to think that having kids is a little bit selfish?

[nightowlmostly]

Now, before you all have a go, hear me out! I was having this argument at work just now and the guy in question seems to think I'm some kind of monster, and I'm been mulling it over on my way home.

I have two main reasons for feeling this way. The first is that there are so many kids out there in need of a loving home, that having your own is a selfish act?

The other point I have is that there are so many humans on this planet already that the earth is struggling to cope as it is. Surely having kids, lets say only two, is putting more pressure on the earth's resources as they have their own kids and they have more etc?

But, I am not saying that this selfishness is a terrible thing, far from it. We are programmed to reproduce, at a base level and it's hard to fight instinct after all. We are TTC at the moment, having decided that it is what we want, ie from a selfish point of view. Peolple are selfish all the time, buying expensive things they don't need instead of giving the money to charity, spending all weekend doing things they want to do instead of things they should do. It's human nature and not something to be ashamed of.

The guy at work couldn't understand thinking it is selfish, but planning to do it anyway. Is that so wierd? It's like chucking a few bottles in the normal rubbish instead of recycling, it's not right but sometimes we do it anyway.

Am I making any sort of sense?

And finally, AIBU?

Of course it is selfish, albeit from an urge very basic and human (and what's led us to exist and progress so well in the past).

It's slightly different to most accusations of being "selfish" in life.

Unfortunately, I think the only reliable things which will dictate when individual wants/urges are stopped in their tracks are the things which have always maintained some balance in nature, no matter how upsetting we think they are: war, food and water shortages, disease, over-exploitation of land, and so on.

It's sad that human beings will be limited by these negatives when (logically) it would be so much easier to prevent the world situation getting that far, that nature cuts us back.

However, down that road references to China's one-child policy, selective breeding, etc goes - which is a whole complex kettle of fish and not something to be discussed lightly.

I doubt anyone will disagree with the fact that human beings need to be limited in some way in terms of population growth and the resources we have available. What factor(s) contribute towards that limitation is the real source of an interesting debate.

Adoption relies on the misfortune of a woman who is able to create a child but unable to raise and care for him or her. Is the action of the adopting 'parent(s)' truly unselfish? Do they 'want' or 'need'? Either could be seen as selfish.
I think having children is selfish but selfless in the same way as Capability Brown designed beautiful gardens that would mature long after he had died but would be known through time by his name.

Yes, it's selfish - you have a child because you want one, not for anyone else's benefit.

But, I don't see that having 5 children is anymore selfish than having 1. I don't think adopting is necessarily less selfish either - generally people adopt because they want a child, not through some selfless, altruistic desires to save a poor unwanted baby.

It's really interesting that the initial discussion goes hand-in-hand with discussions about adoption. Adoption is very difficult, and rightly so - but when you go through the adoption process, the learning and training that you undertake, and the decisions that you have to make, ensure that actually successful adopters end up completing the process entirely for the child, and not for themselves. That's why many adopters end up with completely different children (ages/issues) to the ones they originally envisaged.
When we started adoption it was all about us. By the time we got to approval, it was nothing to do with us anymore, it was entirely about the (then unknown) child who needed a family.

I don't think that having a child or children is a selfish act, any more than buying a house, or going out for a drink is a selfish act. We are humans, and our base need is to reproduce and continue the species. That we WANT children isn't selfish, it's built in to actually make sure we do it!

I have to say, though, in answer to whitechocolatebuttons comments - adoption doesn't rely on the "misfortune" of another woman...those children are already in care before they're adopted - they're not ripped from some poor unfortunate soul and given to a more worthy family! The reasons are complex, sad and manifold, and in an ideal world, there would be no adoption and no requirement for such.

We came to adoption through infertility initially - we started fertility treatment, but then chose to stop and pursue adoption, because we felt that if we couldn't conceive naturally, then that actually placed us in an ideal position to provide a child with a home. The fact that adopting made our lives supremely wonderful is a happy effect, but I don't think that makes us selfish?

Completely agree. It is the selfish gene. A lot of people decide not to have kids for that reason. A friend of mine doesn't have kids. She has an amazing and enviable lifestyle. I asked her if she feels empty? I know I would, at least that is what I thought... She said no. I honestly believe her. I don't envy her or think her life is better. Just different yet to me so familiar. She lives like I did in my twenties - own house, career, travel, fun, charity work, shopping - always on the go. Only she is 50 and the house is paid off and she is very high up the greasy pole.

I never questioned getting married and having kids. It was what grown ups do! But things are different now. I will tell my kids that is only one option. I will not put pressure on them to make me a grandmother. I don't care.

The workers for the future is BUll S....- the reality is 25% unemployment among youth. Innovation is making people redundant. A child born now will have a 40% chance of unemployment if it continues. People live longer. Damn goes the theory about two kids as a replacement. There are some 5 generation families out there now. Divorce, stress, financial pressure, health issues, tiredness - you don't have to tell me the cons! Plus come puberty we all know what monsters the little darling become for some parents. My are fine but I know plenty of 'perfect parents' who's kids got in with a bad crowd and are making their lives hell.

Other countries breed more, but every western kid is an ecological disaster.

But as a mother with 3 kids that starts with me. I think back to my mother who gave me his idea that this was normal. My mother kept saying when are you getting married? When are you having a kid? Isn't it time to think about another one?

In my family that ends now. With me telling my kids that is only lifestyle option. No pressure either way.

Well done to the women who bucked convention!!! We need more like them.
They also pay taxes and use less resources, that has to be a good thing for us breeders?

My OH and myself have 5 children. My brother has no children and is never likely to. My OH's sister has no children and is never likely to. Now if OH and myself, my brother and OH'S sister were to all have 2 children each then that would make 6 children. iyswim.
Surely number of children evens itself out over society.

What an extraordinary idea.

In the UK we do not need to limit population growth at all.

Without immigration, we woudl barely be sustaining our current leel of population. To see what the consequences of a shrinking population look like go and look at Japan. It leads to a long economic Depression ending in economic and societal collapse.

I can see a time in the near future where the UK will implement tax incentives to encourage us to have more children and also a loosening of imigration controls. Having children will soon be seen as altruistic and not a selfish thing at all. We need a future generation to pay for the are and look after the older generation.

Selfish?

No it's one of the most basic instincts.

We're just mammals after all.

Anyway how can it be selfish when it basically results in you raising the next generation and giving them priority over your own wants and needs?

The UK population cannot be sustained without massive imports of food and energy. This tells me that the current population of 60 million is unsustainable and too great. It is a mirror of the unsustainably high world population. Having more children to support a growing number of old people is barmy and completely counter-productive. We need to get old people to be economically productive for longer so that they can support themselves. The current retirement age is ridiculously low.

Having kids is natural, not selfish. Children are a gift from God.

God yes, I have 5 and I had them because I wanted to.

Callisto - the UK has always imported food. Even 300 years ago we could not sustain ourselves by farming and there were regular famines in parts of the countryside right up to Victorian times. The key is sustaning our exports of goods and services to be able to buy the food we need - without borrowing. That might be a trickier task to pull off.

Callisto In theory I agree re raising the retirement age however unless there are jobs to be filled this will only lead to younger people not having work. We need more jobs for this to actually be helpful.

So how is having more children to support an ageing population helpful if the jobs arn't there in the first place?

Crop failures accounted for famines, and food imports were luxury items, not staples like wheat etc. It was hugely expensive to transport anything anywhere so the vast majority of food eaten by the vast majority of the poulation was grown locally. We are rich enough to be insulated from famine now days and at the moment, but if the world population keeps growing those times will come again for everyone.

Callisto
I didn't claim that it was helpful. But helpful or not people are not going to stop having children.

It is simplistic to think that raising retirement age will solve the problem when an economy is not growing. May actually be detrimental if we end up with long-term unemployed whose benefit payments will end up being far higher than a few years of saved pension payments.

I predict, however, that we will be expected to work to at least 70 by the time I hit retirement age. Which is fair given that we are living longer.

The difficulty with this idea is that it inevitably seems to lead to ideas about not extending the welfare state to people who have more than X children, or people who are unemployed and have any children, or people who have children who are unlikely to be economically active in the future....

If you accept that having children is selfish then it can lead to very dark places.

It IS selfish, though being selfish isn't necessarily a BAD thing.

We wanted a family but couldn't have our own so we recently adopted. As several posters have said, adoption is NOT easy. It was a gruelling and emotional 2 1/2 year process. So many people have said "Oh, it's so wonderful that you're adopting. Aren't you good for doing something like that?" or similar. Well, no. We aren't doing it to be altruistic or save the planet or to help the burden on our society. We are doing it because we selfishly want a family. Yes, all those other things are benefits of what we have done, but it wasn't the reason.

Our little boy is settling in nicely 13 weeks in and while we are often exhausted and frustrated we are also very, very happy.

Congratulations Curly!

Hmm, well it probably is selfish, but then one could also argue that deliberately choosing not to have children is equally selfish, since you are therefore reliant on other people's children to support you in your old age.

LeQueen, you hit the nail on the head. Spot on. "I ...would see every other child suffer and struggle"

That is exactly what happens now. Other people in the world are starving, working in poor conditions, mining and suffering for our lifestyle.

We all expect that our kids will go to uni get a good job and will be some one's kid that flips their burger or whpes our ass in our old age.

Those are exactly the kind of jobs that immigration are good for.

But times are changing. The gov is looking at reducing immigration and getting British people off the dole.

Still it is not going to change the fact as the global population increases there are less resources. Fact. Fact two is that innovation is creating a need for less jobs at the top rungs and more at the Mc Jobs and service rungs. But even growth in this sector is not keeping pace with population growth.

Fact 3 is not everyone wants or should have kids. This may even be evolutionary to protect the species and every other animal on the planet.

Having kids is entirely optional and no one should judge one way or the other.

YANBU. Especially when people are not in a good position emotionally, financially, physically etc to bring a child into the world.

What about when people get into a bad place as a result of having children, hammy? A lot of women suffer psychological problems during pregnancy and extending on after the birth.

Ditto financially and physically.

Are they OK, or not?

Do you think that disabled people shouldn't have children?

Of course I don't mean people that get into a bad place as a result of having children or after having children. I just meant people that deliberately bring a child into the world that they cannot look after themselves.