> We owe nothing to anyone except our children and our pets.
While I agree with the general sentiment of your post, this seems like a pretty sad world view. We as humans do form connections and I'm happy I owe people and they owe me, even if at the end of the day, family will always come first.
> I guess them raising us as children, changing our diapers, making sacrifices for us etc. doesn't count for any kind of paying it forward because..... me, me, me, me, me.
But having children is a choice. A choice that they made. A choice that comes with huge responsibilities.
I'm all for having and expressing gratitude within reason though.
But I no longer see life as some gift I should be eternally grateful for. And even if it is a gift, its not one I asked for and should be required to pay for.
> there seems to be an idea floating around that any motivation to have children that incorporates your own good is evil.
This is a really good observation.
Yes, there's a whole toxic thread in today's culture that if you are not 100% altruistic towards any dependent then you must be an evil person who is traumatizing them. It seems like there are a lot of people out there today who believe that no one is good enough to deserve to have kids or pets.
> The idea that this obligation is some kind of way to repay for what the parents did for the children is completely absurd and idiotic. It does nothing for your parents.
Thank you for saying this. I can't believe the points people are making here. Your parents are already dead at this point. Of course it does nothing for them. Taking care of them while they're still alive does something for them, but once they're dead nothing can ever affect them again.
> Children owe their parents and extended family nothing, as they had no choice being brought into the world. What they do with their life is entirely their choosing.
Terminal-state Western individualism. Not everything is about “choice.” Life chooses for us, gives us roles and duties and obligations. We come into this world owing a debt to our parents and family who help care for us that we can never repay, only pay forward to the next generation.
> You mean like what Grandma or Grandpa did to bring life into this world. You owe them so much and you haven't clue.
I don't agree that my children should be responsible for the obligations that follow my choice to have sex. Further, decades of parenting taught me that as far as there is a debt, it is mine to pay. Parenting is service.
> People can have children without congratulating themselves for a sacrifice well delivered ... Kinship for species only extends so far and not much at all when there is parental entitlement.
> you relish the thought of being less self-centered.
Just mentioned one example really...
> I'm curious if you're able to think of one non-selfish reason to have children?
I am curious if you are able to think on non-selfish anything?
> Often, it's said having a child is an act of selflessness
Nonsence. It is what it is. Anything you say that is not gonig to explain animal and other forms or life is invalid.
> Adopting a child is the most selfless thing you can do
Compensation, so no.
> The OP's blog post is surmising it's because we procreate to achieve some tangible sense of immortality
He said people usually say that, not that it is a sole reason. He also said there isn't any rational explanation. I just given one - I am designed to do so.
> To be honest, the "resentment" of those without children have for "benefits" those with children get strikes me as extremely selfish, immature and displaying a total lack of empathy.
Where is your empathy for the "middle-aged adult with no children"? Are you sure you are a "middle-aged adult with no children" because you sound like a person with children.
> If anything, I'm thankful for all those people with kids who will (a) take care of the continuation of the human race, and more selfishly (b) support our society and economy when I am too old to do so.
Then aren't you being selfish by not having kids?
We had another thread a few days ago and almost the same comment
> And that’s fine. There is nothing special about biological parents being the ones to take care of kids.
There absolutely is an irreplaceable bond between natural parents and their children that can’t be replaced. If you spend time around a lot of kids it’s very easy to notice a happiness difference between those with a stay at home parent and those raised by paid professionals (who are usually taking care of many other children, unless you’re wealthy).
> Indeed, our parents and grandparents spent half as much time with their kids than we are spending today, and their kids (us) turned out fine
I mean, did we? The birth rate is dropping through the floor, marriage rates are down, and studies show women in particular are more unhappy than ever.
As my generation ages into their 40s I see a stark happiness divide between those that focused on their careers vs those that built families (strongly in favor of the latter).
> "And marriage can only be good if the parents know and acknowledge that they together go first, kids come second. Period."
That's a terribly sad outlook. Your children are extensions of yourself. They should come first forever. They're not pets that you just take in and look after. They're your babies...
I don't know if you have kids or not, maybe you don't have very strong parental feelings :/
>Personally I am capable of self improvement without adding another hungry mouth to an already dying planet.
Respectfully you will never be capable of loving someone as unconditionally as a parent loves their child. The love you bear for your partner, or sibilings, or parents is nothing in comparison to that for your own creation.
Given that lifespans continue to increase you will likely lose the ability to take care of yourself long before you die. Your children serve an additional purpose in that the love and care you gave them is returned when you need it most.
I will never understand those who choose not to have their own kids, particularly the people who act as though kids become a blockade to their happiness. I have witnessed no greater joy than a parent watching their child grow. I pity anyone who has excluded themselves from that, honestly.
> You can also accept the responsibility of dying childless. It might be lonely and problematic in other ways. It might even make your life shorter.
Might make your life longer and happier too. Obviously it depends on personal circumstances.
> I wish people would understand that kids are not only responsibility, but also joy, and help. So the grass is not really greener on the either side.
I think most people _do_ understand that. I would hope that you understand that depending on the circumstances, that joy and help may _not_ outweigh the responsibility and hardships.
> What's selfish about not having children? To whom or to what do I owe bringing a child into the world?
Since life can just be given to the next generation and you have already gotten yours, it would be logical to return the favor to the next person and give a new life.
I did not say, that it actually is selfish. Maybe it is not. It just came off a bit like that to me, as I read your comments.
> It's more likely the opposite: a lot of people would agree that their parents' decision to have children, particularly at a time when they couldn't afford them or lacked the mental strength to care for them and raise them in psychological safety, was selfish.
Sure. Although most people would surely still choose to live.
While I agree with the general sentiment of your post, this seems like a pretty sad world view. We as humans do form connections and I'm happy I owe people and they owe me, even if at the end of the day, family will always come first.
reply