Betas: Do you want to have a family or a traditional life?

[Chthonic Daydream]

An entire zoo. The horror.

Irlol.

I think the same about children-- Having no family at all is better than having a broken one. Children are so easy to mess up yet so hard to fix afterwards.

[Alonzo]

Irlol.

I think the same about children-- Having no family at all is better than having a broken one. Children are so easy to mess up yet so hard to fix afterwards.

In the world I ran (Gattaca-lite), parents would have to undergo extensive training (that began in early education), pass a personality/IQ/EQ/aptitude test, and be pre-approved/pre-authorized in order to have children. If permits and licences attained via empirical and observational evaluations must be held in order to wield a vehicle and operate dangerous machinery, why less for handling the often asserted (though neglected) "precious" life of a child? The same disastrous result is possible when both unwieldy vehicles and humans are managed irresponsibly > innocents get hurt. In most parts of the developed world, those who babysit or even teach children must be extensively tested or vetted in order to procure the ability to intimately interact with them. And yet, ironically, the same standards aren't as thoroughly applied to those primarily responsible for rearing a child from infancy to adulthood. Doesn't make sense to me.

[ashlesha]

In the world I ran (Gattaca-lite), parents would have to undergo extensive training (that began in early education), pass a personality/IQ/EQ/aptitude test, and be pre-approved/pre-authorized in order to have children. If permits and licences attained via empirical and observational evaluations must be held in order to wield a vehicle and operate dangerous machinery, why less for handling the often asserted (though neglected) "precious" life of a child? The same disastrous result is possible when both unwieldy vehicles and humans are managed irresponsibly > innocents get hurt. In most parts of the developed world, those who babysit or even teach children must be extensively tested or vetted in order to procure the ability to intimately interact with them. And yet, ironically, the same standards aren't as thoroughly applied to those primarily responsible for rearing a child from infancy to adulthood. Doesn't make sense to me.

How to pass would be common knowledge and people would cheat all the time. Also the follow-up of sterilizing people or forcing them to maintain birth control would be a big complicated issue.

Maybe I have a knee jerk reaction to throw bolts in this because at 17 years old I was not exactly on the approved list lol but I love my son and he's a great kid.

Some people definitely shouldn't be parents, true, but I wonder if they'd be adequately weeded out with testing (and if potentially good parents would be cut out). I feel like a libertarian, wtf.

[Alonzo]

How to pass would be common knowledge and people would cheat all the time. Also the follow-up of sterilizing people or forcing them to maintain birth control would be a big complicated issue.

1.) Well few systems are perfect (read: optimal), even though that should be the ideal. There will likely always be chinks in the armor that the particularly nimble and crafty can exploit; it just must be effective enough to make a difference. There are plenty of people who don't deserve a driver's licence that still manage to get their hands on one. But imagine the potential damage if licences weren't required at all. At the end of the day, it's all about risk mitigation.

2.) And sterilizations are perhaps a step farther than I'd go--which is why I said "Gattica-lite." lol Even though there could be a case made for those who continually push out children without the resources (physically, mentally, financially) to adequately provide for them. But then could potentially put a target on the back of certain (high risk) demographics and then it all becomes far more ethically problematic, even if icily practical and logical if maintaining balance for the "whole" is the aim.

In this hypothetical scenario, I'd also think that before (if we possess the adequate technology) or after a child was born, there would be "how to" guidelines or some rubric tailored to the child's own cognitive/psychological needs. And as long as the parent has all of the required means to sufficiently support a child's development (in the best way for that particular child), then perhaps more people wouldn't be kept from rearing children. Sometimes it's not that the parents are inherently bad in so much as they don't know how to deal with their child as an individual (with different needs, makeup, etc...).

Maybe I have a knee jerk reaction to throw bolts in this because at 17 years old I was not exactly on the approved list lol but I love my son and he's a great kid.

I'd wager you're a great mom. I don't worry as much about people like you, so much as people like me. lol If a child doesn't come with an instruction manual, than count me out. I like (some) kids but prefer cats, fish, and Siri. lol However, not everyone has my degree of self awareness concerning my limitations. Some don't know what they are capable of and can do irreparable damage.

Having said that, I don't think parents are supposed to be perfect because their parents weren't perfect and their parents before them; I honestly believe that most try the best they can but sometimes the best is not good enough. And so there must be check and balances put into place to ensure a certain standard is maintained > don't create people who become societal drains (murderers, con artists, do-nothings, leeches, etc...).

Some people definitely shouldn't be parents, true, but I wonder if they'd be adequately weeded out with testing (and if potentially good parents would be cut out). I feel like a libertarian, wtf.

If for every 1 "good" parent weeded out, 1,000 "bad" ones were, wouldn't that still be preferable?

[Raver]

I should add that I think the main reason to not have children nowadays is because IMO western society is slowly collapsing over time due to incompetence and shilling from politicians as well as greedy and power hungry wealthy business interests. As a result of this, each succeeding generation of the vast majority of the population no matter who you are or where you're from and unless you're a part of the ~1% will have increasingly worsening lives with lower financial independence and lower personal freedom. I also consider bad parenting to be merely a symptom of a poor society.

A turbulent and weak society creates bad parents, which creates ill-equipped children who then go on to father and mother their own mal-adjusted children and the vicious cycle continues. The solution to ending this cycle is to fix society, but that will not happen any time in the near future. So the next best solution is to work on yourself if you want to be a parent; become more financially independent and more self aware of your own foibles as a human being that you developed because of your parents and your school environment so you can tamper or end the cycle at least for your own bloodline.

[xerx]

It's not something I ever envisioned doing, and I'm aware of many of the disadvantages, but, ultimately, I don't mind raising kids and having a family. I wouldn't want to lead a "traditional" life, though, and I'd much prefer that we had mind-expanding adventures rather than some dull suburban existence.

That said, no wife of mine would ever have to work unless she wanted to — it's easy for me to do the 70 hour work week and whatever else it takes to be a good provider.