To breed, or not to breed?

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So your initial statement 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.

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.

That is the natural thing to do.

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

Perfick.

gg

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?

To breed, or not to breed?

Mr J

Riddick

tasmart

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Riddick

Julia

In Memoriam

Gordon Gekko

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

alphaman

Riddick

moXJO

menace to society

ROE

Mr J

spooly74

josh82

Mr J

Julia

In Memoriam

nulla nulla

Positive Expectancy

stu192

Kipp

Lord of the Ledgers

Similar threads

To breed, or not to breed?

Ross Island Hotel

In Memoriam

Everyone wants money

menace to society

In Memoriam

Positive Expectancy

Lord of the Ledgers

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency