Have no children

[Skybird]

http://child-free-zone.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/why-it-is-important-not-to-have.html

He misses one small but important detail (the social and economic distortions caused by abrupt demographic changes), nevertheless in general is right. Nobody gets born into slavery, nobody can be demanded to serve communal interest for the only reasons that he exists. Everybody is free to reject to comply to such demands - although then he also forfeits all rights to direct any demands for rights and benefits. - Some will think this blog entry contradicts my own earlier arguments in defence of families as social core institutions. It does not, when considering the last sentence in italic.

Myself, I have none.

[Tribesman]

- Some will think this blog entry contradicts my own earlier arguments in defence of families as social core institutions.
I have yet to see any of your wierd ideologies which do not either contradict themselves or each other.

This is a nice illustration of your totalitarian mindset, anyone is free to have all their rights taken away by you.:doh:

[Sailor Steve]

although then he also forfeits all rights to direct any demands for rights and benefits
Where does he say that? All I see is him talking about his personal decision not to have children and asking that others consider doing the same.

[Skybird]

I said:

Everybody is free to reject to comply to such demands - although then he also forfeits all rights to direct any demands for rights and benefits.

The context was as given in posting 1. The idea behind my reasoning is where you refuse all duties and contributions you cannot nevertheless claim all rights and benefits for yourself: that would be rosin-picking.

What is your problem?

[MH]

I'm divorced, used to have financial problems due to the this and when I see my daughter I could not imagine not having her.
On the cynical side also...have children they just might turn out smarter and better than you are.
....I forgot....this new facbook generation spells doom to the world :har:

[AVGWarhawk]

I decided not to have children.

-- Richard Stallman

What do I care? I decided not to own a goldfish. I'm not writing about it.

I would not be able cope with a frequently crying baby without becoming upset and angry.

The man has issues. I recommend a full psychiatric write up.

Most fathers in the US have to work very hard to get money for their children. I did not want a life of running on a treadmill, doing whatever people with money would tell me to do.

Sounds self-centered and lazy to me. I guess responsibility is not a word he thinks about often. The path of least resistance for this guy is avoiding it all together.

A large fraction of US fathers eventually get divorced, and subsequently rarely see the children for whom they are spending most of their time scrabbling for money. What a futile life! But even those who are not yet divorced see their children little, since they are so busy at work.

I read this as, "I'm not getting any play." He will get divorced and having kids is nothing but trials and tribulations. Looks to be the one best excuse as to not having a viable relationship or taking on responsibility other than himself. I have a co-worker like this. Only cares about himself and satisfaction.

I would say this was a worthwhile read but I would be lying.

[Sailor Steve]

IEverybody is free to reject to comply to such demands - although then he also forfeits all rights to direct any demands for rights and benefits.
Okay, I see that is your judgement and not his.

The context was as given in posting 1. The idea behind my reasoning is where you refuse all duties and contributions you cannot nevertheless claim all rights and benefits for yourself: that would be rosin-picking.
True, but then where did he say he wanted otherwise?

What is your problem?
In general? I have lots. Where would you like to start?

With your post? Only that I found it confusing. Sorry.

[Jimbuna]

A bit late for me, my youngest is twenty on Friday.

[Sailor Steve]

A bit late for me, my youngest is twenty on Friday.
Gotcha beat by a decade. :O:

[Tribesman]

I read this as, "I'm not getting any play."
I read it as "not getting any" and "I am a miserable git who is not getting any" with a side order of "daddy didn't love me"

[Jimbuna]

Gotcha beat by a decade. :O:

At your age I'm hardly surprised :)

[Tchocky]

Strange, as I type this the top two GT threads are...

"Have no children"

"Ask the man who owns one"

[Jimbuna]

Nothing wrong with the former but concerned about the latter :)

[TLAM Strike]

I sincerely wish that people like that do not have children.

Overpopulation? Really. If we moved everyone to South Africa the population density would be equal to that of Tokyo. If we packed in more like they do in places like Kowloon we would all fit in a country like Croatia. You figure with all that extra land we would be able to support our selves.

The real problem is energy generation and transmission. Too much of our infrastructure is old and inefficient (or nonexistent). Large amounts of cheap energy allows you to do all sorts of interesting things, grow more food, build bigger machines, alter the environment.

If only there was a magic rock or big glowing orb that generated free energy.

[AVGWarhawk]

I read it as "not getting any" and "I am a miserable git who is not getting any" with a side order of "daddy didn't love me"

Exactly Tribesman. Let's toss in, "What's in it for me?"

[Skybird]

We have over 7 billion people on this globe. Far too many, resource-wise and ecology-wise.

Problem is that we have billions too many people in underdeveloped countries, and millions too few in industrialised first world countries. So there are structural problems basing on regional differences. the industrial world is feeding the underdeveloped world. If the industrial world suffers due to demographic chnage and overaging, this decline by some million people has effects for all billions of global population.

That is why it is no contradiction to hope for more babies in the first world, and a very huge decline in babies in the third world.

In total, I estimate we are 5,5 - 6 billion too many, globally. If sustainability of resources and comparable minimums of material living conditions should lead the way, I think that globally this plan et cannot hold more than 1 - 1,5 billion people in the long run.

Big jackpot-question is how to get there without wars, pandemics, starvations and natural disasters.

We could start with rooting out those who for religious reasons campaign against condoms (and injections), like recently in Kenya as just the latest of so discouragingly many example of human stupids hating other humans and telling them ways to multiply human suffering and agony in this world.

[VipertheSniper]

ain't gonna happen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78

[NeonSamurai]

-- Richard Stallman

What do I care? I decided not to own a goldfish. I'm not writing about it.

The man has issues. I recommend a full psychiatric write up.

Sounds self-centered and lazy to me. I guess responsibility is not a word he thinks about often. The path of least resistance for this guy is avoiding it all together.

I read this as, "I'm not getting any play." He will get divorced and having kids is nothing but trials and tribulations. Looks to be the one best excuse as to not having a viable relationship or taking on responsibility other than himself. I have a co-worker like this. Only cares about himself and satisfaction.

I would say this was a worthwhile read but I would be lying.

I sense a lot of hostility in you over this... why? I know many people who are making this choice, people who do not as you put it care for themselves or their own satisfaction. People who are doing much more for this world and society as a whole, than plenty of people with kids. Don't even get me started on the huge number of people who I really think probably should not be parents.

You make it sound like this is an easy choice for many of us... It isn't. I am one of those people who feels it is probably best that I do not bring children in this world. It is not an easy choice, but in many ways I feel it is the least selfish. There are too many people on this planet as it is, and I suspect even with current numbers we are at serious risk for extinction in the next couple of millennia.

If we do not stop being so arrogant, so full of hubris, so self centered, and so blindly stupid, we will sign our own death certificate.

As for your co-worker, I know lots of people like that who have kids too, and think they are the center of the universe as well. Honestly sometimes I think they act even more entitled.


I sincerely wish that people like that do not have children.

Overpopulation? Really. If we moved everyone to South Africa the population density would be equal to that of Tokyo. If we packed in more like they do in places like Kowloon we would all fit in a country like Croatia. You figure with all that extra land we would be able to support our selves.

The real problem is energy generation and transmission. Too much of our infrastructure is old and inefficient (or nonexistent). Large amounts of cheap energy allows you to do all sorts of interesting things, grow more food, build bigger machines, alter the environment.

If only there was a magic rock or big glowing orb that generated free energy.

So you think there isn't a population problem across the globe? Most of the land in the world is not arable, or requires a lot of technology and vast amounts of water to work (and is highly destructive long term), or is forest (something we cannot afford to sacrifice). Ironicly in the US and Canada (and I would say Europe too), we have destroyed crazy amounts of farmland for housing. What were some of the most naturally fertile areas got plowed under by cities (which tended to be founded near good local food sources).

Energy is going to be the least of our problems. Sources of useable water will be the big one. The US (and many other countries) are rapidly heading towards major water shortages. First off huge swaths of farmland in the US are dependent on aquifers for most of their water, aquifers that will soon run dry and will take millions of years to refill. Second, river water levels are much lower, in many areas they are lower than ever recorded. Scientists think this has to do with global warming reducing the amount of runoff each year (the major source of water for many rivers). Limited water = very limited food supply & limited industry.

Another major concern is GMO plants. These products have the potential to wipe out major crops. For one thing, companies like Monsanto are trying very hard to develop sterile crops. Crops that you can't replant, that force you to buy new seed every year from Monsanto. Aside from being extremely unethical, this is incredibly reckless and dangerous. The problem is (and I am sure they are trying to make this happen) is that these GMO crops will contaminate non gmo crops around them, due to cross pollination. Theoretically this could sterilize all variants of the plant (including the seed crops grown by the company) and wipe them out as a species. Imagine if this happened to wheat, or corn, and/or rice...

Lastly do you really think us purposely trying to control the greater environment is at all a good idea? Every single attempt at us controlling nature has tended to be pretty disastrous in the long run.

[mookiemookie]

Not to mention the problems that we're having with the world's oceans. Like it or not, the undeniable truth is that a lot of our oceans are just being plain fished out.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/world/oceans-overfishing-climate-change/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Stories like this make me sad and pessimistic, and I don't blame folks who choose to remain childless one bit.

I don't have kids, and I don't plan on it anytime soon, if at all. I've been saying since I was 16 years old that I didn't want kids. Everyone told me I'd change. I'm 33 now and I still don't.

[TLAM Strike]

<snip> Good thing there is a supply of water greater than Earth's and its only 900 million km away: Europa.

Really this whole environment thing is a bit of fuzz on a big sphere of nickel and iron. Throughout most of the history of Earth it was inhospitable to its current inhabitants. It's the humans who anthropomorphize that, and assume it is some kind of stable paradise until we messed with it. Entire biospheres have developed and have been destroyed over the history of Earth before humans even evolved, heck it very well might have been plants that wiped out 20% of lifeforms way back in the Devonian period. The current environment will be wiped out by this unstable planet in an unstable universe one way or another.

Humans are the 1st species on this planet that have the intellect to built what the universe has not given us; a stable environment to live in.

[frau kaleun]

I just love it when somebody decides that not having children is a selfish decision. There are plenty of ways to be an unselfish person without taking on a responsibility you don't want and aren't prepared to devote yourself to 100% - which is, or should be, a necessity where a child is involved.

My time and attention and energy are my own, to do with what I wish. It's the same for everybody else. Some people want to devote a good bit of those things to children. I don't... just like I don't want to devote my free time to yard work, which is why I'll buy a condo but never a house, nor do I want to devote my free time to walking a dog on a leash so it can do its business and get some exercise and fresh air, which is why I'd never have a dog without a fenced yard to let him run around in on his own.

If I had some burning, insatiable desire to do yard work or have a dog, those sacrifices would be worth it. If I had a burning, insatiable desire to raise children, the sacrifices required for that would be worth it. But the desire isn't there, so why should I sacrifice anything for something that I don't want and am content to live without? That doesn't make me selfish, it just means I've made the choices - and thank heavens I live in a world where I'm able to make them - that I feel are best for me instead of doing what other people think I'm supposed to do and having what other people think I'm supposed to have.

That's far less selfish IMO than having a kid because I've been pressured or conditioned into thinking that I'll never be "complete" without one, or to please someone else, or for any other reason than a burning insatiable desire to reproduce. Children are srs biznss, raising them is a HUGE responsibility. I'd have to want it really bad to even embark on that adventure. Anything less wouldn't really be fair to the child.

[Tribesman]

That is why it is no contradiction to hope for more babies in the first world, and a very huge decline in babies in the third world.

Yet your piece makes no mention at all of that, indeed since it is a western piece by a western person talking about his western life it would appear he directly contradicts you.

I just love it when somebody decides that not having children is a selfish decision. There are plenty of ways to be an unselfish person without taking on a responsibility you don't want and aren't prepared to devote yourself to 100% - which is, or should be, a necessity where a child is involved.

My time and attention and energy are my own, to do with what I wish. It's the same for everybody else. Some people want to devote a good bit of those things to children. I don't... just like I don't want to devote my free time to yard work, which is why I'll buy a condo but never a house, nor do I want to devote my free time to walking a dog on a leash so it can do its business and get some exercise and fresh air, which is why I'd never have a dog without a fenced yard to let him run around in on his own.

Yes, but you are not calling for stripping people of rights are you.
Big difference from your view and that in question.

[MH]

So many big thinkers who do thinks for grand reasons lol.
I wonder how match of this is just poor reasoning and invalid self explanations.

Not sure that solution to world problems is in having it populated with bitter old men.

[AVGWarhawk]

Don't even get me started on the huge number of people who I really think probably should not be parents.


And thus I stated this person needs a psychiatric write up. The sound of a crying baby angers him? Sorry, the lengthy nonsense he speaks about saving the world from overcrowding looks to be far fetched. The man does not like kids. I see it no other way than that as a result of his anger management over crying children. This person has more underlying issue other than saving the world.

[AVGWarhawk]

That's far less selfish IMO than having a kid because I've been pressured or conditioned into thinking that I'll never be "complete" without one, or to please someone else, or for any other reason than a burning insatiable desire to reproduce. Children are srs biznss, raising them is a HUGE responsibility. I'd have to want it really bad to even embark on that adventure. Anything less wouldn't really be fair to the child.

I grew up with two sisters. I have two daughters of my own. All four have never been told that they will be incomplete if they do not have children. In fact, my one sister is adopted Korean. My other sister adopted a Korean, as well as, had two girls of her own. My soon to be 15 year old has stated she will adopt over having a child of her own birth. As far as pleasing another to have a child, no one has pressured anyone in my family. To further that notions, why not adopt a child already on this mud ball? Anyway, sorry you were pressured. It is not right.

Yes, children are serious business that many take much to lightly (Honey Boo Boo). At any rate, perhaps adopting is two fold for this author. He is not adding another body but is helping one that is already here. But, wait, he gets angered at crying kids. This statement ends it for me and his dissertation on saving the world.

[Simmy]

When things get really bad and there appears to be no answers to all the problems a solution will arrive...WAR.

It's the answer to all of man's problems.

[AVGWarhawk]

War will not be the answer. Another uninvited guest will take care of it. That guest will in the form of virus or bacteria.

[donna52522]

I just love it when somebody decides that not having children is a selfish decision. There are plenty of ways to be an unselfish person without taking on a responsibility you don't want and aren't prepared to devote yourself to 100% - which is, or should be, a necessity where a child is involved.

My time and attention and energy are my own, to do with what I wish. It's the same for everybody else. Some people want to devote a good bit of those things to children. I don't... just like I don't want to devote my free time to yard work, which is why I'll buy a condo but never a house, nor do I want to devote my free time to walking a dog on a leash so it can do its business and get some exercise and fresh air, which is why I'd never have a dog without a fenced yard to let him run around in on his own.

If I had some burning, insatiable desire to do yard work or have a dog, those sacrifices would be worth it. If I had a burning, insatiable desire to raise children, the sacrifices required for that would be worth it. But the desire isn't there, so why should I sacrifice anything for something that I don't want and am content to live without? That doesn't make me selfish, it just means I've made the choices - and thank heavens I live in a world where I'm able to make them - that I feel are best for me instead of doing what other people think I'm supposed to do and having what other people think I'm supposed to have.

That's far less selfish IMO than having a kid because I've been pressured or conditioned into thinking that I'll never be "complete" without one, or to please someone else, or for any other reason than a burning insatiable desire to reproduce. Children are srs biznss, raising them is a HUGE responsibility. I'd have to want it really bad to even embark on that adventure. Anything less wouldn't really be fair to the child.

:up:

[Betonov]

I reread it and found nothing that would hint about a selfish demand for everyone to stop having children or any little crumb about removing rights to have children.

There's this

I therefore urge you to do as I did, and have no children. I don't wish that nobody had any children, but there is no risk of that; for the numbers I could hope to influence, the influence is for the good.

A plea to consider. A simple humble PLEA. If this is a demand I'm affraid to call my friends to consider taking time for a drink at 8PM not to be mistaken for a brutal dictator.

So he thinks having no children is a good idea. Like I think having a dog is a good idea. Like Frau thinks not having a dog is a good idea. There's no reason for hostilities.
But hey, it's Skybirds post. That's it isn't it. One of his rare not-ranting over EU posts and you still went after him like a football mob :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

IBut hey, it's Skybirds post. That's it isn't it.
Not exactly. It looked to me like Sky was turning the man's simple belief into a political statement involving the forfeiture of rights and benefits. Certain benefits involving families I can see, but rights? I therefore questioned that concept and asked for an explanation.

[frau kaleun]

I grew up with two sisters. I have two daughters of my own. All four have never been told that they will be incomplete if they do not have children. In fact, my one sister is adopted Korean. My other sister adopted a Korean, as well as, had two girls of her own. My soon to be 15 year old has stated she will adopt over having a child of her own birth. As far as pleasing another to have a child, no one has pressured anyone in my family. To further that notions, why not adopt a child already on this mud ball? Anyway, sorry you were pressured. It is not right.

I never said I was, not in the sense that someone in a position to do so was hanging over me shouting HAVE KIDS HAVE KIDS HAVE KIDS.'

Nevertheless there is still an assumption made by many people that having kids is the "right" or "normal" thing to do, and that if you make a decision NOT to have them it's because you're "selfish" or there is some other deep character flaw that prevents you from wanting what they think everybody is supposed to want. It's there in the looks of unspoken sympathy or even suspicion that you get from some people when they find out you are childless, as though they can't comprehend how that could have been a deliberate choice for anyone.

As for adopting, I decided very early on that if I were going to raise children, I would adopt them, simply because I felt no burning need or desire to experience pregnancy, pass on my DNA, etc., and that being the case it would be better to provide a home for a child that was already here but had none.

I have never been in a position where having a child by any means looked like a responsible choice, nor have I ever worked towards the goal of putting myself in such a position, which pretty much says that it was never a goal or a priority in my life - if it had been I would have worked to make it happen.

[AVGWarhawk]

So he thinks having no children is a good idea. There's no reason for hostilities.


No, the author thinks this:

I would not be able cope with a frequently crying baby without becoming upset and angry.


This is the only hostility I see. I wonder why a majority seem to be dancing around this one sentence.

[Tribesman]

I reread it and found nothing that would hint about a selfish demand for everyone to stop having children or any little crumb about removing rights to have children.

That is because that was in Skybirds rant, not the article itself.

But hey, it's Skybirds post. That's it isn't it. One of his rare not-ranting over EU posts and you still went after him like a football mob
Post #3 asks the question you asked
Where does he say that? All I see is him talking about his personal decision not to have children and asking that others consider doing the same.
See the article doesn't talk about rights, Skybird took an article by someone who appears rather sad and complains about his unhappy childhood and put his own "utopia" spin on it about rights

[AVGWarhawk]

I never said I was, not in the sense that someone in a position to do so was hanging over me shouting HAVE KIDS HAVE KIDS HAVE KIDS.'

Nevertheless there is still an assumption made by many people that having kids is the "right" or "normal" thing to do, and that if you make a decision NOT to have them it's because you're "selfish" or there is some other deep character flaw that prevents you from wanting what they think everybody is supposed to want. It's there in the looks of unspoken sympathy or even suspicion that you get from some people when they find out you are childless, as though they can't comprehend how that could have been a deliberate choice for anyone.

As for adopting, I decided very early on that if I were going to raise children, I would adopt them, simply because I felt no burning need or desire to experience pregnancy, pass on my DNA, etc., and that being the case it would be better to provide a home for a child that was already here but had none.

I have never been in a position where having a child by any means looked like a responsible choice, nor have I ever worked towards the goal of putting myself in such a position, which pretty much says that it was never a goal or a priority in my life - if it had been I would have worked to make it happen.

I understand your position. As far as the assumption that not having kids makes you something other than normal I do not buy. Not in today's age. You are, however, comparing your position to a males point of view as pointed in this article. I'm inclined to believe a males point of view concerning children are different than females. For some reason we as males are to continue the family name with a male child. Has been this way for centuries

[Betonov]

He did sound like he's worried that childless people will loose their rights in favor of those with children.
A shot in the dark, a political statement that can never be true in a western society and even if goverments get more opressive, I believe that number of children will not be very high on the ''taking away rights'' scale.

It's AVGs response that I understand the least

-- Richard Stallman

What do I care? I decided not to own a goldfish. I'm not writing about it.

And your point is ??
He decided to write about it as I decided to write about the Slovene demonstrations. A lot of people don't care about it. But I can and so can he and so can you. Free speech and all that jazz

The man has issues. I recommend a full psychiatric write up.

Why, because he is uncomfortable by an unpleasant loud noise. I used to be uncomfortable by dogs until I got one. Now I can't live without dogs.


I read this as, "I'm not getting any play."
I read it as "not getting any" and "I am a miserable git who is not getting any" with a side order of "daddy didn't love me"

I read this as ''I never heard of contraception''

[Betonov]

This is the only hostility I see. I wonder why a majority seem to be dancing around this one sentence.

What hostility. He can't cope with a cyring baby. Neither can I. So he just removes himself to a quiet place and leave the baby to people that can cope. The same way I do it.

[AVGWarhawk]

What hostility. He can't cope with a cyring baby. Neither can I. So he just removes himself to a quiet place and leave the baby to people that can cope. The same way I do it.

What part of "angry" is not hostile?

[Betonov]

What part of "angry" is not hostile?

Mumbling and rumbling and going away to cool off is not hostile.
Yelling and throwing things at the baby and mother is hostile.

He's angry around kids, never says openly hostile.

[AVGWarhawk]

Mumbling and rumbling and going away to cool off is not hostile.
Yelling and throwing things at the baby and mother is hostile.

He's angry around kids, never says openly hostile.


Anger is a feeling.

Feeling or expressing annoyance, animosity, or resentment; enraged

Throwing things is acting on your anger.

There is no way to sugar coat the word anger.

Hostility:

a hostile state, condition, or attitude; enmity; antagonism; unfriendliness.


Perhaps he should have said he does not like loud noises.

[Betonov]

Yes it is.

But only when someone reacts it's hostile.
If I make someone angry and he simply walks away, I don't find him hostile.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes it is.

But only when someone reacts it's hostile.
If I make someone angry and he simply walks away, I don't find him hostile.

Hostile is also a state. Not just a action.

Let's take a look at at the full text:

I decided not to have children. My family was full of tension and anger, and then I noticed that many others were too. Such a family life was in no way attractive. When older, often I saw parents rebuke their children for playing with me, or even in my vicinity, assuming it would bother me — without waiting to see if I objected. Rebuking those children had become an ingrained, automatic habit. To see this made me sad for them, but I knew I would be the same as a parent. I would not be able cope with a frequently crying baby without becoming upset and angry.

If this does not read as a person that has a poor outlook on family and child rearing, I don't know what does. His family is full of tension and anger. He apparently believe all families are because he see many others are. Family is not attractive to him as a result. Why would he want kids if this is true in his mind? Rebuking children apparently is ingrained. The author has some issues. He sees himself as one of those rebuking parents. The rest of the article is nothing but a good cover up to his real issue IMO.

[Skybird]

Okay, let's stop fantasizing about the man's "real issues", for nobody here knows them, nobody here is his psychiatrist, and he gave some more arguments on what he was about than just talking about his family.

Let's stick to what he actually said.

[Betonov]

So he has issues and doesn't want to have children so he may not transfer the issues on another generation. Good kid. Not strong enough to change his bad parts in the personalty but smart enough not to let them pass on.

He has issues. The issues I had manifested with an atempted suicide, not a decision not to have kids. And he's the one who's hostile. Svašta

[MH]

Okay, let's stop fantasizing about the man's "real issues", for nobody here knows them, nobody here is his psychiatrist, and he gave some more arguments on what he was about than just talking about his family.

Let's stick to what he actually said.

Question is what came first his personal issues and then grand justifications or the other way around.:)

As i said i don't like the idea of world being run by bitter old men with personal issues.

[AVGWarhawk]

Okay, let's stop fantasizing about the man's "real issues", for nobody here knows them, nobody here is his psychiatrist, and he gave some more arguments on what he was about than just talking about his family.

Let's stick to what he actually said.

Where might the fantasy be? The first paragraph lays out his childhood.A family full of anger and tension. :hmmm: Was this just filler for the essay?

[AVGWarhawk]

So he has issues and doesn't want to have children so he may not transfer the issues on another generation. Good kid. Not strong enough to change his bad parts in the personalty but smart enough not to let them pass on.

He has issues. The issues I had manifested with an atempted suicide, not a decision not to have kids. And he's the one who's hostile. Svašta

He says nothing of passing on his issue to another generation. It is all about saving the world by not having kids.

[Tribesman]

I read this as ''I never heard of contraception''
Doesn't work like that Betanov, if he was getting use of those he would probably be happier and not lamenting about babies making him angry, its the lack of release you see, a build up of the inner tension.

Okay, let's stop fantasizing about the man's "real issues", for nobody here knows them

errrr .....he said he had a bad family life and doesn't like families...plain enough isn't it.
Could this be a link to your views on the topic?

[frau kaleun]

If this does not read as a person that has a poor outlook on family and child rearing, I don't know what does. His family is full of tension and anger. He apparently believe all families are because he see many others are.

In what you quoted he says that he knows he would be the same way as a parent (as his parents were with him). Whether it's a fact that he would be that way or not, it sounds like he either believes or fears that he would be what most of us would consider a "bad" parent.

Given that a lot of "bad" parenting and family dynamics are in fact passed down from one generation to the next even despite the best intentions and hopes of those involved, it's not unreasonable for him to believe (or fear) that he would not be any better as a parent than his own parents were.

For someone who feels they are likely to be very bad at parenting, and wouldn't be able to provide a better environment than the negative one they experienced, not having children is exactly the opposite of being "selfish" IMO. It's certainly a lot better than having a bunch of kids he isn't able to raise in a healthy and positive environment.

[Sailor Steve]

IFor some reason we as males are to continue the family name with a male child. Has been this way for centuries
I guess I'm an abberation. I've never understood that need. I have two daughters, both are married and none of my grandchildren have my last name. I don't see why it's important.

But that's just me.

[frau kaleun]

I guess I'm an abberation. I've never understood that need. I have two daughters, both are married and none of my grandchildren have my last name. I don't see why it's important.


It's important because "my seed" and "my DNA" and "my name" MUST MUST MUST be preserved down through the generations because some part of ME ME ME must remain after I'm gone and it must be properly stamped with the word "MINE" so people know exactly who made it.

This is why having children is the only purely unselfish choice. :O:

[Betonov]

He says nothing of passing on his issue to another generation. It is all about saving the world by not having kids.

He means it by the famed first paragraph. I can also say describe my fammily by tension and anger. It's not a filler, it's describing his background. And I can relate. I am displaying the same tension and anger I got from my fammily. You can't see it on the forum since I don't post in an angry mood, but it's there. His biggest mistake was, that he asumed everyone will see it like he sees it. But only those of us that were verbally abused by our own mothers can see it. Only those of us that can relate.

Good for you if you can't relate. But some of us had to cope with verbal and pshycological abuse (never physical though) that we would be better off unborn. That's his message. Such issues are carried over.

[AVGWarhawk]

In what you quoted he says that he knows he would be the same way as a parent (as his parents were with him). Whether it's a fact that he would be that way or not, it sounds like he either believes or fears that he would be what most of us would consider a "bad" parent.

Given that a lot of "bad" parenting and family dynamics are in fact passed down from one generation to the next even despite the best intentions and hopes of those involved, it's not unreasonable for him to believe (or fear) that he would not be any better as a parent than his own parents were.

For someone who feels they are likely to be very bad at parenting, and wouldn't be able to provide a better environment than the negative one they experienced, not having children is exactly the opposite of being "selfish" IMO. It's certainly a lot better than having a bunch of kids he isn't able to raise in a healthy and positive environment.

Not all bad parenting is passed down. Many make it a point not to be like their parents. But I do agree bad parenting is passed down. Kids are products of their environment. But, IMO, that is as far as it goes for this author. I see his position as has very little to do with saving the planet.

[AVGWarhawk]

I guess I'm an abberation. I've never understood that need. I have two daughters, both are married and none of my grandchildren have my last name. I don't see why it's important.

But that's just me.

It is not just you Steve. I never saw the need. Plus I have 2 brothers with sons. I'm covered. :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

While dad is complaining mom is really screwed. She gave up her name and replaced it with his, and even her sons will never have her name.

Kinda sad if "name memory" is really the goal.

[Betonov]

Doesn't work like that Betanov, if he was getting use of those he would probably be happier and not lamenting about babies making him angry, its the lack of release you see, a build up of the inner tension.


Lack of sex is not the only thing that builds up inner tension.
Not being able to stand up to people that damaged you because of their own issues, because one cannot go against ones parents, is far worse.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's important because "my seed" and "my DNA" and "my name" MUST MUST MUST be preserved down through the generations because some part of ME ME ME must remain after I'm gone and it must be properly stamped with the word "MINE" so people know exactly who made it.

This is why having children is the only purely unselfish choice. :O:

I never once heard from my father state I must carry on the line. I think we are just about out of the Dark Ages. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

It is not just you Steve. I never saw the need. Plus I have 2 brothers with sons. I'm covered. :haha:
If the name is all that matters, I guess I'm fine. My grandpa had seven sons. My brother has no kids, but I have a passle of cousins, and the name is still out there in the hundreds.

[Tribesman]

I guess I'm an abberation.
Not in the slightest

[AVGWarhawk]

If the name is all that matters, I guess I'm fine. My grandpa had seven sons. My brother has no kids, but I have a passle of cousins, and the name is still out there in the hundreds.

I'm not certain but centuries ago I believe it was a mix of carrying on the name and bloodline. Today perhaps just the name? I don't know. I have two beautiful brilliant daughters and I simply would not have it any other way. :up:

[Betonov]

Can we continue in about an hour or two.

I really need to go to the pub and don't want to be lost in all the replies when I get back. I'll be sober, I promise

[Sailor Steve]

I'm not certain but centuries ago I believe it was a mix of carrying on the name and bloodline. Today perhaps just the name? I don't know. I have two beautiful brilliant daughters and I simply would not have it any other way. :up:
Centuries ago it was important for royalty and nobility. Peasants didn't even have last names.

[AVGWarhawk]

He means it by the famed first paragraph. I can also say describe my fammily by tension and anger. It's not a filler, it's describing his background. And I can relate. I am displaying the same tension and anger I got from my fammily. You can't see it on the forum since I don't post in an angry mood, but it's there. His biggest mistake was, that he asumed everyone will see it like he sees it. But only those of us that were verbally abused by our own mothers can see it. Only those of us that can relate.

Good for you if you can't relate. But some of us had to cope with verbal and pshycological abuse (never physical though) that we would be better off unborn. That's his message. Such issues are carried over.

Everyone can relate to a dark family issue. Most, if not all, families are dysfunctional in one form or another. And on some level. Myself included. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

I'll be sober, I promise
I'd rather have you be Betanov. :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

Centuries ago it was important for royalty and nobility. Peasants didn't even have last names.

Yes sir. :yep: I don't think the emphasis is what it was. For me, I just wanted healthy kids.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes sir. :yep: I don't thing the emphasis is what it was. For me, I just wanted healthy kids.
When my wife was pregnant the second time, a friend asked me if I was hoping for a boy this time, I replied "No. With another girl we can use hand-me-downs."

[AVGWarhawk]

Can we continue in about an hour or two.

I really need to go to the pub and don't want to be lost in all the replies when I get back. I'll be sober, I promise

I think I'm finished here. Everyone has their own perspective on this essay. Enjoy the pub!

[Betonov]

oh look, wireless:D

With a last name Concrete, I really need a son.
I don't want children right now. If I grow old and childless I won't regret it. As long as I'm not alone. More than half of my generatione is allready with child, but it doesnt bother me. I need to see the world first. A reluctant adventurer. I survived my fammilies isuess and with a good woman they can be completely inhibited. The main reason I dont want kids is that I in no way feel I need them.

[Sailor Steve]

oh look, wireless:D
Remember, drinking and posting don't mix. I suggest you have a friend be your designated poster.

[Betonov]

Sure, I migh OD on coffee and write a Skybird long thread and then go Tribesman on myself :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh my...lol

[ReallyDedPoet]

This is obviously a polarizing topic :yep:.

If this thread was about the benefits of having children, being a parent, I am sure we would have equally differing opinions. I am a father of three boys, and some days don't know if I am coming or going :doh:, but to be honest would not have it any other way. But that is my choice, others can follow their own dreams-choices.

I always wanted to be a Dad-Father, just needed to find someone to help me out in that department :), and I did, we have been together for close to 20 years now :sunny:.

As far as bad parenting, etc, there are many factors in the life and raising of a child. It truly does take a village-community to raise one. So, even those without children can have a huge impact on a child's life. Many teachers, coaches and community leaders have influenced me along the way, and for the most part in a positive way. And those who have not I have learned from as well.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is obviously a polarizing topic :yep:.

If this thread was about the benefits of having children, being a parent, I am sure we would have equally differing opinions. I am a father of three boys, and some days don't know if I am coming or going :doh:, but to be honest would not have it any other way. But that is my choice, others can follow their own dreams-choices.

I always wanted to be a Dad-Father, just needed to find someone to help me out in that department :), and I did, we have been together for close to 20 years now :sunny:.

As far as bad parenting, etc, there are many factors in the life and raising of a child. It truly does take a village-community to raise a child. So, even those without children can have a huge impact on a child's life. Many teachers, coaches and community leaders have influenced me along the way, and for the most part in a positive way. And those who have not I have learned from as well.


This topic is only polarizing for me because of the posted essay. It is just a very odd way to start a essay on not wanting children. "My family angry and...." I see the rest as filler. Some of it spilling over to other issues in his life. This is my interpretation of the essay. I question this particular person essay. The rest is just conversation.

[mookiemookie]

This is obviously a polarizing topic :yep:.

But that is my choice, others can follow their own dreams-choices.

I completely agree. I had no idea people got so spun up over others' family planning choices. Anyone that passes judgement on whether a couple chooses to have kids or chooses not to should get their big nose out of others' business.

[AVGWarhawk]

I completely agree. I had no idea people got so spun up over others' family planning choices. Anyone that passes judgement on whether a couple chooses to have kids or chooses not to should get their big nose out of others' business.

Then keep the essays in the desk drawer and not on the interweb for all the world to read. :)

[ReallyDedPoet]

This topic is only polarizing for me because of the posted essay. It is just a very odd way to start a essay on not wanting children. "My family angry and...." I see the rest as filler. Some of it spilling over to other issues in his life. This is my interpretation of the essay. I question this particular person essay. The rest is just conversation.

Yeah, I thought those particular comments were :dead::dead: and added nothing to the point of what he was trying to get across.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, I thought those particular comments were :dead::dead: and added nothing to the point of what he was trying to get across.

But what was his point? To get off his chest what his upbringing consisted of or, truly interested in saving the planet? IMO, he was not really concerned with the latter. This information was in addition to his feelings/experiences concerning family and his perspective.

[ReallyDedPoet]

But what was his point? To get off his chest what his upbringing consisted of or, truly interested in saving the planet? IMO, he was not really concerned with the latter. This information was in addition to his feelings/experiences concerning family and his perspective.

I think the latter, at least as the author sees it. And a big emphasis on the author part. I am sure if one looked ( and not very hard ) there would be much clearer and better articulated arguments.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would agree.

[Jimbuna]

For me, I just wanted healthy kids.

Ditto :yep: