Wanting to have children is self-interest personified. You are creating a human being to satisfy your wants and desires, to make yourself complete, to give yourself purpose. The child has no say in the matter. To say parents are selfless for putting the needs of their children above themselves is ignoring the fact they created those needs to begin with to satisfy their own needs.
If the child is lucky, he or she will be brought into a home with loving parents who recognize the responsibility of taking care of the life they created. All the happiness or suffering of the child rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents up until the kid is old enough to think and make decisions for himself/herself… and even then self image/mores/habits ingrained through childhood play a big part. Fulfilling an obligation that you created doesn’t make you altruistic. It just makes you responsible.
The only truly selfless act when it comes to children is adoption.
It’s only selfish if your partner doesn’t feel the same way and you weren’t clear about that with them. Clear about that as time goes on, too - they might not want children at 25 but they could change their mind at 30 or 35, and having kids is a big thing to give up. It’s a big thing to be forced into against your will too. That’s when having kids truly becomes selfish - when one partner wants them and the other really doesn’t.
Otherwise, meh. Have kids, don’t have kids. Both have their ethical implications. Stepping aside from helping future generations in general is a bigger deal.
‘Adequately preparing’ always involves the adults who will be around when you’re old. If you have a private pension fund, who will produce the income that drives that fund? It’s not based on the money produced now.
Why do so many people forget that? It truly surprises me - I’ve seen people who are intelligent, know about money and so on, who somehow imagine that the money they’re putting by for the future has some intrinsic value. It doesn’t. It just says ‘of what is being produced at this future point in time, I get to take this much. If they’ll let me.’
Owning a house or land does have some intrinsic value. But then, who will operate the energy plants of the future, and the roads, and everything else we rely on? People who are the kids of the kids of kids that are growing up now.
I only have one kid and won’t have any more, so I’m relying on other people’s kids too.
I know what you meant by this, but it didn’t address the point I made, which was that childless/free people will not descend into a bog of poverty and misery in their older years simply because they do not have children.
Putting aside money consistently throughout a person’s lifetime has not only seen childless people through their retirement years, but it has done so for people who have children, as well. I can say for myself that my teachers taught me not to rely on pensions and Social Security when I get older. Watching people’s 401K dreams implode around them is only reinforcing my belief to keep socking money away early and often for retirement.
And who are these future earners that are going to take care of you? Are they the same ones who move back into your home and have grandbabies for you to raise in their stead? The ones who can’t get a job now because of the high unemployment rates? Are they making money for your retirement? Don’t rely on the younger generation to look after you; it’s not guaranteed to happen. Look after yourself.
But I’m not sure what your ultimate argument is. Is it that I should have kids to make things “fair” in terms of providing a future taxpayer? (In which case, should people whose children have died be penalized for not holding up their end of the bargain?) Or do you simply want it acknowledged that the younger generations are the future taxpayers and money makers? If that’s the case, I don’t think anyone is disputing that, it’s simply a statement on how our current economic system works. What’s being debated is the idea that everyone owes the world a kid, and the concept of selfishness in terms of “to breed or not to breed.”
It’s not just about young people paying into pensions. It’s also about having enough young people that hospice nurses and nursing home attendants are well stocked. If there are not enough nurses to care for you, then it will be more expensive to retain one.
If you put money aside, that depends on money having a value in the future. It doesn’t have any intrinsic value. And it depends on having people to buy the stuff from.
My argument is that we CAN’T look after ourselves into old age, even healthy old age. The generations are interdependant (and yes, a couple of people on here have denied that). We’d all be in dire straits if everyone chose not to have kids or chose to have only one, like me. But no, that doesn’t mean every individal should have children - I’m not sure why you’re asking that if you read my whole post. It just means that the only selfish act is to not support current children (via taxes and so on at least) - selfish and self-defeating.
I can appreciate that, but what’s your point? That everyone should have children? That’s not necessarily possible nor recommended for every person on this planet. Some can’t have them, some won’t have them for personal reasons that really aren’t your business. So why get worked up over it?
Besides, what you described is a worse-case scenario, just another scary bedtime story to tell to childless people, right after “You’ll be so alone when you get ollllld! Booga booga booga!” But you want to go down that road? OK: we’re in a Cormac McCarthy-esque world and I’m 80, in poor health, and in need of a good nursing home. But the rates are expensive because they can’t find enough staff to stay on. And though I’ve saved up quite a nest egg, it won’t cover the bill for long. (Though if medical treatment is this dire in this dystopia, how are your kids going to be able to afford to care for you, too? Guess you’ll be going down with me!) What do I do? Well, if no charity will help me out (after all, since I donate time and money to charities now, then I must be “owed” charity in return, huh?), then I just get myself settled in a comfy chair and await Death. Ta da! The end.
PS: Just because I don’t and will not have children does not mean I do not have family. I’ll take care of them when they get old, and they are the good sort of people who will take care of me, if needed. So there’s your serious answer.
My point is precisely what I said it was, if we edge into demographic decline then essential services will not be available. How you choose to react to that as an individual is up to you.
Well it’s the reality for Japan, Germany, Italy and China over the next couple of decades. And yes, I’ll go down with you. Unless of course my kids decide that taking care of me personally is something they want to do.
What if you outlive them? Are your Brother’s/Sister’s kids going to take care of you? Your Mom won’t be here to return your kindness and generousity when you’re 92.
Not trying to be sarcastic, but did anyone put forth the argument that everyone should stop having kids? I don’t think so, but I could have missed something earlier. There are Population Zero enthusiasts out there who are completely serious. I certainly didn’t intend to argue for everyone to stop having kids and send human life into a downward spiral, nor did I want to argue that future generations are not important for human survival. What I was arguing for is that people should cut childfree people some slack and not try to guilt them about their failure to increase the population, and just worry about their own lives. Because if you’re going to say “But… the future depends on children!” then, yes, you’re sending out a guilt trip over something unecessarily worried about. People aren’t ceasing to give birth. There have been news reports of more people choosing not to have children, but remember, we just had a baby boom a few generations ago. Mother Nature is naturally bringing things to a less crowded level. I just don’t get what all the fuss is about, and how people will bring the weight of human survival on someone who doesn’t want children. “What if everyone thought like you?” Well, they don’t. Children are still being born. It’s OK, really.
Which was my point earlier about your own children. Truth is, we can’t count on anything, not even that we’ll be here tomorrow. I’m not going to panic about it. Having a kid certainly won’t help matters. Especially if the fate of Italy, Germany, and China is at stake.
Their fate is at stake because they haven’t had enough kids and now the social fabric will begin to break down as they have more geriatrics than youths. The natural order of things is that the youth are supposed to outnumber the old.
Yes but that was the natural order before we had life expectancies around 75+ yrs. The “natural order” doesn’t account for chemotherapy, bypass surgeries, etc. So the problem isn’t so much that there aren’t enough children being born, but more that we are all living too long.
Who is ready to start the charge of not being a burden by offing themselves?
You’re right, it’s even worse now that we have people living long past retirement age and a welfare state that tries to support the retirees. It’s exacerbated greatly by life extension.
If I’m doing the math right, that means a continually growing population, and if you believe that the population of the world is already too high (and I do), that’s the last thing we need.
Maybe the truly selfish people are the old folks who retire at 65 and live off social security for the next 30 years, and keep having medical procedures to prolong their unproductive lives.
My SiL says that New Baby Smell beats the crap out of New Car Smell. A friend claims that it’s a good thing she got her tubes tied during the cesarean for the third child, because every time she holds a really young baby she wants another one; she jokes she’d be on kid number 6 by now if it hadn’t been for the tubes.
I like New Baby Smell, but not badly enough to want one of my own for more than half a minute. I’m happy just holding a borrowed one.
To my mind its a “tragedy of the commons” type situation.
It isn’t that one’s own children will necessarily support one personally in one’s old age. It is simply that children must be produced if old folks in general are to be supported - there have to be young people who work if there are going to be old people who retire.
If it were the case that all of the costs of raising a child were borne by the parents, yet all of the downstream benefits reaped by society as a whole, there is an obvious free rider issue (leaving aside any of the emotional and other benefits of parenthood).
This isn’t the case, as those who are not parents contribute to the costs of raising children as well - at least, in part - through taxes and through doing stuff directly for kids who are not their own – which is as it should be. In my opinion, such things as generous paternal leave and daycare/early childhood education obviously benefit society as a whole and go some way towards solving the free rider issue.
The notion that the teeming masses of the third world will save us all merely externalizes the free rider problem to the third world; moreover it is unrealistic to expect our society to be supported by children who have grown up lacking in education, nutrition, etc.