I like the Buddhist idea that life itself is part of a continuum between it and death. The struggle is always there. Eating life is our reminder of it. I guess the other parts of Buddhist teaching should compel me to leave a smaller footprint like not eating meat... I can see the notion of me living perpetuates the misery of hundred or ten or so other people several thousands of miles away. I'm not sure how I can deal with that, and even if I tried to, how I'd accomplish it without trivializing that idea. We live in a population with a scale that's unfathomable to the human brain yet we're aware of our individual value and it's (small) ability to influence billions. It feels like the world moves on whether we sink or swim. As an aside, it's also easy to use this rationale on strangers immediately around us especially in big and crowded areas. We can definitely influence things there. Love thy neighbors indeed. To play in this game, the odds are stacked against you. I don't know how you can "win" it other than moving out and living with the poor. Even then, that's an individual victory that's victim to the same values of scale brought on by hundreds of million Americans. The Mother Teresa angle maybe? But then it asks whether you really wanted to have children or rather the idea of raising poor kids in order to be recognized. So all this rambling is a way to point out that it's possible not to think about your question without feeling guilty or a sociopath. Giving your life away to poverty or zero growth can be seen as a noble path, but given the numbers we live in and the diminishing values it can impose on us, I'd rather dwell on individual meaning and morality than collective morality.
Having kids is completely ethical. We're able to have children, and (in short) we have the freedom to decide whether or not we'd like to have children, so, as long as we aren't being exploited or forced to have children, I don't think that reproduction could be considered unethical. (The notion that having children is unethical because it would further exacerbate the scarcity problem at the cornerstone of economics doesn't really make sense because a greater population only increases our productive capacity as a species.) However, I don't think it is a bad thing to make the sort of considerations you've made when thinking about having and raising children. It is just that, when you say something is unethical, it sort of implies that people shouldn't be allowed to do that 'unethical' act, although reproduction isn't inherently criminal.
I've been on a rambling spree myself and can't stop. But if people's free will is to decide their own direction, the matter must be discussed by the people until they come to a conclusion. Since there isnt any 1 dominating principle stating EXACTLY how to handle child bearing until freaking government or advocacy groups forces you into a decision, luckily its still your free choice. The "unethical" aspect of having kids is still as its always been having them haphazardly with no direction, no guidance, no moral scope. Yes, the reasons you just stated, thats how its always been. I say so what, at least you acknowledge the reason. That in ITSELF I think is a small victory in personal awareness I wish more people would have. (Though current trends say abandon procreation at all costs. There's always some ideal out there undercutting your seemingly harmless motives, isnt there) But whats its matter, I dont have kids anyway...
maybe you're selfish for not contributing your genes to the evolutionary contest that is taking place... if you can afford to have kids in this world, you have something that is successful.
I'm not saying everyone has to do the same thing!! Ugh I've come off as a major douche in this thread lol I'm saying this is what I'd like to see happening, based on the preliminary thought process in my head. To summarize.. If there is $1,000 in the world and 100 people in the world, and 50 of those people are struggling to get $1... I have two options: a) Have a biological child who consumes $1 and increases the population to 101. b) Adopt a child who consumes $1 and does not increase the population. What they produce in the future is irrelevant as they would both have the same opportunities. More importantly, if you go with option b, you're more likely to increase awareness about adoption and encourage more people to do the same. If I adopt 4 children and 2 of them go on to adopt children as well, THAT'S a legacy I'd love to leave in the world. I'm not sure if leaving behind my DNA is going to do anything for anyone other than satisfy me ego. Obviously, I'll have thought about this for years before actually making any sort of decision. We'll see how it goes. I don't know if I agree with that reasoning. I'm not saying it is absolutely ethical or unethical, but the process by which you decided it's ethical is strange. If I used the conditions you used: We're able to kill people, and (in short) we have the freedom to decide whether or not we'd like to kill people, so, as long as we aren't being exploited or forced to kill people, I don't think that murder could be considered unethical. Thank God there isn't 1 dominating principle. Everyone should do what they feel is right. Thanks for the kind words, I hope I can achieve more than just awareness for myself, and at least a little awareness for everyone else. I think it's a very useful discussion for people on both sides of the fence. I don't think it should be a competition really. For me, I see that there are certain things in the world which demand far more importance than photocopying myself.
Mathloom, what you're proposing gives the marginal benefit to society as a whole is infinitesimally small. While the marginal decrease in your livelihood could be quite significant(depending on how you view your adopted child/children). The above point is furthered by the fact that you presumably live in the United States, and even more so Houston, which has way too much land-to-human ratio anyway. We're not talking about a crowded country like India, China, or Japan. In which case, your sentiment may actually be more correct. Seriously, there's enough natural resources and money here to support your babies.
I think the marginal decrease in my livelihood is insignificant compared to the marginal increase in the livelihood of the adopted child. I'm not really concerned about what society ends up doing, though I would like to raise awareness. I'm very uncomfortable with that reasoning. That child could die or fall into a life of crime or get abused or never get an education. So many possibilities with very high likelihood. I'm not sure I can see that as a tiny marginal difference. I could be the difference between that child being a thief or illiterate or a drug dealer versus just an average person going to school and having dinner with parents and plans for a bright future. I don't live in America and I don't think it matters. There are enough resources, but there isn't enough access to resources. It's unevenly distributed and it's not the fault of the adopted child. I'm not sure how land-to-human ratio is important at all, maybe I'm misreading that paragraph?
Mathloom, Are you an emotional person? Or perhaps asked differently, do your emotions as a whole play any sort of role in your decision-making process in this regard? I didn't read the whole thread, but I've scanned through and seen that you've obviously put a great deal of thought into this, which is to be commended. Too many people in this world don't think...they just do. Sometimes that leads to kids that they never planned on having and in a lot of cases, the kid suffers because of that. For me, my wife and I have struggled for about 5 years to conceive. The thought of adoption has definitely crossed our minds lately as we aren't getting any younger...but our desire to have a child of our own far exceeds the desire to just "raise a child". While adoption could help save the life of a less fortunate child, raising a baby that has my wife's eyes or my smile is what we want. We are very close to all of our nieces and nephews and see the joy each child brings their parents...everything from their first steps to their successes in school, sports, dance, etc. I guess my overall point is that these successes and joys bring parents an emotional satisfaction that cannot be copied in any other form in our life. If these things don't play a big role in defining you or what you want have accomplished in life, that's your right. You state a myriad of reasons regarding the effect each person has on our environment, our economy, etc., but I'm left wondering the emotional investment is a consideration for you. I'm aware that when we do have kids, it will be financially taxing, time consuming, and very stressful. I'm also confident that the first time my own child runs and greets me at the door when I get home from work will alleviate all of the stress associated with having and raising that child. So again, do emotions play a role in your decision making process?
Our planet has a way of taking care of things, I'm sure in the next few decades there will be a super virus that will wipe 1/2 the population on this planet. Have as many as you can, Shawn Kemp style if possible, spread it across the globe so they have a higher chance of survival.
This is so true. Your social life takes a major hit when your friends all (pretty much) have kids, and you're kid free. We were That Couple for many years. Some friends are having problems with their kid(s)? Your advice is automatically discounted, "because you don't have any kids and just don't understand." I can't tell you how often we heard that. Most of our friends had kids 15-20 years before we did, so we got that a lot. Funny how that ended after we had kids, finally, and they were unlike any of the children our friends had, and in a good way. I really can't explain that, but it isn't just the parent talking. Guess that's another thread, though.
You're too bubbly about your brats, Deck. There's studies that indicate how a kid turns out has more weight with whom he/she associates with than what the parents do. It's good friends and good parents or maybe good luck.
LOL! Actually, I'm not nearly as "bubbly" as I could be, but you're right... who they associate with is huge. I think it helped a lot that they both went (or are going to) magnet middle and high schools, where you have to be tested and interviewed in order to get in. All the friends my kids have are amazingly intelligent and very diverse, as well. Their parents are Egyptian, Indian, Latino, etc., at least my son's friends were. He just finished his first year of college, out of state, and we don't have a clue about his friends up there, or if he even has any. We hope is does!
Yes ofcourse they do. I guess I just have mentioned them because it's irrelevant to me - I don't expect to feel a difference between an adopted child and a biological child. I expect the same stress alleviation with both. I personally feel that seeing my eyes or nose on my kid would be a cool thing, but I'm worried that it's ultimately narcissistic. What do I gain from it that I wouldn't gain from the unique features that an adopted child would have? I think the reason it may be important is because it reminds you of something. Your wife, your marriage, your journey. But an adopted child would remind you of those things as well IMO. Anyways, enough of my blabbing, I lost my wallet yesterday, how will I raise a kid? lol
Haven't read any other posts since yesterday, but I had to comment on this. As a parent with step-parent interaction, there is a difference. No matter how hard you try to equate the two, there is a biological and emotional imperative that will always impinge. We are, after all, creatures no different than other species. You heart and head are in the right place, but you will experience an emotional difference between a biological and adopted child.
The fact that threads like this are even created shows that plenty of this world is totally brainwashed. 100 years ago you would have had complete pandemonium if you tried to tell someone they couldn't have kids. The main argument is that we are overpopulated, but to that I say that this system is overpopulated. I'd rather get rid of this system than give up my right to reproduce. If even one generation gets trained to believe that reproduction is a privilege and not a right, then humanity is probably doomed and it really is that simple. If this goes on for two generations.. then it's over.
I mentioned that my S.O. and I had decided not to have kids because we so valued our freedom, and changed our minds very late in the game. Was it narcissistic to change our minds after almost 20 years together and add to the gene pool? Toss away our personal freedom? Toss away our fervently loved ability to travel whenever and wherever we liked, with the only concern leaving our dog with a friend or relative that he was great friends with? Something amazingly easy to do, as opposed to the incredible machinations required to leave our kid(s) where they are safe, loved, and cared for while we spend far less time, go on a much shorter journey, and still have to worry if he/she is OK? Was it equally "narcissistic" to not have kids for so long that that "clock" had nearly reached zero? I don't think it was, just as I don't think it was to change our minds. I'll say this about biological children... I deeply admire those who opt to adopt, whether from choice or necessity, but I can't tell you how many times people have told me I'm a dead ringer for my late father. Both our children are clearly ours. It's freaky. It can be a bit weird, to tell you the truth. One could argue whether that's good, bad, or unimportant. All valid arguments, in my opinion. Yet the experience of my wife having our son via natural delivery, not even an Advil, still fills me with awe when I think about it. When I see my wife's face in the face of our teenage daughter, the face I remember from when I first met her, a few years younger, it's a feeling I wouldn't want to give up. While I mentioned the gene pool thing in my first post as pushing us towards taking that step, once we had them it was scarcely thought of. In fact, I hadn't thought of it in a very long time, before seeing this thread. Does ego play a part? Doesn't it play a part in every aspect of our lives?
Mmmm... I'll never tell! Since I've got your attention (if you don't see the question in the GARM), have you heard of Dan Hicks and the Hot Licks?
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QjsikRTIX28?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QjsikRTIX28?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Well, if the educated, thoughtful, empathetic-to-the-plight-of-the-world people stop having kids, who does that leave? I guess the world is just screwed.
