Having children: the most egoistic act in the world
[RANT_ON]
Many people believe, for whatever misguided reasons, that having children is one of the more selfless and ennobling acts a human being can undertake; that it is the deposition of the self for the sake of another. The way I see it, having children is the single most egoistic, self-centered thing a person can do.
You may ask parents why they had children: reasons will vary from "I wanted to bring a child into the world so he or she could grow up to be a good person," to "I wanted to have a piece of me and my husband/wife to give to the world."
While these may sound altruistic at first glance, they are innately egoistic reasons: the truth is, having children makes the parents happy, it satisfies their desires to be good parents, to "give to society," to have a part of them live on in the world.
In fact, bringing innocent life into this shitty world is probably the cruelest act a human being can inflict on someone else; this world is teeming with misery, full to the rafters of unloved, uncared-for children that will never know a happy existence, and yet people, in their self-centered ignorance, deem it necessary to bring forth more life into this hapless planet. Why? What is the use?
In my opinion, adopting children is the more noble act; while you may argue that people's motivations for becoming parents are still pretty much due to self-satisfaction, it is inarguable that Man is a hedonistic animal and in its roots, even the most seemingly altruistic act is done to bring some degree of pleasure to the doer. However, in the realm of self-serving acts, adopting a child means removing him or her from an environment where he or she is probably unloved, or not taken care of as he or she should be; it means introducing a child into a home of full of love, of people who are willingly take on the responsibilities of parenthood and who will probably improve that child's life tenfold, and thus help in reducing some of the crappiness that prevails in the world.
If the world were even half-way decent, there would be a moratorium on having children until after all abandoned and orphaned children had found themselves a loving home... but, alas, the world is yet far, far away from being even half-way decent.
[RANT_OFF]
Sorry I didn't bring the funny today; I just had to vent. :-)
Many people believe, for whatever misguided reasons, that having children is one of the more selfless and ennobling acts a human being can undertake; that it is the deposition of the self for the sake of another. The way I see it, having children is the single most egoistic, self-centered thing a person can do.
You may ask parents why they had children: reasons will vary from "I wanted to bring a child into the world so he or she could grow up to be a good person," to "I wanted to have a piece of me and my husband/wife to give to the world."
While these may sound altruistic at first glance, they are innately egoistic reasons: the truth is, having children makes the parents happy, it satisfies their desires to be good parents, to "give to society," to have a part of them live on in the world.
In fact, bringing innocent life into this shitty world is probably the cruelest act a human being can inflict on someone else; this world is teeming with misery, full to the rafters of unloved, uncared-for children that will never know a happy existence, and yet people, in their self-centered ignorance, deem it necessary to bring forth more life into this hapless planet. Why? What is the use?
In my opinion, adopting children is the more noble act; while you may argue that people's motivations for becoming parents are still pretty much due to self-satisfaction, it is inarguable that Man is a hedonistic animal and in its roots, even the most seemingly altruistic act is done to bring some degree of pleasure to the doer. However, in the realm of self-serving acts, adopting a child means removing him or her from an environment where he or she is probably unloved, or not taken care of as he or she should be; it means introducing a child into a home of full of love, of people who are willingly take on the responsibilities of parenthood and who will probably improve that child's life tenfold, and thus help in reducing some of the crappiness that prevails in the world.
If the world were even half-way decent, there would be a moratorium on having children until after all abandoned and orphaned children had found themselves a loving home... but, alas, the world is yet far, far away from being even half-way decent.
[RANT_OFF]
Sorry I didn't bring the funny today; I just had to vent. :-)
posted by El Rata | 8:05 AM
6 Comments:
Well, your suggestion of a moratorium on the birth of children until every single one of them has been taken care of is interesting and in an ideal world, worthy of consideration.
However, the instinct to procreate is too powerful. The procreation of children is the most basic of all instincts in the animal world. Our DNA wants to replicate, to preserve itself, and I think that even if we tried what you say, it would somehow feel wrong to most people. Our DNA has hardwired us in such a way to replicate, that it would take a really disciplined couple to control this urge.
If you think about it, having a child is the greatest of all responsibilites: to take care of another human being. You are right, people make babies, and they don't even stop to consider the big daunting task ahead of them. I mean, do you really think the idea of cleaning the shit out of a baby, not getting any sleep because of the crying, the pressure of thinking that something may happen to the child and all those things are the idea of fun? No, I did not think so. But I believe our instinct to procreate is so powerful that it makes us forget about those things, and even rationalize why we want any children.
My girlfriend insists that she does not want any children. Ever. I agree, and I don't have a problem with it. I'm just curious to see if we'll ever change our opinion, and what our justification would be...
Hehe, well, the idea of the moratorium is obviously a "Wouldn't it be great if...?" type of idea, like for instance, "Wouldn't it be great if Céline Dion stopped singing about her baby?", or "Wouldn't it be great if George Lucas hadn't directed a single Star Wars movie?" In other words, a nice wish that is nonetheless unlikely to be realized.
In any case, my main objection was not against parenthood or child-rearing in general, it was about having children: the responsibilities, the worries, and the shit-cleaning, are factors even adoptive parents have to contend with. We definitely need more parents: what we don't need is more babies.
If Man ever stopped for one second and put the whole society's well-being before his own, I might get my wish... but, as you said, the instinct to procreate is too strong: Nature is probably set against us in this plight.
Oh, and regarding your girlfriend saying she never wants to have children, tell her that when she says that all you hear is: "Blah blah blah blah blah blah." ;-)
I believe many parents do not have children out of selfishness. If it is planned parenthood, the know what they are getting into. There are many sacrifices: personal time, income, freedom, etc.
The problem is when they realize they can "use" their children to live out their dream. It is not about what is best for the child, but what is best for the parent. From religion to hobbies, they will try to mold their child into what they wanted to be.
Hi Omar, and welcome to the Blogosphere! :-) I hope this will be the first of many posts I'll see from you. :-D
Well, regarding your post, note that I never said parenthood was intrinsically "bad"; I have a problem with having children in a world that's already overpopulated, overextended in its resources, and where there are many who suffer and go without. The reason people want to bring even more babies into this world are purely selfish: it's because they want to have babies who look like them, because they want to go through the "miracle of childbirth."
In any case, my overlying argument is that even those parental sacrifices you mention are eventually self-serving: people take them on gladly because of whatever personal satisfaction they derive from being parents, not because of some purely altruistic sense. Even the seemingly self-sacrifing act of carrying a baby to term and going through childbirth is taken on because "it's a wonderful feeling to be a mother" or because they want to "experience the miracle of life," like I said.
I doubt there has ever been a truly self-sacrificing gesture in the history of mankind, to be honest.
Rafa is a hypocrite!! As his sister I know for a fact he really wants to be an uncle. The nieces and nephews will have 25% of his DNA and he won’t have to do anything. Having children is a selfish act, … bullshit… how selfish is it to wish further fatness and stretch marks on your sister just so 25% of you DNA can get passed on, huh? Why don’t you go “uncle” some uncleless kids in the park? Oh, no … you are afraid of being arrested, you are afraid of being that creepy childless guy in the park. Chicken!!
-Lynnette
I'm a chicken, Ms. "Anonymous" (if that's even your real name)? And I'll have you know that I've been the creepy childless guy in the park plenty of times, missy! Wait... never mind...
PS. Get your own blog and post from your account!
Post a Comment
<< Home