Topic: Do you ever plan to have kids?
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #32,553
I never will. Over a million dollars when you factor in the direct costs, and the opportunity costs of having one. Stress, a lack of freedom, all that responsibility- and for what?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #454,332
Meh perhaps eventually
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #454,341
Taking other people's kids is much more cost effective.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #454,344
Not unless I hit the jackpot. I ain't raising no broke kids like my relatives.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #454,345
I sure hope I do.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,353
The poorest third world often have 20 kids.http://uruknet.info/?p=m101932&hd=&size=1&l=e
"Salih Alwadiya is among Gaza Strip’s poorest. The 61-year-old’s home consists of a kitchen, several small rooms and a space devoted to cages full of pigeons and a goose. Many of his 20 children, from three wives, live with him near a sewerage plant. In all, more than 50 people live in the small compound."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/13/gaza-first-prison-baby-palestinian-smuggles-sperm
Even in prison they try to breed so much they smuggle out sperm of their prisons just to have another child.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,355
@previous (F)
> Animals who can't pop out an offspring who will, most likely, survive will try to breed more to make the odds of producing successful offspring greater.
Welcome to nature.
This behavior probably ensured our survival as a species.
> Animals who can't pop out an offspring who will, most likely, survive will try to breed more to make the odds of producing successful offspring greater.
Welcome to nature.
This behavior probably ensured our survival as a species.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,358
Fox !FXYGNx1XR. joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,359
I'll never have sex unless it's with some sort of rubberized ass mold, so I don't plan on it.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,360
@454,358 (F)
I'm not talking (directly) about R/K type species. Humans don't lay thousands of eggs. (You reveal yourself as a reptilian agent...)
But please, address the actual argument that I'm making and show me that lower socioeconomic areas don't have higher birth rates. Historically, when fewer children where expected to live, people had more children. Birth rates in first world nations tend to be way lower than anywhere in the third world.
I'm not talking (directly) about R/K type species. Humans don't lay thousands of eggs. (You reveal yourself as a reptilian agent...)
But please, address the actual argument that I'm making and show me that lower socioeconomic areas don't have higher birth rates. Historically, when fewer children where expected to live, people had more children. Birth rates in first world nations tend to be way lower than anywhere in the third world.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,361
@previous (C)
Poor people are way more successful than rich people. That's just how nature works. When the only rubric is passing on your genetic material to the next generation, poor people perform like natures jet engine rocket ships.
Poor people are way more successful than rich people. That's just how nature works. When the only rubric is passing on your genetic material to the next generation, poor people perform like natures jet engine rocket ships.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,362
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> Poor people are way more successful than rich people. That's just how nature works.
I know lots of poor people who would not second that. :|
> Poor people are way more successful than rich people. That's just how nature works.
I know lots of poor people who would not second that. :|
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,399
@454,360 (C)
In Europe when times are bad they have fewer kids. When they're good, they have more.
Maybe because Europe was in an ice age until a several thousand years ago.
In Europe when times are bad they have fewer kids. When they're good, they have more.
Maybe because Europe was in an ice age until a several thousand years ago.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,414
@454,362 (C)
@454,362 (C)
> > Poor people are way more successful than rich people. That's just how nature works.
> I know lots of poor people who would not second that. :|
When the only rubric is passing on your genetic material to the next generation, poor people perform like natures jet engine rocket ships.
@454,362 (C)
> > Poor people are way more successful than rich people. That's just how nature works.
> I know lots of poor people who would not second that. :|
When the only rubric is passing on your genetic material to the next generation, poor people perform like natures jet engine rocket ships.
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,438
@454,399 (F)I can't find any statistics going back to the Ice Age.
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> When the only rubric is passing on your genetic material to the next generation, poor people perform like natures jet engine rocket ships.
It depends how you define success. If you are a family living in a poorer part of the world and violence, disease, famine, drought, etc. means that only half of your children will grow up to have families of their own, then you are arguably sitting at a lower success rate than a family in a better part of the world whose 1-2 children will almost certainly grow up and marry without facing those problems. If you define success by sheer numbers, then poorer families are more successful because they are trying harder. I do agree with the gist your statement though: nature's fucking rocket ships.
Anyway, here is a fun map of birth rates from 2008. See if you can pick out the third-world.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,441
Perhaps when I'm quite a bit older.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #454,514
@454,414 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Assuming passing on your genes is "winning" some kind of cosmic game is a mistake.
Evolution *describes* how life came about, it doesn't prescribe or mandate any cosmic end-goals.
Assuming passing on your genes is "winning" some kind of cosmic game is a mistake.
Evolution *describes* how life came about, it doesn't prescribe or mandate any cosmic end-goals.