[krie]

Don't have kids. They will have far shittier lives, not to mention shorter, than yours, thanks to the end of cheap fossil fuels. They're also a hundred thousand dollar expense. Do not want!

I suppose most of you are so prone to optimist thinking and nurturing your biological urges you won't heed my call. Ah well.

Oh, and by the way, the current worldwide depression will never end.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/wp-content/uploads/2011/...

[purephase]

While not as sensational, I did once buy into this line of reasoning when it came to procreation. Then I realized that we live in the most peaceful world that's ever existed, with the best medicine/life expectancy, most amazing technology, and with so much yet to discover and further improve life.

It's a copout. We're not optimistic, you're pessimistic and cynical. Let others choose the lives they want to live, with whom they want to live them because we only have this one life.

It may not mean much in the long-tail of human experience, but the moment you look into the eyes and hold your own child is one of the most amazing experiences I've ever had. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

[gavinpc]

Besides, it's a false dichotomy. Even rms knows that you can "have kids" without procreating. We have two adopted children — from the same mother — and believe me, you get the full experience. We were also lucky enough to be present for the births (I have unspeakable respect for those parents who foster or adopt older children), and we have kept up a relationship with the birth mother (who has three other kids).

Anyway, congratulations to the OP! But really — I thought this was going to be about "having a baby." Post again in the fall, sir, and then tell us about "having a baby." ;)

All the best.

Obligatory pictures

http://gavinpc.com/static/pumpkins.jpg http://gavinpc.com/static/pajamas.jpg

[krie]

Yes, it's the most peaceful in absolute numbers. It's also the shittiest in absolute numbers. Subsidized by cheap, surplus energy, courtesy of ancient plant and dino matter.

[prawn]

If you fail to have your own children, you break a chain of procreating that runs back millions upon millions of years. Interesting to consider.

Have got a six month old. Loving the whole process.

[moocow01]

Precisely and your children will also likely turn out to be the types that make predictions and fail like generations of the past

[olliesaunders]

> Oh, and by the way, the current worldwide depression will never end.

I think this is probably true. A related book is The End of Work by Jeremy Rifkin, which I highly recommend.

[krie]

Another related book is "What is sustainable": http://www.amazon.com/What-Sustainable-Remembering-Our-Home/...

[spydum]

alternatively, my kid(s) will be the ones to change the course for humanity, and slingshot us to the next revolution.

[krie]

Nobody has even come close at finding anything as useful as hydrocarbons. I bid you good luck. If he's < 5 he won't even have the chance as we're past the net energy peak from oil.

[gnosis]

Having children is usually a selfish and/or conformist choice.

Many people have kids because that's what's expected of them, and because that's what all their friends and family are doing. They also usually hope to be less lonely with kids, have their kids support or take care of them when they're older, be able to mold their kids to be like them or further their goals, and have a sort of existence after their deaths through their kids, or even fix up their marriage by having kids -- all selfish reasons to have kids.

But the kids never asked to be born. As parents, you are essentially forcing life upon another being.

According to Silenus, "the best thing for a man is not to be born, and if already born, to die as soon as possible."[1]

This is not to mention the plague of overpopulation and all the resulting problems that unrestrained breeding has led to.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silenus

[quasque]

"But the kids never asked to be born. As parents, you are essentially forcing life upon another being."

This is illogical. They can't ask to be born because they are not born yet. In your argument, the arrow of time is pointing in the wrong direction.

And the parents are not forcing life upon a being like some sort of genitals-based Dr Frankenstein rigmarole - they are creating the being.

[gnosis]

"They can't ask to be born because they are not born yet."

That's the point. They don't have a choice in the matter. The choice is entirely the parents' (assuming it's not an accident or rape).

[quasque]

You are trying to support your point by arguing against a tautology. This doesn't make any sense.

[jacoblyles]

Ergo, the universe would be better without life?

This kind of philosophy is baffling to me. How could anyone find it attractive, except for the perverse pleasure you get from trolling other people? And what kind of value is that to base a life on?

[gnosis]

I don't know about there being no life at all, but we could start by having less kids, or at least having a deep second or third thought about it instead of it being the default direction a relationship should take.

Significantly fewer people having kids would sure take a load off this resource-scarce, overcrowded planet. It would help fight poverty, hunger, and war.

If you absolutely must have kids, here's to hoping that you'll at least do it for unselfish reasons -- such as that you sincerely hope (and intend to do everything you can to ensure) that your child will improve the world in some way, rather than having a child for the selfish or conformist reasons I described in my earlier post.

[orangethirty]

Well, I'm glad my mom was not dating you.