Can you really be Earth friendly if you have children?

[me&thegals]

They are young--only 6 and 8. I've heard "little kids, little problems; big kids, big problems." Sounds like yours have their heads on straight--congratulations It's pretty humbling to think of what an enormous job parenting is and how it's on my small human shoulders!

 

[Buff Hooligans]

I don't have kids - first of all because I don't like kids. But also because my genetic material isn't so fantastic that the world needs more of it. AND, because I think "globally and act locally".

 

[Beekissed]

I'm a little confused....so, you folks maintain that it is environmentally irresponsible to have children? So, if everyone in the world were to convert to non- child-bearing people, this would correct the problems caused by overpopulation?

At what point, after all current generations were to die off (and who would care for them as they did so?) would it be considered okay to procreate? And who would get to decide who could do this? And WHO would do this, as everyone would be old geezers on the verge of death?

And the third world countries that are starving and dying? Isn't this natural selection in the process already? The diseases, poverty and starvation caused by overpopulation in these countries would still be largely unaffected if WE were to stop breeding offspring, so I'm unsure if this is the answer.

At the rate that diseases like cancer are increasing, the problem of overpopulation may be correcting itself as we type. Obesity, poor lifestyles, violence, etc. is helping out with this type of control also.

I'm a little confused as to how it is globally helpful to not have children, at this point. Who is going to care for you into your old age? MY children?

While it sounds nice, in theory, to abstain from having children, as it is just more globally friendly...it doesn't work out well in a practical sense, does it? Who will produce the food you will still be eating in your 60s, 70s, 80s? Our children. Who will be providing the money for your medical care and who will be wiping your butts? Our children. So, in theory, I guess its largely selfish and irresponsible to expect my children to bear the weight of your care and feed, if, in fact, you have produced noone with whom they can share this responsibility.

 

[poppycat]

While it sounds nice, in theory, to abstain from having children, as it is just more globally friendly...it doesn't work out well in a practical sense, does it? Who will produce the food you will still be eating in your 60s, 70s, 80s? Our children. Who will be providing the money for your medical care and who will be wiping your butts? Our children. So, in theory, I guess its largely selfish and irresponsible to expect my children to bear the weight of your care and feed, if, in fact, you have produced noone with whom they can share this responsibility.

I have to admit I agree. I had to laugh about the butt wiping part. My husband and I both have aging parents (we are the proverbial sandwich generation with younger kids and aging parents at the same time.) So we are well acquainted with that aspect of both parent and child care. We always joke about how we won't perform that particular task for each other when we're old.

 

[miss_thenorth]

I'm a little confused....so, you folks maintain that it is environmentally irresponsible to have children? So, if everyone in the world were to convert to non- child-bearing people, this would correct the problems caused by overpopulation?

At what point, after all current generations were to die off (and who would care for them as they did so?) would it be considered okay to procreate? And who would get to decide who could do this? And WHO would do this, as everyone would be old geezers on the verge of death?

And the third world countries that are starving and dying? Isn't this natural selection in the process already? The diseases, poverty and starvation caused by overpopulation in these countries would still be largely unaffected if WE were to stop breeding offspring, so I'm unsure if this is the answer.

At the rate that diseases like cancer are increasing, the problem of overpopulation may be correcting itself as we type. Obesity, poor lifestyles, violence, etc. is helping out with this type of control also.


I'm a little confused as to how it is globally helpful to not have children, at this point. Who is going to care for you into your old age? MY children?

While it sounds nice, in theory, to abstain from having children, as it is just more globally friendly...it doesn't work out well in a practical sense, does it? Who will produce the food you will still be eating in your 60s, 70s, 80s? Our children. Who will be providing the money for your medical care and who will be wiping your butts? Our children. So, in theory, I guess its largely selfish and irresponsible to expect my children to bear the weight of your care and feed, if, in fact, you have produced noone with whom they can share this responsibility.

Well said!

 

[Rosalind]

So, if everyone in the world were to convert to non- child-bearing people, this would correct the problems caused by overpopulation?

I don't think everyone is joining the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement anytime soon, do you? We are all very different people with different opinions, no? And clearly this concept of choosing not to have any children is not spread by genetics--it's spread by culture, no?

And the third world countries that are starving and dying? Isn't this natural selection in the process already?

Yes, it is. The point is, really, that if you have a choice between minimizing population-density-dependent issues such as disease and starvation by thoughtful use of birth control, vs. pain and suffering, then, well, some people would choose to avoid the pain and suffering. What's wrong with that exactly?

At the rate that diseases like cancer are increasing, the problem of overpopulation may be correcting itself as we type.

The point of natural selection is that it WILL correct itself in whatever fashion it needs to. It's not, like, optional. We can control population growth to fit the environment, we can alter the environment to be more productive for humans, or we can die in various horrible, agonizing ways. Not sure why you seem to be in favor of the last option...?

Who is going to care for you into your old age?

Me. I've got retirement savings and a boatload of insurance for that purpose. In any case, I've seen enough nursing homes to know that most children don't take care of their parents anyway, immigrant nursing aides do that job, paid for by the sales of all the parents' assets. The non-childed residents of the Raisin Ranch are in the same nursing homes as the childed, only they never complain about their ungrateful kids.

Who will produce the food you will still be eating in your 60s, 70s, 80s?

Same way it's produced now, corporate agribusiness.

Who will be providing the money for your medical care and who will be wiping your butts?

Me, and the immigrant nursing staff who already make up a large percentage of the medical staff in this country. Most American parents I know want their kids to grow up to be doctors and lawyers and stuff, not nursing aides. Hence our current shortage...

There are numerous insurance companies offering long term care insurance. Seriously, I think I'm much better off saving my money in a judiciously-selected portfolio of 401(k), IRAs and money market accounts than trusting that my hypothetical children will turn out to be generous and kind souls. As someone else pointed out, you can't control how the kids turn out after a certain age, you just have to hope. Family courts are full of children who abuse their elders, greedy relatives who can't wait for Mom-n-Pop to die so they'll get an inheritance, ad nauseam.

Also, in my experience kids really do not turn out to be little clones of their parents, especially when it comes to world views. Usually, the opposite is true. Just saying.

 

[Beekissed]

Me, and the immigrant nursing staff who already make up a large percentage of the medical staff in this country. Most American parents I know want their kids to grow up to be doctors and lawyers and stuff, not nursing aides. Hence our current shortage...

There are numerous insurance companies offering long term care insurance. Seriously, I think I'm much better off saving my money in a judiciously-selected portfolio of 401(k), IRAs and money market accounts than trusting that my hypothetical children will turn out to be generous and kind souls. As someone else pointed out, you can't control how the kids turn out after a certain age, you just have to hope. Family courts are full of children who abuse their elders, greedy relatives who can't wait for Mom-n-Pop to die so they'll get an inheritance, ad nauseam.

Also, in my experience kids really do not turn out to be little clones of their parents, especially when it comes to world views. Usually, the opposite is true. Just saying.

So....your contention is that you have saved your money and this keeps you safe from having to submit to nursing care, but if you do have to have nursing care, it will be an immigrant worker and that is okay, as long as it isn't an American that is reproducing? Pretty thin!

No matter how much money you save, you will still wind up having someone physically caring for you as you are dying. Be it immigrant worker (I've been a nurse for 15 years and haven't met one) or someone else's baby that just couldn't fulfill Daddy and Mommy's dream of becoming a professional (what a shame! If we were all professionals then the janitor would be the highest paid man on the planet! )....then you will still need medical care(physically). If we can narrow the world down to third world country inhabitants, immigrant workers, who apparently can only aspire to wipe a lawyer's or doctor's rear, and the oh-so-prepared for their old age and childless people like yourself...then I guess this would be a perfect scenario for you?

Again quite puzzled....are you aware that most of the doctors providing medical care in the US are immigrants? So, your implication that you don't need children to provide for your physical needs because you will have immigrants is just ludricrous in the extreme. Even if they would be an immigrant, they are still someone's child doing the dirty work of the world...apparently a no-hoper that couldn't fulfill their parent's dream of becoming a doctor or lawyer.

I want to tell you a little truth here. No amount of money will keep you from eventually needing physical care of your aging body. If you think that money will buy you something besides a trip to the nursing home or private duty care at your home, you're seriously delusional. Therefore, someone's child will be wiping your bottom eventually. Probably NOT an immigrant...he/she will probably be your doctor.

We can control population growth to fit the environment, we can alter the environment to be more productive for humans, or we can die in various horrible, agonizing ways. Not sure why you seem to be in favor of the last option...?

I don't choose for people to die in agonizing ways but nor can I prevent it. We will die in these ways whether the population is controlled or not. Do you really think cancer is killing people because there are so many of us? Whether we like people to die in agonizing ways or not, it will still happen and, in effect, the dying of these folks will ultimately provide some balance.

Who is going to care for you into your old age?

Me. I've got retirement savings and a boatload of insurance for that purpose. In any case, I've seen enough nursing homes to know that most children don't take care of their parents anyway, immigrant nursing aides do that job, paid for by the sales of all the parents' assets. The non-childed residents of the Raisin Ranch are in the same nursing homes as the childed, only they never complain about their ungrateful kids.

I'm sorry...have you ever even BEEN around an older person? Do you actually believe you can live forever, care for your physical needs when you can barely walk or feed yourself, and just die peacefully in your sleep on top of your retirement savings?

DARE TO DREAM! When I queried who would take care of you into your old age, I meant who would change your diaper? Who will feed you? Who will bathe you? Our children, of course!

And, no matter how ignoble you find the nursing aide profession to be(apparently only fit for some unambitious immigrant), some of the finest, most compassionate people I know are nursing aides. You better hope they work in the nursing home you will end up in...and I hope they haven't read your posts!

As for who will be growing your food? Big agricultural farms? For one, if you eat that food, you may face these issues sooner than you think! Secondly, who in the world is planting this food, irrigating it, harvesting it? Robots? People, of course. Someone's child , ungrateful, whining wretch that he may be.

Thank God some of us thought to have some, so you can eat, save your retirement, care for yourself into old age and die before you need someone to care for your aging body. Thank God all children won't be doctor's or lawyers who shun having children because they may become ungrateful, whining children who fight over their inheritance. Were you raised by wolves, perchance?

Some of us have very lovely children who are grateful for all they have, who won't receive an inheritance because their mother works as a hospice nurse (undoubtedly so I can watch people suffer in my preferred way!) and who, will hopefully go on to produce more unselfish children so as to outnumber the folks who feel that it would be better to not populate the world so they can save for their retirement and keep all their lovely money!

I, for one, am so thankful that you feel this way! I feel so much better that this type of thinking will not be reproduced ad nauseam.

As a side note, if one of my children grew up to be a nursing aide, I would glow with pride. Caring for others without the benefit of reward is what I have tried to instill in them from their first breath. My job will have been a success! They came into this world naked and they will surely go out the same way...as will you. All your money cannot prevent this from happening. The time between those naked, vulnerable moments is the only thing you can look upon with any pride. Will you be improving your stock portfolio, which you will not be taking with you? Or will you be improving your soul, the only thing that will be taking with you?

 

[Rosalind]

Well, I'm not sure I understand your point.

Again quite puzzled....are you aware that most of the doctors providing medical care in the US are immigrants?

Yes. That's what I said. That in lieu of Americans fulfilling their own needs, we rely on immigrant labor. We haven't been a self-sufficient nation for a very long time now.

Who is going to care for you into your old age? MY children?
-snip-
some of the finest, most compassionate people I know are nursing aides

This is the part I am confused about. Is it better to have your own children working as your personal servants, unpaid, or is it better to hire it done and pay a fair wage? I am arguing that it is better to hire it done and pay a generous wage, and that moreover it will likely not be your personal children if that bothers you so much; in your previous post you seem to imply that having your children grow up to be hospice nurses is something negative because they won't be taking care of you at that point, but then you go on to say you'd be proud to have your kids go into nursing? You seem very angry about anyone not having children, but then you don't think that any way it would affect you would be a negative thing?

I am arguing that it's better to rely on yourself than to rely on the generosity of family, because in my experience and observations, families are not often all that happy, loving or generous. Your experience may well be different, good for you.

I agree that one day every single person, including me, will be in the raisin ranch. I never said otherwise. I think you are reading an awful lot into my post that isn't really there. Also would appreciate if you'd lay off the insults, because I sure didn't insult you.

I will re-iterate, in case I wasn't clear: Some people choose not to have children, for various reasons including environmental degradation. They (we) are not a majority, not by a long shot. There will always be plenty of humanity to go around, in many cases much more than enough. That is because everyone is different and has different ideas. In my opinion, it's better to avoid population-density-related problems of which illness and civil war are only two, voluntarily, peacefully and without bloodshed if possible. I do think that is possible, as it has happened in other cultures. Again, just my opinion.

 

[me&thegals]

So, if everyone in the world were to convert to non- child-bearing people, this would correct the problems caused by overpopulation?

I don't think everyone is joining the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement anytime soon, do you? We are all very different people with different opinions, no? And clearly this concept of choosing not to have any children is not spread by genetics--it's spread by culture, no?

And the third world countries that are starving and dying? Isn't this natural selection in the process already?

Yes, it is. The point is, really, that if you have a choice between minimizing population-density-dependent issues such as disease and starvation by thoughtful use of birth control, vs. pain and suffering, then, well, some people would choose to avoid the pain and suffering. What's wrong with that exactly?

At the rate that diseases like cancer are increasing, the problem of overpopulation may be correcting itself as we type.

The point of natural selection is that it WILL correct itself in whatever fashion it needs to. It's not, like, optional. We can control population growth to fit the environment, we can alter the environment to be more productive for humans, or we can die in various horrible, agonizing ways. Not sure why you seem to be in favor of the last option...?

Well said

 

[reinbeau]

Well, I'm not sure I understand your point.

Again quite puzzled....are you aware that most of the doctors providing medical care in the US are immigrants?

Yes. That's what I said. That in lieu of Americans fulfilling their own needs, we rely on immigrant labor. We haven't been a self-sufficient nation for a very long time now.

Who is going to care for you into your old age? MY children?
-snip-
some of the finest, most compassionate people I know are nursing aides

This is the part I am confused about. Is it better to have your own children working as your personal servants, unpaid, or is it better to hire it done and pay a fair wage?

Hmmm....I'm going to chime in on this one. It's very sad that you think someone who is caring for an aged parent is an unpaid personal servant. That is how things are supposed to be. We should care for our parents in their old age. I think it's very sad that this society has descended to the point where the old are warehoused to be taken care of by 'paid servants', not their own families. American morals are so screwed up it continues to amaze me.