Stop aging at the cost of having no children - would you do it?

[FriendlyFire]

I question the use of the word prosperity to such an extent that it revolves around excluding or throwing away the teachers and parents that produced the desired imported specialists. Parasitic fits better.

Japan is a deeply xenophobic nation, and its plans are to replace its shrinking population with robots
There are immigrants workers, filling in many of its hard labouring jobs but getting citizenship is still a nightmare

Japan knows it has a crisis but they seem unable to address the cost of living and raising kids, the insane work hours and inability to change japans antiquate education system

 

[Birdjaguar]

I question the use of the word prosperity to such an extent that it revolves around excluding or throwing away the teachers and parents that produced the desired imported specialists. Parasitic fits better.

I do not understand what you mean, please explain further.

 

[Peuri]

The human brain has a 'limit' in the TB range, spec-fi gives a human around 200-500 years of 'space' before eventually brain cell replenishment, new memories, degredation and the like forms a 'new you'.

And trust me, I agree with your first paragraph regarding novelty and experiences, and I'm younger than you, for sure. Had a huge existential crisis too young and all that. But that's why it's comforting that there will be a 'new me' eventually. I've changed much, but there's a core element to me that I feel is still around and guiding.

[...]

Very interesting. This was kind of what I was poking at with my question about long term memory, that what would happen if we lived for hundreds of years beyond our natural lifespan. Our body was not supposed to live so long, and supposedly the brain has a limited number of connections (memories) it can make, by virtue of being a physical information storage system. My hunch was that memories would eventually become disjointed and chaotic, but I guess your take makes more sense.

The illusion of the self as a coherent extant driver of the body is really an interesting phenomenon. The self, the experiencer, is comforted to continue experiencing, while the experiencer of the past is no more, since the experiencer has changed totally.

 

[Hygro]

Dunno how it's less selfish to want to be self-perfect rather than age for the existence of others.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I do not understand what you mean, please explain further.

Complaining about "anchor babies" when your doctor is an anchor baby is dumb.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I'm old so I'll just say, that children are our hope. If you don't want them, then you have no hope. That's sad in my book. Feel free to mock me.
You call us boomers selfish but it looks like the next generations are worse based on the posts here. But then, as pointed out, this place if far from the norm.

"hope", aka "all things will turn out quite alright if we sit on our ass and do nothing" is precisely the kind of boomer mentality that has led us into this mess in the first place, se excuse me that I'm not "hopeful" about a future that is literally ruined unless we take drastic measures.

most climate scientists agree that if the earth heats up another 1,5 degrees we'll enter a nefarious cycle of re-heating and the whole ordeal is irreversible, meaning almost every living being on earth will die and the planet will never return to normal. that's hope for you.

What's selfish about detesting something?

It doesn't really make sense to claim that people who don't have children because they don't want to have children are any more selfish than people who have children because they want to have children.

damn son going wild ere

(that's an endorsement)

I could have retired over a decade ago if I had decided not to have a child. I sacrificed many things. But you are correct, I'd do it again and again.
She is the best thing I have ever done. (i'm sure it doesn't always work out that way) While people can have any opinion they want, I will give less credence to those that are childless since I don't think they truly understand. Call me old fashioned.

that's not old fashioned, just biased and discriminatory.

They are acting selflessly though. At least at a subconscious level. That "want" to have have children you think is so selfish is brought on by a biological imperative that exists in all forms of life to propagate the species and ensure it's continued survival. Taking an action that helps ensure the survival of the species is pretty selfless, regardless of whether or not you think you are doing it for selfish reasons.

so first you go off to describe having children as a biological imperative, and then you say it is selfless?

am I selfless for breathing, too? for eating, drinking, and..?

not only is your argument bunk, you are also wrong about the biological imperative. it's not our imperative to have and raise kids, it is our imperative to have sex. we're wired to find partners and make sweet love to them.

not all people that have sex end up havings kids. not even all people who have kids end up raising them. this is true not just for the society we live in, but for many mammalian societies. the father does not necessarily raise his own child, it has been this way since the dawn of time.

you are simply projecting your own view of the nuclear family onto nature, something conservatives have been doing for the longest time.

also, subconsciously acting selfish or selfless seems highly oxymoronic, since itentions are by their very definition conscious.

I feel it's the other way around ... when you say "It's immoral to have children", I feel that's a judgement against me, who wants to have a child. I don't mind at all if you don't want to bring a child into this world, but please don't judge me for wanting to procreate.

it's also immoral to buy Mangoes, get on an airplane, buy an iPhone or clothes from a sweatshop, but when anyone points that out you don't think it is a judgement personally against you, do you?

having kids is a very polarizing topic and one that gets people very emotional, because the question being posed by Lexicus, me and others is one that upsets your very notions of what is fundamentally right or wrong. "having kids" is one of those few things we rarely question. and now, speaking with Nietzsche, god is dead, and has been for a long time, it's time we question even the last institutions of mankind.

note that I did not even outright say that having kids is immoral (at least in this thread), so I think it is kind of unfair to apply that position to me. I feel like you didn't really read my posts, since I explicitly said that I DO want children.

 

[rah]

is precisely the kind of boomer mentality that has led us into this mess in the first place,

but this isn't biased and discrimatory? Whatever.

No kids = no future. Fact.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm old so I'll just say, that children are our hope. If you don't want them, then you have no hope.

No kids = no future. Fact.

There is already no future.

I feel it's the other way around ... when you say "It's immoral to have children", I feel that's a judgement against me, who wants to have a child. I don't mind at all if you don't want to bring a child into this world, but please don't judge me for wanting to procreate.

I'm sorry Mary, I should have been more clear that I feel having children would be immoral for me.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

but this isn't biased and discrimatory? Whatever.

No kids = no future. Fact.

that is not a fact, it is a blantant lie actually. the future exists entirely independent of the human race. you just don't care about any other lifeform on this planet . also, it is possible to imagine a future without kids, that is actually what this thread is about.. I don't think that'd be a good future, I think kids are an absolute necessity and overpopulation of old people would be hell on earth, which I've argued in other threads. so we don't even disagree on this, you're just being polemic.

yes, what I said was indeed discriminatory, and meant that way. I am directly blaming all the previous generations for navigating us into this mess, and especially recent ones, which includes my parents, for not taking the slightest amount of action and knowingly continuing a way of life they for a fact knew was unsustainable.

The human brain has a 'limit' in the TB range, spec-fi gives a human around 200-500 years of 'space' before eventually brain cell replenishment, new memories, degredation and the like forms a 'new you'.

And trust me, I agree with your first paragraph regarding novelty and experiences, and I'm younger than you, for sure. Had a huge existential crisis too young and all that. But that's why it's comforting that there will be a 'new me' eventually. I've changed much, but there's a core element to me that I feel is still around and guiding.

And since it's taking forever for mankind to put-into-practice what they know and have, I wouldn't mind a few more years in good condition to see some fancy doodads and projects turn on. Though as other posters have noted, this century, if not millennium, will be rocky. I do see Fascism - not just 'wahh you're a racist meanie' but literal Fascism as in anti-capitalist, anti-individualist, anti-communist, pro-hierarchy, anti-rationalist, militaristic and statist Fascism - rise again, along with Communism and Capitalism going to their trenches again - after all, the three schools are barely a century and some change old proper.

Hell, give me 120 years but in peak condition, I'll probably be content. Healthspan is the real issue now, not lifespan, even 70-100 years can feel like eternity...especially in a withered, broken, incapable body.

very interesting post, thank you for that. may I ask what you think about my rambling post on page 4?

 

[Lexicus]

yes, what I said was indeed discriminatory, and meant that way. I am directly blaming all the previous generations for navigating us into this mess, and especially recent ones, which includes my parents, for not taking the slightest amount of action and knowingly continuing a way of life they for a fact knew was unsustainable.

Well, hold on now. I think people are mostly not aware even now that the system is unsustainable. A variety of fictions have been perpetrated by the ruling classes to prevent people from seeing this. Economists are highly culpable.

 

[Arakhor]

No kids = no future. Fact.

If everyone has no children any more, then that might be accurate. Fortunately, the entire human species is not participating in this thread.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

why would time itself hinge on whether some species of hairless monkeys keeps procreating? clearly we don't give a damn about the future of the birds, the elephants, insects, of plants, fungi, the only thing that is important is our own lifetime and the accumulation of human life. it's kind of disgusting that "future" in and of itself seems to only matter if it's "our" future, everyone else's future is not even a factor.

to me, future means whatever happens after the present. independent of me or any other lifeform. when did "future" become interchangeable with "the future of the human race"? if humans undergo some kind of significant change then, does that end "the future", because it's not "ours" anymore? what if we change biologically/genetically, or find other ways of procreation? would that also destroy the future?

sorry, not meant directly @you Arakhor, you just happened to be above my post.

Well, hold on now. I think people are mostly not aware even now that the system is unsustainable. A variety of fictions have been perpetrated by the ruling classes to prevent people from seeing this. Economists are highly culpable.

if we look at the phenomenon globally, then sure. on the other hand, most countries weren't really participating in global warming until mid 20th century, and that's awfull recent, while Europe and the US have been the main prepetrators ever since industrialization.

if we're looking at the US and Europe people are either wilfully ignorant or concerned. yes, we're being fed different narratives, people have a vested interested in us believing "it's all gonna be okay, science/progress will fix it" but it's up to each individual to swallow them or not. and in this regard I definitely believe in free will, or rather willful ignorance.

 

[rah]

If everyone has no children any more, then that might be accurate.

Doesn't change the logic.

There is already no future.

People have been claiming this since before you were born.

the future exists entirely independent of the human race. you just don't care about any other lifeform on this planet . also,

How does having a child lead to this blatant claim? Oh yeah, that blame everyone that isn't you game. absurd.

 

[jarred!]

He's just claiming you're being anthropocentric, which is true. The future will exist if humans stop procreating.

 

[Lexicus]

People have been claiming this since before you were born.

They were all reactionaries lamenting moral decline. They didn't know about climate science. You can read what the IPCC has to say about the future for yourself.

if we're looking at the US and Europe people are either wilfully ignorant or concerned. yes, we're being fed different narratives, people have a vested interested in us believing "it's all gonna be okay, science/progress will fix it" but it's up to each individual to swallow them or not. and in this regard I definitely believe in free will, or rather willful ignorance.

I dunno, I prefer to see climate denialists mostly as victims of propaganda. Otoh I think you are right that many people are willfully blind, willfully ignorant. But imo more important than the way people see the issue is how the economy is constructed to make it not matter, to make it very difficult even for people who see clearly what is going on to actually do anything about it.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

If I have a son, I'll tell him about selective reading ;
If she is a girl, I'll teach her circular logic.

In any case, they'll be prepared for the internet.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

no offense rah, but you're blatantly contradicting yourself. you quite literally said. "without kids there is no future. fact". I showed you that this is wrong, because time exists entirely seperate from human beings, and the universe will definitely still exist even without human beings.

now that is a fact. your definition of future in itself is "future of the human race", which kind of shows a crucial error in thinking. even if we suppose your definition, your argument would still be wrong by the way. there is definitely a potential future of the human race without having kids the "normal", biological way. it's just not nice to imagine and not a future I'd want.

People have been claiming this since before you were born.

this is genuinely just low-key cliamte denialism, that's all there is to it. this is the level we've stooped to.

comparing 97% of the worlds leading climate researchers to looneymen who were babbling about a moral or literal apocalypse.

I dunno, I prefer to see climate denialists mostly as victims of propaganda. Otoh I think you are right that many people are willfully blind, willfully ignorant. But imo more important than the way people see the issue is how the economy is constructed to make it not matter, to make it very difficult even for people who see clearly what is going on to actually do anything about it.

I think by looking at these people as victims and not as agents of their own will you are kind of taking away their selfhood and agency.

someone just as well might argue that you or I fell for "postmodern trickery" or something, and similiarly strip us from our agency. we've just been tricked by propaganda, it's not our fault.

I don't think this way of thinking leads anywhere, people ought to be responsible for holding stupid or violent opinions, and even more responsible for spreading those. because after all most flat-earthers are also flat-earth advoates.

your last point however is very strong and I fundamentally agree.

He's just claiming you're being anthropocentric, which is true. The future will exist if humans stop procreating.

exactly. i don't think everyone who has kids completely hates animals, or wants the planet to be destroyed. I'm just stating the fact that time doesn't hinge on human existance, neither does any other law of nature.

 

[rah]

your definition of future in itself is "future of the human race",

That is one definition. Considering it's us humans discussing it, I think its an acceptable one for the discussion. When we're all gone, whoever is left can discuss it however they want.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

no, that is explicitly your definition when you made the statement "there is no future without kids". it is not "one definition" out of many, it's the one you used. no weaseling out. and it carries with it the implicit assumption that a future without human beings is not worthwhile, not even as a concept. I don't even think this is necessarily bad or faulty, nor am I saying you're bad for being anthropocentric, I'm just desperately trying to make you aware of it.

 

[Lexicus]

I think by looking at these people as victims and not as agents of their own will you are kind of taking away their selfhood and agency.

Well yes, if you want to go there, I am not sure humans have real selfhood or real agency. But we are already pretty far down the philosophical rathole and I don't want to start digging another one in the side of this one.