[Opinion] A theory about having babies

[rambo919]

I think the will to breed in people manifests as wanting to care for something, presumably something that they view as vulnerable. Most just find substitute children. Examples of which being the following:
1) Pets/animals (especially rescue animals)
2) Other people's children (So they become involved with education, both school and university)
3) Other people (paternalistic, usually leftist politicians/activists are guilty of this. )
4) Dolls (creepy alert).
5) The earth. (environmentalists)

There are people who don't want children who don't do any of these things I provided. But they are usually not the caring type.

So basically nothing of actual long term worth then just vapid causes that make them feel validated.

 

[samuelp]

Nope, this is not the case, its the norm you have been led to believe.
I dont need validation by having a "mini me" running about taking up my time and being expensive.
Im turning 40 in a month and my wife is turning 39 in that same month. Neither of us want kids.

Ok and once you will be dead what will be your footprint on Earth ? Are you serious when you say you don't want kids because they are expensive and will impact on your leisure time ? What are you doing so great ?

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Feminists do shag and have kids

only when I give them a break from all the baking in the kitchen and bringing my beer to me

 

[konfab]

So basically nothing of actual long term worth then just vapid causes that make them feel validated.

Which is why I don't really judge people who don't want to have children. Reality will eventually catch up. Having 20 years of feminist-belly-button-lint-picking poetry behind your name isn't going to mean squat when you are 90 years old and sitting alone in a retirement home. Your rescue dogs won't be able to drive you to the Kruger and take you on game trips because you cannot see too well. Your cats can't hold your hand as you slip away from this world.

Everyone, including the childless, benefit when it consists of decent people. The people who put in the hard work into bringing decent people into this world are rewarded for their effort when they are old. I don't take anyone who espouses the childfree life seriously unless they admit that they are perfectly happy to die with strangers around them.

 

[noxibox]

How can you live with no will to have children ? Any living species utmost will is to breed

I can imagine some people have no desire for children. I had no interest until I was older, and even then I gave it very careful consideration before making a decision. I would have been a terrible parent in my 20s.

Not that Carte Blanche the source of all truth, but I remember a Carte Blanche episode about this a while ago. Young men had lower T than men in their 50s and 60s. Which is very bad is T declines with age.

Supposedly it has to do with environment and lifestyle factors, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals that mimic estrogen, a lack of sleep, less exercise, poor diet (low in healthy fat), less sunlight, etc etc.

EDIT: Also one other thing I'll mention. There is a well known correlation between body fat and testosterone - the fatter you are, the lower your testosterone. It doesn't mean that one causes the other (that we know of), but there is a link. Leaner men have higher testosterone levels, this is partly because adipose tissue (fat) is an endocrine organ in its own right, and lowers T levels (I think because it secrets something like estrogen but I'm not sure).

And, obesity rates have never been higher, as you know.

Even when controlling for obesity, which lowers testosterone, and smoking, which increases it, testosterone levels are lower, so there are other factors at play. Still the lower testosterone doesn't really account for the low fertility rates since it is not low enough to prevent people having several children.

 

[thestaggy]

That looks selfish to me. Unless you become a famous politician, scientist or academician, what will you give to Earth once you are dead ? You can have leisure time with your children, handover your knowledge, background. Focus on careers for what if you don't have any child that will benefit from ?

I cannot understand, sorry

How is it selfish? And what do we have to give back to earth other than screwing it over? Pretty sure the Ganges river could do with a few hundred million less people polluting it.

As a species we've gone beyond the point where we have to breed in order to prolong our species. We're not pandas.

 

[thestaggy]

How many of these childless woman have pets?

All of them. The women with children also have pets though.

 

[konfab]

All of them. The women with children also have pets though.

Well then that completely contradicts the points that you claimed they made:

• More time and money to do things that make you happy.
• Freedom to day drink at your leisure.
• Not the best time and/or country to raise kids due to uncertain future.
• Ability to focus on careers.

Pets make it very difficult to go on holiday or find a decently priced place to live.

 

[SaiyanZ]

That looks selfish to me. Unless you become a famous politician, scientist or academician, what will you give to Earth once you are dead ? You can have leisure time with your children, handover your knowledge, background. Focus on careers for what if you don't have any child that will benefit from ?

I cannot understand, sorry

Overpopulation and starvation?

 

[Rocket-Boy]

Led to believe by millions of years of evolution as a sexually reproducing species.

Expect we have developed a higher understanding than other species.
The effect we are having on this planet with overpopulation is a major issue too.
But Im not going to argue with you about it, I might go have a nap, after that I will do whatever I feel like with all this spare cash I have lying about.

 

[thestaggy]

The future is always uncertain. If that were a reason our ancestors would have had no children.

The rest are the reasons that more educated and affluent people tend to have children later.

Our ancestors had children out of necessity.

Infant mortality rates were higher, life spans were shorter. Looking at pre-industrial revolution England.

• The infant mortality rate was 140 out of 1000 live births
• Of those that survived infancy, 30% died before the age of 15 as a result of disease. This percentage would increase in urban areas as diseases proliferated in densely populated areas. During the Great Plague of London in 1665, 80,000 - 100,000 people perished and it is estimated that over half of the deaths were children under the age of 15.
• Life was harsh. Young boys were doing hard manual labour and working dangerous jobs at young ages, frequently resulting in disabilities and fatal injuries.
• Poor rural families needed sons and daughters to work as no help could be afforded. Dad couldn't pay farmhands, he was going to have sons.
• Wars were frequent and lords needed men to fill their ranks. If your lord pressed your 17-year old son in to service then you better hope you had more sons to help when the harvest came.
• Life expectancy was way lower than what it is now, especially among the poor. If you made it in to your 40s you were lucky.

If you go back to the Middle Ages life expectancy dropped in to the 30s. A quarter of all births were dying in infancy. As much as 40% of births would not make it to adulthood.

That is why our ancestors were having as many as 8 kids, because depending on time period less than half would make it to adulthood. At least one of them was dying in infancy; another one or two would die before the age of 15 and you are probably losing another one before their 19th birthday for whatever reason (war, disease, fatal injury while working). Then of course your father is probably going to be lucky to see his 40th birthday, so you better hope you have one or two sons that can take over if he falls ill or dies.

In the 21st century, no need to be pumping out kids at the same rate our ancestors did.

 

[konfab]

Expect we have developed a higher understanding than other species.
The effect we are having on this planet with overpopulation is a major issue too.

That painfully ironic...

Use your free time to see how wrong every single person who has said the planet is "overpopulated" has been. Start with Malthus and his predictions 200 years ago, when the world's population was less than 1 billion.

 

[Ninja'd]

Well then that completely contradicts the points that you claimed they made:

Pets make it very difficult to go on holiday or find a decently priced place to live.

That's why I have neither.

 

[Ancalagon]

snip

Plus, no contraception and no TV - what else are you going to do?

 

[thestaggy]

Well then that completely contradicts the points that you claimed they made:

Pets make it very difficult to go on holiday or find a decently priced place to live.

No it doesn't.

Do you ask family or friends to pop in twice a day to check on your house while you are away? Well, they can check your pets and feed them as well. I've done this and we've had people do it for us as well. You can drop your animals off at a kennel while you are away (We do this as well).

Who are you going to palm your kids off to if you want time for yourself or with your friends/partner? Your parents/brother/best friend dropping by to feed your cat is very different to asking them to watch your toddler for a week.

I know people that rent cottages and stay in townhouses and flats that are pet-friendly. Much ado about nothing.

 

[konfab]

Our ancestors had children out of necessity.

Infant mortality rates were higher, life spans were shorter. Looking at pre-industrial revolution England.

• The infant mortality rate was 140 out of 1000 live births
• Of those that survived infancy, 30% died before the age of 15 as a result of disease. This percentage would increase in urban areas as diseases proliferated in densely populated areas. During the Great Plague of London in 1665, 80,000 - 100,000 people perished and it is estimated that over half of the deaths were children under the age of 15.
• Life was harsh. Young boys were doing hard manual labour and working dangerous jobs at young ages, frequently resulting in disabilities and fatal injuries.
• Poor rural families needed sons and daughters to work as no help could be afforded. Dad couldn't pay farmhands, he was going to have sons.
• Wars were frequent and lords needed men to fill their ranks. If your lord pressed your 17-year old son in to service then you better hope you had more sons to help when the harvest came.
• Life expectancy was way lower than what it is now, especially among the poor. If you made it in to your 40s you were lucky.

If you go back to the Middle Ages life expectancy dropped in to the 30s. A quarter of all births were dying in infancy. As much as 40% of births would not make it to adulthood.

That is why are ancestors were having as much as 8 kids, because depending on time period less than half would make it to adulthood. At least one of them was dying in infancy. At least another one or two would die before the age of 15 and you are probably losing another one before their 19th birthday for whatever reason (war, disease, fatal injury while working). Then of course your father is probably going to be lucky to see his 40th birthday, so you better hope you have one or two sons that can take over if he falls ill or dies.

In the 21st century, no need to be pumping out kids at the same rate our ancestors did.

Having less kids !== having no kids.

 

[SaiyanZ]

That painfully ironic...

Use your free time to see how wrong every single person who has said the planet is "overpopulated" has been. Start with Malthus and his predictions 200 years ago, when the world's population was less than 1 billion.

Well they weren't wrong. There's a lot more starving people in the world these days. Just look at Africa.

Yeah the world may be able to support more people but the real question is whether your country/continent can support more. When the "have nots" outbreed the "haves", the only result is poverty. You can't breed a country into success unless the individuals having the kids are already self-sufficient and prosperous. i.e. not just surviving day to day and also not dependent/leeching on others.

Look at it another way. Your 2 kids will have to support not only themselves in 20 years, but the other 6 kids born into poverty from a not so well off family.

 

[satanboy]

People had 10 kids back then because half used to die either at birth or as infants.

Looking at my family tree it's sad what they went through in those days, losing babies so often.

So they made spares?

 

[thestaggy]

Having less kids !== having no kids.

Do you dispute that the number of childless people has increased?

Japan is in the situation it is in for the very reason that an increasing number of people are not having kids.

 

[konfab]

Do you ask family or friends to pop in twice a day to check on your house while you are away?

Own goal right there. Weren't you just arguing how family wasn't needed?

As for my house? No it can look after itself very well. It is, after all an inanimate object. Just like my car, I have insurance on it such that I am covered if anything happens to it. Which is why I don't like car guards either.

Who are you going to palm your kids off to if you want time for yourself or with your friends/partner?

Probably the grandparents so that they can be spoiled. But then again, I am not making the argument that people shouldn't have children. Nevertheless, I don't see why people have children and pets if they are going to palm them off to someone else to look after when they become inconvenient. My wife's dog has serious attachment issues and thus wouldn't be able to stay with anyone other than family, heck the dumb animal barely manages to stay sane when we go to work.

I know people that rent cottages and stay in townhouses and flats that are pet-friendly. Much ado about nothing.

It is far more difficult to do it. Most places that you rent are not pet friendly.