# Children, joy or burden?



## Edward Elgar

Hi guys, I haven't been posting in the religious thread recently, but I saw some debate regarding religious impact on attitudes towards children.

I thought it would be interesting to see your own attitudes towards child rearing, regardless of whether you have a child/children or not.

It may be my age, but I view children as very much a burden, financially, emotionally and on a wider scale taking the population into account. Music and relationships give me all the emotional sustenance I need. As a result, I don't feel as if I will ever need a child in my life, although there may be pressures to procreate.

For some, parenthood may be something to aspire to, and therefore a child would be a joy in your life. You may have a child already who is a joy (or burden!).

So I pose the question to you, in your personal opinions, do you consider children to be a joy or a burden?


----------



## Boccherini

Are you joking?


----------



## Earthling

"To have committed every crime but that of being a father." ~ E.M. Cioran

But seriously... I've had no children (I was previously married for almost 10 years and thankfully me and my ex-wife never wanted children). Don't get me wrong-- I love children, I just don't want any-- for me, it would be too great a responsibility. The two most serious acts one could engage in is killing someone and also bringing another life into this world. It would've been irresponsible for me and my ex to have had a child when we were struggling by ourselves to make ends meet. So, for me: "Burden."


----------



## Aramis

> regardless of whether you have a child/children or not.


Having children is not only way to know the answer, there is another side of it - being someone's child. And we all are children of some other people so we can tell if we are/were joy or burden. I, for example, am burden because my parents have to hear music when I am listening and they are so backward that Mahler sounds extremely modern and noisy to their ears. I can't imagine what they feel when I listen to something really modern. They are also too dumb to appreciate my interest in art, so they have no satisfaction or pride because of what I do and in which direction I educate myself.


----------



## David58117

I've only dealt with them during pedi clinicals...eh, not too bad. I really can't wait to start brainwashing them into loving classical music. Maybe everytime we feed them we'll play some Beethoven. So I vote not a burdon.


----------



## jurianbai

Actually it is oxymoron-like, it is a joy in the same time a burden (or vice versa). The idea to having children is very scary to me at first and took long time before commit.Finally there is many philosophy to counter the 'burden' risk and to justify the 'joy' benefit. For example, in my society, you also can view children as investment, for your pension.....this is the popular reason I can present here, without touching value, religion, economy, politic etc. topic. Of course too cliche to say if you have children you have extra human to socialize, regardless socialize can mean be a friend or not a very good friend.


----------



## Chris

I think Shakespeare had it right when he said having children is the way we cheat death and avoided extinction.

Look in thy glass and tell the face thou viewest
Now is the time that face should form another;
Whose fresh repair if now thou not renewest,
Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother.
For where is she so fair whose unear'd womb	[unear'd = unploughed]
Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?
Or who is he so fond will be the tomb
Of his self-love, to stop posterity? 
Thou art thy mother's glass and she in thee
Calls back the lovely April of her prime;
So thou through windows of thine age shalt see,
Despite of wrinkles this thy golden time.
But if thou live, remember'd not to be,
Die single and thine image dies with thee.

Sonnet no. 3


----------



## Edward Elgar

Aramis said:


> Having children is not only way to know the answer, there is another side of it - being someone's child. And we all are children of some other people so we can tell if we are/were joy or burden. I, for example, am burden because my parents have to hear music when I am listening and they are so backward that Mahler sounds extremely modern and noisy to their ears.


I too see my child-self as a burden. Perhaps that's what's influenced my opinions to some extent.



Aramis said:


> They are also too dumb to appreciate my interest in art, so they have no satisfaction or pride because of what I do and in which direction I educate myself.


Ha! I can totally relate to this!

Imagine two parents. Barry Manilow and Abba form the exclusive musical diet of the mother. The father can tolerate classical as long as it passes the "old grey whistle test".

Now imagine a son who aspires to become a contemporary composer and you have a complete picture of my situation!

It's a tricky thing to come to terms with, but at the end of the day it's your life and you must live it as you see fit. Parents can only go so far in preparing you for the future, then they become the burden! Ha!


----------



## Edward Elgar

Chris said:


> I think Shakespeare had it right when he said having children is the way we cheat death and avoided extinction.


I think Shakespeare was speaking from a position of great strength if he knew to some extent how famous he would eventually be.

Do we remember Shakespeare because he had children? No! We remember him through his work. He has cheated death by becoming the immortal writer.

Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart, Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent van Gogh. These people are on the tips of everyone's tongues, not because they had children, but they left a legacy that ensured they avoided extinction.


----------



## Aramis

> Do we remember Shakespeare because he had children? No! We remember him through his work. He has cheated death by becoming the immortal writer.
> 
> Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart, Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent van Gogh. These people are on the tips of everyone's tongues, not because they had children, but they left a legacy that ensured they avoided extinction.


Also, let's take example of someone who had both immortal work and children - Wagner. His music is still great as it always was, but his children (grand-children now), despite being of the noblest descent ever, that includes both Liszt and Wagner blood are burden. They make so terrible stagings and have so little idea about how to take care about their legacy that Wagner probably regrets that there was no Durex in his lifetime, so he could avoid such disgrace. Maybe not by using them by himself, as he had son Siegfried who became not bad composer, but surely by giving some to just mentioned lad. There is no guarantee that children will be any extension of what you were, but in general this is rather positive thing.


----------



## Krummhorn

I have one child ... a son, now age 23. For a period of almost 10 years, I was a single parent rearing my son ... alone ... and playing the role of Mr. Mom at times, and enjoying it - every minute of it. Those were such wonderful years. Having to cope with his mother passing on during those years wasn't an easy task, but he and I, together, made it through the rough times and have succeeded. I re-married in 2008 after my son moved out on this own.

As for him following my footsteps in music, I would have like him to have become an organist, but I also supported his desires for playing in high school band. He learned the clarinet, then alto sax (which he still plays), then the tuba, trombone and later, tried the bassoon, but gave that one up shortly after he graduated. He and I do play duets together at church once in a while. 

I, as a child, was never a burden to my parents - I grew up in a very musically active family, my parents having played in the Scandinavian Symphony (Detroit) for many many years, and my sister being an accomplished violist. We all understood one another and our love for classical music was shared equally. My son still loves classical music, maybe not to the degree that I do, but still loves to go to organ concerts with me, and is also my page turned when I am performing. 

Kh


----------



## mamascarlatti

I think I would have had a different answer before I had kids, because I had never experienced it and they seemed to pose such an infringement on liberty. 

Musically speaking my two kids have been both a burden and a joy.

A burden because they eat up resources and time, money streaming out of the account on schooling, music lessons, sports, clothes, and so on, and so much time spent driving, coaching, cleaning up and simply just being there. So going on an opera week tour to Sydney (a recent brief dream of mine) – not a chance.

But a joy too – 

Because of acting as the Suzuki music home teacher, I have learnt to read music; played the piano; passed Grade 4 theory; gained an understanding of phrasing, dynamics and intonation; acquired immense respect for musicianship and musical skill; met a heap of musos and musical parents all round the country; heard loads of concerts (with the odd heart-stopping performance); and I have live music in my house every day.

I also have company in my opera obsession; my teenager is a witty and entertaining companion when we go to live opera or HD performances, and it’s wonderful introducing another person to a great work and seeing it have its effect on them; and my little one loves nothing more than snuggling with me on the sofa and watching an opera DVD (bit of a challenge explaining the story sometimes – try conveying droit de seigneur to a 7-year-old).

As for posterity – well I certainly don’t expect my children to be an extension of me, but I hope they are decent human beings. They might do stuff I don’t understand or worry about, but I know I’ll still love them as much as I do now. And that's the bottom line - love.


----------



## Sid James

What about both? I don't have children, but I know that having them puts certain restrictions on your life. But so do many things, there's no such things as total freedom. But it's probably safe to say that, despite the burdens, bringing up children (as Krummhorn suggests above) can be very rewarding and bring an extra dimension to your life. I would probably have one if I was in a better financial situation & found the right person. It's the type of thing that, if I do it, I want to do it well...


----------



## Boccherini

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by voting 'Joy' it means you aspire to rear children, _even though _it's not an easy task, and by voting 'Burden', it means you don't intend to rear children, ever. If that's correct, I don't really understand the ones who voted 'Burden'. Well, no one said that rearing children is an easy task, but how could someone be so selfish and immoral by subverting their family's posterity.

In addition, parents-and-children relationship shouldn't be technical by itself. The technical reasoning of rearing children because it might be rewarding in some aspect, shouldn't be the primary motivation for parents; Child is not a car which provides personal objectives, and if it's broken, who cares, we could always 'make' another one.


----------



## Herkku

Aramis said:


> my parents have to hear music when I am listening and they are so backward that Mahler sounds extremely modern and noisy to their ears. I can't imagine what they feel when I listen to something really modern. They are also too dumb to appreciate my interest in art, so they have no satisfaction or pride because of what I do and in which direction I educate myself.


Have your parents actually complained of your interest in music? Mine wouldn't have been able to tell Verdi and Puccini apart. It didn't bother me at all, because I didn't expect them to. The burden/joy thing was handled by my older sister so effectively by being l'enfant terrible that I didn't have to do much to be considered the latter.


----------



## Aramis

> Have your parents actually complained of your interest in music?


Well, yeah, besides getting no support (both material and spiritual) I often hear some "remarks", you couldn't find people with worse, stereotypical point of view on life that can be easily contained in: the purpose of human life is to eat, sleep and not die before loosing all teeth.



> Mine wouldn't have been able to tell Verdi and Puccini apart. It didn't bother me at all, because I didn't expect them to.


I too wouldn't be so mad about their ignorance if they would somehow respect and understand that other people may have some ideals and goals related to art and wouldn't put spokes in my wheels.


----------



## Guest

Children are interesting things - they can change your entire perception. When I was a child, I thought that parents were so out of touch and so completely bereft of taste, tact, intelligence, anything, really, that I thought was necessary. As I grew up and moved out, having to support myself, the scales started to fall from my eyes. Maybe mom and dad knew something of what they talked about. Now that I have children of my own, I realize how brilliant they really were - not because of any particular skill they excelled at, but because of what they did with such an incredibly different task - raising kids.

So your parent don't see eye to eye with you on everything. And maybe they aren't as into what you want them to be into. But they are individuals and have their own interests.

Everybody who doesn't have kids knows exactly what kids are like and how to raise them and what the whole experience should be like. And all of these fine theories are wonderful and sell books that make them a lot of money. And then you have your own and you throw away every book ever written, because they all suck. Kids bring joy, misery, happiness, misery, laughter, misery, pride, misery, some more misery, but, above it all, love. You don't have kids so that they can pay for you when you get old. You don't have kids so that they can carry on some family name or tradition. If you are thinking of kids in terms of material benefits that they can bring you, then you will be forever disappointed and then, yes, they will be a burden. But you are never going to find someone that loves you so unconditionally as your child. Or someone who brings you so much joy for doing for them as your child. They teach you patience, self-sacrifice, humility (try being a college-educated Ph.D. and being peed, pooped, and spit-up on in the course of 5 minutes), and that the whole world doesn't revolve around you, and that there are quite a few things more important than you. Parenting is not about what it can bring to you. Kids are wonderful. Treat them right, and even though they will cause you grief and heartache, you'll never find that same kind of joy and love in any other endeavor in this life.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Boccherini said:


> but how could someone be so selfish and immoral by subverting their family's posterity.


Easily. 

Also, it's not immoral or selfish to remain childless. If you're only having children to appease the wishes of your family then that's an immoral and selfish act as far as the child is concerned.



Boccherini said:


> In addition, parents-and-children relationship shouldn't be technical by itself. The technical reasoning of rearing children because it might be rewarding in some aspect, shouldn't be the primary motivation for parents;


I think I see what you mean here. If you are saying parents shouldn't have children for selfish reasons I totally agree with you.

What would be your primary motivation for having kids?



Boccherini said:


> Child is not a car which provides personal objectives, and if it's broken, who cares, we could always 'make' another one.


I have no idea what you mean by this! Are you saying we can 'make' cars or children?!


----------



## Edward Elgar

Aramis said:


> the purpose of human life is to eat, sleep and not die before loosing all teeth.


People with that attitude are too preoccupied with the practical.

It's the impractical that defines us as humans, otherwise we are simply machines.


----------



## Aramis

> It's the impractical that defines us as humans, otherwise we are simply machines


"Aminals" or "plants" make better sense.


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> Easily.
> 
> Also, it's not immoral or selfish to remain childless. If you're only having children to appease the wishes of your family then that's an immoral and selfish act as far as the child is concerned.
> 
> I think I see what you mean here. If you are saying parents shouldn't have children for selfish reasons I totally agree with you.
> 
> What would be your primary motivation for having kids?
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by this! Are you saying we can 'make' cars or children?!


I'm sure there are many primary motivations for having children for different kinds of people, while one could be superior than the other in different sorts of terms. But if you ask me, I think the greatest motivation is for the simple sake of continuity.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> People with that attitude are too preoccupied with the practical.
> 
> It's the impractical that defines us as humans, otherwise we are simply machines.


I thought we were the sum-total of evolution, and that we were defined by our genetic make-up. (Sorry, didn't mean to cross-contaminate threads).


----------



## Edward Elgar

Boccherini said:


> I think the greatest motivation is for the simple sake of continuity.


To me, that sounds like a selfish reason. A better reason would be to give the pleasure of life to someone by creating them.

Your comment made me think; if humans suddenly decided to have no more children, would god step in and start the Adam and Eve process off again?

My surname is Whelan. I couldn't care less about it as it carries no tradition. I am under no obligation to create a human simply to give it my surname. It sounds to me like you feel you are obligated to create life so as to carry on the "Boccherini" (example surname) bloodline! Is this a religious observance?


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> I thought we were the sum-total of evolution, and that we were defined by our genetic make-up. (Sorry, didn't mean to cross-contaminate threads).


You think correctly.

Creativity may have been a key component of our survival in the animal kingdom. If that's the case I am thankful to the scientific laws of nature.

By the way, we haven't stopped evolving.


----------



## sospiro

Edward Elgar said:


> By the way, we haven't stopped evolving.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Children; joy or burden?

Well, take a look at one of our musical heroes: J. S. Bach. Joy and sadness were undoubtedly part of his household: he had about twenty children but only about half survived infant mortality. He was the sole bread winner, and he was by no means a well paid employee supporting his lower middle class family. Despite this, he could proudly have said he managed to raise a significant number and a few became very talented composers (Wilhelm Friedemann, Carl Philipp Emanuel and Johann Christian). And this was during the early to mid 18th century! Think about that.


----------



## Sid James

Yes, harpsichord, the topic of what became of composer's children perhaps deserves a thread in itself. Our very own pianist, Kathryn Selby, likes to talk about this topic before she plays a piece by a composer (who had children, obviously). In a few recitals I attended beforehand, she mentioned that one of Ernest Bloch's children became a photographer, and (sadly and ironically) one of Enrique Granados' children became a professional swimmer (Granados drowned in the English Channel, when the boat he was travelling on was torpedoed by the Germans during WW1). This is a very interesting topic, but my knowledge is limited. Most people know the impact that a child's death has on a composer (eg. Mahler). I don't want to turn this into a trivia fest, but children are an important aspect of composer's lives, they are/were just ordinary people like the rest of us...


----------



## 151

Edward Elgar said:


> Your comment made me think; if humans suddenly decided to have no more children, would god step in and start the Adam and Eve process off again?


Ah! Brilliant.


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> To me, that sounds like a selfish reason. A better reason would be to give the pleasure of life to someone by creating them.
> 
> Your comment made me think; if humans suddenly decided to have no more children, would god step in and start the Adam and Eve process off again?
> 
> My surname is Whelan. I couldn't care less about it as it carries no tradition. I am under no obligation to create a human simply to give it my surname. It sounds to me like you feel you are obligated to create life so as to carry on the "Boccherini" (example surname) bloodline! Is this a religious observance?


To pass on your reputation, possession and basically everything you have in this finite world, by your own personal decision, is selfish? It's even greater when you're a religious person (pardon ); Disregarding the commandment to proliferate (Genesis 1:28), when you become a father, you're actually taking part in the whole creation, and out of a simple man, you turn out to be a "minor" creator. Isn't it wonderful? 

I do not know what would God do, if humans, hypothetically, stop to proliferate. Therefore, I take your statement as rather offensive.


----------



## Toccata

I don't know how any parent can give a considered answer to this question until their children have grown well into adulthood. Some nice, well-behaved, intelligent children can turn into quite offensive people in later life: drug addicts, thieves and heaven knows what else. But of course none of these things will happen to your children.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Boccherini said:


> To pass on your reputation, possession and basically everything you have in this finite world, by your own personal decision, is selfish?


Of course. Not once in this sentence do you mention the needs of the child. Why would he/she want to take your reputation and possessions? He/she might want to become a Christian, or even worse, an atheist! If you didn't tell a child about religion would it not be an atheist by default?



Boccherini said:


> It's even greater when you're a religious person (pardon ); Disregarding the commandment to proliferate (Genesis 1:28), when you become a father, you're actually taking part in the whole creation, and out of a simple man, you turn out to be a "minor" creator. Isn't it wonderful?


What if your offspring was homosexual? Then you would have done the work of the devil!



Boccherini said:


> I do not know what would God do, if humans, hypothetically, stop to proliferate. Therefore, I take your statement as rather offensive.


Because you don't know what god would do in a given hypothetical situation you take offence? You must get offended a lot!


----------



## Herkku

It would be interesting to know if any of the voters who opted for "burden" actually have children?


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> Of course. Not once in this sentence do you mention the needs of the child. Why would he/she want to take your reputation and possessions? He/she might want to become a Christian, or even worse, an atheist! If you didn't tell a child about religion would it not be an atheist by default?
> 
> What if your offspring was homosexual? Then you would have done the work of the devil!
> 
> Because you don't know what god would do in a given hypothetical situation you take offence? You must get offended a lot!


What are you talking about? You asked me to name one motivation; I deliberately disregarded technical needs, and even essential ones. Bequeathing everything you have, not by force, to your children, does not mean you disregard their needs, it's basically "above" their technical needs. Likewise, indeed, you should bequeath your tradition as well, if you claim to have one.

I suspect you think that homosexual offspring is randomly created. If so, I would like to know where did you get that preposterously false assumption. And if you intended to ask what would have happened, if my child is homosexual, I could tell you that homosexuality is a pure psychological matter, and if I educate my children properly, I've got nothing to worry about. How is the devil related to that matter?

As for your last, somehow useless, paragraph; First of all, I didn't say I was offended. When I said that I take it as rather offensive, I meant that your statement is offensive regardless of how would I react as a result. But if you insist to know, I found it pointless.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Herkku said:


> It would be interesting to know if any of the voters who opted for "burden" actually have children?


If so I hope they don't find this thread!


----------



## Edward Elgar

Boccherini said:


> What are you talking about? You asked me to name one motivation; I deliberately disregarded technical needs, and even essential ones. Bequeathing everything you have, not by force, to your children, does not mean you disregard their needs, it's basically "above" their technical needs. Likewise, indeed, you should bequeath your tradition as well, if you claim to have one.


I don't understand. What are technical and essential needs to reproduce?



Boccherini said:


> I suspect you think that homosexual offspring is randomly created. If so, I would like to know where did you get that preposterously false assumption. And if you intended to ask what would have happened, if my child is homosexual, I could tell you that homosexuality is a pure psychological matter, and if I educate my children properly, I've got nothing to worry about. How is the devil related to that matter?


So your position on homosexuality is this:

Homosexual are not randomly created, but selected by god to be homosexual. If god does select a child to be homosexual for whatever reason (you may have picked up sticks on the Sabbath) then he/she must be forced against their natural will to conform to what your scripture says.

This is what's wrong with religion. Anyone who doesn't understand that this is fundamentally wrong is deluded.



Boccherini said:


> As for your last, somehow useless, paragraph; First of all, I didn't say I was offended. When I said that I take it as rather offensive, I meant that your statement is offensive regardless of how would I react as a result. But if you insist to know, I found it pointless.


Really? The inability to know what god would do in any given situation is pointless to you? I'd consider it a matter of importance considering your deity is capable of flooding the earth and destroying cities. Shame he isn't capable of solving famine or disease.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Not here, please.


----------



## Boccherini

Edward Elgar said:


> I don't understand. What are technical and essential needs to reproduce?


I'm not sure I fully understand what you're pointing at. Children' technical/essential needs such as food, clothes, a place to sleep etc. are not part of the primary motivation I was trying to get at. Miscommunication?



Edward Elgar said:


> So your position on homosexuality is this:
> 
> Homosexual are not randomly created, but selected by god to be homosexual. If god does select a child to be homosexual for whatever reason (you may have picked up sticks on the Sabbath) then he/she must be forced against their natural will to conform to what your scripture says.
> 
> This is what's wrong with religion. Anyone who doesn't understand that this is fundamentally wrong is deluded.


We're definitely miscommunicating. Homosexuality phenomenon is neither randomly created nor forced (only) by God, but it's the person's psychological decision which determines whether he's a whacky or not.



Edward Elgar said:


> Really? *The inability to know what god would do in any given situation is pointless to you?* I'd consider it a matter of importance considering your deity is capable of flooding the earth and destroying cities. Shame he isn't capable of solving famine or disease.


No. Speculating what would happen in the hypothetical/illusory situation you mentioned for no good reasons is pointless. It's roughly like speculating what would have happened, if Mozart hadn't died so young. The "inability" is just a humane handicap.


----------



## Boccherini

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Not here, please.


Why not? Everything comes down to philosophy, after all.


----------



## Guest

Here's a new twist - I would call them a joyful burden.

After all, what things that are truly worth anything in this life don't come at considerable cost?

I suspect that, religion or not, having children is beneficial to humans far beyond the simple consideration of perpetuating the species. The attachment that parents feel toward children can produce amazing things. In another thread, I cited an interesting study that showed that men who became responsible fathers were far less likely to commit serious crime. Further, it teaches people to put others above themselves, which is beneficial to society as a whole, in contrast to self-centered thought of looking out for yourself and shunning the obligations of caring for another. I suspect (and again, my speculation, not citing any kind of evidence) that individuals who willingly take on children (whether through natural birth, or adoption) are more interested in solving larger problems and confronting bigger evils as opposed to those without, who would be less compelled to deal with issues that don't immediately impact them. And it is factors like those that have helped advance humans to where they are.


----------



## Herkku

I don't know where this conversation is going to end, but I feel that something should be pointed out. Namely, that homosexuality is not anyone's choice. Neither can it be prevented by raising one's children properly. Neither has it (in my atheist mind) anything to do with God.

I think this has been the prevailing scientific view on the matter for at least forty years. Of course everyone has a right to his/her own opinion.


----------



## MrVoize

Absolute joy.



> After all, what things that are truly worth anything in this life don't come at considerable cost?


What he said.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Herkku said:


> I don't know where this conversation is going to end, but I feel that something should be pointed out. Namely, that homosexuality is not anyone's choice. Neither can it be prevented by raising one's children properly. Neither has it (in my atheist mind) anything to do with God.
> 
> I think this has been the prevailing scientific view on the matter for at least forty years. Of course everyone has a right to his/her own opinion.


And what he said.


----------



## Toccata

What if your child who looked like this at age 3:










turned into this:










with a fan club like this:


----------



## Guest

Opal said:


> What if your child who looked like this at age 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turned into this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with a fan club like this:


I suspect his parents still love him.

The question is, how many children actually end up hardened criminals? Worldwide, I would suspect not many. So it really isn't going to be representative of what most parents experience with their children.


----------



## Rasa

Having children is unethical. the earth won't be able to support a lot of people anyways, so we should stop having kids.


----------



## Aramis

Rasa said:


> Having children is unethical. the earth won't be able to support a lot of people anyways, so we should stop having kids.


Let's breed Ravels instead.

EDIT: Did I really write "Ravels"? I meant rabbits but it's too hilarious to change.


----------



## Guest

Rasa said:


> Having children is unethical. the earth won't be able to support a lot of people anyways, so we should stop having kids.


So self-imposed extinction by attrition is an ethical option, in your mind?


----------



## Rasa

DrMike said:


> So self-imposed extinction by attrition is an ethical option, in your mind?


Population control in order to sustain our huge ecological footprints, enabling all to enjoy a ridiculously high standard of living is fine by me.

We can talk about having kids again when there 2 billion less of us.


----------



## Guest

Rasa said:


> Population control in order to sustain our huge ecological footprints, enabling all to enjoy a ridiculously high standard of living is fine by me.
> 
> We can talk about having kids again when there 2 billion less of us.


Ending all reproduction, though (as you originally stated), would not lead to a nice, healthy reduction. It would lead to a catastrophic depopulation. We can't just stop reproducing until we get to some set point that is theoretical in terms of "sustainability." Females have a finite window within which they can bear offspring. So if we were to stop reproducing, then we would have, roughly, a 50-60 years window before we would then have to rely on artificial means of reproducing. Assuming an average life expectancy somewhere between 80-90 years, we would have no more than 40 years to get that artificial reproduction system up and running before the vast majority of people on the earth at the time that the reproduction ban went into effect start to die off.

No, short of draconian measures, forced sterilization, government-mandated abortions (on a world-wide scale), humans will continue to reproduce at whatever rate they feel like. And when you try to impose limitations on reproduction, you end up with a lot of unintended consequences - for example, female babies being aborted at much higher rates in China, or being abandoned in places like India, where people feel that a male child is more "desirable." Or eugenics. Or even worse. Any time man tries to tinker with the natural order, they find out, sometimes with catastrophic consequences, how little they truly understood.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> I suspect his parents still love him.


His parents have said he's better off dead.


----------



## Herkku

Most parents couldn't guess that their offspring would turn out to be maniacal killers, any more than masterful musicians. Most of us were not exactly planned in any way.


----------



## Il Seraglio

Herkku said:


> Most parents couldn't guess that their offspring would turn out to be maniacal killers, any more than masterful musicians. Most of us were not exactly planned in any way.


Most people who grow up with no moral code, their personal issues can easily be traced back to childhood neglect. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but anyone who brings up their child to be a nasty piece of work, whether through treating them cruelly or overindulging them (both are a form of abuse) have only themselves to blame. Nobody is born evil.


----------



## Rasa

DrMike said:


> No, short of draconian measures, forced sterilization, government-mandated abortions (on a world-wide scale), humans will continue to reproduce at whatever rate they feel like. And when you try to impose limitations on reproduction, you end up with a lot of unintended consequences - for example, female babies being aborted at much higher rates in China, or being abandoned in places like India, where people feel that a male child is more "desirable." Or eugenics. Or even worse. Any time man tries to tinker with the natural order, they find out, sometimes with catastrophic consequences, how little they truly understood.


I never suggest that this should be government should impose such measures. But one can hope that humanity will eventually reach a state of "maturity" where we can just make sure there is enough dough for all. A low population is one part of this dreamy ideal.

Also, speaking of China, it's their one child policy that has allowed them to boom, what with reducing famine and all, and leaving more stuff for export....


----------



## mamascarlatti

Il Seraglio said:


> Most people who grow up with no moral code, their personal issues can easily be traced back to childhood neglect. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but anyone who brings up their child to be a nasty piece of work, whether through treating them cruelly or overindulging them (both are a form of abuse) have only themselves to blame. Nobody is born evil.


Well I don't believe you can just dismiss the role of genetics in criminal behaviour. I believe the answer is more a complex interplay between nature and nurture, otherwise all abused or neglected children would end up being criminals (in fact one is the mayor of our city and a relatively upstanding citizen) and all products of loving homes would never end up behind bars.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Rasa said:


> I never suggest that this should be government should impose such measures. But one can hope that humanity will eventually reach a state of "maturity" where we can just make sure there is enough dough for all. A low population is one part of this dreamy ideal.
> 
> Also, speaking of China, it's their one child policy that has allowed them to boom, what with reducing famine and all, and leaving more stuff for export....


I agree with everything you say. There are 7 billion people on this earth. If we had two earths, this population could be sustainable, but we don't. There are too many people.

Another problem is the kinds of people having children. In Britain, the underclass are paid so much in welfare that having kids is very financially rewarding. People who want to get somewhere in life tend to put off having children until their financial position is right for the child.

In the future, clever countries like China will assume dominance and the liberal west will crumble under the weight of its population, ignorance and resource consumption.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Edward Elgar said:


> In the future, clever countries like China will assume dominance and the liberal west will crumble under the weight of its population, ignorance and resource consumption.


As I understand it, there is a rapid rise in the middle class in China and they want to consume as much as in the ignorant West. I wouldn't glamourise it too much.


----------



## Herkku

China and India may have time to join in the consumeristic rat race dictated by our western values, but even there it's a concept that affects only a small fraction of the population. Ultimately there will be shortage of food and drinking water, rather than of the latest PlayStations or SUV:s - not in our lifetime, but maybe sooner than we would expect. So, the humankind will end up as a too heavy burden for its home planet.


----------



## polymorphous perversity

Rasa said:


> I never suggest that this should be government should impose such measures. But one can hope that humanity will eventually reach a state of "maturity" where we can just make sure there is enough dough for all. A low population is one part of this dreamy ideal.
> 
> Also, speaking of China, it's their one child policy that has allowed them to boom, what with reducing famine and all, and leaving more stuff for export....


Not really. Population growth by itself cannot account for any considerable fluctuations in a nation's standard of living, as having less mouths to feed consequently leads to a smaller total production. China's rising affluence is the result of broad market reform.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Klassik

_Children, joy or burden?_

Out of these three, I pick joy first, burden second, and children third.


----------



## Capeditiea

Klassik said:


> _Children, joy or burden?_
> 
> Out of these three, I pick joy first, burden second, and children third.


i have to agree with your selection.


----------

