Poll: Do you want kids? - Page 2

to answer the question, yeah. preferably two, preferably at least one boy, and preferably not for another 2-3 years but also in less than 5.

to add to the discussion on overpopulation, we're gonna go up to 10-11 billion unless a billion or more unexpected deaths happen. the demographic change has largely happened in most of the world, but people are still growing older than they used to and if they keep growing older than they used to, even if people are only getting 2 kids per family, we're still gonna go up to 10-11 billion. The only way you can politically fight against a real world containing 10-11 billion people is through killing people. That's not an option. Decreasing western consumption to match sustainable levels is really the only thing we can do.

then whoops we run out of phosphorus and everything goes to hell lolz

What means phosphorus

Rommel said it all

Does batman want kids?

I think the ideal age for a male to have kids is probably 40+ years old

Something to consider as most of the people in this forum are probably younger than 40 years old and not about 'that life' yet.

Who are you going to pass your inheritance to?
Then theres the intrinsic value of passing on your legacy, family roots blah blah blah.

My mentality was to enjoy the most of life first then when i got past that age and rdy to settle down then have kids. In reality how long can you really party and live the 'bachelor life' ?

Theres going to be a point in my life where i know im going this say life kinda boring unfulfilling, 'whats the next step in life?' This is personally for myself but also serves in conjuction with cultural and social responsibilities imo.

If you wish to be that couple that does everything yourselves or that guy that is always on his own, then more power to you. But eventually, there are going to be times when your at parties when your 40 and see your friends and family with kids running around and it will be just you or you and your partner sitting together on the couch.

The question will come up eventually. 'when are you going to give me grandchildren, cousins etc'.
It would just feel wrong to me if i told them all 'never', which would be the case if i never planned to have kids.

Also if you do want kids, most women will be most fertile from 25-35 in terms of their biological clock before complications arrive. Which is the time most woman want children. So you also have to consider your partner, (it would be easier if it was just your choice haha.)

Yes, I'd like a kid or two someday. However, I want to be married first, or at least be with a woman long enough to where I know I want to have a kid with her and eventually get married not too long after.

I want to make sure that if I do have a kid, the kid will have both parents in his or her life. Coming from an American, I know that sounds ridiculous.

Then you better do the flip for one billion

What's fucked up is that we've designed our economies around these growth models that witll either:
*Collapse the economy if there weren't enough people being shit out of wombs
*Collapse the economy if there are too many people vs resources available

We fucked ourselves guys.

--- Nuked ---

On April 24 2015 18:32 VanDerMeyde wrote: What means phosphorus

phosphorus is a chemical element found in and necessary for all life. It's also important for the production of fertilizer.
it's kinda contested scientifically, apparently there are huge differences both in perception of how much phosphorus is left and how much we can recycle. But there seems to be an agreement to that without phosphorus, we would only be able to produce food for like, 2.5 billion people. Knowing that the world population will increase to at least 10 billion, it would obviously be quite tragic if only 25% of the population could eat. Anyway, some scientists claim that we're gonna hit peak phosphorus in like 20 years, others claim that currently known reserves can easily sustain us for another 75-200 years and that we're likely to have found much more before those are depleted.

Definitely hoping the latter group is correct cuz a real global food shortage resulting in the starvation of billions wouldn't be nice for anyone.

Only if it's a good ROI

On April 24 2015 00:48 Raidern wrote: looking forward for loco's post michaeljacksonpopcorn.gif

I was going to say that regardless of my views, I wouldn't make a good parent, and pretty much leave it at that. Then I remembered this quote from Thomas Bernhard, and evidently felt the need to say a bit more:

“There are absolutely no parents; there are only criminals who are progenitors of new human beings, whose procreative act with all its absurdity and stupidity is directed against those who are created.”

It's evident that most people will say that the quote is overly harsh and unjustified. I think that out of those people, those who can think for themselves should honestly ask themselves if it is so, and reflect on Schopenhauer when he says, “History shows us the life of nations and can find nothing to relate except wars and insurrections; the years of peace appear here and there only as short pauses, as intervals between the acts. And in the same way, the life of the individual is a perpetual struggle, not merely metaphorically with want and boredom but actually with others. Everywhere he finds an opponent, lives in constant conflict, and dies weapon in hand.” In that light, it is absolutely accurate, since you are responsible for the fate of the gladiator you created and put in the arena.

I think it's an even more interesting question to ask on a poker forum though, because we have all gambled for money, and having kids is a completely different and more serious gamble. Within the question "do you want kids" is also the implied question: "how much risk are you willing to take?". Ethically it's obviously a problem. Put simply, we all agree on this forum that it would be problematic if we were to gamble with other people's money without their consent. But this is specifically what procreation involves; we roll the dice, and someone else pays in the end. And i'm not even talking about the literal end; about the fact that giving birth is giving a death sentence as well; I'm talking about what goes on between womb and tomb, about all of the potential suffering and unhappiness that we can't possibly prevent. That's the real deal breaker for me. I'm just not a gambler; I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror. (And that would only be one part of the problem solved, since that existence would be responsible for harming others as well.)

I thinks it's quite curious that we would feel wronged if someone gambled with our money without our consent, yet we are willing to gamble with someone else's welfare in a situation where consent can't be had. It's that ingrained "look on the bright side and hope for the best" attitude and nothing can be done about it.

Maybe one day I'll change my mind, if I read some persuasive arguments which I have yet to have found, or if we live in the world that the transhumanist philosopher David Pearce envisages. But for now, as with Zapffe, "In accordance with my conception of life, I have chosen not to bring children into the world. A coin is examined, and only after careful deliberation, given to a beggar, whereas a child is flung out into the cosmic brutality without hesitation."

meh; I'd rather fight suffer and die, if it meant I got to get high and fuck first. Especially as opposed to nothing all. Not even really close for me; I've gone through tough times, poverty, drug addiction, almost died of a suicide attempt at one point. Ultimately however I chose to be and am happy. Experiencing love outweighs any of the lesser negative states we enter such as depression, despair, pain. For some the negative states CAN outweigh the positive but I believe only in the small minority such as the terminally ill or those forever in pain. For them unfortunately something like compassionate euthanasia may be the only option i don't know but I'm not against it. You have a really dark view on life Loco. I understand the anti-natalist argument but the way you act like it should be taken as common sense and that for others to believe otherwise is to entertain logical fallacy kind of irks me.

At bad times I have been pissed at life and thought "fk you I didn't ask to be here I didn't agree to enter this society and abide by these rules". When laws or whatever didn't suit me and I broke them and got in trouble. And it might technically be true. I'm not sure as I can't remember what I got myself into before birth but for all I know my spirit knew just what I was getting into. Nobody is sure if we exist beyond the flesh but what if we do Loco, and I'm not talking religion here loco but what of your argument then. There is a possibility we chose our parents upon incarnation.

Anyways it is a bullshit argument because it is ultimately beside the point. We are here now so be happy and make the best of it. It doesn't have to be a shitty life; we clearly are growing collectively over the generations through accumulated knowledge and there is a chance we are able to obtain a relatively utopic society at some point. Nothing indicates humans are intrinsically incapable of that so it is worth shooting for. Part of living a happy life, whether fair or not to the baby, is having children and the insurmountable love it brings. If we do a good job as parents and everyone starts doing better as humans we should feel no guilt about bringing new life into this beautiful planet.

And we might not let other people gamble with our money Loco but we don't seem to have much problem allowing corrupt politicians to gamble with our well being

Not meaning to insult, but Loco's post sounds a lot more like intellectual masturbation..complete drivel..rather than anything mildly intelligible.


How can you take yourself seriously and say something like 'I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror."?

"I could only consent to the very basis of all organic existence if I could be guaranteed something that's only fortune tellers and seers are capable of."

Do you ever get tired of reading overly verbose blocks of paper and print that are really just a series of words with arbitrary meaning which have absolutely no relevance to reality?

I dunno, sorry. I don't really post here anymore, but I find intellectualism as a lifestyle to be nauseating. Perhaps instead of soaking up philosophy and regurgitating quotes, you attempt original thought :/

Before anybody responds to me, please absorb what it actually means to view exposing something to life as a gamble. Giving life is giving a death sentence? Womb and tomb? Give me a break.

Death is a part of life. Suffering is a part of happiness. They don't exist exclusively of one another. The melancholy, solemn, ominous, try-too-hard psuedointellectual is an old, tired role. There's a reason you all seem to gravitate towards one another.

On May 08 2015 07:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Not meaning to insult, but Loco's post sounds a lot more like intellectual masturbation..complete drivel..rather than anything mildly intelligible. How can you take yourself seriously and say something like 'I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror."? "I could only consent to the very basis of all organic existence if I could be guaranteed something that's only fortune tellers and seers are capable of." Do you ever get tired of reading overly verbose blocks of paper and print that are really just a series of words with arbitrary meaning which have absolutely no relevance to reality? I dunno, sorry. I don't really post here anymore, but I find intellectualism as a lifestyle to be nauseating. Perhaps instead of soaking up philosophy and regurgitating quotes, you attempt original thought :/ Before anybody responds to me, please absorb what it actually means to view exposing something to life as a gamble. Giving life is giving a death sentence? Womb and tomb? Give me a break. Death is a part of life. Suffering is a part of happiness. They don't exist exclusively of one another. The melancholy, solemn, ominous, try-too-hard psuedointellectual is an old, tired role. There's a reason you all seem to gravitate towards one another.

I take loco money-line here.

On May 08 2015 07:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Not meaning to insult, but [ad hom, ad hom, red herring, etc]

seriously what was the point of your post? Loco obviously has a strong point of view on this subject, i'm sure others disagree with him too and that's fine, but your hostility is really weird. not to mention you don't really make any point except that you really dislike intellectualism.

Traxa, in one sentence you claim to understand the anti-natalist arguments and another you imply that I hold this position because I'm pissed at life, not because it's the logical, risk-averse thing to do, and you say it just because it has been your experience to be pissed at life at some point and you got over it. Obviously you don't understand it at all. It's especially obvious when you end with "it's a bullshit argument, we're here now, let's be happy.", casually dismissing a whole conversation that clearly deserves a bit more thought than that. When have serious issues ever been dealt with intelligently with this kind of hippie laissez-faire attitude? If you want to be happy go be happy, no one is forcing you to try to fix things in the world, but don't present this as some kind of argument as if the world would be a better place if we just ignored everything that makes us unhappy.

You start your post with "I'd rather suffer and die than nothing at all." Notice how you casually dismiss my points by starting with your own desires, which have nothing to do with the subject that I brought up which is the ethics of procreation. The subject is choosing for someone else, not for yourself. Your values and your outlook doesn't carry through your sperm. That means that you inevitably always have to take the risk that this person will not be thankful to have been born. As far as your own experience goes, even if you're thankful now, you'll still suffer, and you can't know right now that you might not be thankful later, so it doesn't accomplish anything for you to say it. I'm just saying that I can't go wrong by not taking the risk. I'm not depriving anyone of pleasure, since you have to exist in the first place to be deprived of something. If for some reason I became a responsible adult who could competently be responsible for another human life and I felt a strong need to have children, I would want to adopt, because it makes more sense to me than this narcissistic attachment of passing down my own genes and name. I'm sorry if that makes me sound like as asshole, but it's simply the truth. I don't hate people for it, it is how it is.

I don't see how my arguments would need to change if we "existed beyond the flesh" like you say. The argument is about the flesh itself. Even if we grant the Catholic heaven to be real, it wouldn't change anything, since we still have to pass by the flesh, and the asymmetry argument and the consent argument still applies.


"Nothing indicates humans are intrinsically incapable of that and there is a chance we are able to obtain a relatively utopic society at some point."

History and biology both tell us the opposite. People of all ages have hoped and talked about an utopia being around the corner, if it wasn't in the afterlife. The kind of cumulative growth and progress you believe in is a myth, and there are many events that prove that such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Biologically, we know that we're a product of evolution, which was nothing but a bloodbath of lifeforms exploiting and consuming each other for no purpose other than reproducing. We evolved to dominate each other, not to get along. Civilization hasn't changed that; despite possessing what is the most complex structure in the universe, our brain power is still largely being used for purposes of exploitation and domination. Certainly no trace of a utopia there.

Look, our disagreement can be basically summarized with this. Suppose we have an amusement park where there are a hundred rides. Out of those, only one is defective, and will undoubtedly collapse while there are people on it, injuring some and giving some a painful death. My argument is that this park should ideally stay closed, because it's nowhere efficient enough. Even in bigger numbers, the good is clearly not worth the bad. With the arguments that you have put forth, you are saying that this amusement park is good enough; that it's worth it to have 99 functional rides because of all the pleasure there is to be had there, and the 1% of the horror is well worth it. I'm telling you that I'm not willing to choose to put someone I love into one of those rides, especially without their consent, and you think it's because I'm pissed at life. No, I'm not pissed, I'm just acknowledging that it's not intelligently designed and I won't willingly put someone in it.

On May 08 2015 07:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Not meaning to insult, but Loco's post sounds a lot more like intellectual masturbation..complete drivel..rather than anything mildly intelligible. How can you take yourself seriously and say something like 'I could only consent to giving life if I were absolutely guaranteed that my child would not be faced with extreme horror."? "I could only consent to the very basis of all organic existence if I could be guaranteed something that's only fortune tellers and seers are capable of." Do you ever get tired of reading overly verbose blocks of paper and print that are really just a series of words with arbitrary meaning which have absolutely no relevance to reality? I dunno, sorry. I don't really post here anymore, but I find intellectualism as a lifestyle to be nauseating. Perhaps instead of soaking up philosophy and regurgitating quotes, you attempt original thought :/ Before anybody responds to me, please absorb what it actually means to view exposing something to life as a gamble. Giving life is giving a death sentence? Womb and tomb? Give me a break. Death is a part of life. Suffering is a part of happiness. They don't exist exclusively of one another. The melancholy, solemn, ominous, try-too-hard psuedointellectual is an old, tired role. There's a reason you all seem to gravitate towards one another.

Someone once told me that you used to be much more interesting when you were a rebellious, goth kid. I see now where he was coming from. Now this makes me think that this post is more like an attack against what you think is in me and which was in your own past self than anything that has to do with me in actuality and what I've talked about here. But I might be wrong of course.

But enough with the personal stuff. It's not exposing something to life that is a gamble, it is the assumption that what you expose your progeny to will be well worth it for him/her. That's the main gamble. Of course there's also the gamble that the child might suffer and die of some illness or accident before it's even aware enough to come to contemplate life, and that's on you as well. If my pseudointellectual language and verbosity (Hegel has nothing on me!) is too much for you, here is a visual example of such a gamble.

"Death is a part of life. Suffering is a part of happiness. They don't exist exclusively of one another."

I'm sorry, but since I lack the ability to come up with original thought, I'll have to respond with a quote:

“Without pain, how could we know joy?' This is an old argument in the field of thinking about suffering and its stupidity and lack of sophistication could be plumbed for centuries but suffice it to say that the existence of broccoli does not, in any way, affect the taste of chocolate.” - John Green

If there's one person who is playing an old, tired role here I think it's you with your attempt at the Wise Man who understands and accept the unity of all things.

"There's a reason you all seem to gravitate towards one another."

Except I'm not friends with anyone else who holds my views, or any strong views at all really. I guess if I could I would be friends with Doug Stanhope, though. Not exactly the intellectual type. The few friends I have are more the 'watch hockey and play video games' types who don't read books. Nice read there, Freak. Actually, I'll add a bit more personal stuff, since it seems fitting: with reads like that, it's no wonder to me that you failed as a poker player. Fwiw, I also remember the reaction of various people, including some philosophers, over the things said by Rust Cohle in True Detective, which are in line with my own thinking, and most of which is quite disparaging. It's funny to think that it's probably the last position you'd want to take if you want to be part of some intellectual club.