The right reasons to have children?

[livupq]

If the world is as overpopulated as people say do you think you have to have more extrinsic reasons for having children? More and more jobs will be become automated and the jobs we need require more and more expertise and intelligence. On the parenting side it is increasingly important to have parents that value education and understand child development who can provide a loving and nurturing home to children. Having all these traits and the money and time to do that isn’t possible for everyone.

If you were not particularly special - not very pretty or intelligent or with special talents is there a reason to have children? Understandably most people want them but should we put that behind us as selfish desires? Naturally things won’t always go to plan and even if you are smart or pretty your children may not be. Even if you could support them and provide for them emotionally and physically you could lose your job... but that seems different than trying to do the right thing in the first place. Right now it feels like having children is the natural state no matter what your circumstances even though we are supposedly enlightened.

Just interested in others thoughts.

Yes, given that it would also be an end to human existence and with it an end to all joy, achievement love and everything else that goes with it.

@MirriVan

I have reported your disgusting misanthropy. Mankind is the highest form of life on this planet and should not be encouraged to commit suicide because of your vague nonsensical warnings that something worse is to come (which is not necessarily true, unless your crystal ball is 100% accurate). While there is human suffering, the progress made by mankind far outstrips it. You loathsome guttersnipe, who are you tell mankind to commit suicide?

Do you not feel it's morally wrong to deprive future generations of the positive things in life because we have made a judgement that they shouldn't experience the negative things? Given that most people feel their life is worth living, isn't denying the opportunity to live that life morally wrong? I'm also wondering why the suffering element of life outweighs the positive elements in your mind such that because suffering exists everything else should be destroyed.

You seem to think it's a given that suffering should be avoided at all costs, which isn't a view I agree with.

ADropofReality woah wish woah I’m not sure how things have escalated to this point but I’m sure no one is advocating suicide. And to anyone looking at the thread who is already feeling low - this thread was not opened to advocate suicide. Please seek help if you are feeling down.

So far, I’ve mamaged to hear reasons why parents have children, why some have chosen to be child free and from this anti-natalist point of view. Would like to keep this an intelligent (and open) conversation so can we avoid personal insults? Insult ideologies all you like but not posters please.

My mother can’t write and can barely read. My father can read but never does, apart from the newspaper. I have a PhD. If they had been prevented from reproducing because of their lack of intellectual achievement I wouldn’t have been born.

I should also note that my mother is ten times better than I am as a person. She’s generous and selfless. Her patience is endless. I’ve seen her care for the sick and comfort the dying. Intellectual achievement isn’t everything.

I get that MirriVan. In my view, suffering is only one part of life and denying life in order to prevent suffering seems entirely pointless much like denying life to prevent obesity or illness or any other of lifes imperfections would also be pointless. Life itself has a value in my view, with or without suffering. Letting suffering dictate the value of life seems like the most abject surrender to suffering possible - it is the ultimate capitulation. I imagine we won't agree on that one.

^I'm a travel agent trying to sell you and your child a trip to an exotic land. I tell you that you might really like it there, but there's no guarantee. Your child may also enjoy it there, but it's even less likely, and again there is no guarantee.
The final thing I tell you is that there is a 50/50 chance that visiting this land will give your child cancer at some stage in their life. Maybe in one year, maybe in 60. We don't know. But the odds are 50/50 for your child getting cancer, if they visit this land.
Do you take your child to the exotic land?^

I think for this to make sense in the context of this discussion the alternative would have to be for the child to cease to exist for them to die, surely?

Spaghettijumper
I see what you mean but my point is that the idea of control is a complete illusion. Yes there are some things you can plan for to a certain extent but for the most part everything in your life that goes wrong will be almost entirely unexpected or uncontrollable. I doubt any parent in Germany or Poland in the 1930s had a child expecting them to go to the gas chamber one day. Or that any of the parents of the people killed in the Manchester bomb expected that to be in any way part of their lives.

My personal view is that living life in such a way as to avoid suffering is entirely pointless. In order to truly avoid suffering you must never want anything or love anything. You must also never take a single risk or try to do anything that isn't entirely predictable. And if you do all that, guess what, you'll still bloody suffer because suffering is part of life and you have to grow up and accept it. The only thing you'll have gained is the added misery of never really engaging with life out of pure fear.

I think it is always worth planning ahead with the information you have. True calamity may happen anyway but more than likely it will not. It’s a bit like saying I could get run over by a bus or in a car accident at any time so why should I save towards a pension?

In the sane way we know what things are more likely to help a child to be successful in later life. If you can’t nurture them for whatever reason or will pass down difficulties that will make their life worse than their peers isn’t that something worth considering?

Likewise if you can save a bit of money for them each week because life is uncertain that may be one mitigation.

But just thinking “we’ll anything can happen out of my control so I am not going to take any responsibility before I bring someone into the word” just doesn’t feel like a sound judgement to me.

As to your second paragraph- people take all types of steps to mitigate pain in the future all the time. For example eating healthy and exercising and keeping their brain active - are they missing out on life? Or trying their best to make their future easier? They could still die of a heart attack on the morning jog or get cancer. However they are far more likely to be healthy in old age if we look at averages.

As in, the choices with having children are for them to not exist, or to live and possibly suffer.

Silkei no I believe the choice belongs with the individual. Also people are already a product of their environments. Not being able to read doesn’t mean you are not smart. If you weee not taught or exposed to books you probably wouldn’t be able to either. Clearly both were able to nurture you and help you.

I think we're basically saying the same thing livupq - yes of course you take reasonable steps to avoid predictable calamities and to stay healthy etc but it's my view also that you have to accept the randomness of life. You can eat healthily and never smoke and still get lung cancer. You can be born black, in poverty to a disinterested dad and a flakey mum in a white supremacist society and become president of the US (as Obama did). Yes it's wise to consider the consequences of having children but the fact is that you simply cannot plan for everything so sometimes you have to take a chance. Living life in fear of what might happen is different to planning - planning is about doing the things you can do, and then going ahead with what's possible. Living in fear is about avoiding things. Avoid them if you want, but that has consequences just as much as anything else.

^Given that most people feel their life is worth living
I'm not sure that this is a given.
Also, both our culture and biology leads us to see our lives as worth living even in the face of alternative evidence.^

What's the alternative evidence? Surely all that's required for a life to be worth living is for the person to feel it's worth living? Or is there some outside measure of worthiness?

With the holiday scenario - the choice you're presenting is for a child I already have to go on holiday. Of course I wouldn't choose for them to go to place where they could get cancer, if I could still have them with me and for them not to be in that danger. However, if the choice is for them to go to that exotic island or not exist then the choice is different. The island isn't ideal but it's better than the alternative. Whereas I think in your view it's better not to exist than to face uncertainty around suffering.

Not being able to read doesn’t mean you are not smart

My mother is definitely not smart. Not even average. But she’s good. Better than anyone else I’ve ever met. That is so much more valuable.

While you can't guarantee a child like you, it's likely they'll have lots of your attributes both positive and negative. So yes whether or not you think you have qualities you want to pass on is definitely a factor.

The choice between not feeling anything and going to the island doesn't make sense either - that's not the equivalent of not existing. I think the element of making the choice for someone else is where we won't agree - there isn't an alternative and ending the existence of humans on that basis is to me, frankly, mad.