The last time I travelled on the London Underground, I had our Labrador, Saffy, with me. Britain is a nation of dog lovers, but I was still surprised by how many strangers cooed over her. It was startling, in fact, compared to my recollections of travelling on the Tube with a baby in a pushchair a few years back. No contest: Saffy got more love.
So the ad I spotted in that Tube carriage, for the dating app Tinder, seemed particularly fitting. It depicted a smiling young couple in psychedelic clothing, with the caption: âFinally Having Kidsâ. They each rest one hand on a pushchair. In the pushchair is a dog.
If, given my recent experience, Londoners seem more partial to dogs than kids, this may not be the only way in which âfur babiesâ are on the up. According to last yearâs ONS data, half of British women now reach 30 without having kids. And Pets At Home CEO Lyssa McGowen thinks some of these have redirected their caring urges toward pets. âThey are taking all that time and energy and attention and putting it into fur babies, especially in urban areas,â she said.
McGowen speculates that this is happening because the classic milestones of adult life â such as getting your own place â seem increasingly out of reach to many, thanks to scarce housing, rising costs and stagnant wages. This feels plausible: in the US, studies show the stated desire for family size has remained consistent even as the birth rate has fallen. And one recent UK-based Rolling Stone investigation quoted many young couples for whom money is indeed the sticking point.
But is that all there is to it? Prospects for Gen Z are not as optimistic as for their Boomer grandparents, but in absolute terms human societies have lived through greater turbulence and gone on having kids. Birth rates remain buoyant, for example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which consistently makes the top 10 in the Fragile States Index of most unstable countries. So what else is in the mix?
Liberal feminist Jill Filipovic argues that if more women are opting to have fewer or no kids, it isnât so much about the financial pinch. Certainly, among dog-walking acquaintances locally, I can think of several childless, younger millennial heterosexual couples who seem, on the face of it, pretty sorted: good jobs, comfortably off, often homeowners, sometimes even working flexibly from home. Ideally situated, in other words, for starting a family. And yet, they have no kids. For some in this situation, the dog is an object of minute, loving observation and care, and plays the central role in conversation that children usually do for young parents. Watching this, my sense is that although for some economics is a factor in choosing between human babies and the fur variety, at least some of the time itâs not just about money. It goes, rather, to the heart of what we think the purpose of life is â and thus what we are.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhy bother with any of it?
The problem with youth has always been the same. We think we know it all, but life has this tricky way of kicking us where it hurts. I have a completely asymptomatic cancer diagnosis that was only picked up because I hadn’t had a blood test in ages. I even had a multitude of scans which came back negative but the blood test which was repeated three times was abnormal. In the end a biopsy confirmed cancer. My wife and daughter have been not just my rock, but also my purpose. You cannot put value on a genuine family; and you cannot have a genuine family if you live a hedonistic lifestyle.
I get the attraction of hedonism. I still see attractive young women and have all the desires. But if I way one up against the other. My family wins hands down. I am also acutely aware that I would not have been able to appreciate this in my 20’s.
Families take time to nurture and develop. Yet our modern lifestyle since the sexual revolution has put it way down the pecking order. It is no surprise that we are more miserable than ever. There is no shame in recognising that the last 60-70 years has been the wrong path. Why are we doubling down and going harder than ever in the wrong direction?
If it took 3 scans to confirm cancer, you probably don’t have it. Seriously.
Only the biopsy picked it up. Nice and early.
To put it in laymanâs terms. A scan is looking at food and saying it is yummy. A biopsy is actually eating food and saying it is yummy.
Anyone who tells you different is selling you down the river
Good to know, but depressing!
Good to know, but depressing!
What do you mean?
It means he didn’t read the comment properly.
It means he didn’t read the comment properly.
What is the point of your post aside from being offensive?
My apologies. I was offensive. My mother had multiple scans on a lump in her breast. The end conclusion was InSitu, which isn’t cancer but is tissue that can become cancer. They ended up doing a completely uneccessary mastectomy, followed by chemo and radiation. She died from complications of the un-needed treatment. So I’m touchy on repeatedly scanning for something as doctors often just pretend to find what they are looking for. This probably isn’t the case here and I got triggered and my comment was just nasty. Again, I apologize.
Sorry for the loss of your mum.
All good J Hop. I am sorry for the loss of your mother. That is a pain that I am yet to bare. I lost my grandmother to a pointless procedure and a niece due to a simple test not been undertaken in this country.
The medical fraternity are doing their best but they are only human. This doesnât make the pain go away though.
Sorry for the loss of your mum.
All good J Hop. I am sorry for the loss of your mother. That is a pain that I am yet to bare. I lost my grandmother to a pointless procedure and a niece due to a simple test not been undertaken in this country.
The medical fraternity are doing their best but they are only human. This doesnât make the pain go away though.
My apologies. I was offensive. My mother had multiple scans on a lump in her breast. The end conclusion was InSitu, which isn’t cancer but is tissue that can become cancer. They ended up doing a completely uneccessary mastectomy, followed by chemo and radiation. She died from complications of the un-needed treatment. So I’m touchy on repeatedly scanning for something as doctors often just pretend to find what they are looking for. This probably isn’t the case here and I got triggered and my comment was just nasty. Again, I apologize.
Good lord.
Only the biopsy picked it up. Nice and early.
To put it in laymanâs terms. A scan is looking at food and saying it is yummy. A biopsy is actually eating food and saying it is yummy.
Anyone who tells you different is selling you down the river
What do you mean?
What is the point of your post aside from being offensive?
Good lord.
Good luck with everything Peter.
You are right that people in their teens and twenties cannot understand what is important in the long term. That is what society is for – to guide kids down the correct paths. Over the course of the last 50 years we have come to forget this. It is time we relearned it.
“You are right that people in their teens and twenties cannot understand what is important in the long term.”
Some perhaps but I know many 20 somethings who know exactly what’s important. However, running in working class circles as I do, they are bitter about the fact that coming up with the tens of thousands of dollars needed to raise a kid is beyond them, and they worry about what the post-civilization (woke/’diverse’) world will look like. With standards of living steadily declining and white people now becoming strangers in their own countries but liable for reparations for things that happened 200 years ago … why would you subject a kid to that future?
The “needing tens of thousands of dollars” argument for not wanting children (even if that’s what it costs to raise them) didn’t apply until the last one or maybe two generations, against the hundreds of generations preceding them where such a consideration was negligible, if a “thing” at all. How do you account for that?
The very idea of “subjecting a kid to that future” – whilst it may be something cited by young adults, is imo simply a smokescreen for their indolence and desire to live an individualistic lifestyle which will come back to bite them on the arse (ass in the US).
Agree with your points. People have been raising kids forever, and yet itâs only recently that I hear the âkids are too expensiveâ argument. Which may apply if youâre thinking that your kids need to go to elite expensive schools, dress in expensive clothes, and have all manner of expensive stuff and âexperiences.â
Millenials and Zoomers seem to be very much into travel, dining out, and âlife experiencesâ in my admittedly tail end Boomer view. The money that goes into all that stuff could just as easily go into the best life experience one will ever have: raising a family. Hard work? Oh yeah. Worth it? Absolutely. You will get infinitely more self-actualization, maturity, and learn about it not being all about you.
Agree with your points. People have been raising kids forever, and yet itâs only recently that I hear the âkids are too expensiveâ argument. Which may apply if youâre thinking that your kids need to go to elite expensive schools, dress in expensive clothes, and have all manner of expensive stuff and âexperiences.â
Millenials and Zoomers seem to be very much into travel, dining out, and âlife experiencesâ in my admittedly tail end Boomer view. The money that goes into all that stuff could just as easily go into the best life experience one will ever have: raising a family. Hard work? Oh yeah. Worth it? Absolutely. You will get infinitely more self-actualization, maturity, and learn about it not being all about you.
Perhaps.
On the other hand, natural selection and evolution continues on unabated and as ruthless as ever, regardless of current fashions or fads.
The folks who truly believe that the reproduction of their species is not ‘worth it’ are weeded out of the gene pool with devastating efficiency…within the very same generation.
Whereas those who will sacrifice almost everything (whether they live in devastating poverty in the Democratic Republic of Congo or live in London and have to cut back on their must-have daily coffee run and favorite restaurants) to afford a child will be the future and continuation of our species. Evolution and natural selection doesn’t really care if we drive a BMW or walk in well-worn sandals for our daily commute to work.
Folks who choose to not sacrifice ‘whatever the cost’ to have kids may not like this answer, but “them’s the facts.” They are self-selecting their genes out of the gene pool. Using their firmly-affixed confirmation bias (which is something that none of us can avoid), they will lament that the world will be devastatingly worse off without their genes carrying on within the cycle of life…but evolution and natural selection will have the last laugh at their demise by moving on regardless. And it will the next generation, selected by nature, who will inevitably write our own histories within the broader context of the history of our species.
No matter our internal navel-gazing and belief that we are evolved to the point that we’re far more intelligent, sophisticated and beyond the mechanisms of old-fashioned nature, evolution and natural selection will always prove us wrong on this and will carry on with the long-dead genes of those individuals without progeny left upon the ash heap of our evolutionary history.
It is what it is.
The “needing tens of thousands of dollars” argument for not wanting children (even if that’s what it costs to raise them) didn’t apply until the last one or maybe two generations, against the hundreds of generations preceding them where such a consideration was negligible, if a “thing” at all. How do you account for that?
The very idea of “subjecting a kid to that future” – whilst it may be something cited by young adults, is imo simply a smokescreen for their indolence and desire to live an individualistic lifestyle which will come back to bite them on the arse (ass in the US).
Perhaps.
On the other hand, natural selection and evolution continues on unabated and as ruthless as ever, regardless of current fashions or fads.
The folks who truly believe that the reproduction of their species is not ‘worth it’ are weeded out of the gene pool with devastating efficiency…within the very same generation.
Whereas those who will sacrifice almost everything (whether they live in devastating poverty in the Democratic Republic of Congo or live in London and have to cut back on their must-have daily coffee run and favorite restaurants) to afford a child will be the future and continuation of our species. Evolution and natural selection doesn’t really care if we drive a BMW or walk in well-worn sandals for our daily commute to work.
Folks who choose to not sacrifice ‘whatever the cost’ to have kids may not like this answer, but “them’s the facts.” They are self-selecting their genes out of the gene pool. Using their firmly-affixed confirmation bias (which is something that none of us can avoid), they will lament that the world will be devastatingly worse off without their genes carrying on within the cycle of life…but evolution and natural selection will have the last laugh at their demise by moving on regardless. And it will the next generation, selected by nature, who will inevitably write our own histories within the broader context of the history of our species.
No matter our internal navel-gazing and belief that we are evolved to the point that we’re far more intelligent, sophisticated and beyond the mechanisms of old-fashioned nature, evolution and natural selection will always prove us wrong on this and will carry on with the long-dead genes of those individuals without progeny left upon the ash heap of our evolutionary history.
It is what it is.
Thanks Matt, I have trust in the medical fraternity. Most doctors and nurses have their hearts in the right spot. I’ve looked the surgeon in the eye and he gives me confidence. His practice nurse is great and she is very competent. So I am happy to trust that the team involved will do a great job.
Maybe some mentoring is in order once I recover.
“You are right that people in their teens and twenties cannot understand what is important in the long term.”
Some perhaps but I know many 20 somethings who know exactly what’s important. However, running in working class circles as I do, they are bitter about the fact that coming up with the tens of thousands of dollars needed to raise a kid is beyond them, and they worry about what the post-civilization (woke/’diverse’) world will look like. With standards of living steadily declining and white people now becoming strangers in their own countries but liable for reparations for things that happened 200 years ago … why would you subject a kid to that future?
Thanks Matt, I have trust in the medical fraternity. Most doctors and nurses have their hearts in the right spot. I’ve looked the surgeon in the eye and he gives me confidence. His practice nurse is great and she is very competent. So I am happy to trust that the team involved will do a great job.
Maybe some mentoring is in order once I recover.
I do think that the lack of housing and decent jobs has a lot to do with this. I didnât want kids until my 30âs. Thank goodness I did – I wish had started earlier and had more. But part of my wife and I deciding we wanted kids was that we were ready, we both had good jobs, a house, etc. If you move back a generation before mine all those things – marriage, a job that supported a house, a house – were achieved by most people in their 20âs. I honestly think one societal change we need to consider is abolishing the university degree as an essential component to any decent job. You donât need one for most jobs and all it is doing is deferring adulthood and saddling young people with debt.
Hegel said that all relations between one person and another are âbattles for pure prestige.â The winner is a master; the loser a slave. This explains our love of dogs. All but the smallest of them could kill most humans in 30 seconds. But they donât do that. They instead roll over in submission. They do exactly what theyâre told, and never talk back. We love them because they afford us the prestige for which we long and which the vast majority of us would otherwise never enjoy.
âDo exactly what theyâre told , and never talk backâ
You clearly never owned a dachshund .Seriously though while dogs obviously canât speak they do have ways of showing annoyance and telling their owner what they require , making requests and demands even . They respond to love with love is at least as valid a way of describing human /dog relationship .
Perhaps you are making too much of the fact wolves and therefore dogs are supposed to have a âpack leaderâ .
That is so not true.
How about this: âConsider the cattle, grazing as they pass you by: they do not know what is meant by yesterday or today, they leap about, eat, rest, digest, leap about again, and so from morn till night and from day to day, fettered to the moment and its pleasure or displeasure, and thus neither melancholy nor bored. This is a hard site for man to see; for, though he thinks himself better than the animals because he is human, he cannot help envying their happiness â what they have, a life neither bored nor painful, is precisely what he wants, yet he cannot have it, because he refuses to be like an animal.â
edit
How about this: âConsider the cattle, grazing as they pass you by: they do not know what is meant by yesterday or today, they leap about, eat, rest, digest, leap about again, and so from morn till night and from day to day, fettered to the moment and its pleasure or displeasure, and thus neither melancholy nor bored. This is a hard site for man to see; for, though he thinks himself better than the animals because he is human, he cannot help envying their happiness â what they have, a life neither bored nor painful, is precisely what he wants, yet he cannot have it, because he refuses to be like an animal.â
edit
âDo exactly what theyâre told , and never talk backâ
You clearly never owned a dachshund .Seriously though while dogs obviously canât speak they do have ways of showing annoyance and telling their owner what they require , making requests and demands even . They respond to love with love is at least as valid a way of describing human /dog relationship .
Perhaps you are making too much of the fact wolves and therefore dogs are supposed to have a âpack leaderâ .
That is so not true.
I heartily agree. I only had one and I regret that but we started too late and did not realise until too late what is really important.
Housing is certainly a big problem, but so is the “equity” brigade. While this narcissistic form of bigotry is aimed at white males in 2023, but eventually this will change. What these nasty people don’t seem to get is that humanity’s ying and yang is certainly man and woman. Together now, as always, they are greater than the sum of their parts. (I’m also sure that same sex attracted people are smart enough to grasp this concept and somehow work it to fit their taste rather than getting their knickers in a knot because I said man and woman.) Everyone will lose if equity because the measuring stick of society.
Men, especially white men, are dropping out in larger numbers. They are escaping into gaming and porn. Their whims are sated as quick as they manifest and no one gives them grief. There are no hurdles and no guilt. Why go into a world that hates you?
Hegel said that all relations between one person and another are âbattles for pure prestige.â The winner is a master; the loser a slave. This explains our love of dogs. All but the smallest of them could kill most humans in 30 seconds. But they donât do that. They instead roll over in submission. They do exactly what theyâre told, and never talk back. We love them because they afford us the prestige for which we long and which the vast majority of us would otherwise never enjoy.
I heartily agree. I only had one and I regret that but we started too late and did not realise until too late what is really important.
Housing is certainly a big problem, but so is the “equity” brigade. While this narcissistic form of bigotry is aimed at white males in 2023, but eventually this will change. What these nasty people don’t seem to get is that humanity’s ying and yang is certainly man and woman. Together now, as always, they are greater than the sum of their parts. (I’m also sure that same sex attracted people are smart enough to grasp this concept and somehow work it to fit their taste rather than getting their knickers in a knot because I said man and woman.) Everyone will lose if equity because the measuring stick of society.
Men, especially white men, are dropping out in larger numbers. They are escaping into gaming and porn. Their whims are sated as quick as they manifest and no one gives them grief. There are no hurdles and no guilt. Why go into a world that hates you?
Assuming that all families are functional and loving and all children are completely healhy, then yes, sounds like a plan. Particularly when life on earth is so jolly good and getting so much better.
Peter
I will not comment on your health ordeal, if only to wish you a swift recovery.
Your view comes from your own harmonious family experience, but look at the factsâŠ..the rate of divorce is astronomical and letâs not forget those who would love to leave but who canât. And then, if youâre a man, weâll tough luck, you are good for alimony alley, not seeing your kids any more, either because they hate you, or your former spouse decided to move to the other side of the world ( 50 % of cases ) and if a woman, basically doomedâŠ.aka fâŠ.d Cuz a single mothers, like it or not, is not seen a hot marriage material. I know for sure, My mother was one of them. Many lovers, no husband. Seen from Germaine Greer chair a win win but a Lose loose for the common mortal.
You are right, it takes time and commitment to build a relationship, but tell meâŠâŠ.where is the limit ? So many marriages are just so sad to watchâŠ..kind of Basil and SybilleâŠâŠ.or the reverseâŠ.the latter often ending with violence.
As to kids, raising them today with social media lurking into their rooms behind your back, all sorts of totally unnecessary needs and wants on top of the usual costsâŠ..frankly, not so endearing. A friend of mine described his experience as a father as totally frustrating having to deal with his 2 sonâs utter selfishness. Same for his second wife with children of her own.
Being a parent when I was a kid was much easier. No children would be tolerated inside the houseâŠâŠgo out and playâŠ..croquet if I trust an 8 mm family movie, while adults were enjoying their tea. 3 tv channels, total control over what entered our twisted little mindsâŠâŠ..jobs right out of universityâŠ..well, close to it and off we went.
I am not condemning people who chose not to have children butâŠâŠ.a dog has to remain what it isâŠâŠa pet and certainly not a surrogateâs child.
Dogs touch me immensely for what they are and their ability to live in the moment, because that is all they know and in that respect, we have a lot to learn from them.
I don’t think children should be using social media or have smartphones. It astonishes me how many parents have just given way on this subject over the last 10 years or so. “Because everyone else is doing it” isn’t a valid argument in my opinion.
I don’t think children should be using social media or have smartphones. It astonishes me how many parents have just given way on this subject over the last 10 years or so. “Because everyone else is doing it” isn’t a valid argument in my opinion.
Yes why?? Our culture seems to be coming apart and it seems clear that the disintegration of the family is at the heart of it. It is also no coincidence that religion has become sidelined.
If it took 3 scans to confirm cancer, you probably don’t have it. Seriously.
Good luck with everything Peter.
You are right that people in their teens and twenties cannot understand what is important in the long term. That is what society is for – to guide kids down the correct paths. Over the course of the last 50 years we have come to forget this. It is time we relearned it.
I do think that the lack of housing and decent jobs has a lot to do with this. I didnât want kids until my 30âs. Thank goodness I did – I wish had started earlier and had more. But part of my wife and I deciding we wanted kids was that we were ready, we both had good jobs, a house, etc. If you move back a generation before mine all those things – marriage, a job that supported a house, a house – were achieved by most people in their 20âs. I honestly think one societal change we need to consider is abolishing the university degree as an essential component to any decent job. You donât need one for most jobs and all it is doing is deferring adulthood and saddling young people with debt.
Assuming that all families are functional and loving and all children are completely healhy, then yes, sounds like a plan. Particularly when life on earth is so jolly good and getting so much better.
Peter
I will not comment on your health ordeal, if only to wish you a swift recovery.
Your view comes from your own harmonious family experience, but look at the factsâŠ..the rate of divorce is astronomical and letâs not forget those who would love to leave but who canât. And then, if youâre a man, weâll tough luck, you are good for alimony alley, not seeing your kids any more, either because they hate you, or your former spouse decided to move to the other side of the world ( 50 % of cases ) and if a woman, basically doomedâŠ.aka fâŠ.d Cuz a single mothers, like it or not, is not seen a hot marriage material. I know for sure, My mother was one of them. Many lovers, no husband. Seen from Germaine Greer chair a win win but a Lose loose for the common mortal.
You are right, it takes time and commitment to build a relationship, but tell meâŠâŠ.where is the limit ? So many marriages are just so sad to watchâŠ..kind of Basil and SybilleâŠâŠ.or the reverseâŠ.the latter often ending with violence.
As to kids, raising them today with social media lurking into their rooms behind your back, all sorts of totally unnecessary needs and wants on top of the usual costsâŠ..frankly, not so endearing. A friend of mine described his experience as a father as totally frustrating having to deal with his 2 sonâs utter selfishness. Same for his second wife with children of her own.
Being a parent when I was a kid was much easier. No children would be tolerated inside the houseâŠâŠgo out and playâŠ..croquet if I trust an 8 mm family movie, while adults were enjoying their tea. 3 tv channels, total control over what entered our twisted little mindsâŠâŠ..jobs right out of universityâŠ..well, close to it and off we went.
I am not condemning people who chose not to have children butâŠâŠ.a dog has to remain what it isâŠâŠa pet and certainly not a surrogateâs child.
Dogs touch me immensely for what they are and their ability to live in the moment, because that is all they know and in that respect, we have a lot to learn from them.
Yes why?? Our culture seems to be coming apart and it seems clear that the disintegration of the family is at the heart of it. It is also no coincidence that religion has become sidelined.
Why bother with any of it?
The problem with youth has always been the same. We think we know it all, but life has this tricky way of kicking us where it hurts. I have a completely asymptomatic cancer diagnosis that was only picked up because I hadn’t had a blood test in ages. I even had a multitude of scans which came back negative but the blood test which was repeated three times was abnormal. In the end a biopsy confirmed cancer. My wife and daughter have been not just my rock, but also my purpose. You cannot put value on a genuine family; and you cannot have a genuine family if you live a hedonistic lifestyle.
I get the attraction of hedonism. I still see attractive young women and have all the desires. But if I way one up against the other. My family wins hands down. I am also acutely aware that I would not have been able to appreciate this in my 20’s.
Families take time to nurture and develop. Yet our modern lifestyle since the sexual revolution has put it way down the pecking order. It is no surprise that we are more miserable than ever. There is no shame in recognising that the last 60-70 years has been the wrong path. Why are we doubling down and going harder than ever in the wrong direction?
Dogs live in the here and now. They are very physical creatures. They are naturually mindful when out on walks and take note of all sorts of things close to the ground and I don’t mean just pee, I mean basic reality and it’s why I enjoy following my dog’s attention; he encourages me to look, not just at the daisies but also up at the sky and trees. He enjoy ordinary pleasures, a run, a roll on the grass, greeting human and dog friends, that sort of thing. What he doesn’t do is self-psychologise, or catastrophise or spend hours at a time lost in digitial worlds. My dog is a wise counsellor, truly he keeps me sane, also he really makes me laugh!
I suspect that establishing a life of âliving in the momentâ would require serious forethought and planning âŠ.
Ha ha! Could be, could be!
Being present “be here now” is something few people have mastered.
Ha ha! Could be, could be!
Being present “be here now” is something few people have mastered.
Wait until you find a great human partner.. 10 times more fulfilling.. or maybe you have one nut find the dog a better option??
One can live one’s whole and not find the great human partner. In the meantime…………
What I was getting at is that a lot of people find dogs keep them grounded. Maybe some people treat their dogs like babies but I think most enjoy them for their simple doginess. Of course if you raise a puppy you do enter into a kind of parenting role because a lot of the time you are trying to keep the animal safe and to socialise it. I’m just not sure that childless people who do that do it because ‘parenting’ a dog is easier that parenting a human child. There are plenty of unselfish reasons why women choose not have children – though it’s true that their reasoning might be faulty and they might come to regret it. I have my own theory about why some people can relax more when they have a dog around. It is based on some thoughts I had after listening to talks by neuroscientist Sir Iain McGilchrist. He believes that since the Enlightenment we in the West have come put too much emphasis on a certain type of problem solving intelligence that associated with the left hemisphere of the brain and that our having done this is to our detriment as a society. He sees the right hemispheric way of seeing the world as much more holistic and truer to how the world actually is. Being too ‘stuck’ in our left hemispheres he says can lead us to see the world through a distorted lens and is associated with anxiety and depression. If I recall correctly he says that a healthy way of being is to be mainly in the right hemisphere and to use the left for specific problem solving tasks only and that a healthy state is to be able flow easily between the two hemispheres using which ever best suits the requirements of circumstance. My theory is that some poeple who suffer from this tendency to get stuck in left hemisphere are able to get free of it by being around dogs because the latter naturually express this much more embodied way being in the world. It’s actually a healing relationship. We as a society are after all said to be living through a time of unprecidented levels of mental illness. McGilchrist also says poetry, music and being in nature can help us get unstuck.
I once read in Die Welt that 40 % of people preferred their dog to their spouse.
Thomas Man wrote a wonderful book about man and his dog : Man und Herr
I once read in Die Welt that 40 % of people preferred their dog to their spouse.
Thomas Man wrote a wonderful book about man and his dog : Man und Herr
One can live one’s whole and not find the great human partner. In the meantime…………
What I was getting at is that a lot of people find dogs keep them grounded. Maybe some people treat their dogs like babies but I think most enjoy them for their simple doginess. Of course if you raise a puppy you do enter into a kind of parenting role because a lot of the time you are trying to keep the animal safe and to socialise it. I’m just not sure that childless people who do that do it because ‘parenting’ a dog is easier that parenting a human child. There are plenty of unselfish reasons why women choose not have children – though it’s true that their reasoning might be faulty and they might come to regret it. I have my own theory about why some people can relax more when they have a dog around. It is based on some thoughts I had after listening to talks by neuroscientist Sir Iain McGilchrist. He believes that since the Enlightenment we in the West have come put too much emphasis on a certain type of problem solving intelligence that associated with the left hemisphere of the brain and that our having done this is to our detriment as a society. He sees the right hemispheric way of seeing the world as much more holistic and truer to how the world actually is. Being too ‘stuck’ in our left hemispheres he says can lead us to see the world through a distorted lens and is associated with anxiety and depression. If I recall correctly he says that a healthy way of being is to be mainly in the right hemisphere and to use the left for specific problem solving tasks only and that a healthy state is to be able flow easily between the two hemispheres using which ever best suits the requirements of circumstance. My theory is that some poeple who suffer from this tendency to get stuck in left hemisphere are able to get free of it by being around dogs because the latter naturually express this much more embodied way being in the world. It’s actually a healing relationship. We as a society are after all said to be living through a time of unprecidented levels of mental illness. McGilchrist also says poetry, music and being in nature can help us get unstuck.
Exactly, not to mention unconditional love.
I suspect that establishing a life of âliving in the momentâ would require serious forethought and planning âŠ.
Wait until you find a great human partner.. 10 times more fulfilling.. or maybe you have one nut find the dog a better option??
Exactly, not to mention unconditional love.
Dogs live in the here and now. They are very physical creatures. They are naturually mindful when out on walks and take note of all sorts of things close to the ground and I don’t mean just pee, I mean basic reality and it’s why I enjoy following my dog’s attention; he encourages me to look, not just at the daisies but also up at the sky and trees. He enjoy ordinary pleasures, a run, a roll on the grass, greeting human and dog friends, that sort of thing. What he doesn’t do is self-psychologise, or catastrophise or spend hours at a time lost in digitial worlds. My dog is a wise counsellor, truly he keeps me sane, also he really makes me laugh!
We often talk about the infiltration of cultural Marxism into the institutions of the West but itâs far from clear if cultural Marxism infiltrated the capitalist west or if the capitalist west infiltrated Marxism.
To have self proclaimed leftists convinced that: living for their career, endless consumption, the prioritisation of the individual over the community and ultimately, that even procreation is just another job which can be outsourced to the third world who will do it more cheaply for us so we can enjoy sex without the inconvenience of having children; is smashing the system – has to be admired as an act of manipulative genius, whoever is manipulating who.
Of course, as Mary has pointed out many times, it is ultimately technology which drives these changes and in the end neither of the philosophies of Marxism or Liberalism have been able to cope with rate of technological change of the post-modern world.Neither is really in control. As the philosopher Martin Heidegger observed. We donât need donât need a philosophy which limps after science, (which cannot help but bring to mind the contemporary slogan âfollow the scienceâ) but one which would run ahead of it.
To this date, no such philosophy exists and we continue to blindly follow where technology leads, even if the precipice lies ahead.
Marxism and Capitalism are both the same thingâmaterialism. Itâs a false dichotomy. Itâs all one world view.
I like that.
Then why do Marxist countries end up as totalitarian. For example: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba. Some are dictatorial. Yes, some them are also capitalist like China, but Iâm certainly not willing to be spied on and surrender my private life.
That’s the dumbest comment I’ve heard. Both things are economic systems that don’t have any god. Because they are both not religions, does not make them the same. Being in the same category does not make them the same. How stupid. False equivalence, but you don’t seem to think things through.
No – both systems elevate materialism. They merely differ in how the cake should be carved up. If youâre poor and happy, a Marxist is confounded. You should be âjoining the struggleâ etc. Equally, if youâre poor and happy, a Capitalist sees you as a threat, as you “lack ambition”.
Not much to do with procreation.
No – both systems elevate materialism. They merely differ in how the cake should be carved up. If youâre poor and happy, a Marxist is confounded. You should be âjoining the struggleâ etc. Equally, if youâre poor and happy, a Capitalist sees you as a threat, as you “lack ambition”.
Not much to do with procreation.
Yes – same coin
The differences are stark. Capitalism is related to individualism, free and open commerce, and property rights — all associated with classical Liberalism. Marxism doesn’t recognize any of those things.
Interesting comment
I like that.
Then why do Marxist countries end up as totalitarian. For example: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba. Some are dictatorial. Yes, some them are also capitalist like China, but Iâm certainly not willing to be spied on and surrender my private life.
That’s the dumbest comment I’ve heard. Both things are economic systems that don’t have any god. Because they are both not religions, does not make them the same. Being in the same category does not make them the same. How stupid. False equivalence, but you don’t seem to think things through.
Yes – same coin
The differences are stark. Capitalism is related to individualism, free and open commerce, and property rights — all associated with classical Liberalism. Marxism doesn’t recognize any of those things.
Interesting comment
“To have self proclaimed leftists convinced that: living for their career, endless consumption…”
In my experience, that’s what married people with 2.5 kids do, not single people. My married friends think they need 2000 square foot suburban houses, Vera Wang wedding dresses, phones for every kid over 4, etc. My single friends travel, live on a shoestring, house sit, leave unsatisfying jobs to pursue self employment, and buy simple foods instead of an SUV-full of groceries from Costco.
Marxism and Capitalism are both the same thingâmaterialism. Itâs a false dichotomy. Itâs all one world view.
“To have self proclaimed leftists convinced that: living for their career, endless consumption…”
In my experience, that’s what married people with 2.5 kids do, not single people. My married friends think they need 2000 square foot suburban houses, Vera Wang wedding dresses, phones for every kid over 4, etc. My single friends travel, live on a shoestring, house sit, leave unsatisfying jobs to pursue self employment, and buy simple foods instead of an SUV-full of groceries from Costco.
We often talk about the infiltration of cultural Marxism into the institutions of the West but itâs far from clear if cultural Marxism infiltrated the capitalist west or if the capitalist west infiltrated Marxism.
To have self proclaimed leftists convinced that: living for their career, endless consumption, the prioritisation of the individual over the community and ultimately, that even procreation is just another job which can be outsourced to the third world who will do it more cheaply for us so we can enjoy sex without the inconvenience of having children; is smashing the system – has to be admired as an act of manipulative genius, whoever is manipulating who.
Of course, as Mary has pointed out many times, it is ultimately technology which drives these changes and in the end neither of the philosophies of Marxism or Liberalism have been able to cope with rate of technological change of the post-modern world.Neither is really in control. As the philosopher Martin Heidegger observed. We donât need donât need a philosophy which limps after science, (which cannot help but bring to mind the contemporary slogan âfollow the scienceâ) but one which would run ahead of it.
To this date, no such philosophy exists and we continue to blindly follow where technology leads, even if the precipice lies ahead.
Great article as always. The only thing I think it misses is the possibility that families are not always better than the alternative. I have very little time for all but one of my family, due to a number of family dramas, but also because we just have almost nothing in common. Iâm not saying all families are terrible, but if youâre not close to your family of origin it can seem a leap of faith to think the one you form will be any better, in the knowledge that you carry the scars of your background with you, which are liable to manifest in your present. Is a car crash of a family better than it never having existed? Iâm not altogether convinced it isnât a perfectly logical thing not to have a family for many people such as myself.
I understand the comment regarding purpose, particularly when things get difficult. My purpose for many years now has been surfing, gardening, music and DIY, but I now have an increasingly bad back and some other injuries that are making all of them between difficult and impossible and Iâm certainly floundering for alternatives. But Iâm afraid I look at it the other way; without the responsibiloity that brings purpose I can leave this mortal coil without guilt or worry so can avoid living in pain as long as my body will manage. If having a family means I will be required to suffer more in later life, but be somewhat happy in that suffering, Iâll chose no suffering and no family thanks. I really hate pain, and ignorance is bliss as far as not having a family is concerned.
Life with a well functioning body is a pleasure I feel I used to itâs fullest extent, and indeed it felt it had a purpose just in and of itself. Surely we âareâ many things, not just sexual or reproductive, but creative, motive, dextrous, inquisitive etc etc. I think having a family could be great, but it could be terrible, just as easily as staying single. I donât think Mary and the conservative movement in general give enough credence to this possibility in their machinations on the decline of the family unit.
I’d tend to agree with your broad argument. Those who say “family is best” are well-meaning but being either too simplistic or lack experience of when family can be a stiflingly negative influence.
Wow.. I sincerely hope you are not speaking from personal experience!
Do i appear to have been negatively stifled??
đ
đ
Why not? Who among us has not been damaged by our families?
Do i appear to have been negatively stifled??
Why not? Who among us has not been damaged by our families?
Family consists of more than a few people though. I come from a very dysfunctional home and the family I grew up with are all either dead or estranged. I am close with cousins and aunts and uncles, however, and I am happily married with healthy children and enjoy a good relationship with my husband’s family as well. In fact, having a healthy family myself was a major goal of mine entering adulthood and an impetuous to heal my own wounds so I could achieve that.
And that’s fair enough. My comment(s) shouldn’t be interpreted as being anti-family.
And that’s fair enough. My comment(s) shouldn’t be interpreted as being anti-family.
Wow.. I sincerely hope you are not speaking from personal experience!
Family consists of more than a few people though. I come from a very dysfunctional home and the family I grew up with are all either dead or estranged. I am close with cousins and aunts and uncles, however, and I am happily married with healthy children and enjoy a good relationship with my husband’s family as well. In fact, having a healthy family myself was a major goal of mine entering adulthood and an impetuous to heal my own wounds so I could achieve that.
my husband and I both come from deeply dysfunctional backgrounds of family drama and even trauma. We decided at 19 that we wanted to create our own family, replacing our family of origin. It was the kind of crazy thing only very young people do, with no money, no back up in case of failure. We had three children by 25, adopted two more later. Itâs been great, except for watching adult children struggle in todays dystopic world.
I should add that he was in IT in the early 80âs which meant a salary expanding to meet the needs of our growing family. Money isnât irrelevant to family creation but it also isnât the only or main factor as Mary said.
The message needs to get out there that even if your family of origin was horrible you can still have a fulfilling family life.
I have news for you: ALL families of origin are dysfunctional.. only some are more so than others.. I could paint a picture of my own which would read like a Dickens novel but on balance, as EVERY experience is useful, and there were really good aspects as well, I look back, positively overall grateful for it..
I’m sure all families are dysfunctional, and I’m sure everyone learns from their experiences, but that’s ALL experiences, not just the family. The point I was getting at is that there are many other experiences that in my experience were at least as valuable as that of my family. Having a family adds such a burden onto life – which has incredibly positive aspects no doubt – that it’s very likely to some degree limit your ability to experience other aspects of life. Even if that’s just solitude. And I’m sure I had some psychological dysfunction that inhibited my ability to bond with a suitable woman, probably better if you don’t, but given that reality you can either get depressed and curse the world, as I did for many years, or get on with getting everything positive you can from the time you hav, which I did in the end and am also extremely gratefully for.
My children would certainly agree with you, but they havenât had to deal with alcoholism, adultery, poverty, physical and verbal abuse, and not knowing who your real father was until you were 21.
Some dysfunctions are worse than others.
My childhood doesn’t check all those boxes, but it does most and I still wanted to have a family. In fact, when you are jipped out of a healthy family as a child, the drive can be very strong to get yourself sorted so you can experience what you missed with your own family. I need to stress the “get yourself sorted” of course, or you run the risk of recreating the dysfunction in your new family, but separating and healing and going on to form my own healthy relationships was incredibly reparative. Being able to give my children what I didn’t get is profoundly satisfying as well, again, providing you’ve healed from the fact that you didn’t get it.
You are right about this. We didnât really realize how badly I was damaged by a criminally narcissistic mother and the ongoing effects of not moving far away from her. It is our biggest regret.
There is still an awful lot to be said for starting a family while young, despite the wisdom gap.
It’s a huge generalization to say that starting a family young is a wise thing.
It is, but dragging adolescence and sexual experimentation out until your energy and fertility expire has costs too. The current model of middle aged prosperous men with 20 something wives is a little icky.
It is, but dragging adolescence and sexual experimentation out until your energy and fertility expire has costs too. The current model of middle aged prosperous men with 20 something wives is a little icky.
It’s a huge generalization to say that starting a family young is a wise thing.
You are right about this. We didnât really realize how badly I was damaged by a criminally narcissistic mother and the ongoing effects of not moving far away from her. It is our biggest regret.
There is still an awful lot to be said for starting a family while young, despite the wisdom gap.
My childhood doesn’t check all those boxes, but it does most and I still wanted to have a family. In fact, when you are jipped out of a healthy family as a child, the drive can be very strong to get yourself sorted so you can experience what you missed with your own family. I need to stress the “get yourself sorted” of course, or you run the risk of recreating the dysfunction in your new family, but separating and healing and going on to form my own healthy relationships was incredibly reparative. Being able to give my children what I didn’t get is profoundly satisfying as well, again, providing you’ve healed from the fact that you didn’t get it.
Is that news? Where do you think we’ve been living?
I’m sure all families are dysfunctional, and I’m sure everyone learns from their experiences, but that’s ALL experiences, not just the family. The point I was getting at is that there are many other experiences that in my experience were at least as valuable as that of my family. Having a family adds such a burden onto life – which has incredibly positive aspects no doubt – that it’s very likely to some degree limit your ability to experience other aspects of life. Even if that’s just solitude. And I’m sure I had some psychological dysfunction that inhibited my ability to bond with a suitable woman, probably better if you don’t, but given that reality you can either get depressed and curse the world, as I did for many years, or get on with getting everything positive you can from the time you hav, which I did in the end and am also extremely gratefully for.
My children would certainly agree with you, but they havenât had to deal with alcoholism, adultery, poverty, physical and verbal abuse, and not knowing who your real father was until you were 21.
Some dysfunctions are worse than others.
Is that news? Where do you think we’ve been living?
Some can and some can’t, and choosing not to take the risk of history repeating itself by not procreating isn’t selfish, quite the opposite. Perhaps procreating to be fulfilled is selfish.
I have news for you: ALL families of origin are dysfunctional.. only some are more so than others.. I could paint a picture of my own which would read like a Dickens novel but on balance, as EVERY experience is useful, and there were really good aspects as well, I look back, positively overall grateful for it..
Some can and some can’t, and choosing not to take the risk of history repeating itself by not procreating isn’t selfish, quite the opposite. Perhaps procreating to be fulfilled is selfish.
I struggle to do anything but feel sorry for you, genuinely. Having your own family is an opportunity to right the wrongs of your childhood. Surfing, gardening, music, and DIY can never replace the joy and fulfillment of raising children who will inherit this world and can make it a better place. In the end, Darwin’s principle rules. Those who rise to challenge and overcome will procreate. Those who remain broken victims will not.
I’m not sure you need to feel sorry for him at all, well maybe about the bad back. Equally the wrongs of childhood usually spill over into the next round of parenthood. And I assure you, the childfree do not consider themselves broken victims. Quite the reverse.
Exactly.
Exactly.
In which case the wrong sort of people has been having kids, if today’s youngesters are the the best they could come up with. Or, more likely, people have misunderstood what Darwin meant and prefer to believe in fairy tales.
Yikes! what a sanctimonious and ignorant comment.
I’m not sure you need to feel sorry for him at all, well maybe about the bad back. Equally the wrongs of childhood usually spill over into the next round of parenthood. And I assure you, the childfree do not consider themselves broken victims. Quite the reverse.
In which case the wrong sort of people has been having kids, if today’s youngesters are the the best they could come up with. Or, more likely, people have misunderstood what Darwin meant and prefer to believe in fairy tales.
Yikes! what a sanctimonious and ignorant comment.
Exactly. And we can see the results of dysfuntional families in child abuse, crimes, addiction, jails etc.
“I think having a family could be great, but it could be terrible, just as easily as staying single. I donât think Mary and the conservative movement in general give enough credence to this possibility in their machinations on the decline of the family unit.”
Perhaps you’re not taking into account the ways in which our changing social norms affected how families have functioned in the past few decades. For some malfunctioning families, the problems could perhaps have been avoided under different social regimes.
But even if there are exceptions to the general rule that old-fashioned families are right for most people, should the exceptions determine public policy and social norms? Not everyone who does heroin has a bad outcome. So maybe we should tell kids to give it a try, they might be one of the lucky ones?
Well said Jake.
I’d tend to agree with your broad argument. Those who say “family is best” are well-meaning but being either too simplistic or lack experience of when family can be a stiflingly negative influence.
my husband and I both come from deeply dysfunctional backgrounds of family drama and even trauma. We decided at 19 that we wanted to create our own family, replacing our family of origin. It was the kind of crazy thing only very young people do, with no money, no back up in case of failure. We had three children by 25, adopted two more later. Itâs been great, except for watching adult children struggle in todays dystopic world.
I should add that he was in IT in the early 80âs which meant a salary expanding to meet the needs of our growing family. Money isnât irrelevant to family creation but it also isnât the only or main factor as Mary said.
The message needs to get out there that even if your family of origin was horrible you can still have a fulfilling family life.
I struggle to do anything but feel sorry for you, genuinely. Having your own family is an opportunity to right the wrongs of your childhood. Surfing, gardening, music, and DIY can never replace the joy and fulfillment of raising children who will inherit this world and can make it a better place. In the end, Darwin’s principle rules. Those who rise to challenge and overcome will procreate. Those who remain broken victims will not.
Exactly. And we can see the results of dysfuntional families in child abuse, crimes, addiction, jails etc.
“I think having a family could be great, but it could be terrible, just as easily as staying single. I donât think Mary and the conservative movement in general give enough credence to this possibility in their machinations on the decline of the family unit.”
Perhaps you’re not taking into account the ways in which our changing social norms affected how families have functioned in the past few decades. For some malfunctioning families, the problems could perhaps have been avoided under different social regimes.
But even if there are exceptions to the general rule that old-fashioned families are right for most people, should the exceptions determine public policy and social norms? Not everyone who does heroin has a bad outcome. So maybe we should tell kids to give it a try, they might be one of the lucky ones?
Well said Jake.
Great article as always. The only thing I think it misses is the possibility that families are not always better than the alternative. I have very little time for all but one of my family, due to a number of family dramas, but also because we just have almost nothing in common. Iâm not saying all families are terrible, but if youâre not close to your family of origin it can seem a leap of faith to think the one you form will be any better, in the knowledge that you carry the scars of your background with you, which are liable to manifest in your present. Is a car crash of a family better than it never having existed? Iâm not altogether convinced it isnât a perfectly logical thing not to have a family for many people such as myself.
I understand the comment regarding purpose, particularly when things get difficult. My purpose for many years now has been surfing, gardening, music and DIY, but I now have an increasingly bad back and some other injuries that are making all of them between difficult and impossible and Iâm certainly floundering for alternatives. But Iâm afraid I look at it the other way; without the responsibiloity that brings purpose I can leave this mortal coil without guilt or worry so can avoid living in pain as long as my body will manage. If having a family means I will be required to suffer more in later life, but be somewhat happy in that suffering, Iâll chose no suffering and no family thanks. I really hate pain, and ignorance is bliss as far as not having a family is concerned.
Life with a well functioning body is a pleasure I feel I used to itâs fullest extent, and indeed it felt it had a purpose just in and of itself. Surely we âareâ many things, not just sexual or reproductive, but creative, motive, dextrous, inquisitive etc etc. I think having a family could be great, but it could be terrible, just as easily as staying single. I donât think Mary and the conservative movement in general give enough credence to this possibility in their machinations on the decline of the family unit.
Dogs are easier than children and tend to die a lot sooner and therefore are not a long term responsibility on the same level as children. They also donât talk back and call you out on your failings. You can leave them at home while you go out to work and the pub. Young people today struggle with adulting and adulting requires taking responsibility for your actions and words. To be honest, as someone who works with looked after children, I donât weep for the those who chose not to bring children into this world, there are too many parents who shouldâve made the same decision.
But perfect children are boooring.. mine, mow aged 42, 48 and 50 are brats.. but sure I still love them!
Exactly this and what I came to say. People are forgoing children purely out of selfishness and indulgence, not because they can’t afford it. Everyone tries to make the excuse of finances or “the world is in a state” as, just as I described, an excuse. Most young adults are a bunch of whiny, entitled, and incompetent dolts who can’t fathom having to sacrifice anything for the greater good; I say this as a woman in her late twenties and approaching 30!
None of them care about bloodlines, about ancestry, about history, or about their future when they are old and feeble and having to be cared for by an immigrant on low wages. They claim immigration is needed because we don’t have enough people, and because of the ‘economy’, yet seemingly avoiding having children of their own to bolster our numbers because of the supposed damage to the environment and bringing in people who have more than 3 children per wife! It’s madness. It’s a life lived entirely in the now instead of the future.
This is the thrust of the responsibility and benefit of having a family, but I just don’t buy any of it. Ancestry and bloodline is too nebulous a concept for many people to grasp, and hasn’t exactly always been a concept that’s benefitted the world when you think how rape has been used as a method of war to ensure the proliferation of certain bloodlines down the ages. There are plenty of other ways of delaying gratification other than having a family – building a business, learning an instrument, tending a garden, building a house.
So have children so that when you’re too old to enjoy life the suckers can join you in your misery. No thanks, I despise being looked after and I hate being in pain, when I can’t look after myself and I’m wracked with pain that will be it thanks very much. If I were to have children it would be so they could enjoy living not so they can look after me. And what could be more selfish than the mentality of having children to look after you when you’re old and sick? I looked after my mother when she lost her mind and there was nothing much noble or dignified about it. I found out recently she wanted to die when she got her diagnosis, but I’m sure the thought of hurting her children was utmost in the decision to carry on.
It’s not that easy to exit this world on one’s own timetable. It’s tough enough being born without choosing to do so, to perhaps not functional parents, but then it’s also not easy to get out.
I will add that my mother had had enough of ill health and wanted out of her body. I was able to help her do that so she had an easy, peaceful exit. I hope someone will do the same for me.
I will add that my mother had had enough of ill health and wanted out of her body. I was able to help her do that so she had an easy, peaceful exit. I hope someone will do the same for me.
People all throughout the ages understood the concept of bloodlines and ancestry because it was an important part of culture; the fact that people can’t seem to grasp it nowadays is due to the cultural shift away from family and community and onto the self only further proving my point.
People have become selfish, in their own bubbles, acting like they are a single unit instead of part of a community. It’s not healthy to think this way, many people do it purely out of dysfunction, laziness, and fear, not because they actually believe in it. The degradation of our communities isn’t a coincidence, it’s part of a much wider problem.
You might be right, although itâs hard to say what people understood about that down the ages. There were certainly also pressures to have children to help the arduous graft of living off the land and just the difficulty of preventing the expression of the sexual urge resulting in offspring.
But perhaps youâre right. I can kind of see if my parents had stayed together and there was a lineage which looked attractive to join it might have both spurred me to want to continue that lineage and have been something attractive for a woman to join. But if thatâs not youâre reality and you have no place in a community or wider family, how are you supposed to relate to that? I think the other thing thatâs missing from this discussion is religion. There is of course the commandment to go forth and multiply, or the equivalent, but I have little doubt that all relationships are extremely difficult and for many throughout the ages only the true religious conviction in the sanctity of marriage kept many relationships together. I also have little doubt that this was developed by wise people over years as they could see the social destruction of very temporary relationships, even though in many individual circumstances it would mean years of personal suffering.
Now, in the society in which I live almost nobody has that conviction, so if they find themselves suffering in a relationship they will understandably want to leave and might very well be individually better off for doing so. The result for the children, however, might very well be the destruction of the connection with your lineage and the disolution of your position within a community which leaves you wandering what structures you would be bringing children into or could use as a crutch to help through the difficult times. In the secular west we think itâs kind of inevitable that as people are more educated the world will become less and less religious, but it actually looks precisely the reverse as the religious are massively out-breeding the atheist and the world will very likely evolve back to a religiously dominated order. In that respect I think religion kind of proves itself right in some vital way and perhaps if you dont have faith itâs better to leave the future to those that do. Itâs not just individuals being selfish, itâs the society in which those individuals live promoting selfishness – for perfectly understandable reasons. Sorry for a rambling response.
You might be right, although itâs hard to say what people understood about that down the ages. There were certainly also pressures to have children to help the arduous graft of living off the land and just the difficulty of preventing the expression of the sexual urge resulting in offspring.
But perhaps youâre right. I can kind of see if my parents had stayed together and there was a lineage which looked attractive to join it might have both spurred me to want to continue that lineage and have been something attractive for a woman to join. But if thatâs not youâre reality and you have no place in a community or wider family, how are you supposed to relate to that? I think the other thing thatâs missing from this discussion is religion. There is of course the commandment to go forth and multiply, or the equivalent, but I have little doubt that all relationships are extremely difficult and for many throughout the ages only the true religious conviction in the sanctity of marriage kept many relationships together. I also have little doubt that this was developed by wise people over years as they could see the social destruction of very temporary relationships, even though in many individual circumstances it would mean years of personal suffering.
Now, in the society in which I live almost nobody has that conviction, so if they find themselves suffering in a relationship they will understandably want to leave and might very well be individually better off for doing so. The result for the children, however, might very well be the destruction of the connection with your lineage and the disolution of your position within a community which leaves you wandering what structures you would be bringing children into or could use as a crutch to help through the difficult times. In the secular west we think itâs kind of inevitable that as people are more educated the world will become less and less religious, but it actually looks precisely the reverse as the religious are massively out-breeding the atheist and the world will very likely evolve back to a religiously dominated order. In that respect I think religion kind of proves itself right in some vital way and perhaps if you dont have faith itâs better to leave the future to those that do. Itâs not just individuals being selfish, itâs the society in which those individuals live promoting selfishness – for perfectly understandable reasons. Sorry for a rambling response.
It’s not that easy to exit this world on one’s own timetable. It’s tough enough being born without choosing to do so, to perhaps not functional parents, but then it’s also not easy to get out.
People all throughout the ages understood the concept of bloodlines and ancestry because it was an important part of culture; the fact that people can’t seem to grasp it nowadays is due to the cultural shift away from family and community and onto the self only further proving my point.
People have become selfish, in their own bubbles, acting like they are a single unit instead of part of a community. It’s not healthy to think this way, many people do it purely out of dysfunction, laziness, and fear, not because they actually believe in it. The degradation of our communities isn’t a coincidence, it’s part of a much wider problem.
Absolutely it is, but what’s the problem? My wife and I are totally happy and content without the burden of a stinky shouty thing controlling our lives and making it a misery. We have total freedom and greater wealth to enjoy what we want to do and when. Why would anyone want it any other way?
How long have you got đ I feel sorry for you
And yet, I feel sorry for you. Round and round we go.
And yet, I feel sorry for you. Round and round we go.
Total freedom and wealth aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. You might get to a stage where you’re jaded, eyes glazed over after years of self indulgence, and find yourself wondering what’s the point of it all. Having kids is one of the few things about life that makes any sense. That’s what it’s been like for me anyway
You can have both of course.
Only if you’re exceedingly lucky.
Only if you’re exceedingly lucky.
For you, perhaps yes, but not for everyone. And why the judgemental tone towards those who don’t want children?
Yes, that’s why I included the caveat “Thatâs what itâs been like for me anyway”. I don’t agree that I used a judgemental tone
Yes, that’s why I included the caveat “Thatâs what itâs been like for me anyway”. I don’t agree that I used a judgemental tone
Then you wouldn’t know what freedom and wealth is like, would you? Dream on.
You can have both of course.
For you, perhaps yes, but not for everyone. And why the judgemental tone towards those who don’t want children?
Then you wouldn’t know what freedom and wealth is like, would you? Dream on.
Exactly, and you don’t know what you’re going to get. At least you can choose a dog. Having a disabled, mentally ill child looks like hell on earth.
âThe heaviest of burdens crushes us, we sink beneath it, it pins us to the ground. But in love poetry of every age, the woman longs to be weighed down by the man’s body.The heaviest of burdens is therefore simultaneously an image of life’s most intense fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real and truthful they become. Conversely, the absolute absence of burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant. What then shall we choose? Weight or lightness?â
â Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Exactly.
So because children could be seen as a minor inconvenience that is seen as a burden and misery inducing? You are clearly very materialistic which is why you value things over people; this is the problem at its root.
How long have you got đ I feel sorry for you
Total freedom and wealth aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. You might get to a stage where you’re jaded, eyes glazed over after years of self indulgence, and find yourself wondering what’s the point of it all. Having kids is one of the few things about life that makes any sense. That’s what it’s been like for me anyway
Exactly, and you don’t know what you’re going to get. At least you can choose a dog. Having a disabled, mentally ill child looks like hell on earth.
âThe heaviest of burdens crushes us, we sink beneath it, it pins us to the ground. But in love poetry of every age, the woman longs to be weighed down by the man’s body.The heaviest of burdens is therefore simultaneously an image of life’s most intense fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real and truthful they become. Conversely, the absolute absence of burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant. What then shall we choose? Weight or lightness?â
â Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Exactly.
So because children could be seen as a minor inconvenience that is seen as a burden and misery inducing? You are clearly very materialistic which is why you value things over people; this is the problem at its root.
I think itâs not surprising that the generation raised with social media would prefer dogs to children (and cats, frankly). Dogsâ inbuilt adoration for their human appeals perfectly to the narcissistic tendencies of that generation. Imagine, itâs akin to getting HUNDREDS of âlikesâ a day, right in your own home! All the benefits with none of the drawbacks, as Lindsay S pointed out!
And this is “bad” because………?
And this is “bad” because………?
Oh, the old argument of the free nurse… I haven’t met many childless people in care homes, and yet there they are…
As there are those with children.
As there are those with children.
OMG not having children is “selfish”. You sound like the pope. And if every woman had the litters you and the pope think women should have you’d never get a seat on the bus.
This particular pope has made a derisive comment about Catholic women breeding like rabbits. He is an evil man, considering the Churchâs teaching, which you are free to disagree with of course, but which it is his job to uphold, not make fun of those who struggle to live it.
Yes, not having children is selfish. You are a culmination of thousands of years of ancestors, ancestors who put their blood, sweat and tears into building the very place you have the privilege to call home, and you deny the right of your offspring to experience the wonders of life because of your own selfishness. You act like you “didn’t have a choice” in being born, no one does! It’s all luck and you were lucky to be born.
This particular pope has made a derisive comment about Catholic women breeding like rabbits. He is an evil man, considering the Churchâs teaching, which you are free to disagree with of course, but which it is his job to uphold, not make fun of those who struggle to live it.
Yes, not having children is selfish. You are a culmination of thousands of years of ancestors, ancestors who put their blood, sweat and tears into building the very place you have the privilege to call home, and you deny the right of your offspring to experience the wonders of life because of your own selfishness. You act like you “didn’t have a choice” in being born, no one does! It’s all luck and you were lucky to be born.
This is the thrust of the responsibility and benefit of having a family, but I just don’t buy any of it. Ancestry and bloodline is too nebulous a concept for many people to grasp, and hasn’t exactly always been a concept that’s benefitted the world when you think how rape has been used as a method of war to ensure the proliferation of certain bloodlines down the ages. There are plenty of other ways of delaying gratification other than having a family – building a business, learning an instrument, tending a garden, building a house.
So have children so that when you’re too old to enjoy life the suckers can join you in your misery. No thanks, I despise being looked after and I hate being in pain, when I can’t look after myself and I’m wracked with pain that will be it thanks very much. If I were to have children it would be so they could enjoy living not so they can look after me. And what could be more selfish than the mentality of having children to look after you when you’re old and sick? I looked after my mother when she lost her mind and there was nothing much noble or dignified about it. I found out recently she wanted to die when she got her diagnosis, but I’m sure the thought of hurting her children was utmost in the decision to carry on.
Absolutely it is, but what’s the problem? My wife and I are totally happy and content without the burden of a stinky shouty thing controlling our lives and making it a misery. We have total freedom and greater wealth to enjoy what we want to do and when. Why would anyone want it any other way?
I think itâs not surprising that the generation raised with social media would prefer dogs to children (and cats, frankly). Dogsâ inbuilt adoration for their human appeals perfectly to the narcissistic tendencies of that generation. Imagine, itâs akin to getting HUNDREDS of âlikesâ a day, right in your own home! All the benefits with none of the drawbacks, as Lindsay S pointed out!
Oh, the old argument of the free nurse… I haven’t met many childless people in care homes, and yet there they are…
OMG not having children is “selfish”. You sound like the pope. And if every woman had the litters you and the pope think women should have you’d never get a seat on the bus.
Exactly!! Procreating and parenting are two very different things.Also, One sees so many people having kids because they don’t know what to do with their lives, need a sense of purpose and think a baby will give them all the love they never had.
That’s a very pessimistic view of people. Most people have children because they want children; the idea of raising the next generation excites them. Some people will have children because they have empty lives but it’s also true that most people fill their time with working because they have no other identity; most of the people I have ever worked with have no hobbies and this is most prevalent within women.
I come from a broken and abusive family, I want a family to be able to give the love and expectations that I never had, I want to produce my next generation and make them see the value that life truly has because I was denied that growing up; I was a tool to be used and abused and was discarded when I no longer had value. I would never do that to my own children.
That’s a very pessimistic view of people. Most people have children because they want children; the idea of raising the next generation excites them. Some people will have children because they have empty lives but it’s also true that most people fill their time with working because they have no other identity; most of the people I have ever worked with have no hobbies and this is most prevalent within women.
I come from a broken and abusive family, I want a family to be able to give the love and expectations that I never had, I want to produce my next generation and make them see the value that life truly has because I was denied that growing up; I was a tool to be used and abused and was discarded when I no longer had value. I would never do that to my own children.
But perfect children are boooring.. mine, mow aged 42, 48 and 50 are brats.. but sure I still love them!
Exactly this and what I came to say. People are forgoing children purely out of selfishness and indulgence, not because they can’t afford it. Everyone tries to make the excuse of finances or “the world is in a state” as, just as I described, an excuse. Most young adults are a bunch of whiny, entitled, and incompetent dolts who can’t fathom having to sacrifice anything for the greater good; I say this as a woman in her late twenties and approaching 30!
None of them care about bloodlines, about ancestry, about history, or about their future when they are old and feeble and having to be cared for by an immigrant on low wages. They claim immigration is needed because we don’t have enough people, and because of the ‘economy’, yet seemingly avoiding having children of their own to bolster our numbers because of the supposed damage to the environment and bringing in people who have more than 3 children per wife! It’s madness. It’s a life lived entirely in the now instead of the future.
Exactly!! Procreating and parenting are two very different things.Also, One sees so many people having kids because they don’t know what to do with their lives, need a sense of purpose and think a baby will give them all the love they never had.
Dogs are easier than children and tend to die a lot sooner and therefore are not a long term responsibility on the same level as children. They also donât talk back and call you out on your failings. You can leave them at home while you go out to work and the pub. Young people today struggle with adulting and adulting requires taking responsibility for your actions and words. To be honest, as someone who works with looked after children, I donât weep for the those who chose not to bring children into this world, there are too many parents who shouldâve made the same decision.
“Britainâs total fertility rate has remained below replacement ever since.”
Don’t worry! You might not have ever been asked about it, but the Government has been implementing a cunning plan to sort this…
“Britainâs total fertility rate has remained below replacement ever since.”
Don’t worry! You might not have ever been asked about it, but the Government has been implementing a cunning plan to sort this…
Trouble is that when women get into their late thirties they realise they always wanted to have a family and have missed the boat. I watched a documentary the other day that found 90% of childless women past childbearing age regretted not having had children. Many bitterly. Many talked about their lives being meaningless. Many blamed their partners who never fully committed.
If those women in their 30âs with the baby-rabies stopped to think for one minute it would be obvious to them why, as they say, they canât get a man to commit. Men in their 30âs have probably finally made something of themselves. They are established at work and financially sound. Their SMV has reached its peak. By contrast, desperate women in their 30âs are on a steep downward path relative to SMV and younger, more fertile women in their 20âs are replacing them in the sexual marketplace. Given a choice the man will favour the younger woman, especially if he wants a family. In the competition between a women in her 20âs who can easily become pregnant and a late 30âs woman who will likely have trouble conceiving and might need expensive IVF support the younger woman is the obvious choice.
Agreed, and it’s crazy because society, at least the upper middle class liberal society, pushes young girls into this quandry. The focus is all on career and sort the family out later, when it should be the other way around. I have a career and encourage my teenage daughters to as well, but urge them to focus on family in their 20’s as that is when the most amount of eligble men will be interested. They seem to have taken this to heart and both are dating commitment orientated men and choosing careers with flexibility as well, so they can lean out when they have kids to stay home for awhile. We are in a red state though, so the culture is more famiy orientated as well.
I follow a You Tuber who’s in her mid-30’s. She has a crafts and cleaning channel and she sometimes featured her fiance in her videos. Well, he hadn’t made an appearance in awhile and she announced that she broke up with him because her channel was doing really well so she was financially independant and she didn’t want to settle down yet and that she had “plenty of time.” The comments section was FULL of women agreeing with her and urging her to hold out until “she was ready”. I was thinking, “You’re 35. What, are you going to wait until 40 to consider starting a family? And do you think a bunch of handsome, financially secure, eligible men are going to be lining up to marry a 40 year old?!” It’s crazy.
So, it seems like her relationship with her “fiance” was really about financial security and nothing more. Men are just ATM’s to some women and she seems like the materialistic type who kept him around for money. Pregnancies after 32 are considered “high risk.” Good luck getting pregnant when she’s over 40, never mind finding anyone she would want.
So, it seems like her relationship with her “fiance” was really about financial security and nothing more. Men are just ATM’s to some women and she seems like the materialistic type who kept him around for money. Pregnancies after 32 are considered “high risk.” Good luck getting pregnant when she’s over 40, never mind finding anyone she would want.
Eew yuk! That’s nasty. “Desperate women in their thirties” you wish!
Agreed, and it’s crazy because society, at least the upper middle class liberal society, pushes young girls into this quandry. The focus is all on career and sort the family out later, when it should be the other way around. I have a career and encourage my teenage daughters to as well, but urge them to focus on family in their 20’s as that is when the most amount of eligble men will be interested. They seem to have taken this to heart and both are dating commitment orientated men and choosing careers with flexibility as well, so they can lean out when they have kids to stay home for awhile. We are in a red state though, so the culture is more famiy orientated as well.
I follow a You Tuber who’s in her mid-30’s. She has a crafts and cleaning channel and she sometimes featured her fiance in her videos. Well, he hadn’t made an appearance in awhile and she announced that she broke up with him because her channel was doing real