Thoughts on "I had a child so that he/she could change the world for the better"

Thoughts on this classic justification for having kids:

1. It reeks of post-event rationalization. No one looks for a mate out of a burning desire to save the world. And anyone who puts "I want to have kids with you because I want to change the world" in their Match.com profile will spend their nights listening to the crickets.

2. Most kids are average. Chances are very low your kid will save the world.

3. Anyone who has a kid automatically damages the environment. You've just created the need for a whole additional house, additional car (outside of dense urban areas), 75 years of food, products, clothes, and possessions, and so on. Think of all the effort the kid will have to expend just to overcome that environmental burden before they can even start to think of changing the world for the better.

4. Any adult with money at his or her disposal is in a good position to make positive change to the world. They can write checks to charities; kids can't. They can dedicate their life to a helping profession; kids don't have professions. Adults can found clinics, create fundraising websites, organize in their community. Adults with a GENUINE desire to change the world can do that NOW, today, instead of having a kid on the off chance that it will be anything other than the usual average self-interested person, much less a criminal. So if these folks are so concerned with changing the world, you'd think they'd be out dedicating their life to Doctors without Borders, CARE, or the like. What? They're not? That's odd. I thought they were so concerned with changing the world. Huh.

Conclusion: This is neither a valid nor a sincere reason for having children.

I agree, having a kid just sucks the life out of Mother Earth.

There needs to be a 20 year moratorium on breeding. And after that, only select individuals should be allowed to breed.

2. Most kids are average. Chances are very low your kid will save the world"



i think most kids/people are below average. nothing special. most people are dull, boring and mindless, they are sheep

Right, if you want the world changed, just start doing it yourself, why put it on someone else's "to do" list. Besides, they might have other plans in the future....they will have their OWN "to do" list.


do breedahs listen to themselves?

I can't help but chuckle to myself when I hear this assinine comment. First of all, when I think of people who actually HAVE "changed the world" and it's touted as being "for the better", I am a bit skeptical. I think we need to define "for the better" and for whom it is allegedly "better" and exactly how. I am of the belief that where there is a positive there is a negative. Was the invention of television REALLY "for the better?". I think that's debatable. Even the man who invented the damn boob tube at age 14 when he entered it as a science project, has often been quoted as wishing he had never invented it. Are modern vehicles really "better" than horses? That really depends on who you ask. People paralyzed from the neck down as the result of car accidents, horribly disfigured in wrecks, and families of those killed in motor vehicle accidents probably don't think so.

Then we have modern appliances and electronics like dishwashers, microwaves, computers, cell phones, etc......They basically free up more time so we can do what exactly with all of that extra time? Yeah, we can WORK longer hours, away from said "modern conveniences," to PAY for them. Medical advances such as organ transplants, infertility drugs, chemo therapy, vaccines, etc......on an individual basis would be considered good, but certainly not on a wide scale or "good" for society as a whole to keep more people alive for longer or allow more people to be born than what would be considered "natural". I have mixed emotions about modern treatments to prolong life because they were used on me when I was not breathing and for all intents and purposes, dead, several years ago. I can say that "coming back" after having turned blue is very physically painful and if I had been given a choice at the time, I would have continued on to wherever it was I was going, because there was no pain. I would want medical treatment on someone I loved though,(not myself again however) so I am not really sure on that one, IF it was on a personal level. Logically though, it's not really "good" to keep people alive who should have died or not ever have been born, IMHO.


So, EVEN IF the kyd does something deemed to "change the world for the better", which is HIGHLY unlikely it will do much at all much less save the world, doubts remain of the importance or "good" of such an accomplishment. Basically, I think there should be no more humans allowed to born for a number of years and that the ones currently here need to focus on making the quality of life for those who are already alive and useful, better. I think that all of the money spent on useless retards born at 6 months gestation, for that infamous "price of a cup of coffee kyds" in terd world countries, and on fertility treatments, SHOULD be spent on helping people with mobility problems but who are otherwise useful people, care for our elderly, basic comforts like heating in the winter and cooling in the summer, and keeping people out of pain. I think people who insist on living on welfare should be given the entire state of Alaska to do so and they should be barricaded within it's perimeters. If some do gooders want to toss some food over the fence on occasion, it should be on THEIR dime. We can fling prisoners and other useless people because of their own choices over there as well. Then Palin and all of her kyds and grandpups can be the designated Grand Poo Pahs.

If you want to change the world volunteer, donate money, help an elderly neighbor with a chore, or just be kinder to people. Having a kid is just causing more strain on the economy and enviroment.
Plus most peoples kids are just as dumb as the parents. So unless your kid is pushing for an Idiocracy ( watch the movie) lifestyle, chances are they will just be a average or below average.

married with rabbits Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This makes me think about growing grain to feed it
> to cattle to slaughter the cattle and thus feed
> less people than if you just fed people with grain
> in the first place. Having a child is like having
> a huge and expensive middle man when one has a
> child for the reason mentioned in this thread.
>
>


Yes, we could eliminate fish and meat and go veggie for the majority of our meals. We could stop making beer from barley and feed people.
You know what happens though when you do? (see signature).
All they do is breed and breed until the number of f-trophys outstrips the gains made by forcing vegegarianism on everyone.
Therefore, I will enjoy a good steak, chicken breast, and fish while I can.

married with rabbits Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two Cents, I wasn't touting the benefits of
> vegetarianism or even the concept of feeding the
> third world. I was making a comparison. I learned
> in Anthropology that some cultures cut out meat
> for that reason because they could make more
> happen with the grain.
>
> When people say they'll birth a child to save the
> world instead of doing it themselves, that's what
> it makes me think of. The grain would be their own
> abilities but they give it all to their kids, who
> are the cattle. In the end the kid doesn't really
> pan out and do that much. If the parents had just
> used their abilities (grain) in the first place
> they could do some good in the world.


I think that analogy makes sense. It's kind of like the "who will take care of you when you are old" bingo paradox. If they were able to plunk the money they would save from financing a worthless KYD into investments or savings, they would have PLENTY of money to pay professionals to take care of them when they are old, if necessary. They would also likely be more healthy and less likely to NEED anyone to "take care of them".

At the risk of sounding a little like a heretic on this board, one reason I switched from working full-time to part-time 7 years ago was so I could do some volunteer work in some area schools. This is with the local school Scrabble program. Ironically, I preferred this to playing in adult tournaments because I disliked more and more some of the adults who ran and played in the local tournaments. It was far more gratifying to work with these kyds (ages 10-14), kyds who were eager to learn from me, kyds who were well-behaved, kyds who were smart and clever.

I have been running school Scrabble tourneys since 2005 and the kyds love it. When you are working with the upper echelon of kyds, they are not so bad. But of course, even though I don't want kyds of my own, being with them for an hour here and there or a day here and there, with teacher/coaches to make sure they behave well (that is their job and they do it well), is enjoyable for me. I have trophies and hand-written letters from them (all with good spelling and grammar, of course) which I liked receiving.

I don't know if any of them will "change the world" but they surely have a better chance than 99% of the others who are floundering around.

I think that's great deegee. I taught private piano lessons several years back (part time) and had two (out of 12) VERY intelligent and talented students ages 7 and 11. They practiced, had good manners, and made me look good by scoring superior ratings in state competitions. I don't have a problem with kids themselves, at least not with the smart and polite ones, it's their BREEDER PARENTS that I hate. I have noticed though that in general, kids of PNB tend to be the "good" kids. When I see/smell a shit filled diaper or a kyd licking ketchup bottles at a restaurant, my first thought is, "They must have some REALLY shitty breeders for parents".

The sad truth is, most children are normal or below normal in intelligence. Most being raised now are being raised to think that they are the centre of the fucking universe. How that is going to translate into "making the world a better place", I haven't the foggiest.

I agree that if these people really want to make the world a better place, they will support organisation and volunteer when and where they can to achieve this goal. Having another mouth to feed is not the way to make the world a better place.

At the risk of being a bit off-topic, here goes...

As a former high school math teacher, it really bothered me how much public schools catered to the below average kids.

It was a joy to teach AP Calculus to bright and motivated kids who wanted to learn, and I regularly looked forward to sharing forty minutes of my day with these interested, witty, and respectful young adults. My experiences with these intelligent kids mirrored those of earlier posters.

But I have to agree with Merlyn, the overwhelming majority of the kids I worked with were average or below. We had kids (that were not identified as special ed) that took two or three years to get through a first year algebra course, the graduation requirement at the time. There was pressure from admin to get these unmotivated kids to pass the exams, and a great deal of effort was spent trying to devise ways to get them through, from after school review classes (they didn't show up,) to individual remediation during the day (they were resentful they weren't allowed to sleep or socialize.)

I will sidestep the whole issue of the perceived elitism of Advanced Placement courses, but what seems to be the current trend is that teachers are expected to do more so that kids can do less. Some parents love to use the excuse that their kid is failing because they don't find the class "interesting (read: entertaining) enough." Our schools are producing a generation of passive learners that are unwilling to expend the tiniest amount of effort or take any personal responsibility for their own learning. Obviously a product of watching endless amounts of television, these kids expect to be entertained for the entire school day and are missing the bigger point that learning is it's own reward.

Perhaps if we made education a privilege instead of a right there would be more value placed on education in today's society.

That may be a major point: these kids cannot do anything unless they are stimulated. They are so raised on hype, hollywood type action that anything as mundane as rote learning (like the multiplication tables most of us had to learn in ages past) is a total turn off. (but absolutely necessary).
Why the hell do kids need computers to learn anyway? No wonder they are incompetent.

two cents ¢¢ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That may be a major point: these kids cannot do
> anything unless they are stimulated. They are so
> raised on hype, hollywood type action that
> anything as mundane as rote learning (like the
> multiplication tables most of us had to learn in
> ages past) is a total turn off. (but absolutely
> necessary).
> Why the hell do kids need computers to learn
> anyway? No wonder they are incompetent.


I agree whole heartedly. I have noticed a big difference in the attention span of kyds in the last ten years or so. There is NO WAY they could watch 30 minutes of a classic movie because they are too lazy to wait on the characters to be introduced and the plot to be developed. They want flashbacks. fast forwards, and everything explained away in a second. The ONLY reason that some recent psychological thrillers have been popular at all is because they toss in some special effects and violence here and there to keep the groundling's attention. If it doesn't have glitz, action, and stunning special effects, then they are too damned lazy (and perhaps stupid) to pay attention long enough to actually listen.

I HATE to be watching a movie which requires patience and intelligence to understand and some dimwit kyd's mind wanders off and back in every 20 minutes and says, "WHAT HAPPENED?", but that's only after something flashy or violent happens and recaptures their attention. THEN they want me to pause it and explain everything because they are WAY to impatient and lazy to actually pay attention. This is a HUGE sign of low mentality, but they just about all want to be spoon fed everything.

Oh god...I know a mouth breathing, couch slumping 4 year old who started playing video games when he was 3. His parents and most of our friends think it's adorable, and certainly a sign of superior intelligence, because he understands and plays them soo well, and 3/4 year olds aren't supposed to do that, right? Riiiiiight...lessee what else this "superior" child's accomplishments are...
still not potty trained
can't understand a word he says
doesn't play well with other children
can't read a single word
unimaginative without an ounce of creativity

I only visit these people once a year now, and never ever engage in conversation with them about anything more than "hows the weather?" as their glorification of stupidity, and the alphamale attitude of the father makes me sick. Oh, and they just made another....great, more shallow idiots.

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me

At the risk of sounding curmudgeonly, I notice these little asshats know everything about modern technology but try to get them to sit down and write coherently abou5 something...lost cause!

I know that ifg I had kids they would have limited TV and absolutely NO computer or video game time. This shit is why kids today have nearly zilch attention spans.

Well, at the risk of sounding curmudgeonly, I notice these little asshats know everything about modern technology but try to get them to sit down and write coherently abou5 something...lost cause!

I know that ifg I had kids they would have limited TV and absolutely NO computer or video game time. This shit is why kids today have nearly zilch attention spans.