Stella Said:
May I recommend you offer him the name of the nearest office looking for sperm donors? 
I am not sure “contempt” would be the correct word for my attitude towards people who choose to have kids, I think “annoyed” would be closer, but not quite accurate either; “pestered” would probably be the best way to say it, because people who chose to have kids, especially multiple kids, are pests like a swarm of gnats. The swarm of gnats have a biological niche to fulfill, I am sure, and it will be folly to wish them ill-will, but I still swat at them when the swarm around my head.
Let me explain. Although I’m not directly effected by overpopulation at this time, I’m concerned that if people keep pumping out the kids en masse this country’s resources and space will eventual become constrained; look at countries where overpopulation runs amok, like China or India, and I’m sure most people would not want to see similar situations here. Of course, America has not reached its maximum sustainable population yet, and no one seems sure what the maximum would be, so this is used as excuse to continue with the population growth unchecked. Why max out the population potential? Just because there is room for the population to growth does not mean there is good in its growth. By the same reasoning I could max out my credit cards because I have not borrowed every dollar I could barrow – but only a fool would do that without dire necessity. Is there a dire necessity for a maxed out population?
When I talked about the “egotism of DNA” I’m saying that people want to preserve their genetic code in their offspring without considering the good or bad qualities they are tossing into the gene pool. This is the animal instinct to procreate. There is a cousin on my wife’s side, living on the West Coast, who married her High School boyfriend right after graduation; the boy was a shiftless drug addict and a petty drug dealer, but they managed to sire three children in-between his jail terms before they got divorced; they succeeded in having a forth child after the divorce, but I’ll leave those details to the imagination. The woman, though once a honors student (so much for education), has never worked a day in her life and with four young children and a loser for an ex-husband I doubt she will for a very long time. I choose to explain the breeding habits of people like this as “egotism of DNA” because they somehow think their children are something special. The desire to breed is not always curtailed with intelligence. The same goes mediocrity of the masses who choose to have kids without forethought. Now there are certainly responsible parents out there who think before they have kids, but do they really need two, three, four, or more. Is their DNA really that special? Or is it just egotism? Some one said that having kids is the ultimate selfish act.
I’m sure all parents are aware that my taxes help pay for rearing other peoples children. This is a burden I must carry and I can’t foresee a future where kids are taxed instead of being tax deductible. Well, since I think child-free living is luxurious, I might just as well bend over and except a luxury tax on my life style.
Some people like sunny Florida, others enjoy the snowy winters of Portland, a few think a rainy London afternoon is just grand. I prefer the peace and quite away from kids, but no such place exists in civilization, parents tend to think any locality or event is improved by the presence of their kids. They run around, hoop, holler, play cap gun warfare, cry in shopping markets, sing off key, bawl in restaurants, and generally make their presence known. Much like the swarm of gnats during a picnic lunch, you can swat at them, but they’re not going to go away.
I think that if there is one issue above all others that partners need concordance on it is the issue of childbearing. Maybe I’m wrong but you figure out the rest.
Pyrronhist, I find it interesting that you consider kids to be such a pain that you don’t want them around at all. In that case, maybe you better stay home. Kids are, after all, people, and have just as much right to go places as you do. They are improved and civilized (eventually) by exposure to people and places. If your parents hadn’t been willing to have you, put up with you, and take you places, you wouldn’t be here.
I’m perfectly willing to let anyone who wants to remain without children do that without one peep or murmur from me. I would never ask anyone why they don’t have children or tell them that they should–I sometimes wonder why I wanted to do it so much! I also think that parents should be left alone to do the best job they can (within reasonable, legal limits–) without having to put up with a lot of flack from those who don’t want to bother but think they could do a better job.
Our children are going to support you in your old age. They will keep society running when you can’t do it anymore. Be thankful that somebody is still willing to try to produce good citizens for the future, so that you don’t have to. And enjoy your life without children, by all means.
Pyrrhonist, my first thought when reading your OP was that it was awful that ANYONE would critisize the decision NOT to have children. My sincere kudos to you and your wife for making this decision in spite of the societal (and interpersonal) pressure that is put upon you. It is amazing to me that in this day and age there might still be a stigma attached to remaining childless.
I did find it interesting, however, that your OP seemed to express annoyance that you would be considered selfish for not having children (“The choice not to procreate, I’m surprised, is often viewed as suspicious or selfish by those who breed”), yet later on you said, “Some one said that having kids is the ultimate selfish act.” Is this what YOU say? It hardly seems to me that “I’m not selfish…You’re selfish!” is a particularly rational argument.
Also, I am terribly sorry that you are so annoyed by the presence of children in the world. How awful for you that you can’t go to a restaurant or shopping mall without being exposed to humankind’s equivilant to a “cloud of gnats”. I forget who said it, but “children are just like normal human beings, except slightly mad”, and this is true. Children have certain limitations due to the simple fact of immaturity. My daughter, who is five years old, is sweet, smart, compassionate, and tries very hard to behave appropriately. However, sometimes she allows her voice to get a little loud, and sometimes she cries, as she doesn’t have the emotional maturity to respond the way most adults are expected to. How awful that you should ever have to hear this! I can only offer my apologies for allowing the sound or sight of my child to ever intrude on your consciousness.
I found your comments regarding people who choose to have children to be unkind and offensive. My daughter is sometimes annoying because she lacks the maturity to do better. What’s your excuse?
I still applaud your decision not to have children, especially in light of how you obviously feel about them.
Pamela
That’s odd, I thought my 401K, savings bonds, and stock dividends would support me in my old age. (Do you really think I’m type to believe in Social Security?)
Now maybe I’m wrong, but someone’s kids will be the future french fry chefs at McDonalds and they’ll probably want to tax my savings to help support their kids. Your way of thinking: I need to support you kids because I’ll need your kids to support me. But the truth is if I didn’t support your kids I wouldn’t need their support. (And will not need it even if I have to support them.) So for me it is a bad investment because I personally will not need support other then as warm body to full the empty position as Chief French Fry Chef.
That’s odd, I thought my 401K, savings bonds, and stock dividends would support me in my old age. (Do you really think I’m type to believe in Social Security?)
Now maybe I’m wrong, but someone’s kids will be the future french fry chefs at McDonalds and they’ll probably want to tax my savings to help support their kids. Your way of thinking: I need to support you kids because I’ll need your kids to support me. But the truth is if I didn’t support your kids I wouldn’t need their support. (And will not need it even if I have to support them.) So for me it is a bad investment because I personally will not need support other then as warm body to full the empty position as Chief French Fry Chef.
One of the most common phrases people say when they hear I’m not having children is “You’re just being selfish.” I didn’t make that one up. A few years ago I read an article about DINKs (Double Income No Kids), I think it was in the Washingtonian magazine, one a the couple interviewed said they though having children was the ultimate act of selfishness for reasons similar to, but not as ruthless, as my theory of the egotism of DNA. If you think this is just another way of the pot calling the kettle black I wouldn’t completely disagree. But is the pot wrong?
**
Okay, I can be unkind and offensive at times. Should I be a sheep and say nothing? When I saw a moving car throw a bag of trash out the window I blared my horn and blinked my lights; I wanted them to stop, turn around, and pick up their damn trash; they didn’t, of course, but I’m sure they were thinking “Why is that offensive man blaring his horn and blinking his lights?” When I heard a man pass gas in a used bookstore I asked him if that was really necessary. Gosh, ain’t I just rude to the bone. If some one is doing wrong, or doing what I believe is wrong, why shouldn’t I speak up and let my thoughts be known. Maybe * I’m * wrong on this occasion or that–I don’t sit on the throne of perfection–but meanwhile if some one’s feelings get hurt so be it. Feelings heal.
“What’s my excuse?” you say. “Why do I need one?” I retort.
Maybe not financially but physically. Someone has to do the work.
Your 401K, savings bonds, and stocks aren’t going to do you a damned bit of good without a healthy economy running around you. A nation full of retired geezers with nobody young and productive would be a nation full of starving geezers. Somebody has to do the work to keep your stocks paying out dividends.
Your continued wealth relies upon the wealth production of others, whether you choose to accept it or not. An industrial society doesn’t function very well without people working.
I was on your side, as it were, to choose to not have children. It is an entirely personal decision, and yours to make.
I don’t believe you owe anyone any explanation about your decision to not have children. When asked (and I know there are those who are rude enough to ask), I would simply respond “why do you think you are allowed to even ** ask ** that question”.
But when I see your expanded thoughts as expressed here, and in http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=39021 , the commonality seems to be a desire on your part to only have people in your life who meet your standards for pleasurable company in public. Children certainly wouldn’t. Those with differing abilities obviously don’t.
'Tis a small world to which you are relegating yourself.
A friend of mine’s parents, married for many years, the father, late in life has had a series of strokes. This means now, that they had to remodel their home to put the bathroom and his sleeping area on the same floor. This meant that they have to make travel plans very carefully. This has meant that his family has had to make many changes in their lifestyles to continue to accomodate the changes in his.
One hopes that you may learn to be more accepting of other people’s issues.
It’s a little more involved than just money, isn’t it? I assume you intend to use the services of a banker? Perhaps a doctor now and again? A dentist? Where do you think those people are going to come from?
If you are so “annoyed and pestered” by the simple presence of children in the world I suggest you go find yourself a cabin in the woods and get off the grid. You cannot demand the benefits of living in a society and, at the same time, demand that the members of that society remain invisible.
If you don’t want the hard work and responsibility of raising the next generation, don’t take it. But if you intend to someday enjoy the services that they will provide, I suggest you give a little more respect to them and to the parents who are raising them.
I originally said “I personally will not need support other then as warm body to full the empty position as Chief French Fry Chef.” So I already agree with you on this point, and I’ll amend my statement by saying I’ll probably need bankers, doctors, dentists, and whateverelses too. I just hope they do better then what I’ve seen them doing now.
**
Someday I may just go to that cabin in the woods and become that mean Ol’ Hermit Pyrrhonist; I’ll probably rail against the Gravitonal Constant of the Universe when I’m all by myself. I think there is a better chance of changing that then changing peoples attitude towards kids. Why do I even bother you might say? Chuchill once said “Never. Never. Never. Never give up.” I’ll probably take this mantra to my grave: “The world would be a better place if people had fewer children. One or none for each couple.”
I’m not demanding that certain members of remain invisible, I’m saying that they don’t need to shout to the Universe, “Sir, I exist.” If they do I’ll tell them to hush.
**
[/quote]
I suggest you give a little more respect to them and to the parents who are raising them. **
[/QUOTE]
If you are one of the few good parents out there, I salute you. Sometimes you can find a needle in the haystack if you look long and hard enough.
Many parents, however, don’t fit the bill. They get the middle finger salute.
What’s wrong with a small world? People tend to keep to like people. If people want to do A they should live in an A place; if they want to B they should live in a B place; when they meet in a C place they should leave their A and B at home. If an A person likes a B person they can go to the B place and do B ish things until the A wants to go back to the A place. The problem arises when the B people think the B things are so great and good they should do them in the C place and take over the A place when they need the room.
**
What makes you say I don’t accept other peoples issues? I’ll assume that by “accept” you mean “tolerate.” I tolerate other peoples issues, but I don’t think they are right, and I’ll say so. If you want to have kids, have kids, bring them every where you go, let them run amok, I can’t stop you because this is a free country. I wouldn’t want to live in a country like China where there are violent birth limit laws even if this would give me peace and quiet. I would much rather people learn for themselves that their children aren’t necessarily all that special, that fewer might be better. I’m may be ruthless and unfeeling, but that is not intolerance.
Well, being Childfree myself, I have to tend a bit toward Pyrrhonist’s line of thinking. The current world population is 6 billion. Within 2 generations, it’ll be 9 billion at our current growth rate. The birth rate is 5 a second. The death rate is 2 a second. That’s a new Dallas or Detroit every 4 days. While I don’t agree with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, I think if we were to consciously keep at or below the replacement rate, that would be a good thing. As for having to deal with screaming children in every possible place except the comfort of my own home… C’mon folks! What’s wrong with wanting to go out for a nice, quiet meal occasionally? There should be some places reserved for adults. It was that way when I was a child. Nobody would even consider bringing an unruly child into a fancy restaurant!
Ah, the old “if current trends continue” bugaboo. Let’s see–right now, as I type, I am eating my lunch, a 12-oz. can of Campbell’s Chunky Soup. I look to finish it in about 20 minutes. If current trends continue, over the next two hours I will have eaten 72 oz. of soup.
Get it? The worldwide birth rate is increasing, but at a decreasing rate, and may in fact level off and begin declining in the foreseeable future. There is no reason to presume that the birth rate will remain constant.
I am in agreement with you on this point, though it is probably another topic for another forum (The Pit, so I can use bad words & say how I REALLY feel…)
I was not taken out to real restaurants (as opposed to fast food places) until I was about seven or eight and could be expected to behave appropriately. I WAS expected to behave appropriately, and if I failed to do so, punishment was meted out. The same policy applied to trips to the theatre, the ballet, the symphony, etc. (Despite these high behavioral expectations, I remember these outings as being lots of fun.)
I am not a cranky old person bemoaning the loss of the “good old days” (I’m 24, for the record), but there seems to have been a shocking decline in standards for public behavior in children lately…
(Side note: why do people take children under 3 to the movies? They aren’t getting anything out of it, & they are likely to disturb those patrons who might otherwise have enjoyed the film. If you can’t find a babysitter, stay at home.)
That’s a great point. It would be best for the world as a whole if this indeed did happen. I believe there are a couple of European contries that are below the replacement rate. Italy, Spain… Any others?
France, last time I checked.
**
Nothing, if you wish to limit your potential experiences. I see many people keeping only to those who think and are exactly like them. But, sure, dine only at McDonald’s if that’s what you want. Or at the 5 star restaurant of your choice. Many of us are far more satisified by opening our minds and experiences up to a variety.
**
**
Tolerate: (American Heritage Dictionary) “To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit. To recognize and respect (the * rights , opinions * and practices of others)”
Accept (American Heritage Dictionary, the specific shade of accept I was utilizing) “To regard as usual, proper or right”.
**
**
and
**
**
and **
**
That’s why I suggested that you were not accepting or tolerant of others. You displayed an arrogant attitude,(“overly convinced of one’s own importance”) that if some one may “only” end up at McDonalds or god forbid they consider their child as something special, therefore, should not ", shout to the Universe, “Sir, I exist.” , lest you charge yourself with the right to admonish them to “hush”
You, sir, are the one proclaiming in loud tones “I EXIST” and “I Have these opinions” and “I have the right to not be bothered with other peoples’ children and infirmities”
In other words, you wish for those you disdain (children, people who by virtue of their infirmities may be less than perfect) to “hush” up, not foist themselves upon your idylic scene, so as to allow you not to be "pestered like a swarm of gnats " that you feel you should "swat at them when the swarm around (your)head ".
I was merely suggesting to you that perhaps you might want to take a less hardlined stance since none among us can foretell the future. Or do you expect your wife to have you sit home and watch TV and eat a frozen dinner while she goes to the 5 star restaurant and the opera when you get prostrate cancer and become incontinent? after all, it might be rational to find a “special care” placement for you.