Is there any rational reason for having kids?

And here... we.... go!

http://www.toxicshock.tv/news/wp-content/uploads/heath_ledger_as_the_joker.jpg

If you don't want them, don't have them.

OK, 100+ internet tuomas meme's to follow?

What on earth do you mean by "rational" in this context?

You seem to have narrowed its concept so much (I mean, who says that the instinctual drive to propegate genes can't be rational) that it has become meaningless.

Apart from anything else, apply the categorical imperative - what if *everyone* decided not to have kids?

And what on earth does continuing one's bloodline have to do with an afterlife?

Sounds like you need to lay off the Dawkins, man.

And anyway, I'm not sure if it the extinction of the human race would necessarily be a bad thing, if it was a voluntary decision

Thanks for that one

I think the rationale is that unprotected sex is fun. The rest follows causally.

Finnish kids are fairly entertaining, cross-country skiing and the like

Anyway, come back in 10 years time and Tuomas will have a wife and two kids, I'd put money on it

If your sole and only reason for having kids would be some kind of "rational" decision, then you're right, you probably shouldn't have kids. Because having kids and raising them is a decision and process that involves a whole bunch of totally subjective and "non-rational" things like unconditional love and devotion and loyalty and, from what it sounds like, fairly unrewarding hard work.

So this isn't really something to which you can apply rationality. In a purely reductionist, rationalist, materialist universe, love doesn't exist at all. So don't bother. Please.

If you don't want them, don't have them.

Yeah, I know, but I was just interested in general rationalizations of having or not having kids.

I mean, who says that the instinctual drive to propegate genes can't be rational

In what way would it be rational then, from an individual's point of view?

I think the rationale is that unprotected sex is fun. The rest follows causally.

But you can have unprotected sex without having kids.

But you can have unprotected sex without having kids.

-- Tuomas, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 11:39 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

http://leftistmoon.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/head-against-wall.jpg

Is there any rational reason why we shouldn't all just walk off cliffs now? The impact would be painless and no one will remember most of us in 100 years anyway.

In a purely reductionist, rationalist, materialist universe, love doesn't exist at all.

But love and having kids aren't necessarily related. Anyway, love as a psychological/physical/sociological phenomenon seems much harder to control than having kids... It's quite hard to decide not love based on rational reasons (though I guess it's possible), whereas these days having kids seems to be decision you can apply rational thought to.

My kids are great.

Apart from that, I have nothing useful to say here.

Really, when it comes down to it, at the end of the day, is there any reason NOT to watch a chimpanzee have sex with a frog?

http://www.noob.us/entertainment/chimp-uses-a-frog-as-a-sex-toy/

You need to spend quite a lot of money if you have kids, it helps the economy.

Not having a lot of people about tends not be a good idea, economically

I remember my decision to have a kid. I was doing my lady, as I recall, and, through a complex logical process, elected to shoot my entire load at the promise of a future generation.

So, is there any rational reason for having kids?

How else will you be having sex with a baby watching? I mean, shit, I doubt any of your friends will lend their baby but then you do live in Sweden.

I was doing my lady

don't confuse us with your elaborate euphemisms

I HAVE A HERNIA

But love and having kids aren't necessarily related.

Exactly. If you're not prepared to love the kids you produce (what, with love being a totally non-rational process) then DO NOT - REPEAT DO NOT - have children. End of.

They're not some rationalistic science project you can cancel when they get boring or don't go the way you planned.

This is not a decision you can make with rationality. In fact, if you are trying to make it based solely on rationality, it is a lose-lose proposition. There simply *is* more to it than that.

Anyway, I'm going to get off this thread before it goes all nasty.

I actually misread that as "I was doing my laundry" and was all like WTF he squirts his load in his soiled jeans?

Popped it in the machine and an hour later a BABY EMERGED

Okay, maybe "rational" was bit of a bad choice of words here, but what if we apply utilitarianism here? According to utilitarian principles it makes sense for me to get the maximum amount of pleasure from life while at the same time causing minimum amount of displeasure to others. So jumping from a hill would not make sense, because it would waste my potential for pleasure. But would not having kids cause displeasure to me or others?

Not to press the point, but, for me, the moment of decision was actually quite pleasureable.

So the question you're asking is... justify this perfectly natural process than many, many people do on a regular basis on perfectly good reasons, by some obscure and debunked piece of philosphy that I don't actually believe in.

I'm not actually *that* bored at work. Sorry.

Yes, but with the wonder of the pill you can have the same pleasure without needing to make that decision.

(x-post)

So the question you're asking is... justify this perfectly natural process than many, many people do on a regular basis on perfectly good reasons

What are these perfectly good reasons then?

Perhaps you could send them to work in a big industrial house of some kind, or maybe clean your chimney once in a while?

Not having kids might have well been boring.

Having kids has been a pleasure. The number of things I have found out about myself, thinking that my tastes, sense of humour, skills and talents, all of which I had always thought were obtained or assumed, I have noticed are within them before any such indoctrination from me or anyone else.

This thread is golden!

That's actually quite a good reasoning, Mark. But I guess the problem is that I can't know beforehand whether my life would be more pleasurable or less pleasurable if I would have kids.

thinking that my tastes, sense of humour, skills and talents, all of which I had always thought were obtained or assumed, I have noticed are within them before any such indoctrination from me or anyone else

oh come on, you've clearly brainwashed them to like YOUR CD collection

(x-x-x-x-x--x-post) Ah well, not everyone can take the pill, or wants too. In my case, though, I actually like the thrill of unprotected sex. The thought that every orgasm could make me a father really gets me off. Also, I've found that I can make my lover come by threatening to make her pregnant. I guess you didn't want to know all this, but what the hell, I told you anyway.

Tuomas, you never explained why a lack of belief in the afterlife would stanch your desire to "continue your bloodline". I've never thought about it this way before, but wouldn't it be more likely to be the opposite? That is, if you knew god didn't exist and that once you're dead you're dead - wouldn't that make the prospect of death with no children even more of a lonely prospect than it would be otherwise?

I guess the problem with the utilitarian approach is that it's quite hard to measure "pleasure" when thinking of a decision like that.

(xx-post)

I think you need to start the measurement from the perineum.

Anyone watched the chimpanzee video yet?

with pleasure... XPOST!

I've never thought about it this way before, but wouldn't it be more likely to be the opposite? That is, if you knew god didn't exist and that once you're dead you're dead - wouldn't that make the prospect of death with no children even more of a lonely prospect than it would be otherwise?

The way I think it is, if I won't be around to see my bloodline continuing, what does it matter if it continues or not? As for death, everyone dies alone, does it matter who's with me when I die? As long as I'd still have friends - and hopefully a partner too - at old age, I wouldn't necessarily need kids.

Sickie, okay, dude, that was disgusting.

Blame my girlfriend's brother.

I just saw the chimp video. Quite an eye opener. I doubt I will ever be able to look at frogs in quite the same way again.

He gave the chimp the frog.

Tuomas will have successfully cloned himself in ten years anyway

You'd be sitting with your s/o at the age of seventy going "oh shall we go off to the lake district/fjords again? naah. Fancy another cuppa tea/lager/shot of absinthe?"

How do you 'book' your pleasure a decade ahead? What to ah bollox 2 it....................

Hang on Tuomas, I may have a rationale for having kids after all - they may help to secure you a degree of care and comfort in your old age. That's a rather cold thought isn't it? but I'm just lobbing it up there as a possible candidate answer to your question.

LOL @ Tuomas' belief that Finland's welfare system is eternal

tuomas deserves some kind of excellence in trolling award

Wait when did I say I don't like being around them? I said we don't "goof off together." You can actually do other things with friends besides goof off.

My friends w/o kids are the ones who I can call on the spur of the moment and say, "Hey, lets go goof off!" My friends with kids are the ones I can say, "Hey, if you can get a sitter we can do X," or "Bring the kids over and we'll do Y." Kids love my house BECAUSE IT'S FULL OF TOYS AND VIDEO GAMES.

These concepts are not hard, people.

I imagine they probably feel the same way about him!

Your problem appears to be that you imagine a lot of things about people. Try spending less time in Imaginationland.

(xxp)haha. i missed the lonely gene. in fact the only problem I have with being a parent is I dont get alone time anymore.

(xxp)okay. i just assumed if you found someone boring you wouldnt want to be around them? i dont know.

I'm being told to get out of "imaginationland" by a 39 year old man who collects toys?

Where's that "so not gonna happen" pic?

neither children nor ilx are a substitute for having friends.

"Boring" is shorthand for "lacking compulsive free time" or "having a regular first priority that is not 'doing shit with friends.'"

xp Well my mind doesn't work real well with symbols, you know, so whatever. Can you tell me what the winning lottery numbers are going to be, Kreskin?

As a parent, let me say: yes, parenthood is exhausting and infuriating and money-and-time-draining and so on, yes yes yes. It is also more fun than you could ever possibly imagine.

The general biological imperative is not just to have sex, it's to keep the resulting offspring around. This manifests itself in kids being AWESOME.

Perhaps you would do better if you learned the difference between symbolism and mentalism, my friend.

No, no, you appear to have all kinds of valuable insights about me and my brain so I figure you must be TEH SYLVIA BROWNE or something and can see the future. So dazzle me.

OH NOES HE COLLECTS TOYS HOW OUTRÉ I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS ADULTS COLLECTING TOYS! Plz to understand difference between "collecting" and "playing with."

neither children nor ilx are a substitute for having friends.

-- Jordan, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:49 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

right, but like children and ilx, friends arent by any means necessary.

Pancakes - gotcha. I misunderstood.

Plz to explain point of "collecting" and not "playing with."

Well, when you go home to have a tea party with all your stuffed animals totally grown up and adult toy collection, you can tell them all about how you scored one for Atheism on the internets today. I'm sure they'll be proud.

i think friends are pretty necessary, actually.

not in the food and shelter sense, but to long-term happiness.

xp not my beef so I'll step right in regardless. why shouldn't Pancakes continue to collect ( and play) with toys? From what I've read you're keen on collecting and playing with guitars and effects pedals, that's not exactly dissimilar is it?

"Is there any rational reason for collecting toys?" thread coming in 5...4...3....

"is there any rational reason for having fun?"

I'm not sure if that's addressed to Mark G or me, but, well - I don't collect guitars and pedals - I *play* with them. Myself, I tend not to collect anything I don't actually use - i.e. books, CDs, guitar pedals. - for reasons of space and money rather than any philosphical reason.

And I'm not actually insulting anyone for collecting anything. I'm just playful-beefing carrying on from playground insults started on the rationality thread. Forgive me if I misread the general tone of conversation.

i think friends are pretty necessary, actually.

-- Jordan, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:08 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

not in the food and shelter sense, but to long-term happiness.

-- Jordan, Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:09 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

this has been quantified! and it's true, ppl with stronger and larger social networks are happier. it's a correlation /= causation thing, but the link is there

See also: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

From what I've read you're keen on collecting and playing with guitars and effects pedals

I do this too . . .

Plz to explain point of "collecting" and not "playing with."

Yeah, and what's with all those people who collect money that they don't even spend? And those fucking weirdos who collect stamps and never even mail a letter with them?

Do you understand what "collecting" is? It would appear not.

Well, when you go home to have a tea party with all your stuffed animals totally grown up and adult toy collection, you can tell them all about how you scored one for Atheism on the internets today. I'm sure they'll be proud.

Wow, I must've really touched a nerve, huh? Well, if you're half this clever at home, I suppose that's some consolation.

goole, thats bullshit.

I admit my post should have ended with ... toys.

OK, if they are 'nice to look at' then fine.

hey don't argue with me, like i said, it's been quantified... by someone... somewhere. it's no the only indicator of overall happiness but it's a strong one.

okay. sounds kind of dumb to me though.

I think it makes a lot of sense to me. Why would it be bullshit?

Ya can't fight with SCIENCE.

How many?

Enough to be The Beatles? The Osmonds? The Polyphonic Spree?

are you kidding? is being in a band your only conception of having friends or is there another joke there

I've read the same research, though I don't recall where.

Though I would stress again that correlation does not imply causation. It could just be that happier people tend to attract and keep larger social circles.

I'm not saying you have to be those bands.

I'm quantifying vaguely.

OK, trans:

3? 6? 45?

Kate, you strike me as having a large amount of friends...

I just meant it makes sense to me on very common sense level. Do you think there are many people with no friends or other social networks who are happy with this fact? I've always thought socializing with people and having people around to offer support when you need is almost a basic need.

(xxx-post)

Though I would stress again that correlation does not imply causation. It could just be that happier people tend to attract and keep larger social circles.

-- Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:27 (29 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

or that "more sociable" people are less likely to admit that they're unhappy?

Do I?

Then why am I not happier? Oh yeah, that dasturdly disease. Dammit! ::shakes fist::

x-posts to Mark G

tbh, i can't rly bring myself to skim through these responses, or even tuomas' opening paragraph, cuz i feel like the question is so bizarre. everytime i see it i think "um of course, what?"

::shrugs:: carry on

anyroad. it's 5:30!

we're out!

I would have thought it is perfectly possible to be happy with your own company. I can't prove this with science though, so it's bound to be WRONG.

it just makes basic common sense to me. for one thing it's good to have people you can talk with who aren't involved in the daily pressures of kids/relationships/money etc..

xxxp

I think, actually, I might have a causation flow indicator, though... if it's true that I have a large number of friends (though friends are not the only component of a social network) - even though I'm naturally quite a loner, a good social network is an effective way of fighting off the sense of isolation that aggravates that depression. Hence why I go out of my way to try and meet friends.

So that might be on to something...

but will have to wait until later to think about it more, as eep, network clock has just gone 5.30 and I, also, am out of here!

-having a sense of mutual respect and affection with a number of people ie 'friends' for the uninitiated
-sex & love
-fulfillment in work
-play activities that provide a sense of flow ie exercize of talents and absorption in an action, outside of time
-material needs met

that's about it, mix and match as needed. this is a very pop reduction of 'happiness studies.'

why trying to put numbers on any of these meets with immediate suspicion and resistance is a mystery to me...

i would think most people would only need a couple of those things to be happy

I agree they're of different importance to everyone, but I think all thoe points are basic to satisfaction with life?

Lots of people life with being vaguely (or not so vaguely) UNsatisfied with their lives and whether that's desirable is maybe another conversation. Ie sometimes as Dennis Leary says, "Happiness comes in small doses. It's a cigarettes, or a five-second orgasm, or a chocolate-chip cookie. So you smoke the butt, you come, you eat the cookie, and you go to bed and get up in the morning and GO TO WORK. That's all there is. It's a short list, people." Etc.

Ugh god sorry, in a hurry.

Denis Leary, ugh. that guy should be shot

I think pretty much any one of those from that list there would result in happiness index getting switched to acceptable levels for most people.

– Awesomeness

is one I need.