Is it selfish to have your own kids rather than adopting?

[Fallen_Horse]

Yes, but no matter how little a person in a community consumes, if you don't control the population you will sooner or later have an overpopulation problem.

I believe you are factually and logically incorrect.

I think he is trying to say that the Earth can't sustain, say, 20 billion people, even if all of those people were vegan solar hippies.

[Konstantin]

Yeah, I know a women my age (26) with 8 kids. Also, there are those people on television with ~16 kids. The fact that there are people like her popping out a kid or 2 every year makes me know for sure that I do not want to have any children of my own.

That, to me, is more of an issue than whether responsible people decide to adopt/have birth kids. This minority are distorting averages and in many cases bringing up kids with little parenting, often for them to end up ion the care system at a stage when adoption is problematic for them. I think a tabloid ran a story yesterday of a bloke who had 14 kids from 12 mothers and was still going....providing nothing for any of them.

How this affects your decision I don't know: if you still have a manageable, well-cared for family, that's totally different from contributing to irrisponsible production like some people. Alternatively if you adopt you could be releiving pressure on the system and helping that kid. But you have to be ready for the differences adoption brings -which make some people see the process as a poor second to having birth kids.

[offense74]

Yes, but no matter how little a person in a community consumes, if you don't control the population you will sooner or later have an overpopulation problem.

I believe you are factually and logically incorrect.

I would like politicians to encourage childlessness instead of the opposite as is now done.

This depends on whom the policy addresses. I am afraid of gov't involvement in eugenics, as similar sentiments have often resulted horribly, such as when the "overpopulation" of poor backs resulted in coerced sterilization projects that affected poor communities.

In general, the biggest thing that curbs having more children is female education. That is a policy I am 100% behind.
However, that won't always solve a consumption problem. That's mostly due to the Global North, and the worst consumers often have population decline.

Malthus's ideas were scare tactics that fed on fears of others, rather than on the real problem: US.

Just like Fallen_Horse said what I meant was that no matter how efficient you are there's an upper limit to how many humans a certain area can sustain. It's all about the math .

For population control I don't mean active involvement as in shooting people and stuff, I just mean that they could encourage more people to be childless or have less children. Right now they are doing the opposite in that they need us to become more so that the economy can keep growing. There's also a fear stemming from the culture that childless people are sad and depressed morons. This is unfounded and untrue and this fear is generating a lot of new homo sapiens, I believe.

[xrodolfox]

Yes, but no matter how little a person in a community consumes, if you don't control the population you will sooner or later have an overpopulation problem.

I believe you are factually and logically incorrect.

I would like politicians to encourage childlessness instead of the opposite as is now done.

This depends on whom the policy addresses. I am afraid of gov't involvement in eugenics, as similar sentiments have often resulted horribly, such as when the "overpopulation" of poor backs resulted in coerced sterilization projects that affected poor communities.

In general, the biggest thing that curbs having more children is female education. That is a policy I am 100% behind.
However, that won't always solve a consumption problem. That's mostly due to the Global North, and the worst consumers often have population decline.

Malthus's ideas were scare tactics that fed on fears of others, rather than on the real problem: US.

Just like Fallen_Horse said what I meant was that no matter how efficient you are there's an upper limit to how many humans a certain area can sustain. It's all about the math .

Of course it is all about the math.
Destruction = # of people x consumption per capita
Only talking about the # of people won't change a thing unless both are done together. You can have Billions of people who don't consume much, or you can have one billion that do. Right now, it's all unequal. The places that actually have population growth are the places where there is little consumption. Perhaps there, in poor countries, the talk *should* be about population control... as it is. The biggest form of population control is women's education. That's what poor communities in poor countries often want.

Thus, it is kinda ridiculous to talk about further population decline in rich areas when the real problem in rich areas is consumption. I'm assuming that most of ya'll are from the Global North. The problem here is NOT overpopulation, but over consumption. One less child does very little if the rest of the community consumes so much that the net consumption still increases yearly.

So sure, it is the math.
You are just doing it wrong.

For population control I don't mean active involvement as in shooting people and stuff, I just mean that they could encourage more people to be childless or have less children. Right now they are doing the opposite in that they need us to become more so that the economy can keep growing. There's also a fear stemming from the culture that childless people are sad and depressed morons. This is unfounded and untrue and this fear is generating a lot of new homo sapiens, I believe.

I agree with this.

However, I think that there is a big danger of missing the real problem and creating new ones with the focus being anti kids. I already experience lots of pretty poor public policy as a poor person with children. NOT GOOD. It seems that poor folks who actually use less resources than the rich get the burden of being told not to have kids... even if we adopted them, the attitudes from people trickle everywhere. The focus in rich countries should be to change the economy so it is Just, and with less income inequality (which is why rich folks can often consume 400X more than poor people), and with a focus on valuing real community in the economy, not just "growth". IMO, it is easy to blame those folks who have 14 kids and are foolish, instead of taking responsibility as a culture to see that it is the ECONOMY (rather than the bloke who has 12 kids) in which we all participate that is leading us to armageddon.

The focus NEEDS be on consumption. One more kid adopted by the Jolie-Pitts consumes more than four kids that are poor. That is messed up. I don't think the problem is going to be addressed by personal individual changes, as pretty soon, the bulk of China (regardless of population growth stagnation) will get richer and consume much more.

The problem in the future isn't population size, as much as the consumption. Unless we change how the economy is structured, it won't be the population of China that'll bring the world to the brink, it is the capitalist expansion of consumption.

We need to deal with that first in the Global North, where populations are dwindling if it weren't for immigration.

[offense74]

Consumption needs to go down and I'm for political, cultural and personal ways to achieve that.

When it comes to population I'm not doing the math wrong, you gave the equation yourself. Do you have like a bottom number on how many people we need to be? Is it because of genetic diversity or what?

[JS]

I would say yes having your own kids is selfish as the only reason you're doing it is for your own biological needs as if you wanted to not be selfish and have children you'd adopt. I'm not too sure how someone can say they weren't selfish having their own children? Or am i looking at this all wrong??? I'm selfish for not having children too as to date I don't feel the need to have one as I am happy being selfish as I am enjoying my life without having to look after a child.

And I would like to say that I think folk who choose to adopt over having their own child when they could have made that option are very special people and these are the people that we should admire. They give their time and attention to a child that has had a very unfortunate start in life. That takes guts. Having your own kid yeah it'll be hard but it's your blood and I thinking adopting must be very hard as you have no bond to that child that may well have more demanding emotional needs given the rough start they have had on life.

[moggy]

If you really love children, then adopt, or are you only prepared to love a child who is biologically yours.
Adoption, particularly of older children can be difficult (usually is), but your own biological child may turn out to have special needs.

In 20 years of teaching, adopted children (or those in long term fostercare) have blossomed, whereas kids in care have been passed from pillar to post and their lives are like a train crash. 'In care' kids- well I've had to report them missing to the police myself because nobody else could be bothered, and taken them to the cafe in town when they havent eaten for days. One girl I even left money behind the till for.

If you are capable of loving a child, surely it doesnt have to be biologically yours.

[fredrikw]

What consitutes a selfish act? Is it any act that makes me feel good? Like, let's say, adopting a child?

Is a selfish act in itself wrong? Like, let's say turning vegan because animal abuse makes you feel bad?

[Konstantin]

. 'In care' kids- well I've had to report them missing to the police myself because nobody else could be bothered, and taken them to the cafe in town when they havent eaten for days. One girl I even left money behind the till for.

See the stats for likelihood of kids in care:

Completing mandatory education
Progressing to higher level education
Being convicted of a criminal offence by age 25
Having an accidental birth before age 18
Developing an illegal drug problem

Compare that with adopted kids and birth kids and you'll see an unsettling trend.

[xrodolfox]

Consumption needs to go down and I'm for political, cultural and personal ways to achieve that.

When it comes to population I'm not doing the math wrong, you gave the equation yourself. Do you have like a bottom number on how many people we need to be? Is it because of genetic diversity or what?

I think it is a lot more apt to say, "Get rid of the rich" rather than a market approach like, "don't have children".

I would say yes having your own kids is selfish as the only reason you're doing it is for your own biological needs as if you wanted to not be selfish and have children you'd adopt.

This is perhaps true in well-off and connected areas of the Global North, but that is not how the vast majority of children are born. Most of the time, there is very little birth control available. It is an ASSUMPTION based on class that most people decide to have their children.

If this statement was qualified to "rich people living in rich countries" then sure, I totally agree. Rich people in rich countries should totally be encouraged not to have children, and instead adopt... that puts a dent in one problem (children growing up without support), but it doesn't address overconsumption at all. For that, you need to get rid of the rich (or have real income equality).

If you really love children, then adopt, or are you only prepared to love a child who is biologically yours.

^The first part of the sentence is 100% logical... but the second part that is tagged on is a result of a slippery slope argument. There are many families which have adopted and biological children. It is definitely possible to love both, equally.

I think adoption needs more support, for sure. It needs to be made easier and adopting children needs to loose it's detrimental associations. Adopting should be the norm.

...but the rest of your argument is about how it's adopting vs. biological, which is a false dilemma. That isn't a true or logical frame. If you want to create more families/individuals that adopt, one needs to also support all families with children AND change the laws and social mores that restrict adoption.

Adoption, particularly of older children can be difficult (usually is), but your own biological child may turn out to have special needs.

In 20 years of teaching, adopted children (or those in long term fostercare) have blossomed, whereas kids in care have been passed from pillar to post and their lives are like a train crash. 'In care' kids- well I've had to report them missing to the police myself because nobody else could be bothered, and taken them to the cafe in town when they havent eaten for days. One girl I even left money behind the till for.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
This is awesome, and true.

If you are capable of loving a child, surely it doesnt have to be biologically yours.

This is not a logical conclusion or relevant to what you posted earlier.

Of course, people can love children that are not theirs biologically. My wife and her brother were adopted, and my in-laws love them fully. This is awesome. ALL children should be loved.

No one in this thread has made any argument that people should have biological children instead of adopting. That is an argument no one posed and no one agrees to. I have no idea why you are raising those points unless you are really arguing with someone outside of this thread on this topic. That person is not here, and if you present their argument correctly, then they are wrong... and you are right. Kudos to you.

It's just that no one here argued that.

[moggy]

actually, I thought I was responding to the title of the thread, and I'm sorry, but for the life of me, I cant actually make head nor tail of your reply.

[xrodolfox]

Summation: You are arguing against a straw man.

Only the OP posted that opinion (implicit in the title of the thread and the 1st post), and even the OP doesn't agree with it. Classic straw man.

[JS]

ooo i think the straw man thing made my head hurt

I need to take some time to digest what he's all about so I don't feel so dumb

[moggy]

xrodolfox, why make a summation about me not being able to understand your post?
I then cant even understand what the relevance to a straw man is - but I do get the feeling that, whatever you are on about, you are writing with a certain smugness in your reply.
You are obviously taking a satisfaction in thinking you have beaten me in an arguement, when I cant even understand what you are going on about.

[xrodolfox]

A straw man is simple.

Two points are argued.
Person #1 makes an argument.
Person #2 argues against a DIFFERENT argument than #1. This is the Straw Man (a fake and easier sparring partner).

Conclusion: Even if #2 makes a valid case, it is against the incorrect argument, and thus is logically inconsistent.