Having second child

[radamfi]

radamfi, you seem to be proposing that humans extinct themselves to preserve the environment and/or so no one will be unhappy. What is the purpose of that? The environment then becomes meaningless to our species, and while no one would be unhappy any longer, no one would be happy either.

To the OP: I second Dragline. Do what you and your husband decide is the best thing for your family.

Surely once you are dead you have no consciousness and therefore cannot appreciate what is going on anyway?

By having a child you agree to that child dying, possibly suffering an agonising death from cancer, possibly suffering from other illnesses along the way and possibly getting raped or assaulted, scarring that child for life. If my child suffered from any of that, I would feel incredibly guilty.

The "best thing for the family" may not be the best thing for the individual concerned. People promoting children here only seem to care about themselves and their own happiness. Having children is selfish. It is a "want", it is "consumption", just like buying a big car or a big house. The whole ethos of ERE is to minimise consumption and waste, yet people here who make the effort in those departments throw that all away by having children.

Someone gave an example on the long "having children thread" elsewhere on here of a single man who lives in a big house who obviously consumes a lot. But people rightly pointed out that once he's dead, that will be over. A frugal person who decides to have children may well be more wasteful in the long run once the damage and waste caused by all future descendants are taken into account.

[radamfi]

Ideally one could adopt? You get the kid + no new human on earth.

Certainly that is far more ethical than giving birth to your own children.

[vexed87]

@radamfi, are you trying to say individuals who have been raped, tortured or are terminally ill cannot take pleasure from life as a result of their misfortune, or that any suffering immediately nullifies any pleasure in life? That philosophy won't be popular around here but you're welcome to follow it. Opinions on euthanasia are irrelevant, those are value based judgments and these vary from person to person, as is the choice to have children. If anything, people need to be educated to understand the impacts of having children, not made to feel guilty because you judge that to be an immoral decision.

[IlliniDave]

Surely once you are dead you have no consciousness and therefore cannot appreciate what is going on anyway?

By having a child you agree to that child dying, possibly suffering an agonising death from cancer, possibly suffering from other illnesses along the way and possibly getting raped or assaulted, scarring that child for life. If my child suffered from any of that, I would feel incredibly guilty.

The "best thing for the family" may not be the best thing for the individual concerned. People promoting children here only seem to care about themselves and their own happiness. Having children is selfish. It is a "want", it is "consumption", just like buying a big car or a big house. The whole ethos of ERE is to minimise consumption and waste, yet people here who make the effort in those departments throw that all away by having children.

I think this is a case of not so much what one looks at, but what one sees. Life for most of us is a mixed bag, but most of us feel there is more than enough good about being alive to outweigh the bad. It is awful as a parent to see your children go through rough times, no question, but I certainly don't begrudge them their lives because I feel bad for them sometimes. Many people do "want" children but the most important thing for a human child beyond basic survival needs is to feel wanted/loved. A degree of mutual selfishness exists at the core of all healthy human relationships.

All I can say is that if in your mind you equate having a child with waste then you'd be doing the right thing by avoiding parenthood (although it's not hard to become a parent without planning to). I see ERE differently, btw. The ultimate goal in my view is to improve lives and an intermediate step to that end is mindful consumption. I don't see its goal as minimization of consumption to the point of ultimately eliminating human life. That seems like elevating the process to the detriment of the goal (a sadly common thing in many human endeavors).

[saving-10-years]

@radamfi I agree with @Dragline in his responses and found them helpful.

Following your path means that people will get raped, tortured to death or suffer an agonising death from cancer. I don't have the heart to make people suffer like that. By having a child you effectively allow those things to happen.

So the person who might prevent rape, torture or treat or cure cancer should not be born? There is no hope for humankind?

I see many examples of good behaviour around me, including within this forum. Many reasons to be happy that I and others were born.

[radamfi]

@radamfi, are you trying to say individuals who have been raped, tortured or are terminally ill cannot take pleasure from life as a result of their misfortune, or that any suffering immediately nullifies any pleasure in life?

People suffering extreme trauma vary in their resilience. I prefer not to gamble with other people's lives.

[radamfi]

So the person who might prevent rape, torture or treat or cure cancer should not be born?

What is the chance of that?

[radamfi]

I think this is a case of not so much what one looks at, but what one sees. Life for most of us is a mixed bag, but most of us feel there is more than enough good about being alive to outweigh the bad.

It is just "most". That's the problem. What about those people who suffer pain and don't want to suffer that pain?

Many people do "want" children but the most important thing for a human child beyond basic survival needs is to feel wanted/loved. A degree of mutual selfishness exists at the core of all healthy human relationships.

Having children is not open to all. You have to meet a person who wants the same thing, and then hope that there is sufficient fertility, and then hope that there isn't a problem in pregnancy. However, friendships/relationships with other adults is more accessible and arguably more rewarding. I have reached middle age and am more than content with my adult friends. If you really want to be involved with children you can adopt, be a foster parent, be an uncle or aunt or join various organisations.

[MZMpac]

I think you should make the decision based solely on your own personal preferences and stop pretending that it is likely to have any meaningful impact on the world at large. It just won't. Do what you want and don't listen to anyone else.

Choosing to have children or not is a fundamental personal right and freedom. You do not need to justify this decision to anyone.

And if you live in Europe, the fertility rates in your country are probably well below replacement rate anyway. Your country will thank you and may actually pay you for it.

Whether and what kind of crisis a country might have 30 years hence is complete speculation. And the solution is simple. Move.

Good luck and enjoy your decision, whatever it is.

I share this view. While "noble" on paper, I dont think the choice to not have a child will have any meaningful impact on the world either. Same with recycling, etc. "But what if everybody did it?" Everybody is not going to do it. Most people desire children on some level, and the urge to have sex and the inherent irresponsibility in sexual encounters makes up for any ambiguity in people's desire. Population will continue to grow until resources are maxed out and/or there is some sort of massive species-wide regulatory event, like a pandemic.

Personally, I'm coming to the conclusion that my ideal in terms of having kids involves them being 20+ and out of the house; e.g., adults; and I value personal freedom much more.

The "fulfillment" thing is totally subjective and I get tired of hearing it. It assumes that 1) all other forms of personal fulfillment are inferior, and 2) other relationships cant be just as if not more fulfilling than a child. Same with fallacious ideals about "carrying on a legacy", or "having someone to take care of me when I'm older". I think these are just feel-good justifications made by people who already have kids.

Anyone with a heart can see the potential for fulfillment, but I also see the potential for endless frustration, heartbreak, and disappointment.

100% a personal decision for everyone; although for many it's not an active decision, just a byproduct of sex. I was

[pukingRainbows]

I agree with the many posters who suggest to look at this as a personal decision for your family rather than a questionable strategy to affect world change.

Full disclosure: i have two little sweeties at home and i really enjoy it.

[workathome]

Because personality is largely determined by genetics (see twin studies), if everyone "responsible" adopted other people's children instead of having their own, it would leave nothing but the irresponsible reproducing.

Which explains why I'm so irresponsible, my Grandma was adopted ;-D

I think those of us on the board are in a minority with regards to behavior, intelligence, and personality-type and would do better reproducing than not.

[Dragline]

Yes, I have experienced all of these things at one point or another in my life, and seen others experience them too. Yet, life is still beautiful. Funny how that is.

But thank you for illustrating my point, which you also demonstrated very clearly in your Brexit-related posts earlier and have now confirmed. Your goals for the people you interact with are clearly on the sociopathic spectrum, and you wallow in what is known as the "pity play" (telling us about how awful your life is ad nauseum), which is the most revealing marker for this condition. (See Stout, "The Sociopath Next Door".) You are only satisfied when others are miserable and keep score with this metric. I choose to decline the invitation.

I would invite you to change your attitude, but you would have to actually want to change and admit you are wrong and that's not going to happen through anything I have to say. I have no power over your desire to be miserable and spread it and keep score with it. So be it.

You didn't answer the question: "Is it OK for other people to suffer as long as you are OK?"

You are exhibiting a remarkable lack of empathy, belittling my trauma regarding Brexit.

You are the one who wants to create misery. Following your path means that people will get raped, tortured to death or suffer an agonising death from cancer. I don't have the heart to make people suffer like that. By having a child you effectively allow those things to happen. I bet you are even against euthanasia and would rather people suffer unimaginable pain for as long as possible.

Thank you once again for confirming my view that you are probably a borderline personality (or making a good masquerade of one as a troll) and are therefore someone to be avoided and not to be baited by.

You'd make a good SNL (the whiners) or Monty Python (whingers) character, though. I'm imagining John Cleese strutting about and saying: "Pip, pip, let's all have a good depressing whinge now, shall we?"

But you could have at least quoted some Shakespeare to provide some gravitas and entertainment with your drama. Here you be, perhaps for your next tirade with back of hand on forehead:

"She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

[Riggerjack]

@radami

You didn't answer the question: "Is it OK for other people to suffer as long as you are OK?"

Let me spell it out for you. Yes. It is OK for other people to suffer, so long as I am OK. Feel better?

Seriously, a bit of suffering is good for the soul, and concentrating my efforts on areas within my control is just so much more effective than emoting in someone's general direction. And I do enjoy efficiency.

Of course that leads up to

You are exhibiting a remarkable lack of empathy, belittling my trauma regarding Brexit.

He really isn't. To help you understand the difference, I will. Brexit has made.... No change of any kind. So, any suffering you have experienced is in your head. Please read that again. It is ALL in your head. I'm not denying that it may at some point lead to undesirable results, but it hasn't yet. The fact that you find this so oppressive leads me to believe you lack a reference scale of adversity. When someone is making a mountain of a speed bump, it is clear they have had too smooth a road.

What you need isn't better foreign policy, it is a cold shower. Literally, a cold shower. Practicing a bit of stoicism would increase your happiness immensely. Look it up, we have a few threads on the subject.

No, I don't think you will follow up on any of that, but I did enjoy writing it. Which made it totally worth the effort.