Again, this is reliance on others to take care of the issue for you. Which reliance may or may not be justified.
Agreed, humanity as a species will survive. But our particular cultures of humanity here in the first world are the ones under stress.
Personally, if one looks on having (and more importantly, raising) children as a task of labour, then relying on folks in the third world to do it for you because you would rather not is simply another type of exploitation.
There is nothing “racist” in noting that third world parents have less resources and the kids they produce are less likely than the kids we in the first world produce to have access to education, medical care, and job opportunities.
It would be wonderful if instead of having kids everyone in the West devoted their surplus to supporting third-world parents to first-world standards, but it is very unlikely to happen.
Terrible, but true. In this respect at least.
A false dichotomy. No-one is complaining that those without children make no contribution. Indeed, their contribution could be every bit as vital or more.
Similarly, noting that those who willingly choose to remain on social assistance are “free riders” is not to denigrate their accomplishments in other areas. They may be great parents, for all we know.
I think though that most people who (more or less willingly) work for a living would not be heartened by the argument that they were simply meant to work, while others (presumably those doing the arguing) were meant to live on social assistance.
That, too, but I was calling out CNN specifically for their recent report that white people aren’t breeding enough to remain in the majority. I’m sorry I ddin’t make that clear.
Did you miss this? Because this is what I was referring to:
No actually, this is a straw man. The only people who are really turning it into a superiority issue are the people who feel insecure about not having kids. I don’t see anyone in this thread looking jealously at people who didn’t have kids. I see a bunch of people projecting their own insecurities onto parents and claiming that they are saying things that they aren’t saying though.
The usual run of parents produce fine people. The norm is to produce healthy well-adjusted adults. It’s not the exception. This just shows your own bias and feelings of superiority.
LOL. Sure. The government can start paying me a paycheck for raising my kids. And after they START paying me, then we can define how much they pay me based on the quality of my child-rearing.
Most people without kids have no clue about child behavior in restaurants. Sometimes the same kid will be an angel and other times they’ll be monstrous. Depends on their mood.
In my experience based on these discussions on the SDMB at least. That it is far more likely that people who do not have kids will look down on parents than the other way around. Skewed cohort to be certain, but that’s my experience here.
Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. Worldwide, the birth-rate tends to fall with improvements in the economy. The US is a bit of an anomaly in this respect.
Please point out where I rejected the notion of “free rider”.
What I rejected is the notion that an individual’s choice of whether or not to have children is an ethical one in the abstract.
I’m sure I could frame an equally dismissive reply, but I won’t bother.
Got a cite? I’d be interested in reading it. I mean it’s true. It’s simply a fact. White people are not breeding enough to remain a majority in the United States.
Right, but I think you are looking only for the emotional judgment and not the underlying issue. It is a free-rider issue. Whether or not that offends someone or not. We are all free-riders in some respects. That is the nature of the specialization of labor.
I don’t have any problems with people who remain to be childless. I just don’t like the inherent contempt that the ‘childfree’ hold parents in. That the term, “Breeder”, is used perjoratively in our society disturbs me not because it’s inherently offensive, which it is, but because it shows a disrespect for the very function that brings human life into existence. It holds the birth of children as something that is worthy of contempt. I find it far more disturbing than I find it offensive.
I don’t think that you or Cat Whisperer for instance have said anything disturbing or offensive. I think you should live your life freely. And that’s one of the strengths of our society. People who want children can raise the children. I personally think that you should have respect for parents and the job they do, because one day their children will support the economy that will help support your savings/pension/social security. They will be the workers that change your bedpan when you are a 90 year old invalid. They might even be your only friend once all of your friends have died. As such, I think you should have a respect for them, simply because I think you should have a reverence for human life and a general gratitude for the help that others provide you. But I don’t think you NEED to procreate if you do not want to. I also return the respect for your humanity and your life, and how you choose to live it and accept that you try to live it as honorably and as justly as you can, and I don’t think that your choice to not have children diminishes your value as a human being.
No, they wouldn’t, which is why I didn’t say that – I never even brought up social assistance, and it wasn’t relevent to my argument. Some people are meant to be parents, and some people are not. So the one who do or cannot have kids can contribute to the human race in other ways. As you yourself said, this “could be every bit as vital or more.” Abstaining from giving birth does not make a person unethical in itself, and the decision not to have kids is not unethical.
True, there is contempt out there, and it’s on both sides. Childfree people get put on the defensive about their choice to willingly remain childess, and parents sometimes have to defend why they chose to have children. People on both sides will claim the other is jealous of their lifestyle. But not everyone. You’re right, emotions are coming into play. Not all childfree people hold parents in contempt, just as not all parents let their kids run wild in restaurants and movie theaters. The loudest, angriest ones always get the most attention, though.
Personally, I respect parents who work hard to raise good kids. It’s not the act of giving birth that impresses me, but the long, hard road that comes after. I can’t blame parents for being upset at the word “breeder;” it is derogatory, and intentionally so. But I worry that some people assume that “childfree” means “child hater,” which isn’t true. Some childfree people do openly hate children, as so some parents, unfortunately. But you’ll find that most childfree people are OK with kids, they just don’t want them in their lives.
You didn’t bring up social assistance - I did. It’s a very roughly analogous situation.
Where did you get the impression I thought it was? I’ve been saying that the individual’s choice one way or the other isn’t an ethical one in the abstract this whole thread.
The two arguments are unrelated:
In general and on average, non-parents rely on parents to produce children so that humanity in general and our society in particular has a future (either here in the first world or in the third world). Relying on others to do something necessary = free riding.
In specific and on an individual level, the choice of whether or not to have kids is not an ethical one in the abstract; individual circumstances govern.
It is the same with work (that analogy again). Some people cannot work, for whatever reason, and so must rely on others to be productive in that way on their behalf. They are “free riders” in that respect. However, they may well be equally (or more) valuable and valued for other reasons. The term “free rider” is intended descriptively only. Their choice of whether to work or not isn’t an ethical one, it is one for each individual given their individual circumstances to make. The analogy is not perfect obviously. One aspect of the choice to parent is that those who do not wish to do it may, for that very reason, not be suited to do it (this does not I think hold for work).
Except that low birth rates (i.e. falling or threatening to fall below the death rate) in places like the Soviet Union and a few other countries have been tied to the poor economy. It does not follow that high birth rate = good economy, and I did not claim such.
Post #202.
Two posts before that you were claiming that certain financial benefits for parents went “some way” towards mitigating the idea that those without children are “free riders” - so you’ve really been back and forth on this subject.
Better stick with “there can be no such thing as a free rider”; it’s foolish to use such labels, except for situations such as people deliberately having a large family that they know they will be unable to care for without major public support.
You’ve been dismissive enough by ignoring the environmental impact of excess childbearing, preferring instead to focus on the dread threat of the “extinction” of society. :rolleyes:
No, you claim poor economy = low birth rates. Worldwide, that just is not true.
You are seriously misunderstanding my posts.
When I say “Given that pretty well no-one does anything for the express goal of “furthering society”, then there can be no such thing as a “free rider”.”, I’m criticising the assumption you made - that motivation is the key.
What I’m saying is that ‘if we take your assumption seriously, the term ‘free rider’ is effectively useless’. Given that I do not think the term is useless, it is your assumption that should be discarded, rather than the term.
Why should I discard a perfectly good term?
Society will not become extinct because people have kids. Again, what you are saying is ‘the alleged threat is silly – because others will do what I will not, and we all know it’. Yes, that’s true. Society will not collapse either if I decide to not work and go on social assistance - we all know most people will work, no matter what I choose to do. Why not make fun of them for creating environmental degridation, as they surely do? Surely if no-one worked the environment would be better off, no? How inconsiderate of folks to work, creating the current enviroinmental disaster! How superior am I, who righteously refuses to work!
As for the “environmental impact of excess childbearing”, please define “excess”.
Would that it was that simple. What about the wife who wants a baby and the husband who would rather not. He knows he’ll get less attention, less freedom and his gorgeous wife 's body will never feel the same again. He goes along for her sake. . But then he holds onto that little helpless kid his wife just popped out and wilfully dedicates his life to that child. I’m sure that happens a lot.
Repeating this incorrect characterization does not make it true.
If you’d stick to one opinion, it’d be easier to “understand” them.
Because it’s stupid and divisive? Hey, keep using it if you need it to reinforce the decisions you’ve made.
Given that we’ve gotten uncomfortably close to the planet’s carrying capacity due to overpopulation (in the view of many knowledgeable observers), serious consequences (“extinction” is unlikely) are far more probable with uncontrolled breeding than “extinction” due to a sizable minority choosing not to have kids. Even with the worst Malthusian consequences avoided, we’re still going to add a hell of a lot of people worldwide over the next century or so, and a major array of problems including insufficient food and fresh water supplies will have to be dealt with (even while some choose to obsess over the downfall of society due to non-childbearing couples).
A lot of people (myself included) would consider Octomom and her enablers to be irresponsible, and (using your term of choice) “free riders” on society. (She could be the poster child for “excess breeding”). I do not think it’s rational to view her in the same light as a couple that decides that children are not for them.
I generally view the decision of a couple that can afford a family to have children as an ethically neutral decision, the same way I’d view a decision to not have children. If it strikes you as horribly unfair that many of us do not feel the need to genuflect in the direction of parenthood as an unalloyed good, too bad.
I’m in the UK. The birthrate is not high (I think immigrations recently took it above replacement level for the first time in a couple of decades). The economy’s not wonderful right now, but was doing pretty well until very recently - and it’s certainly not worse than the US. The same goes for the rest of Western Europe.
Maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows - hmm. I need a cite for that. I was under the impression that the richest countries in the world also had the lowest birthrates.
Nobody needs to ‘worship parenthood.’ Where did you get that idea from? We don’t need fewer and fewer children in the future either, unless we’re all prepared to work till we drop and never draw any pensions or rely on any medical plans.
And this is my problem with childfree-ness. The cultish behavior. The ‘cult of the child’ ‘breeder’ derogation that is always brought up and thrown in the face of people, and even the less extreme like yourself give kudos to those who use such childish argumentation. There is no cult of the child, there is the species that can only survive through propagation. So it’s not a matter of whether or not parenthood is an ‘unalloyed good’. That’s childish nonsense. What parenthood is, is an ‘unalloyed necessity’. It’s more important than any other profession. No matter what it is you do for the human race, it’s a less important, less essential job than parenthood. Sure, the supply of parents is great, and as such that makes the value of an individual parent of less value than professions where demand exceeds supply like Doctors and Nurses. But, the fact of the matter is, if you do not have a recognition and deference to the position of parenthood in general, then your position isn’t merely that you do not want to have children. It is at its core, anti-natalist. This can be shown by the soft bigotry shown in derogatory terms like, “Cult of the child.”, or “Breeders”.
jackmanii’s position is merely bigotted. He’s taken it further than simply a freedom of choice argument. I guess it’s useful as this discussion wouldn’t have legs considering everyone who has posted here is in favor of freedom of choice. So there needs to be SOMEONE to argue the unreasonable position. But I think it’s important to point out that it’s a form of bigotry, and it shouldn’t be any more culturally acceptable to say, “Cult of the Child”, or “Breeder” than it is to call someone a nigger or a spic.
Anti-Natalist positions deserve no respect whatsoever. However, the choice to remain childless isn’t anti-natalist. But scratch someone who refers to themselves as ‘childfree’ and 9 times out of 10 you find you’re talking to an anti-natalist bigot.
“Maintain a heathy economy and your population grows”.
No, it doesn’t.
That’s a direct quote of yours; it is incorrect.
I have stuck to one opinion. That you see nuance as contradiction isn’t my problem.
Some truths are uncomfortable, but your lack of comfort does not make it “stupid” to point out an obvious fact: that you (and everyone else) relies on someone to produce children, since no children = no future.
The issue of overpopulation is very real, but the question is one of location. Overpopulation is above all else a problem affecting poor countries, not wealthy ones.
Yet you have somehow missed my multiple posts in this very thread where I say that an individual choice in this area is ethically neutral?
It strikes me as “horribly unfair” that you should so badly misconstrue my argument; and yes, it is “too bad”.
The fact you are unable to bring yourself to acknowledge the obvious truth - that the future of our species requires parents - strikes me as little short of bizzare.
Actually, just as a note, the person you’re responding to didn’t say “maintain a healthy economy and the birthrate grows”…they said, “maintain a healthy economy and the population grows.”, which does make sense. If a country has a thriving economy, there’s going to be an increase of economic migrants to that country.
If he was talking about immigration rather than birthrates, then he must have forgotten what thread he’s on, but, in any case, he’s wrong even including immigration.
While it is true that countries could in theory solve demographic problems by deliberately encouraging immigration if they have enough money, this raises other problems - namely, the notorious “brain drain” of the third world, further impoverishing the most impoverished, and in effect outsourcing the difficult task of raising future generations to those least able to afford it.
