To breed, or not to breed?

[overit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Harleyquin]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[gooner]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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.