# To breed, or not to breed?



## Riddick (30 October 2009)

I have always been fascinated by the reasoning people go through before they decide to have children. From a very young age, actually I was 8 and can distinctly remember the moment, I realised having kids was not for me. Since then I have wondered what it was that made people invite such drastic and irreversible change into their lives. Are women still pressured by society? Do men feel a foreboding sense of mortality as they mature and think it is somehow important they leave a physical mark on the world?
For the life of me I can't work it out, which is no slight on people who have families mind you, just a mystery I feel i will never concoct a suitable answer to.
Not that I actually spend much time these days analysing the motivations of people, but with a few of my work colleagues and one of my friends either recently having, or imminently about to have, offspring I thought it would be interesting to hear from both sides of the fence. What were your reasons and what are your objections?

thanks


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Riddick said:


> I have always been fascinated by the reasoning people go through before they decide to have children. From a very young age, actually I was 8 and can distinctly remember the moment, I realised having kids was not for me. Since then I have wondered what it was that made people invite such drastic and irreversible change into their lives. Are women still pressured by society? Do men feel a foreboding sense of mortality as they mature and think it is somehow important they leave a physical mark on the world?
> For the life of me I can't work it out, which is no slight on people who have families mind you, just a mystery I feel i will never concoct a suitable answer to.
> Not that I actually spend much time these days analysing the motivations of people, but with a few of my work colleagues and one of my friends either recently having, or imminently about to have, offspring I thought it would be interesting to hear from both sides of the fence. What were your reasons and what are your objections?
> 
> thanks




We tend to over analyse these days.

Breeding is about getting down and dirty to pass on your genes and those of your ancestors over others' genes.

To quote the Bard from Henry V



> Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
> That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
> Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
> And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
> ...




gg


----------



## gooner (30 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

- seeing your genes, face etc in your children
- the joy of teaching them so many things
- the joy of learning from your children - patience, humility..........
- making your wife, in-laws and parents happy - they love being grandparents
- playing football in the park, animals at the zoo, first public performance
- you realise how much your children depend on you- it's a good behaviour modifier 
- just watching them grow up 

I've got three kids - 4,2,0 and love them all. It's great. I had a great time being single. But this is better.


----------



## Riddick (30 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

Do you guys still get time to do the stuff you did before you had kids, like sleep in, spend cash on frioulous things, hang out, go to the footy with mates, play stupidly loud music and have parties, watch sport or whatever it is that people do? The only couple in my close circle of friends (known for 10+ years) who have children have definitely dropped off the social radar in recent times. No more dive trips and playing in rock bands or going overseas to the snow. Seems like a sudden and dramatic change. Seems a shame to lose that part of your life (from an outsider looking in of course)


----------



## Timmy (30 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

Whichever way you decide to go Riddick, the important thing is to keep practicing the process


----------



## CanOz (30 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

Great thread Riddick, watching it keenly and wondering too why people have kids.

CanOz


----------



## Riddick (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



CanOz said:


> Great thread Riddick, watching it keenly and wondering too why people have kids.
> 
> CanOz




Thanks. my partner and I are both mid 30's and definitely not going down that road. just because I can't see reasons to have kids doesn't mean there are none. 
IN my eternal quest for all knowledge I just want to know why...


----------



## overit (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

I'm with you Riddick. I cant see myself having kids. At the moment every where I look people I know are popping out kids. One thing I have noticed is how many people are having 3 or 4. It seems to give some people a purpose in life.


----------



## Fleeta (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



overit said:


> It seems to give some people a purpose in life.




Spot on! It's for people who have done everything they want to do and now are resigned to living the rest of their life through someone else (actually that sounds a bit harsh - and i'm sure parents can still have a life albeit moderated). Personally, i'm approaching that time, but other, perhaps more interesting people, want to fit more into their lives.

On another note, don't you think people should pass a test before they can have kids? Our world is suffering from over-population!


----------



## skc (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

Like Gooner has put it... there are many experiences that are unique to having your own children. I am definitely looking forward to facing those experiences, and willing to do so at the expense of missing out on dive trips, going to footy with mates etc.


----------



## gooner (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Riddick said:


> Do you guys still get time to do the stuff you did before you had kids, like sleep in, spend cash on frioulous things, hang out, go to the footy with mates, play stupidly loud music and have parties, watch sport or whatever it is that people do? The only couple in my close circle of friends (known for 10+ years) who have children have definitely dropped off the social radar in recent times. No more dive trips and playing in rock bands or going overseas to the snow. Seems like a sudden and dramatic change. Seems a shame to lose that part of your life (from an outsider looking in of course)




Sleep in - not a chance now. Maybe when they are all over 5 years  old. Seriously, you do not want a hangover with kids jumping all over you. And if you have a hangover, there is no alternative.

Spend cash on frivolous things - possibly, depends on financial circumstances. Often with kids, you go from two incomes to one income and have other expenses like nappies, more food, pre-school fees, more clothes, bigger car, bigger house.

No more dive trips - not surprising as under 5's can not scuba dive and DOCS will soon get involved if you leave them locked up in the car park. Assuming they survive the heat.

No more overseas ski trips. We used to ski regularly including overseas (does NZ count - more like a seventh state) but have not been since having first child. There are two ways of traveling - well or with children. Children hate planes in the early years, ears hurt, can't sleep so they cry a lot which means everyone else can't sleep. Long haul is very difficult but we have grandparents overseas thus we do the trip occasionally. As for diving, babies can not ski. Our eldest one could ski now, but probably means a father daughter trip so my wife could look after the younger ones who can not ski. Again, car park is an option. Assuming they survive the cold.

Rock bands would still work - would be a nice quiet break from the kids.

So yes, you lose ability to do some things, albeit temporary. Once kids are older, I can beat them at skiing downhill (for a while) and take them diving. But for losing ability to do some things, you also gain some great new experiences. And having children is one of life's great experiences.



Fleeta said:


> Spot on! It's for people who have done everything they want to do and now are resigned to living the rest of their life through someone else (actually that sounds a bit harsh - and i'm sure parents can still have a life albeit moderated). Personally, i'm approaching that time, but other, perhaps more interesting people, want to fit more into their lives.
> 
> On another note, don't you think people should pass a test before they can have kids? Our world is suffering from over-population!




More interesting people" Perhaps people who are emotionally incapable of sharing time and love with someone else i.e. children. It is not about living through someone else, but about sharing your life with your children watching them grow up etc. You change one set of experiences for another newer more challenging, interesting set.



skc said:


> Like Gooner has put it... there are many experiences that are unique to having your own children. I am definitely looking forward to facing those experiences, and willing to do so at the expense of missing out on dive trips, going to footy with mates etc.




Exactly,life is a journey. And having children is one of life's great experiences. And seriously, you get fed up of going to nightclubs pretty soon after hitting 25.



Oh and at the end of the day, someone needs to wipe the drool off your face when you are old and decrepit. If no one had children, there would be no one to look after you in old age.


----------



## Ageo (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

Well yes i agree having a child will adjust things in your life, but sleeping in (yes the wife takes my daughter). I still go on regular hunting trips etc... so it hasnt changed a whole heap just now i do things in shorter time frames (i.e when i go away instead of a week i do 1 or 2 nights).

Do i regret having a daughter?, not for 1sec ever.

Riddick at the end of the day you need to do what makes you feel happy.


----------



## Fishbulb (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

Western populations are shrinking. Abortion, lifestyle "choices" etc have guaranteed our extinction unless we turn that around and start breeding again. And I can't see that happening, unless there's a complete moral 180 in this society. The family unit, no matter what you may think of it, is the perfect container for raising kids. And before anyone raises the issue, I'm talking about heterosexual couples that are in a committed relationship. I assume you all had parents?

And...guess which populations are exploding?


----------



## Knobby22 (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

I have kids and most of the time it's great.

You are connected better socially and I have personally found I have many more BBQs, gold days with dads etc. For instance this next Saturday we are all going to the carpark at Flemington. The Racing Club will have kids activities s we will let them run wild while we party.

People say you have kids so have dropped off the social scene. I haven't. We have just modified it. I always got bored at clubs anyway. 45 year old blokes at night clubs is just pathetic anyway.

It is also great to watch the kids grow up, teach them how to ride a bike, play footy. You people with no kids don't understand how good it is.

And when you are old and decrepit and no one gives a damn about you, you will be envious of the mates with grandkids.

You can't live for your own selfish hedonism all your life. It's meaningless and pointless.


----------



## alphaman (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Knobby22 said:


> You can't live for your own selfish hedonism all your life



No offense, but looking at the reasons you provide for having kids, they seem quite selfish to me. All about how it makes you feel good to have have kids. 

Don't get me wrong, parenting is a lot of hard work. No doubt about that. But you started the process for yourself, you actually enjoy the hard work, and you get the reward of seeing your kids grow. There is certainly a degree of selfishness there.


----------



## jbocker (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*

I dont know how to explain the feeling of having kids, other than just to say it has been the best thing I have ever done in my life.
Best bit, it has been getting better the older they get. Mine are now 25(G), 22(B) and 18(G). Catch up all the time, and they are my best friends. 

Yes it was a change when the first one arrived, it was brilliant and never regretted what I was supposedely missing out on. It is a new adventure, and you can still do the previous stuff, but a lot less and you appreciate it probably more but dont miss it.

When they are young and you play, you relearn that it doesnt take much to be truly happy.


----------



## scanspeak (31 October 2009)

The number 1 reason I hear when I ask friends why they want kids is "someone to look after me when I'm old".

Sounds a bit selfish to me.

I'm 42 and still haven't made up my mind.


----------



## Blitzed (31 October 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



alphaman said:


> No offense, but looking at the reasons you provide for having kids, they seem quite selfish to me. All about how it makes you feel good to have have kids.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, parenting is a lot of hard work. No doubt about that. But you started the process for yourself, you actually enjoy the hard work, and you get the reward of seeing your kids grow. There is certainly a degree of selfishness there.




My thoughts too.


----------



## Surfer35 (31 October 2009)

I've got a kid. big mistake.

will sell if anyone wants it


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 October 2009)

It is a natural event that all living organisms perform. It is a natural event for me too. My first breeding came unexpected and left unexpected. That is sad.


----------



## overit (31 October 2009)

Surfer35 said:


> I've got a kid. big mistake.
> 
> will sell if anyone wants it




LOL! I know a few who had accidents! Funny thing is some seem to have alot of accidents. 

Agree on the selfish thing. Know plenty who had kids and it was all about them not the kids. I may be selfish (although generally most of my reasons arent) in not having kids but at least I am not dragging anyone else into my warped piece of reality (not directed at anyone). My brother has enough kids to cover my lack of spawn.


----------



## Gunlom (31 October 2009)

As new parents , we droped off the 'social radar' and are only just coming back into it slowly...

One of the great joys of little ones, is coming home from work, and seeing my little boys face light up with pure joy and happiness just from seeing me. You can forgo alot in life for moments like that!

Yes it's hard work, but worth it.


----------



## Riddick (31 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> It is a natural event that all living organisms perform. It is a natural event for me too. My first breeding came unexpected and left unexpected. That is sad.




Sorry about your loss but I do need to correct your assertion that all living things breed. If you class asexual reproduction as breeding then that includes a lot of simpler organism., If you count breeding, in your assertion, as male female bonding, that includes a lot more organisms - flowering plants etc, if you are being more specific and saying your definition of breeding includes higher order mammals, who conceive and gestate in a manner similar to humans, then you are very wrong.

Empirical evidence, not to mention natural selection, illustrates that only the select few and more "perfect" (for want of a better word) individuals within a given population procreate and therefore pass down there genes.

This is especially evident in our closest evolutionary cousins. To say that the desire to breed is natural is entirely true, to assert that any individual gets the opportunity to breed is entirely false. Many many males die without ever breeding, far more than actually get to pass on their genes.

Secondary to your point, an examination of population growth within the animal, and especially the higher order mammals, kingdom reveals that no other mammal, and very few organisms in general, breed in the near exponential manner of humans. Basically, where every other population of individuals has inbuilt mechanisms to control the number of individuals in a population (Malthus like), humans do not subscribe to this rule. To find an organism that grows its population in a similar manner, you have to look all the way back on down the chain at simple organisms like bacteria. (though they are still relatively complicated)

So, if this were a proof, your assertion that breeding was a natural thing that all organisms perform would be shown to be false.

The desire to breed is natural, The opportunity to breed is not natural, an ever expanding population is an impossibility and, measuring population size against sustainability, is undesirable.

So, should we introduce a form of eugenics? Should we introduce a breeding licence? do we genetically test prospective parents and legislate in this manner, who can and cannot procreate?

If I sound dispassionate, it is simply an index of my belief that feelings have no place alongside logic in constructing arguements.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (31 October 2009)

Interesting arguments on both sides I have to say but for my wife and I we have decided not to have children. Mid 30's cashed up, have already traveled the world and lived in many countries.

Maybe it was because my wife and I both have younger brothers and sisters aged from 18 to 22 now. So when we were 18ish they came on the scene and it was almost like we had them ourselves.

I get allot off comments, under people breathe, the look in there eye as I tell them we are not interested.
I get the feeling they think its selfish. We think in allot of cases and would never say this to anyone other then ourselves that it's more selfish to have one to make up for all the short comings or things you did not get to do in your life, for what ever reasons. I especially think its irresponsible to do it if you can't support it. Baby bonus modivated or in the UK where the more kids the better the counsel flat.

We do worry sometimes that we may miss out on allot things in life by not having children and we are getting to the age now where you have to be concerned about the health of the baby and mother but we have decided that if it ever gets to that we would be happy to adopt.
We are of the opinion that there are allot of children in need of a good home and having children just to pass on genes is not really a concern at the end of the day.

Riddick like people have said at the end of the day the choice is yours but I don't think it comes down to choices like night clubs get boring after 25. But the ability to drop everything and move to France for a year is an alternate path. The paths are endless if you have the ability to make choices. 

Once you have little people attached to you like a fungus growing on a tree, slowly sucking the life out of it's host its a different ball game.

No disrespect to the breeders out there


G


----------



## gooner (1 November 2009)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Interesting arguments on both sides I have to say but for my wife and I we have decided not to have children. Mid 30's cashed up, have already traveled the world and lived in many countries.
> 
> Maybe it was because my wife and I both have younger brothers and sisters aged from 18 to 22 now. So when we were 18ish they came on the scene and it was almost like we had them ourselves.
> 
> ...




A reasonably balanced  post until the analogy about children slowly sucking life out of you. If that is how you feel, probably better that you avoid having kids as it will be bad for them having parents who feel like that. Most people  do not want to drop anything and move to France for a year. For those that do and are motivated, having children does not stop  you doing that. Like most things, having children in tow makes things more difficult not impossible.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (1 November 2009)

gooner said:


> A reasonably balanced  post until the analogy about children slowly sucking life out of you. If that is how you feel, probably better that you avoid having kids as it will be bad for them having parents who feel like that. Most people  do not want to drop anything and move to France for a year. For those that do and are motivated, having children does not stop  you doing that. Like most things, having children in tow makes things more difficult not impossible.





Hi Gooner,

The statement was bad taste and a joke, sorry.
And France was a bad example. How about a six month snowboarding trip through the US, Canada followed by Scuba diving the GBR and drinking Sauvignon on the south Island of N.Z.

G


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> Sorry about your loss but I do need to correct your assertion that all living things breed. If you class asexual reproduction as breeding then that includes a lot of simpler organism., If you count breeding, in your assertion, as male female bonding, that includes a lot more organisms - flowering plants etc, if you are being more specific and saying your definition of breeding includes higher order mammals, who conceive and gestate in a manner similar to humans, then you are very wrong.



*Reproduce* is the context in which I state my fact. To me it is an obvious fact that may or may not be broken down into each group but I will present them as I have recently learned of the classification.

Life
Domain 
Kingdom 
Phylum
Class 
Order 
Family 
Genus 
Species 




> Empirical evidence, not to mention natural selection, illustrates that only the select few and more "perfect" (for want of a better word) individuals within a given population procreate and therefore pass down there genes.



 Also obvious that stronger organisms live longer than weaker organisms within a species. Being able to create another organism and evolve with the environment is all that is required in my view. 



> This is especially evident in our closest evolutionary cousins. To say that the desire to breed is natural is entirely true, to assert that any individual gets the opportunity to breed is entirely false. Many many males die without ever breeding, far more than actually get to pass on their genes.



I can only assume you are generally asserting as in my particular post there is no assertion.  


> Secondary to your point, an examination of population growth within the animal, and especially the higher order mammals, kingdom reveals that no other mammal, and very few organisms in general, breed in the near exponential manner of humans. Basically, where every other population of individuals has inbuilt mechanisms to control the number of individuals in a population (Malthus like), humans do not subscribe to this rule. To find an organism that grows its population in a similar manner, you have to look all the way back on down the chain at simple organisms like bacteria. (though they are still relatively complicated)



 Yes humans have no predators but one other golden rule of existence is that the environment must be able to sustain the organism. Exponential growth is happening but the environment will not sustain this forever. As I posted ages ago on another thread "this planet would be perfect without human beings" but that is the twist in this whole thing. Why one species evolved a higher intelligence (but greater stupidity) than the rest. 



> So, should we introduce a form of eugenics? Should we introduce a breeding licence? do we genetically test prospective parents and legislate in this manner, who can and cannot procreate?



Yes I do believe some form of control should be accepted by the whole species because this planet cannot sustain exponential human growth. What number of humans on the planet? Who knows. A death to birth ratio of 1 to 1 would work well. 

To sum up. I don`t for one minute think the human race is exempt from natural laws.


----------



## Ageo (1 November 2009)

The way i look at it being single is, yes you can travel the world and do every possible activity but in the end you will die alone without leaving any legacy (not inheritance). To me family is perhaps the most important thing in my life (perhaps being southern italian who knows  ). 

But in the end there is no right or wrong just different paths that people take on their life journey.

A man once said to be

"Success is just a journey so enjoy the ride"

Take that however you choose.


----------



## Timmy (1 November 2009)

Well, non-breeding is certainly the new black.

This article in _The Economist_ discusses falling fertility rates globally.  

Go forth and multiply a lot less


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> Empirical evidence, not to mention natural selection, illustrates that only the select few and more "perfect" (for want of a better word) individuals within a given population procreate and therefore pass down there genes.



From what I can see nothing needs to be "perfect" (for want of a better word) as you say to procreate. Could you provide some empirical evidence?

The article explains the breeding patterns of humans in a better way. Link on post by Timmy.



> The abandoned hamlet
> 
> Now imagine you are a bit richer. You may have moved to a town, or your village may have grown. Schools, markets and factories are within reach. And suddenly, the incentives change. A tractor can gather the harvest better than children. Your wife may get a factory job””and now her lost wages must be set against the benefits of another baby. Education, thrift and a stake in the future become more important, and these middle-class virtues go hand in hand with smaller families. Education costs money, so you may not be able to afford a large family. Perhaps the state provides a pension and you no longer need children to look after you. And perhaps your wife is no longer willing to bear endless offspring. Higher living standards, better communications and more education enable you to rely on markets and public services, not just yourself and your family.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 November 2009)

Ageo said:


> The way i look at it being single is, yes you can travel the world and do every possible activity but in the end you will die alone without leaving any legacy (not inheritance). *To me family is perhaps the most* *important thing in my life* (perhaps being southern italian who knows  .



Yes that deep bond or connection to family is natural for sure. I'm unsure of what people who don`t have biological family do in this case.


----------



## Chris45 (1 November 2009)

A very cynical friend used to describe children as "just another form of environmental pollution."


----------



## Harleyquin (1 November 2009)

It seems to me that those who should be breeding aren't and those who shouldn't be breeding are breeding at a great rate of knots.  Should make for a not so smart state in another generation or so.


----------



## Ato (1 November 2009)

Interesting to hear from both sides. I notice that on the side of having kids there are pretty much only those with very young children. Anyone with teenagers want to add their comments?


----------



## waza1960 (1 November 2009)

I have step daughters 21 & 18, son 14 daughter 12 and son 5 and I am eager to gain more me time.
The thing is once your children enter the teenage years they don't require a lot of time,now money thats another matter 
I just get a lot out of doing the best for my children and them being themselves .
 The thing is time does go quickly so I intend to spend as much time with them as possible because once they enter latter teenage years they are too busy for you anyway.
In hindsight probably better to have them close together my


----------



## Ato (1 November 2009)

How are they behaviourally, waza1960? I know some families have a hell of a time with their kids in their teens.


----------



## gooner (1 November 2009)

Harleyquin said:


> It seems to me that those who should be breeding aren't and those who shouldn't be breeding are breeding at a great rate of knots.  Should make for a not so smart state in another generation or so.




Was that "not so smart" jibe aimed at me?


----------



## marknz88 (1 November 2009)

Interesting discussion.

I've always wanted to have ONE kid by the time I'm 35 but only one.

What are peoples perspectives on number of children to breed? I notice those who have kids here have >2. Do people think its selfish to only have one kid? i.e. so the child grows up as an only child?

I have a younger sister my self, and a lot of the time I wish I was an only child...


----------



## waza1960 (1 November 2009)

> How are they behaviourally, waza1960? I know some families have a hell of a time with their kids in their teens.



Not too bad so far but I'd have to say the boy seems easier. Girls' hormones in teenage years can cause problems.


----------



## gooner (1 November 2009)

marknz88 said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> I've always wanted to have ONE kid by the time I'm 35 but only one.
> 
> ...




In my wife's mothers group formed 4 years ago (this was right after everyone had baby number 1), the number of children is now as follows:

1 child - no mothers
2 children - 6 mothers
3 children - 4 mothers

And that is so far. Obviously, may be some more to come, though not for me.  May not be representative, but no one only had 1 child.

However, I don't think it's selfish to only have one child. If you really only want one that is what you should have. Just watch out for little emperor syndrome.


----------



## ojm (1 November 2009)

Geeze, everyone has missed the most obvious reason. *The Baby Bonus!*

Go down to Frankston or similar, and ask one of the 18 year old mothers who already have two kids. Why did they have kids? For the $5,000 to buy a new HD LCD and 18" wheels for the car!


----------



## gooner (1 November 2009)

ojm said:


> Geeze, everyone has missed the most obvious reason. *The Baby Bonus!*
> 
> Go down to Frankston or similar, and ask one of the 18 year old mothers who already have two kids. Why did they have kids? For the $5,000 to buy a new HD LCD and 18" wheels for the car!




Talkback radio garbage I suspect. No one in their right mine would have an extra kid because of $5k.  Government now pays it in fortnightly instalments because of the chatter about it being blown on mag wheels and new plasmas.


----------



## Julia (1 November 2009)

gooner said:


> Was that "not so smart" jibe aimed at me?



I can't speak for Harleyquin, gooner, but for what it's worth, I'd say you'd be one of the best parents going.  Pretty lucky kids to have you as a dad, imo.



marknz88 said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> I've always wanted to have ONE kid by the time I'm 35 but only one.
> 
> ...



I can comment on this from the point of view of having been an only child.
Didn't miss having siblings, but had lots of friends.
Disadvantages are that the responsibility for achieving your parents' ambitions falls entirely on the only child and the pressure to succeed can be overwhelming.

The obvious advantage is that you get the benefit of all the parental guidance and attention/teaching.

I don't think the 'little Emperor' syndrome has to occur.  If anything, the demands made on an only child in terms of study expectations, success at extra-curricular activities etc can mean the only child is under a lot more pressure than a child with siblings.

There is often an expectation that only children will be less co-operative in group activities than those with siblings.  My own experience has been to the contrary:  am not competitive on the whole and strongly believe in co-operative and collaborative action achieving the best ends.

I'd be interested to hear from other only children who have had a different experience.



ojm said:


> Geeze, everyone has missed the most obvious reason. *The Baby Bonus!*
> 
> Go down to Frankston or similar, and ask one of the 18 year old mothers who already have two kids. Why did they have kids? For the $5,000 to buy a new HD LCD and 18" wheels for the car!






gooner said:


> Talkback radio garbage I suspect. No one in their right mine would have an extra kid because of $5k.  Government now pays it in fortnightly instalments because of the chatter about it being blown on mag wheels and new plasmas.



Actually, gooner, the reason it's now paid in instalments is because of the reality of the suggestion it was being spent on plasmas etc.  No, you wouldn't do that, but I can assure you there's a whole section of our society who did indeed regard the baby bonus as as a good reason to get pregnant.
It wasn't at all talkback radio garbage, but cold reality.


----------



## Kipp (1 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Fishbulb said:


> Western populations are shrinking. Abortion, lifestyle "choices" etc have guaranteed our extinction unless we turn that around and start breeding again. And I can't see that happening, unless there's a complete moral 180 in this society. The family unit, no matter what you may think of it, is the perfect container for raising kids. And before anyone raises the issue, I'm talking about heterosexual couples that are in a committed relationship. I assume you all had parents?
> 
> And...guess which populations are exploding?




OMG.... western populations are SHIRNKING!!!!  We are facing EXTINCTION!!!

Lol.... are you kidding me fishbulb?  At the turn of the end of the 19th Century there were around 1.5 billion on the planet, and at the end of the 20th, around 6 Billion.  That makes us the most populous mammal by about.... I don't know 100 , 1000 times?  
And if you want to talk about Western populations Australia had 7million when my father was born.   To contemplate our extinction through lack of breeding is a very odd concept, and I'm sure meant only to stir... 

This of course brings me to one of my own little *rants* on childbirth... the pros and cons.  In my view, the world is full.  Actually, probably about 230-500% full (i.e. I would prefer it with a population of around 1-3bill).  It seems to be a frequently overlooked aspect of environmenta issues, for all that world governments discuss CO2 emissions, peak oil, deforestation and bloody whales.  Population growth rarely features in any debate.  

The only "humane"way to achieve a lower population is by reducing our birthrates.  The alternatives- famine, disease, war, natural disaster... will achieve the same ends, but not my preference!!!  So if that means 1 or 0 children each for the next 3-4 generations.... well, as it has been mentioned by many others in this thread you can still lead a full life without parenthood (though I mean no disrespect to parents by this comment).

Em... I think that's enough from me for now.


----------



## Kipp (1 November 2009)

ojm said:


> Geeze, everyone has missed the most obvious reason. *The Baby Bonus!*
> 
> Go down to Frankston or similar, and ask one of the 18 year old mothers who already have two kids. Why did they have kids? For the $5,000 to buy a new HD LCD and 18" wheels for the car!




Yep.... that is the real reason I'm discouraging breeding... I am missing out on all that $$$!!!  What's worse, is I have nearly 0 interest in owning my own home, so that's another $20K that is going to these suburban breeders.  C'mon  Ruddy, introduce a new stimulus package that might offer me some benefit.
Emm... Vegetarian Bonus?  International holiday stimulus package....


----------



## Vizion (2 November 2009)

All I can say is that I had no real wish to, but now at 42 that I have (1 week ago) it has changed my outlook on life in a profound way. 

Having kids is for some a selfish thing and for some it's an urge that cannot be denied. Some have no interest at all. If you do or don't feel like being a father or mother, fine & dandy, no argument from me either way. It's an individuals choice.

An observation though, to say your not interested and then throw up "overpopulation" as a considered reason not to "it never features in discussions about environmental issues" I wonder if you have extended you line of thought any further along? 

After all a couple living in a house is more wasteful of the planets resources than a family is. Logically, after we have taken the step to limit childbirth. We should make all the single people & couples live in smaller houses only, or make then share housing. Extend that a little further, are you also advocating a forced allowance of fuels to burn, food to eat and air to breathe?

You open up a Pandora's box with comments about population control, since in Australia we have an ageing population and actually require more children not less. Maybe we could have a children's trading scheme? We could then spread the human race about a bit. Of course there are a few here that balk at having "our" country filled up with "non Australians" 

Half the people I have met that have been for forced population control are only meaning "outside of this country". That's not called environmentalism.


----------



## Mr J (2 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Kipp said:


> OMG.... western populations are SHIRNKING!!!!  We are facing EXTINCTION!!!
> 
> Lol.... are you kidding me fishbulb?




Birthrates in the West over recent decades aren't high enough to maintain current population levels, and though I think it has picked up in recent years, it's still not high enough. Women have to average 2.1 children each to maintain the level, while it's still less than 2.



> and I'm sure meant only to stir..




No, it's a fact. It's extremely unlikely that it would come to that, but the recent birthrates can't be ignored.

Something that is being ignored is the probability of many people currently alive living for much longer than humans have previously. If civilisation remains relatively stable, there will likely be major technological advances, and the longer we live the slower we will have to reproduce.



> since in Australia we have an ageing population




Which will become less and less of an issue if and once technology filters through, in terms of automation of many jobs, and medical treatment of aging.


----------



## Julia (2 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Mr J said:


> Which will become less and less of an issue if and once technology filters through, in terms of automation of many jobs, and medical treatment of aging.



Can you explain why?  If we have more aged people, fewer people working because of automation, where is the tax base coming from to support and provide medical care for this extensive aged population?


----------



## gooner (2 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I can't speak for Harleyquin, gooner, but for what it's worth, I'd say you'd be one of the best parents going.  Pretty lucky kids to have you as a dad, imo.
> 
> Actually, gooner, the reason it's now paid in instalments is because of the reality of the suggestion it was being spent on plasmas etc.  No, you wouldn't do that, but I can assure you there's a whole section of our society who did indeed regard the baby bonus as as a good reason to get pregnant.
> It wasn't at all talkback radio garbage, but cold reality.




"Best parents going". Thanks But doubt my 2 year old, currently throwing yet another tantrum would agree - a few minutes time out works wonders and he comes out with a big smily face.

Understand that some people will splash out on TV's etc, but talkback also suggested the 5,000 was the reason for having a baby in the first place. That is what I find far-fetched rather than what the money is spent on.


----------



## Mr J (2 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Julia said:


> Can you explain why?  If we have more aged people, fewer people working because of automation, where is the tax base coming from to support and provide medical care for this extensive aged population?




Well, in a more advanced civilisation, what we would consider "aged" could be far older than what we consider it to be today. I'm sure this sounds far-fetched to some, but consider how far we've advanced in the last 100 or so years, and then consider how much we may advance in the next 50. Consider that we can already clone animals, and then apply more advanced, related technology to ourselves.

I think a far more important issue is automation, with advanced computers, robotics etc, which would render many current jobs obsolete. Interesting times ahead.


----------



## Agentm (2 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> I have always been fascinated by the reasoning people go through before they decide to have children. From a very young age, actually I was 8 and can distinctly remember the moment, I realised having kids was not for me. Since then I have wondered what it was that made people invite such drastic and irreversible change into their lives. Are women still pressured by society? Do men feel a foreboding sense of mortality as they mature and think it is somehow important they leave a physical mark on the world?
> For the life of me I can't work it out, which is no slight on people who have families mind you, just a mystery I feel i will never concoct a suitable answer to.
> Not that I actually spend much time these days analysing the motivations of people, but with a few of my work colleagues and one of my friends either recently having, or imminently about to have, offspring I thought it would be interesting to hear from both sides of the fence. What were your reasons and what are your objections?
> 
> thanks




riddick

i have seen how traumatic life was for you, both in pitch black and in the chronicles of riddick.

i think if you had a few more hugs you could have chosen a different path and not ended up a hardened killer..

i think you should consider children as we need sequels big time in the future as well 

btw i hear theres talk with twohy of of more adventures from you in the near future..


----------



## Julia (2 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



gooner said:


> "
> 
> Understand that some people will splash out on TV's etc, but talkback also suggested the 5,000 was the reason for having a baby in the first place. That is what I find far-fetched rather than what the money is spent on.



I promise you that some young women I've spoken with were thrilled and delighted at the notion that they could get $5K for having a child.
These were kids who had never had a job, never had any money, and saw that much as an incredible sum and the answer to all their debt problems.



Mr J said:


> Well, in a more advanced civilisation, what we would consider "aged" could be far older than what we consider it to be today. I'm sure this sounds far-fetched to some, but consider how far we've advanced in the last 100 or so years, and then consider how much we may advance in the next 50. Consider that we can already clone animals, and then apply more advanced, related technology to ourselves.
> 
> I think a far more important issue is automation, with advanced computers, robotics etc, which would render many current jobs obsolete. Interesting times ahead.



Yes, I get the advanced capacity to extend life etc., but you haven't answered my question (indeed have underlined it) about how if fewer people are working where is the tax base coming from to support all these additional aged people?


----------



## awg (2 November 2009)

Here are some observations from a parent of 3 teenagers.

* 30 to 50% of conceptions are unplanned, from talking to other parents..Google it if u dont believe me.

* most women I know have a strong biological urge/imperative to breed by their late 30s. Men can wait a bit longer, but the bug often bites them.

*older children are very expensive, with the way Social Security is now, you effectivly have to support them until they are 25, if they go to Uni, and have not established official independence.

*teenagers act like over 18s..they cannot be stopped, it is impossible to control them if they dont accept control, many forms of discipline are now illegal.

* the baby bonus is a big incentive to young couples of a certain ilk.

* Not having children is a valid and logical alternative IMO, due to environmental, social and financial concerns. 

I am always careful if discussing this matter, as most childless couples, 
that I know, have fertility problems, much to their distress. 
Many single, seperated or divorced persons also wish they had kids, but dont, for many reasons.

* I am of the opinion that having children has expanded my world greatly for many reasons, its complex and hard to explain.

* If you choose not to have children, my observation, is that it is difficult to avoid a selfish attitude, this is entirely understandable, but not wholly desirable. Of course, this is a generalisation, and can be mitigated, but it is what I have seen. No offence intended to anyone that makes that choice.

Loneliness also seems to be a difficult issue for childless persons


----------



## Knobby22 (2 November 2009)

awg said:


> Here are some observations from a parent of 3 teenagers.
> 
> * 30 to 50% of conceptions are unplanned, from talking to other parents..Google it if u dont believe me.
> 
> ...




Great post AWG!


----------



## Agentm (2 November 2009)

awg said:


> Here are some observations from a parent of 3 teenagers.
> 
> * 30 to 50% of conceptions are unplanned, from talking to other parents..Google it if u dont believe me.
> 
> ...




non paternity is another issue.

plenty of those breeders out there are knocking of anything to get knocked up. enough for it to be as high as 10% of first borners are not from the dad they know..

some women may have a mad keen desire to get pregnant to save a marriage or to keep a marriage going.. 

children should be born then removed from parents then balloted out to those who want them

that way the desires  in women to get pregnant are properly addressed

the desires in men to get a woman pregnant are addressed

and those who actually want children can have them and will do a damn sight better job perhaps than those who are simply doin it for a grant,  or for some other self interest..


----------



## Fishbulb (2 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Kipp said:


> OMG.... western populations are SHIRNKING!!!!  We are facing EXTINCTION!!!
> 
> Lol.... are you kidding me fishbulb?  At the turn of the end of the 19th Century there were around 1.5 billion on the planet, and at the end of the 20th, around 6 Billion.  That makes us the most populous mammal by about.... I don't know 100 , 1000 times?
> And if you want to talk about Western populations Australia had 7million when my father was born.   To contemplate our extinction through lack of breeding is a very odd concept, and I'm sure meant only to stir...
> ...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

http://www.fpri.org/ww/0505.200407.eberstadt.demography.html


----------



## Knobby22 (2 November 2009)

Agentm said:


> non paternity is another issue.
> 
> plenty of those breeders out there are knocking of anything to get knocked up. enough for it to be as high as 10% of first borners are not from the dad they know..
> 
> ...




You should read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". One of the great novels of all time.


----------



## awg (2 November 2009)

The whole business can become a scary topic when you have teenagers of yr own.

When you consider certain aspects of fertility, gives pause for thought.

Failure rate of contraception is higher than one would want, even for commonly used methods of contraceptive pill or condoms.

Multiply that by X intercourse, and the percentage risk of unplanned conception alarming.

My partner has done counselling on fertility issues, and she is astonished at the low level of detailed knowledge possessed by the general populace.

Had to tell my lads, if a girl ever initiates sex, means she is very likely fertile, so be careful. ( studies confirm this) 

All-in-all, if you avoid breeding, you have accomplished quite a feat of mind over nature.

as to the 10% non-paternity, I have heard slightly lower, but consistent figures worldwide...makes it easier to understand jeaulosy


----------



## Julia (2 November 2009)

awg said:


> * If you choose not to have children, my observation, is that it is difficult to avoid a selfish attitude, this is entirely understandable, but not wholly desirable. Of course, this is a generalisation, and can be mitigated, but it is what I have seen. No offence intended to anyone that makes that choice.



Can you explain what you mean when you suggest people who choose not to have children (may) have a selfish attitude?
In what way?
Some examples?



> Loneliness also seems to be a difficult issue for childless persons



Having children is no guarantee against loneliness.   A psychologist I know says it takes four daughters (daughters, mind you, not just 4 children), to ensure you won't end up in a nursing home when you're old and infirm.

I'm sure your children are terrific, awg, but there are plenty of instances where parents find the lack of interest or care from their adult children very hurtful and disappointing.


----------



## awg (2 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Can you explain what you mean when you suggest people who choose not to have children (may) have a selfish attitude?
> In what way?




As I noted, it is a generalisation based on my observations:

but in order to answer, I think most humans are inherently selfish, and that trait is magnified if allowed to prosper. If one is in the position to dwell on the self, one naturally will.

Having children forces the individual, (willingly or not), to cater to the needs of others.

This is not to say that persons who do not have children cant do this, as evidenced by so many examples, ie Mother Teresa.

My observation only, most tend not too.

It is certainly something I think all parents have to wrestle with, the conflict of self interest vs child needs. Many dont go too well.

Especially for new mothers the burden is awesome.

These are gross simplifications of a complex issue, pls forgive.




Julia said:


> Some examples?




I could, but would prefer not to, but I would be interested to hear your opinion based upon your thoughts of the people you know, as a whole.



Julia said:


> Having children is no guarantee against loneliness.   A psychologist I know says it takes four daughters (daughters, mind you, not just 4 children), to ensure you won't end up in a nursing home when you're old and infirm.




Yes, I agree, but it does reduce the odds    



Julia said:


> I'm sure your children are terrific, awg, but there are plenty of instances where parents find the lack of interest or care from their adult children very hurtful and disappointing.




very true, they can hurt you, and you must share their pain and disappointments too, that is part of the complexity.


----------



## Mr J (2 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Julia said:


> Yes, I get the advanced capacity to extend life etc., but you haven't answered my question (indeed have underlined it) about how if fewer people are working where is the tax base coming from to support all these additional aged people?




I did answer it, though not clearly. I said what we consider to be aged may change. Older people of the future may be far healthier and more capable than those of today. They would still be able to participate in the workforce.


----------



## Riddick (2 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> From what I can see nothing needs to be "perfect" (for want of a better word) as you say to procreate. Could you provide some empirical evidence?
> 
> The article explains the breeding patterns of humans in a better way. Link on post by Timmy.




ok evidence of the scientific kind:

1. Darwin was perplexed why such a large number of animals developed traits so incongruous with survival. The prime exampe of this is the flourishing tale of a peacock which provides no inherrent survival advatage. Darwin himself finally arrived at the conclusion, subsequently reinforced by later and current research, that sexual reproduction and the need to continue the species constituted to the need for such elaborate displays. In a nutshell, the more genetically robust individuals are also the most aesthetically pleasing to the opposite sex. In the case of peacocks, the males with the largest, most colourful and symetrical tails were more successful breeders.

So as I stated, utilising inverted commas as the convention for displaying the outline of an idea as opposed to stating a factual piece of infomation, the "more genetically perfect" are indeed the individuals who do the bulk of the breeding.

2. As for the peacock see plumage and vibrant colours in other birds.

3. Chimpanzees utilise a strict social structure based on the alpha male phenomenon. in other words, the "biggest and toughest and cleverest" gets the girls and passes on more robust genetic material, the lesser males don't.

I'm sure you get the idea or need I go on? which brings me to my final point. I notice, for soome reason, you seem to be picking on me, though no where in your multi quoted post did you disagree with me, disprove any of my statements or fault my arguements. Without sounding rude, and heavens forbid if I ever come across as rude (as anyone who knows me will attest to vehemently), please don't start picking on me. where I am not rude, presumptuous, or assume I am above reproach I am also mosr definitely, in the slightest manner cuddly. thankyou.


----------



## tasmart (2 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Riddick said:


> Do you guys still get time to do the stuff you did before you had kids, like sleep in, spend cash on frioulous things, hang out, go to the footy with mates, play stupidly loud music and have parties, watch sport or whatever it is that people do? The only couple in my close circle of friends (known for 10+ years) who have children have definitely dropped off the social radar in recent times. No more dive trips and playing in rock bands or going overseas to the snow. Seems like a sudden and dramatic change. Seems a shame to lose that part of your life (from an outsider looking in of course)




It has been an interesting thread ...... and sad that few seem to be on the side of having kids.

I've got 3 - now age 26, 23 & 20 and they are are close friends. We sleep in, play loud music, have parties, watch sport etc. My eldest is captain of an Aussie team, both my boys have worked in ski resorts (Canada, USA &  Japan) as we introduced them to skiing early on. Scuba diving, wind surfing & kite surfing (like this afternoon with my 23 yr old) is still on and we generally have a great time.

In many ways they have built on my wife and my interests and abilities and really have added significantly to a personal concept of satisfaction & success. Life has been a lot richer (not in a monetary sense) as a result. 

Sure some of the more selfish and risky pursuits were curtailed a little when they were young, but having kids does not mean you have to closet yourself away. Mind you, I do have friends who have done that (with or without kids) as they have got older.

It is a personal choice and it does does time & effort - but for me it has been great fun!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 November 2009)

I think you are all too intellectual about all this.

If I had the choice or chance  to breed any old time, I'd breed.

That is the natural thing to do.

Its great fun and you get to pass your genes on.

Perfick.

gg


----------



## Riddick (2 November 2009)

Agentm said:


> riddick
> 
> i have seen how traumatic life was for you, both in pitch black and in the chronicles of riddick.
> 
> ...





You thought pitch black was a bad scene... when I rescued Jack from the tripple max slam on Crematoria and Jack was actually pretty good looking and then she got killed by the necro's, I ws pretty annoyed.

Seemed everyone was out to get me. Next thing you know I'm trapped in an X box snapping necks in Buther Bay and storming the Dark Athena Merc Ship. I did pick up a lovely pair of sabre toothe Ulak Knives though.

and Yes as I understand it, a couple more of my adventures are in the pipe. Hopefully film both at the same time so I get some time to attend to my portfolio...

Thanks


----------



## Julia (2 November 2009)

awg said:


> As I noted, it is a generalisation based on my observations:
> 
> but in order to answer, I think most humans are inherently selfish, and that trait is magnified if allowed to prosper. If one is in the position to dwell on the self, one naturally will.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I agree that most human beings are inherently selfish.
If that were the case why would we have so many thousands of people happily volunteering in various capacities in their communities?
There's immense satisfaction in helping others and in participating in a whole of community endeavour.

And I really don't think selfishness or otherwise relates to the having of children or otherwise.  Such a trait is probably well established long before any contemplation of procreating is considered.  So perhaps there are simply selfish people and unselfish people, and the detail of whether they have chosen to have children or not is irrelevant to the basic characteristic.



> My observation only, most tend not too.



I'd suggest this might be a reflection of your own social circle rather than a general reflection of wider society.
Most human beings naturally gravitate to the company of those who share their ideals, thoughts and aspirations.



> I could, but would prefer not to, but I would be interested to hear your opinion based upon your thoughts of the people you know, as a whole.



Well, I know people with children who nonetheless are widely involved in giving of themselves to those outside of the family unit, and those with children who are obsessed by same and have no interest in anything other than what they and their children are doing.  These, btw, are unbelievably, suffocatingly, boring.

So as I've suggested above, I don't think the having of children or otherwise particularly affects a trait which would almost certainly exist before the children came along.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (2 November 2009)

Ok another alternate view as to way we bread and why it does not seem to be as much of an issue as we as a society evolve.
Say 100 years ago the thing to do was get married at say 13, start having kids because you needed them to help on the farm. Family units were much tighter as there was a real need to put food on the table and help with all the work involved.
As society has evolved we have less of a need to work the land for food. Its all to easy now to head to Coles and pick up a roast chicken and a bottle of wine. Because there is no desperate need to have kids to help with the work load people put off having kids.
It never was a desire to procreate for the common working man it was always to have young, fit hands to take over the work as people's life expectancy was much lower.
For the rich or well off (family money), I'm sure there was a need to procreate to pass on the line.
So are the rich or well off the alpha males so to speak going forward into this brave new world? Or has it always been this way.
Is it really the best genes being passed forward for evolution or is it the ability to provide the best life and upbringing for a child.

G


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> ok evidence of the scientific kind:
> 
> 1. Darwin was perplexed why such a large number of animals developed traits so incongruous with survival. The prime exampe of this is the flourishing tale of a peacock which provides no inherrent survival advatage. Darwin himself finally arrived at the conclusion, subsequently reinforced by later and current research, that sexual reproduction and the need to continue the species constituted to the need for such elaborate displays. In a nutshell, the more genetically robust individuals are also the most aesthetically pleasing to the opposite sex. In the case of peacocks, the males with the largest, most colourful and symetrical tails were more successful breeders.
> 
> ...




Yes, the examples are indeed fact and a stronger more perfect member may do more breeding `one on one` than the other members. However, and this is the crux of my point in which you may not be aware, the majority of the breeding is done by the majority of the group. It is impossible for the "more genetically perfect" member to service the entire population. So I will state that again - the majority of the breeding is done by the majority of the group.

*The reasoning behind an alpha male or brightly plumed peacock breeding more (more genetically perfect) is to keep the stronger genes circulating within the species* but - the majority of breeding is done by the majority of the group that are not genetically perfect and are considered "common stock". It is an absolute certainty that genetic perfection is *not* a criteria for breeding. 

So your initial statement 







> Empirical evidence, not to mention natural selection, illustrates that only the select few and more "perfect" (for want of a better word) individuals within a given population procreate and therefore pass down there genes.



is wrong.

P.S. - It is one thing to be knowledgeable and another to pretend. Sentence structure, word selection and spelling give it away.

Please note this post was made after recovering from an hysterical bout of laughter while rolling around on the floor.


----------



## alphaman (3 November 2009)

Julia said:


> If that were the case why would we have so many thousands of people happily volunteering in various capacities in their communities?
> There's immense satisfaction in helping others and in participating in a whole of community endeavour.



Julia you answered your own question. People do the volunteer work to obtain "immense satisfaction". It makes them feel good about themselves. 

It's normal to be selfish. Problems occur when people become excessively selfish, or they try/pretend to be unselfish.


----------



## Riddick (3 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes, the examples are indeed fact and a stronger more perfect member may do more breeding `one on one` than the other members. However, and this is the crux of my point in which you may not be aware, the majority of the breeding is done by the majority of the group. It is impossible for the "more genetically perfect" member to service the entire population. So I will state that again - the majority of the breeding is done by the majority of the group.
> 
> *The reasoning behind an alpha male or brightly plumed peacock breeding more (more genetically perfect) is to keep the stronger genes circulating within the species* but - the majority of breeding is done by the majority of the group that are not genetically perfect and are considered "common stock". It is an absolute certainty that genetic perfection is *not* a criteria for breeding.
> 
> ...




Sounds like you have just started your degree and have finished genetics 101 and were trying to think of something witty to say. You should be proud of yourself, lots of people don't get a university education.

As for being in hysterics. Thats a flat out lie. you were at no stage rolling on the floor laughing and if you were, then I hope those genes don't get passed on. As for not being aware of the specifics of you assertion, don't flatter yourself.

I assume you regard yourself as fountain of knowledge. Thats great, just don't let your ego outsize your knowledge and skills. Avoiding illusions of grandeur is a common rookie problem. Good luck with that and I hope second year at University is as fulfilling as your first.

Thanks for your efforts, however misguided thay may be, in attempting to take umbridge with me. 

Regards

Riddick.


----------



## moXJO (3 November 2009)

When I was younger, I always thought I would have kids around 27. And strangely enough it happened without me being ready for it. I initially wanted kids before I got to over the hill to run around with them.

No pill, no condom = breeding 

I wouldn’t change it for the world now, and have two kids. Lifestyle does change a lot. I doubt I could handle a newborn at 35 though, but thats just me.





> I think you are all too intellectual about all this.
> 
> If I had the choice or chance to breed any old time, I'd breed.
> 
> ...




GG is right IMO


----------



## ROE (3 November 2009)

When you are old and fragile and sitting home alone,having kids or family spending time with you may not be a bad idea. 

While you are on your way to old age...

They make you laugh so hard sometimes I dont know if I have that much fun without them around.

when you have a bad day, they give you a hug and everything goes away.

You give up all the bad habits like smoking and drinking.

They give you reasons to get up and go to work each day and invest hard in the stock market.

You feel proud when your kids become a good citizen and contribute to society.

I would give up most things to have kids  don't need fancy car nor big mansion having kids around is a lot more fun.


----------



## Mr J (3 November 2009)

ROE, I would hope I never reach a point where my joy and drive in life comes from others.


----------



## spooly74 (3 November 2009)

Mr J said:


> ROE, I would hope I never reach a point where my joy and drive in life comes from others.




Perhaps, but these others came from you.


----------



## josh82 (3 November 2009)

Interesting thread, just been skimming through the responses..
I really do think people are over-analysing the question. At the end of the day you either want to have children, or you don't want to have children. There is no correct answer, and whatever your choice is it doesn't make you a better or worse person.

I think the most important thing is if you decide to have children just make sure you are having them for the right reasons...

I'm a 27 yr old male, currently single, but I really look forward to the day that I choose to start a family with my future partner. I just love children..playing and interacting with my young nephews and nieces can give me just as much enjoyment as sitting in the pub having beers with mates..

For those that don't want to children, what do you plan to do with your whole life? I don't think negatively towards anyone that doesn't want children, i just wonder how they intend to spend the duration of their life..

Would be interesting to know if people that don't choose to have children regret it later in life..When they hit their 40s,50s,60's + to they assess life differently..

I understand that when you have children your lifestyle will change. Isn't that why you have fun, travel and do all sorts of things before you settle down.

Cheers,

Josh


----------



## Mr J (3 November 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Perhaps, but these others came from you.




I feel my state of mind would be poor if they were my life, rather than a part of it.



			
				josh82 said:
			
		

> For those that don't want to children, what do you plan to do with your whole life? I don't think negatively towards anyone that doesn't want children, i just wonder how they intend to spend the duration of their life..




I'm undecided on children, and on marriage. My plans for life? To enjoy it, doing whatever I feel like doing at the time. The source of happiness for most people is external (friends, kids, partner, family, goals etc), but for some it is found internally.



> Would be interesting to know if people that don't choose to have children regret it later in life..When they hit their 40s,50s,60's + to they assess life differently..




I'm sure many do, but this probably relates to how most people feel when they feel they having nothing to do. Most people need to be doing something, have goals, a purpose in life etc, and to share these with other people.

All my opinion of course, I know many feel differently.


----------



## Julia (3 November 2009)

josh82 said:


> I think the most important thing is if you decide to have children just make sure you are having them for the right reasons...
> 
> For those that don't want to children, what do you plan to do with your whole life? I don't think negatively towards anyone that doesn't want children, i just wonder how they intend to spend the duration of their life..




You're rather making it sound as though once you have children they inevitably absorb your entire attention.  Do you imagine that people who choose not to have children just sit around wondering what to do with themselves?

That's quite opposite to what I see so much of with women only taking a couple of months off to have a baby, putting the child in whole day care thereafter while both partners pursue their careers.

I can't help wondering why these women want to have children at all if they don't want to spend any time with them.
Ditto the current expectation that the taxpayer will fund much of the expense associated with having children, viz the baby bonus, paid maternity leave, and subsidised child care.


----------



## nulla nulla (4 November 2009)

In my opinion there are only two purposes in life: 

1. Reproduction; and 
2. Accumulation of wealth.

Reproduction is an inbuilt drive in all species including humans. 
The accumulation of wealth doesn't mean going after billions but accumulating enough to maintain a decent life style for self, partner and offspring. 

My goal is to pass on more to my children as my parents passed on more to me than their parents did before them. Better life styles, better education and better opportunities going forward. Hopefully they will try to do the same for their children if they decide to have children. This is not a selfish perspective. Life styles includes the ability to be considerate of the rights of others and to be charitable to those less fortunate than ourselves. 

In my opinion we need to breed, however we also need to seriously look at zero population growth before the worlds non renewable resources are totally exhausted.


----------



## stu192 (4 November 2009)

Have skimmed a few of the replies, and thought I'd add my 2cents for what it is worth.

I do have 2 kids (one who is autistic...so a little more effort than the average kid), so am probably a little biased (as we all are).

If someone was to say to you......Is it better to be in love or not? Most people could give you a number of pros and cons, and in the end the answer wouldn't be obvious from a scientific standpoint as to which is best.

However, ask me which I'd rather be... and I'd much rather be in love with someone rather than be single.

I think kids are the same. From a logical perspective, it really makes little sense to have children. But from the moment they are born, your view on life changes radically (must be some chemical reaction in your brain) - and from my opinion it is all for the better (though hard to explain why this is so).

So maybe it would be better to ask people with kids whether, if they had their time over, would they have kids again. I think almost all would want kids again. They may not be able to explain why it is so good.....but it just is. You need to have kids to find out - a bit like you need to be in love to know what it is like.

Stu


----------



## Kipp (5 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Fishbulb said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline
> 
> http://www.fpri.org/ww/0505.200407.eberstadt.demography.html




Hey Fishb... had a quick flick through the wiki article.  I am not sure what you are aiming for here.... not once is EXTINCTION mentioned>? "_For an agricultural or mining economy the average standard of living in a declining population, at least in terms of material possessions, will tend to rise as the amount of land and resources per person will be higher."_  that sounds ok for Australia.

&

_The economies of both Japan and Germany both went into recovery around the time their populations just began to decline (2003–2006). In other words, both the total and per capita GDP in both countries grew more rapidly after 2005 than before_

Em, I am not a biologist, but I am pretty certain that extinction, would imply a human population of 0.  Lets say we all had 2 children per couple, creating a net population decrease of say 1.0% pa globally.  How long for 6.75 Billion to reach 0?


----------



## Kipp (5 November 2009)

Vizion said:


> After all a couple living in a house is more wasteful of the planets resources than a family is.



Actually, I would disagree with you here.  Take a long term view.  say 200 years (which is, after all, only a blink in man's 200,000+ year history).  This "wasteful" childless couple, who lived the life of travel and luxury have long gone... there are traces of their existence for sure, through non-biodegradable wastes etc.  But for all intents and purposes, they are no longer a drain on the planets resources, except for the 2m3 of space their grave plots take up.

Now, lets take a family of 6 (i.e. 4 kids),multiply that trend for 8 generations and you end up with around 196 people.  Even if they are all eating tofu, recylcing, and saving whales on their solar powered boats.  I would defy you to say that 196 eco-livers don't do more damage than 2 plasma TV-owning, humvee driving (childless) capitalists.



Vizion said:


> Logically, after we have taken the step to limit childbirth. We should make all the single people & couples live in smaller houses only, or make then share housing. Extend that a little further, are you also advocating a forced allowance of fuels to burn, food to eat and air to breathe?




Nope, I'm not arguing that, though I don't think rationing is the worst idea in the world, and yes it would certainly reduce waste, and make us more appreciative (and open up an interesting blackmarket!)  



Vizion said:


> You open up a Pandora's box with comments about population control, since in Australia we have an ageing population and actually require more children not less. Maybe we could have a children's trading scheme? We could then spread the human race about a bit. Of course there are a few here that balk at having "our" country filled up with "non Australians"
> 
> Half the people I have met that have been for forced population control are only meaning "outside of this country". That's not called environmentalism.




So, by what criteria does Australia "require" more people?  From where I sit, our eastern cities are all struggling to keep up with infrastructure pressures traffic, water, urban sprawl.  

The government (esp P.Costello) might talk about the dangers and economic turmoil of Ã¤n aging population" - but I think this is nothing to fear.  As it has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread; kids <20 years old require nothing but support from parents and their government and represent a burden on our tax base (except tradies of course!).  Wheras conversely, many retirees are self funded, and since the gov't has introduced compulsory super of 9% (and very healthy incentives for extra contributions) I anticipate this number to increase.

Or retirement age could be upped a little bit to cope with our increased longevity.  etc etc  I can not think of a single country in the world that would benefit from more people.

And lastly, where you have decreasing family sizes, each individual child all stand to inherit alot more, which would I feel would also offset this ageing burden.  Or I would also believe that childless couples are more likely to leave their inheritance to charitable causes (not me though, will donate it all to Google and James Packer!)




Vizion said:


> Half the people I have met that have been for forced population control are only meaning "outside of this country". That's not called environmentalism.




Putting words in my mouth here.  

But I will get off this environmental high horse for a minute, and agree that my primary reason for not having kids is simply that it does not appeal me.  That is far a greater motivating force than population pressures.  And I am sorry (in part) for deviating off the topic of this thread.


----------



## alter1217 (6 November 2009)

I'm only 19 but I'd like kids with the woman I'm going to marry. (haven't met her yet, and won't until I have finished buying my first house... and also if she's willing). the child would be symbolic of our relationship "ever lasting". Sounds naive because it probably is.


----------



## Happy (6 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



CanOz said:


> Great thread Riddick, watching it keenly and wondering too *why people have kids*.
> 
> CanOz





Some religions believe to be able to smother others by sheer numbers and Democracy is perfect tool to achieve that control in our neck of woods.

Just think about it.

Of course I would hate to see competing sides trying to outnumber the opposition (sounds like election too doesn't it?), I would rather see 1 child policy for a while until we get down to sustainable level, then maybe 2 a replacement policy.


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 November 2009)

*Re: To breed, or not to breed*



Happy said:


> Of course I would hate to see competing sides trying to outnumber the opposition (sounds like election too doesn't it?), I would rather see 1 child policy for a while until we get down to sustainable level, then maybe 2 a replacement policy.



It can be as simple as people taking responsibility for their reproduction. Introducing a subject at high school level titled "Do you want to bare children and Why". It is all about awareness, although the rebellious, defiant, selfish and lower quality human will still bare multiples to relieve boredom and for financial gain. 
No point in breeding like mice. Then there would be a mice plague.


----------



## Jackman (6 November 2009)

We have 3 children 22, 18 & 14 the best decision I ever made. The reason why you ask! Quite simple, bring someone into this world to love, cherish and look after.  I feel absolutely privileged to have these three young people in my life.



> It seems to me that those who should be breeding aren't and those who shouldn't be breeding are breeding at a great rate of knots. Should make for a not so smart state in another generation or so.



 Whatever floats ya boat mate.


Jack


----------



## Julia (6 November 2009)

Jackman said:


> We have 3 children 22, 18 & 14 the best decision I ever made. The reason why you ask! Quite simple, bring someone into this world to love cherries and look after.  I feel absolutely privileged to have these three young people in my life.
> 
> Whatever floats ya boat mate.
> 
> ...



You had children so they could love cherries?


----------



## moXJO (6 November 2009)

Julia said:


> You had children so they could love cherries?




Cherries are pretty awesome, but I had children specifically so they could love mangoes.


----------



## Riddick (6 November 2009)

Julia said:


> You had children so they could love cherries?




Maybe he comes from a long line of cherry farmers? And you have to admit that cherries are pretty good.

But seriously having kids because you have something to look after? you have to look after dogs, potted plants, caged birds and so forth, and none of the aforementioned consume you time and cash like human offspring. Not that I'm making a value judgement mind you, just seemed like a strnage comment to make, thats all...


----------



## Jackman (6 November 2009)

Julia said:


> You had children so they could love cherries?




Thanks for the pickup Julia 


Jack


----------



## bassmanpete (6 November 2009)

> "Do you want to bare children and Why"




This would be a course for paedophiles I take it? I think you mean bear.


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 November 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> This would be a course for paedophiles I take it? I think you mean bear.



I hope you don't seriously have those thoughts in your head.


----------



## bassmanpete (6 November 2009)

> I hope you don't seriously have those thoughts in your head.




Kids have never had an appeal for me, sexually or parentally.


----------



## Riddick (6 November 2009)

Funny little comparison. One graph courtesy of BBC, the other from Microbacterial textbook.

One shows human population growth, the other shows bacterial growth rate of E - Coli on a linear time scale.


----------



## Jackman (6 November 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> This would be a course for paedophiles I take it? I think you mean bear.




Well you know how to drag a thread down don’t you **** wit.  Some people on this site are name droppers and pompous ass wipes, but you take the cake.

Go and pull other peoples chains son

Jack


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> Funny little comparison. One graph courtesy of BBC, the other from Microbacterial textbook.
> 
> One shows human population growth, the other shows bacterial growth rate of E - Coli on a linear time scale.



That population growth chart sure is a gobsmack for anyone promoting Genesis 1.


> And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."


----------



## bassmanpete (7 November 2009)

> Well you know how to drag a thread down don’t you **** wit. Some people on this site are name droppers and pompous ass wipes, but you take the cake.
> 
> Go and pull other peoples chains son




My comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek, if you can't recognise that then that's your problem. I do object to being called inappropriate names and I suggest you read the following thread before making further responses:

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17815


----------



## bassmanpete (7 November 2009)

Having thought about my last post, I'll change the first sentence to:

My comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek, if you can't recognise that then I apologise for not making it perfectly clear.

The rest I'll leave as is.


----------



## Riddick (22 November 2009)

I am so angry. I am a senior employee at my firm. My firm employs about 600 people. I choose not to have kids and I am penalised financially by not being able to access paid family leave. If the average number of kids per family in Australia is just shy of two, then I should be allowed to access either the time and money or simply be paid the money in line with other employees who use the time to actually breed, for this number of kids. Then I wouldn't be forced to whinge about the discriminatory nature of paid family leave.
Damn I am upset tonight.


----------



## cutz (22 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> I am so angry. I am a senior employee at my firm. My firm employs about 600 people. I choose not to have kids and I am penalised financially by not being able to access paid family leave. If the average number of kids per family in Australia is just shy of two, then I should be allowed to access either the time and money or simply be paid the money in line with other employees who use the time to actually breed, for this number of kids. Then I wouldn't be forced to whinge about the discriminatory nature of paid family leave.
> Damn I am upset tonight.




So sorry to hear that bro,

So you're out of pocket 2 weeks wages, why don't you take two weeks sick and call it even.


----------



## Happy (22 November 2009)

Funy that we can recognise the need to cull camels, brumbies, wallabies and cannot see the need to at least curb the population explosion.

China's one child policy should be compulsory in quite a few countries, for a while should apply in Australia too, especially with 900,000 a year intake from abroad in all sort of forms: students who almost always manage to stay after completion of course other legal immigrants and illegals.


----------



## Riddick (22 November 2009)

cutz said:


> So sorry to hear that bro,
> 
> So you're out of pocket 2 weeks wages, why don't you take two weeks sick and call it even.




Unfortunately we have 6 weeks paid parental leave per child and a three week lump sum upon return to work policy. My allowance for two children would be essentially 12 weeks and 2 x 3 week lump sums or essentially 18 weeks pay. This would work out to about 20 grand. See now why I am angry?


----------



## gooner (22 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> I am so angry. I am a senior employee at my firm. My firm employs about 600 people. I choose not to have kids and I am penalised financially by not being able to access paid family leave. If the average number of kids per family in Australia is just shy of two, then I should be allowed to access either the time and money or simply be paid the money in line with other employees who use the time to actually breed, for this number of kids. Then I wouldn't be forced to whinge about the discriminatory nature of paid family leave.
> Damn I am upset tonight.




Yo! Take a chill pill 

Parental leave is for people with children. How is that discriminatory? Throw away the condom/pill whatever and voila, 9 months later, you too can have parental leave. It's like sick leave. Is that discriminatory because I don't get sick? Of course not. 

Having kids is hard work - employers want to attract and retain employees with children, given they are a large part of the workforce.

Disclosure: Three kids, 4,2, and 0


----------



## Julia (22 November 2009)

Gooner, that's a bit unfair of you.  I reckon Riddick has a good reason to feel aggrieved.

Riddick, it sounds as though this is your firm's individual policy.  What has been suggested (and I'm not sure where it's at in the legislative process) is a taxpayer funded maternity/paternity scheme of I think 18 weeks, in which the company pays the employee taking leave and also pays the replacement employee plus super for them, and then claims this back from the government.
You'd think this is somewhat of an imposition on the company's cashflow perhaps.


Then let's add to that the taxpayer subsidised child care, and the ongoing family payments via Centrelink, and people without children are sure as hell mightily subsidising those who choose to procreate.

Various ways of looking at it, I suppose.  If the offspring grow up to be taxpayers, then they are assisting in providing the tax base for retirees.

I'd prefer a system whereby those who choose to have children pay for them, and we all fund our own retirements.  However, nothing would ever be that simple.


----------



## gooner (22 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Gooner, that's a bit unfair of you.  I reckon Riddick has a good reason to feel aggrieved.
> 
> Riddick, it sounds as though this is your firm's individual policy.  What has been suggested (and I'm not sure where it's at in the legislative process) is a taxpayer funded maternity/paternity scheme of I think 18 weeks, in which the company pays the employee taking leave and also pays the replacement employee plus super for them, and then claims this back from the government.
> You'd think this is somewhat of an imposition on the company's cashflow perhaps.
> ...




Julia,

If everyone followed Riddick's lead, then there would not be any children. And then it does not matter how many millions you have in your superannuation plan, you will not be able to retire. Because there will not be anyone to make your food, to fix your bad health, to sell you petrol..........  So arguably, the money given to families with children ensures that there will be people around to nurse Riddick when he can no longer look after himself.

Also, given this is Riddick's employer's decision to pay parental leave, it is really a matter for that company's shareholders. They probably consider it worthwhile to pay it to get the staff (who have been trained by the company) to return after having children.


----------



## Riddick (22 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Gooner, that's a bit unfair of you.  I reckon Riddick has a good reason to feel aggrieved.
> 
> Riddick, it sounds as though this is your firm's individual policy.  What has been suggested (and I'm not sure where it's at in the legislative process) is a taxpayer funded maternity/paternity scheme of I think 18 weeks, in which the company pays the employee taking leave and also pays the replacement employee plus super for them, and then claims this back from the government.
> You'd think this is somewhat of an imposition on the company's cashflow perhaps.
> ...




Thanks Julia.

I'm not down on people with kids and I certaily do not believe for one moment it is easy to raise kids, however... I fit into almost the most taxed and least benefitted section of society, the middle class double income non breeder. Now I don't mind working - I enjoy my jobs but seemeingly, even though I am a good social contributor, with my own chunk of investment dollars and will definitely be self funded when I retire in 35 years, It just smacks of inequality that institutionalised descrimination is so ingrained in our social system. you cannot by law discriminate against someone for religion, sexual orientation, marital staus, sex etc, but the government is quite happy to discriminate against a sector of its own population and there seems to be no avenue for recourse. 
Why then do governments feel the need to subsidise almost every stage of child rearing, give parents special rights that non breeders cannot access. Should we not be encouraging people who can afford to have kids and discouraging those who cannot afford them? 
If you break it down in tot he old needs and wants arguement, then it is clear that children are no longer needs. ie if you don't have them you won't die. They quite clearly fit in to the want category. 
I want another boat and another 30 days mountaineering tacked onto my 15 days at the end of the year, but unlike having children there is no subsidy program available for me.
I'm sure to hear howls of protest from people with kids and the usual arguements about population shrinking etc, none of which hold water. A quick look at standard of living will demonstrate in Australia and the US, standard of living is highest when the population is stagnant, not growing.


----------



## Julia (22 November 2009)

gooner said:


> Julia,
> 
> If everyone followed Riddick's lead, then there would not be any children. And then it does not matter how many millions you have in your superannuation plan, you will not be able to retire. Because there will not be anyone to make your food, to fix your bad health, to sell you petrol..........  So arguably, the money given to families with children ensures that there will be people around to nurse Riddick when he can no longer look after himself.



Now, gooner, you know quite well that will never happen.  People will always want to have children.  
There is a valid argument for admitting more skilled migrants to Australia to do all the things you list above.  That way we would not be adding to the global over-population problem.

I seem to recall in the days long before there were taxpayer funded subsidies for having children and seeing them through their first sixteen years, people still had children as they could afford them, and old people still retired on government pensions.  So I wonder what is so different today that we are obliged to pay people to procreate?



> Also, given this is Riddick's employer's decision to pay parental leave, it is really a matter for that company's shareholders. They probably consider it worthwhile to pay it to get the staff (who have been trained by the company) to return after having children.



That's a good point, and makes some sense.  If it's confined to being a policy decided by individual companies then I have no argument with it, but I do have an argument with tax payer funded maternity leave on top of all the family payments, baby bonus etc.


----------



## jbocker (23 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> Unfortunately we have 6 weeks paid parental leave per child and a three week lump sum upon return to work policy. My allowance for two children would be essentially 12 weeks and 2 x 3 week lump sums or essentially 18 weeks pay. This would work out to about 20 grand. See now why I am angry?




Had three kids and no paid leave for me. Should I be angry too? 
To all who read this, if having kids was about the money or having paid leave then dont PLEASE dont breed.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> *Why then do governments feel the need to subsidise almost every stage of child rearing*, give parents special rights that non breeders cannot access. Should we not be encouraging people who can afford to have kids and discouraging those who cannot afford them?



I do agree on this point. The employer requires the employee to be at work within a predetermined time and to perform the required duties in return for money. What people do outside work hours is their business and should not involve either party. Law demanding an employer pay for an employee's reproduction phase is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## gooner (24 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Snip
> 
> I seem to recall in the days long before there were taxpayer funded subsidies for having children and seeing them through their first sixteen years, people still had children as they could afford them, and old people still retired on government pensions.  So I wonder what is so different today that we are obliged to pay people to procreate?
> 
> Snip




Subsidies have been around for a long time.  Found the history below at 

http://www.womensactionalliance.com.au/taxation.html.

So effectively Riddick and others without children have benefited by getting education and cash when they were young, but now wish to deny it to others.

Until 1941, assistance to families in Australia was provided solely through a system of tax deductions. Then, in 1941, Child Endowment was introduced, the first cash payment direct to the primary carer. It operated with the assistance available through the tax system, which through the 1950’s and 60’s included deductions for such things as medical, dental, chemist bills, health and life insurance, home and water rates and educational expenses.

 In 1976, Child Endowment and all tax concessions for children were replaced with a single payment direct to the primary carer, Family Allowance. Family Allowance was not means tested or indexed. This led to substantial erosion during a period of high inflation. At about the same time the Dependent Spouse Rebate replaced all previous deductions for spouses.

In 1983, the Family Income Supplement was introduced. This was an income-tested per child payment made to low-income families.  The increasing emphasis on low-income families over these years, coupled with the fact that Family Allowance was now worth very little in real terms, led to the means testing of Family Allowance in 1987. This was the end of any form of universal assistance to families for children in Australia.

In 1994, the Dependent Spouse Rebate was replaced by the Home Child Care Allowance, a payment made directly to a non-earning spouse. Also during the 1990’s, indexation of all family payments was introduced.

In 1997, the Howard Government returned to the concept of family assistance provided through the tax system, with the introduction of Family Tax Payment (Part A) for children, and (Part B), for a non-earning spouse, and Family Tax Assistance (Parts A and B) for low-income families. These payments could be taken either as direct payments, or as tax rebates.


----------



## Julia (24 November 2009)

Thanks for that, gooner.

It would be interesting to know how much used to be paid in total in previous generations, say as a percentage of the average wage, compared to today.

And now we pay $5000 baby bonus, plus subsidise child care, and soon will be paying maternity leave.

It's these latter that I was referring to.


----------



## awg (24 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> Thanks Julia.
> 
> I'm not down on people with kids and I certaily do not believe for one moment it is easy to raise kids, however... I fit into almost the most taxed and least benefitted section of society, the middle class double income non breeder. Now I don't mind working - I enjoy my jobs but seemeingly, even though I am a good social contributor, with my own chunk of investment dollars and will definitely be self funded when I retire in 35 years, It just smacks of inequality that institutionalised descrimination is so ingrained in our social system. you cannot by law discriminate against someone for religion, sexual orientation, marital staus, sex etc, but the government is quite happy to discriminate against a sector of its own population and there seems to be no avenue for recourse.
> Why then do governments feel the need to subsidise almost every stage of child rearing, give parents special rights that non breeders cannot access. Should we not be encouraging people who can afford to have kids and discouraging those who cannot afford them?
> ...





No howls of protest, more laughter

Here is a REDHOT tip for free, as you are the OP.

You will be miles ahead financially if you dont have kids, hundreds of thousands per kid!

I think I understand the logic of your feelings however, know one likes subsidising others

Was taking the p!ss out of someone recently, thanking them for subsidising me, they are single, no kids, earn too much for Kevs $900, wound them right up about welfare mothers in shopping malls etc tehehe.

As to maternity leave, a hard fought issue for women and mothers.

If I was an employer, I would not want to pay it though

All part of the democratic system..Paradise, as one fellow poster commonly reminds us,

so dont waste time being mad, enjoy the pleasures your situation allows, such as travel and other financial and lifestyle benefits,

in case you have an "accident", or change your mind, which definitely occurs, I have seen some staunchly anti-breeding people change their minds.

ps. I once worked with a very smart guy, a financial advisor.

He was going thru divorce, and remarked to me "each kid is an investment property"..as a callow youth, even I was a bit shocked at this, however, having now had a few of both, I think he slightly underestimated, ie that is each kid is more expensive than acquiring a rental property


----------



## Tink (26 November 2009)

There you go, look at all the money you save.

THE cost of raising children has hit the $1 million mark as parents fork out for expensive toys, lessons and technology, research suggests. 

Social researcher Mark McCrindle said the Federal Government's estimate of $384,543 to raise a child to 18 was wrong.

Adding the cost of electronics, private tutoring and sports and dance classes, and considering the average child now stayed at home until 24, the real cost to the Australian parent of raising children was $1,028, 093, he said.


----------



## Nyden (26 November 2009)

Tink said:


> There you go, look at all the money you save.
> 
> THE cost of raising children has hit the $1 million mark as parents fork out for expensive toys, lessons and technology, research suggests.
> 
> ...




I think most people have already known that original estimate to be wrong, for quite a while, actually. 

That's just horrible, and to think - by not having children, I could own a really nice boat. Snip-snip, here I come.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2009)

Tink said:


> There you go, look at all the money you save.
> 
> THE cost of raising children has hit the $1 million mark as parents fork out for expensive toys, lessons and technology, research suggests.
> 
> ...



Surely Mr McCrindle can't be suggesting that young adults who live at home until they are 24 are not financially self supporting?
If the parents are still supporting them at that age, it's their own fault.
Not doing any child a favour by encouraging such dependence.


----------



## Happy (26 November 2009)

Children 24 yo at parent's home even if contribute to cost of living don't spend as much as they would have to when living on their own. 

Effectively it is as if they earn more.


----------



## Riddick (26 November 2009)

Tink said:


> There you go, look at all the money you save.
> 
> THE cost of raising children has hit the $1 million mark as parents fork out for expensive toys, lessons and technology, research suggests.
> 
> ...




A private school in melbourne I am associated with, in the top eschelon of private schools in the country charges about 17k per year for high school years 7 - 12. This is basic tuition only. Everything else, sport, laptop, uniforms, excursions etc are extra. Conservatively 20k a year would be the figure I would put on it. Thats 120k+ solely for a very small part of the child's development. I think the $1million for a child up the age of 24 is conservative if you choose private education for your child. That a pile of dollars. 

Maybe it would be more effective to invest that 1mil, then spend in on cleaners and carers in your old age rather than the supposed benefits children bring you when you are old. Like choosing the best nusing home for you so the greedly blighters can divide up your life savings....


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 November 2009)

An example of poor human breeding choice has manifested in the residence next to me. The occupants moved in 3 weeks ago and I couldn't help but notice they have a recently born child. What also came to my attention is the father has a persistent phlegm issue (cough, cough spit) and you wouldn't guess where that comes from. Yes a smoker. Now the lil' tacker has to breathe the smoke, smell the stench and listen to the coughing. 

To breed or not to breed? Some people just can't handle their own lives let alone be responsible for helpless offspring.


----------



## Tink (28 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> A private school in melbourne I am associated with, in the top eschelon of private schools in the country charges about 17k per year for high school years 7 - 12. This is basic tuition only. Everything else, sport, laptop, uniforms, excursions etc are extra. Conservatively 20k a year would be the figure I would put on it. Thats 120k+ solely for a very small part of the child's development. I think the $1million for a child up the age of 24 is conservative if you choose private education for your child. That a pile of dollars.
> 
> Maybe it would be more effective to invest that 1mil, then spend in on cleaners and carers in your old age rather than the supposed benefits children bring you when you are old. Like choosing the best nusing home for you so the greedly blighters can divide up your life savings....




LOL Riddick, I wouldnt trade my kids in for the world, no matter how much money they cost.

Some things in life just dont have a money value


----------



## inenigma (28 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> Thanks Julia.
> 
> I'm not down on people with kids and I certaily do not believe for one moment it is easy to raise kids, however... I fit into almost the most taxed and least benefitted section of society, the middle class double income non breeder. Now I don't mind working - I enjoy my jobs but seemeingly, even though I am a good social contributor, with my own chunk of investment dollars and will definitely be self funded when I retire in 35 years, It just smacks of inequality that institutionalised descrimination is so ingrained in our social system. you cannot by law discriminate against someone for religion, sexual orientation, marital staus, sex etc, but the government is quite happy to discriminate against a sector of its own population and there seems to be no avenue for recourse.
> Why then do governments feel the need to subsidise almost every stage of child rearing, give parents special rights that non breeders cannot access. Should we not be encouraging people who can afford to have kids and discouraging those who cannot afford them?
> ...




Sounds to me like someone hasn't got anything better to whinge about....  Are you from the United Kingdom ??


----------



## inenigma (28 November 2009)

Nyden said:


> Snip-snip, here I come.




Unfortunately, I had had the snip.....  My wife (she was my GF back then) subsequently got preggers...  I was quite sus about the whole thing, but, there's no denying now that my daughter IS my daughter as she is the spitting image of me (poor child).  I didn't want children.  I had been snipped.  I have a daughter.....     You don't hear me whinging about it.  I think some people have way too much time on their hands....


----------



## inenigma (28 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Surely Mr McCrindle can't be suggesting that young adults who live at home until they are 24 are not financially self supporting?
> If the parents are still supporting them at that age, it's their own fault.
> Not doing any child a favour by encouraging such dependence.




There's a 31 YO bloke where I work who has moved back in with his parents.  Personally, I have no respect for him.  It's the parents fault for allowing him to move back in, but, it's his fault for staying so long...


----------



## nulla nulla (28 November 2009)

It is not uncommon with some ethnic groups for the children to stay at home long after they become financially independent. They pay board and save, which is cheaper than moving out renting, paying for electricity gas water food etc. 
Their savings are often channeled into a unit or a house which they rent out until such time as they marry and want the premises for their own family.

Not everyone kicks their kids out as soon as they finish school and are no longer a valid dependent for tax purposes.


----------



## Happy (29 November 2009)

inenigma said:


> *There's a 31 YO bloke where I work who has moved back in with his parents.*  Personally, I have no respect for him.  It's the parents fault for allowing him to move back in, but, it's his fault for staying so long...





But what a great saver!
Saving on Council fees, cost of rent of mortgage payments.
(also pay for 1 electric and gas meter)

This is real winner and help at hand either way parents can help son and son can look after parents.
While back it was OK for 3 or even 4 generations to share the same place in harmony. 

Now everybody has to have own McMansion.

Honestly, have my second thoughts on families living together.
Why pay more?


----------



## Riddick (30 November 2009)

Happy said:


> But what a great saver!
> Saving on Council fees, cost of rent of mortgage payments.
> (also pay for 1 electric and gas meter)
> 
> ...




How about the social ineptitude older dependants gain by still living under the same roof as their parents? How about the lack of accountability they develop? How about the drain on their parents resources. I understand, in times gone by, it was normal for many generations to live under one roof and mutually support one another etc, but the mind set of stay at home kids and parents differs greatly these days from what it traditionally was.
Many parents try and be 'friends' with their children and hang out etc. Many parents still wash up and clean up after their children. Parents, at times, don't charge enough for rent and bills and as a result the child (adult) doesn't get a clear and realistic idea of what it is like to be self supported. The first sniff of hardship they get mum and dad to bail them out.
I understand this is anecdotal evidence and that individual cases may vary.
Unfortunately it is hardship that often breeds character, exposure to "doing it tough" that breeds positive financial/resource management, that inspires attainment, that produces capable individuals. Capable individuals are not created by sheltering, hand holding and molycoddling.

Stand on your own two feet, don't lean on the backs of others I say...


----------



## kenny (30 November 2009)

Going a little back to the original topic, I think the Govt chooses to "subsidise" raising children with their eyes fixed on the big picture rather than just easy pandering to a specific voting demographic.

I'm guessing Australia was in need of a boost to its birth rate to maintain viability to its population and in particular to it's working population. The trend towards ageing populations in all the developing nations is quite of concern. The foremost govt concern would be the shrinking tax base and burgeoning number of recipients for welfare and govt support. As the proportion of the population retired and placing increasing burden on public services such as healthcare increases there will be a growing need to spend tax revenue. If this is coupled with a shrinking number of workers/tax payers; then its not hard to see what will happen in a generation or two.

In light of this sort of scenarios, I would think the Govt would consider a few thousand dollar incentives to be a small investment for the long term to create more taxpayers.



Kenny


----------



## gav (30 November 2009)

kenny said:


> In light of this sort of scenarios, I would think the Govt would consider a few thousand dollar incentives to be a small investment for the long term to create more taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> Kenny




Are people who use the $$$ incentives as part of a reason for having a child going to raise hardworking tax payers??  Personally I doubt it.


----------



## nulla nulla (30 November 2009)

kenny said:


> Going a little back to the original topic, I think the Govt chooses to "subsidise" raising children with their eyes fixed on the big picture rather than just easy pandering to a specific voting demographic.
> 
> I'm guessing Australia was in need of a boost to its birth rate to maintain viability to its population and in particular to it's working population. The trend towards ageing populations in all the developing nations is quite of concern. The foremost govt concern would be the shrinking tax base and burgeoning number of recipients for welfare and govt support. As the proportion of the population retired and placing increasing burden on public services such as healthcare increases there will be a growing need to spend tax revenue. If this is coupled with a shrinking number of workers/tax payers; then its not hard to see what will happen in a generation or two.
> 
> ...




The hang-over from the "Populate or Perish" policy. Single income families where the father subscibed to the 6 0'clock swill syndrome were given a "child endowment" cheque which went to the mother to ensure that the kids got fed. Tuff luck to the kids if she liked a drink as well


----------



## Happy (30 November 2009)

nulla nulla said:


> The hang-over from the "Populate or Perish" policy. ...




Some say now: > Populate and Perish <  in view of current immigrant and population policy


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 December 2009)

Riddick said:


> How about the social ineptitude older dependants gain by still living under the same roof as their parents? How about the lack of accountability they develop?



How about some evidence this is the result of living with parents longer? It may very well promote more responsible and 'mature' thoughts and actions from an individual.

I think maturity, and what constitutes maturity, is an aspect overlooked when it comes to breeding. In comparison to animals, humans for some reason take a long time to mature.

Mature as in behaving responsibly, conscientiously and respectfully toward the newborn and toward society and the environment in general. 

Under 20 years of life the human being generally exhibits immaturity. Obviously this is a phase of life BUT the immaturity can have more lasting and negative repercussions for society and the environment as a whole.

There has been a noticeable shift away from young couples producing children and this can only be better, not only for the couples but for the newborn, society and the environment as a whole.


----------



## Julia (13 December 2009)

Wysiwyg, your point about the positive aspects of maturity before reproducing is a good one.

However, don't you think this maturity is going to be somewhat delayed when young people remain in the family nest, thus not being required to plan for themselves, organise their responsibilities etc?

Age in years is one thing, but experience has to be added in before a person can reasonably be mature.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Age in years is one thing, but experience has to be added in before a person can reasonably be mature.



All fine if their experiences don't involve destroying other peoples property, hurting other people, badly raised children, dysfunctional relationships, destroying the environment or in the worst case, destroying themselves.

As I noted, "obviously this is a phase of life" so during this phase which is age related, a youth could be spared the consequences of their own immature actions by remaining in an environment with less negative influences.

Can't put an old head on young shoulders is a timeless saying.


----------

