PotatoManJack is saying it's possible to do things because they enrich your life, not necessarily because it'll get you more or less zeros in your bank account. It makes sense given the zeitgeist though, why so many people would look at a human child and see a balance sheet. Our capitalist masters have programmed us a little too well, maybe. We regard our own offspring as parasitic because they are disadvantageous in the 'maximum profit now' style of late capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Hardly, they're a bad long term investment too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
PotatoManJack posted:I find it funny that any emotional arguments seem to be overlooked. It's actually very rewarding to take care of and see a child grow up and develop. Like, I actually enjoy being with my child, helping her learn to crawl, seeing her figure things out for the first time. Those things make me feel good. But it is really is better this way. Those who only see a kid in economic terms now, instead of forcing a kid into existence for economic gain, believe it's cheaper to not reproduce. Therefore, those who legitimately want children to see them be happy and successful are the only ones having children (at least more so than before, obviously it's more complicated than that). We don't really need so many people and the more we can focus on living life to enjoy it instead of Kafkaesquely slaving to somebody else's ambitions the better really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Yes, but the reason you have them is the enjoyment you get from watching another being grow and learn. You don't have to have kids, much like you don't need to own a dog, or play baseball, or pursue activities for leisure. PotatoManJack is saying it's possible to do things because they enrich your life, not necessarily because it'll get you more or less zeros in your bank account. It makes sense given the zeitgeist though, why so many people would look at a human child and see a balance sheet. Our capitalist masters have programmed us a little too well, maybe. We regard our own offspring as parasitic because they are disadvantageous in the 'maximum profit now' style of late capitalism. However in the case of a child, what you want should not signify. A child is not, or should not exist for your entertainment. When you have a child, you thrust upon it all of the misery and hardship of life. The child will have to work to live, to suffer illness, to be used by others for their own gain, to age and deteriorate, and ultimately to die. To have a child because you want a child is the most monstrously selfish act I can imagine in almost all cases. Short of serial murder it's rather difficult to inflict more suffering on people than by bringing them into existence in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
McAlister posted:This is a thing, unfortunately: What in the gently caress I was not being serious 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Why? Because I ejaculated in her, oops
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:However in the case of a child, what you want should not signify. sorry about your terrible life
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:However in the case of a child, what you want should not signify.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
From a Benatarian perspective, that's irrelevant. Even if you could be guaranteed that a child would live a life of bliss aside from a single pinprick, it would still not be justifiable bringing them into existence without their informed consent. He presents the argument as follows: David Benatar posted:It is uncontroversial to say that Therefore either OwlFancier's argument stands up to philosophical criticism, or things don't get better until way after your tenure as a postdoctoral philosopher.  Of course, the situation of the single pinprick is a massive understatement for the purposes of reality; there's a massive genetic lottery, the 'Sickness Unto Death' that can accompany apprehension of dying, the certainty of death itself, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Cameron posted:Why? Since time immemorial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Therefore either OwlFancier's argument stands up to philosophical criticism, or things don't get better until way after your tenure as a postdoctoral philosopher. Full Tenurism Now, then children.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
I give my parents retroactive informed consent to having me
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:From a Benatarian perspective, that's irrelevant. I've never heard of Benatar before, but the quote you pulled reads look some truly autistic utilitarianism. The counterargument would be the binary he sets up does not apply at all to existence. Pain and hardship are necessary parts of life, and are therefore good in many ways. According to the Vedas, pleasure exists only as the absence of suffering. This means that suffering is perhaps the ultimate good, the only positive quality of existence. Reproducing is not mandatory for all men. It is, however, an inescapable aspect of the universe's will to transcendence. How do utilitarians respond to the Vedas, or to Schopenhauer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
What is individual free will besides consciously rejecting your biological drives?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
That's a good question - if you have something like ALS in your genetics, shouldn't doctors advise against you breeding
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Handy source of free labour and/or food OP, hth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
ScumLord69 posted:I've never heard of Benatar before, but the quote you pulled reads look some truly autistic utilitarianism. The counterargument would be the binary he sets up does not apply at all to existence. Pain and hardship are necessary parts of life, and are therefore good in many ways. According to the Vedas, pleasure exists only as the absence of suffering. This means that suffering is perhaps the ultimate good, the only positive quality of existence. As a utilitarian I respond with "that's daft".
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As a utilitarian I respond with "that's daft". Ok.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
ScumLord69 posted:I've never heard of Benatar before, but the quote you pulled reads look some truly autistic utilitarianism. The counterargument would be the binary he sets up does not apply at all to existence. Pain and hardship are necessary parts of life, and are therefore good in many ways. According to the Vedas, pleasure exists only as the absence of suffering. This means that suffering is perhaps the ultimate good, the only positive quality of existence. That seems like nonsense to me, I don't strive for anything to increase my suffering (the only positive quality of existence).
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
My baby is sleeping in my arms right now. It owns. You should have kids, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:My baby is sleeping in my arms right now. It owns. You should have kids, imo. What are you posting with if the baby is taking up your arms? I am not convinced that baby-having would not impede my ability to post on Something Awful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That seems like nonsense to me, I don't strive for anything to increase my suffering (the only positive quality of existence). Of course. Masochism is a deviant behavior. Suffering isn't something most people actively seek out, but it's also something they can't avoid, and in fact makes them stronger and wiser (positive qualities in my opinion). I suppose my argument is that the existence of suffering in the world does not make reproduction unethical. All existence is suffering, a statement which I understand neutrally, because I do not necessarily see pain as an unequivocal "bad thing." If you respond to that fact by deciding not to reproduce, that is your choice and that is fine. All things are part of this narrative of suffering and transcendence, and they all respond as is their nature. Many people choose to continue their family line and to build something for future generations, but that is not necessarily an imperative choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
ScumLord69 posted:Of course. Masochism is a deviant behavior. Suffering isn't something most people actively seek out, but it's also something they can't avoid, and in fact makes them stronger and wiser (positive qualities in my opinion). I don' t think you have suffered enough/may have a rather delusional and magical view of the universe if you believe suffering to be constructive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don' t think you have suffered enough/may have a rather delusional and magical view of the universe if you believe suffering to be constructive. Some people respond to suffering constructively, some don't. All people suffer, however. If you have children, they will suffer, but if they are strong, they will transcend that suffering. I realize that this is all very dramatic sounding. I myself prefer the quiet life and don't really see my life as a titanic struggle. Of course I've suffered, just like anybody else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
ScumLord69 posted:Some people respond to suffering constructively, some don't. All people suffer, however. If you have children, they will suffer, but if they are strong, they will transcend that suffering. As you pointed out, however, it is your response which is constructive or not, not the suffering itself. You can elect to behave constructively without suffering, suffering is destructive and unproductive, always. Believing that it is necessary to suffer to act properly is deranged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Adolescence has been extended too long. It's absurd that people can't afford to raise a family until their late 20s (when fertility starts to become a concern) and decisions can't be made freely. I think people would have more kids if it was again feasible to live a full adult lifestyle at 22 (job paying a lot, being able to live alone, not needing more school, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:Name one of your ancestors who lived in the 16th century without asking Mormons for help. I actually do have a family tree going back to the 16th century, including a story about the family patriarch traveling west to Ohio where he claimed to have had a vision from an angel to dig under a certain tree where he then found gold. Where he really got the gold is lost to time. But I take your larger point: after a few generations most family history is lost. But the genetic legacy lives on, and so does the social and educational legacy at least in some part. Given how much of our lives is recorded digitally there's also a greater than zero chance I'll be among the first generations to reliably pass a record down through many generations (granted the chance is small). If I could have immortality tomorrow I'd rather have that, but I can't. And we had two kids so we're slightly below the population replacement rate anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
I can trace family back to the 16th century on paper. That is only on paper though, and mostly only by patrilineage. That makes it more a record of property, or where there wasn't property just a record of legal documents. I have no hard proof that they're genetic ancestors. They chose the wrong side if they wanted to make it cuck-proof. That said, adopted kids have always been considered near identical for the purposes of lineage and property under the law, and they got the benefit of any education passed down (for all that matters nowadays) so I'm not sure how much the genetics matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
You are equally dead whether you have kids or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I can trace family back to the 16th century on paper. That is only on paper though, and mostly only by patrilineage. This is a good point - it's possible in the lineage that someone charged with carrying on the family genes adopted their child and there's no record of it - in which case anyone who comes after that in the family tree doesn't even have any of their ancestor's genes Or let's say somewhere in the lineage the mother who married into the family cheated on the father but raised the kid without anyone knowing - that child also has none of the father's genes
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As you pointed out, however, it is your response which is constructive or not, not the suffering itself. This line of argument is going off topic so I will bow out after this post. My point is that suffering is an a priori fact of existence. All things that exist experience suffering and deterioration. I believe it is necessary to suffer to act properly simply because suffering is inherent to existing. I brought all this up because I disliked the utilitarian argument claiming that having children is immoral because you are subjecting a being to suffering without its consent. I dislike that argument because it is reductionist to say that suffering is bad and bad things should be avoided at all costs. I was simply curious if utilitarians could expand on their justification for such a simplistic view of pain and pleasure, given my objections (cribbed from Schopenhauer). That is probably a debate for a different thread, which I'm not going to start. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Feather posted:My master bedroom is 800sq ft. It's much better than the ~800 sq. ft. ghetto box "apartments" I grew up in. Why wouldn't you want to live in a larger home, is my question. More space for kids means more space for me, and that's what matters. I actually don't like large home or large rooms, I find them cavernous, lonely and unwelcoming. Why do you need a 800sq ft bedroom? Like I have to imagine most of that minus the bed and along the walls is just empty space.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
When my wife became pregnant I started to think about how reproduction, among all other biological functions, is unique. Your heart continually beats, your lungs continually take in air, your stomach regularly asks for and receives food. You get tired at the same time every day, and sleep for eight hours every day. Every aspect of your biology up to the moment you become pregnant has been with you your entire life, until suddenly your body somehow knows how to do this thing it's never done before. This unfamiliarity of reproduction causes some people to see it as something other than a fundamental part of your biology. That's why I find the question 'why have kids' rather odd. The question, as I'm sure has already been stated in this thread, should be 'why not have kids'? What are you going to do with the decades upon decades of your life that you've been given? You might find it hard to believe when you're 20, but drinking, loving, and traveling do start to get boring. That's simplistic, but what I'm trying to say is there's a tendency for younger people to assume the things that make them happy now will always make them happy, that they can choose that for the rest of their lives without going insane, and that any deviation from that is failure. It's not. Getting older, settling down, and no longer having to feel constantly like you've got something to prove is actually pretty awesome. Having kids is awesome. When they get to 2 or 3, when their personalities and memories start to develop, you'll find yourself feeling like you're in the bossom of a family again, like when you were a child, wrapped up in this bubble of love, comfort, and security. Except this family is your own creation. It's fascinating watching what traits they develop, and knowing which ones are nature, and which ones a nurture. I never taught my daughter to dance or sing. She just did it. I remember going to a gig shortly after she'd started dancing to music, and realising that dancing is in fact something in our nature, behind the social convention or the art form. It was the first time she inspired me, and she was 2 years old. Vvvvv, Lol, I'm sure all parents suddenly wish they never had kids when they hit puberty and get a bit lippy. EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
No offense, but I'm going to have to discount the opinion of a parent whose oldest child is (3? 5?) years old until they're 20 or so, considering how the opinions of parents I've known have changed as their children age. I have no doubt that a 3 year old is magic, but having a 19 year old telling you to go gently caress yourself while still expecting a free ride to college might be something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:17
|
|