By not having children and saving up the money instead will make you rich?

[Mormolyce]

It is weird, in a world/life that offers us almost no inborn purpose or meaning this person sneeringly mocks possibly the only "purpose in life" the world actually bothered to give us.

In an Existential sense, you are handed a task, possibly the only thing the universe will simply just give you and you go "NAH!" Like anything else you're likely to do in life will have any meaning anyway.

You're saying the universe wants me to choke the chicken?

[Theodarzna]

You're saying the universe wants me to choke the chicken?

I'd say yes, go for it.

In a cosmic sense its about as significant as most other human action.

[cuafpr]

there was a time in my life i wanted kids.. that time has passed. I now enjoy spending money on myself and if i get the urge for kids i visit my brother and his family.

[Mistame]

It's narcissistic because you're caring only about yourself and your own pleasure. The OP is entirely about how much money you could spend on stuff you want to do if you didn't have kids to raise.

Misusing a word does not validate your argument. Not wanting is kids is has nothing to with caring about others. It's simply not wanting kids. The two are not mutually inclusive. I don't want kids and have plenty of people I care about. There is nothing "narcissistic" or even "selfish" about not feeling the need to sacrifice one's own happiness for the sake of random strangers, "future generations" or "society".

And it's antisocial because, well, you're not exactly contributing to society, are you? The most fundamental way you can do that is to raise the next generation, but choosing to not have kids is diametrically opposed to this, hence antisocial.

Again, you're misusing that word. A person's only "obligation" to society is to not be a burden. This is satisfied by earning enough to pay taxes and not need the assistance of social programs to survive. There is no obligation to have children or to make "sacrifices" for the "betterment of society". The very notion that the one's purpose or "responsibilities" lie in ensuring the success of "future generations" and/or the "betterment of society" is inane and irrational collectivist drivel.

I'm afraid not. All the money you put towards your state pension when you pay National Insurance or whatever other taxes fund it actually goes towards paying the current crop of pensions, and is NOT stuck in a bank to earn interest for you when you retire. Private pensions work that way, but state ones are just government-designed pyramid schemes.

You're missing the point. The only "obligations" you have due to employment or in regards to benefits of employment are those outlined in the agreement of said employment. If your pension contract does not say you have to have children, you've no obligation to have children. A pension is a benefit of employment, the only "obligation" is your employment.

All your arguments do is inject of the "moral" standards of collectivist theory in an attempt to guilt people into putting their own individuality and happiness on the back burner. News flash: Individuality and personal happiness are the driving force of humanity and morals? Entirely subjective.

[Ishayu]

People can enjoy themselves in the present, and can want to keep enjoying it as long as possible. Doesn't mean they need to worry about shit that happens after they are gone because they will never experience it.

No, but people they care about will.

I cannot believe I have to explain empathy or planning for the future. I cannot believe I have to explain belonging or group behaviour.

These things are all ingrained in your minds, whether you like them or not. Only through frankly dangerous rationalizations are you ignoring them. Either that, or you have a mental illness. I'd go get checked. I'm serious.

I hope, for your sake, that pensions and the welfare state will be functioning when you grow old. If not, you'll rot. There won't be anybody who cares about you or takes care of you if this is the stance you want to take.

Grow up and take some damned responsibility for your community. Sheesh.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. It's not about doing good to people around you. It's about doing good to people around the building that will be constructed over your grave.

For whose interest should I consume resources other than my own? Yours? Show me how not empty you outlook on your life is. What have you accomplished for YOURSELF in this life? Is there anything or everything you do is dedicated to the good for people in the future?

What a silly question. Obviously I want to enjoy my short and only life. Why would I kill myself? At least what I do with my life have meaning to the only person who cares about my life. Me. What you do with your life have no meaning to you because you won't enjoy to fruits of your labor, and those who would enjoy your fruits - will not care about the gardener. I.e. you.

No, I'm telling you that your aims in life are misguided. Focus within. What is it you are living for that's worth living for to YOU. Because nobody else will worry about that.

This is utterly deranged from the first paragraph. What follows are misunderstandings and strawmen. No constructive dialogue can be had with someone who is this unbelievably narcissistic.

I cannot believe that you think that no pleasure can be derived from doing others a service. You're basically spitting in the face of teachers, soldiers, and many other types of servicemen. You're deriding what they do because their intention is to help others to attain something after they themselves are dead. This is both irrational and shameful. You are literally spitting in the face of the heroes that gave you a peaceful life and proclaiming that you will never be like them.

In fairness though, I know people like you exist. The existence of people like you is why I routinely argue against the left, especially socialism. Its utopian vision assumes people like you don't exist, but you do.

[Elim Garak]

This is utterly deranged from the first paragraph. What follows are misunderstandings and strawmen. No constructive dialogue can be had with someone who is this unbelievably narcissistic.

And then proceeds with a strawman...

I cannot believe that you think that no pleasure can be derived from doing others a service.

[Realitytrembles]

I cannot believe I have to explain empathy or planning for the future. I cannot believe I have to explain belonging or group behaviour.

You don't have to explain empathy, belonging, or group behavior. I understand them, and mostly reject them in my life.

As for planning, I do plenty of that. For the time between right now and the day I die. There's no need to plan for after that, as I won't be around to give a dmn.

[Spectral]

People who don't want to have children are huge manchildren/womanchildren themselves, unable to grow up.

But hey it's just my opinion.

What leads you to that opinion?

[McTroll]

Wow, the amount of unwarranted self-righteousness and virtue-signaling in this thread is off the charts.

Funniest thing is, people partaking in this practice do it to hide the flaws we "scum of the earth" own and live with. To shroud what they can't accept by putting the spotlight on what they SAY they are.

[spanishninja]

Making sound economic decisions will have far more impact than deciding to not have kids.

That's kind of a flawed statement because not having kids you can't afford will itself be a sound economic decision.

[Blood Raven]

It may not make you rich, but you'll have more resources at your immediate disposal. Either way I'm happy that I'll never have kids.

[Teleros]

I can get the first 2 of those 3 elsewhere, and the 3rd can go f off.

Not all love is equal, nor is all joy - or all pain, for that matter. You're not going to experience the love and joy of your child from anything else.

As for pain, what can I say but that it's part of life, and growth, and all that stuff. Life is suffering, to quote Jordan Peterson .

My main point: as long as I would be the one having to pay for them, no kids. My money is mine.

Don't tell that to the tax man .

= + =

Misusing a word does not validate your argument. Not wanting is kids is has nothing to with caring about others. It's simply not wanting kids. The two are not mutually inclusive. I don't want kids and have plenty of people I care about. There is nothing "narcissistic" or even "selfish" about not feeling the need to sacrifice one's own happiness for the sake of random strangers, "future generations" or "society".

In general, sure. In the context of the OP however...

Again, you're misusing that word. A person's only "obligation" to society is to not be a burden.

Well there we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

The very notion that the one's purpose or "responsibilities" lie in ensuring the success of "future generations" and/or the "betterment of society" is inane and irrational collectivist drivel.

It's neither inane nor irrational, and is collectivist only insofar as it seeks to ensure that society actually exists after you're dead and gone.

Your position is essentially something like this:

"I paid taxes and didn't go on welfare, but if society collapses after I'm dead and gone who gives a f---."

You're missing the point. The only "obligations" you have due to employment or in regards to benefits of employment are those outlined in the agreement of said employment. If your pension contract does not say you have to have children, you've no obligation to have children. A pension is a benefit of employment, the only "obligation" is your employment.

You're talking about private pensions here, it seems, but I made the point of talking about state pensions when it came to having kids. Your private pension, as far as I'm concerned, can be whatever you want, provided it's legal. But the way almost all state pension schemes work is different, as I've explained.

All your arguments do is inject of the "moral" standards of collectivist theory in an attempt to guilt people into putting their own individuality and happiness on the back burner.

All your arguments do is try to reduce things to some kind of Ayn Randian Objectivist, AnCap mess, where the future of society is utterly irrelevant so long as things are fine right now.

See, I can do hyperbole too .

News flash: Individuality and personal happiness are the driving force of humanity

They're some of the driving forces, yes. Religious beliefs, duty and such have also been pretty potent drivers for humanity in the past, too.

and morals? Entirely subjective.

To hell with that. Literally.

[Kaleredar]

Are you getting rich while not having children currently?

No?


Then no.

[Bathory]

FIRE>children

[Mistame]

It's neither inane nor irrational, and is collectivist only insofar as it seeks to ensure that society actually exists after you're dead and gone.

Anything that derives from social contract theory is irrational drivel.

Your position is essentially something like this:

"I paid taxes and didn't go on welfare, but if society collapses after I'm dead and gone who gives a f---."

I'm sure there's plenty of people that will care. But that doesn't mean they have an obligation to care. The purpose of life is to find personal happiness. Not "make the world a better place". If doing that is what makes you happy, then good for you. If not, that's OK, too. That is what life is about. The freedom to live how you want, not how others dictate is the "moral" way to live.

You're talking about private pensions here, it seems, but I made the point of talking about state pensions when it came to having kids. Your private pension, as far as I'm concerned, can be whatever you want, provided it's legal. But the way almost all state pension schemes work is different, as I've explained.

And again, you're missing the point. How the "scheme" works or who the employer is, is completely irrelevant. If part of the employment benefits package includes a pension, the only actual obligation for that package is employment. Now, if you sign a contract that explicitly requires you to breed, then sure, you're "obligated" to breed. Otherwise, the choice is yours. Neither choosing to nor choosing not to are "bad". Nor does choosing not to make you "antisocial" or "narcissistic".

They're some of the driving forces, yes. Religious beliefs, duty and such have also been pretty potent drivers for humanity in the past, too.

They're the primary driving force. There's a reason reproduction isn't regulated. You know what that this? Individual choice and freedom.

To hell with that. Literally.

Bleh. Religion is so adorable. Like a 4 year-old getting excited for Santa.

[Unhinged]

No, but people they care about will.

I cannot believe I have to explain empathy or planning for the future. I cannot believe I have to explain belonging or group behaviour.

These things are all ingrained in your minds, whether you like them or not. Only through frankly dangerous rationalizations are you ignoring them. Either that, or you have a mental illness. I'd go get checked. I'm serious.

I hope, for your sake, that pensions and the welfare state will be functioning when you grow old. If not, you'll rot. There won't be anybody who cares about you or takes care of you if this is the stance you want to take.

Grow up and take some damned responsibility for your community. Sheesh.

- - - Updated - - -

This is utterly deranged from the first paragraph. What follows are misunderstandings and strawmen. No constructive dialogue can be had with someone who is this unbelievably narcissistic.

I cannot believe that you think that no pleasure can be derived from doing others a service. You're basically spitting in the face of teachers, soldiers, and many other types of servicemen. You're deriding what they do because their intention is to help others to attain something after they themselves are dead. This is both irrational and shameful. You are literally spitting in the face of the heroes that gave you a peaceful life and proclaiming that you will never be like them.

In fairness though, I know people like you exist. The existence of people like you is why I routinely argue against the left, especially socialism. Its utopian vision assumes people like you don't exist, but you do.

Lol teachers, soldiers and other servicemen deserve no extra respecr or priase. They are paid for it as it is tgere job. Most of those professions are littered with people who are useless. Most of love to havr a good old circle jerk about how hard they have it and how much they do. But that is just shit, of you have it so hard go get another job like the rest of society.

Having children is the most selfhish act you can do and most people are useless parents. Parents should be thanking childless people as we pay far more taxes for your crotchfruit than you do.

[Mistame]

So is the universe playing a cruel joke on people that can’t have kids? (Or can, but discouraged to). I don’t actually care about breeding one way or another, but wanted to get your take on it from your vantage point on the seeming duty for us to reproduce.

It's also a bit amusing that he thinks reproduction is our one purpose in life. Seems to me the purpose of life is to find happiness, whether it's doing one's part to "make the world a better place", being a mother/father and doing your best to raise your kids in a way that allows them to find their own happiness or enjoying the life without the burden and responsibility of raising children, etc. /shrug

[Theodarzna]

So is the universe playing a cruel joke on people that can’t have kids? (Or can, but discouraged to). I don’t actually care about breeding one way or another, but wanted to get your take on it from your vantage point on the seeming duty for us to reproduce.

In a sense I think its just the universe being more cruel. Having physically given birth now, I can not say its a rapturous wonderful experience.

It's less of a duty but more of, in an existential sense we are our biological programming. It alone is the only transcendent purpose given to us. Its in general cruel because "fuck, this is our destiny? This is the only thing the universe hands us? REALLY?!"

[HitRefresh]

Though when you are dead, nothing really matters as you don't exists anymore.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to shitheads doing shitty things like murdering a bunch of people.

"Anything is fine if it doesn't affect me!"

[Theodarzna]

Yeah, I think for my perspective I kind of see it from a libertarian lens. That the universe is meaningless is both a "blessing" and a "curse". On the one hand... no "meaning"... on the other hand, that means I can do what I please (within reason).

When I was in my teens and going through my existential crisis, my "meaning" became to acquire as much knowledge as I could. So far that path has has been enlightening, and depressing...

I think that is why Friedrich Nietzsche's ubermensch appeals to me... he came pretty much to the same conclusion. Instead of wallowing in nihilism, look at meaninglessness as a gift... or a game... games are meaningless; but are fun(usually). Expand your mind and improve yourself and you start seeing games, within games, within games.

Or, you can take the stoic approach to life (or in this case suicide):

“Remember that the door is open. Don’t be more cowardly than children, but just as they say, when the game is no longer fun for them, ‘I won’t play any more,’ you too, when things seem that way to you, say, ‘I won’t play any more,’ and leave, but if you remain, don’t complain.” (Discourses I.24.20)

I embrace a different sort of set, we do have a purpose, its just not terribly glamorous or exciting. I've done part of my inborn purpose, but whatever else I do is simply a choice I make with my limited time.

The Gods are cruel in this respect.