How common is it for people to never find an other half or have kids?

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm mid 40s now so even if I became a Daddy tomorrow I'd be nearly 70 by the time he/she would be finished college so I don't think it will be happening.

My father was old when I was born so that's another reason I wouldn't be keen on repeating history.

Its definitely another thing to think about. Im in my mid 30s and my parents are in their early 70s. I have to deal with that horrible part when they are slowly going downhill just a little, and I know its a one-way street. Whats hard is people of my age who I work with saying their parents are thinking of retiring. Statistically, they'll have their folks around for 10 years (say) more than I do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not telling anyone they’re wrong in self-reporting studies that their biggest achievement in life is raising their own children. I wouldn’t expect anything different from a self-reporting study. As you so astutely pointed out earlier - living in an age of the self, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who is at all clued into society that people who have children would consider raising their own children to be their greatest achievement. It’s an entirely subjective evaluation. An objective evaluation would consider what is actually a person’s greatest achievement, and that is generally based upon achieving something that hasn’t been done before, or something that requires a prerequisite knowledge in a discipline in order to make an extraordinary contribution in that discipline or an extraordinary contribution in their chosen field of employment. The critical point you’re missing here is what a person’s achievement means to people who aren’t them. That’s why nobody is handing out rubber medals to parents for simply being parents, that’s something which is generally expected of parents anyway, that they parent their children.

The tone of your posts reveals something more telling though. After all, you have a predisposition to use the word 'idiot' in your posts to describe parents.
And nobody is looking for medals to be fair. That is your own velocious benchmark.

I’m not disputing that the studies are the studies. Fantastic stuff, great,

So we agree, having children increases life expectancy.

I never argued anything like what you’re suggesting. From my point of view I don’t view it as simply a question of one or the other, as though having children precludes a person from actually achieving something worthy of recognition. Simply reproducing and raising a child or children in and of itself isn’t worthy of recognition. It’s something that as I said humans have been doing for millions of years without any specific prerequisite knowledge or understanding as to the underlying biology actually functions. How the underlying biology functions is irrelevant for most people. It’s relevant to a small number of people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to understanding human biology and behaviour and so on. Whether they have children or not is neither here nor there with regard to their achievements in their chosen discipline.

And here you are wrong. As I reported earlier most people state that their children are their biggest achievements. Raising children should be recognised by society and it is, through our taxation policy, the provision of public schools, child benefit, legislation and special rights protecting children and so on. State policy, the government, NGO's, the UN, other international bodies and most people recognise that raising a child is worthy of recognition, you do not, which is fine but you are utterly wrong.

You may not wish to recognise the contribution to society of the 0.001% of extraordinary people, but that’s precisely what makes them extraordinary - they’re doing something or have done something that most people in society simply haven’t done or aren’t doing. I don’t know that anyone lives a mundane life tbh, maybe it’s just my experience but the amount of people who imagine that they live mundane lives who are actually extraordinary people in their own right, never ceases to amaze me. I don’t know by what standards you measure whether someone lives a mundane or an extraordinary life, but if we’re agreed on one thing at least - simply the fact of whether or not they have children isn’t a factor worthy of consideration in evaluating their achievements.

I never said this. Another strawman argument from you.

Well there’s no doubt that’s certainly part of it anyway, and I’ve never hidden the fact that I am a massive hypocrite in many contexts and circumstances. It’s somewhat similar to the way in which you have accused other posters of getting defensive and hysterical when they disagree with you as though they aren’t as entitled to express an opinion as you are, and not only that, but to accuse me of attacking you and then you go to the effort of trawling through my post history in an attempt to undermine my opinion? I would suggest you don’t load the weapon if you can’t handle the backfire.

Well, that clears that up then. Do as I say, or ill write a boring thesis to explain why you are wrong. Is that it?

I’m not sure whether I can continue to take your argument seriously at this rate to be honest. So far you’ve accused me of all sorts and still you suggest that I don’t put words in your mouth? If that’s not a measure of hypocrisy, perhaps you have another term for what is exactly telling other people not to do what you’re doing and will in all likelihood continue to do if this conversation continues?

Lovely, but a skillful if not sly way of ignoring the study and the data. Funny that.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong in being selfish btw, and therefore I see no reason to justify my actions on that basis to people who point out that in their opinions, my actions are selfish. Like, seriously, imagine if you will for a minute that you would like to have another child. Are you going to consider the idea that you’re contributing to climate change as a legitimate reason not to have another child? It’s backed by science and you’d be a massive hypocrite if you went ahead in spite of what you now know, and decided to have another child. That’s essentially the predicament you would find yourself in, by your own standards. How you justify having another child to yourself is entirely your own business really. For me though, in the same way as I can’t bring myself to care all that much about why people choose not to have children, I can’t bring myself to care all that much about why other people choose to have children.

Climate change eh? Maybe I should jump off the Cliffs of Moher to save some carbon footprints. It may well be easier than having to wade through the high-minded verbal diatribe you call an argument in this thread.

But again, you are straw-manning me. You brought Climate change vs having kids into the debate so don't attribute that logic to me when you made the argument.

I think you get lost in the verbosity of your comebacks you actually argue against yourself by the end of the paragraph.

Can’t argue with any of that, which is why I argue that if anti-natalists truly believed in their own philosophy and ideology, they’d start with themselves. However while I don’t imagine we’re in any danger yet of anti-natalists ever gaining the political recognition they need in order to impose their ideology on the rest of society. That’s why I think too you’re somewhat overstating the importance of reproduction and raising children as though they will all make extraordinary contributions to society. We know from history that the facts are - they won’t. They will consume more resources than they produce, which has led us to where we are now, essentially- trying to close the gate on human behaviour after the horse of climate change has bolted. Do you imagine most people are taking scientists opinions seriously? I don’t, and that’s why I would argue that what you call the scientific evidence you have which backs up your opinions, is largely irrelevant to most people - they will make decisions based upon their own circumstances, and your pointing out correlations in statistical data isn’t going to have most people who aren’t thinking it already that they’d best get coupled up and reproducing because statistical evidence suggests they might be happier and live longer.

Cant argue with any of that..... proceeds to write a 200+ word paragraph arguing anyway.

I have to ask then, what specifically did you mean when you had this epiphany after your child was born that you realised you were part of something bigger than yourself? Because the way you were making the point it was as though you assumed everyone who has become a parent has experienced the same thing you did, and you suggested that it was something indescribable as though only by virtue of becoming a parent could one experience this great epiphany that you appear to have experienced. My experience as I’ve suggested already appears to have been a far more mundane affair compared to yours!

People have different experiences throughout their lives and generally, people can only share those experiences if they have lived them. People can relate to getting married, having kids. There are also life experiences which are terrible, people whose family committed suicide, parents who had to bury their children. This is why there are support networks in place for these people so that people know that they are not alone and that there are others out there who have gone through the same life experiences as them.

Are you saying someone who has no kids can really 'relate' to a parent whose child has died?

Childless couples will not experience what it's like to have children, they won't know what it's like because they can't. That is not to say, they will not experience other things, good or bad.

If your own experience was mundane that is fine, but I find it curious that you seem to want to diminish and wash away an experience different to yours. That just comes across as insecure.

That appears to be the nub of your argument, that somehow, solely by virtue of the fact that they have done something which humans have been doing for millions of years, which requires no prerequisite or specialist knowledge whatsoever, makes what they have achieved somehow more valuable to society than the achievements of someone who actually achieves something which requires actual effort on their part, and the greater the effort, it surely stands to reason that they would achieve greater recognition of their achievements as opposed to someone who manages simply to do something which humans have been doing for millions of years already. No need to try and pretend having children is doing some great service to humanity either really, is there? If you’re offended by that I would suggest it’s simply because you’ve invested so much of yourself in the idea that being a parent is your greatest achievement. Being a parent is by no means my greatest achievement, it’s just something which I chose to do because I wanted to, not because I thought there was ever anything more to it than that that I needed to justify my decisions to anyone else or feel the need to suggest my life choices were more significant than anyone else’s.

I went to the trouble of clearly stating that I did not mean this, but you go ahead and repeat it anyway for the sake of it.

Here I'll post it again for you as you have a great deal of difficulty actually comprehending the written word.

This is not an argument of having children is somehow more worthwhile than getting an Olympic gold medal, or getting involved in research that will cure cancer. I never made this argument comparing the extraordinary vs the parent raising their kids.

I did however made the argument that raising kids is more worthwhile than people voluntarily not having kids, because the people doing both having and not having kids are by and large ordinary people doing ordinary things, working their 9-5 jobs, living a pretty mundane life, which is by and largely self-indulgent.

I include parents AND childless couples in this by the way. However, being a parent raising kids, in my opinion, elevates the parents above the childless couple in general. If people get offended and taken aback by that, fine. It is a free country, after all, be offended. But let's not pretend that people choose not to have kids because they want to cure cancer or win a Nobel prize or write poetry. They do it because mostly, they don't want to and couldn't be arsed. Which is fine, but again did paint it in some other altruistic way as if everyone is in an episode of star trek, that these people are doing something really really worthwhile for humanity.

markodaly wrote: »

The tone of your posts reveals something more telling though.

And here you are wrong.

I think you get lost in the verbosity of your comebacks you actually argue against yourself by the end of the paragraph.

Cant argue with any of that..... proceeds to write a 200+ word paragraph arguing anyway.

That just comes across as insecure.

I think we’re done here.

As for the "but they must eventually be miserable because we are programmed to procreate, and intentionally going against that will only make you miserable in the end", that's nonsense. We're programmed to do lots of things - most of which we suppress for the good of society, and I daresay some people don't have the inclination to do half the things that are instinctual to others.

I sometimes think the fact that less people are deciding to have children is in fact a natural adaptation to the environment. Perhaps the fact that humans are overrunning the earth and ruining the environment has resulted in the human race adapting and genetic need to procreate because less in some people.

I literally cannot understand how people with children live longer than people without. Unless its the fact that you no longer have enough money to ruin your liver, or you can't stand the hangovers, or you take more inherently risky activity when you are not concerned about leaving an orphan. I dunno. I have two uncles and an aunt that are single. I don't know whether by choice or just didn't find anyone. They seem happy enough to me, and they're all in the 70's/80's now.

markodaly wrote: »

I have lived a very hedonistic self-indulgent life before my own kids were born. Sure in your 20's and 30's kids are the last thing on your mind, but all the travelling, sex, drink, drugs, the partying wears thin after a while. You begin to realise is that it? Is this me for the next 50 years until I **** myself in a old folks home and die?

I suppose one becomes ready to move on from the self-indulgent lifestyle and start something else, something harder but ultimately much much more rewarding than a night on the beer, or a line of coke.

Seeing your own child for the first time after it being born is something indescribable, that cannot be put into words. You realise that you are part of something much bigger than yourself and that in an age of the self, having kids is one of the last vestiges of true sacrifice.

If your life was nothing but meaningless partying for years before you had kids I can see how you would view it as some kind of almost "spiritual enlightenment". Do not assume that those of us choosing to forgo the experience have lived life the way you have. Many have made huge sacrifices in their younger years. Many end up caring for older parents while their childed siblings make excuses because they're busy with parental duties. The idea that people choose not to become parents to maintain a hedonistic existence is both ill-informed and laughable.

Sunny Disposition wrote:

Having a partner and children is life affirming, no question. Sure, there are other ways of being happy but it’s definitely good not to be alone. Young people should be told this more, too many people put off finding someone and even more put off having children. Definitely should be encouraged. More important than telling people they can be happy on their own, something that is actually more common now.

It's pretty much drilled into us that it's the social norm to marry and have children. Yes, there are people who are happily single, but there are a lot of people who start to believe there is something "wrong" with them if they're single.
I'm a little confused as to why telling someone it's so life affirming to do these things is more important than telling them it's okay not to?

Far more men are childless than women.

368100 wrote: »

No stereotypes intended but in general a woman can relatively easily have a one night stand to have a child if that's their intent.
Doesn't work the other was round though.

lol. if the woman has a child after a one night stand, so does the man:p

you have more female ancestors than male, and apparently 8000 years ago it was 1 male to 17 females having children

Father says to son ....

Today is a special day, you will always remember today as a special glorious day.

Son says but I’m not getting married until tomorrow dad ....

Dad says .... I know

One a serious note ....

Better off to be single than in the wrong relationship

If you meet the right one, great

If you meet a wrong one ..... run to the hills