coineineagh:

Even my MIL called her grandsons Za Zhong (hybrid breedbastard), and she loves them. Going through family life in China can be frustrating, but the ordeal causes us to pull together. It's like 2 barons fighting over a plot of land, then being invaded by a foreign nation: First work together to beat back the outsiders, then we'll deal with our issues at a later point. After a while, those differences are practically forgotten, because we are so used to working together. My wife and I are very different people, who probably would have separated long before we had children, if it wasn't for the challenges that brought us together in China.

silverbutton1:

Coin...interesting story. May the new year, and subsequent years bring you and your family continued prosperity. 

WooMow:

http://www.smartshanghai.com/wire/nightlife/metal-rumors-acdc-iron-maiden-metallica-and-more-for-shanghai

AC/DC might actually make an appearance

Englteachted:

". When I was single, I changed girlfriends every quarter. Now, not so much."

Yeah, now that I'm married I rarely change girlfriends. 

RobRocks:

good answer man

very honest

JanShanghai:

You hit the nail on the head.  Thanks for the detailed post that people need to hear!!

coineineagh:

Your post is well reasoned, and I respect your views. At least, I would respect them if not-having-children was one of a number of activities and sacrifices you are making to improve the environment, because that may actually achieve something good. But you are most likely procrastinating, in the comfort of your air-conditioned apartment as you eat packaged food. Perhaps I may have shared your views at one point. However, you are making an emotional argument to not try, based on all the bad things your predecessors and other humans have done to the world. I believe it's a self-defeating fallacy; I'd compare it to giving up on the concept of engines altogether because cars pollute too much. Humans have made the same decision (to not have children based on the state of society) throughout history, even before the concept of pollution existed. The only constant is the emotions of the people who draw these conclusions, so slap yourself in the face and tell yourself to stop being such a nihilist. So many things that are good in the world also stem from us, to use your examples: strong, courageous, ethical, confident, wise, witty, knowledgeable, decisive, talented. We portray lions as noble beasts, but there is little nobility in nature, and the kings of old would not have been impressed if they went on a safari and saw the males basking lazily as the females did the hunting, picking off young baby antelopes instead of facing an adult prey, being scared away from their prize by packs of hunchbacked, yipping hyenas and stealing a carrion carcass from a vulture to check for anything edible. I believe we are intelligent *animals* struggling to lift ourselves up to civilized levels. A century ago, people would refuse to have babies because they lamented the constant meatgrinder of war; now we face polluting consumer capitalism as our major vice, but I have no doubt the human race will survive and learn. So much good things are tied to the human experience, and by ending your bloodline, you are cutting off whatever contribution your experience may have had in the next generation. To call yourself more responsible than people who have children is Old Testament folly. "I have witnessed humankind and disapprove. I wash my hands of you all." Do you think your inaction is going to achieve anything? We all remember the childless cousins of Picasso, Einstein and Marie Curie for not trying because they were cross and disappointed at humankind. Nihilism is not a moral virtue, and inaction is not praiseworthy. What if someone came from the future and told you pollution is under control, but we are having trouble with virus epidemics? What if he told you he won't have children because the population is the cause of this virus threat? Would this change or reinforce your views? Can you see that the emotions are the only constant? Humankind is emergent, ever-changing and improving, but we can't eradicate feelings of disappointment and disapproval. That one's up to you.

mArtiAn:

I agree with so much of what you have to say, Brow, I truly do, but for all that I am left with one nagging question for which I can find no satisfactory answer: if I didn't have kids, then who would fetch my beer when I'm watching the game? Huh? Who? Not easy is it?

Shining_brow:

@Martian - isn't that what the wife/girlfriend is for? :p

@ Coin... so, by your logic - humans should produce as many kids as they can - and don't worry about what humankind has done - and will do - to the planet. 7 billion now, 10 billion later, 50 billion in 200 years - meh, who cares??

You're using a logical fallacy yourself - the same one that people use when they choose not to vote -  my vote doesn't make much difference... The drop in the ocean fallacy.  However, if all those people who said that voted the same way, there'd be a HUGE difference! All those drops equal an ocean.

Secondly - humanity needs a culling! You say humans are fantastic... I say, a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE are fantastic. The rest are ignorant morons who make virtually not contribution of any real value. Not having them would make the world a better place on a number of levels

And, yes, choosing not to have kids is a very rational choice! And it's not merely based on emotion (certainly MUCH less so than choosing to have kids!) Answer me this - please provide one GOOD reason to have children... just one. (by 'good', I mean one that is not based on personal desire (aka - ego)).

You're also confusing 'not having kids by choice' with some form of 'inaction'. And this is quite incorrect. I'm not worried about my 'bloodline', because I can have effects on other people! I DO have an effect on the next generation! I also have an effect on the current generation. And, depending on how long I live, I may yet have an effect on the generation after that. Will you suggest that Mdm Curie did NOT have an effect on all those generations that came after her? Or Einstein? Or PIcasso?

"What if someone came from the future...?" - ok, you'd rather stack your deck with a 'what if', rather than acknowledge 'what is'. I prefer certainty (relative) to blind hope! Humanity (rather odd word, when you think about what humans do, and its other meaning) is heading for HUGE problems, which we've been able to see for a long time - but most have just ignored, or said things will get better. Our current actions ARE heading for a global disaster. It MIGHT be averted by some straight thinking people who force actions upon us... but, most people, in their right minds, would put money on the certainty, not risk the lives of people on a 'might'.

Q: how much would you bet that the air quality in Beijing will be better in 10 years? 100RMB? 1000? !0, 000? Your house?... would you be willing to bet the life of your child??

coineineagh:

By my logic… which must obviously be the opposite of yours then. Black/white thinking at its finest. I agree with most of your concerns as I already stated, but you are conflating issues. By not having children, the partner you may have married will have children with another. And those children will never know your values. Your plan to reduce pollution by not procreating is just as likely to back fire as it is to make a difference. Anyway, you reverted to the age-old "too-many-people-something-must-be-done" reasoning, which definitely portrays you as nihilistic rather than results-oriented. It reminds me of a Futurama episode: "We fixed global warming by dropping a giant block of ice into the seas, solving the problem once and for all." "eh…but…" "ONCE AND FOR ALL!" Culling the human population is your solution to exponential population growth? Will that leave behind better people? I had the 2manyPPL discussion many times before, but my google results turned up nothing. I can't be bothered to write it all again for you. And FYI, just because I used the words "what if" does not mean my argument is automatically fallacious. But the words "bet the life of your child" definitely indicate a fallacious emotional appeal. I studied Evolutionary Biology for 6 years at university, and I'm usually on the other side of this debate against conservatives, supporting climate awareness. But when views like "procreating is the problem" and "culling excess humans" come into play, I guess I'm a pro-lifer. You did a boo-boo. I respect your life choice and where it came from, but claiming moral high ground based on non-procreation is pretentious.

mArtiAn:

The wife is out working, silly. Someone has to keep me in the style I've become accustomed to. In all seriousness I've got to side with Coin here though, and not because I've got kids either, if I'd had my way we'd have adopted (no sense baking a cake when they're giving them away at the store) but no, the missus had other plans and I try not to overthink things. Sounds like you've been watching some Bill Burr with some of the views you expressed. Who's to say who contributes more than who? Or whom? You ever see Forest Gump? Kind of the message right there. A seemingly insignificant person may cause and effect changes way beyond his comprehension. Who's to decide which of us is worthy of continuing their bloodline? As for a culling, I agree with Sting, one world is enough for all of us. Bleugh...I just threw up in my mouth a little.

coineineagh:

Ah, I could find a rebuttal I once wrote to the kill-people argument: This is a thing China shares with Japan. Nihilism about its own population. Rather than improve themselves to make life more livable, be considerate of others on the streets, noise pollution, social trust and services, people prefer to throw their hands in the air, cop out and declare the situation unsolvable due to "overpopulation". How many Chinese could live in China 1000 years ago, with the farming techniques, infrastructure and technology of the time? Fewer, a LOT fewer than are alive today. 1000 years before? Even fewer. Same goes everywhere in the world. Populations grow, and they wouldn't if there wasn't the means in existence to sustain them. Perhaps Chinese populations are closer to the current carrying capacity of the land than 'lets-feed-these-farming-subsidised-strawberries-to-the-cows-to-keep-prices-high' Europe, but definitely not starving due to lack of resources. Yes, there is localized starvation, but it's compensated by growth elsewhere, and this is more a product of bureaucratic inefficiency and unequal distribution of resources, which is a socio-political matter, not a population demographic one. There is room for billions more on planet Earth right now, and given time there we'll have the ability to sustain tens of billions more. If your social-philosophical musings start out with a baited question of population, inexorably leading to the presupposed conclusion that the only way to solve things is to "reduce population", then you are not thinking straight. Genocide is a patchwork; a temporary solution to an ongoing issue that leaders are too shortsighted to address effectively. Don't be a genocidal nihilist; try to be patient. People have been panicking about overpopulation since the beginning of history, and all it has led to is advancement in warfare technology. I don't like the thought of becoming part of this shoddy patchwork solution offered up by shallow minds, and you don't want to get killed either, I assume. You and I may not have all the answers, but we can at least encourage the development of more humane solutions: Pension plans, education, expanding job-creating service industries, environmental actions (conservation jobs?), improving social capital by engendering good behaviour and trust in yourself and others. It's really not that hard to do.

silverbutton1:

Brow, I respect your comment/answer, but I dont agree with it. Sure, adults having children is a choice all must make. You dont wish to have any children, and of course me, along with many others are fine with that. Thats your own personal choice, and your business. But to scold others for doing so is not warranted. You are strong arming your position with a "nobody should have children, period"  attitude, and justifying it with "the world has a global population problem" for added extra effect. Personally, and its my educated opinion, there is NO global population problem. The problem humanity faces is at the top where the true decisions are made in regards to where humanity goes, and what humanity does.

In effect, what Im trying to say is that the  planet is being grossly mismanaged at the global level by the global elite. This mismanagement covers a broad spectrum of areas of the current modern human civilization. [I base my opinion on years of reading various books/documents/etc, and watching numerous documentaries, etc.] 

Shining_brow:

I hate when Firefox crashes after 3/4 through a reply... (or 90%).

Firstly - "I agree with most of your concerns as I already stated," No, actually, you didn't state that at all!

Which is important, because in all of your replies here, you seem to have completely missed my point!

Your 'concerns' are mostly about 'how will humanity fix itself?' or "how can we survive better?"

That's not my major concern (though, it is one).

My concern is the destruction we're doing to the planet.

From what I've read in your post, you seem to be of the opinion that humans are at the top of the chain, and sod everything else below us. It's irrelevant. It's not worth thinking about. It's not worth addressing (because, after all, you didn't!)

The problem with over-populations isn't that there are too many people. This would be fine - if it had no other consequences! But it DOES have consequences.

I'm a believer in letting people hit the bottom, so they can push themselves up. Thats' fine when it only affects them, and those who choose to hang around them.

But humanity's problems affect others - often referred to as 'nature'.

As a biology student, I'm sure you are aware of the rough estimate on the number of species of animals (don't know about plants...) go extinct every year directly due to the actions of humans.

From, Wiki "As of 2014, there are 2464 animals and 2104 plants with this assessment, compared with 1998 levels of 854 and 909, respectively" ("this assessment" is 'Critically Endangered')

Does having more humans on the planet kill more species? Well, quite clearly - yes!

Will culling of humans (which, btw, is NOT my only thoughts on the matter) bring them back? Well, not - not in and of itself (If, however, we have some brilliant minds out there who will be replicate some DNA, and we can Jurassic Park them back to life...!!!)

Will having less humans reduce the number of species going extinct every year... well, yes! (if there are less humans, there is less need to produce items they want, leading to less factories to make them, leading to less pollution, leading to less extinctions from pollution).

Your argument seems to be - the 'survival' and proliferation of one species is vastly more important than the survival and proliferation of...??? (lowball - 200 species go extinct due to human activities every year... high ball - maybe 10,000). Again, these are only the animals.

You suggest - "be patient"... for how long? 5 years? 10? 50? 100? Maybe 1000 years.???

You do the math - how many species will we have caused to go extinct if we lose (say) 500 species every year - if it takes 1000 years for humans to get its act together.

You seem to think it's worth it.

I don't!

As I also just mentioned, (and thought I had indicated in my first post - but you seem to have missed it) - 'culling' is NOT my only solution.

The traits I mentioned - you say "come from humans" - show me those people who exhibit those traits... please! I choose not to have kids because, at this moment in time, I don't exhibit all of those traits sufficiently - sufficiently to be able to ensure that any children I have will actually have them themselves. I think they are important traits - essential traits to being a good being.  I also know that the majority of the world don't see them as being all that valuable. Nice to have, perhaps, but definitely not 'essential'. Do you??

My focus, my intention - is not just to have a humanity that survives and proliferates (which appears to be your focus). My focus is about a humanity that shows it is worthy of life (with the traits I mentioned, and more), and can live in relative harmony with 'nature' - with the rest of the planet, with other species. These are not new ideas or ideals. They've been around for ... well, as long as humanity has been around! At some points in human history, there have been groups that have shown this. Do the majority of the current 7 billion? No.

"What if"... perhaps not 'fallacious', but certainly invalid!

"Your child"... no, actually, it's NOT an emotional appeal. It's a very logical appeal... Current population in Beijing? Approx 21 million. How many of them are kids? How much worse has the pollution in BJ been getting in the last 20 years? How much has this affected the health of people living in BJ? How has this affected the health of the kids? How many kids have died in BJ due to the pollution?

These people are all betting the lives of their kids that it will get better (or, at least, that it's not really as bad as we think, and that it will have no long term effects).

Either that - or they just don't give a damn about the health of their kids! (or themselves)

I know how important money and face is - but to be more important than the lives of the children that they brought into this world? Completely irresponsible!

The first responsibility of any parent is the health and well-being of the child. No???

So - your "what if someone comes back from the future" and says "Marty... we've got to do something.. it's not you - it's your kids!"

I ask you - what if someone came back from the future and said 'Humanity is doing great. Peaceful, loving, harmonious. No-one ever lies or cheats. Everything is total utopia However, we want to know if elephants were actually real. You see, as we were 'patiently' evolving and becoming more civilised, we also kept polluting throughout the rest of the 21st century, and decimating the rainforests and other habitats - directly, and through global warming - and in humanity's uncontrolled population growth, we wiped out millions of species... so, now, we've only got pictures of those animals".

No Coin - "what if" does not stack up against "what is".

The only solutions you offered were "Pension plans, education, expanding job-creating service industries, environmental actions (conservation jobs?), improving social capital by engendering good behaviour and trust in yourself and others. It's really not that hard to do."

Human problems - not global. What are the "results" of these solutions? And, more importantly, WHEN do we see the results of these solutions?

Please give me a solution that stops species going extinct NOW!I

I'll gladly take "pretentious" over "willfully ignorant" any day.

coineineagh:

It is indeed terrible, but committing seppuku to ease our conscience achieves nothing. You can't stop humanity even if you wanted. And it's all for naught, because this Earth has an estimated 500 million years left before the sun burns away all livable atmosphereand water. Will you bet your beloved pets' lives that Pandas have enough time to become sentient and spacefaring, so that the tarnished art gallery that is Nature's biodiversity, can be saved and transplanted elsewhere? But that would be unfair to any (potential) life that might exist on other planets, right? I heard that the world wars were great for the fish populations. Supporting the next rise of fascism would be your most ethical activity to combat mankind. I have to say your concerns are starting to look more aesthetic/emotional, and rationality is the side dish that adds flavour. Knock yourself out lamenting the milk we all spilled; I will join the despicable people who dare to try improve themselves, who refuse to admit it is hopeless.

Shining_brow:

I actually disagree with your perspective on this (as have many others including governments, religions, etc). At least, part of it (I agree with about the last 60% of what you wrote - mostly).

the perspective I disagree with is the idea that having kids (or not) is nobody's business but the 2 individuals themselves. - the 2 would-be parents.

Do you think the CCP was actually wrong to introduce the One-Child Policy? (not regarding implementation or other factors, and not for how long it lasted, etc - but just in general the concept that a government should have the power to tell individuals how many children they can have?)

Please, don't get me wrong here - I'm normally against government interventions in most things - especially regarding a person's private life. However, there are times when I think a government is far more capable and willing to look at a much bigger, broader picture than individuals usually want to... and that, really, is the purpose of government.

What might be ok for one person to have/do, may not be good for everyone to have/do.

Also, although I'm sure I've come across as scolding everyone who wants and has kids, that's not actually my viewpoint. I AM, however, going to scold people who just think "oh, let's have kids" without EVER thinking of things like "Am I going to be a good parent? how is this child going to turn out as a person, with me as a parent?Do I have what it takes to teach the right sort of things - personal, social, ethical, physical, etc - to this child who will grow up to be a person?"

Basically, when most people think about having kids, it's "can I afford it? Is now the right time for ME?" - without actually thinking about the upbringing and environment the child/person will be brought into.

I would like to think that most members of this board (with some notable exceptions...) would make great parents... the members of this board seem to actually THINK! To consider the world beyond themselves.

I'm sure you can look around at the world, and you'd easily be able to pick out people who you'd say "they should never become a parent" (even, or especially, if they already have). I also imagine you're be able to point out regions where you'd suggest limits should be placed on the numbers of children being born (and thus, interfering in a person's choice). The difference between when you do it, and when I do it, is the bar is at a different setting,

Global mismanagement by the elite - is allowed to continue by the rest of humanity. It's what war crimes trials tend to come down to - "I only did what I was told". (ie, not taking personal responsibility for one's actions, by passing the buck).