Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Noah Petersen on February 12, 2010 at 11:11am

I know that this answer is unhelpful, but I'm indifferent about having kids. I would have them if it were a relationship deal-breaker, but I'd prefer not to have any.

Permalink Reply by J.P.M. on February 12, 2010 at 1:55pm

To answer your question, yes, there are, although they may not be easy to find in FL.
(I lived near Orlando for 7 years)
I was such a man, but I ended up with 2 daughters from my 1st marriage somehow.
I appreciate them now that they are half-grown, but it really was never my intent to have children.
Part of the reason my 2nd marriage deteriorated I suspect was because my 2nd wife always wanted kids but never had the courage to speak her mind about it, just envied the 1st one.
I don't blame you for not wanting to bear children one bit.
It is hard on a woman and some never recover fully from the aftereffects.
But believe me, there are men out there to whom the idea of children is not appealling.
(My mother used to reassure me there were plenty of women out there who didn't want kids - where were you 20 years ago? :)

Permalink Reply by Brian Ditter on February 13, 2010 at 4:36pm

The truthful answer is simply yes; on several levels.....as I absolutely hate typing, we can continue this conversation via phone : 860-262-1291. Your intellectual integrity is NOT advanced by stacking the deck for supportive answers. Darwin supplies part of the explaination. I personally coined the concept of ''psychological genes'' in the early 79's prior to the more recent equivalent concept of ''memes'' [Dawkins ?]....which also gives part of the explaination. Your 3rd statement is a rationalization designed to support your position of your 2nd statement, OR its a complaint about the scarcity of good psychological/biological candidates. This itself is often a consequence of the laundry list of 'demands' the avg fwmale makes on potential candidates.... which mathematically leads to a candidate pool of essentially zero. On the plus side, you MAY be able to pass on 'good' memes to a non biological child . The sad truth of most 'adults' is the canNOT handle points of discussion which conflict with an already held belief/position about [him/her]themselves...which is exactly why most of your responders will choose/dare NOT to disagree with your position ....as, then, you will NOT 'like' them... Intellectual honesty & integrity take guts. All 4 now Proper response to your blog would take several pages, point by point. This also applies to the replies you have recieved so far. CALL to continue the discussion.

Permalink Reply by Brian Ditter on February 13, 2010 at 4:38pm

70's !!! not 79 sorry for the typo !!! [did mention I hate typing !]

Permalink Reply by Glenn Pollock on February 15, 2010 at 2:22pm

I am 66 and have never brought children into this world and sure would not want to do it now. Now I enjoy bright happy and well behaved children but there are not many of them. When I was in my twenties I spend a year and one half in the tribal areas of Pakistan. That changed my idea about bring children into this world. I am an environmentalist and consider one of the biggest problem is over population. I consider any one not bringing children into this world as a hero. Recently on a national new magazine I was a photo of couple and their 19 children. I consider that many children close to a crime against humanity. I am surprise at how the believers admire them.
No I am not some old bitter man I love life, the natural world and people in my life. One can live a fruitful and happy life with out bring children into this world.
Glenn

Permalink Reply by Brian Ditter on February 15, 2010 at 9:39pm

Its a no brainer that one can live a fruitful & happy [and simply easier] life without passing on your genetic heritage..... so is looking at only short term profits at the expense of long term considerations. Its certainly your 'right' to remove yourself from the gene pool. Perhaps, its just as well ?!
I have pointed out earlier that evolution mave be making a major shift to the realm of memes and we have a form of speciiation in the form of incompatible meme pools. This can easily be seen in the memes relating to the forbiddance of marrying someone of a different 'faith' [or tribe or culture or ethnic group or "Breed"] Certainly, overpopulation is an important problem. Catholics are primarily opposed to birth control in a/n [simply transparent] attempt to outbreed the protestants, [as simply killing them off as heretics is no longer viable].
Not resisting the spread of such memes is also close to a crime against humanity. The great thing about memes is they are more akin to software residing in a 'wet' drive. They CAN be replaced. Dangerous memes can be resisted AND MUST BE. However, leading a totally self absorbed / narcissistic life with one's head in the sand, as it were, is NOT heroic.
Such a choice ALSO affects future generations.....People w/o children have a bigger responsibility precisely because in not having the expense of their own children , they have more time & resources to fight the spread of dangerous memes, & help popularize 'healthier' memes....Yet, how many actually do so?
If intelligent and competent humans fail to pass on their genes & memes they will be swamped into near extinction by the law of large numbers and evolution in action. As a 'breed' of humans [free from religion] as a group we need to raise a new generation of children who have NOT been crippled with defective/dangerous memes... to help build a better future where they do not fear being openly atheist, and can build up from there . There are not many "bright, happy & 'well - behaved' children" precisely because WE are not having/ raising them. You obviously consider yourself to be a "Hero" ...You have nothing to be proud of or smug or self-rightous about here. [It's obviously all about you & your 'happiness' right ?] All 4 now....I hate typing !

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on February 19, 2010 at 3:21pm

Wow, that is the most incredible opinion I've ever read in any atheist group, the "best way to beat them is to out-procreate them"?

I just can not accept THAT meme.

More people on this planet means greater demands for technology, greater quantities of technology serve both good and bad causes, greater technologies serve to maintain humanity in servitude to the machines and the associated technology, with each human becoming more and more humanoid high maintenance techno hybrid. OF COURSE we can feed more people, treat more waste, find more energy. The question is NOT if we CAN but if we WANT. Do we want to live as sardines, personally, NO, I do not want to live in mainstream Japan or China, or anywhere else with high density.

Humanity needs to realize there is already enough of us here, too many of us here. We are not only on top of the food chain, we are depleting the food chain under us from sheer numbers.

You speak of "you and your happiness". OF COURSE, it IS about us and our happiness. It just happens to be that HIS happiness is simply different from YOUR happiness. Obviously you extract yourself from that equation! You think you are more honourable than he, well that is funny.

I disagree that the best way to beat the religious procreaters is to outprocreate them. Religion on the planet as whole is rising. We need to shut down religions. Religions are very powerful, the more kids are out there, the more meat for the religious proselytisers.

I refuse to tow the procreation competition lie. UNLESS we act as the Vikings did when overtaking territories, and procreate with the ones we intend to overtake. That would mean that all atheists should procreate with a religious one and work ever so hard at removing religion from the "other half" in addition to making 100% sure that the kids don't become religious themselves.

If you're taking that Viking attitude, and are removing your loved one's religion and making bloody sure that your saplings will never go religious, then you're a hero too.

Permalink Reply by Brian Ditter on February 19, 2010 at 9:03pm

Would like to respond to your post, but do NOT have the time to give it a point by point response at the moment.
SEE my response to the post YOU agreed with [TNT's] starters
By the way, what is YOUR particular solution to ''overriding the cultural & genetic imperative...." ???
2ndly : ''lesser'' species ???....... ''better''? / .....''worse'' ? by what/ whose standards / criteria ? Certainly not evolution's.
Evolution does NOT back up agent smith's assertion, either. Most species[99%+] have gone to extinction wthout human ''help''. Evolution does NOT favor any ''status quo'' for very long. Refer to Dawkins works, for starters.
Over simplistic views /myths/ wishful thinking do NOT help address the problems... they muddy it up -especially for those who are at the beginning of their quest for knowledge & understanding. No species incl humans ''deserve'' to continue to survive. Any & all extinction events lead to new opportunities for other branches of life to 'exploit'. There are NO favorites. Cold hard reality. Your imperative to START OUTTHINKING applies to you, as well, ......So how do YOU propose to 'win' [Against a group that does believe & practice the idea of outbreeding us]

Permalink Reply by Anna on February 19, 2010 at 9:13pm

Brian- calm down. The initial post was just for me to see if I was all alone in this world in my thinking. I am very happy to see that I am not. I just know that in working with teenagers and volunteering with them, that many of them are "custody of the state" or were never adopted because they were "older"- hence me possibly wanting to adopt older children. We are at no shortage of people.

Permalink Reply by Howard Titman on June 16, 2011 at 9:26am

you are not alone...  made up my mind about age 12 to never have children.... 

Permalink Reply by Heather McIntosh on July 4, 2011 at 6:31pm

I made up my mind not to have children when I was a toddler... there were only ever stuffed animals in my play strollers!

Permalink Reply by Brian Ditter on February 20, 2010 at 2:33am

I've just discovered that this program doesn't always place replys in the proper location...hence I will make the post being responded to explicit.
[ this is to Glen Watson starting out ''Okay.....'']
''....education....' Of course !!! BUT that is NOT the real issue/ solution as it
does NOT address HOW that is to be accomplished.
AS Dawkins has observed : '' the meme for Blind Faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple UNCONSCIOUS expedient of discouraging RATIONAL inquiry. '' [among several places: pg230 of Daniel c Dennett's excellent book; "BREAKING THE SPELL''
As far as "being educated'' goes...What a sad joke !!! As Phillip Wylie pointed out way back in the 49's & 50's:The avg person is relatively LESS educated than ancient people relative to that required & the amount of knowledge available. See his ''the Magic Animal '' & other works: ''Generation of Vipers'' /etc.[What? you (plural-audience) aren't familiar with Wylie & other Great American social critics, such as Vance Packard??? I rest my case !
All men absolutely should be familiar with Dr Warren Farrell's works [only man elected 3 times to NOW,who left after the radical extremists took over (?) see "Who stole Feminism?: How women have betrayed women''....by Christina hoft Sommers....yes written by a Woman]

Examples? : psychobabble, for starters. New Age Crap...Myths & downright lies paraded as facts & uncritically accepted by a majority of people including Most atheists, I've encountered. People are less well read then ever. See also the works of Dr Eric Berne [on issues of social psychiatry; author of "(psychological) GAMES PEOPLE PLAY (UNknowingly), among others. Very few people have made a lifelong conscienteous effort to reexamine the B.S. they have absorbed [in the manner of a sponge] over a lifetime & don't really have the proper tools & facts of reality by which to make those determinations. They consider themselves "educated'' because they have a piece of paper showing they have "mastered'' a tiny & highly specialized area of knowledge. Classic self deception & arrogance ! Advanced intellect ?! The Fact is the PRIMARY use of language for MOST people is in manipulating others NOT by rational argument but by conartistry/dishonesty carrot & stick psychological maneuvers & strategems And other rhetorical 'tricks'. Getting another to accept a B.S. opinion or myth as a fact is a classic example..
One's brain does NOT extrude rational thoughts/ behavior the way one's heart pumps blood..... It is a very difficult habit to develop & master [the quip about 10,000 hours of practice equally applies here.]Nevertheless, without a valid & extensive store of facts of reality in a wide range of areas of knowledge, Rationality is NOT enough [garbage in; garbage out]
There are really only two things that distingish most atheists from the religiously infected &/or typical HIGHLY NONrational human beings;
1. They tend to believe in ONE less god than most
2.They have some rationality in at least ONE aspect of their belief system.
[that the theists have not provided any compelling evidence to believe in things supernatural.] PERIOD.
The self held belief that they are in most respects rational human beings is not only flat out false but actually highly delusional & thus dangerous. "Brights'' ??? Fireflys would be much more accurate. [occasional moments of 'truth''/ sparks of light.] Most of us have a LONG way to go....however one cannot make any real progress in that endeavor if one fails to get the facts of reality of one's chronic lack of rationality in most of their beliefs & actions....
I cannot locate a particular quote for you, but the majority of evolutionary biologists I'm familiar with would flat out disagree with your perspective on species....Check with Dawkins.. Gene pools adapt & evolve/ transform. as a continuous entity over time.A 2nd anology is the tree ['bush'] of life A tree or bush loses leaves at particular points in time. Sometimes, some of the leaves & branches die/ go 'extinct'. the tree continues to exist & branch & produce new leaves at later moments in time. Some of these may also die later on. yet, the bush continues to exist & thrive w/o those particular leaves. We really haven't been around that long. Yes, we recently have become relatively successful, primarily due to adaptions dealing with the production & transmittance of MEMES. I would hesitate to label ourself the 'greatist of species' Some potential alien lifeform may get a big laugh over that !!!
[digressing, my position is that many species in the universe may well reach the point of being 'considered' ''intelligent'' .life...that being the case or possibility, it stands to reason that one of them has to 'arrive' first. IT MAY WELL BE US !!! Whoever is first has the best chance of colonizing (at least) our galaxy.We may very well seed the galaxy, but not alone.....we will certainly do so withlarge segments of earth's tree of life. {anology here: pacific ocean & islands More evolution in action --remember Darwin}
Until & unless we hybridize with plant life, we are in fact ANIMAL life forms AND a part of nature. One of the major problems with religion is the denial of our animal nature & the misguided talk of ''trancendence'' [the human 'soul', for starters. From a general systems perspective [which arose out of developmental biology] , We are complex adaptive systems..with some interesting emergent properi\ties.[and this is where we have some overlap]when you talk about 'greatest' species.,I wouldspecify that we are the first ''IDEAL SEEKING SYSTEMS'' the ancient Greeks got this far [of which most here seem to be truly ignorant of] The three primary ideals to strive for are : 1) TRUTH; 2) Beauty; & 3) Justice [this would be an entire book to adequately support/defend]
To these three we should ad a 4th: ''SOCIAL-ECONOMIC PLENTY''. We are the first 'species' [in the galaxy ? ] to explicitly become ideal-seeking systems, [ that we are aware of!] The ability of conceptual thought was a necessary precondition.
There are almost no 'guarentees ' in life 'cept death & taxes.
Regardless, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior,
& the best predictor of religeous beliefs in a child is the beliefs of the parents; by default, this also applies to non-belief, other things being equal., hence, your assertion lacks 'strength'
Again,saying what we "MUST" do does NOT answer HOW that is to be accomplished. Let me address another widespread myth ; Teachers [beyond elementary school] have gotten themselves in the hot seat by inflating their own importance.In Newton's time , you might learn physics simply by copying his lecture notes [historical fact] A child cannot learn by a teacher yanking his/her skull open & pouring in a cup or two of knowledge...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page