Bringing children into this world

[Robert]

I hope you good people are planning to procreate, but I wonder why you would want to subject your offspring to either: a) the horrors of what you call wage slavery, or alternatively; b) the horrors of a genuine revolution.

I favor a steady, if slowing, stream of human replacement to keep this world turning on its current axis. We're overpopulated, but precipitous reductions in birth rate can be catastrophic for an economy. http://www.frontiereconomy.com/2009/04/dying-in-russia/

Is this question a no-brainer for you? Which way? If you're debating the subject with yourself, how do political or economic considerations affect the debate?

If this is too personal a question, I apologize and ask that you answer impersonally: is having children a laudable idea in these interesting times? For whom?

[yuon]

I object (but not to the point of being willing to use force, merely philosophically) to people having children at the moment. I believe that a) there are too many people for the current system anyway, and b) that there are plenty of children without parents who need some.

So, I think, if you want a child, you should head on down to the adoption agency and see what they say.

(Of course, the current system generally makes it quite difficult and even expensive to adopt. This results in kids not having families, and families who otherwise would have adopted, having children anyway. I certainly understand why it is important to make sure that the family adopting a child is suitable. However, considering that there is no test to to have a child the "traditional" way, it's a bit stupid.)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I do not plan to procreate, because I think the current population of the world is too great and it would do us good if we could reduce the birth rate down to the replacement level (or even lower for a while, so we can eventually achieve a stable population at, say, 3 or 4 billion).

[Plagueround]

I have a son. My thoughts on parenting have been discussed a few times on this site. We'd like to have another child, but we're not sure if that's feasible for us economically. Although I may sound ridiculous by saying this, most right wingers don't seem to share this fear of overpopulation or that having kids is irresponsible, and are more than happy to pass on their ideas to their children, so the idea that leftists are doing some sort of harm by having and/or raising children strikes me as odd. Not that I go around all day preaching violent revolution to my son, but certain ideas need to be passed on to the next generation.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That is a fair point, but I always imagined that parenting would take up so much time that it would leave me unable to do anything political, so, at least from the point of view of passing on communist ideas, the costs would cancel out the benefits.

[Havet]

I hope you good people are planning to procreate, but I wonder why you would want to subject your offspring to either: a) the horrors of what you call wage slavery, or alternatively; b) the horrors of a genuine revolution.

I favor a steady, if slowing, stream of human replacement to keep this world turning on its current axis. We're overpopulated, but precipitous reductions in birth rate can be catastrophic for an economy. http://www.frontiereconomy.com/2009/04/dying-in-russia/

Is this question a no-brainer for you? Which way? If you're debating the subject with yourself, how do political or economic considerations affect the debate?

If this is too personal a question, I apologize and ask that you answer impersonally: is having children a laudable idea in these interesting times? For whom?

I'm not planning to procreate. There too many orphans out there who need a family, and I don't have any illusions about wanting to "pass my genes" or "continue my family name" or "preserve my race".

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I don't want to change nappies.

End of.

[yuon]

Although I may sound ridiculous by saying this, most right wingers don't seem to share this fear of overpopulation or that having kids is irresponsible, and are more than happy to pass on their ideas to their children, so the idea that leftists are doing some sort of harm by having and/or raising children strikes me as odd. Not that I go around all day preaching violent revolution to my son, but certain ideas need to be passed on to the next generation.

I'm of the opinion that while parents are important in the area of passing on ideas to kids, it is certainly not the only area.

I know left-wingers with right-wing parents, as well as right-wingers with left-wing parents. Peers, society generally, and even websites like this, can have much more of an impact than parents.

Of course, it isn't always the case, but hey.

[Robert]

I don't want to change nappies.

End of.

Hey Joe, when I was about 8 years old, I had to baby sit my baby brother. All day. At one point, for reasons I'll let you deduce, I went into the kitchen to get a thick cotton towel and a clothespin. I wrapped the towel around my face very very snugly, leaving the tiniest crack for vision, but the nose completely covered. I secured the towel with a clothespin.

I was ready.

You probably want to know what happened next, but I'm not going to tell you.

Now ... would someone please restore this thread to its original lofty plane?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I hope you good people are planning to procreate,

Why?


I favor a steady, if slowing, stream of human replacement to keep this world turning on its current axis. We're overpopulated,

Really? I think we have the resources to maintain tolerable quality of life (at the very least) for the world's population, but the capitalist price system is utterly inadequate for the task.


but precipitous reductions in birth rate can be catastrophic for an economy. http://www.frontiereconomy.com/2009/04/dying-in-russia/

That's because capitalism is predicated on never-ending "growth" which is an absurdity for a planet-bound civilisation with no space travel capability worth mentioning.


Is this question a no-brainer for you? Which way? If you're debating the subject with yourself, how do political or economic considerations affect the debate?

If through chance or fortune I end up with children, I'll do the best I can for them. But I'm not actively seeking to have kids - I feel that I would make a greater contribution to humanity by getting a career in an area of work I'm genuinely interested in.


If this is too personal a question, I apologize and ask that you answer impersonally: is having children a laudable idea in these interesting times? For whom?

My advice would be to adopt a child if you can - giving a child a good home strikes me as less selfish and more beneficial to society than some quite frankly bizarre attempt to "continue the bloodline" or whatever.

[Pirate Utopian]

If people wanna have kids that's fine.
I dont want any kids myself.

[danyboy27]

i might adopt a less fortunate child one day.

has someone else pointed out, there is so much orphan in this world.

if i can do something to stop one of these childs to fall into criminality.

[Robert]

some quite frankly bizarre attempt to "continue the bloodline" or whatever.

I think someone on another thread wondered about Revleft's obsession with Stormfront.

I wonder about that, too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think someone on another thread wondered about Revleft's obsession with Stormfront.

I wonder about that, too.

Could you elaborate? I'm not getting the relevance to what I said, at least not directly.

[Robert]

I don't want to derail the thread or argue, but I expressed a hope in the OP that you, like everybody else here who works for a living, would have children. The only people whom I think should not are those who are manifestly unable to provide basic support for them or who are virtually certain to pass on crippling defects or diseases.

This triggered a response suggesting that a possible reason for such a hope was a "bizarre attempt to 'continue the bloodline.' " This sounds to me like a parody of a call for racial purity. Only Nazi/Stormfronters to my knowledge call for that sort of thing, and so I assumed you picked up the notion from there or some similar place.

Human life is either worth perpetuating or it isn't. If it is, have children. I find most of you folks thoughtful and intelligent, and I believe your intelligence can be transferred to your offspring. I hope some of your attitudes and opinions are not transferred. (See final sentence below.)

We could, as some suggest, just let other people breed, and then adopt their offspring, but this isn't a good idea. Adopted kids often if not always grow up wondering, fretting about who their "real" parents are, no matter how much love the adoptive parents bestow. They are also troubled as to why their bio parents didn't want to keep them.

I also hope your kids are very rebellious. ;)

[Havet]

nd I believe your intelligence can be transferred to your offspring. I hope some of your attitudes and opinions are not transferred. (See final sentence below.)



Intelligence is not genetic

So having a kid or adopting it, if the father is smart and TEACHES the kid many things, then that kid will become intelligent (or if the kid learns on his own).

[willdw79]

I will never let society destroy my essential human nature.

When the system has you posing questions like this that are in direct conflict with your humanity, I believe it is time to organize. How sick is a society when it discourages humans from pursuing their most innate desires?

I am not saying we should all have lots of kids. But what I am saying is that if people want to have kids it is unfortunate [to the highest degree] that society stops them. It goes against human nature and I believe to accept this idea is to accept alienation.

[danyboy27]

We could, as some suggest, just let other people breed, and then adopt their offspring, but this isn't a good idea. Adopted kids often if not always grow up wondering, fretting about who their "real" parents are, no matter how much love the adoptive parents bestow. They are also troubled as to why their bio parents didn't want to keep them.

I also hope your kids are very rebellious. ;)

when you adopt a kid, you basicly help society. orphan children often end up in orphanage or other state owned facilities, who serve shelter for both orphan and children with correctional problem. 99% of the time the child raised in that environnement will become a crimminal beccause he is surrounded by messed up kid who had tough lifes, what goes around stay around.

if you adopt a kid, you arwe getting rid of a crimminal. this goes beyond this perpetual questionning about their genetical pattern.

[Robert]

I'm not against adoption. It's great. I just don't think it should be the default position.


Intelligence is not geneticSure about that?

In a study published recently in the Journal of Neuroscience, UCLA neurology professor Paul Thompson and colleagues used a new type of brain-imaging scanner to show that intelligence is strongly influenced by the quality of the brain's axons, or wiring that sends signals throughout the brain. The faster the signaling, the faster the brain processes information. And since the integrity of the brain's wiring is influenced by genes, the genes we inherit play a far greater role in intelligence than was previously thought.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317142841.htm

http://www.brainskills.co.uk/IsIntelligenceInherited.html

http://missbakersbiologyclass.com/blog/2007/12/12/is-intelligence-inherited/

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/12/us/study-raises-the-estimate-of-inherited-intelligence.html?sec=health

I know there are always critiques of scientific studies, but come on ....

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Hey Joe, when I was about 8 years old, I had to baby sit my baby brother. All day. At one point, for reasons I'll let you deduce, I went into the kitchen to get a thick cotton towel and a clothespin. I wrapped the towel around my face very very snugly, leaving the tiniest crack for vision, but the nose completely covered. I secured the towel with a clothespin.

I was ready.

You probably want to know what happened next, but I'm not going to tell you.

Now ... would someone please restore this thread to its original lofty plane?

My brother likes to just remove his nappy the moment he's done the deed. Then he runs round the flat and garden to attempt to escape from the inevitable grasp of disposable huggies.

[Havet]

I'm not against adoption. It's great. I just don't think it should be the default position.

Sure about that?

In a study published recently in the Journal of Neuroscience, UCLA neurology professor Paul Thompson and colleagues used a new type of brain-imaging scanner to show that intelligence is strongly influenced by the quality of the brain's axons, or wiring that sends signals throughout the brain. The faster the signaling, the faster the brain processes information. And since the integrity of the brain's wiring is influenced by genes, the genes we inherit play a far greater role in intelligence than was previously thought.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317142841.htm

http://www.brainskills.co.uk/IsIntelligenceInherited.html

http://missbakersbiologyclass.com/blog/2007/12/12/is-intelligence-inherited/

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/12/us/study-raises-the-estimate-of-inherited-intelligence.html?sec=health

I know there are always critiques of scientific studies, but come on ....

I've read some of those links, and it looks like sometimes they are addressing the speed in which information is processed rather than intelligence.

because if the science on those articles is OK, then how can we humans be more intelligent than we were 20,000 years ago if our intelligence is inherited? Are new discoveries merely mutations of the ability to achieve past levels of intelligence?

I'm confused now lol. Thanks for posting those links though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't want to derail the thread or argue,

I promise to be nice.


but I expressed a hope in the OP that you, like everybody else here who works for a living, would have children. The only people whom I think should not are those who are manifestly unable to provide basic support for them or who are virtually certain to pass on crippling defects or diseases.

Well, at the moment I can just about support myself if I'm careful. But if that were to change, why do you think I should have children?


This triggered a response suggesting that a possible reason for such a hope was a "bizarre attempt to 'continue the bloodline.' " This sounds to me like a parody of a call for racial purity. Only Nazi/Stormfronters to my knowledge call for that sort of thing, and so I assumed you picked up the notion from there or some similar place.

Well Nazism and its ilk are highly reactionary ideologies, so it's not surprising that that has some hangovers from feudalism lurking within, which is a special case of a more general phenomenon I was thinking of when I wrote that line. Call it continuing one's bloodline, call it carrying on the family name, spreading your genes, whatever - I consider such things to be petty and insignificant compared to giving a child the best parents she never had.


Human life is either worth perpetuating or it isn't. If it is, have children.

What's wrong with someone else's? Does not raising them to the best of one's abilities when their biological parent(s) are unwilling or unable to do the same, also serve to perpeuate the human species?


I find most of you folks thoughtful and intelligent, and I believe your intelligence can be transferred to your offspring. I hope some of your attitudes and opinions are not transferred. (See final sentence below.)

One doesn't need to be the next Einstein to be a critical and rational thinker. People call me intelligent because I can talk the hind legs off a donkey about what are considered "brainy" subjects, but I personally suspect that I'm not that much if any more "intelligent" in terms of raw thinking power or imaginative capability (read some of my old attempts (http://www.omniverseone.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=30) at science fiction worldbuilding and cringe) than the average person. What I do think makes me seem more "intelligent" are the habits of critical thinking I've developed (and am still developing) over time, as well as a willingness to admit that I was wrong, to myself if not always to other people.

In short, you're born with intelligence, but critical thinking has to be taught. There's a definate shortage of the latter.


We could, as some suggest, just let other people breed, and then adopt their offspring, but this isn't a good idea. Adopted kids often if not always grow up wondering, fretting about who their "real" parents are, no matter how much love the adoptive parents bestow. They are also troubled as to why their bio parents didn't want to keep them.

I think you're overstating the problem.


I also hope your kids are very rebellious. ;)

Not bloody likely, if I follow my mother's example. I generally find that youthful rebelliousness, while frequently expressed in an untoward manner, often has a fairly rational basis - especially in controlling, authoritarian families with a thing for loads of pointless, petty little rules. Children in such a situation tend to be seen as robots or imbeciles rather than the developing human beings that they are.

Oh yeah, and mine will be a "no-spank" household.

[Muzk]

I want to procreate! I'm going to raise a full communist!


Would be awesome if raising them the way you want was that easy... :/

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I want to procreate! I'm going to raise a full communist!


:/

Twenty quid says it turns out to be a randroid.

[Muzk]

Twenty quid says it turns out to be a randroid.


I have a feeling that you got a boner right now

[Dr Mindbender]

i already have procreated.

If i raise my child to be a progressive, it will be enormously satisfying, the scales will be tilted against the status quo that little bit.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

i already have procreated.

If i raise my child to be a progressive, it will be enormously satisfying, the scales will be tilted against the status quo that little bit.
And if your child does not turn out to be a political carbon copy of yourself, you won't be satisfied? How does the child feel about that, I wonder?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And if your child does not turn out to be a political carbon copy of yourself, you won't be satisfied? How does the child feel about that, I wonder?

He used a general term ("progressive") not a specific one, so you're being disengenuous with your use of the phrase "political carbon copy".

[Robert]

Well, at the moment I can just about support myself if I'mse se careful. But if that were to change, why do you think I should have children?

If by "change" you mean lose your job, then I would consider that temporary. I am talking about those who are chronically unable to support themselves or the children they already have.


What's wrong with someone else's?

Nothing. What's wrong with your own?


Does not raising them to the best of one's abilities when their biological parent(s) are unwilling or unable to do the same, also serve to perpeuate the human species?

Ye, but I'd rather their own parents be responsible for bringing them into the world. I don't like the idea of creating some adoption mindset that allows people to frivolously reproduce with the expectation that the state will take care of the kids.

[JimmyJazz]

Hey Joe, when I was about 8 years old, I had to baby sit my baby brother. All day. At one point, for reasons I'll let you deduce, I went into the kitchen to get a thick cotton towel and a clothespin. I wrapped the towel around my face very very snugly, leaving the tiniest crack for vision, but the nose completely covered. I secured the towel with a clothespin.

I was ready.

You tried to kill yourself rather than change a diaper? :scared:

[Radical]

Reproduction in todays society is selfish. Thousands of Children die starving to death because nobody in the First World offers them a home. Instead of First World Parents reproducing, they should be adopting children from the third world who cant even afford to fucking eat.

It would nice for everybody to realise and recognise this. However I do not expect Reproduction to ever change in Capitalism because of this. The majority of Capitalists want "their own" babies so they can continue "their bloodline". It's the reality and its fucking sickening .

CHENGE THE WORLD

[Robert]

so they can continue "their bloodline".

There it is again.:lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

And if your child does not turn out to be a political carbon copy of yourself, you won't be satisfied? How does the child feel about that, I wonder?

Typical libertarian metaphysics. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If by "change" you mean lose your job, then I would consider that temporary. I am talking about those who are chronically unable to support themselves or the children they already have.

Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear - I meant if things changed for the better.


Nothing. What's wrong with your own?

Nothing, but there are already kids out there that need a home. By turning down any opportunity to adopt, am I not adding to the sum total of human misery?


Ye, but I'd rather their own parents be responsible for bringing them into the world. I don't like the idea of creating some adoption mindset that allows people to frivolously reproduce with the expectation that the state will take care of the kids.

"Frivously reproduce"? Who would do that and why?

And I dunno about you, but I'd much rather that the state/society take in unwanted babies than have them thrown in a dumpster or left on a stranger's doorstep. Mothers will abandon their babies whatever one does, so we should respond humanely rather than letting the law of the jungle rule.

[Plagueround]

Reproduction in todays society is selfish. Thousands of Children die starving to death because nobody in the First World offers them a home. Instead of First World Parents reproducing, they should be adopting children from the third world who cant even afford to fucking eat.

It would nice for everybody to realise and recognise this. However I do not expect Reproduction to ever change in Capitalism because of this. The majority of Capitalists want "their own" babies so they can continue "their bloodline". It's the reality and its fucking sickening .

CHENGE THE WORLD

How many children have you adopted?

[Plagueround]

That is a fair point, but I always imagined that parenting would take up so much time that it would leave me unable to do anything political, so, at least from the point of view of passing on communist ideas, the costs would cancel out the benefits.

This is true. I do have a child and it definitely influences a lot of my decisions on what I will and won't do. To be fair, my response was not entirely serious, but it should be noted my son and the life changing experience he brought with him is the reason I am a communist today. The perspective that true leftists shouldn't have children is yet another way to make leftism less of the mass movement that appeals to all and more of an exclusive club that is based around making people feel bad for not following some sort of puritanical conception of what constitutes a communist. Fuck anyone who tries to make leftists feel guilty for having kids (not directed at you KH).

*On that note, I should also mention that when I say we want another one, we are considering adoption. Mrs. Plagueround did not have an easy or fun pregnancy, and we do feel that there are quite a few kids out there in need of a home.

[willdw79]

Reproduction in todays society is selfish. Thousands of Children die starving to death because nobody in the First World offers them a home. Instead of First World Parents reproducing, they should be adopting children from the third world who cant even afford to fucking eat.

It would nice for everybody to realise and recognise this. However I do not expect Reproduction to ever change in Capitalism because of this. The majority of Capitalists want "their own" babies so they can continue "their bloodline". It's the reality and its fucking sickening .

CHENGE THE WORLD

Only certain people have access to babies from the "third world". It almost sounds like you are trying to say that if my wife and I have a baby together we are wrong or somehow bourgeois and fixated on continuing our blood line.

Just like I told you on the Tupac thread, I am not trying to down you bro. But what you are suggesting is that working class women should not enjoy possibly the most fantastic part of our existence on this earth.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. What do we have in this life ran by capitalist pigs? Now even people on the left suggest that we should not have kids! How sick are we as a society?

Now we are supposed to give up all of our humanity and follow their rules of population control and procreation, hell no! If capitalism can't feed our kids then we must fight because there IS enough for them, but somebody is taking more than their share. We can't keep rolling over!

[Robert]

I should also mention that when I say we want another one, we are considering adoption

So are many infertile and childless couples. And single women.

[9]

I am only twenty-one, but I've always felt absolutely adamant that I would never have kids, and I've always found the idea of pregnancy and giving birth and being the primary caregiver of another human being absolutely horrifying, needless to say completely undesirable. Oddly, starting when I was probably 19, I began getting this weird, completely uncharacteristic desire to have a child. Its only gotten stronger since then, and it may well be pure physiological mechanics, which seems to be the case. Nonetheless, I would like to have a child. Of course, not in the near future (I figure I have about 18 healthy child-bearing years ahead of me, so no major hurry) for reasons of economic instability and scarcity. Other serious concerns I have are family history of psychological instability and in particular, horrible guilt issues that have been generational and are hugely cultural, which I have, thus far, completely failed to break out of. All of these factors are immensely worrying, and I'm not even in a serious relationship at the present time where having a child would be feasible...
Feh, whenever I really consider the situation, its profoundly stressful. So who knows.. But I do intuitively feel that I will end up with a child.

[Plagueround]

So are many infertile and childless couples. And single women.

Indeed? I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't mean to adopt a child as some sort of badge, I just thought I'd clarify.

[Robert]

I mean that since there are many childless couples and even singles standing in line to adopt, there is no reason that fertile couples should feel guilty about having their own children.

[Kronos]

I mean that since there are many childless couples and even singles standing in line to adopt, there is no reason that fertile couples should feel guilty about having their own children.

It isn't an issue of 'guilt', but the more farsighted thinker, the communists in this case, uphold ideals which are infinitely superior to the individualist ideals typical of the capitalist class.

First, the capitalist parasite infests the relations of production. As a result, a large percent of the working class population reproduces without the sufficient means to support themselves. A burden is put on the state. The capitalist ignores the fact that it is his class which is the direct cause of the working class's struggle to sufficiently support a family. Many of the children born to lower class and/or working class parents are then put into foster homes for adoption. The capitalist ignores this as well, and suggests that children without families be avoided.

The capitalist is concerned only with perpetuating his own class. The communist is concerned with absolving all classes and accommodating the children that already live first....rather than creating more.

I was impressed with the communists' answers in this thread. The capitalists, as usual, are contemptible worms.