Having kids

[detlef]

Is it time that society reassess the importance of having children in the modern world?

 

I understand the whole bit about purpose of species and all that. I understand that it is, technically, the natural progression of life to find a mate and procreate. However, we've done a damned fine job of mitigating the natural progression of so many things that we've also sort of done away with the importance of children as well.

 

From the stand point of furthering the species, in fact, one could make a fine argument that, in general, an individual's choice to not have kids may being doing the species more good than having them. After all, considering population is on the rise, the last thing in the world we are at risk of is people not making enough babies. On the other hand, resources are becoming more and more scarce so it wouldn't hurt to have a few less mouths to feed in general.

 

So, when you think about it, a person or couple's choice to have a child is no more important or helpful to society as a whole than any other choice they make. In short, having children is a selfish pursuit. Not selfish in a bad way, mind you, but selfish in as much as we do it for ourselves and nobody else. Your child is not an asset to me. At least, when lumped into the big picture. Considering global trends, I think it would be folly to hope for any more than that they create a net zero effect on the world. That is, they're neither a drain or an asset and that they simply give as much as they take. The child you create could cure cancer or bring peace to the Middle East. Of course, they could also become a meth addict and rob me. More likely, they're just going to fall in line and get a job doing some random thing like all of us. They're neither going to excel or fail.

 

So, why is having children any more "noble" than any other hobby. At least to those not involved with the particular child being raised. If one was to devote the energy and money towards, say windsurfing, it should be deemed as no less "special" by society as a whole. The person windsurfing is doing so to enrich their own life. Doing something they feel is important to them. Creating a situation that neither benefits or harms society as a whole. Just like having a kid.

 

So, why do we treat it any differently. Why should I protect and subsidize someone's choice to have a child any more than someone's choice to go windsurfing? If one of my employees came to me saying they were going to travel the world windsurfing, should I be required to keep their job waiting for them until they return?

 

If you're a parent and you intend to reply, please distance yourself from the emotions surrounding your own experiences in raising a child. It is not my intention to attack your decision to have them and I do hope that your choice to have children is one that has truly enriched your life. It is not my intention to challenge any specific person's ability to raise a child but do feel that I'm well within the realm of reality when I recognize that not every parent is fit for the job.

[DemonKnight]

I think you are largely right. But you do get into the interesting question of exactly who should be giving up the decision to have kids. I think a responsible couple having 1 or at most 2 kids and teaching them things that will have a positive impact on the world can help make the world a better place. Until we can convince the rif-raf to stop having 15 kids I dont know that me not sending a properly instructed, well armed (intellectually) child into the next generation to carry on the good fight in my absence, would be a responsible decision. Plus the world would be a lesser place with my genes dying with my body, just my opinion, you dont have to agree.

 

Or, I just hate wearing condoms. Take your pick.

Edited July 15, 2008 by DemonKnight

[Big John]

 

Conversely, a spain fishing trip

 

[Sox]

I don't know about the importance of having them.I believe it's a choice,do you or don't you want the added joys and responsibility?

 

I talked to my neighbor last night.He is truly happy for us despite what I learned.He and his wife have been trying to conceive for over a year,and there are problems,and they're now trying in vitro.We weren't trying to or planning to until next year,and here we are.

 

I could see how he could find it unfair.

[Hat Trick]

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...=249240&hl=

 

Can you talk to my wife? TIA

[detlef]

I think you are largely right. But you do get into the interesting question of exactly who should be giving up the decision to have kids. I think a responsible couple having 1 or at most 2 kids and teaching them things that will have a positive impact on the world can help make the world a better place. Until we can convince the rif-raf to stop having 15 kids I dont know that me not sending a properly instructed, well armed (intellectually) child into the next generation to carry on the good fight in my absence, would be a responsible decision. Plus the world would be a lesser place with my genes dying with my body, just my opinion, you dont have to agree.

 

Or, I just hate wearing condoms. Take your pick.

I was aware of this as I wrote my post and your reasoning is, in fact, noble. Well up to the bit about the assumption that furthering your genes makes the world a better place. This isn't intended to be a knock on you per se. Rather, that argument could be highly debatable when applied to society as a whole. Maybe some guy is really a worthless punk and just happens to think he's the be all end all. So, he's got the same reason as somebody who is truly a genius only it really doesn't hold.

 

As for the notion of good parents making better citizens for the future. That's all well and good and I'm happy to say that most people I know are great parents and I look forward to seeing their children go on to be great adults. Of course, this, like the other argument is only as good as the people who are making it and, quite frankly, many more are likely making it than should be.

 

So, it comes back to the big picture in relation to how much society should accommodate person x's choice to have a child. Certainly as an employer, I can't decide which expectant mother I want to find an easier job for or otherwise make her choice easier because I think she'll be a good mom. And believe me, I do not want that authority at all.

[DemonKnight]

Maybe some guy is really a worthless punk and just happens to think he's the be all end all. So, he's got the same reason as somebody who is truly a genius only it really doesn't hold....

 

And believe me, I do not want that authority at all.

 

When I am King of America I will take the responsiblity from you.

 

What do you think of China putting limits on children across the board?

[DemonKnight]

I was aware of this as I wrote my post and your reasoning is, in fact, noble.

 

Who told you I didnt like to wear condoms?

[KevinL]

Is it time that society reassess the importance of having children in the modern world?

 

I understand the whole bit about purpose of species and all that. I understand that it is, technically, the natural progression of life to find a mate and procreate. However, we've done a damned fine job of mitigating the natural progression of so many things that we've also sort of done away with the importance of children as well.

 

From the stand point of furthering the species, in fact, one could make a fine argument that, in general, an individual's choice to not have kids may being doing the species more good than having them. After all, considering population is on the rise, the last thing in the world we are at risk of is people not making enough babies. On the other hand, resources are becoming more and more scarce so it wouldn't hurt to have a few less mouths to feed in general.

 

So, when you think about it, a person or couple's choice to have a child is no more important or helpful to society as a whole than any other choice they make. In short, having children is a selfish pursuit. Not selfish in a bad way, mind you, but selfish in as much as we do it for ourselves and nobody else. Your child is not an asset to me. At least, when lumped into the big picture. Considering global trends, I think it would be folly to hope for any more than that they create a net zero effect on the world. That is, they're neither a drain or an asset and that they simply give as much as they take. The child you create could cure cancer or bring peace to the Middle East. Of course, they could also become a meth addict and rob me. More likely, they're just going to fall in line and get a job doing some random thing like all of us. They're neither going to excel or fail.

 

So, why is having children any more "noble" than any other hobby. At least to those not involved with the particular child being raised. If one was to devote the energy and money towards, say windsurfing, it should be deemed as no less "special" by society as a whole. The person windsurfing is doing so to enrich their own life. Doing something they feel is important to them. Creating a situation that neither benefits or harms society as a whole. Just like having a kid.

 

So, why do we treat it any differently. Why should I protect and subsidize someone's choice to have a child any more than someone's choice to go windsurfing? If one of my employees came to me saying they were going to travel the world windsurfing, should I be required to keep their job waiting for them until they return?

 

If you're a parent and you intend to reply, please distance yourself from the emotions surrounding your own experiences in raising a child. It is not my intention to attack your decision to have them and I do hope that your choice to have children is one that has truly enriched your life. It is not my intention to challenge any specific person's ability to raise a child but do feel that I'm well within the realm of reality when I recognize that not every parent is fit for the job.

 

I think this statement is incorrect. Regardless of the extremes (curing cancer), most anyone with a job could be said to have a net positive effect.

 

As a restaurant owner, you bring a certain amount of happiness to people. They pay you with money. This money that you collect (a token of their happiness) allows you to provide for your basic necessities (food and shelter) and also allows you to enjoy some level of comfort yourself. So you (and anyone else who works for a living) are providing a net positive effect.

[detlef]

When I am King of America I will take the responsiblity from you.

 

What do you think of China putting limits on children across the board?

I don't agree with that any more than I do with other nanny state laws like smoking bans in bars.

[DemonKnight]

I don't agree with that any more than I do with other nanny state laws like smoking bans in bars.

 

This has a little more consequences for us as a race than smoking in bars, no? I think it's way too an important decision than your example. More along the lines of no drinking and driving.

[detlef]

I think this statement is incorrect. Regardless of the extremes (curing cancer), most anyone with a job could be said to have a net positive effect.

 

As a restaurant owner, you bring a certain amount of happiness to people. They pay you with money. This money that you collect (a token of their happiness) allows you to provide for your basic necessities (food and shelter) and also allows you to enjoy some level of comfort yourself. So you (and anyone else who works for a living) are providing a net positive effect.

So, by your argument, the more people exist, the better the world would be?

 

Really, I understand what you are saying. However... OK, let's say I didn't exist. Either somebody else would open a restaurant where mine is or all the other ones around me would be busier. Now, maybe mine is particularly good. Of course, maybe it isn't. Like the problems I have with DK's bit about making the world a better place by furthering his genes, I have to realize that, in the big picture, simply removing one random restaurant owner from the face of the earth is not going make a difference.

 

We can't pick and chose which people should be around. I mean, I'm glad Thomas Keller was born and decided to open a restaurant because the guy is one of the best chef's on the planet. On the other hand, I've thrown a ton of money away or crappy meals made by guys who had no business doing so. Now, I don't wish the guy was never born but he certainly hasn't made my life any better and his net affect on it was to cost me $100 and wish I'd just stayed home and had Tasty Bites.

[detlef]

This has a little more consequences for us as a race than smoking in bars, no? I think it's way too an important decision than your example. More along the lines of no drinking and driving.

What about outlawing SUVs then?

 

None the less, I suppose I'll have to default to the fact that, 1) I don't live in China so I don't know what's going on there and 2) I'm inclined to have the government involved with my personal life as little as possible.

[DemonKnight]

What about outlawing SUVs then?

 

How about offering a different class license for SUV's so those that need them can still use em? Sounds like a start to me.

 

No more Real Estate agents putzing around clients all over town in a 10 mpg Hummer. No more soccer mom driving 40 miles a day in her Navigator. A 30 mpg Honda Element would probably serve both of these people better in the end if the choice was made for them.

Edited July 15, 2008 by DemonKnight

[Double Agent]

How about offering a different class license for SUV's so those that need them can still use em? Sounds like a start to me.

 

They do...it's called First Class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've got nothing and I don't even know what that meant.

 

Carry on.

[Azazello1313]

well, here's the thing....regardless of who you are, having kids is one of the main ways you make your stamp on the world and propagate what you are all about in into the future. they are in so many ways the greatest legacy any of us can ever have. this isn't just on an individual level, but also on the level of states and religions and all of that. that's why russia, whose birth rate is slipping but still has big geopolitical aspirations, instituted what amounts to a "have sex and procreate" holiday in the last couple years. if you care about the future of the species (or of your country, or your religious community, wherever you place value), one of the greatest things a person can do is to try and create the next generation of stewards and leaders and prophets and poets. it does sound pretty bizarre, but it is also indisputably true in a way that goes beyond the rational into the genetically hardwired.

 

but I agree about the societal subsidizing. at this point in our history it seems to do more harm than good, as there are too many kids who are no more than afterthoughts of totally self-absorbed, rudderless nobodies -- they perpetuate little more than a mouth to feed and a social services project. I'm not saying the government or anyone else should be in the business of deciding who gets to have kids, that would be truly orwellian and no one should ever have a right to make that sort of determination for anyone else. I'm just saying maybe people having kids ought to have to internalize some more of the costs associated with their choices, so that they as individuals can make a properly weighed determination of the costs and benefits.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Azazello1313

[Perchoutofwater]

I had kids so there would be someone to take care of me when I'm older, and social security is no longer available.

[Azazello1313]

How about offering a different class license for SUV's so those that need them can still use em? Sounds like a start to me.

 

No more Real Estate agents putzing around clients all over town in a 10 mpg Hummer. No more soccer mom driving 40 miles a day in her Navigator. A 30 mpg Honda Element would probably serve both of these people better in the end if the choice was made for them.

 

but what if they're not ghey?

[dmarc117]

there should be a test and requirements for having a child.

[detlef]

How about offering a different class license for SUV's so those that need them can still use em? Sounds like a start to me.

I see it like this. Since last year, the city I live in has had water restrictions due to a severe drought. Last year you were not allowed to use your sprinklers or hoses. This year, since we had some good rain but aren't out of the woods yet, they loosened it to outside watering being allowed Sat and Wednesday 5am-8am and 5pm-8pm. What is the point of this?

 

I mean, you're allowed to stand under the shower for 30 minutes at a time 3 days a week if you want to. You can go OCD dish guy and wash each glass for 15 minutes.

 

Why not simply determine what a reasonable amount of water is for a typical family and then jack up the price crazy if you go over it. Then you'll simply be encouraged to use less water. If your landscaping is what is important to you (or maybe you grow your own food), then you'll save water elsewhere.

 

Maybe you like to do all your shopping at once so you want a really big car but you care so you ride your bike to work everyday and only drive the thing 25 miles per week. You're using way less fuel than somebody else despite the fact that you have an evil SUV.

[fingfootball]

there should be a test and requirements for having a child.

 

everyone would fail that test

[dmarc117]

everyone would fail that test

 

 

not at all. there a many responsible, smart parents out there.

[detlef]

A windsurf board isn't a future tax payer.

 

 

Also, there are people taking the idea to a whole new level -- http://www.vhemt.org/

There's also no chance at all that the windsurf board will ever collect welfare. Well, that doesn't even actually matter. After all, you imply that running a government is a money making endeavor for society as a whole. Of course, it isn't. We collect taxes to pay for common needs. Needs that decrease with less people relying on them.

Edited July 15, 2008 by detlef

[detlef]

And less of a tax base.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just explaining why the govt is pro-family... every level of govt seems to be based on TIFs.

I would imagine the govt is pro family because they're inclined to pander. People don't like to hear what isn't nice. Everyone is special and all life is sacred. The notion of not encouraging families (at least in the traditional man, woman, make babies form) implies that some people shouldn't have kids. That means maybe that somebody is you and you don't want to hear it.

 

The first president that has the nerve to tell people that having a child is a personal choice and one that people who do should do so without expecting society as whole to get their back will be labeled a baby hater and anti family. Dude wouldn't make it out of Iowa.

 

See, that's the thing. See, if you need time off for the National Guard, there's a very measurable and rather undeniable manner that you are making a personal choice to help society as a whole. Our country needs defended or flood victims need to be bailed out or what have you. In this case, it makes perfect sense to expect employers to do their part. One can argue that the government is misusing you, but that's not something you can control.

 

There is, however, no way to prove that having a child does society any good at all. So why should that choice be subsidized in a similar manner?

[KevinL]

So, by your argument, the more people exist, the better the world would be?

 

Really, I understand what you are saying. However... OK, let's say I didn't exist. Either somebody else would open a restaurant where mine is or all the other ones around me would be busier. Now, maybe mine is particularly good. Of course, maybe it isn't. Like the problems I have with DK's bit about making the world a better place by furthering his genes, I have to realize that, in the big picture, simply removing one random restaurant owner from the face of the earth is not going make a difference.

 

We can't pick and chose which people should be around. I mean, I'm glad Thomas Keller was born and decided to open a restaurant because the guy is one of the best chef's on the planet. On the other hand, I've thrown a ton of money away or crappy meals made by guys who had no business doing so. Now, I don't wish the guy was never born but he certainly hasn't made my life any better and his net affect on it was to cost me $100 and wish I'd just stayed home and had Tasty Bites.

 

Until we run out of natural resources, yes, the more people, the better. How close we are to running out is a different question entirely and I can't answer it. I can say that in the 1800's people thought the world would end when we ran out of whale blubber which was used as a fuel at the time. And that we are making computers from silicon (which is basically sand). The oil crisis we are in sucks, and it will get worse before it gets better, but I have faith that someone, somewhere, will invent the next technology and mankind will move on.

 

Now, about the crappy meals, they must have value to somebody, or else nobody would pay and the guy would go out of business. They may not provide value to you, but they do to somebody.

 

As an aside, I just read Service Included by a waitress who worked at Keller's Per Se. Part of it fluff about her personal relationship with the somalier (sp?) but I'm guessing you would relate to much of it.