How my mother stopped telling me to look for a boyfriend

You tapped on a great reason to have children. You want to share the splendor of living with someone who is new to the world. Seeing a few of my buddies with kids take their kids to the zoo and point out everything and explain everything and seeing the amazement in their kids eyes fills me with happiness for them and the journey they are on.

Its awesome they made the leap and want to be there from -9 months onward, 24/7. I couldnt sustain that obligation because really, when I evaluate the things I enjoy in life, most of then rely on adult tastes with adult ability to converse and articulate them. As silly as it seems, I prefer letting everyone else do the legwork of growing adults I enjoy the company of rather than putting a huge burden on myself to raise someone better than myself. Not cause Im awesome but because my experience of growing up gave me some pretty questionable lessons i had to forget as an adult.
Yeah, I can imagine the feeling. And I'm sure raising kids is going to be a huge hassle, or at least I was when my parents raised me. But still, no pain no gain right?
 
Also, if you happen to be pregnant now, it would probably be a good idea to have an abortion.

Congratulations on making one of the most offensive posts I've ever seen on this forum.

And telling pregnant people to have abortions isn't offensive? I get that it's a joke but it's a pretty distasteful one. Abortion is a very seriously decision that shouldn't be joked about. There are plenty of other ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first world.

Look if you want kids have kids, if you don't, don't. They're a ton of work and cost a lot, it's not selfish to not want that. What's selfish is having them and then not doing all you can to take care of them. It's better to not have kids at all than be a selfish parent and not spend the requisite time with your children.

Oh and people worried about food and energy and the future of the enviornment, technology is always coming out with breakthroughs. We'll be off fossil fuels in 50 years tops, some would say this is way too late but I don't think so, and we keep increasing crop outputs, to the chagrin of all those anti gmo naysayer hippies.
 
Last edited:
And telling pregnant people to have abortions isn't offensive?
Well, I could see how people who don't want to have an abortion or who are in the process of deciding whether to have an abortion or not, could perceive it as being offensive, but really, I'm just giving life advice to people who might not have considered that possibility yet.
 
Yeah, I can imagine the feeling. And I'm sure raising kids is g0oing to be a huge hassle, or at least I was when my parents raised me. But still, no pain no gain right?

So one of the most formative string of memories I had growing up was my parents both telling me that self sufficiency and relying on yourself was the greatest virtue you could hold. They lived according to that ethos and I knew even as early as 10 or 11 that as soon as I was 18, I couldnt rely on them and itd be sink or swim. And I sank for a long spell trying to do everything on my own, without help from anyone in anything - school, work, friends, music, relationships. The toll of that ownership led to a pretty unsatisfying life where I internalized so much as a personal failing of willpower and wit and personality. And while my parents take great pride in the adult ive become, stuff didnt get better for me until I started opening myself up to outside help and critiquing myself on being so obstinate and arrogant.

I would say I had a nice, comfortable childhood that at its worst was just very solitary and lonely. I was never more thankful to be an adult until I landed on my feet though around 25 years old and it's been 8 years of living my life on my terms with the support of those who saw something in me and gave me a chance to prove them right. Both of my parents think I'm distant but I like our relationship so much more now that we are peers.

FWIW, I usually get along with Baby Boomers famously since so much of my formative years was spent in the company of adults being passively charming.
 
Last edited:
A common argument but some places are not that awful. In a wealthy safe country, most kids will grow up to have a happy life. Not getting a kid there is more like having the possibility to give someone a lottery ticket with guaranteed win, but instead tear it apart.
there's no guarantees that the first world will stay first world. Given the reality of an unpredictable climate, not to mention unpredictable political climate, potential terrorism excetera, we could be entering Dark Ages any time now
 
You don't even need to have that dire an outlook on the future to have apprehension.

You can look at the bottom line on a month to month basis and realize you'd have to become a big time consumer and live near poverty to make it work, American-style.

And that's another aspect, at least personally, that turned the guilt of potentially procreating up to 11 - I could probably be the parent that I always wanted but the entire family unit would be living paycheck to paycheck, something I never experienced growing up. I was homeless for a spell in my early 20s and knowing that hardship, it seems unfair to potential offspring knowing that I couldn't provide materially on a level my parents did (and they would ride me about that)
 
Last edited:
there's no guarantees that the first world will stay first world. Given the reality of an unpredictable climate, not to mention unpredictable political climate, potential terrorism excetera, we could be entering Dark Ages any time now

What would the dark ages in the US or Western Europe actually be? Like a stock market crash? High unemployment? Gas stations out of gas? We've done all that and come out just fine. I don't think we're realistically ever getting to the point of mass starvation and rioting/anarchy that doomsday preppers rave about. People in the third world maybe but they already deal with this on a regular basis anyway. I think only nuclear war could really sink us at this point, or if terrorists get a nuke maybe.

People might be "poorer" once robots take all our jobs, and we might have to live in tighter spaces as land fills up, but our money will go a lot further, food should just get cheaper, energy should get cheaper, we won't need personal vehicles, health care advances should let us live longer and cheaper, entertainment is already dirt cheap.

You don't even need to have that dire an outlook on the future to have apprehension.

You can look at the bottom line on a month to month basis and realize you'd have to become a big time consumer and live near poverty to make it work, American-style.

Yeah and you live like a king compared to people just 100 years ago.
 
Re : mrt

Yes and if you have a messed up/controlling or demanding family having a kid can make you beholden to them more than you have been since you were a child (assuming you need their financial or moral support).

Having a child actually made me closer to my mom but I also had to deal with the maternal family and that was a nightmare I wouldn't wish on anyone.
 
What would the dark ages in the US or Western Europe actually be? Like a stock market crash? High unemployment? Gas stations out of gas? We've done all that and come out just fine. I don't think we're realistically ever getting to the point of mass starvation and rioting/anarchy that doomsday preppers rave about. People in the third world maybe but they already deal with this on a regular basis anyway. I think only nuclear war could really sink us at this point, or if terrorists get a nuke maybe.

People might be "poorer" once robots take all our jobs, and we might have to live in tighter spaces as land fills up, but our money will go a lot further, food should just get cheaper, energy should get cheaper, we won't need personal vehicles, health care advances should let us live longer and cheaper, entertainment is already dirt cheap.
No one can predict the future, there are dozens of things that could disrupt the current world order beyond repair. It hasn't happened before so it won't now isn't a strong argument.

For instance of our electrical grid got knocked out or even internet got knocked out people would be going hungry within a week and probably half would dead within six months.
 
Yeah and you live like a king compared to people just 100 years ago.

And? That doesn't make living in the present any easier. I am thankful that as a world society we have advanced over the past 100 years (and I was lucky to be born into a specific society that had half the deck in its favor) but I'm not going to take it for granted or ignore the very real consequences of living paycheck to paycheck.
 
Last edited:
Well, I could see how people who don't want to have an abortion or who are in the process of deciding whether to have an abortion or not, could perceive it as being offensive, but really, I'm just giving life advice to people who might not have considered that possibility yet.
I'm not buying that. You said it that way for shock value.
 
I'm not buying that. You said it that way for shock value.
Well... you're too intelligent to be fooled, you got me there, a bit of shock value was of course part of the fun of making that statement.

Consider however, that Lexicus said that intelligence is a concept of white supremacy, so maybe you should be careful with calling people's bluffs in the future.
 
there's no guarantees that the first world will stay first world. Given the reality of an unpredictable climate, not to mention unpredictable political climate, potential terrorism excetera, we could be entering Dark Ages any time now

Bah! The rich get rich, and the poor get children.
 
And telling pregnant people to have abortions isn't offensive? I get that it's a joke but it's a pretty distasteful one. Abortion is a very seriously decision that shouldn't be joked about. There are plenty of other ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first world.
Why are you dragging me into this? I was replying to Commodore's offensive speech about how people like me (and other childless-by-choice forum members) are just taking up resources that should be used for people who do have children, and that we shouldn't be allowed to access any social welfare or other government benefits.

Since that's what has enabled me to stay alive for the last 20+ years of my life, and my dad as well, of course I am offended.

But don't drag me into Ryika's offensive attitude that abortion is merely another form of birth control. I'm pro-choice, but I also think that both parties - both male and female - should be responsible in the first place.

Don't want a kid? Use birth control or some other way of preventing conception. This applies to the men, too. If you (general 'you') don't want to be on the hook for child support, use a condom. Or investigate the various male contraceptives being talked about. Or get surgery.

Did you realize that men can get it just for the asking, but any woman still of childbearing years who says they want surgery so they won't get pregnant (or for some other equally relevant reason) is apt to either be refused outright or given a stern lecture by the doctor that she's doing the wrong thing, the immoral thing, or she's too young to know what she's saying? I had that conversation with a male doctor once. "Yes, I know pregnancy would be very difficult for you, given your medical history, but I'm not going to even consider this because you might change your mind."

Oh and people worried about food and energy and the future of the enviornment, technology is always coming out with breakthroughs. We'll be off fossil fuels in 50 years tops, some would say this is way too late but I don't think so, and we keep increasing crop outputs, to the chagrin of all those anti gmo naysayer hippies.
You seem to have a lot of faith that everything will mysteriously just work out. How's that going to happen when it's obvious that we should be doing much more research into non-fossil fuel energy but aren't, because governments are dependent on the $$$$$$$$$$ of the fossil fuel companies? Here in Alberta, the nay-sayers are the ones who ridicule solar energy because our winters stretch over 7 months of the year. But I don't remember even one of those days when we don't get at least some hours of sunlight. We're nowhere near the Arctic Circle here, and we could do with a lot more solar power than we're currently using.

As for wind farms, there are some areas of this province where it's always windy. And no, I don't just mean the Legislature. I mean literally windy.

People might be "poorer" once robots take all our jobs, and we might have to live in tighter spaces as land fills up, but our money will go a lot further, food should just get cheaper, energy should get cheaper, we won't need personal vehicles, health care advances should let us live longer and cheaper, entertainment is already dirt cheap.
So once robots have all the jobs, how are people going to earn all this money to get cheap food, energy, health care, etc.? There's a catch to this Star Trek future and it always comes in the form of "how are people actually paying for this? Kirk can say they don't use money in the future and Picard can say that people don't work for money, but rather to "better themselves", but that's utter BS.

Every advanced civilization (that's more advanced than hunter/gatherers) has had some kind of economy, even if it was only bartering goods/services in kind. What sort of economy would we have in a society where nobody works because robots do everything? What happens when some people want or demand more? What happens if the robots break down to the point where there aren't any robots to fix them and the people don't know how?

Yeah and you live like a king compared to people just 100 years ago.
True. But this isn't 100 years ago.

No one can predict the future, there are dozens of things that could disrupt the current world order beyond repair. It hasn't happened before so it won't now isn't a strong argument.

For instance of our electrical grid got knocked out or even internet got knocked out people would be going hungry within a week and probably half would dead within six months.
There was a TV show on a few years ago, called Revolution (there's a thread about it in A&E). The basic premise was that something had caused electrical devices to stop functioning - anything electrical - and indeed, people were going hungry within a week and were already killing each other for food and/or survival gear. People had to relearn basic skills in a hurry. The show itself wasn't very good - had a lot of unlikable characters and the leads just weren't grubby enough; the female lead was nicknamed "Bratniss" by some of the people on the old TWoP forum. But it does show that people are already thinking about "what if this happens". We depend so much on electricity in this part of the world that it's nearly unthinkable to not have it.

I've lived for awhile without electricity - coal oil lamps, getting water from the well or lake and boiling it on a wood stove, there was no TV, and the bathroom was a biffy. But that was at our cabin, and it wasn't permanent - just for a few weeks every summer, and we'd make periodic trips to the nearest city for supplies and would stop in to visit family.

It's amazing how much you value sunlight when it's the only source of light and rain when you need fresh water.
 
One problem with that approach to conceptualizing overpopulation, is that there simply isn't and could never be a scenario where everyone could get their acre share of land.

The point of that statement though is to illustrate that we aren't running out of room any time soon, nor are we running out of resources any time soon. The problem with resource shortages that we have aren't due to there being too many people or us not having enough to go around, it's that our methods for distributing our resources are proving to be quite ineffective.

Overpopulation isn't set to become a serious global crisis until our population hits around 11 billion, and that's not set to happen until sometime around 2100. And that 11 billion number is only a problem at our current levels of consumption and technology. By 2100, we could either be establishing space colonies or living in arcologies by then. At which point, 11 billion humans won't be a problem.

I've been thinking about getting a vasectomy myself, tbh, because I honestly think it's unethical to reproduce given how awful I think the future is going to be. Also we really need to reduce the human population.

Good luck finding a doctor who will do it if you don't have children already or have donated sperm to a sperm bank. And that's not even a joke either. Doctors are trained to consider it unethical give vasectomies or "tie a woman's tubes" unless they have had at least one child. And many of them won't do it unless you've had two kids.

If you don't believe me, go test it out. Schedule an appointment for consultation on a vasectomy and tell the doctor you don't have any children. I guarantee he or she will flatly refuse to do the procedure no matter how much you offer to pay. And even if you did find a doctor who would do it, most insurance plans won't cover the procedure if you don't already have children.

In short, if you don't want to have kids, you better just keep using condom and make sure the women you are with are on birth control because both doctors and insurance companies will do everything in their power to stop you from getting a vasectomy. And they are right to try to stop you in my opinion.
 
The point of that statement though is to illustrate that we aren't running out of room any time soon, nor are we running out of resources any time soon. The problem with resource shortages that we have aren't due to there being too many people or us not having enough to go around, it's that our methods for distributing our resources are proving to be quite ineffective.

Overpopulation isn't set to become a serious global crisis until our population hits around 11 billion, and that's not set to happen until sometime around 2100. And that 11 billion number is only a problem at our current levels of consumption and technology. By 2100, we could either be establishing space colonies or living in arcologies by then. At which point, 11 billion humans won't be a problem.



Good luck finding a doctor who will do it if you don't have children already or have donated sperm to a sperm bank. And that's not even a joke either. Doctors are trained to consider it unethical give vasectomies or "tie a woman's tubes" unless they have had at least one child. And many of them won't do it unless you've had two kids.

If you don't believe me, go test it out. Schedule an appointment for consultation on a vasectomy and tell the doctor you don't have any children. I guarantee he or she will flatly refuse to do the procedure no matter how much you offer to pay. And even if you did find a doctor who would do it, most insurance plans won't cover the procedure if you don't already have children.

In short, if you don't want to have kids, you better just keep using condom and make sure the women you are with are on birth control because both doctors and insurance companies will do everything in their power to stop you from getting a vasectomy. And they are right to try to stop you in my opinion.

http://www.drsnip.com/ gave me a vasectomy only after ensuring that I wanted it done, once. That's it. Best 800 I spent in my life. Wasn't covered under insurance but worth every penny. So they aren't unicorns and yeah, you gotta pay, but if you're certain, it's there.

Also, how many kids do you have Commodore, and is it really enough?
 
Last edited:
Best 800 I spent in my life.

Until you get the urge to have children. Then you are going to regret it and will have to pay even more money to have the procedure reversed.
 
Until you get the urge to have children. Then you are going to regret it and will have to pay even more money to have the procedure reversed.

Wanna bet 800 bucks that never happens?

Also, how many kids do you have Commodore?
 
Top Bottom