View Single Post
Old 08-09-2010, 07:36 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,438

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Or it could be considered a tax to pay for future generations that will be wiping the drool off your chin when you are too old to take care of yourself and don't have children of your own to do it.
Actually, I don't believe it makes a significant difference. People without children still have younger friends, people they were mentors for, people they took under their wings, partners, etc, all of which are likely to be there for them when they need it, and people with children might have children who are themselves busy, live too far, don't get along with them or for many other reasons won't care for them.
The cynic in me is also thinking, in this economy, shouldn't we thank the people who are giving jobs to these future generations? After all, the people I know who live in homes for the elderly or have someone come and take care of them in their own home are paying for it themselves out of their retirement money, which they earned. (Oh, and all of these people DO have kids, incidentally).

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG View Post
Either way..if a healthy portion of the population doesn't procreate the species dies. That's terribly valid and about all I have to say on this topic as the thread is related to something that does not apply to me.
I agree with you. If nobody this generation (or any generation) had kids, we'd be screwed. However, I don't think we're in any danger of that happening. I feel that as far as my generation is concerned, they have already had enough children that the human species is not as risk, and therefore I don't personally need to have a single one. As a species, for our survival, we've done our duty.

Now arises the opposite problem. Indeed, if too big a portion of the population reproduces, or the portion that does does so too much, it's possible for a species to get extinct due to the lack of resources or habitat. In the case of humans, it's also possible for it to have a negative effect on other species and on the planet itself. I believe if the population was much, much, much lower, then having kids could become some kind of duty, and you'd be looked down on if you don't have any, because the species might die. It might even become illegal to have no kids unless you could prove your sterility.

On the other hand, when the population is too high, then I feel it's the opposite. No matter how much you want kids, by having too many you might contribute to the extinction of your species or the destruction of your planet. In such a case, only a limited amount of people might be allowed to have kids, or the maximum allowed might be one, to make sure the population reduces.

And of course, there is the middle ground, where neither is going to be a problem, and people should just be able to decide, as long as they're not hurting others in the process (I feel strong negative emotions towards people who insist on having biological children, knowing full well they will suffer a lot and die young due to hereditary conditions. I feel it's just wrong to actively cause someone to suffer that much).

My personal belief is that the population is too high right now, although we're not all doomed either. I wish to see it at least stabilise rather than keep growing, and would be happier if it started reducing, to stabilise later on.
I'm sure everyone can see that it can't keep growing forever. The only real question is how much is too much, and how much is enough? Well as I said, I personally feel that we're in absolutely no danger of extinction from there being too little of us right now (and other people my generation have already provided enough humans for us not to go extinct so I don't need to ever have any kids myself), and that there has been problems already caused by there being too many of us.

I don't feel it's at a stage where I would tell anyone that they shouldn't have kids, but it's at a stage where I wouldn't feel comfortable at all having biological kids myself. For that reason, I don't want any biological kids, ever. At this time, I don't want kids at all, but I am not against the idea of adopting some at some point, which I believe means I can't call myself "a true childfree".

I think it's just my "no waste" mindset. I always think of things as "if there are some already, why make a new one and let the existing ones go to waste?".
In a way, I think the same about children. "As long as there are children to adopt, why would I even consider "making" new ones and letting the others stay orphans? That's just mean".
That's just the way I've always felt, even as a kid. I know adopting is a hard process, but for me, having a biological kid is a "I wasn't able to adopt" kind of thing, rather than the other way around. If I am making any sense here.

I'm not trying to judge people here, (clarifying because, re-reading my post, it might sound like I am, and I don't want to give that impression). I'm just explaining how it feels for me, and indeed has always felt. I don't hold anyone else to what works for me, be it my polyamorous lifestyle or not wanting biological children or any other personal life choice.
Reply With Quote