Discussion Should parents only bring children into this world if they can afford to support them financially their entire lives?

[Forever Sleep]

What do you think? Is that reasonable?

I doubt it's very practical. I doubt many could afford it. Is it reasonable for them to say: 'Well, I worked- so can/should you.'

What does it mean that we are for the main part expected to support ourselves (especially financially) in life? Is it truly altruistic? You'll be happier with a career. You'll enjoy having the money and independence it brings. How do they know? How do they know we'll be smart enough to get a good career? What if we're good in subjects that aren't valued anymore? I worked with a lady in retail who was embarassed for people to know she had a doctorate in studying a rare Indian language... What if we can't find enough work to make ends meet?

Do they even consider that they are birthing a child into a capitalist/consumerist machine? And that, if it doesn't work out and for whatever reason they don't comply, they don't find work- what then? Is it their fault for not agreeing to be a slave?

After a quick Google search, the average American gets through $3.3 million in a lifetime. Should prospective parents have that sitting in a bank account before they conceive? I reckon it's a good way to get us to go extinct... Think about it- that first generation saved the $3.3 million to have a child. That child doesn't work so, can't have its own children. The line ends.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

On paper, yes. They should. It's the rational and responsible thing to do besides not having children at all.

Too bad humans are messy and unpredictable creatures. Sometimes the inability to properly support a child makes it all the more arousing due to how forbidden it is to create one.

If the legal process for having children changes to force people to only have kids if they can financially support them, how are we supposed to enforce that? Do we just kill the kid? Do we kill the parents? Do we put them in prison and guarantee that child will be fucked up anyway whereas at least as it is now there's a small chance they can overcome their horrible background? Forced sterilization? How can we possibly get everyone to agree to that?

Like it or not, this is the way it is and is probably gonna be. Even fictional settings like Krypton that keep highly authoritarian tabs on all births still fell apart.

 

[sserafim]

I lean towards antinatalism but that's unenforceable because people are selfish, so I'll have to say yes. The parents are the ones actively choosing to have kids and bringing them into this shithole of a society and world; they shouldn't do this unless they can provide for their kids financially for the rest of their lives. Otherwise they're setting up the kid for a life of modern day slavery. I don't believe that kids owe their parents as no one chose to be born; I don't think that I'm indebted to my parents just because they gave birth to me. I didn't even have a choice and wasn't able to consent to it. There's also really nothing to gain by being brought into existence, so antinatalism ftw

 

[Pluto]

I replied elsewhere so will move it here:

---

Should parents only bring children into this world if they can afford to support them financially their entire lives? Maybe I'll run it as a poll out of curiosity...

I've wondered this, too. I used to have a rule that a parent should at least set in place a basic housing solution, since lacking housing is the main area where there is the potential for having to resort to subhuman conditions just to survive.

There's other factors. The majority of the Boomer generation - unlike the global mayhem faced by their parents - enjoyed the perfect blend of opportunity, entitlement, constant growth and (mostly) stability. They now perpetuate the old myth that anyone can be a success story and the various ecological, economic, overpopulation, wage stagnation and housing cost issues facing today's youth can be dismissed entirely. As a result, instead of trying to address these serious issues, there are endless political debates about whether there is a problem at all.

Then there's the question of whether a parent-funded lifestyle is a life worth living. I knew a guy who was given an apartment outright by his grandparents, and all he did with his time was smoke and play video games. He was so uninspired; it was not a nice situation at all.

The problem is that the world changes rapidly, sometimes in positive ways but sometimes in dystopian ways. It isn't possible to predict what will happen, but I do commend the minority of people today who at least put some thought into it.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

That would reduce the number of parents who r "allowed" to procreate to a very low number. Even if there are savings (e.g. the mentioned 3 million) there are many unknown factors that can happen throughout a life time. 3 Million today are probably worth only 1 million or much less in 50 years from now.

I would say the vast majority of children becomes independent at some point (and probably procreate). If we only look at us here, we're not representative in terms of statistics here I would say.

Parents should be prepared for the worst case but how could that be enforced?

I think I'm unsure rn now bc it's not that easy and we all don't know the future and we don't have any influence on that.

 

[Pluto]

That would reduce the number of parents who r "allowed" to procreate to a very low number.

Yes, this becomes one of those very difficult spectra.

On one extreme, when people with horrible disabilities procreate, it is unequivocally causing suffering. On the opposite polarity, setting high standards (e.g. of affluence) before allowing procreation would effectively be a genocide of poorer communities such as African Americans. In the end, it becomes such a mess that it becomes a topic that nobody wants to touch.

In addition to that, it is likely very preferable to have a humble upbringing in a loving family rather than be born to a wealthy narcissist.

 

[lotus11]

I'm on the fence with this one...in an ideal world OBVIOUSLY YES. 100 percent. But realistically no...who has enough money these days. If I was not going to kill myself, which hopefully I will manage, and I was going to stay here I would want to do my best to try to experience the most out of life. And to me, that would mean having a family. I was always extremely unhappy in the place I was brought up and with the family I was brought up with and it was always a dream of mine to create a new one one day and finally escape. Crate my own new reality in a way Fortunately for my unborn children and the world, I'm already in my 30s, nobody loves me, and I have zero money...so hoping to die soon.

 

[KafkaF]

Yes, absolutely. To do anything less is completely immoral, imo.

That being said, society should also be set up that this is a given. Esspecially considering in America and Europe people worry about falling birth rates so much. Maybe, you know, if people could actually afford their children that'd help.

I think in general procreation though is... complicated. I'm not an anti-natalist, but I won't deny that it is inherently a morally gray thing to do because you are inherently violating someone's consent. Nobody chooses to be born, it is something that is always forced on us.

That being said, a lot of people are really happy that they were born. For those people in the end it is good that they were born. But there are also people who were born who are not happy they were born. For those people it turned out bad and it would've been better if they hadn't.

At the end of the day, I'd say the minimum requirements for doing it are: You have the financial resources to support the child, you're in a setting where the child has a reasonable chance to grow up well (like not a wartorn country) and you yourself have reason to believe that you are capable of being a decent parent.

That latter thing is honestly the biggest thing that has always made me doubt whether I wanted children. My parents weren't very good parents in a lot of ways. I'm very damaged. And I've always been worried that I would be a shit parent to my child and screw them up the way I was screwed up. And I definitely don't want to do that.

Not that it matters right now. It mattered back when I was talking about having kids with my third girlfriend, or back when I was together with my previous girlfriend. But right now I'm single and suicidal so the way things are going currently it doesn't seem like I'll have any children.

 

[Homo erectus]

Everyone's expecting is different. It's better to give people a power to quit nicely if they see no future.

 

[Meteora]

Entire life? Until they have completed an education, I would say.

 

[sserafim]

Entire life? Until they have completed an education, I would say.

Why?

 

[Meteora]

Because after they can have a job and earn their own money? Ok, no rule without exception.

 

[sserafim]

Because after they can have a job and earn their own money? Ok, no rule without exception.

Yeah but like they only have to do that because their parents gave birth to them. They're forced to have a job and earn their own money to survive. If you were never born, you would never have to work at all. Everyone's parents brought them into this procreational pyramid scheme to be wageslaves. We're all thrust into this life to work until our deaths. Life is suffering and by procreating, you're perpetuating the cycle of suffering

 

[Aim]

No your job as a parent is to make sure thst your kids grow independent. So ths when they hit the right age. They are capable of flying by themself.

 

[Meteora]

Yeah but like they only have to do that because their parents gave birth to them. They're forced to have a job and earn their own money to survive. If you were never born, you would never have to work at all. Everyone's parents brought them into this procreational pyramid scheme to be wageslaves. We're all thrust into this life to work until our deaths. Life is suffering and by procreating, you're perpetuating the cycle of suffering

I get your point.... it s difficult to say... personally I wanted to be independent from my parents at all costs and also did shitty jobs to become so. I mean, parents have responsibility, yes, but I think we cannot blame them for the economical situation.... don't know really.

 

[Homo erectus]

Yeah but like they only have to do that because their parents gave birth to them. They're forced to have a job and earn their own money to survive. If you were never born, you would never have to work at all. Everyone's parents brought them into this procreational pyramid scheme to be wageslaves. We're all thrust into this life to work until our deaths. Life is suffering and by procreating, you're perpetuating the cycle of suffering

In a healthy society everyone would probably work very little, say a few hours a week. Most work in modern societies is self- inflicted. Sellers keep changing things to keep people buying things: from traditional light bulb to energy saving bulb to LED, from CD, to DVD to blu-ray, 4k, etc.

 

[sserafim]

No your job as a parent is to make sure thst your kids grow independent. So ths when they hit the right age. They are capable of flying by themself.

Why do people have to grow independent though?

 

[fuzzy-clown]

I don't think a parent needs to support a child living independently, but the parent should share their food and housing if the child needs it.

 

[Myforevercharlie]

Seriously? Yes parents have responsibilities. But not to feed you when you're an adult because you're to lazy to work.

Nobody asked to be born, but that's very little excuse to hold out your hand while sitting on your ass playing video games all day

 

[Meteora]

In a healthy society everyone would probably work very little, say a few hours a week. Most work in modern societies is self- inflicted. Sellers keep changing things to keep people buying things: from traditional light bulb to energy saving bulb to LED, from CD, to DVD to blu-ray, 4k, etc.

I agree. But isn't it possible also to work part-time and have a modest life? Nobody is forced to get involved in this capitalistic nonsense.

I don't think a parent needs to support a child living independently, but the parent should share their food and housing if the child needs it.

My parents did but always to their terms. As soon as there was a conflict they would bring this up, telling me that I should be gratful.... that's why just wanted to escape.

 

[Myforevercharlie]

I agree. But isn't it possible also to work part-time and have a modest life? Nobody is forced to get involved in this capitalistic nonsense.

My parents did but always to their terms. As soon as there was a conflict they would bring this up, telling me that I should be gratful.... that's why just wanted to escape.

Ofcourse it is. But most people only want more and more. Newest car, nice house, newest iPhone

You can do with less. But if you want everything you have to work for it

 

[Homo erectus]

I agree. But isn't it possible also to work part-time and have a modest life? Nobody is forced to get involved in this capitalistic nonsense.

No under the present system which is sucking energy from bottom up. Wealth gap is widening. It has reached a point where many people can't even cope with basic living.

 

[Meteora]

Ofcourse it is. But most people only want more and more. Newest car, nice house, newest iPhone

You can do with less. But if you want everything you have to work for it

Exactely. That's why I m always wondering why ppl complain and at the same time want it all....

No under the present system which is sucking energy from bottom up. Wealth gap is widening. It has reached a point where many people can't even cope with basic living.

Ok.... I don't know the situation in the U.S.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I don't know. On one hand, that does sound good and nice to have. On the other hand, I don't think that being financially stable on its own is good enough of a requirement. After all, people can still live in shitty environments despite their parents having financial stability. For example, their parents, despite being able to afford for their child, may still choose to not contribute much to what their children may want as they could have the same belief as most people that their children should be content with not having much. Also, financial stability wouldn't make up for the cases in where the child is experiencing domestic abuse or in the cases where the child is born with a permanent disability of which money cannot cure.

Though, all in all, even if they do everything right, there's still a chance that their child could be suicidal by simply being exposed to the world and everybody who is alive has to eventually be exposed to the world unless if they die at a super young age.

It's just a gamble either way but having a child whilst being financially stable to afford their needs is better than having the same child without having enough money for it

 

[Praestat_Mori]

I agree. But isn't it possible also to work part-time and have a modest life? Nobody is forced to get involved in this capitalistic nonsense.

Ofcourse it is. But most people only want more and more. Newest car, nice house, newest iPhone

Exactely. That's why I m always wondering why ppl complain and at the same time want it all....

Part-Time won't work. I doubt you could live from that amount of money - depending on where you live. Renting a flat will consume most of that money already. That's living on bare minimum. That's not a life.

Yeah "newest car" ... I'm not sure but if I was in 20's now and I think of a car that is similar to mine which I bought in my 20's that car would probably costs 100k € nowadays ... unattainable unless a loan over 20 years ... inflation greets.

People want it all bc they wanna live their lives in our society. We actually wouldn't need more than food, water and a bed but our lives are more than just that bc we created an artificial environment for us that is not natural anymore - everything is based on money not on nature - nature would provide everything what we need, for free.

 

[Meteora]

@Praestat_Mori nobody says you have to adapt to any kind of "standard" (who says what the standard is?) . I have no car, cant afford it. I rent one room in a share flat. I almost never go on holidays. I get food that the supermarkets would throw away (it is still perfectly fine).
I buy clothes at the thrift store.... ok, sometimes new ones but not often.
It is a choice how we wanna live an I understood early on that materialism is not important bc my parents were all about money and cars and houses and pretentious clothes. They were not rich but they worked a lot and their goal was to buy things.

 

[Homo erectus]

Is Korea providing subsidies for newborns until adulthood to simulate birth? Universal basic income is also heading that direction. Work for survival is very old school. Work for luxury makes more sense.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

@Praestat_Mori nobody says you have to adapt to any kind of "standard" (who says what the standard is?) . I have no car, cant afford it. I rent one room in a share flat. I almost never go on holidays. I get food that the supermarkets would throw away (it is still perfectly fine).
I buy clothes at the thrift store.... ok, sometimes new ones but not often.
It is a choice how we wanna live an I understood early on that materialism is not important bc my parents were all about money and cars and houses and pretentious clothes. They were not rich but they worked a lot and their goal was to buy things.

Everyone can live their lives and set their own priorities as they wish. That's perfectly fine! I didn't say anything against that. But I assume that the average person craves for some kind of "luxury".

 

[Meteora]

But I assume that the average person craves for some kind of "luxury".

Yeah but that's a choice, too. And it is a bit funny if people complain they have to work so much. We can make ourselves to slaves of the capitalism but imo it's a choice to a certain degree. Maybe not in every country, I m obviously speaking of mine.

 

[Pluto]

I can only speak from an Australian perspective. Houses have gotten so costly that a lot of young people seem to be priced out of the market, and might well buy an expensive phone just to feel better about it. Luxury items are cheap compared to bare essentials, which is not good.