:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society.
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.
And what the hell is a moral obligation to society? I owe society kids? Seriously?
In traditional societies, the answer is "hell yes". Spinsters and childless women were ridiculed, for example.
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society?
Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society?
Yeah, if you live in Afghanistan. It's 2013, **** traditional society. Nobody owes them anything.
Yes. They have an obligation to the line of their ancestors to keep their lineage going and they are failing to do so. They have an obligation to society to do their part in raising the next generation of citizens and they are failing to do so. They are failing to live up to the responsibilities of adults.
Not only. In all traditional societies, including Germany before the industrial revolution and way beyond that.
Demographic change to hit Germany hard | Germany | DW.DE | 12.01.2013
You've selected the completely wrong adjective.
No, it's right. I've double checked the dictionary. Let's see what people will say in the discussion.
Why do adults have a "responsibility" to keep their "line" going?
And how is choosing other endeavors not responsible or adult?
I don't understand this concept that we owe something to someone who doesn't even exist, or that our lives lack purpose without offspring.
It is how we repay our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents and our more distant forebears for having kept our lines going until we were born-- for having borne and raised us. It is how we pass on the teachings that were passed on to us.
I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that choosing other endeavors at the expense of your family line is irresponsible. It's short-sighted and selfish.
Again, not saying that. You can live a life of tremendous purpose and meaning without bearing children. You're just missing an important aspect of family and social life. I don't think childless couples are particularly less happy or less fulfilled than couples with children-- just less responsible to the line of their ancestors.
It is how we repay our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents and our more distant forebears for having kept our lines going until we were born-- for having borne and raised us. It is how we pass on the teachings that were passed on to us.
I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that choosing other endeavors at the expense of your family line is irresponsible. It's short-sighted and selfish.
Again, not saying that. You can live a life of tremendous purpose and meaning without bearing children. You're just missing an important aspect of family and social life. I don't think childless couples are particularly less happy or less fulfilled than couples with children-- just less responsible to the line of their ancestors.
Life is only about doing what makes you happy.
And this would be why I would call your outlook "selfish".
And this would be why I would call your outlook "selfish".
We'll just let the poll decide. Not looking good for you, homie.
Why do I care whether they did that or not? If they hadn't, I simply wouldn't exist, and I'm sure I'd have a very hard time caring about my non-existence.
Also, how do you thank dead people in any meaningful way? And even if you could, how is reproducing the best way to say thank you?
Why? How is it "selfish" to choose NOT to bring someone into being without their consent? I don't get this.
I don't happen to think it is all that important, and one need not have children to have a family.
Stfu, RabidAlpaca, and go to bed. :lol: If I had a sweet German wife, I'd be making a bunch of blond babies. :lol:
But your right, this demographic crisis resembles climate change - everything is being distributed wrong and uneven. Rainfalls in the swamps and dry weather in the desert areas, if you know what I mean.
Why? How is it "selfish" to choose NOT to bring someone into being without their consent? I don't get this.
Sure, but you do exist now and I suspect you care very much for your existence now.
You carry on their legacy. If you can preserve their legacy in other ways, so much the better-- but then who will do so in your place when you are dead?
You are choosing not to perpetuate your family, not to perpetuate civilization itself, because you value your materialistic lifestyle over such concerns. How is that not selfish?
And while you cannot obtain consent from the unborn, you must admit that the vast majority of people, once living, prefer to remain so.
No, just to continue having a family when you are old and grey and dying.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?