Why have kids?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why have kids?

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 16:20

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

OwlFancier posted:

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.

Jesus Christ, see my previous post. To want a child is a fundamental biological function, and no different from the desire to preserve your own life. Either way, you are preserving human life, and to argue that's a negative is to argue that life has no meaning or value.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2015 23:27

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

McDowell posted:

It doesn't. Life on planet earth is plentiful and cheap - there is nothing special about pissing, making GBS threads, or having progeny - every animal does it.

Then kill yourself.

I am of course being facetious to try and make a point. Why do you continue to preserve your life if it has no value? Deep down, very few people actually believe that.

EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jun 23, 2015

# ¿ Jun 23, 2015 23:47

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

Solkanar512 posted:

Back this statement with something more useful than just your gut.

Do you really need me to back up that reproduction is a part of life? Or the reason I think people reject it? The former doesn't need backing later. The latter is my opinion.

I suppose what I'm driving at is that I find the fors and the againsts argued this thread pretty absurd, given that every animal on the planet reproduces. Chimps don't sit there and wonder if their children will look after them when they grow old, or if they will bring money into the family. Dogs don't decide they'd rather live their own life and not get tied down.

A human doesn't owe you an explanation as to why they had kids any more than a koala bear does. It's just what we do.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2015 07:21

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

OwlFancier posted:

Well, it doesn't? Other than what you assign to it anyway. Making more humans isn't inherently, objectively Good.

It's also rather different from preserving existing life because existing life already happened, and thanks to our wonderful survival instincts, wants to keep on existing. Someone who's already alive has a right to autonomy, to decide what they want and how they want to live, because that's perhaps the best universal medicine for escaping the inherent unpleasantness of being alive. Life is inherently difficult and painful, it is only through effort and good fortune that it can also be pleasant sometimes.

But if you can spare somebody that dependency on fortune and struggle in the first place, you should.

If you want children, adopt. Plenty of people have already made the mistake of dumping the burden of life on others for stupid and selfish reasons, if you want to do a good thing, try to lighten that weight for people who are already stuck with it, don't make more people just because you want a child in your preferred colour/genetic flavour.

A koala bear will also maul people who pick it up wrong, but we expect humans to justify their actions if they attack people.

That childbearing is common and something you are capable of does not mean you are under no ethical obligations regarding it, nor does it mean you get to be irresponsible about it without judgement from others.

I don't believe anyone is under an ethical obligation to reproduce, but only in that ethics are a social construct, as opposed to a part of nature. This is why in western civilisation, there are no laws on how many children you're allowed to have.

Being violent is a part of our nature that we suppress, because it's detrimental to society, whereas children are the reason society exists in the first place. It's contradictory to say that children are a detriment to society. You could argue that they are detriment to the environment, but what is that environment for if there are no people in it?

# ¿ Jun 24, 2015 08:59

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

Solkanar512 posted:

First off, I never asked you or anyone else to explain having children, so this perceived slight on your behalf is completely unjustified. Why do you see folks like me as such a threat?

I don't, I just object to the idea that having children requires justification, which is what this thread is about.

Solkanar512 posted:

What I object to is your insistence without any evidence what so ever that people who don't want kids are somehow ignorant of their own basic biology, and if they were more comfortable they would be popping out kids left and right.

No, what i was saying was that the default position is the urge to reproduce. After a process of intelligent, human thought this position can change.

Solkanar512 posted:

First off, that's batshit crazy. We aren't simple animals driven only by our most basic needs without that ability to plan for the long term.

We are exactly that. We do some odd things that no other animal does, but I believe these can all be reduced to fulfilment of basic animal needs. This is why couples without kids get pets - something that is uniquely human, yet fulfils an animal desire.

Solkanar512 posted:

It's nothing more than a romanticized version of the naturalistic fallacy. We've had various forms of birth control for thousands of years yet you completely ignore that as well. Do I need to sit here and list everything else human do that animals do not?

As I was thinking on this subject today, it did occur to me that the desire to reproduce would not necessarily become a naturally selected trait, if the desire to have sex and the desire to protect any offspring is great enough. With that in mind, desire to have children may well be an entirely social construct.

Solkanar512 posted:

Furthermore, your naturalistic argument has some incredibly insulting and sexist implications. People choose to have or not have children based on their current lives and their access to appropriate medical care. Those who chose not to have children (right now/later/ever) are not denying some intrinsic or "natural" part of themselves, and they aren't defective or less of a human being for doing so. Not to mention your naturalistic argument harkens back to that old saw about "a woman's highest calling is to be a mother".

I implied no such thing. Reproduction is the pinnacle of biological achievement (for either sex), in the sense that you are a biological machine designed to preserve your own genes. This is entirely separate from human achievement, which encompasses everything else that we do.

EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jun 24, 2015

# ¿ Jun 24, 2015 19:33

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

OwlFancier posted:

Of course it requires justification, you're creating a new human life, there is very little in the world that requires more justification than that except possibly for ending a human life.

I mean good god if you don't think life and death are subject to moral constraints then I don't know what you think is.

Again, why should a fundamental part of life require justification? Apply your logic to other people and perhaps you'll see what I mean - how would you feel about enforcing your moral and environmental considerations on others, as China does with it's one child policy. Ask yourself why you'd be uncomfortable with that.

EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jun 24, 2015

# ¿ Jun 24, 2015 20:23

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

Solkanar512 posted:

When you say that reproduction is the "pinnacle of biological achievement" (lets set aside for a moment that all life does this, and how arbitrary your measurement is*), you are implicitly harkening back to that dangerous standard that "the highest calling of a woman is to be a mother" and "a woman isn't complete until she has children". Your appeal to naturalism implies that there is something biologically wrong with a woman who does not wish to become a mother or otherwise care for children. After all, it's her highest calling, her duty, the reason she was placed on this earth, so why else would she pass on that? What's wrong with her?

To claim that it's the same for both genders ignores thousands of years of laws and social pressure aimed specifically at women to ensure they don't have sex with the wrong person, that they don't enjoy sex, that they don't have full autonomy of their sexual relationships, that their only calling in life is to be a mother and that they lack control of their own sexual health. While men may face some pressures, it's a minor footnote compared to the mountain of poo poo women have and continue to face.

*And seriously, this idea that there are "biological achievements" and "human achievements" is nothing more than a "No True Scotsman" argument. Why is reproduction so important but homeostasis is not? Why aren't you discussing the wonders of asexual reproduction and exponential growth? What about the ability to withstand harsh conditions or transform the atmosphere (blue-green algae)?

Come on, think this poo poo through.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Reproduction is part of the definition of life. There were two things that needed to happen for life to exist - the spontaneous emergence of life, and its ability to reproduce.

Let me rephrase my original point without using a loaded words - the body of every living thing is designed to facilitate the survival of your genes through self-perpetuation and reproduction. Humans are unique in that they can chose not to do either. They can chose to do anything that's counter to what their biological function has evolved to do (the 'human' choices). I attach no positive or negative connotations to that choice.

'Achievement' was a piss-poor choice of words and I'm sorry for that.

I do realise what you're saying - that biological reductionism can be used to argue a lot of bull poo poo around a 'woman's true calling', but that's not what I'm doing.

EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Jun 25, 2015

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 07:02

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

OwlFancier posted:

I feel absolutely no discomfort with the idea of forcing people to comprehend the implications of their decision to have or not have children. I would be much, much happier in fact if everyone in the world were to do that, rather than having children "because I want them" or "because it's part of life".

You are not required to have a child, you may want a child but you drat well ought to be able to justify it. If you can't justify it, you shouldn't have one. The child's wellbeing and that of others trumps your personal preferences. Human lives are not vanity items.

I would argue, given that civilisation requires reproduction to exist, that having to make any consideration regarding having children beyond 'I want children' is indicative of faults with that society. I'm not denying that those considerations exist.

What's the end goal of your position? No one has kids, the human race disappears, and we leave it nature? Fair enough. But surely the best position would be to allow people to have kids' freely, without fear of them wrecking the environment, or suffering horrifically. We are capable of achieving that, and have made huge progress when you consider the suffering that our species has been through.

EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jun 25, 2015

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 07:21

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

OwlFancier posted:

What you want is absolutely, completely, and utterly irrelevant.

A child's life is not there for you, it is not something to be created for your amusement. If you are going to have a child you should be doing it for the child's sake, not your own.

The end goal of my position is to ask whether or not you think it's just or fair, to keep throwing human lives onto the pile of misery and death upon which our species "progresses". I expect you to be cognizant of the pain, work, and suffering that supports any position of comfort, and to recognize that hope for the future of your child is mired in the likelihood that they will not live in a position of comfort.

Consider that it is entirely possible for your child to develop illness, to struggle to find well paying work, to suffer the effects of war or environmental damage, to develop an addiction, to live a life of loneliness. And even if none of these do happen, in a sense they are only not happening to your child because they're happening to someone else instead. For every wealthy person there are many living in poverty to support their wealth, for every person with a doctor there are those going without, for everyone who doesn't have to deal with the effects of environmental damage there are those who cannot afford to escape it.

Your child will either suffer, or inflict suffering on others. And yet you say that the only thing you need to think about is "well, I want children, so I will have them".

That a child born into western civilisation inflicts suffering by consuming resources is the fault of the founders of that civilisation and those in charge of keeping it that way. It's not the fault of people that decide to have children, and it's not fair that they should even have to consider that when they decided to fulfil the most basic biological function. Again, by your own logic YOU are causing the same suffering, have the choice to end your own life, yet you don't. People who decide to have children don't need to justify their decision, any more than your decision to keep yourself alive.

It is of course entirely possible that a child will develop a condition that would cause it to suffer. But that is less likely now than it has ever been in history. Are you proposing we wait until we cure all disease, and bring about world peace before we can ethically reproduce?

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 11:24

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

OwlFancier posted:

Oh well as long as you can blame it on dead people that of course absolves you of all responsibility. You can choose not to perpetuate that problem, but it's not your fault, so you don't have to, because it might get in the way of your desire to have a kid.

And of course I have to justify my own existence, everyone does. It is debatable whether the desire your peers have for you to keep living justifies the damage you cause by your existence, but you can certainly make a good attempt at justifying your own existence on the basis that your peers depend on you in some way, that you may have a material debt to repay to the people and society that raised you, that it is possible for you to contribute positive things to the world instead of simply consuming and destroying. And of course it's very difficult to rationalize killing yourself so I can hardly expect everyone to do that. And further, it isn't necessary, because you will die shortly anyway. The real damage you can do is continuing the cycle by reproducing, inflicting the same problems and the same dichotomies on your children. I'm fine with living because I'm going to die in less than sixty years and nobody will succeed me, so it's largely six and two threes whether I die earlier or not. Besides I owe things to people and I should repay them before I die.

None of that, however, applies to the creation of a child. A child not born doesn't have attachments to others, it doesn't have a debt to repay, it will not necessarily contribute positively to the world. It has no reason to exist. There is a world of difference both practically and ethically between preserving an existing life and creating a new one.

Where do you get the idea that having children is some divinely mandated thing that everyone on the planet should be able to do without any thought at all? We shouldn't think about our child's, our society's, or our species' wellbeing because that might mean we need to make difficult choices, and that's just not fair.

Whether you think it's fair or not the choice rests with you, and you absolutely have to make it. Or you can stick you fingers in your ears and say la la la I shouldn't have to think about this I'm just going to have kids. Whatever.

I'm not evoking divinity. I actually couldn't give a poo poo if someone decides to have a child or not. But not having one because society will suffer is a contradiction, because society is made up of humans who reproduce.

Indulge me in a thought experiment - there are 6 billion humans in the world, and they are all incapable of reproduction, but live forever. After 70 years, you are allowed to leave Earth, or stay. What's the moral choice? Stay and try to fix what's wrong with it, or leave and stop consuming resources?

Either choice will prevent suffering, however the latter at best reduces resource that could potentially fix problems, at worst leaves no one left on Earth.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 18:34

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

Feather posted:

Did she also talk about the involuntary urination and defecation during the final pushes of labor and the litre of amniotic fluid and the chunky, bloody placenta that women give birth to after baby comes out? Cuz those were interesting things to witness.

What about the cheese (vernix mucosa)/hair covered baby (the amount of each varies from baby to baby, the duration of gestation, etc.) turning increasingly deep shades of purple until its first big cry?

Don't forget not making GBS threads for two weeks after giving birth.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 22:58

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

Cicero posted:

I'm not saying every place has to be occupied by kids at all times, I just think an entire society that is childfree is pretty depressing.

It's called central London. Lived there for a year and saw no children and no dogs. Pretty good when you're 26.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 09:42

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

I agree, this is a semantic argument. Usually when people talk about 'goals' and 'design' in the context of evolution, it's for no other reason than it's easier than saying something like -

The current biological function of an organism that emerged through the product of mutations that survived through generations.

It's just as an easier way of saying 'what a species can currently do', although I will admit that it leads to all sorts of misconceptions.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 09:27

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

You don't eat your own poo poo because no innate urge to eat poo poo has been selected for.

What I meant in that last sentence was 'things a species can do as a direct result of natural selection'.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 09:59

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

Solkanar512 posted:

Sure, maybe if you've never taken a biology class. Evolution doesn't design anything, and dismissing this as a nothing more than meaningless semantics is really loving stupid.

It's stupid of you're incapable of separating literal terms and analogy.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 18:25

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

OwlFancier posted:

You've posted an awful lot of nothing about how humans can reproduce if you aren't trying to suggest that we have some sort of obligation to do so because it's natural or whatever.

Either you're using terms literally or you're saying nothing.

I never said or implied anything of the sort. The only point I've been trying to make is that having children shouldn't require justification.

Justify not having kids, by all means, which is what you've already done. But don't ask me or anyone to justify why they had a child. It's none of anyone's business, and is a basic natural right.

EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jun 30, 2015

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 18:58

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

OwlFancier posted:

"I'm not saying you have to, but it's natural and the pinnace of biological achievement and you wouldn't want to argue that life isn't inherently meaningful would you?"

I'm really not sure I believe you.

First of all, I was trying to highlight that your position seemed to be that life was meaningless. I never stated that I thought life had any meaning, and certainly not that that meaning was reproduction.

Aside from that, if you think any of your highlighted quotes are arguing that reproduction is the meaning of life, you've not understood what I'm arguing. I stand by everything I said, and attach no value or meaning to reproduction. In fact that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying, hence reproduction requires no justification. Only when you apply meaning, positive or negative, does justification come in. I'm saying that it's nothing but simple biology.

McAlister posted:

No it did not. Design implies intent.

Using the word "designed" is a dog whistle. It frames the debate in such a way as to dismiss the invasiveness of pregnancy and also to proclaim a mandate. If I had been "designed" for something then that literally would be what I am for because my "designer" clearly has intentions.

The point of a dog whistle is to sound reasonable to people who don't think about it much while conveying a specific message to the dogs.

You know drat well theocratic dogs interpret "designed" exactly as I am describing so please stop whistling them.

Actually, I hear you on this now, although I think the prevalence of the term is more out of slopiness, and lack of thought as to what it implies - that the design is complete, and that a woman's suffering should be accepted as part of that. I'll definitely avoid it in the future.

EvilGenius fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jun 30, 2015

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 19:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 16:20

EvilGenius: May 2, 2006; Death to the Black Eyed Peas

OwlFancier posted:

You are appealing to nature to justify reproduction, you are arguing that reproduction needs no justification because it comes pre-justified by nature. Which is completely inconsistent with many other things that humans may do without being specifically taught, or 'naturally' for want of a better word.

To reproduce is a conscious decision, and one which affects the lives of at least two other people, to argue that it does not need justification because "it's natural" is a complete fallacy, not to mention extremely disrespectful to the lives of both your child and partner. It absolutely requires justification because you do not have any moral authority over those two lives on the basis that it's your "natural function" to gently caress.

No, nature doesn't come pre-justified. Does a tree justify itself when it drops its acorns? No, it just does. All our ancestors were the same, except at some point we became intelligent enough to treat it as a choice. Are you saying that we are obligated to justify our reproduction simply because we're capable? I'm not saying that's the wrong position to take, I'm just curious.

You still haven't provided an example of what a justification for having a child is, only several justifications for not having one. Are we in fact kind of arguing the same thing - that there is no legitimate reasoning behind having children, and that moral and practical barriers are all that's there to stop people having them? The only difference in our positions being your belief that everyone is obligated to consider the negative consequences. Or do you have any examples of justification for having a child?

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 21:36

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why have kids?