i-Holes
A-holes on the Internet, that is. Assholes, in case any of you were worried I'm losing my pottymouth.
What is it about people that makes them feel free to blurt out things on the Internet that they'd surely never say in person?
Can you imagine a guy in the grocery store walking up to some woman he thinks is single and childless and telling her she'd better find a man to marry her and get knocked up fast?
"Benjamin Cole" left this remark in the comments on the entry, Would You Marry, And If So, Why?
Amy in her late 20s? That's my point. From her photo and bio, probably into her 40s -- but still stuck on the marriage question, and publicly wallowing in self-appraisal, and her world, and her feelings etc etc etc.If Amy is still reading (I assume she took sleeping pills after reading the line "she did the right thing for the life of the child she didn't have" ), I have no hard feeling towards you, I never even met you. I wandered into this site, as it was linked to a libertairan site.
But crickey, Amy, get married and have some kids, and have some fun. Time to eat at the adult's table. Don't you feel trapped in some sort of 20-something world? Who are dating now? Are you getting to that next oh-so-important stage of your career? Were you snubbed at a party etc etc etc.
No, I am not saying kids are the only thing. If you have them, they should be almost the only thing, while they live with you. When they are grown, then fine, back to the wine and classic music in the evening, and (if affordable) vacations sans kids. If you are lucky, you will have time in your life for the full-cycle.
Good luck to everybody. I just worry some singles are out there, so concerned with their petty problems, they don't realize they are missing the real stuff. They are going to miss one of the best stages in life, as I almost did.
Like I said, find someone who loves kids, and have them. Every penny invested yields a dollar, and I am not talking about money.
My reponse:
I'm 44, thanks, with very flat abs. I also find it incredibly rude to offer unsolicited advice, especially to strangers. Apparently, you do not. Perhaps try that in the grocery store -- walk up to women you don't know in the slightest and suggest they get knocked up and have babies already. For all you know, I've spent the last 10 years crying in fertility clinics and adoption agencies (I actually haven't.) But, why is it that people find it appropriate to behave on the Internet in a way they'd probably never dream of behaving in real life?And thanks, Gregg and I are very happy after six years together, and wouldn't muck it up by getting married. I don't deify tenure like so many people do, so I don't believe in pledging to be together forever. If it lasts "forever," great. If not, you go your separate ways.
I have kids in my life, nine of them, all of whom I'm very fond of and probably even love. Luckily, because I'm too impatient, self-involved, and uninterested in being a parent, they all came out of other women's vaginas, and I just hang out with them (the kids, not the vaginas). I must brag that I'm quite popular with all of them, but especially for the notes from the elephants I mail to 4-year-old Sebastian. (He's autistic, but reads at what's probably a sixth-grade level.)
And last week, when 15-year-old Ollie and his family were in town, he wanted to see Hollywood. And while, typically, I'd rather grow 11th and 12th toes than drive from the beach to Hollywood, except in 3 a.m. traffic, I hopped in the tiny hybrid, buzzed over and picked Ollie up, and took him to Hollywood and then out for a burger. He's really smart, and fun, and reminds me of me a little, and I love hanging out with him. And I'll go over and sometimes play a little indoor soccer or foosball with Dinosaur boy and his sister, my neighbor's kids, or come look at what projects they're making. But, this stuff is about all I'm good for.
So...why would an impatient, self-involved person who's utterly uninterested in being a parent, and who loves working seven days a week, dawn till dusk, as a writer, make a good mother? Just wondering!
P.S. Have I mentioned that I'm not really a kid person? The kids in my life I happen to like as people. In general, I find kids loud, smelly, and expensive. Yeah, baby, fire up that womb!
Oh, and regarding "publicly wallowing in self-appraisal" -- as Crid pointed out, it's a living, and, for the most part, it's usually other-appraisal. Clue number one: job description under blog masthead. Ya know, for a guy who seems to be under the impression he knows it all...
There are people about that bad in real life, or at least there used to be. My dad's first wife had a miscarriage, and a botched D&C that left her incapable of getting pregnant. Given other health issues, that was probably just as well. But she desparately wanted children (they eventually adopted 2) and was fairly bitter about the families in the church that were popping out kid after kid that they didn't even seem to want.
And then one day, a *pastor* in the church told her that all of her health issues were in her mind, and that if she only did her wifely duty and got pregnant, life would be happy. (Not because she'd asked for advice, not in any kind of counseling - she was simply chatting with someone in the lobby before or after the service...)
TheOtherOne at January 13, 2009 5:57 AM
And then one day, a *pastor* in the church told her that all of her health issues were in her mind,
What did she say?
I'm always amazed by people who tell other people like me who don't want kids that they should have them. Having kids is a pretty serious thing and tests the patience of the greatest kid lover. When you find kids annoying, smelly, and expensive right out of the gate, you're really not a good candidate for mommy.
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2009 6:14 AM
I do remember that there's a psychological term for it but I can't find it. The idea is; it is easier to be an asocial brute when you are on Internet. The reason are twofold: First, you are more or less anonymous and then, you don't see the face of the one you are talking to. Those two points are enough to remove the inhibitions of some.
On the other side, jerks have more opportunities to be known here. The web enable everybody to be heard, including the ones we don't want to hear about.
Toubrouk at January 13, 2009 6:27 AM
Toubrouk -
That which you seek is John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
brian at January 13, 2009 6:32 AM
This is the same as rude drivers. There are plenty of people out there who wouldn't think of acting rudely in person who turn into a major asshole behind the wheel.
William at January 13, 2009 6:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/13/iholes.html#comment-1620340">comment from ToubroukActually, it's in my book, but it's an explanation for Internet mobs (and other mobs), and it's called "deindividuation" (from Festinger). He sees anonymity as central to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindividuation
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2009 6:40 AM
Read most of the thread (skimmed over the long, long posts). Came to the following stunning conclusions:
- People like different things for different reasons.
- Some people should have kids. Some shouldn't. There's no universal solution.
- Missionary zeal for one position or another isn't likely to change anybody's mind.
- Commenter Brian is probably unavailable for babysitting.
- Amy Alkon looks younger than she is.
- If Amy Alkon looked after my kids for a day, she'd probably spoil them rotten (don't worry; we're thousands of miles from L.A.).
old rpm daddy at January 13, 2009 6:49 AM
Amy,
You have always been so open with us about your life. That is why we love you. As I have written here many times, you would have made a great mother.
Rusty Wilson at January 13, 2009 7:36 AM
"Can you imagine a guy in the grocery store walking up to some woman he thinks is single and childless and telling her she'd better find a man to marry her and get knocked up fast?"
I could imagine that if the woman in the grocery store had a posted a sign about how she felt about kids + marriage. And then asked for comments.
Kind of like Amy's post and comment section.
If you see the potential for comments to hurt your feelings you should close comments for that post.
Sean at January 13, 2009 7:43 AM
"Some people should have kids. Some shouldn't. There's no universal solution."
That's pretty much what it all boils down to, isn't it. There is something irritating about people who can't grasp this, who feel they have to fret and stew and be busybodies about other people's business. But you know, it's no skin off my nose. If some boob with a nailed-shut mind wants to think I'm immature, or that my life is empty, or whatever, because I don't want kids, it's not taking away my birthday. They can think whatever they like, and feel smug and superior to their little hearts' content. I simply do not care what small-minded people think, and they can't MAKE me have kids, so what difference does it make to me? There are lots of stupid people in the world, and worrying about it would be a waste of time.
Pirate Jo at January 13, 2009 7:48 AM
Get married and have some kids, and have some fun.
Could have just told him: "Make up your mind."
I believe the part about the abs.
Jim Treacher at January 13, 2009 8:21 AM
I often wonder if it's not a case of misery loves company. And I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious. Why else would you want to try and talk someone who clearly does not want kids into having any? And who are you trying to convince it's the best thing ever, me or you? Honestly, the way some people go on I think they are trying to justify their choices more than they are trying to get me to hop on the bandwagon.
I don't have/want kids, and I don't care if you have them, so why do you care if I don't? I think I know myself better than some random stranger on the Internet, and frankly I know I would suck as a mom. My kid tolerance is about 5 minutes, and, like Amy says, if I do like a kid it's because I like him/her as a person in the first place.
And yes, people are that rude in public as well. Get in a conversation with someone with kids and watch how fast you will hear "it's different when it's your own", "you'll change your mind", or in the case of my elderly neighbor, "you still have time" (um, no, I'm 42. I don't want to be 67 when my kid graduates high school, thank you very much).
So yeah, it's not just people on the Internet. But, like Pirate Jo says, they can't make me have kids, so there you go.
Ann at January 13, 2009 8:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/13/iholes.html#comment-1620366">comment from Jim TreacherGreat to have you back, Treach.
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2009 8:22 AM
Well, you do put yourself out there. Much like Britney, you need to expect some comments. I don't think everyone should marry or reproduce, far from it. So I certainly don't agree with the man, on that.
momof3 at January 13, 2009 8:25 AM
m3 - it's not a matter of being offended by the comment, it's amazement at the hubris involved in the making thereof.
There used to be a piece of etiquette back in the days of FIDOnet and CompuServe (and Usenet, but I never was part of that community) - one should lurk before diving into a forum.
That is no longer honored, and we get people like Mr. Cole, offering their advice in good faith, but to people that (if he'd spent the requisite lurk time, or read enough back-posts) would not be receptive to such advice.
Ann - I think you've got your math wrong - nobody takes 25 years to get through High School, even in West Virginia.
brian at January 13, 2009 8:45 AM
Even when someone asks my advice on whether they should have kids, I tell them no. Not if you have to ask. It would be as if a doctor went around trying to convince other people to become a doctor, because he finds it so personally fufilling that everyone should do it. Never mind that it is a hell of a lot of work and a huge responsibility, and if someone is a bad doctor other people's lives are at risk. Parenting is a hell of a lot of work, too, and there are far too many bad parents in the world.
Karen at January 13, 2009 9:24 AM
Thank you Amy for the help. Deindividuation is is.
Also thanks to Brian, the link is hilarious.
Toubrouk at January 13, 2009 9:31 AM
What is it about people that makes them feel free to blurt out things on the Internet that they'd surely never say in person?
In this case, the guy sounds obtuse enough that he just might.
Now for the question that's been burning a hole in my brain for weeks and weeks...
Why do some of Amy's own comments have an avatar and others don't? And what the hell is it? A wrench? Scissors? A key fob? A cuticle clipper? Eye gouger-outer? What???
Hasan at January 13, 2009 9:32 AM
But, why is it that people find it appropriate to behave on the Internet in a way they'd probably never dream of behaving in real life?
Great question, Amy!
(As long as it's not asked with a straight face!)
Jody Tresidder at January 13, 2009 9:42 AM
Tresidder deserves points here: That's almost certainly her real, full name.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 13, 2009 9:54 AM
Ann - I think you've got your math wrong - nobody takes 25 years to get through High School, even in West Virginia.
Posted by: brian
Maybe Ann was refering to Alabama?
lujlp at January 13, 2009 10:14 AM
Tresidder deserves points here: That's almost certainly her real, full name.
I kinda agree, thank you Crid, about the points thing.
I started using my real name by sheer chance (signing up for some group website at a time when a flurry of others also happened to be using their full names: I wrongly assumed it was "required") and just never stopped.
It can get dicey - I once got stuck with a moronic, drunken house guest for 3 days - how is too boring to relate, and it was my fault, but it began because of using my real name on the Internet.
On the whole, though, I think I do deserve a sliver of a point for staying with the decision.
Jody Tresidder at January 13, 2009 10:51 AM
(Sorry -Amy. Thought I'd typed in an "off topic" line there, but it got dropped!)
Jody Tresidder at January 13, 2009 10:53 AM
> I think I do deserve a sliver
> of a point
Much more than that. Standing to be judged by what you say gives you moral victory over all (all) nicknamed contenders. (I used to use the full name, but everyone calls be Crid, and it felt formal.)
Here on Amy's tiny little internet microcosm, two of the freakiest topics in 2008 (the guy from NOAA who called her names or whatever, and the pychosis of the Sadly No people) concerned exactly this.
Mickey Kaus has one of those guys now, too. He's having a lot of fun with it.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 13, 2009 11:03 AM
The "make babies" people think it's as though people choose to be impatient or not like kids. As if genetics and how we were raised don't affect our personalities and qualifications to be parents.
Fact is, "growing up" doesn't usually take care of the really selfish, impatient people and make them better people. But they go and have kids anyway because they aren't self aware (like most people), and wind up being kind of shitty parents. It is, in fact, more adult-like to realize you won't make a good parent and refrain. It doesn't make you less mature b/c there are plenty of parents out there with identical personalities to you (Amy) - you just know it. And they come home from work and bury their noses in their newspapers and ignore the kids b/c they can't be bothered. Having kids doesn't negate personality "flaws" (flaws according to the commenter).
People like the commenter probably lack the ability to examine him/herself and make an objective choice. They view making babies as a necessary step in life w/o thinking about why they're doing it, if they really want it, if they're mentally/emotionally/financially ready or if they'll be any good at it. They *just do it* - like how a lot of people get married.
The decision to have kids or get married does not in a Nike commercial belong.
Gretchen at January 13, 2009 12:22 PM
i'm calling shennanigans on you amy. you don't look older than thirty. i'm not here to stroke your ego, i'm just stating that I don't believe you when you say you're over 40.
farker at January 13, 2009 1:55 PM
Okay, I promise this is my last post, since I am not really into this sort of blogging anyway. I was hoping to find a libertairan with a view on what to do when an economic depression comes along.
But in defense of myself (why I care is a good q) I have to agree with Sean who wrote:
"(Amy's voice) Can you imagine a guy in the grocery store walking up to some woman he thinks is single and childless and telling her she'd better find a man to marry her and get knocked up fast?"
Sean's answer:
I could imagine that if the woman in the grocery store had a posted a sign about how she felt about kids + marriage. And then asked for comments.
Kind of like Amy's post and comment section."
Come all, the topic of marriage was on the front burner, and there is a picture and bio of the good-looking in a devilish-way Amy Alkon, and she is posing the marriage q. At age 44. Again. I wouldn't call it a fresh topic. Oh, and Amy has flat abs. Some would say if you are young and self-absorbed, then flat abs are high in the pantheon of worldly concerns.
So I tossed in my two cents, from my experience (I am even older than Amy).
All her fans agree Amy is hot, and she obviously as a rapier wit (sort of). But, in the end, she lacks the self-confidence to have kids. I did too. But when it happened, I like to think I rose to the occasion (in my heart, I know I did).
Amy, you can do it too. The full cycle of life. My sister had her second child at age 45, a day after swimming a couple miles in the ocean near Reyes Point, SF area.
Yes, I am offering unasked-for advice (though the topic was pointedly raised by you).
Good luck Amy. You can't really know the answer until you actually have kids. That's the really vexing reality for you, I would say.
benjamin "i-hole" cole at January 13, 2009 1:58 PM
> she lacks the self-confidence
> to have kids
It's a twisted --or insensate-- that can only describe babymaking as a virtuous impulse.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 13, 2009 2:08 PM
who the hell is this Cole guy? A catholic priest? "must. make. more. babies."
He's an insecure man who clearly hates the hand he was dealt and tries to justify having children by saying those who do not are the fools who are giving up a life of 'fulfillment'.
I love the whole, "you won't know the answer until you have kids" part. Because if you find out THEN that you really didn't want kids, you can't just throw them in the dumpster?...although maybe a trip to Nebraska is warranted.
farker at January 13, 2009 2:30 PM
> she lacks the self-confidence
> to have kids
Well that's a funny way to put it. You never hear that someone "lacked the self-confidence" to drive off a cliff, throw themselves on a burning pile of logs, or stick a fork in their ear. But if you don't mess your life up with kids, it's due to a failure on your part? What a tool.
Pirate Jo at January 13, 2009 2:33 PM
Whoops, twisted or insensate PERSON.
I mean, most of the parents you see get all sorts of gratification from it, fulfillment which is never guaranteed to transfer the children themselves.
(See also, single motherhood.)
In my whole life, I've met exactly two people of child-bearing age who seriously admitted to being less-than-great parents. (They happened to be a brother and a sister... Presumably they were suggesting that their own folks didn't do a perfect job, either, but they never explicitly whined.) Almost every parent you'll ever meet, no matter what their misconduct, will say "But I love my kids! I'm a great Mom!" (or Dad.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 13, 2009 2:34 PM
"But, in the end, she lacks the self-confidence to have kids." It does not require confidence to have kids just working parts. Also there is a vast difference between confidence (I know I can do this) and arrogance (the world will be a better place if I do it). It also takes some level of confidence (usually more) to tell those around you "No", especially if the relatives are bugging the shit out of you.
"You can't really know the answer until you actually have kids." Self fulfilling proficiency. If you think your gone suck at something or hate it you probably will. If you do not like children having them with the HOPE that if it's your own some how you'll enjoy it is naive.
Some people like children, some don't. It's usually a good idea to determine for yourself which one you are BEFORE having kids. Finding out after is really bad for all involved. I personally like kids so while I may not be super excited about having one I will enjoy the experience.
vlad at January 13, 2009 2:35 PM
Kids in the news!
http://www.duggarfamily.com/
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 13, 2009 2:43 PM
"But I love my kids! I'm a great Mom!" The ones I meet who trot out that line are usually the wort of the worst. That's the type of shit you hear on cops or in interviews with DSS frequent fliers. This is usually followed with "Don't judge me you don't know (insert self pity here)".
vlad at January 13, 2009 2:46 PM
> This is usually followed
> with "Don't judge me
Right, which ryhmes with (from today):
> You can't really know the answer
> until you actually have kids.
After all, how would anyone have an experience of growing humanity without parenthood?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 13, 2009 3:06 PM
"Benjamin Cole" is a self righteous fool with no evidence to offer for his opinions and so is best ignored. As for marriage, it is unnecessary for women and just plain stoopid for men. And all that romantic claptrap people buy,you can have that without marriage, just ask Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn. And when it comes to kids, asking someone who says she's not into kids to have them is idiocy- thats what kids need, parents who dont want kids!
Porky at January 13, 2009 4:17 PM
"Can you imagine a guy in the grocery store walking up to some woman he thinks is single and childless and telling her she'd better find a man to marry her and get knocked up fast?"
Yep I can imagine it. I have had it done to me Heck I have Korean Adjumas come comment on my age and singleness in the supermarket. And how I need to get married lickety-split. Same with my girlfriend. More so for her.
Go, got to love Korea. Place of no personal boundaries. "Yes I do think Korean girls are good looking!" "Do I like sex with them hmmmm." Excuse me! Your a taxi driver whose car I got into two minutes ago how did we get to this nice close personal relationship where I am going to tell you my secrets!
Some people just do not know boundaries. Like that nice waitress in Saipan at Tony Romas who wanted to see me and my girlfriend to come back a year later Married with a baby! A baby and married! Just because we are a cute couple and that is what happens in her world view.
John Paulson at January 13, 2009 5:09 PM
I don't think I was a very good parent, but I don't think most people are good parents. I love my girls, now grown, but I was not patient enough (still not) and not that fond of kids. It does make a difference if they are your own, but I don't know what that has do with wanting to have them. I would have been happy without them - my ex wife had told me that she couldn't get pregnant (it did take 3 years using no prevention) and that didn't bother me at all.
William at January 13, 2009 5:27 PM
For those of you who care, my nickname is Flynne. Take away the F and you've got my real first name. My last name is a non-exciting color. Very common. Begins with B. Ends with n. Put a row in the middle. Ta da! Now you know.
That said, I AM a mom, as most of you know. It's not an easy job, and I don't think I'm all that good at it, but my girls are okay with me for the most part. Except when they're hating on me for punishing them for doing or saying something stupid. I've been told I'm too strict (by them). I've also been told I'm over-indulgent (not by them). So, I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. Would I have had kids if I had known what it was going to be like? I really don't know. But now that I've got them, I cannot imagine my life without them. (Their father is a lazy POS, and I'm so much better off without him. And that's not my imagination talking! I've said that before on this blog, too.) I had them in my mid-30s, so I had plenty of time to be an asshole while I was younger. And there are times when I still am an asshole. Just not as often. (I hope.) But that's not because I chose to have children. I often wonder if I'd be more of an asshole because I didn't have them! Who knows? But, they're here now, they've made it to their teen years relatively unscathed, physically and emotionally, so I guess I'm doing some things right. It's a crap shoot, in all honesty. And once they reach a certain age, it's out of my hands anyway. So if some people feel they aren't cut out for marriage and/or kids, who the hell am I to say "You can't really know the answer until you actually have kids."? Hell, I've got 'em and I still don't know the answer! Methinks Mr. Cole isn't thinking all that much. YMMV
o.O
Flynne at January 13, 2009 5:43 PM
Flynne-Gotta love your post.
Here is the answer: I have never, ever heard a parent say, "I wish I had never had Billy (insert any child's name here)."
Never. Never, ever. Kids enrich your life. How can they not?
Jeez, writing copy for a self-obsessed blog every waking hour? That is living? 40-something, and still mulling over "Is marriage right for me?" Proud of the flat abs? Amy, you don't find those concerns a decade or two overripe?
Flynne, I am sorry your hubbie turned out to be a dud. It happens, and stuff like that has happened to me. In spades. But like you say, you gotta take your chances.
Or you can stand on the sidelines of life, the safe shadows where risks are not taken, where one does not dare heartbreak.
And soon enough you will exit this life, maybe the only life we will ever know. And you will exit it, never having enjoyed the central meaning of life -- to renew. To give to the world deeply of yourself.
On the sidelines, you can say, "I did the right thing for the life of the child I decided not to have."
What a fulfilling sentiment.
You know, I am glad I stumbled onto this site, while in search of a libertarian who could give his/her view on what to do in a Great Depression.
It made me realize how lucky I am. Kind of like when you pass by a guy in a wheelchair, and you look down at your legs and feel a twang of guilt of how lucky you are in comparison.
i-hole at January 13, 2009 6:12 PM
Unlike you, Mr. Cole, I have heard people express regret that they ever had children. Even heard people say they hate their children.
So don't hand me the line that they enrich your life.
Oh, and if you want to know how to survive a Great Depression, it's simple - move to a country that won't have one.
brian at January 13, 2009 6:34 PM
The part of the "advice" that annoyed me was his assertion that the only way you can be a real adult is to get married and have kids. Never mind that Amy is a self-supporting successful writer with friends, a boyfriend, a super cute dog, and regular blog commenters that have interesting discussions.
Amy K. at January 13, 2009 6:48 PM
Brian,
Some people no doubt say they regret having kids. Some may even say they hate their children, perhaps in some cases with good reason. After all, kids can grow up to be pretty terrible people, even if they had good parents and family love.
That said, if you ask parents, many more such people will likely "hand you the line" that they love their children and enjoy lives enriched by their offspring. I think that is probably their honest assessment of the situation.
oh, and Cole, I quote the Telegraph: "A report by the United States Census Bureau said that 20 per cent of women between 40-44 years old remain childless, compared to only 10 per cent a generation ago." Ms. Alkon's kind are so common they could be their own political party--or at least pandered-to demographic.
Unless we have some way of measuring it and demonstrating otherwise, we should assume those women in the 20% live lives no less fulfilling than the other 80%. Same courtesy ought to apply to the 80% too, I think.
Since the internet has no space limitations, I will go one step further and blather: A troubling part of human behavior is to delineate someone's life choice which impacts others in almost no way whatsoever (e.g., childlessness, gay sex, atheism) as so outside the norm that social opprobrium should follow. It always seems to be next on the agenda that something *more* must be done about those people , because those wrong-thinking people just aren't getting the message... Mass graves to follow at some point.
How about we avoid that whole dark wing of human nature and just drink a tall, warm glass of soothing STFU, eh? Let's not bother other people about their choices that don't have any impact on us? Not saying I always follow that rule, but...
Spartee at January 13, 2009 7:00 PM
I suspect that many people are missing what I believe Cole is suggesting.
Perhaps I'm just putting words and thoughts in Cole's mouth which he never intended, in which case I apologize to him. My answer is my own.
For some people, even some people who never intended to have kids, having kids and becoming a real, responsible parent, leads to changes in oneself that are almost unimaginably fulfilling. I don't believe that Cole was telling Amy to have kids so much as inviting her to the journey that he has found so amazing.
I was 36 with no intention to ever have kids, and I didn't like kids anyway. My life was everything I wanted it to be and I was living it to the maximum.
Then a little accident occurred. I stepped up to the responsibility, and can only be very thankful for the miracle that has occurred in my life as a result. As much as I would like to, I don't believe I could ever hope to explain the feelings, thoughts and actions that are that miracle. Kind of a Zen thing.
I didn't have a clue how to be a parent, having been raised without one. The learning and mistakes have been long and harrowing, but I and my children have come out of the other side much better people than I ever was before. It really helps to have parents, best if they're together, but even if they aren't. This does include divorce from their mother and the incredible destructiveness that the legal system inflicts on fathers who wish to stay intimately involved in their children's lives.
As they say, "choose". I am not advocating for you to choose as I did, but rather just trying to explain why I believe that you may not be making the best choice. You did ask a rather related question.
Don't blame me for telling you what to choose, because I'm not, but feel free to blame me for pointing out that you don't understand what lies on the other side of this choice. Having children is a singularity, you can't tell what it is like until you've done it! Maybe it'll just be a long fall to the rocks as it seems to be for some people, or maybe you'll learn to fly as I did.
Respectfully,
Not Cole, but... at January 13, 2009 7:01 PM
I have heard people express regret that they ever had children. Even heard people say they hate their children.
I have, too. More people should consider exactly what it takes to raise children.
Our friend, now referring to himself as "i-Hole," asks: "Proud of the flat abs? Amy, you don't find those concerns a decade or two overripe?"
Because I don't just pull my opinions out of my seating area, but actually read a lot of data, I know that only a woman who's an idiot lets herself go. At any time in her life. Men have very visual sexuality. Staying attractive is an important way to keep a relationship together. It's a form of showing respect and love for somebody.
The "i-Hole" also makes the following presumption: "And you will exit it, never having enjoyed the central meaning of life -- to renew. To give to the world deeply of yourself."
How the hell would you know? I've spent over a year writing a book, day and night, night and day, that I hope will make some changes in our culture. It's based in data, but also is a chronicle of actions I've taken. On January 20, I'll find out if a program I came up with for inner-city kids gets funded. I won't get a dime. It would be to take the program national, from the younger grades on up, to mentor at-risk kids throughout the country consistently through first through twelfth grade. Tell me again how I've led a meaningless life because I haven't squatted out kids I have no interest in nose and butt-wiping?
Also, every day of my life, pretty much, I give advice, free of charge; many times, to people who have nowhere else to turn. People write me all the time to tell me I've saved their marriage, or helped them come out, or helped them stop cutting themselves, or helped them see that you can be single and not desperate and lonely, among other things.
I find it quite amazing that you come here and presume to know about me and how I live my life and how I should live my life. When I give advice, I often correspond with people at great length, asking them to write me back with greater detail, asking them numerous questions.
I sit around and read and think about love, dating, sex, and relationships all day, working out people's problems for hours, reading journal articles, and corresponding with some truly incredible researchers for my column (last week, Ruben C. Gur, a neuropsychiatrist). Based on the thinking, reading, and research I do, I have a few things to tell people about love, dating, sex, and relationships. (Just this week, for example, I blogged Rosemary Basson's incredible work on the female cycle of desire. If more people knew about it, countless sexless marriages could be saved.) And then there's you. What qualifies YOU to make this unsolicited appraisal of my life and what would be good for me?
Personally, I don't give people advice based on what I think is right for me. I look at who they seem to be, who tell me they are, and what they want; I look at their story, and what I read between the lines of their story, and I give them personalized advice based on all this information, not generic advice, which is pretty useless. You don't, for example, tell a 75-year-old woman to marry fast and have a baby. I'm an equally inappropriate candidate.
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2009 7:11 PM
"I wish I had never had Billy (insert any child's name here)."
Never. Never, ever. Kids enrich your life. How can they not?"
I think the nicest thing my mother ever told me was that it was a mistake that she ever had children. I felt that I finally had a confirmation that I had a shitty childhood. Anyways since then we've had the best relationship we've ever had.
So yeah I've heard people say it and mean it....
Purplepen at January 13, 2009 9:42 PM
Actually I feel there is an under-comment to Coles and other peoples advice. Which is "how can you comment on life or give advice when you have not ....
A) squeezed out a child
B) got married or been married.
C) gone to war or served your country.
D) lived in said country/culture for all your decades.
E) do not live in New York or Los Angeles or other centers of the Universe.
F) Have a degree
G) Gone to an Ivy league school.
This kind of ego is the most visibile from people with children. God - I do so hate the egos of people who have children. You are talking to somebody lets say money and how people spend more then they have. You express wonder at how some people who have children go into debt. Next your are picking particles of that persons last lunch out of your hair and face as they yell at your "YOU HAVE NO CHILDREN! YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!"
I think the most absurd version of this was one my friend had. She commented on somebodies childs behavior and what do about it and got the basic you do not understand because.... This was so ironic beacuse my friend is a teacher. She has over 100 children she cares about and helps/teaches. She deals with children for about 8 hours a day. She has a degree with Earlier Childhood Education. She has accumlated more experience with children then the actual child she was commenting on has been alive! Yet because she had not popped out one she had no experience. Thus no knowledge to give advice.
People who say to have children are like people who recomend your should drive a hybrid car or invest in mutual funds. They think they know better beacause by doing said task they improved their lives. They can not think that what maybe great for one is not for another. It is like like telling a Rancher to buy a economy sized hybrid versus a pickup truck. Telling a lower income single mother to invest in blue chip stocks. Telling the catholic priest that maybe he should get laid. Having kids for you(whoever) was a godsend for you. Amy not what she wants.
Actually the more I think about it if I want a life changing experience having kids is one way. Yet so is joing the French Foreign Legion. At least with one I end with valuable skills(like knife fighting), a little money, and a possible sexy French accent. Versus bald, with a gut, and no money worrying about how to afford little Jenny's college fund.
John Paulson at January 14, 2009 12:45 AM
...bald, with a gut, and no money worrying about how to afford little Jenny's college fund.
You been spying on me, John?
old rpm daddy at January 14, 2009 4:16 AM
Flynne-Gotta love your post.
No ya don't.
Here is the answer: I have never, ever heard a parent say, "I wish I had never had Billy (insert any child's name here)."
You don't get out much, do you? I've heard more than a few say that, and one, right in front of her child. It wasn't pleasant, but neither was it any of my business.
And soon enough you will exit this life, maybe the only life we will ever know. And you will exit it, never having enjoyed the central meaning of life -- to renew. To give to the world deeply of yourself.
Are you, like, some sort of self-righteous preacher or something? How freakin' pretentious of you to even project something like that on someone else!
Personally,I admire the hell out of Amy - she seriously rocks. She presents a lot of topics that actually make people think about their lives and how they live them. Except for know-it-alls like you, apparently. Because to come here and spout your rhetoric about how wonderful parenthood is, and to take her to task for not wanting to be one, makes me want to find your kids and ask them what they really think of you. (And I don't think the answer would surprise me. Unless, of course, they're still under the age of 7. Because, you know, since you're still bigger than they are, the sun still rises and sets where you piss, in their eyes.
In my eyes, you just piss me off.)
o.O
Flynne at January 14, 2009 6:33 AM
Ann, I totally agree with you about the "misery loves company." In my early 20s to early 30s (I happened to be married then), I was continually asked/badgered about why I didn't have kids, most frequently by people who had just had babies. I truly thought it was more them trying to convince themselves they had made the right choice. And trust me, NO ONE with teenagers has EVER asked me why I didn't have kids--maybe they ask if I want theirs, but that's about all. I was always told "you'll change your mind," but I'm 43 now and each year am a little more happy with my life!
Monica at January 14, 2009 7:20 AM
"And then one day, a *pastor* in the church told her that all of her health issues were in her mind,"
What did she say?
I've only ever heard the story from my dad's point of view (Betty died of TB a year before dad married my mom), but I believe she simply walked away. She was the child of missionaries, and had been raised to be very respectful of pastors/missionaries/etc., and she wasn't one to come up with a quick retort. But she was really, really hurt by it - enough that the family still remembers this decades after she died.
TheOtherOne at January 14, 2009 7:26 AM
I admire people who raise children (not just who give birth), setting rules and encouraging the gifts the child has. My brother-and sister-in-law are such people, and I love my niece and nephew. but I love them precisely because they were born--no one wishes someone who exists to be unborn (well, we may with it about some of the posters here, but you know what I mean). That still does not mean everyone should have a kid!
And I'm really bothered by the idea that the only valid reason NOT to have a kid is because you have some kind of rock 'n' roll lifestyle that's too EXCITING.
My life is boring. I'm responsible. I'm sensible.
I agree being a parent changes you, hopefully in a good way.
But that implies that UNLESS you have a kid, you can't grow and change and mature.
And how is giving birth the only way to add something to the world? I like to think my niece and nephew are, in a very small way, a bit of who they are through having known me.
I also volunteer in many ways in my community.
Just reproducing does not give anyone a free pass. (Nor does not reproducing!)
Monica at January 14, 2009 7:29 AM
"And I'm really bothered by the idea that the only valid reason NOT to have a kid is because you have some kind of rock 'n' roll lifestyle that's too EXCITING. ... And how is giving birth the only way to add something to the world?"
You're hitting on some ideas that have crossed my mind throughout this discussion. I'm a fairly low-key person, and while my life is pleasant and fulfilling, I wouldn't call it rock 'n roll exciting, either. I also don't find myself feeling particularly compelled to add something to the world. I recognize that I have a moral obligation to leave the campsite a little cleaner (or at least not messier) than I found it. But beyond that, I'm really content just to enjoy my life, mind my own business, and be happy every day.
These crusaders, who think I have to either cure cancer or give birth to some kid who will grow up and do it, can blow me. YOU go and change the course of humanity if you think it's so damn important, and leave me alone.
Pirate Jo at January 14, 2009 8:15 AM
I find the whole "you won't know how great it is until you have kids" argument to be the single most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
I don't need to walk a mile in your shoes to know your laces are untied, buddy. Seriously. I don't know what it's like to jump off a cliff, either, but I'm pretty sure I won't like the sudden stop at the end. Same thing with kids. How horrible it would be to have a child you didn't want, and weren't interested in! How is that fair to anyone, especially the kid?
Just because YOU decided to follow the Life Script doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
I'm still going back to the misery loves company argument - I can't see any other valid reason to try and browbeat someone into having kids. If you really enjoyed your life, you wouldn't be so hell bent to try and make the rest of us drink the Kool-Aid.
Ann at January 14, 2009 8:33 AM
How about this: Mr. Cole lacks the self-confidence to not have kids.
Makes about as much sense, don't it?
Jim Treacher at January 14, 2009 10:10 AM
"How the hell would you know? I've spent over a year writing a book, day and night, night and day, that I hope will make some changes in our culture."--Amy Alkon.
You gotta be kidding. You sacrificed a whole year? That's commitment. And I thought immigrants who moonlighted for years to send money home were admirable. I didn't know you sacrificed one whole year to write a book. That's true grit. And to make our culture better--thank you.
I once wrote a book, published by major house, hoping for a much more modest goal: Some reforms on Wall Street. Nothing happened, or if it did, it wasn't due to my book, now available for $1 on some of the Aamazon.com second-hand shops.
Amazing that you are on the cusp of favorably altering an entire culture of 300 million people, through a book. That's big stuff.
I feel diminished, along with with small-minded, unambitious book. What was I thinking?
And while keeping the flat abs? Congrats! (In other posts you comment on your well-endowed chest--good combo. I have not read enough to know if you have great legs and rear end. But given the stong bone structure of your face, probably you do).
Oh, you maintain this terrific and important figure of yours, and write that culture-improving book, while also (drum-roll) saving inner-city youth coast-to-coast through another wonderful social program that surely will work (where all other social programs have flopped).
You are one whirlwind!
Amy, Amy, Amy. I hope it all works, and inner city kids nationally are changed for the better, and our counrty and other Western nations read your book, and Western culture is uplifted.
After you accomplish these worthy goals, can you settle down and have kids? Or is there yet more to accomplish?
i-hole at January 14, 2009 10:54 AM
Unless 99% of humanity drop dead tomorrow the last thing we need is people have kids indiscrimantly
lujlp at January 14, 2009 11:07 AM
I would say even IF 99.9% of humanity drops dead tomorrow, we STILL don't need people having kids indiscriminately.
And this:
WTF? Why is it so damn important to you that a woman has kids? Is the fact that she's not barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen fixing some guy's meals and cleaning his house offending you somehow?
Please stop adding to the gene pool. We don't have enough chlorine as it is.
Ann at January 14, 2009 12:15 PM
You had me at "flat abs"!
Opinionator at January 14, 2009 1:28 PM
This will get me reamed but on some level I agree with I-hole. Precisely because of the intellectual flat abs, big boobs, nice ass etc. On the evolutionary level people like Amy should reproduce and the half literate fugly bastards should not. Now that does not mean that someone who does not want kids; no matter how genetically superior should ever have them.
I don't agree that physical attributes should be a reason not to have kids. The main reason that people should not have kids is that they do not want them. It does not matter what mommy, daddy etc. say if you don't want them don't have them.
vlad at January 14, 2009 2:06 PM
I-hole, you're a douche. So she doesn't want kids. I'm kind of terrified somebody like YOU has kids. She spent a year writing a book and NOT flooding our culture with unneeded mouths to feed that she doesn't want to take care of, which is more than the majority of those on welfare can say. You spent probably ten minutes studying her bone structure to guess her leg shape and who knows how long writing how she should settle down with some douche like you and pop out other i-hole douches for the world to enjoy. I think Amy wins the time-management contest you're trying to pick with her. Check the stats man, Amy's a good person who doesn't deserve to have people like yourself telling her what the fuck to do with her uterus. Or did you forget that you're not one of those god-figures who gets to choose the perception of happiness for everyone? Hell, even the God other people believe in believes in free will.
Geez, what a douche.
Abby at January 14, 2009 2:22 PM
Amy:
Tell me again how I've led a meaningless life because I haven't squatted out kids I have no interest in nose and butt-wiping?
Of course you haven't led a meaningless life.
However, you are essentially saying one of two things.
Either I dislike my society (or humanity in general) so much that I am unwilling to contribute to its perpetuation.
Or, my personal desires are more important to me than perpetuating my society.
It is a good thing your parents didn't think that way, because they wouldn't have been parents, and we wouldn't be able to enjoy your blog.
Hey Skipper at January 14, 2009 2:59 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/13/iholes.html#comment-1620729">comment from Hey SkipperEither I dislike my society (or humanity in general) so much that I am unwilling to contribute to its perpetuation. Or, my personal desires are more important to me than perpetuating my society.
I have a contribution to make as a human being, and I choose to make it the way I'm making it rather than having children. I see no shortage of humans on the planet, and I find it creepy that people would tell me that I should have children or I'm not making a real contribution. Frankly, the writing I do against Islamism probably does more to continue humanity than I would if I instead had children and put all my time into that (as is the right thing to do if one is a parent).
Amy Alkon at January 14, 2009 3:46 PM
Perpetuating society? Are we running out of people? When did the fundamentalists start visiting this site? It's irrelevant what one thinks of society when it comes to having children - it's completely relevant what one is willing to do to have offspring. And she doesn't want to do it. It's one of those things, what do you call it - oh yeah, rights - that a human has to decide for themselves.
Sorry, but this is just one of the most outlandish arguments I've seen on this blog in a long time. Yall are painting Amy to be either the most selfish woman alive or so snobby about society that she can't possibly be smart enough to choose for herself whether or not she wants to have a kid.
And to all those guys out there who think having a kid is just a woman's destiny in life just because we have a uterus: fuck off, that was decided with Roe vs. Wade, catch up. And coming from someone who came thisclose to having a kid, it's not something to be decided by anyone else other than the person carrying it. Turns out the man I was with had been cheating on me since way before I lost the baby, now how glorious of a situation would that have been for a child to go through?
A child is a precious thing to bring into this world. So precious. Why would someone decide that EVERY woman is not only capable but obligated to reproduce when it's such a pivotal decision? An entire life is at stake and at the hands of someone who's incapable of it, an entire life, sorry - lives - can be ruined forever.
And I-hole douchebag: all those inner city kids you're hoping will be saved by Amy's book probably wouldn't need so much saving if there were more people as logical and humanistic as she is out there.
And by the by, Amy, what's the skinny on the release date for it?
Abby at January 14, 2009 4:12 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/13/iholes.html#comment-1620745">comment from AbbyThanks so much, Abby. Well said!
Fall 2009. I'm really excited about it. Making a few edits here and there, but my editor (who's wonderful -- I really lucked out), loves it and is really behind it.
Amy Alkon at January 14, 2009 4:35 PM
I kinda like the 10:54 I-hole comment. He's got some points. Not saying Amy needs to marry or have kids, but I like his sarcasm. Not everything Amy does is life-changing or earth-shatteringly important. It's good for everyone to be reminded that of themselves on occasion.
momof3 at January 14, 2009 5:44 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/13/iholes.html#comment-1620760">comment from momof3ot everything Amy does is life-changing or earth-shatteringly important. It's good for everyone to be reminded that of themselves on occasion.
I see momof3's getting her angries out again. Good, let it out, girl.
Amy Alkon at January 14, 2009 6:21 PM
One final thought for i-hole:
There is a probability that the child you bear might be the one that discovers a cure for cancer.
There is an equal probability that the child you bear will be the next infamous serial killer.
Which is the net gain to society?
brian at January 14, 2009 7:07 PM
Given the number of people on the planet I would say a serial killer is a net gain.
Cancer is natures way of saying that you as a genetically flawed individual shouldnt have children
lujlp at January 14, 2009 8:33 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/13/iholes.html#comment-1620780">comment from brianThere is an equal probability that the child you bear will be the next infamous serial killer.
Or just autistic, and take enormous time, money, and energy.
Amy Alkon at January 14, 2009 9:04 PM
Amy:
I have a contribution to make as a human being, and I choose to make it the way I'm making it rather than having children.
The reason I pursue this point is because it is one of the few areas of sociology where cause and effect are so inextricably linked.
What I wrote has not heck all to do with your contribution as a human being outside having children. Similarly, it is a glaring false dichotomy to categoricaly state that your contribution as a human being is mutually exclusive with being a mother.
Never mind. Neither is relevant to the fundamental point at hand: absent children, a society will very quickly cease to exist.
I trust you will not contest that.
So, contrary to Luby, there is nothing fundamentalist about noting that those who choose not to procreate are making the choice to have no role in the continuance of the society of which they are a part. Further, your reasons for doing so must fall into one of these categories, anti-human (there are already too many humans on the planet), or self-centered (what I am doing / want is so self satisfying that someone else must raise the required children), or "why should I care, won't happen on my watch" (which is just another way of saying self-centered, I suppose).
I trust you will also not contest this either.
Why? Because before you do, you must consider the consequence that will obtain if everyone makes the same choice you have, and to which they are equally entitled: within a generation, our society will cease to exist.
Before you beat me up for assuming an extreme case, note this: if a sufficient number of women (which, percentage wise, need not be particularly large) make the same choice, the collapse of our society will not be a matter of if, but when. (At the moment, IIRC, TLF is 1.85 for second or later generation US women. At that rate, the US will lose half its current population while the children of today's children are still alive.)
Abby:
Sorry, but this is just one of the most outlandish arguments I've seen on this blog in a long time. Yall are painting Amy to be either the most selfish woman alive or so snobby about society that she can't possibly be smart enough to choose for herself whether or not she wants to have a kid.
Please do me the favor of re-reading everything I have said on this subject, then combine it with your knowledge of mammalian biology and statistics.
Amy and you, I presume, are individual instances of a particular choice which you are completely entitled to make, and which I would die to defend.
However, Amy and you are also individual instances of nature's tyranny: only women can bear children. No matter your opinion on the matter, if an insufficient number of women choose to have enough children, the society to which you belong will end.
This is a brute fact.
In light of that, you must -- and I do mean must -- admit that unless there are other women willing to bear the children you will not, then it is only a matter of time until our society becomes extinct.
This is a brute fact.
Which leads to the truly interesting question. Except for humans, no female has ever had any choice in the matter. Further, until the last forty or so years, the link between sex and procreation, even for humans, was pretty direct: enough of the former, and the latter was inevitable.
In technical terms, that is the environment of evolutionary relevance.
Which begs the question: if women (in the aggregate) control their own lifetime fertility, will they choose a rate high enough to avoid extinction?
So far, the answer is No.
There is not a single modern (by which I mean post-agricultural) society in which the average total lifetime fertility is sufficient to avoid ultimate extinction.
This is also a brute fact.
Like it or not, your (and Amy's, and Ms. Ghandi's, et al) choice is for ultimate extinction.
Your reasons are narcissistic, and you are freeloaders. (By all means, hurl all the invective you want my direction; however, it is probably best to hit the delete key and then address falsifying my argument. I'll bet you can't.
Also, it is worth noting that everyone freeloads to some extent. For example, I happen to think that widespread gun ownership makes for saver neighborhoods. It doesn't matter whether this is objectively true, only that I believe it. However, I don't like the thought of a gun in my house. Therefore, for a strictly personal -- which is to say, narcissistic -- reason, I don't own a gun. That makes me a freeloader on those of my neighbors who do own guns: if there are too many like I, then the deterrent effect of gun ownership disappears.)
Consider my contribution to this thread not an opinion of what you should do, but rather highlighting the consequences that obtain from what you choose not to do.
Oh, and one more thing. For what it is worth, my real name is Jeff Guinn, and my email address is 4alasguinns---at---gci.net
Hey Skipper at January 15, 2009 12:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/13/iholes.html#comment-1620826">comment from Hey SkipperIn light of that, you must -- and I do mean must -- admit that unless there are other women willing to bear the children you will not, then it is only a matter of time until our society becomes extinct.
Many women have a vast lust to have children. I would guess that I'm in the minority as somebody who doesn't wish to have them. For all your reverse Malthusianism, I think there's no danger we'll run short of people anytime soon. So, thanks, but no thanks on becoming a baby pod to a child I don't want.
P.S. Buy pepper spray and have it throughout your house. Here's one: Crime Halter Keychain Pepper Spray with UV Identifying Dye - Disable and Identify Attackers.
Also, my friend who's a cop says that if you're going to have a gun in the house, have a shotgun, for the unmistakable racking sound, and because, she says, a highly trained police officer has only about a 20 percent chance of winging somebody with a handgun in a high-tension conflict.
Amy Alkon at January 15, 2009 4:29 AM
I'm confused. Why do we give a shit whether Amy has kids or not?
NicoleK at January 15, 2009 5:36 AM
I don't think it's so much that people deny Amy has a choice in the matter from a human rights (population argument aside). It's that they think they know better than she does. That she's missing out on life. That she'll regret it. That having kids is the only way for a woman to be completely fulfilled. They don't understand that having kids might make life LESS fulfilling for a lot of men and women - and it's just recently that wo/men have have been able to actually act on their desires and abstain should they choose.
That's a lot different that someone saying "as a woman it's your duty to reproduce". I don't think it's an Orwellian sentiment so much as a busybody, know-it-all, holier than thou sentiment.
I bet lots of women (and men!) in the past didn't want to get married and make babies - but they did anyway b/c the pressure was just so great.
Gretchen at January 15, 2009 6:04 AM
I had no idea that with life expectancy 3 times what it was 100yrs ago, an almost nonexistant infant mortality rate and more people alive at this moment than in all of human history combined that we are 20 short years from total extinction.
Thank for letting us know just how big of a fucking moron you really are Hey Skipper.
Humanity could survive on less than 100,000 population.
69,999 out of every 70,000 people on this planet could drop dead tomorrow and humanity would do just fine.
Are you one of those "populate the earth" fanatics?
lujlp at January 15, 2009 6:12 AM
lujlp - clue for you:
The only societies presently reproducing at sufficient rate to ensure their survival are 7th century luddites (also known as muslims).
So sure, PEOPLE might survive, but is there a fucking point to it if the only ones to survive would abandon everything that the Human race has achieved? (oh, and another thing - for any other animal, we would consider 100,000 "endangered" I'd say a safe minimum population for humans is somewhere in the vicinity of 2-4 billion, and the Earth's carrying capacity is estimated somewhere north of 10)
As I pointed out above, Japan will cease to be a viable nation in my lifetime. Barring some enormous economic miracle and subsequent baby boom, Russia's dead before Japan. Might I remind you that Russia has a significant quantity of nuclear weapons? If you were to make a list of all the possibilities for the results of Russian demographic collapse, would you include a line or two about the Bad Things that could be done with those weapons?
Cole and Skipper are arguing very different points, as well. Cole is arguing that by not having children one is denying oneself some kind of emotional or spiritual realization. Skipper is arguing that the same person is taking advantage of "herd immunity" by hoping that the other people having children have sufficient quantities to cover them.
Oh, and Skipper, you left out one reason why people don't have children - and it's probably the most considerate thing to do for them and for society. I am of such a temperament that I would likely harm or kill a child if I had to put up with it continuously. You cannot argue that it is better for me to bring a child into this world that I will harm (thereby leaving a defective child, and myself in prison) than my present arrangement.
brian at January 15, 2009 6:28 AM
Amy:
Many women have a vast lust to have children. I would guess that I'm in the minority as somebody who doesn't wish to have them. For all your reverse Malthusianism, I think there's no danger we'll run short of people anytime soon.
That is correct, you are in a minority. However, the vast majority of women who do have children have one or two. There are not enough women having three to make up for those who have none. Therefore, if the US was to rely on the native born population to reproduce, within several generations the US population would be down by something like 30 million people. (and relying on immigration only shifts the problem elsewhere, a dubious proposition considering birth rates everywhere are falling)
Perhaps since it will happen after you die, then it isn't anytime soon enough, and you don't care.
That's obviously your choice.
It has consequences, though.
Also, my friend who's a cop says that if you're going to have a gun in the house, have a shotgun, for the unmistakable racking sound ...
That must be true, I have a friend who's the county sheriff. He says the same thing, word for word.
BTW, I'm not the least bit worried about a home invasion. My neighborhood is perfectly safe, thanks to everyone else who owns guns, and no thanks to me. I'm a freeloader.
(Another BTW, I'm getting a shotgun in a couple weeks for bear defense.)
lujlp:
I had no idea that with life expectancy 3 times what it was 100yrs ago, an almost nonexistant infant mortality rate and more people alive at this moment than in all of human history combined that we are 20 short years from total extinction.
Thank for letting us know just how big of a fucking moron you really are Hey Skipper.
Before you call me a moron, perhaps you should review my argument, focussing on precisely what I said, then read up just a little on demographics.
Regardless of increased lifespans and decreased premature mortality, humans are not immortal. The death rate must start increasing as those increased life spans reach their natural limit. However, the birth rates in all advanced countries is not sufficient to maintain population.
At the moment, the US faces a long term decline. All of Europe is looking at much more rapid decline. Some countries will see their populations sink like greased safes.
So, no I am not a populate the earth fanatic. However, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that those who do not have children are freeloaders, and there are enough of them that, on present trends, our society will eventually cease to exist.
Anyway, after checking up on all this stuff, get back to me about the moron thing, will you?
brian:
Oh, and Skipper, you left out one reason why people don't have children - and it's probably the most considerate thing to do for them ...
No doubt, that is why I would never tell someone they must, or should, have children; clearly, if you have come to that considered decision, you are making the wisest choice.
However, I bet that most women having no (or for that matter, only one) children, their decision is either narcissistic, or situational. I know several women who never had children -- despite wanting them badly -- because they never found a suitable father.
It is impossible to say that this kind of freeloading is immoral. It is just as impossible to say there won't be significant consequences.
If I remember the numbers correctly, Japan will, in our lifetimes start to experience a depopulation not seen since the plagues and the European wars of the Reformation.
All because of the women alive today.
Hey Skipper at January 15, 2009 7:57 AM
Hey Skipper you wrote and I quote "Like it or not, your (and Amy's, and Ms. Ghandi's, et al) choice is for ultimate extinction."
Not decline of western societies but extinction.
And brian humaninty went thru a bottle neck when toba expoded reducing humanity to less than 50 thousand and we're currently around 7 billion
I doubt 2 to 4 billion would be a minimum requirenmrnt to keep modern society with all the technology running, we could probably do it with just the population of the united states
lujlp at January 15, 2009 8:15 AM
I still don't see what possible good could come of telling Amy to reproduce. Suppose she reads these posts and is convinced, and decides that yes, she should have kids. Well... isn't she in her mid-forties? She CAN'T have kids. It's over. Done. The time to nag her was 10 years ago. Nag someone younger.
Nagging Amy is like harping on and on about someone having smoked pot in their teens. Can't go back in time and change it.
I suggest liberal use of the serenity prayer for i-whassisname.
So let me cheer him up by relaying the following anecdotal evidence: I am in my early 30s, married, and off the BC. Almost all of my friends in my age group are pregnant. Of the remaining, most are trying. Of the single ones, they all WANT to get married and have kids, but their boyfriends don't want to. So how about nagging the boyfriends?
Most women want to get pregnant. Even the ones who are unmarried and in their 20s and 30s WANT to be married and getting pregnant. Amy is exceptional. Most single women want familes. There just aren't enough family-oriented guys to go around. Blame the sexual revolution, blame feminism, blame whatever, but there are not to go around.
When I was single, I HATED articles that were along the lines of "Stop focusing on your career, girls, and find a man, you selfish bitches!" I WANTED to find a man. I had no idea how. I finally found one, and he's awesome, and I lucked out, and I wish everyone could be as happy as I am. But it was dumb luck.
NicoleK at January 15, 2009 8:32 AM
I don't think Amy and I are going to cause the decline of western population. Perhaps the decline of kids on welfare and all those inner-city kids i-hole's so obviously worried about. And Jeff or Skipper or whatever's just pissed off he doesn't have a uterus. Sorry, buddy, you can't join our club. What does Japan have to do with Amy's reproductivity? And why have yall spent since the 13th telling Amy to have a kid? I'm sure you've got her all hot and bothered for a little screaming bundle of joy by now for sure.
I do love the comment on how the chances of it becoming the next infamous serial killer are as good as a cancer-curing superhero.
I'm more interested in the recent debate over the couple that had a kid, but it had the cancer causing gene removed and for some reason a lot of people got pissed about it. Sounds like someone from this group. Anyone wanting to debate that? Cause we've got better points to make than a list of why Amy should drop everything and have a kid. My spidey-senses are telling me she's not taking the bait.
.....or if she did, then Gregg's feeding it "Old Yeller".
Abby at January 15, 2009 8:44 AM
There just aren't enough family-oriented guys to go around. -NicoleK
Sure there are, they just dont see the benifit in starting a familly when they could lose it the moment their wives become bored and want a divorce
lujlp at January 15, 2009 8:50 AM
lujlp:
Hey Skipper you wrote and I quote "Like it or not, your (and Amy's, and Ms. Ghandi's, et al) choice is for ultimate extinction."
Not decline of western societies but extinction.
Yes, that is exactly what I wrote.
There is no society where women have the ability to choose, AND where, in the aggregate, they choose to have enough children to replace themselves.
That leads to exactly one destination: extinction.
Contary to some above, this has nothing to do with some uterus envy, it is merely a statement of mathematical fact.
It is worth noting that biology leaves it solely up to women to continue our societies, there are, as NicoleK metioned, way too many men who are such narcissistic freeloaders that they will not commit to their role in making stable families possible.
Hey Skipper at January 15, 2009 10:10 AM
No, Skip. The self-preservation drive is the only one stronger than procration.
Boys see what happens when you marry a crazy woman, and this triggers the self-preservation instinct.
Why should a man who does want a stable family, and is willing and able to provide one, risk doing so with a woman who has the legal ability to simply wake up one day and decide she's unhappy, and take his wallet, his house, his car, and his children?
The gender feminists and the Henry VIII analogues (I'm looking at you, Mr. Reagan) that pushed the concept of "no-fault" divorce into the culture are to blame for this.
The likelihood of it changing is as close to nil as makes no odds.
brian at January 15, 2009 10:49 AM
here just aren't enough family-oriented guys to go around. -NicoleK
Sure there are, they just dont see the benifit in starting a familly when they could lose it the moment their wives become bored and want a divorce - Luljip
Like I said... not enough family-oriented guys to go around. You're describing a possible reason for why they aren't family-oriented. But the fact is, they aren't family-oriented.
Though I've gotta say, none of the men in my age group that I've talked to have mentioned fear of divorce as a reason they don't want to get married... more a fear of getting tied down, or "not being ready yet" even though they're in their 30s.
NicoleK at January 15, 2009 10:59 AM
Nicole -
No offense, but it's very likely that the onse who are afraid of divorce aren't going to be forthcoming with you because they also don't want the ridicule.
But they read the news, they hear the statistics, and many of them have friends who went through it, and believe me, they aren't interested in that.
brian at January 15, 2009 11:03 AM
OK skipper - 7 billion people on earth
Humanity needs less than 100,000 to survive.
Most estimantes put women at just over 51%of the population
That makes 3.5 billion women
Assuming one child per woman, you would only need to have only 1 out of every 35,000 women on the planet to have a child
.00003% of women world wide must have a child for humainty to avoid extinction.
Now if lets say only 1 out of every 100 women worldwide were to have one child that would result in 35 million.
But most women have more than one child and a majority of women are not refusing to procreate so again, as you have not gotten it thru your skull yet
HUMANITY IS IN NO DANGER OF EXTINCTION
lujlp at January 15, 2009 11:49 AM
How is "not being adult enough to settle down" less worthy of ridicule than "afraid of divorce", though? The second makes sense, the first makes the guy look pathetic... and yet they admit to it.
But in any case, whatever the reason, there are not enough family-minded guys to marry and have kids with.
NicoleK at January 15, 2009 11:53 AM
There's the multiculturalism, too. People no longer feel the need to contribute to the "tribe", since hey, all tribes are equally good. So if they don't get replaced, and a couple immigrants come in instead, its all good. The whole "carrying on the family name" or "lying back and thinking of England" thing doesn't carry weight anymore.
NicoleK at January 15, 2009 12:11 PM
.00003% of women world wide must have a child for humainty to avoid extinction.
Civilization -- our society -- would have ended long before then.
Like I suggested above, you need to learn much more about demographics, then look closely at the examples Brian listed.
For a right now example, read up on the portion of Germany formerly known as the People's Republic of Germany.
The depopulation is already severe -- low birth rate exacerbated by significant emigration, particularly among women.
The consequence already is plummeting population that is only going to get worse.
So, take a look at the consequences, then tell me our society will survive the kind of depopulation that must occur if the so far unbroken trend of total lifetime fertility continue unabated.
The question remains: do you care enough about your society to help continue it, or not?
Hey Skipper at January 15, 2009 1:49 PM
Make up your mind skipper stop hopping back and forth between US society and the whole of mandkind.
Either you meant extinction, to which I provided a rebutal, or you meant one society.
If you meant society stop using the word extiction.
Seems simple enough I know, but you have managed to get it wrong thus far.
lujlp at January 15, 2009 2:12 PM
I find it suspicious how evangelical people are about having kids, especially when those people are usually the ones who aren't actually hand-on childrearing: men (and please don't try the bullshit line that *some* fathers do as much as mothers do. It simply isn't the case for the vast majority of couples, not to mention the very considerable physical effects of pregnancy and labor) or women with full-time childcare. It's rather easy to love your child when their needs are already attended to and they're swooped away the moment they become difficult. It's the other times, the awful times, that really test a parent's mettle.
The idea that an entire global society is going to crash and burn because one woman had the temerity not to reproduce is flattering-who knew we had that kind of power?-but ridiculous. Yes, some countries are facing demographic shifts because of changes in their birthrates, but they're being more than compensated for elsewhere (of course, Hey Fucktard probably doesn't want to acknowledge that, because then he would have to admit that he doesn't think the *right* kind of people are breeding, amirite?).
I have to admit, though, that I'm getting kind of tired of my fellow avowed child-free continuing their pointless attempt to convince breeder-brains that they aren't going to have children and that their lives are fulfilled anyway. The easiest way to do that is to simply continue not having kids and living your fulfilled life, which will be a lot more peaceful if you avoid these pointless arguments with people who aren't worth arguing with (I prefer arguing with people who are, you know, intelligent. And not living in a la-la fairyland of twinkly baby angels).
Being a parent is hard. Sometimes I think it's the hardest thing you can do. If I could change just one thing, I would make it so that every child is welcomed into a loving and prepared family with parents that are willing to put their children first, with realistic expectations and firm but loving correction. But since I can't, and I can't say with certainty that I would be able to do the same, I'm making the responsible choice and leaving the child-bearing up to those who are better suited to it than I am. I don't think that's selfish, I think that's moral. And I will continue to work to ensure that other women who feel the way I do have access to the necessary medical care to control their reproductive futures. It's people like Hey I Like Displaying My Ignorance that jeopardize this cornerstone of a stable and productive society with their insistence on viewing women as potential baby pods than fully realized people.
hamsa at January 15, 2009 2:34 PM
hamsa said, "I have to admit, though, that I'm getting kind of tired of my fellow avowed child-free continuing their pointless attempt to convince breeder-brains that they aren't going to have children and that their lives are fulfilled anyway. The easiest way to do that is to simply continue not having kids and living your fulfilled life, which will be a lot more peaceful if you avoid these pointless arguments with people who aren't worth arguing with. . . ."
Thank you hamsa for artfully expressing what I've been feeling on this subject for the last three days. I had one, brief run-in with Skipper in another thread, and decided right then that this was not an argument worth continuing. He wasn't going to convince me of anything nor was I going to convince him of anything. Although tempted occasionally to re-enter the fray, why waste any more time or effort? This child-free narcissist has to get home - my neighbor, her baby, and her beagle are coming over for an evening of videos, chatter, and a pile of Chinese food (well, not for the baby, but the beagle will certainly try to get involved). What the evening will lack in intellectual debate will be more than made up for by a lot of laughter and some really great hot and sour soup.
Ms. Gandhi at January 15, 2009 4:01 PM
Well! I checked back in, and looky! Maybe I am an i-hole, but I generate about 10 times the commentary as Amy Alkon's regular blogs.
She needs me!
Oddly enough, few seem to care what Amy thinks about substantial issues. But let a guy suggest she have kids...and blammo, blammo, blammo!
One thing does strike me odd about the blog-followers here: They all know bad parents, unhappy parents, and parents who told their kids they hate them, and that they were sorry the kids were ever born. In Amy Alkon-land, this is the norm.
Over here in i-hole land, I have never met a parent who truly feels that way. Most of us love our kids so dearly it hurts. I love all kids. I cried when I read about that four-year-old in Echo Park.
You know what? Any parent knows this: We all would throw ourselves in front of our children, and the neighbor's children, if we saw a gun pointing. No bravery, just reflexive behavior. Moms, Dads, Grandparents, whoever. Call it love.
Amy Alkon, you have a very creepy readership. They don't know what love is. And they are bunch of pottymouths.
As they say in Amy Alkon-land, "She did the right thing for the lives of the children she never had."
Another one from Amy Alkon-land: If you have a family, you are "forcing" a child to live.
Oh, I need refuge from this. Dick Nixon-like, you won't have me to kick around any more.
I am going to hug my son for an hour when I see him next. Longer if he will let me.
Keep posting the hate-filled expletives, Amy-fans. It's one way to ensure a blog retains single-minded readership, with no intruders (fresh air). A lot of blogs end up this way. Kind of like a political party going deeper into its base, and discovering they are marginalized as a result.
Now, to what led me here: Are there any libertarian solutions to serious economic contractions? Or does everyone become a Keynesian when houses in their neighborhood sell for 66 percent off, and their stock portfolios trade for dimes on the dollar?
i-hole at January 15, 2009 6:00 PM
Even though you won't be back to read this (pace your last post) I'll answer it.
The answer is there are none, so long as the government is run by Keynesians. Which it is.
For an individual, the answer is simple. Pay your bills, pay your mortgage, don't sell, live below your means, and wait it out.
brian at January 15, 2009 6:21 PM
"There is no undertaking more challenging, no repsonsibility more awesome, than that of being a mother."
- Richard Milhouse Nixon
"Thanks alot, Dick!"
- Francis Vincent Zappa
o.O
Flynne at January 15, 2009 6:27 PM
Damn. I misspelled "reSponsibility." I hate when that happens.
o.O
Flynne at January 15, 2009 6:29 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/13/iholes.html#comment-1621035">comment from i-holeAmy Alkon, you have a very creepy readership. They don't know what love is.
Creepy is thinking you know it all about other people you've never met and don't really know in the slightest. People here, some of them at least, I've read thousands and thousands of words from on numerous subjects. Most of them I've never met face to face, but I know many of them pretty damn well, and you don't know shit about them or what they do in their lives, yet you make pronouncements. And you being a superior snot and running around telling people they don't know what love is...well, you've perhaps heard the "I'm rubber, you're glue..." thing from childhood?
As for there being any sort of mono-mind here, you couldn't even get that right. There are people here who are left, right, in between, libertarians, Jews, Christians, atheists, agnostics, gays, straights, people against gay marriage, people for gay marriage, a bunch of "progressives" who think I'm racist, and an annoying Muslim propagandist from Detroit named Jenny, who I hope is too busy with other things to visit again.
I don't "need" you -- if I need traffic, I remind myself to send a link to Instapundit every now and then. You haven't generated new traffic, you've just caused the rest of us to debate your smug ass.
P.S. Profanity pulls better than plain English. Ask Albert Ellis (whoops, you can't, he's dead), or read Steven Pinker.
Also, there are plenty of love stories in this place, and many of them have nothing to do with anybody being a baby pod. Of course, most people here don't brag about their love stories to satisfy the likes of you. But a few of those love stories have made the last chapter of my book, and they are pretty damn great. One guy here, to name just one example, who's been around here for about a year or maybe more, who only told me what he did after I begged for stories of people helping people, has helped probably thousands of people improve their lives, get jobs, and help other people. He really couldn't help himself but to do it. And I believe he's a single guy in his 40s with no children.
Amy Alkon at January 16, 2009 12:20 AM
Lujlp:
Make up your mind skipper stop hopping back and forth between US society and the whole of mandkind.
Either you meant extinction, to which I provided a rebutal, or you meant one society.
Re-read my argument. All of it. Never mind, I'll recap. No society in which women have a choice, do enough women choose to have enough children to continue the society.
You with me so far?
If that trend continues long enough, and becomes widespread enough (i.e., it happens that ultimately all women enjoy the same rights you assume as given), then humanity will become extinct.
I meant both.
There are not enough women having three children to counterbalance those who have one or none.
So, since I seem to keep getting it wrong, please explain to me how that trend does not lead first to societal collapse, then extinction.
hamas:
Yes, some countries are facing demographic shifts because of changes in their birthrates, but they're being more than compensated for elsewhere (of course, Hey Fucktard probably doesn't want to acknowledge that, because then he would have to admit that he doesn't think the *right* kind of people are breeding, amirite?).
No, you demonstrate either inadequate attention to what I have said, or a far greater talent for obscenity than comprehension.
At the moment, the human population is growing. However, that rate of increase is continually decreasing (because more women are getting more education, and reproductive choice along with it).
This is affecting industrialized societies now, but the trend appears unstoppable.
It's people like Hey I Like Displaying My Ignorance that jeopardize this cornerstone of a stable and productive society with their insistence on viewing women as potential baby pods than fully realized people.
Well, then by all means do me the favor of demonstrating how a sub-replacement birthrate is consistent with a stable and productive society.
Ms. Ghandi:
I had one, brief run-in with Skipper in another thread, and decided right then that this was not an argument worth continuing. He wasn't going to convince me of anything nor was I going to convince him of anything.
Well, yes. Because you so grotesquely misunderstood the concept of freeloading.
Demographics is (IMHO) fascinating because it is one of the few things that give us some window on the future. Demograhpics isn't just a good idea, it is the law.
Here is the inescapable: Amy (as a proxy for all women who have the choice -- some for narcissisic reasons, others because too many men are jerks) is freeloading. There are enough Amy's out there that the freeloading is unsustainable.
The numbers do not lie.
Hey Skipper at January 16, 2009 8:04 AM
Ever consider, skipper, that things change?
And as all of humanity is afforded the rights we have here in the states, and men stop getting screwed in familly court that people might start having more children?
The reason I choose not to have kids is because I think there are far to many people in the world.
If there were only one billion I might change my mind.
Your problem is your inability to think non linearly.
It will take decades if not centuries before areas in africa and the middle east start affording women the right, and technology to choose.
And it would take decades on top of that for the population to decline to the point possible extinction.
20 bucks says by that time we'll have cloning and artifical wombs and the only problem at that point in time will be runners on last day
lujlp at January 16, 2009 9:15 AM
Ever consider, skipper, that things change?
There is no instance of an industrial or post-industrial society that is not looking at demographic decline.
E.g., South Korea does not have anything like our divorce laws. IIRC, their TLF is below 1.25. How will that work out for them?
Individual decisions such as Amy's and yours, because you are free (and rightfully so) to make them, require no justification.
However, that does not mean that, taken in the aggregate, they do not have real, serious, consequences.
Hey Skipper at January 16, 2009 9:31 AM
And what is Koreas population denity per square mile? Per arable square mile? And how does that figure compare with a recomended population desity?
lujlp at January 16, 2009 10:04 AM
And what is Koreas population denity per square mile? Per arable square mile? And how does that figure compare with a recomended population desity?
Irrelevancies -- demography is destiny.
The South Korea population could (shading towards will) implode within the lifetime of today's South Korean children.
Unless the next generation plus one -- maybe sooner -- stops deciding to freeride.
Hey Skipper at January 16, 2009 10:40 AM
lujlp, you beat me to it. Hey Skipper is looking at the trend of the last 40-50 years and assuming that it will continue. He's correct that humanity will become extinct if things continue the way they are, but it would take thousands of years. In the mean time, there are too many people in developed countries - too many resources being used and too much crowding. I'll think a billion people is a reasonable number of people, and it would take a long time to get done to that. In the mean time, things change. I wouldn't be surprised if things reversed themselves in less than 200 years (not that I'll be around). I think if populations got low enough, our wonderful government will enact legislation designed to encourage child bearing. And as lujlp mentioned, we will probably have artificial wombs long before that.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at January 16, 2009 11:17 AM
Skippy, YOU SLAY ME with your rapier responses! I simply didn't subscribe to your concept of freeloading, which you've been trying to explain, and shove down others' throats as an ultimate truth, ever since. Others have argued the same point with you, so apparently you've been "grotesquely misunderstood" by a fair number of us. It seems to happen a lot.
See, your interpretation of the world is NOT everyone else's interpretation of the world. Sorry, but that really IS a "brute fact."
As for the term "narcissist," you keep lobbing it around as an insult, but it's clear that you have a limited understanding of the term. Narcissism is a developmental personality disorder (fully manifest by early adulthood) which is demonstrated by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, lack of empathy, and a consistent need for admiration and agreement.
Narcissism is the belief that your choices and actions are superior. Narcissism is the grandiose perception that you are pulling a greater share of mankind's burden, while others shirk their duty. Narcissism is intolerance for perceptions, ideas, or facts which do not subscribe to your own. Narcissism is the fixated need not only to prove that you are right, but that others are wrong. So perhaps, Skipper, it should be you who steps away from the mirror.
The DSM-IV does not lie.
(Sorry hamsa, but I just had to make like Madonna and express myself.)
Ms. Gandhi at January 16, 2009 11:35 AM
Hey Skipper is looking at the trend of the last 40-50 years and assuming that it will continue.
When I say demography is destiny, that is because there is no escaping its consequences. The existing drop in TLF has been large enough, for long enough, that some societies on this planet will -- not might -- face serious consequences.
Further, this is an existential problem. Since there is no example of a modern economy with TLF that even reaches replacement, will humanity choose extinction?
Ms. Ghandi:
simply didn't subscribe to your concept of freeloading, which you've been trying to explain, and shove down others' throats as an ultimate truth, ever since.
Fine, then explain why it is wrong. Humans go through three stages in life: consumer - producer - consumer. When you were a child, in the first consumer stage, your parents provided for you. Now that you are an adult, you provide for others. If you do not have children, when you reach old age, others children will be providing for both their parents, and you.
Now, explain to me precisely how that is not freeloading.
Narcissism is the belief that your choices and actions are superior. Narcissism is the grandiose perception that you are pulling a greater share of mankind's burden, while others shirk their duty. Narcissism is intolerance for perceptions, ideas, or facts which do not subscribe to your own. Narcissism is the fixated need not only to prove that you are right, but that others are wrong.
Stop putting a load upon my words they do not bear. I have never said one syllable about my actions, nor implied any superiority one way or another.
This is a purely analytical argument: Amy is a proxy for those who choose not to perpetuate society. I use the term "narcissistic" because many times these decisions are based solely upon personal desires. That is fine, and that is a decisons that Amy et al are free to make. But this is a personal decision that, in aggregate, has serious ramifications.
If enough people make Amy's choice, society will end. If enough people make it at the same time, that ending will be quick, and painful.
I am intolerant all right. Of people who are so quick to turn the discussion personal that they fail to address the point at hand.
By all means, prove me wrong. Do a little Googling for yourself. Try the math. Learn about demography.
And then discuss my premises and conclusions.
So far, you expression of yourself indicates you react to things emotionally rather than analytically.
Hey Skipper at January 16, 2009 11:57 AM
So no one noticed the Logans Run bit?
lujlp at January 16, 2009 12:27 PM
To those bagging on Skip, consider this.
In my lifetime, Social Security and Medicare will become insolvent. There is no trust fund underlying either, but let us assume that there is sufficient cash to cover all the IOUs left there by the general fund. In that case, given present demographic trends and absent a major increase in the retirement age, more money will be paid out by SSA than it will collect in taxes by (I think it was) 2034.
Simple math. People that retire at 65 are now living an average of 20 years. This is not likely to decrease. They did not pay enough money into Social Security during the 40-50 years they worked to cover their 20 years of collecting, so the overage has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is current taxpayers.
When the boomers start retiring en masse, there will no longer be sufficient workers paying into the system to prevent the current account from being depleted. And with population trends as they stand, the ratio of payers to collectors will continue to shrink until one of two things happens - workers are paying more than 50% of their earnings in direct entitlements alone (in addition to income and all other taxes), or Social Security will default.
There is no counterargument for this. It is a simple fact. You can make all the arguments about how social security should have been managed, but that's all water under the bridge.
A society that allows for idle retirement is inherently unstable. This is because of the realities of child-rearing. It's just not economically or geographically feasible to have a population with a geometric growth curve. But at the same time, it is impossible for a static or slowly growing population to produce sufficiently to carry the retirees along.
A society that requires continuous economic growth is likewise doomed, and for similar reasons.
By not having children, the "freeloaders" (myself included) might be doing civilization a favor by bringing about the unavoidable crash sooner rather than later.
brian at January 16, 2009 12:38 PM
"So far, you expression of yourself indicates you react to things emotionally rather than analytically."
I take that as a compliment Skipper. As someone who has worked with veterans with PTSD and other psychological conditions for more than 18 years, I can tell you that the ability to recognize and experience emotions which are appropriate to a situation is normal and healthy. The only thing that a constant diet of analysis will give you is constipation.
lujlp - Logan's Run didn't immediately register. But with all this discussion of demographics and population control, I can't get the sound of Charlton Heston screaming "Soylent Green is people, it's people!" out of my head.
Ms. Gandhi at January 16, 2009 1:00 PM
Lujlp - it's been 30 years since I saw Logan's Run. I had to go back and re-read your comment to get it. I'm not sure having artificial wombs would get us to that point, because somebody will still have to raise them.
Hey Skipper, I didn't done the math before, but it will still take at least 300 years, using pessimistic numbers. One reason I disagree with you is that I think things will change. Back when we had a mainly agricultural society, children were considered an asset, so naturally couples had as many as they could. After industrialization started, but but before modern medicine, people lost a large number of children to diseases. Let's suppose a couple wanted to raise 2 children and the average childhood mortality was 50%. To have the same number of children overall with a 0% mortality rate would take 4 children/couple, but because of the uncertainty, a couple would have more than 4 children. Currently, raising children in an industrial society is an expensive proposition. While that isn't a factor for many people who don't want to have children, for those that do it tends to reduce the number of children born. If the wealth of the world continues to increase, it may get to the point where cost is no longer an issue and people may have as many as they want.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at January 16, 2009 5:06 PM
My parents let my brother know as often as possible that he was an accident, and that I was supposed to be a boy. Obviously they didn't want either one of us, and only wanted my sister, who is an alcoholic loser.
To all the guys who are making the negative comments about women who just won't breed-go adopt a kid if you feel so strongly about the survival of the human race (like that's going to happen). I guess they're just too selfish! I'm also assuming that they can't wait to get married and commit to a minimum of 16 years of finacial responsibility. Good on them.
I think what bothers these guys the most is that women don't feel like doing all the work anymore.
Chrissy at January 16, 2009 6:31 PM
No, Chrissy.
People are concerned that the United States is going to end up like England. Where imported muslims demographically become the majority over time, and convert England to a sharia-compliant member of the Ummah.
Islam - restoring the Caliphate one decadent western nation at a time.
brian at January 17, 2009 8:55 AM
I happened to come across this last night, from The Economist:
But from the early 1990s the World Bank and others began to issue dire warnings about an entirely new scare, soon christened the “demographic time bomb”. Thanks to a combination of growing longevity and falling birth rates, the average age of populations, first in the world’s rich countries and, after a time lag, in emerging nations too, has been rising inexorably. By 2050 the world will have about 2 billion people aged over 60, three times as many as today. In parts of the rich world, mainly Japan and western Europe, that age group already makes up nearly a quarter of the population. By 2050 their share will rise to 30-40%, and even in the—much younger—developing world it will go up to 25-30%.
In other words, those of working age will have to support a vastly increased number of dependants. In rich countries there are now roughly four workers for every pensioner. By 2050 there will be little more than two. Those two will have to work mighty hard to keep that pensioner supplied with reasonable retirement benefits and decent health care unless something is done. And done soon: in western Europe the working population is likely to start shrinking as soon as next year or 2010. The same is true for China, which largely because of its one-child policy will grow old before it becomes properly rich.
There is no doubt that global greying will happen. Many of the people that will contribute to it have already been born, so short of some catastrophe that kills off large numbers of people, or some Viagra-fuelled leap in birth rates, population numbers and age composition can be predicted with fair accuracy for decades ahead. What remedies should be adopted it is much harder to say.
William:
Your suggestions as to why TLF has fallen so dramatically are spot on. However, you seem overly optimistic in presuming things will change, without providing any reason why they should, never mind whether they will change in anything like soon enough.
Ms. Ghandi:
That was not meant as a compliment. If you re-read your responses, I hope you realize that even if I was completely wrong, you were still, well, something of an i-Hole. Your reactions were certainly inappropriate (although, it must be said, not nearly so much so as Ann and lujlp). Whether they were healthy or not I can't say.
Brian:
You are exactly right regarding Social Security. If that was the only, or even the major, issue, there are ways to handle it that are not too onerous.
You also bring up another interesting point. I'm pretty certain Amy has posted on the Islamisation of Europe.
Money without people is worthless. The reason there are so many Muslims in Europe is because the Europeans cannot be bothered to procreate their own culture.
People in the US -- women for whom Amy is a proxy, and all the men who see women as nothing more than self propelled sex toys -- are making the same choice.
Hey Skipper at January 17, 2009 12:53 PM
You guys recognize that the sci-fi people have addressed all this about demographic shift already, don't you? Think, Consider Her Ways or Forty Thousand in Gehenna.
Radwaste at January 17, 2009 5:53 PM
Leave a comment