209 replies to this topic

[donjoe]

Please vote in the poll and try to post an explanation of your choice.

Here I go:
Most probably not. When I think about how much time and effort it takes to rear children, how it takes at least 20 years of your life (and it's usually your prime - your most healthy, vigorous and productive years) until you get them to be able to sustain themselves and how they're not even guaranteed to perpetuate any of your values (after all, they only get half your genes and then they're exposed to a completely different environment than what you got when you were growing up - they may in fact end up fighting against everything you believe)... well, it just seems like a really bad (or at least dubiously effective) way of "reproducing" yourself.

As far as I know, I'm pretty good with languages (at a pretty general level - symbols and understanding) and also have the patience to explain things in detail even when people don't get it right away, which I think would make me a good teacher. And I mention this because this is how I think I can counteract the "Idiocracy" effect (if any really exists): I can add much more intelligence to the world by creating/delivering good educational content than by making a genetic half-copy of myself (or two).

Edited by donjoe, 25 December 2007 - 02:48 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

I changed my mind

I'm inclined to say "no", but I'm just not sure yet. At least for the time being I'm not very interested in having children. For the most part I want to spend the next couple of decades assisting life extension related prospects. And by the time we have the singularity and the body 2.0 there probably won't even be a need for sexual reproduction.

But if it happens it happens, I mean no one can predict what love can bring into this world. It all depends if I find the right girl

Edited by Kostas, 25 December 2007 - 03:10 PM.

[missminni]

Please vote in the poll and try to post an explanation of your choice.

Here I go:
Most probably not. When I think about how much time and effort it takes to rear children, how it takes at least 20 years of your life (and it's usually your prime - your most healthy, vigorous and productive years) until you get them to be able to sustain themselves and how they're not even guaranteed to perpetuate any of your values (after all, they only get half your genes and then they're exposed to a completely different environment than what you got when you were growing up - they may in fact end up fighting against everything you believe)... well, it just seems like a really bad (or at least dubiously effective) way of "reproducing" yourself.

As far as I know, I'm pretty good with languages (at a pretty general level - symbols and understanding) and also have the patience to explain things in detail even when people don't get it right away, which I think would make me a good teacher. And I mention this because this is how I think I can counteract the "Idiocracy" effect (if any really exists): I can add much more intelligence to the world by creating/delivering good educational content than by making a genetic half-copy of myself (or two).

Since I already have a grown adult child, I can't vote in this poll, but I can agree with the specific point (colored) as being the most serious to consider. I would never think such a thing when I was younger, believing in nurture over nature. But seeing my child now a full grown 38 year old adult, I can confidently say, nature took precedence. Consider the family of the person you reproduce with, not just that person.
You are having a baby with ALL of them. (Similar to the warning they give about sex and AIDS).

[luv2increase]

I voted definitely. People can't forget that reproduction is a natural part of life that everyone should take part in. It is something that is ingrained into our genetic code and is manifested as instinct behavior. Why would you want to abandon this from your life? Sure, they receive half your genes. Precisely. They are half you and half the individual whom you love. Unfortunately, as missminni pointed out, make sure you comfortable and happy with your mate's family. Are they good people? Can you imagine the potential in-laws as being a part of your life forever? Would they be good role-models for your children?

I'd say it is only human to have offspring of oneself. It is an evolutionary process which has aloud civilization to grow and advance. Why not partake in it?

[forever freedom]

Definitely not. At least not in any foreseeable future. They're too much trouble, and i'm afraid i'm going to "soften" and "sit back" once i have children. I always considered myself to be very active in my life and i'm afraid becoming a "family guy" or "daddy" would make me change habits dramatically and stop caring for myself and my life first and foremost, which is a state that i love being in.


But maybe that's just my age, and a few decades from now i'll consider the option of having children, even though i doubt it since i've never considered myself much of a family type.

Edited by sam988, 25 December 2007 - 05:52 PM.

[Matt]

My vote "I'm inclined to say "yes", but I'm just not sure yet."

I can never so "NO" to this, I think at some point it will probably happen, hopefully not before the age of 35 at least.

[luv2increase]

Definitely not. At least not in any foreseeable future. They're too much trouble, and i'm afraid i'm going to "soften" and "sit back" once i have children. I always considered myself to be very active in my life and i'm afraid becoming a "family guy" or "daddy" would make me change habits dramatically and stop caring for myself and my life first and foremost, which is a state that i love being in.


But maybe that's just my age, and a few decades from now i'll consider the option of having children, even though i doubt it since i've never considered myself much of a family type.

Sounds very self-righteous and self-centered to me. Have you ever been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

[donjoe]

Sounds very self-righteous and self-centered to me. Have you ever been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Surely you can state your opinion on the subject and even on someone else's opinion while still refraining from personal attacks, can't you?

I think at some point it will probably happen, hopefully not before the age of 35 at least.

But of course, if health extension (and in particular the prevention/correction of genetic damage) doesn't progress quickly enough, you should be aware that the older you get, the more errors accumulate in the DNA you'll be trying to replicate and the higher the chances get of having children with genetic defects.

Edited by donjoe, 25 December 2007 - 06:07 PM.

[missminni]

I think at some point it will probably happen, hopefully not before the age of 35 at least.

But of course, if health extension (and in particular the prevention/correction of genetic damage) doesn't progress quickly enough, you should be aware that the older you get, the more errors accumulate in the DNA you'll be trying to replicate and the higher the chances get of having children with genetic defects.

And this is true for woman as well. Eggs get old.
The earlier you have children, the better the chance of them being healthy.
Also, consider that having children can be a motivational factor in achieving success.
It keeps you grounded too, and it's a great teacher.
Not always a fun lesson, but always enlightening.
Also, consider the younger you have them, the sooner you get them out on their own and
back on to being about you again.

[krillin]

Definitely not. Children are nasty, brutish, and short.

[missminni]

Definitely not. Children are nasty, brutish, and short.

LOL
I guess I was lucky. As a child mine was sweet, smart and loving. Unfortunately my luck ran out when she hit
about 14. You can pretty much use the opposite for each of those adjectives to describe her from there on.
That's why I say nature over nurture any day. She grew right into those bad genes and they seem to fit her to this
very day.

[Richard Leis]

Most probably not.

• Reason 1: I'm gay. Even if and when two men can have genetic children together, there are other reasons.
• Reason 2: I cannot currently or in the foreseeable future financially and emotionally support a child.
• Reason 3: People still die and suffer; until these are cured, I don't want children.
• Reason 4: There are already plenty of people and plenty of these people procreate. I choose to focus on other things.
• Reason 5: Our intellectual children (FAI, nanobots, chimera, clones, our enhanced selves, etc.) are coming, possibly soon.
• Reason 6: We are in the process of extending and improving the quality of our later life, allowing further postponement of procreation.
• Reason 7: Our reproductive heritage is not a valid reason for having children. We have successfully separated sex from procreation using technology and we should understand this distinction by now.
• Reason 8: Procreation is an intellectual decision, rather than an instinctual one.
• Reason 9: Choice. Those who choose to have children and those who choose not to have children should be equally celebrated.

[Grimm]

Aye! Of Course I want kids! First off, I like kids. Second, I want to pass on my genes and continue my family line. I don't want to let down my ancestors stretching back to the beginning of time. Also, it is a duty for people to have children. A duty to your family, and the human race. (possible exception: you have siblings who have kids)

[forever freedom]

Definitely not. At least not in any foreseeable future. They're too much trouble, and i'm afraid i'm going to "soften" and "sit back" once i have children. I always considered myself to be very active in my life and i'm afraid becoming a "family guy" or "daddy" would make me change habits dramatically and stop caring for myself and my life first and foremost, which is a state that i love being in.


But maybe that's just my age, and a few decades from now i'll consider the option of having children, even though i doubt it since i've never considered myself much of a family type.

Sounds very self-righteous and self-centered to me. Have you ever been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Sounds very self-righteous and self-centered to me. Have you ever been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Surely you can state your opinion on the subject and even on someone else's opinion while still refraining from personal attacks, can't you?

This luv2increase guy appearently can't make many posts without attacking someone. This is not the first time i see him attacking people without reason. I wonder what issues this guy has. And he asks if i have psychological problems.... yea, i'm the one with issues? right.... lol.

[cyborgdreamer]

I'm inclined to say "yes", but I'm just not sure yet. I've always imagined that I would have a child someday but lately I'm not sure. Creating a human being is a huge responsibility and I wonder if my mental and financial resources could be better used to help people who already exist (through life extention). Then again, maybe I could do both. It really depends on how I feel in a few years and who (if anyone) I decide to marry.

[forever freedom]

I think at some point it will probably happen, hopefully not before the age of 35 at least.

But of course, if health extension (and in particular the prevention/correction of genetic damage) doesn't progress quickly enough, you should be aware that the older you get, the more errors accumulate in the DNA you'll be trying to replicate and the higher the chances get of having children with genetic defects.

Just a quick observation; i didn't say what you quoted; it was Matt.

[niner]

I said yes, definitely, although I already have two boys, 5 and 8. If I'm around long enough for science to arrive at a capability for rejuvenation, I would consider doing it again. If I did, though, I think I'd like to have some of my genetic errors fixed. I would never want to make a genetic copy of myself, since I'm not exactly perfect. I have all kinds of physical and mental flaws. When I had my first kid, I was kind of scared by the huge change that I thought was coming. It turned out that I was still myself, and having kids is pretty fun. Also infuriating and exhausting. I don't think anyone needs to feel like they have a responsibility to reproduce. A lot of people aren't really cut out for it, and some people physically can't. There's lots of ways to contribute to society without having kids. It's not like being childfree gets you a discount on your school taxes.

[DJS]

Definitely not. I have nothing against breeders, but I have no desire to be one. Children bore/irritate me. Plus they're expensive. (this issue is one of my major criterias for selecting a partner)

Also, I agree with the other posters here about luv2increase comments. There's no reason to get all "holier-than-thou". Really, the comments are indicative of the underlying problem with christian psychologies. Whether they like to admit it or not, in their heart of hearts they believe that their way is the (only) right way, and they can't resist moralizing and casting judgement. Such is life when it comes to crude cognitions. The world would be a lot better place if instead everyone just took a live and let live mentality.

Edit: (only)

Edited by Technosophy, 26 December 2007 - 01:44 AM.

[DJS]

Although, I should acknowledge, there is a certain irony in my being judgemental about being judgemental.

[luv2increase]

Although, I should acknowledge, there is a certain irony in my being judgemental about being judgemental.

Hey don't worry; it happens to the best of us.

[DJS]

Trying to spin my statement as one conveying equivalence doesn't added up (as anyone following my line of reasoning would know), but we're really only striving for the rhetorical at this point anyway, aren't we luv? Various sorts of bias go hand in hand with having a POV. However for the aspiring rationalist, the offense is an action of inaction, the unacknowledged. Usually the only penalty being buffoon status amongst those who know better and see farther. Not much of a deterrent, I'm afraid.

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” ~ Nietzsche

Edited by Technosophy, 26 December 2007 - 04:45 AM.

[Bruce Klein]

Great poll question... I chose most probably not for now, but if I had a significantly higher lever resources, I'd most likely do so b/c my longtime-lifetime partner has a strong wish for a family. To be sure, I'm talking millions...

[basho]

Its unfortunate that people still often have to defend the choice not to have children. Many questions contain the implication that there is something physically or morally wrong with a childless adult or couple; "Are you having trouble conceiving?", "Are you gay?", "Why are you so selfish?", "What will happen when you get old?"

In reality, the vast majority of people think the only question is "when" and not "if". There is a strong tendency by parents to rationalize after the fact, when really they never considered that there are alternate paths to take in life beyond the default of marriage(1...n)->house->children(1...n)->retirement->grandkids->death. Societal and family pressures to be "normal" also play a strong part, along with a certain degree of growing fear amongst some as their body ages that "time is running out".

Edited by basho, 26 December 2007 - 10:38 AM.

[basho]

People can't forget that reproduction is a natural part of life that everyone should take part in. It is something that is ingrained into our genetic code and is manifested as instinct behavior. Why would you want to abandon this from your life? It is an evolutionary process which has aloud civilization to grow and advance. Why not partake in it?

This moralistic view that people "should" do something because its "natural" misses the entire point of being here. Death, disease and limits on our potential imposed by our genetic heritage are all things that most people here would be more than happy to gain control over, making such aspects of our existence a choice rather than an inevitably. In fact, I would say that the struggle to overcome both our environment and our natural limitations is a defining human feature. We are so much more than our individual genetic code. Much of our conscious identity is shaped by our culture and shared knowledge, something that has grown, evolved and been transmitted over thousands of years by methods other than DNA. We are not slaves to our DNA and instincts, and there is nothing wrong with striving for a better future where we gain freedom from the constraints and suffering that afflict us.

[donjoe]

Reason 8: Procreation is an intellectual decision, rather than an instinctual one.

Replace "is" with "should be". For most of the people, your assertion is false.

Just a quick observation; i didn't say what you quoted; it was Matt.

Yeah, sorry, must've mixed up the names as I was looking at that simple list-view thing under the compose-your-message form. Should've just stuck with my recent habit of not even mentioning the author of a quote I'm answering - I think it tends to keep people more focused on discussing the statements and not the interlocutors.

they never considered that there are alternate paths to take in life beyond the default of marriage(1...n)->house->children(1...n)->retirement->grandkids->death. Societal and family pressures to be "normal" also play a strong part

Ah, yes, this reminds me about my (actually) strongest reason for choosing "Most probably not": I seem to have this deep-seated phobia of doing predictable things (like behaving "normally", "like everyone else" or "as socially expected"). I take just about every chance I get to generate a personalised response to a situation (when it's about something important, of course - I'm not going to make a big deal out of holding my fork the wrong way and making weird gestures with it to bring the food to my mouth, just to be different) instead of just playing the traditional part people have come to see as "the appropriate response". And life-plans are definitely in that area - the very thought of doing that "get married, have kids, make yourself a voluntary slave to the banks for several decades to pay for your house and car, retire, die" dance makes my skin crawl.

Edited by donjoe, 26 December 2007 - 11:43 AM.

[JediMasterLucia]

no, I don't want to have kids.
I have a chronic illness. because of that I can't take care for kids. :-(
It is a big responsibility to educate children well. I can't do that at this moment.
I have enough to myself...

[ilanso]

Not at all, which makes me an evolutionary failure.
Reasons have been touched on by others.
Bringing a new being into this world is, besides a big gamble (sociopath, cripple?), an implied act of supreme selfishness: I want my kind to propagate regardless of my relative rank in society (and have no desire to substantiate it, by whatever measure). After all, society is kind of a club, with rights and duties; bringing in a new member should be put to some sort of vote.
There is also the issue of qualification: can anyone do it? There are cultures where parental permits are being contemplated. But on a personal level, I feel I could only do it if I already had the answers to all the questions in the world (any time now ) at least for the few years I get to play God.
We are not an average group: in fact, we're bent on beating the average (lifespan). Our deviation from the norm in this area should not be surprising.
In Metroland, Christian Bale tells Emily Watson that he wants to stay on in Paris and doesn't want to get married and have children, to which she presciently replies, "Yes, you will. You're not original enough".
Adopting is, on the contrary, a selfless act. I cannot agree with Richard's reasons 1 and 9 (I do with the others):

Reason 9: Choice. Those who choose to have children and those who choose not to have children should be equally celebrated.

No, only one category can be celebrated, just as you can only vote for one president. Choice and diversity are in themselves devoid of moral value (sure, it may be nice to have a choice, but to equally respect the law abiding and the criminals is foolish). I admire more a person who, all things being equal, contributes more to the overall good (even if that excludes me).
As to:

Technosophy:
The world would be a lot better place if instead everyone just took a "live and let live" mentality

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” ~ Nietzsche

Both quotations contradict the spirit of your messages (with which I wholeheartedly concur). Otherwise luv's and your posts would count as equally valid and progress would never prevail. I would have speculated you are running for office if it weren't for the rather radical stance.

[sentinel]

I've got three - anyone want one?

Granted, they are self-centered and tend to argue with eachother a lot. But then then the same could be said of most of the people of this forum.

There's no right or wrong, it's just personal choice. There will always be enough people who want to have children so if some people choose not to it's absolutely no problem.

Merry Christmas (and don't start on that!)

Sentinel

[caston]

I would love the opportunity to have children and I have come to the understanding that when we have offspring we may also be passing down genes inserted by retrovirus's picked up during earlier sexual encounters. Genes from those virus's we fight so hard to get rid of will ultimately be part of a new human that deserves our full love.

[Luna]

Not untill I know them and I will never die, then maybe.