For the great, vast majority of people, to the point where anything else is statistically zero, children are the only way to ever see the future. No one cares about your code 3 years after you leave the company. No one will remember how you saw all those movies.
Okay, fair enough. I just wouldn't put children as being much above all the rest of that, either, in terms of value. It may last a little bit longer if your children and grand-children bother to remember you, I guess.
But if longevity of memory is all you want the fastest way there would be to do something infamous enough to get you put down in the history with all three names, like say John Wilkes Booth. Much easier than raising a kid, and longer lasting.
But as I said before, it takes all kinds.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
It's the only thing you can do that has even the slightest chance of lasting into the future.
Mount Rushmore's probably going to last longer than any member of the human species.
But I can't go to a family function without hearing about how great obamacare is.
This has nothing to do with the 'net.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TPRJones wrote:Okay, now you've lost me. I can think of lots and lots of historical figures that did important things that have made a lasting impression on the human race. In most cases it has nothing to do with if they had children or not. Your focus on children as being the only important thing once could ever possibly do sounds a bit weird to me.
Statistically, kids are your best chance at making an impression on the world. And in some ways, maybe more important than the individuals that do great things.
Could we have won WWII if our soldiers hadn't been raised with the sense of duty they had? Would we have elected a socialist President if this voting generation(s) hadn't grown up getting participation trophies?
Don't get me wrong, there arr many that have made huge impacts on us and how we live, but for every George Washington or Albert Einstein how many thousands have shuffled into the veil without us knowing their names are anything they've done?
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Could we have won WWII if our soldiers hadn't been raised with the sense of duty they had? Would we have elected a socialist President if this voting generation(s) hadn't grown up getting participation trophies?
Would we have had to fight WWII if the majority of the nazis had never been born? If soldiers returning from WWII hadn't had so many kids in the baby boom that half of them felt a bit neglected and ended up becoming helicopter parents later on would they have given out all those participation trophies?
Yes, those are silly. But for most positive arguments about the historical impact of having children there's often a negative argument right there along with it. Having enough children to keep the species alive is important. Raising them well enough to keep society alive is important. But it's hardly historically significant.
Most of us are insignificant. That's just the way the world is. Having children doesn't change that.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Would we have had to fight WWII if the majority of the nazis had never been born?
Or if all of Europe hadn't been complete bitches at the treat of Versailles? Would've been nice if their parents had told them to lay off the unnecessary vengeance.
Edited By Malcolm on 1399991033
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TPRJones wrote:Most of us are insignificant. That's just the way the world is. Having children doesn't change that.
That's where we disagree. Raising a good person is about the most significant thing most of us will ever do.
Well, that can only be true if either 1) that child then goes on to be Einstein or the Pope (or Stalin or Hitler), or 2) also has children. If either of those is not true, then that would invalidate your significance by putting an end to it.
Thus if none of your children or their children (ad inifnitum) ever produce an Important Historical Figure, then if your line ever dies off down the generations without offspring the whole string of significance collapses and suddenly all those generations of children no longer matter because at the end of the chain was no more children.
Edited By TPRJones on 1399994778
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Again, I disagree. My offspring don't need to be famous. They can be a fireman and save someones life. They can be a teacher and inspire a troubled youth to get their act together. They can be an accountant that helps a stranded motorist on the freeway. They can be someone completely ordinary and still live a simple, happy life somewhere and have kids of his own.
As long as my child grows into a good man, that all by itself means I have succeeded as a human being.
Edited By GORDON on 1399999787
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
But by those standards, can't you leave out the children and instead be a fireman or teacher or accountant and still be just as much of a success? Pushing it off one generation before it can be a success just seems a bit arbitrary.
Or did that last clause about "and have kids of his own" apply to all sections prior, and if he doesn't have kids then being a fireman or teacher or accountant wouldn't be enough to be a success? If it still would, then why can't those same standards apply to the current generation as well as this future one?
Just to be clear I am by no means trying to argue against the existance of your children. I'm just trying to understand why their existence seems to be the very definition of success for you, so much so that people without children appear to be considered a failure.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
It depends on ones goals. If your goal in life is to never be bothered until the day you die, then no, don't have kids. You can have all the personal time possible to consume whatever you want to eat and whatever you want to watch and it's all yours and someday when you are old and decrepit you can pay someone elses kid to wipe your ass for you.
I want to make a difference in the world, I always have. I've accomplished that already by being a Marine (Ronald Reagan said so), but I also got lucky enough to have a kid. So I sacrifice some of my time and treasure for this neat little guy who looks at me like I am god and I get to look at the world through his eyes and see it again for the first time. I will guide his growth and development and one will day spin him loose and see how he does.
In your perspective, you don't envy me my responsibilities. In my perspective, I don't envy your genetic dead end. Just depends on your priorities. No judgements.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
If your goal in life is to never be bothered until the day you die, then no, don't have kids.
Merely one optional aspect of life that takes up time. There are many, many more.
someday when you are old and decrepit you can pay someone elses kid to wipe your ass for you
Your argument is that they're around to take care of you when you can't do it yourself?
So I sacrifice some of my time and treasure for this neat little guy who looks at me like I am god and I get to look at the world through his eyes and see it again for the first time.
Someone looking at me like I'm god isn't anything like anything I want. As for the second half, the jadedness in me would not be broken by such a thing.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
If your goal in life is to never be bothered until the day you die...
Oh, if only such were possible, what a fine world it would be. Sadly Justin Beiber exists, so it could never be.
In your perspective, you don't envy me my responsibilities. In my perspective, I don't envy your genetic dead end. Just depends on your priorities. No judgements.
A fair and equitable summary. Perhaps it's because so many of my relatives have been people I find despicably racist and hateful and do all I can to never come anywhere near them that I hold zero value in genetics in general. Family is the people you choose to value, genetics be damned.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."