Is it selfish to have a child instead of adopting?

[Deeprotsorcerer]

I used to think so. Hell, I still do to some extent, but I'm proud to say that I no longer look at people who want to pass on their genes with disdain. I used to panic about the inevitable doom humanity is bringing against itself with the climate crisis and its inability to meet the physical demands (Not the supply, there's more than enough actual stuff to go around. Screw you zero-sum gamers.) of the people we already have on this Earth.

Hearing someone say, "I want want to have kids of my own." always felt like they meant "I don't care about the planet, or the souls suffering under the horrors of the system." but some long conversations with a number of acquaintances and my mother has revealed a number of reasons why someone would put/bake a cinnabon in the oven rather than picking a perfectly good one out from the store:

They just never considered adoption (the most common reason in my circle)

They see raising their own child as an ultimate expression of love (irrational to me, but feelings are irrational)

They're afraid of the child being wrong/ruined by the system (an idea that I take umbrage with, as the child that you make could also be "ruined" by any number of factors)

None of these point towards disdain for humanity's continued survival or a lack of sympathy for orphans, but a part of me still thinks that despite people's perfectly valid reasons for having their own child, they should be encouraged to rescue one that already exists, if only to reduce the amount of suffering in the world.

Edit: I'm aware of the fact that a "population explosion" isn't the core cause of the environmental crisis, but I didn't when I was much younger. The main thrust of my discomfort with making a kid rather than taking one would be the existence of children that go unadopted.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

Here's my take on that issue:

If you want to adopt, adopt.

If want your own child, make one with your wife/husband.

If you want to be childless, it's perfectly fine.

But the most important is, you're raising a life. YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO MAKE SACRIFICES. If one can't be responsible with bringing a child to this world, don't do it.

 

[BenJepheneT]

in a very bastardized version of explaining this, it's like between continuing a dead author's premature work and making your own series. it varies; maybe you're close to the author, or that the author never had the chance of even writing its first draft, leaving only a manuscript of ideas and an overall skeleton, or even just a premise with no plot or characters attached to it.

it depends on whoever picks up the work. to me, writing something of my own creation is the most satisfying, and I'll pick that option every time. maybe someone is alright and even enthusiastic of picking up someone's work and cracking to see an unrealized potential.

in layman terms, some people like to buy the in-game item straight away where they have a 100% of owning what they have, while others prefer a bit of gacha stats to their baby.

whether it's selfish or not, don't be a dead-beat parent. even if it's selfish to have your own baby, when you neglect your child, that becomes the least of your concern, you fucken asshole.

 

[PeacefulMyst]

I think adopting/having a child when you're not gonna take care of them properly is one of the worst things one can do.

and about adopting, well I mean i guess tons of people might just not have the same affection i guess

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

But the most important is, you're raising a life. YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO MAKE SACRIFICES. If one can't be responsible with bringing a child to this world, don't do it.

whether it's selfish or not, don't be a dead-beat parent. even if it's selfish to have your own baby, when you neglect your child, that becomes the least of your concern, you fucken asshole.

I think adopting/having a child when you're not gonna take care of them properly is one of the worst things one can do.

Oh most certainly. No matter what side of the fence you're on if you abandon a cinnabon or make their formative years hell, you deserve a visit from the Saw guy.

in layman terms, some people like to buy the in-game item straight away where they have a 100% of owning what they have, while others prefer a bit of gacha stats to their baby.

This... just seems super irrational to me, the cost of rolling a gacha/picking up another author's work rather than making your own vs increasing the pressure on the planet's carrying capacity/"overlooking" a child in need don't compute. But again, feelings are irrational.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

Oh most certainly. No matter what side of the fence you're on if you abandon a cinnabon or make their formative years hell, you deserve visit from the Saw guy.



This... just seems super irrational to me, the cost of rolling a gacha/picking up another authors work rather than making your own vs increasing the pressure on the planet's carrying capacity/"overlooking" a child in need don't compute.

Well, going back to your question about the selfishness of having a child of your own...

The most sensical answer is NO. Why force someone to do something they don't like? Isn't it more irrational than letting them do what they want and take full responsibility for it?

And with that, I rest my case, Your Honor.

 

[Bobisekaibulshitto]

People who think human overpopulating is a problem is an actual thing are stupid. Jk. Have kids. Dont have kids. Adopt. Dont adopt.

You really not hurting the world by breeding.

Yknow what really hurt people and the world? Nuclear warfare.

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

Well, going back to your question about the selfishness of having a child of your own...

The most sensical answer is NO. Why force someone to do something they don't like? Isn't it more irrational than letting them do what they want and take full responsibility for it?

And with that, I rest my case, Your Honor.

True, very true. On principle one's freedoms should not be limited, China's One Child Policy was absolutely draconian, for example. The only issue with that is when one's freedoms spell greater harm for others than the happiness it would bring to the individual.

We only have one planet, and this one planet is quickly spiraling down the drain. Every extra human we add to the mix makes the problem worse. I feel like there's less social pressure to adopt because having a child contributes to a long-range problem rather than one with more observable effects like unsafe sex or not wearing a mask (and people are even split on that). This, of course, assumes that we believe slowing the birth rate and allowing our numbers to fall would give us enough time to fix the earth before we can't live here anymore.

People who think human overpopulating is a problem is an actual thing are stupid. Jk. Have kids. Dont have kids. Adopt. Dont adopt.

You really not hurting the world by breeding.

Yknow what really hurt people and the world? Nuclear warfare.

Agreed to an extent, it's overconsumption, emissions, and reluctance to work on clean solutions that are driving the climate crisis and solving said crisis isn't as simple as getting people to stop doing the mating dance. Not adding new consumers, however, does affect the numbers in a meaningful way, and there are children available for adoption that may face abuse or misery without your intervention. Though if we were to wield that kind of logic as a sword, we might as well start throwing stones at each other for so much more.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

True, very true. On principle one's freedoms should not be limited, China's One Child Policy was absolutely draconian, for example. The only issue with that is when one's freedoms spell greater harm for others than the happiness it would bring to the individual.

We only have one planet, and this one planet is quickly spiraling down the drain. Every extra human we add to the mix makes the problem worse. I feel like there's less social pressure to adopt because having a child contributes to a long-range problem rather than one with more observable effects like unsafe sex or not wearing a mask (and people are even split on that). This, of course, assumes that we believe slowing the birth rate and allowing our numbers to fall would give us enough time to fix the earth before we can't live here anymore.

I see. You're arguing on the 'ecological' and 'economic' side of things, while I was pointing out the 'philosophical' side.

Now, I'm not going to contest your belief about overpopulation. However, while I do agree with some of your points, I'm more concerned on the 'political' aspects of population control. Questions like...

1) If we implement population control systems, how many children should a couple produce? As we know, there are many analyses about the negative effect of the 'One-Child Policy' on the economy and demography of the PRC (long run).

2) And if we did determine the 'right' number, how can we be sure to control the people to follow it? Will we kill the 'extra' children? Punish the parents by taxing them more? Wrench the child away from their family and throw them in orphanages?

3) I don't know about your country, but in cultures like ours, a lot of people have negative connotations about being 'adopted'. How can the government protect the adopted from abuse, from their peers and/or their step-parents?

There are a lot of things to consider about the environment, and the population. But just to be on the safe side, a lot of governments adopted the 'laissez-faire' approach when it comes to building a family.

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

.....

There are a lot of things to consider about the environment, and the population. But just to be on the safe side, a lot of governments adopted the 'laissez-faire' approach when it comes to building a family.

Agreed on all accounts, and that's what makes the conversation so frustrating. The philosophical/political side of the equation shouldn't be ignored, and any form of government control can easily present a slippery slope towards actual genocide.

I guess the best solution would be to find ways to improve our orphanages so that even without standard households people can come up in safe, warm environments where being abandoned by an asshole parent/being a victim of circumstance doesn't mean starting the game fifty steps behind.

 

[BenJepheneT]

This... just seems super irrational to me, the cost of rolling a gacha/picking up another authors work rather than making your own vs increasing the pressure on the planet's carrying capacity/"overlooking" a child in need don't compute. But again, feelings are irrational.

imma be real with you chief, when I have a child, I don't think "oh fuck, I'm contributing to the planet's overpopulation issue and being oblivious to the fact that our planet can only sustain 1 billion per year, let alone 7", I think "wow I'm gonna have someone to pass my genes and teach and grow up with". to be frank, if your first thought about having/adopting a child is the planet's carrying capacity, I don't think you're rational enough to have that discussion in such avenues in the first place.

by that measure, we'd have to consider suicides "generous sacrifices".

 

[greyblob]

People who think human overpopulating is a problem is an actual thing are stupid.

this is but unironically.

We only have one planet, and this one planet is quickly spiraling down the drain. Every extra human we add to the mix makes the problem worse. I feel like there's less social pressure to adopt because having a child contributes to a long-range problem rather than one with more observable effects like unsafe sex or not wearing a mask (and people are even split on that). This, of course, assumes that we believe slowing the birth rate and allowing our numbers to fall would give us enough time

most of the planet's harm is from greed. lands are unequally distributed, food is wasted, medication is artificially inflated, science is purposefully hibdered.
if you genuinely think the answer to that question is yes, I truly believe you should seek help. you need a complete mental rehabilitation. humans are not a disease.

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

imma be real with you chief, when I have a child, I don't think "oh fuck, I'm contributing to the planet's overpopulation issue and being oblivious to the fact that our planet can only sustain 1 billion per year, let alone 7", I think "wow I'm gonna have someone to pass my genes and teach and grow up with". to be frank, if your first thought about having/adopting a child is the planet's carrying capacity, I don't think you're rational enough to have that discussion in such avenues in the first place.

by that measure, we'd have to consider suicides "generous sacrifices".

Meh.

There's a difference between ending a life, refusing to take care of a life that already exists, and bringing a new life into the world. I will agree that the argument from an ecological standpoint is neither the strongest nor the most rational (see my reply to Bob above), I just don't see the inherent worth in the genes I would pass on when weighed against the ideas and morals I'd pass on. If I pick up a child from an adoption center, they're my child. If I have a child with my wife, they're my child. The only difference is that someone just missed out on the chance to get a responsible, loving, parent in the latter case. I understand that people shouldn't be obligated to betray their principles and take care of a child that they won't consider one of their own, however, as that would cause both sides great distress.

In my opinion, the "wow I'm gonna have someone to pass my genes" bit is animal logic.

most of the planet's harm is from greed. lands are unequally distributed, food is wasted, medication is artificially inflated, science is purposefully hibdered.
if you genuinely think the answer to that question is yes, I truly believe you should seek help. you need a complete mental rehabilitation. humans are not a disease.

Already acknowledged this.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

I guess the best solution would be to find ways to improve our orphanages so that even without standard households people can come up in safe, warm environments where being abandoned by an asshole parent/being a victim of circumstance doesn't mean starting the game fifty steps behind.

Improvement on the orphanages, and in the education system. A lot of modern society's problems today can be solved if proper education of children (and to some extent, adults as well) is administered by the government. Things like 'how to control the media you consume', or 'how to interpret information you get from the net' will drastically reduce chances of irresponsible parenthood (one of the reasons for orphanages, aside from early deaths of parents) and uplift the orphans as well.

 

[Lloyd]

lool

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

lool

Kek

 

[greyblob]

Already acknowledged this.

the greed part or the mental help ?

 

[ThrillingHuman]

I don't believe in any inherent sense of morality, or the idea of following any higher purpose, a desire for a greater good - whatever that shit is. What I believe is, is evolution. Evolution of life, evolution of society, evolution of individual, evolution of anything, really.
Evolution is a messy process that keeps leaving junk in, just because it doesn't interfere with the continued existence of a system. It also doesn't follow any optimal process, any long-term strategy, any rational idea.
What I'm getting at is, a person's free will is an illusion. It's a result of evolution of that individual in their own environment. So is the environment, society in particular, the result of its own evolution. At large, the average person will not really concern themselves with morality of their day to day actions, but will continue to act as per the instruction of their own (and since we are talking about the average person, their society's) evolution.
Therefore, there is really nothing shameful about humanity acting against an individual's morality. At least nothing more shameful than the act of living itself.
And, obviously, the morality of an individual, as well as the morality of a society are also results of their own evolutions. Expect much garbage in them, and don't expect any unified answer.
So, basically it's not selfish to have a child of your own than to adopt it.

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

the greed part or the mental help ?

Greed. Humanity's issues have more to do with the weight of consumption/artificial roadblocks to climate solutions available with current tech (a family in Liberia produces far less emissions than one in the US, after all), and at this point I'm more concerned about the idea of choosing to make a kid rather than rescue one, but from the way I posed the original post, I understand your point.

I will not see a psychiatrist. My undeath relies upon me maintaining a healthy sense of insanity if I don't want to go back to consuming souls. You don't want me to go back to consuming souls.

 

[BenJepheneT]

In my opinion, the "wow I'm gonna have someone to pass my genes" bit is animal logic.

i'll agree with the fact that it's animal logic, because I operate under animal logic most of my life. what can I say? having someone in front of me that has blood sourced from my taint flips that feel-good switch in my head, so does many other things. that doesn't mean I oppose adopting either. it's simply the matter of having an extra step to familiarize myself with the fact that the new kid in my house is technically my flesh and blood. that's the beauty of animal logic. if you know you're a simpleton, use it to your advantage and rewire your thinking, either through self-manipulation or brute-forcing your thoughts to accept it.

yes, I know this is more of a personal solution. my counterpoint is that it works, and I'm happy. some may call it ignorance. i call it bliss.

Improvement on the orphanages, and in the education system. A lot of modern society's problems today can be solved if proper education of children (and to some extent, adults as well) is administered by the government. Things like 'how to control the media you consume', or 'how to interpret information you get from the net' will drastically reduce chances of irresponsible parenthood (one of the reasons for orphanages, aside from early deaths of parents) and uplift the orphans as well.

hypothetically, that might work. realistically, the round table is so entrenched with its own tar that we'd need a legitimate do-over to get this idea working.

and I don't mean some major bureacratic restructuring. i mean nuking the system and starting over with hindsight. though I reckon most would consider the collateral too much for it to be worth the effort.

we've long passed the point of getting help from above, either take care of yourselves or take the burden yourself.