Currently have a 9 year old - torn over whether to have a second baby?

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

29 minutes ago, Phil King said:

Many peoples biggest regret in life is that they didnt have more children. Take that as you will

*proceeds to have 50 children

[eos_nyxia]

11 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Bringing a child into the world is the most complex thing. You will only run in circles if you "think" about it. If you can give your child some basic life privileges, lifestyle and comfort, I say go for it.

There is a truth to this. There are always reasons why you can "think" your way for or against one thing or another, if you're really determined to do so.

But at the same time... I'm really not a big fan of this "don't think, just breed, worry about problem later!!!" mentality that pro-birth people have. This is actually a social pressure that is put on women specifically, even if it's also put on men as well. But with women, it is more. It often involves permanent changes to our bodies, and still often enough involves a very uneven division of labour, both emotional and physical. There is our "window of fertility" which is an added pressure.

This stuff matters.

11 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

And please don't bring this oppressed female narrative into this. People and society together are doing what they need to survive. The female child may not go to school, but the male child may have to clean sewers full of human excrement in order to make a living, if you are talking about some old traditional patriarchal ways of living. Life is so harsh that most of you won't survive a month in such situations so keep your opinions of such people to yourself.

For the most part, no males are going off to war and getting themselves shot in Western countries anymore, not in WWI trenches or elsewhere, nor are they working in sewers, even as giving birth is not quite what it used to be with modern medical science at our disposal.

Also: my mother grew up 3rd world poor, as in... at a starvation/subsistence level. I heard quite a bit about this growing up, even if I did not grow up in this way myself. Still, my link to it is closer than most people I've known who have been living in a first-world country for generations (with the exception of the indigenous people living here). It's probably not a great idea to assume what I do or don't take for granted considering this stuff was drilled into my head as a kid, thanks.

Quote

Modern life is heaven compared to this and you need to make a couple of strategic decisions to have just another child, if you truly want them. If you adore comfort too much, then don't bother.

For me, this is not about the morality of "comfort". It is about the morality of having children in an overpopulated and environmentally precarious world just because "it's what people do!" . (Again... apparently an extremely hot take, lol.) I don't see anyone shitting on people who truly, deeply want kids and are as prepared to be good parents as "reasonably" possible. Of course, some of us have much higher standards for what "reasonably prepared" is.

Quote

1. Children has to grow up with a strong bond. Incompatibility issues are non sense. No one will stay by you like your brother/sister despite compatibility issues. You have to build trust with your siblings. That has immense value but it takes work to develop it. You need to base your bond on principles and hold it strong.

This is not universally true. I can only assume that you have not had traumatic enough experiences with your own parents, caregivers, or siblings to have even conceived of feeling otherwise.  I cannot conceive of someone being so unempathetic in this way otherwise. That you have not been profoundly abandoned or abused in any way by them. In that case... enjoy your privilege, I suppose?

Like... what if you have a narc-like parent who habitually turns one sibling against the other? (Basically talking about my dad's case.)

Quote

2. Social circle is ephemeral. That will not give you anything long lasting. Only family is what lasts. That too if you put some work to make it last.

 

Tell this to all the people whose bond with their parents and siblings are broken and often unfixable, and who can't do anything but be alone (or perhaps hopefully with other non-family) on Christmases and Thanksgivings. What about those people?

What about all the people who have been abused horribly by their family?

Edited August 27, 2023 by eos_nyxia

[Javfly33]

@Seed absolutely not

 

[Bobby_2021]

On 8/27/2023 at 6:48 PM, eos_nyxia said:

For the most part, no males are going off to war and getting themselves shot in Western countries anymore, not in WWI trenches or elsewhere, nor are they working in sewers, even as giving birth is not quite what it used to be with modern medical science at our disposal

Western world isn't a patriarchy either so you shouldn't have any problems with oppression.

On 8/27/2023 at 6:48 PM, eos_nyxia said:

For me, this is not about the morality of "comfort". It is about the morality of having children in an overpopulated and environmentally precarious world just because "it's what people do!" .

Listen, I don't want to rob you off your moral high ground, but there is no substance to this line of reasoning.

Everywhere except India and China are sparsely populated and the countries having replacement level birth rate is Africa.

If you have a sliver of realism then a population crunch is a much more realistic challenge for the western world, which could be offset only by immigration. Western world should be having more children.

Realistically If you want to make any real impact you should urge poor people to not have children. They are the ones who are having disproportionate number of children and destroying the environment.

(That's of course if you assume that having children is destroying the environment)

[eos_nyxia]

4 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Western world isn't a patriarchy either so you shouldn't have any problems with oppression.

A lot of people would disagree with you. But still, "smaller" issues that people face are still issues to be dealt with.

....you seem to have a habit of reductionistic thinking, as in, making complex issues extremely simplistic in questionably appropriate ways. You and mostly everyone else, it seems.

Quote

Everywhere except India and China are sparsely populated and the countries having replacement level birth rate is Africa.

If you have a sliver of realism then a population crunch is a much more realistic challenge for the western world, which could be offset only by immigration. Western world should be having more children.

 

I admit that I'm not that interested in what would support the either decaying or due-for-serious-upheaval social infrastructures of one country or another, or one continent or another. Nor am I that knowledgeable about the best practical ways to adapt social infrastructure so that we don't fall apart into unnecessary chaos and conflict. IMO short-term sacrifices are necessary for long-term gain though. Mostly I'm interested in what would make this world a more beautiful, harmonious place to live for every single human being that lives here, for the animals that live here... where we can have both spirituality and advanced technology in a state of environmental balance. I'm mostly interested in the big-big picture, or the extremely long-term picture. A world where we seriously prioritize having MORE PEOPLE! isn't a world that I would enjoy living in, personally.

I also hate being in giant, crowded cities, regardless of environmental impact. I'm talking about the spiritual, subtle qualities of this experience. Big surprise, right?

Personally, I really do not understand humanity's fixation on the "quantity" of human experience, rather than sheer quality first. It's like people took the "be fruitful and multiply" sentiment (which is "natural" enough, I guess) from an era where there were far, far less people without global environmental concerns, and their deeper-value system is prioritizing replicating their particular cultural ethos and bloodline first and foremost above all else. I don't care about this.

And if you reproduce knowing how precarious the future is (or could be) without thinking about it carefully, you're either very driven by animalistic impulses and have made that your life ethos, you're very susceptible to cultural indoctrination, or perhaps you just have a bunch of screws loose?

Admittedly, if I had it my way, humanity's population would cap off around 1-2 billion, maybe 3 billion at the absolute tops. I know this is probably considered an extremely radical perspective amongst the general populace (?), but I'm of the general awareness that quite a few environmental scientists agree with me, and may not be considered that radical in that field.

And again with the fixation on the sheer quantity and masses of humanity: just because you can choose to max out Earth's carrying capacity, it doesn't mean that you should!   Like say you're having a party, will you have a better party by shoving more and more people within a very limited amount of space, without considering the aesthetics and dynamics of the space itself?? For some people: I guess a busy party is always a better party? For me: this is a headache.

Quote

Realistically If you want to make any real impact you should urge poor people to not have children. They are the ones who are having disproportionate number of children and destroying the environment.

I don't discriminate at all based on culture or poverty levels (though I think deliberately bringing children into urban poverty is asking for a lot of problems on both a social and environmental level). I think everyone should have either less or no children. People in very poor, rural eras with extremely limited access to modern technology have a significantly lower carbon footprint, no?

TBH I don't exactly agree with environmentalists and environmentally inclined people on everything though, mostly based on sheer, raw intuition. For instance: I'm not as concerned with global warming as many people are. I consider it to be par-the-course, a point that we are reaching sooner rather than a bit later, though done in a very haphazard way.

Edited August 28, 2023 by eos_nyxia

[Bobby_2021]

5 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

admit that I'm not that interested in what would support the either decaying or due-for-serious-upheaval social infrastructures of one country or another, or one continent or another

I appreciate that?

5 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

you seem to have a habit of reductionistic thinking, as in, making complex issues extremely simplistic in questionably appropriate ways. You and mostly everyone else, it seems.

Nah men and women usually, in a society, share the same or slightly unequal amount of suffering.

It's impossible to gauge who has it worse. Especially in complex scenarios of western world.

Do you think a man would agree with your statement in these days? Impossible. 

As far as non Western world is concerned, people concentrate disproportionate attention to the issues and sufferings of women. Not that women suffer disproportionately in reality. That's simply the case. 

5 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

A world where we seriously prioritize having MORE PEOPLE! isn't a world that I would enjoy living in, personally.

It's not about less or more people. It's about having a healthy population distribution where there are people of all kinds.

Too many old people with too few young people means there will be disproportionate strain and economic burden on the young people to care for the old people, work at a job, and take care of their children as well. Even today it's gen z and millennials that contribute to social security with no hopes of getting such privileges themselves while being economically squeezed due to laws passed by boomer politicians.

The real estate and housing crisis faced by the young people of today is purely artificial. Because boomers own most real estate and they are also higher in numbers so that you can't do anything to reverse the policy because there are fewer young people. It's gets really bad.

Democracy favours the bigger demographic, due to how democracy works. This will only lead to young people, who are lesser in numbers further squeezed out. 

If you need a real world example, look at China where they took population control seriously. Now they are begging couples to have more children. They had to go 180° from the one child policy. 

The population problem is caused exclusively due to the birth of baby boomers. Once they get old and die, this will be a thing of the past.

Also, with the exception of the current young demographic, life was substantially better for the offspring than the parents and it would only get better. These are all reasons to have more kids. And these are realistic grounded reasons. Not based in morality or feelings good.

And of course you can feel good about having kids as well. 

5 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

People in very poor, rural eras with extremely limited access to modern technology have a significantly lower carbon footprint, no?

This is not a virtue. Good quality of life comes with some destruction and exploitation to the environment. 

The poor people are not going to stay poor their whole life. Once economic development happens in these places they are going to consume a shit ton of fossil fuels.

And western politicians will still blame them for their "carbon footprint", like they blame China nowadays. 

[LSD-Rumi]

The age gap between siblings is nothing. I used to have a great time with my little brother despite me being older than him by like 10y. 

[flowboy]

On 26/08/2023 at 3:32 PM, Seed said:

And no,  my daughter absolutely doenst owe me any grandchildren. She doesnt even owe me a relationship. She is her own unique person which I have had the joy and challenge of raising

@Seed That paragraph was an honest signal that you are an amazing exceptional mother and any little one would be lucky to have you at whichever time.

If me and my partner were having this dilemma, I'd probably get a babysitter for a weekend and take MDMA or LSD together and talk about it. It's a great way to get to what you feel deeply and circumvent all the contradictory voices in the mind.

If you're not into that, I would recommend a 30 minute shamanic breathing session (see Leo's video). If you do that and set the intention to figure this out, you will have your answer.

If you're not into that, a session of chair work / parts work / voice dialogue (all the same thing) will no doubt help to make this decision. It's how I solve my dilemmas.

[Seed]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their input a few months ago!

 

As it happened, I got pregnant very quickly… just one try 😅 this little soul was definitely waiting in line….

 

We’re due a little boy in early June. It’s been quite a transitional but we’re all delighted, especially big sister to be!!!