Is having a child selfish ?

[Urban Rubble]

So I was thinking, is the decision to have a child in this overpopulated world a selfish decision ?

As we all know, the world is insanely overpopulated. Personally, I think this is the most grave problem the human race has ever faced. It took 16 centuries for the human race to double it's population between the birth of Christ and the death of Queen Elizabeth I. As we have seen this century it only took roughly 50 years for us to double again. At this rate the world will be unlivable in another 50.

With that said, there are also hundreds of thousands of childeren in this world that are orphaned with no hope of ever being adopted. This is mainly due to poverty, but also the irresponsibility of humans. People having childeren when they aren't ready, people having sex without a second thought to the consequences, people being selfish.

Is the decision to have a child in this current climate a selfish one ? I believe so. The desire to have a child is entirely selfish, people want to see what their genes will produce, they want their own cute little baby. I can't think of a single reason to have a child that isn't selfish. I doubt there are many people who have a child for the sole reason of benifiting society, raising a productive member of society. That simply does not happen. The decision to have a child is inherently selfish, if you disagree please tell me why.

I believe that the only way to serve society by raising childeren is to adopt. Adopting a child helps society in many ways. The most obvious being that you aren't bringing another life into this world to crowd it that much more. Also, the benefits on the child cannot be overstated. Adopting will give that child a family, it will give the child a parent to teach it and take care of it (though if you listen to people like Morpheus childeren don't need to be raised or protected).

I bring this up because my girlfriend and I talk about this alot. Last night we were talking about what our Caucasian/Cambodian/Chinese baby would look like. We are only 21, so we're not looking to have a child anytime soon. She was adopted by a family in the U.S after her parents came here fleeing Pol Pot's Cambodia. They got here and realized life in America for a foreign couple with no money was bleak at best, so they gave her up. She has had an amazing life thanks to her foster parents, they have provided more than any person could ask. Though we both have a desire to have a child in the traditional way, we both feel it's a selfish decision and that we could do the world a favor by adopting.

Now that I wrote that all out I don't really know what the point of it is. :lol: I guess I am just asking for an argument to counter my claims that having a child is s completely selfish decision. Do you agree ? Why not ?

[(*]

You have an extremely good point. I can't think of one selfless reason to have a child (through birth).
Maybe people want to go through the experience of giving birth, and raising a child from birth....
I&#39;m really going to have to ponder on this a little more... <_<

[BuyOurEverything]

Never really thought about it before. I guess most people want some thing that is "theirs." So they can say that it&#39;s "their" child and be proud of something they "created."

[AngelWithNoWings]

No, its not selfish. Its a wonderful thing to bring new life into this beautiful world.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 03:26 PM
Never really thought about it before. I guess most people want some thing that is "theirs." So they can say that it&#39;s "their" child and be proud of something they "created."
This is something that I raise as a negative point in my post, which can be found in this thread. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=20807)

[Urban Rubble]

Why did someone move this ? I don&#39;t really care, I just figured more people would see it in Chit Chat.


No, its not selfish. Its a wonderful thing to bring new life into this beautiful world.

Why ? Name one selfless reason for bringing in another person to swallow up resources. I know that sounds harsh, but that is basically what you&#39;re doing by having a kid. I realize there is an inherent yearning to create a child for alot of people, I know I have that yearning, but I think that just wanting to have a child is not a valid reason. Adopting a child helps society, that cannot be denied, how does having a child help anyone ? Sure, you may give that child a great life, but that child would not exist if you weren&#39;t selfish in your decision to have one.

[BuyOurEverything]

This is something that I raise as a negative point in my post, which can be found in this thread.

Just to clarify, I raised it as a negative point too. Good post by the way.

[che's long lost daughter]

People are born and people die so there is no possibility that the world will be unlivable and having a child is never selfish...what&#39;s selfish is aborting a child

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by che&#39;s long lost [email protected] 13 2004, 04:41 PM
People are born and people die so there is no possibility that the world will be unlivable and having a child is never selfish...what&#39;s selfish is aborting a child
I agree, people are a wonderful thing. Overpopulation is just an excuse. I don&#39;t see how having children is selfish. Perhaps in the days when you could have children work on the farm, but not now.

[Urban Rubble]

People are born and people die so there is no possibility that the world will be unlivable

Are you serious ? Did you read my post ? It took 16 centuries (that&#39;s 1600 years) for the human population to double. This century it only took us 50 years to go from 3 billion people to 6 billion. At this rate there will be 12 billion of us by the year 2050. I cannot believe that someone could be so naieve to think that just because people die that population cannot increase. Are you a "special" child ? If something isn&#39;t done there will be far too many people, like in India but worse.

Are you actually denying the phenomenon of population increase ?


and having a child is never selfish

Show me one instance of someone having a child for a reason other than that they just wanted to have one. People have childeren because they have an urge to produce one, that is selfish. If you don&#39;t agree tell me why, don&#39;t just make vague statements. Tell me why having a child is a selfless decision.


what&#39;s selfish is aborting a child

Not always, sometimes people abort babies because they don&#39;t want them born into an environment where they will have a bad life. But yes, most of the time aborting a baby is entirely selfish, I agree.


I agree, people are a wonderful thing.

Obviously, but too many people is horrible.


I agree, people are a wonderful thing.

Because people only do it because they have a selfish urge to. They don&#39;t do it for any benevolent reasons. They do it because they want to have a child, they do it for themselves, which is selfish.

[ComradeRed]

It is only selfish if you name it after yourself

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Too many people? There is no such thing. There are never too many people, just insufficient development and social planning.

[Rastafari]

I&#39;ve often pondered this very idea Urban Rubble. I have already decided never to have children (until I am old enough to rethink it, I suppose),



Too many people? There is no such thing. There are never too many people, just insufficient development and social planning.
There is such a thing. Unless you and Bush start a colony on Mars, then the required hectare per person will eventually be filled up. Unless we drain some of those pesky oceans, that would help us out for a few years, I suppose. But whats the point of living in a world like that?

[Urban Rubble]

Too many people? There is no such thing. There are never too many people, just insufficient development and social planning.

Dear God. I&#39;ve held my tongue long enough.

You&#39;re being an idiot. Denying that there is too many people and that it will become an even more serious problem is like saying polution is not a problem.

For the last time, it took 1600 years for our world population to go from 1.5 billion to 3 billion. We doubled our society again, from 3 to 6 billion, in 50 years. At this rate we would be very lucky to only have 12 billion people on the earth in 2050. By the next century we will have at least 24 billion people in the world. That is at the very least if nothing is done. The earth cannot handle what 6 billion people are doing to it, much less 24.

Read "A brave New World revisited". It was written in the 50&#39;s and it explains exactly how over population was a problem then, and it was only half as bad then.

Can social planning create more space on the planet ? Can it create more fossil fuels to support the growing amounts of people ? Can it get rid of the polution from major cities (don&#39;t forget, more people means more industry, urban sprawl and polution) No amount of planning can reverse the effect of this many people, you are very wrong.

Stop making one line statements, explain your postition. You still didnt explain how having childeren isn&#39;t selfish.

Can the mod who moved this take it back to Chit Chat ? I seriously want to know more people&#39;s opinions. Nobody sees it here.

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 13 2004, 11:34 PM

Are you serious ? Did you read my post ? It took 16 centuries (that&#39;s 1600 years) for the human population to double. This century it only took us 50 years to go from 3 billion people to 6 billion. At this rate there will be 12 billion of us by the year 2050. I cannot believe that someone could be so naieve to think that just because people die that population cannot increase. Are you a "special" child ? If something isn&#39;t done there will be far too many people, like in India but worse.


I am not saying that because people die, the population will not increase. All I am trying to point out is that saying that the world will be unlivable because of overpopulation is exagerration. If only those elite/ bourgeoisie would give up their hectares and hectares of land, there would be a place for everybody to live in. And yes, I am a SPECIAL child

[marial]

It&#39;s no selfish to have a child. I think new generations are neccesary and is for instinct. The reason for which I didn&#39;t want to have a child was because thought no one deserves to live in this horrible world we&#39;re creating... and anyhow my maternal instinct woke up some years ago and maybe I want to have a chil sometime.
I think that if there wasn&#39;t difference between countries it wouldn&#39;t be neccessary for many people to have lots of children just because they need the surviving of some.
The only selfish is of the prepotent rich people, because they don&#39;t want all people living with dignity. :(

[Hegemonicretribution]

If we truely think about it humas only do two things, follow their animal instincts, and try to prove they are not animals by following another set of rules. The first method leads to the minimalisation of "damage" (whatever it is has always been adapted to) and the second leads to "proggression" (at least in terms of technological advancement). It makes it an interesting topic therefore that ecological problems are supposedly being heightened as we "progress" in a manor that only really seeks to address this. If we cure cancer then we will save the west from cancer. There will be something else, because as far as we are concerned old age is no longer an excuse, the worn out parts can be replaced, although not as efficient, and we are keeping the same people going for a long time. We must realise people die, fuck the ethics because at the end of the day things won&#39;t matter to much. We strive for achievement but perhaps we should search for something ongoing with no definate answer, onotology could keep the artistic, philisophical and scientifical race goin for an unmeasureable length of time..then there is epistemology..

Over population is not really too many people being born, it is not enough dying soon enough. Yes they die but they are alive for the birth of 3 generations or so in between. It is harsh, but "survival of the fittest" would ensure only neccessary people survived. We have simply allowed ourselves much slack, almost showing off our achievements of being able to sustain more people, but that has backfired.

Reproduction is the only unselfish thing we do, it is the only life proccess of organisms that is not to do with survival of the self, it is the survival of the species. We would feel sentimental, emotional and overall daft if we looked at a colony of ants, or bacteria in the same way as ourselves. We are different yes, but the mechanisms are the same. I believe that adoption is a great idea and I intend to, although the self satisfaction means that it is a compromise, and not merely selfless. However overpopulation will not kill us off, we will simply adapt.

With that many people, there is probably already various government plots to cull large numbers of the population by using selective genetic weaponry and diseases. If that doesn&#39;t happen we will do it ourselves, but hell it would make a damn fine time for the "revolution"

[The Children of the Revolution]

I think I should comment here; mainly because I completely disagree - having a child is not selfish.

I fully intend to father a child when I grow up. (I am a mere 18 years of age, I consider this far too young) Incredibly, no-one (unless my skim-reading was way too fast) has raised the point that although there are many orphans in the world, the number of potential parents is way higher. Surely you don&#39;t intend for procreation to cease altogether?

Why did God give us a reproductive system? Having a child is wonderfully natural, it&#39;s nothing to be ashamed of. And certainly not selfish&#33; Some of the things parents do for their children are quite the reverse; taking on extra jobs, giving up luxaries, even putting themselves at risk when the child is in danger - these are selfless acts.



It is harsh, but "survival of the fittest" would ensure only neccessary people survived.


Ouch&#33; Careful by the way, you might be mistaken for a "Social Darwinist" - the scum of the Earth in my humble opinion...

[Urban Rubble]

I should clear something up. I obviously do not intend procreation to stop all together. I am trying to make a few points. One of them is that there is not selfless reasoning for having a child. See, once the child is there, you make many selfless sacrifices for it to be happy. I am saying that the decision to have a child is based on you own selfish desires, not that that is a bad thing, but it is selfish. Another point I am trying to make is that there are many many orphans with no parents and that adoption helps society far more than procreating does. People will not cease to have children, I don&#39;t intend them to, but I think that the more people who adopt the better. Not only are you helping that child you are also helping the worlds population problem, and it is a problem.


Over population is not really too many people being born, it is not enough dying soon enough. Yes they die but they are alive for the birth of 3 generations or so in between. It is harsh, but "survival of the fittest" would ensure only neccessary people survived. We have simply allowed ourselves much slack, almost showing off our achievements of being able to sustain more people, but that has backfired.

I agree, the main reason population is increasing is because we have so much medical technology that people are living far longer. However, now that people are living longer too many people having too many children is becoming a growing problem. Also, irresponsible people who have children before they can afford to have one, that is the ultimate act of selfishness, and idiocy.


However overpopulation will not kill us off, we will simply adapt.

It may, or it may not. What is certain is that it will have a devestating effect on our environment. The more people the more forests we bulldoze, the more polution we produce. It may not kill us, but it will kill out environment.


Incredibly, no-one (unless my skim-reading was way too fast) has raised the point that although there are many orphans in the world, the number of potential parents is way higher.

Nobody raised it because it&#39;s obvious that there are more potential parents than there are orphans. That is why I am saying to adopt children, because we are potential parents. It doesn&#39;t matter how many potential parents there are if they aren&#39;t adopting these kids.


Why did God give us a reproductive system? Having a child is wonderfully natural, it&#39;s nothing to be ashamed of.

Don&#39;t bring God into.

We have a reproduction system to reproduce, obviously. I&#39;m not saying to cease reproducing, I am saying that more people should adopt. I&#39;m not an idiot, I am aware that it&#39;s natural to procreate.


And certainly not selfish&#33; Some of the things parents do for their children are quite the reverse; taking on extra jobs, giving up luxaries, even putting themselves at risk when the child is in danger - these are selfless acts.

Again, the decision to have a child is completely selfish. You make the decision because you want a child, that is the only reason. I agree that parents do many selfless things, mine sacrificed amazing amounts, but that is after you make the selfish decision to have a kid. I agree, there is much selfless sacrifice involved in parenting.

[FabFabian]

Yes.

[Hegemonicretribution]

social darwinism is not a theory that would lead to a particurly desireable existance, however we must realise we are not aove the fact we are still animals. All I am saying is that medical research is not as necessary as we sometimes imply, we slow evolution by simply using science as a cure all.

I am not a social darwinist, but remember many people view you and your ideology as the scum of the earth.

[redstar2000]

The "quick & dirty" solution to your ethical dilemma, UR, is to have one child...and, if you want more, adopt.

Any human reproductive rate that averages less than 2 children per couple results in a decline in population over time. (If it were ever exactly 2.00, the population would stabilize.)

As to "selfishness", that&#39;s a tough one. How much can you "stigmatize" what is, after all, an almost universal human activity?

Can you effectively appeal to people on the basis of: "Don&#39;t have kids; if you do, you&#39;re a selfish bastard"?

In this connection, by the way, I&#39;ll repeat a point I made in another thread.

If you really want to "defuse" the "population bomb", the solution is both elegant and relatively inexpensive: educate girls and women.

In every country, as far as I know, once girls start going to school, they have fewer babies. The more schooling they receive, the fewer babies they have. This happens even in countries where abortion and contraception are illegal.

This is one of the closest things we have to a demographic "law"...it seems to work at all times in all places.

It may end up saving our asses...and our planet.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

See, once the child is there, you make many selfless sacrifices for it to be happy. I am saying that the decision to have a child is based on you own selfish desires, not that that is a bad thing, but it is selfish.


I totally disagree. I think an active "want" to have a child necessitates selflessness. Potential parents know the difficulties, they know the sacrifices that will have to be made... and yet they proceed. There may indeed be the aim of bringing joy to themselves; a child can often strengthen a relationship, it&#39;s true. However, I think the over-riding desire when having a child is to bring life into the world. It is a natural action.



I am not a social darwinist, but remember m,any people view you and your ideology as the scyum of the earth.


True. But they are quite clearly misguided and insane.



If you really want to "defuse" the "population bomb", the solution is both elegant and relatively inexpensive: educate girls and women.

In every country, as far as I know, once girls start going to school, they have fewer babies. The more schooling they receive, the fewer babies they have. This happens even in countries where abortion and contraception are illegal.


Unbelieveably, I find myself in complete agreement with RedStar. Education in the third and developing world is crucial; we will otherwise wipe ourselves out.

A final point: if, as you claim, the desire to have a child is selfish... does this mean that all humans are naturally selfish? That we were born and will die this way? Does this apply to other areas of human life; money, for example? What chance is there of a sucessful revolution with this inate selfishness dwelling within us?

You paint a bleak future, comrade...

[Urban Rubble]

The "quick & dirty" solution to your ethical dilemma, UR, is to have one child...and, if you want more, adopt.

Well, we&#39;ve already made the decision to adopt a child, but probably not for at least 8 years, I&#39;m only 21. When we can afford it, we&#39;ll do it. My girlfriend is finishing college and I&#39;m about to start (I can&#39;t handle a life of construction) so when I am done we&#39;ll try to adopt.

But I agree, that would be a great solution.


Can you effectively appeal to people on the basis of: "Don&#39;t have kids; if you do, you&#39;re a selfish bastard"?

See, I don&#39;t necessarily mean you&#39;re a bastard for being selfish (in this way). I think it&#39;s selfish, but I don&#39;t really mean you&#39;re a bad person. It&#39;s natural to want to produce offspring, I just think the desire is motivated by selfishness. You have a child because you want a child and for no other reason.


If you really want to "defuse" the "population bomb", the solution is both elegant and relatively inexpensive: educate girls and women.

I agree, but you can&#39;t leave men out of the equation. I know a great number of women who know the dangers of unprotected sex, but they continue to do so because of pressure from males. Education is the key, but for everyone.

Something has to be done about younger people having sex. I know alot of people don&#39;t agree, but young people are generally alot more irresponsible. I don&#39;t know what the solution is, but kids having kids is becoming a huge problem. I cannot overstate that point.


It may end up saving our asses...and our planet.

But RedStar, if you listen to some people in this thread, over population isn&#39;t a problem. :lol: What a fucking joke.


I totally disagree. I think an active "want" to have a child necessitates selflessness. Potential parents know the difficulties, they know the sacrifices that will have to be made... and yet they proceed. There may indeed be the aim of bringing joy to themselves; a child can often strengthen a relationship, it&#39;s true. However, I think the over-riding desire when having a child is to bring life into the world. It is a natural action.

See, you&#39;re misunderstanding me. I think it is a very mild case of selfishness. I don&#39;t think you&#39;re a bad person for having kids by any means. I just think that there is no other motivation for having kids other than you want to do so. To me that is selfishness, it is self interest, but it is very mild.

Can you give me an example of someone having children for any reason besides that they just wanted to ?


A final point: if, as you claim, the desire to have a child is selfish... does this mean that all humans are naturally selfish? That we were born and will die this way? Does this apply to other areas of human life; money, for example? What chance is there of a sucessful revolution with this inate selfishness dwelling within us?

I do think that, yes. But with education, many people overcome their selfish desires, others don&#39;t. The ones that do not will be our enemies. I think people have an inate desire to live as luxurious as possible, but some people grow up and realize that is not the best way for humanity to go, these are the revolutionaries. Any Socialist is clearly not overly selfish, they fight for a system of equality. Middle Class people like myself have no need to increase their standard of living, I fight this fight for the people who have less than me. I believe this is a case of me (and many others) overcoming their selfish desires.

I could be wrong, but I think people are selfish, but the smart ones rise above that selfishness for the sake of humanity.

[The Children of the Revolution]

But with education, many people overcome their selfish desires, others don&#39;t.


Then surely it is possible to have a child for non-selfish reasons??? And being "educated" not to be selfish requires someone to teach you - by example. This would then suggest that "selfishness" can be broken, which implies that one CAN have a child "selflessly".



Any Socialist is clearly not overly selfish, they fight for a system of equality.


Ha Ha Ha&#33; So Socialists are immune to Selfishness? How does this fit in with the decision to have a child?



I don&#39;t think you&#39;re a bad person for having kids by any means. I just think that there is no other motivation for having kids other than you want to do so. To me that is selfishness, it is self interest, but it is very mild.


This is clearly absurd. By your logic, if I risked my life to save a child from a burning building, I am entirely selfish - I want to do so. I make the decision, it concerns me, therefore I am selfish? I don&#39;t think so... If I eat an apple, it is because I want to do so. Perhaps I&#39;m hungry. Am I selfish for eating it? (Assume there are an infinite number of apples, so no-one else goes hungry through my action...) Obviously, I eat in order to survive. I must eat or perish. Am I selfish? Similarly, the human race - and this means individuals - must reproduce in order to survive AS A RACE.

Educating the Third World is the key. Education, education, education. Some prat said that once before wrecking the country&#39;s schooling system...

[redstar2000]

Something has to be done about younger people having sex. I know a lot of people don&#39;t agree, but young people are generally a lot more irresponsible. I don&#39;t know what the solution is, but kids having kids is becoming a huge problem. I cannot overstate that point.

I think you just did. :lol:

But seriously, you&#39;d have to be specific. Women marry at a very young age in many "third world" countries and, as a consequence, have a longer period of time in which to be reproductively active. (Needless to add, they rarely do this because they "want" to--their families marry them off as quickly as they can...usually for economic reasons.)

Teen-age pregnancy rates are, I understand, quite low in most of Europe--those countries take sex education and birth control very seriously.

Most likely, you are referring to the United States and its "just say no" version of "sex education". Premarital chastity as a policy has, of course, the same chances of success as the proverbial "snowball in Hell". We live in a culture saturated with sexuality--to "move the product"--and kids respond to it.

Why wouldn&#39;t they?

I don&#39;t think there is any "solution" possible until Americans get fed up with religious zealots in policy-making positions at all levels of the social hierarchy.

And who knows when that will be?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[cubist]

my mum was a pregnant teenager with me. i was adopted, the end. though if a family want kids of thier own blood they should be entitled.

[Felicia]

i want babies&#33;


BABIES, BABIES, BABIES&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


but I also have no objections to adopting babies either :)


BABIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; I used to dislike babies, now I love them&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

except the one on the right, I think it&#39;s giving me an evil look..... :unsure:

http://www.babiesparadise.ca/babies.gif

[Urban Rubble]

Then surely it is possible to have a child for non-selfish reasons??? And being "educated" not to be selfish requires someone to teach you - by example. This would then suggest that "selfishness" can be broken, which implies that one CAN have a child "selflessly".

I don&#39;t think so. Yes, you can overcome selfishness, but that doesn&#39;t mean the desire to have a child is unselfish. You still have not given a reason why it is selfless to have a child. You have mentioned things about taking care of it, which comes after the decision to have one.


Ha Ha Ha&#33; So Socialists are immune to Selfishness? How does this fit in with the decision to have a child?

All I was saying is that Socialists generally have overcome alot of their natural selfishness. They fight for the most unselfish cause possible, total equality at any cost.


This is clearly absurd. By your logic, if I risked my life to save a child from a burning building, I am entirely selfish - I want to do so. I make the decision, it concerns me, therefore I am selfish? I don&#39;t think so... If I eat an apple, it is because I want to do so. Perhaps I&#39;m hungry. Am I selfish for eating it? (Assume there are an infinite number of apples, so no-one else goes hungry through my action...) Obviously, I eat in order to survive. I must eat or perish. Am I selfish? Similarly, the human race - and this means individuals - must reproduce in order to survive AS A RACE.

There is a difference between eating and procreating. You have to eat or you will die, the same cannot be said for procreation. Yes, if every single person decided to stop having children, the human race would die out, obviously. That still does not change the fact that you are procreating for a selfish reason, because you simply want to. Yes, it is natural, but not in the way breathing or eating is. We are still animals, but intelligent animals. For that reason we have to rise above some of our animal instincts. We cannot just go around making tons of babies, though some may want to.

Fuck, I have to go, I&#39;m late for work.

[Invader Zim]

I&#39;m with Urban Rubble on this one, for his reasons, but against it for my own. If you have a vast popualation of young people and comparitivly few middle aged and old people then when the children get to middle age and old age then the nation will have whats known as an aging population. This means that you have a large number of aged people dependant on the support of the independant population. This places massive strain on the independant population to be able to provide for these elderly people. The enevitable result is that the entire nations standard of living is decreased.

However the problem with this theory is that the now middle aged and elderly "children" will have had their own children who will support them. Well not quite, as time goes by medical treatment and technology improve, thus increasing life expectancy. Not only that but in the countries where this is likley to occur are More economically developed countries, who during the middle of the 20th century were having very large families, until only 20-30 years ago or so, often numbering at 3+, in the 40&#39;s-60&#39;s even larger families, for example in the post war 40&#39;s and 50&#39;s it was not unusual to have families numbering 6 children. These people now in middle age have had their own children, but considerably fewer, I believe that the current average number of children per couple is only 1.6. So that means that the increasingly large number of elderly born into large families with many siblings are now living even longer. The result is that the population pyramid for the country is reversed on its head, with many elderly and very few bread winners.

It doesn&#39;t take a genius to work out that if you have no children then you are futher increasing the problem, as their will be fewer of the young generation to replace to current independants when they become dependant them selves.

However having said that if we have many children then we are mearly creating the same problem for future generations.

Welcome to the complex world of A-Level Geography.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 16 2004, 04:07 PM
[QUOTE]

There is a difference between eating and procreating. You have to eat or you will die, the same cannot be said for procreation. Yes, if every single person decided to stop having children, the human race would die out, obviously. That still does not change the fact that you are procreating for a selfish reason, because you simply want to. Yes, it is natural, but not in the way breathing or eating is. We are still animals, but intelligent animals. For that reason we have to rise above some of our animal instincts. We cannot just go around making tons of babies, though some may want to.

Fuck, I have to go, I&#39;m late for work.
You have to go to work, for the money right how selfish :P..but seriously all other life processes are to do with survival, eating is one, the only one that is not is reproduction. It is the survaival of the species, it is also as natuaral as eating. It is the sole purpose we are here..well in reality..few of us will be greats, but we can be involved in some way in making a great.

As for reasons of having children other than want; UNwanted pregnancy. In a marriage it is unpallatable to abort a pregnancy. In many cultures abortion is simply not an option. O.K. maybe they are selfish for having sex, and failing to successfully protect against pregnancy. But in rape where abortion isn&#39;t an option..there are reasons.