I have had it with these Adorable babies on this adorable plane!

OG_Slinger:

If you're going to complain about bad parenting, I think you ought to do your bit to lessen the amount of that going on.

Be a good parent to a child.

I'm with you that there's too much bad parenting going around, but at least those guys are doing some degree of parenting at all. Of course, I don't think you'll find anyone arguing that bad parenting is admirable in the least. That said, it's not just parenting that determines how quiet a child is at any given moment. Children are individuals, too. They're human, not robotic. Even the best kind of parenting will have a limited effect on a child (or an adult for that matter) with severe ADHD, for instance.

LarryC wrote:

OG_Slinger:

If you're going to complain about bad parenting, I think you ought to do your bit to lessen the amount of that going on.

Be a good parent to a child.

Are you saying "If you don't like the job that someone else is doing as a parent, become a parent yourself"?

Slightly different. clover shares that you can't interfere with the parenting of another person in the US. Getting worked up about it seems to me to be just the pent up frustration of a village trying to parent and being prevented from doing so by recent cultural developments. Since you can't interfere that way, the next best thing is to reduce the fraction of bad parents by going out and being a good parent.

I certainly don't think that the childless in general really understand the costs of parenting, especially given some of the feedback going on in this thread. I had a good idea prior to actually having children, but that was because I participated in child-rearing a lot before I had my own children.

ruhk wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I certainly don't think that the childless in general really understand the costs of parenting, especially given some of the feedback going on in this thread. I had a good idea prior to actually having children, but that was because I participated in child-rearing a lot before I had my own children.

We understand perfectly well the costs of parenting, which is exactly why some of us avoid becoming parents. :P

Yeah. The logic behind having a kid so you better understand kids is mind boggling.

LarryC wrote:

Slightly different. clover shares that you can't interfere with the parenting of another person in the US. Getting worked up about it seems to me to be just the pent up frustration of a village trying to parent and being prevented from doing so by recent cultural developments. Since you can't interfere that way, the next best thing is to reduce the fraction of bad parents by going out and being a good parent.

I certainly don't think that the childless in general really understand the costs of parenting, especially given some of the feedback going on in this thread. I had a good idea prior to actually having children, but that was because I participated in child-rearing a lot before I had my own children.

I am not sure that you can get more wrong than suggesting that if you don't like how someone else is parenting that you should become a parent yourself. Parenting is a *very* big responsibility, and I have as much respect for people who become parents because they want to as I do for people who *know* that they don't want kids and so therefore make the decision to not become parents.

LarryC wrote:

I certainly don't think that the childless in general really understand the costs of parenting, especially given some of the feedback going on in this thread. I had a good idea prior to actually having children, but that was because I participated in child-rearing a lot before I had my own children.

We understand perfectly well the costs of parenting, which is exactly why some of us avoid becoming parents.

Personally, I basically raised my siblings as both my parents had multiple full-time jobs. My wife worked at a children's hospital for nearly a decade, witnessing firsthand the stress families face in their worst moments. Deciding not to reproduce wasn't a decision made on a whim, it was an informed and difficult choice made over the coarse of several years.

LarryC wrote:

I've already said that I personally won't hold that against you or other childless people in any way,

That's very big of you.

ruhk:

I know you say that with a disclaimer, but it seems like that's a common theme, especially with the "children as lifestyle" view most people have on the thread. The fact of the matter is, the population of a society needs replacement on account of people dying. The US being large and powerful lessens that burden considerably, and makes it appear far more distant than it is. The cause-and-effect is certainly more visible in a small tribe. However, it doesn't remove that burden entirely. Each member of the society still sustains at least the responsibility and duty to replace himself or herself through the next generation - at least 2 children.

I believe that this is what parents and relatives improperly communicate when they bug you to have children - they're impressing upon you that you are shirking a social obligation.

I've already said that I personally won't hold that against you or other childless people in any way, but at least have the decency to let other people fulfill their obligations (and perhaps yours in the bargain) without adding to the burden.

mudbunny, DSGamer:

I did suggest alternatives prior to that: don't get in the way. That sounds reasonable, right?

Haha, I didn't know my one responsibility to humanity was to produce offspring. BRB, need to review my understanding of population ecology.

mudbunny:

It is. I know you meant that sarcastically, but it's still true. DSGamer's relatives, as far as I can tell, wouldn't let him hear the end of it for a long time. You'll only hear this from me here because the thread is about that topic particularly.

Grubber788:

I don't understand where I implied that this was the only responsibility anyone ever had in life. Is this an idiomatic expression I'm not getting? Hyperbole?

As participants and members of a society, we have many social obligations. Seeing to the future of your society is just one of those obligations.

Sometimes kids scream. Sometimes people scream. As long as they stay in their seats I don't care. I'll just put my earplugs in (or headphones on) and I'm gold.

Looks at world population number. Backs away from thread slowly.

Grubber788 wrote:

I think my issue is that you're taking your cultural view of child rearing it and trying to place it in an American context. I imagine people in other emerging markets would sympathize with you, but when you say say that having children is a "social obligation" to someone from a developed nation like the United States or Japan, it sounds weird.

I'm aware of that. I feel that you guys have forgotten that this is a social obligation, because various means to lower death rates have made it profoundly less apparent. That said, Japan is facing a population crisis precisely because its people have been shirking their responsibilities in this sphere. Apart from just people dying off and the culture vanishing en masse, there's just not enough people to keep Japan's many vanishing arts and traditions alive.

this "children are a social obligation" thing you keep pushing is inane, antiquated bs, Larry. A couple thousand years ago it was a necessity, but humanity has reached the point where it isn't going to instantly die off in a generation if a few people decide to live their own life rather than become breeders. The notion is archaic nonsense.

I think my issue is that you're taking your cultural view of child rearing it and trying to place it in an American context. I imagine people in other emerging markets would sympathize with you, but when you say say that having children is a "social obligation" to someone from a developed nation like the United States or Japan, it sounds weird.

Edit: I would go so far as to say that having children is less a responsibility to society than it is one option you have to benefit society. Remember society has limited resources and children require a lot of them. Human population growth slows down in developed countries because I think childless people are fulfilling their own commitments to society--they are contributing without introducing new burdens on resources--until they get old and they themselves become burdens. At which point... they hire Mexican/Indonensian carekeepers? Ugh, humans are stupid.

It was a lot more fun being ignorant back before I married a psych/child psych major and got to know what is developmentally expected at certain ages, and how difficult parenting actually is. Even our kids act out, and if a newborn gets gassy well... be prepared with ear plugs because there's nothing to do but ignore it. I'm certain there are plenty of people who label us as bad parents when they have no clue what's going on. I'm certain there are times where that label fits just fine, too. When I became a new parent, someone should've told me, "Welcome to the toughest job you'll ever have. Prepare to be tested and judged every day for the next couple of decades, and found wanting on many."

Seth wrote:

Well let's be clear (and I might be channeling LarryC on this); flyinng is never the only viable transportation method, minus a few places where boats cannot reach. Keeping one's job and maximizing vacation days are elements of luxury, as is being hurtled through the air in fifth century sorcery.

If you're attending a funeral and want to get there before the body decomposes...

Re: the role/choice of having kids in US society

Who in blazes do you think is going to pay your Social Security? Run the nursing homes?

sometimesdee wrote:
Seth wrote:

Well let's be clear (and I might be channeling LarryC on this); flyinng is never the only viable transportation method, minus a few places where boats cannot reach. Keeping one's job and maximizing vacation days are elements of luxury, as is being hurtled through the air in fifth century sorcery.

If you're attending a funeral and want to get there before the body decomposes...

Re: the role/choice of having kids in US society

Who in blazes do you think is going to pay your Social Security? Run the nursing homes?

A mix of foreign labor and robots if you follow the Japanese model.

Social security could do with some reforming.

ruhk wrote:

the idea being presented that non-breeders are somehow shirking their civic duty is both inherently nonsensical and extremely offensive.

Equally offensive is the converse idea - that breeders made their lifestyle choice in order to burden the childfree.

Sigh. No one is saying that NO ONE should have children, just that it's a lifestyle choice, not an obligate part of society. There will always be children, and future generations, but the idea being presented that non-breeders are somehow shirking their civic duty is both inherently nonsensical and extremely offensive.

If you follow the argument to it's logical conclusion, it also implies that people who cannot reproduce, such as same-sex couples or those suffering from sterility, are lesser people than breeders. That's exponentially even more offensive.

ruhk wrote:

Sigh. No one is saying that NO ONE should have children, just that it's a lifestyle choice, not an obligate part of society. There will always be children, and future generations, but the idea being presented that non-breeders are somehow shirking their civic duty is both inherently nonsensical and extremely offensive.

This is what I'm talking about when I said that many childless people take raising children and parenthood for granted. There will only always be children and future generations because there are people who are doing their duty. I'm sorry that this reality offends you, but those people don't just spring up from the ground fully grown. Someone had to birth them and raise them.

The way you shirk your civic duty by remaining childless is neither nebulous nor nonsensical. You are not making new people to replace the people who are dying. It's really that simple.

Until people stop dying, any society composed of people will need new people to replace losses.

LarryC wrote:

The way you shirk your civic duty by remaining childless is neither nebulous nor nonsensical. You are not making new people to replace the people who are dying. It's really that simple.

Are we living in some weird alternate reality where there aren't enough people?

Thank you.

Much as I hate the implications of this issue, China's one child policy did help it enormously in the late 20th century.

I also can't help but wonder what the implications of statements about the duty to procreate are vis a vis homosexuality. I suppose those comments could be justified by talking about adoption and stuff, but it all sounds so very... Catholic?

Grubber788 wrote:

If there's one thing worse than the occasional screeching from a baby, it's elderly Chinese tourists doing their clapping exercises.

Oh lol, the hand clapping. There's a few folks on my old morning bus route that used to do it at the stop. The chinese clapping and the arm flopping exercises. Gawd. Headphones, I love you so. It's so bizarre to me I can't listen or have it in my field of view. Too early for shenanigans. Also we're trying to stand in a line here and there's only so much space and people are trying to walk around them on the sidewalk without getting swatted or slapped.

Amoebic wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

If there's one thing worse than the occasional screeching from a baby, it's elderly Chinese tourists doing their clapping exercises.

Oh lol, the hand clapping. There's a few folks on my old morning bus route that used to do it at the stop. The chinese clapping and the arm flopping exercises. Gawd. Headphones, I love you so. It's so bizarre to me I can't listen or have it in my field of view. Too early for shenanigans. Also we're trying to stand in a line here and there's only so much space and people are trying to walk around them on the sidewalk without getting swatted or slapped.

We should laugh so hard I think. There's a reason the old people who do that live to be 90 or 100

ruhk wrote:
LarryC wrote:

The way you shirk your civic duty by remaining childless is neither nebulous nor nonsensical. You are not making new people to replace the people who are dying. It's really that simple.

Are we living in some weird alternate reality where there aren't enough people?

That alternate reality is called The Philippines.

Seriously, emerging markets and developed markets have very different views on population growth. Whereas Larry believes that civic duty demands procreation, he doesn't seem to understand that in developed markets, civic duty demands that some people not give birth. The only reason the U.S. birth rate is so high is due primarily to the lower class population and immigrants. Much of Europe is the same way. Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore are examples of this as well. The growth rates for birthrates in those countries are hovering around zero; they aren't going too far into negative numbers as far as I understand it.

This talk of "duty" is kind of crazy too because there are clearly biological factors at play here that heavily influence whether or not our different species groups choose to procreate. Yes, some people have to give birth, but when we reach the top of the logistics curve, some people should not give birth. It's the only way to ensure the stability of the society from a resources point of view.

Edit: In other words, saying that people who do not procreate are not fulfilling their obligations to society is like saying that people not actively engaged in the farming of corn are failing to meet their obligations to society. Procreation and agriculture are both critical parts of sustaining humanity, but in the modern age, neither are required of any given person.

I'm keenly aware of the China male problem. Interestingly, in Hong Kong, because of the traditional mindset, families will keep on having children until they have a boy. The end result is that Hong Kong is FULL of single women. (Lucky me)

Obviously artificial population controls have their downfalls, but in this case, it's because the system was initiated poorly and could not cope with traditional Chinese sensibilities. What was the benefit though? If the population were allowed to grow unchecked, the strain on Chinese resources would have been too much to bear in urban areas. The end result? Relatively stable population growth, but with the problem you mentioned (which is strongly linked to what I would view as backwards beliefs) and the "xiao huangdi" little emperor syndrome, where now there are a bunch of coddled, fat boys waddling around Beijing. I don't think what you posted there really addresses the issue at hand; it just shows some problems with artificial constraints, which shouldn't be necessary from a biological point of view.

For Japan... that is interesting, but I've never actually seen an article citing the specific issues that population growth slowdown was causing. As I understand it, the bigger problem here is that the baby boom generation is so large that the infrastructure for caring for the elderly is not yet in place. Once that large group of elderly people pass through the "system," society will have adapted to dealing with a more mature population. Again, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with Japan's population remaining stable, particularly since its economy is relatively weak and its not like the country needs a population expansion to be competitive in the economy--Japan has a specialized, technology-oriented workforce. I think a higher population would be harmful to the country.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/20...

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/14/jap...

In other words, saying that people who do not procreate are not fulfilling their obligations to society is like saying that people not actively engaged in the farming of corn are failing to meet their obligations to society. Procreation and agriculture are both critical parts of sustaining humanity, but in the modern age, neither are required of any given person.

I have to disagree on both counts. The actual planting of food has always been foisted off to a specialized set of people ever since that became tenable, but the raising of the next generation is something all societies must do, and it doesn't do to specialize a few people to do it.

Why?

Because if you do that, then the future of the society will be controlled only by those people. Non-child rearers don't get to have a say. Moreover, specialized agriculture experts are paid for their efforts. These functions would be made more equivalent if you could pay people to be full-time parents. That is, being a dad and a mom should warrant more than just tax cuts, but salaries in and of themselves, if these activities are to be valued as a specialized profession. These salaries must not include the cost of the child-rearing itself, since raising the next generation well benefits everyone in the society, even those who are not of that profession.