People who don't want kids (Page 2)

Posted by TheProphetProdigy

Posted by LostinmyMind11
Have kids in this day and age?...no thanks!!!

lol and I thought I was the bad guy by not wanting them.

click to expand

Nahhh...you don't always have to follow the "what people have deemed the norm"

Posted by cunninglinguist
Because there's no logical reason to have kids. If I can be convinced with logical reasons to breed, I'll breed.

But as it stands, I see only cons - financially, timewise, energywise, and pregnancy ruins ur body.

And I don't want to hear any sentimental nonsense reasons for having kids either....just rational benefits please.

Do your part to contribute to the continued overcrowding of the earth.

Force another sentient being to endure this life.

Provide another milk cow for the tax collector and/or soldier for the war monger.

I suppose I could go on, but surely those sublime reasons in support of breeding satisfy your request.

Problem is there isn't enough arable land on which to grow food for all of us. Fresh water is in short supply, too.

I asked myself why people would want kids very recently. I suppose everyone is different and has different reasons, but I can't come up with any logical reason for myself to want or have kids. I'm dating someone with a 3 and almost 5 year old and they are almost too much for me to handle. Albeit, I'm very young, but I don't see my view changing on this. I like his kids, but they are too demanding of attention and utterly exhausting. I feel myself being drained just thinking of being around them. I think about what he's missing out on, too. He can't go anywhere on the weekends because that's when he has the kids. He lost a lot of his friends during the first few years, too, because he just didn't have time for them. Now he has to deal with the mother of his children for the rest of his life even though he can't stand her anymore. That was he choice and he knew the consequences, so it's something he was willing to give up. For me, those aren't things I'm willing to give up. I'm not going to lie, I live for myself. I couldn't live for my kids. I'd still want to travel and do all these things. Kids aren't for me. But, kudos to those who can handle kids and those responsibilities. : )

Posted by OOOOOi
And i'm pretty sure we can feed everyone. If McDonalds can produce and discard food every hour, we definitely could feed everyone. It would just mean that people would have to accommodate other people and give up some "luxuries" in order to serve the rest of the population.

Do you think it reasonable to assume this will occur?

The sad part is when smart, educated people decide not to have kids, and the stupid irresponsible ones have a bunch...

Posted by ianthepisces

Posted by StoicGoat
Problem is there isn't enough arable land on which to grow food for all of us. Fresh water is in short supply, too.

i'm tapped into an aquifer...

close to an acre..

i water my lawn 12 hours a day...

plenty of room for a garden, and plenty of water..

like i said, life is good..

click to expand

There are a lot of qualifiers I could/should have added to that statement.

Currently, there's about one acre of arable land for each person on the earth. Conveniently, the subsistence level for humans is calculated to be just about one acre/person. Of course, subsistence would not permit you to water your lawn, as that is a luxury, but that's just noise. The problem is that arable land is decreasing by about 25 million acres/year. And Monsanto, even with all its evil genius, has so far failed to match this decline in availability with increases in productivity. It would be helpful if all of the bipeds didn't insist on living on top of each other in over crowded cities.

Posted by OOOOOi

Posted by StoicGoat

Posted by OOOOOi
And i'm pretty sure we can feed everyone. If McDonalds can produce and discard food every hour, we definitely could feed everyone. It would just mean that people would have to accommodate other people and give up some "luxuries" in order to serve the rest of the population.

Do you think it reasonable to assume this will occur?

That we can feed everyone? Yes. Definitely. Huge adjustments will be necessary for that to happen though. I don't think most people are ready for that though.

click to expand

I meant do you think it reasonable to assume that those who currently have more than the minimum necessary to survive will willingly surrender their excess so that others need no longer starve. History suggests not.

Assuming that ghosts do not occupy physical space, given their lack of volume and physical bodies, how could their population have a maximum capacity?

I think XY's home is overrun with ghosts and she was hoping no more would come to visit her. I burst her bubble be pointing out that a theoretically infinite number could be occupying her house right now.

*by

lol Some of them are almost certain to be friendly and have a good sense of humour.

In the instance I used it above, and in which you used it before me, capacity = quantity.

What are you doing letting ghosts hang out in your place without charging them rent?! My Capricornicity is greatly offended by this lack of pragmatism. Shame on you, cupcakes.

*sicks ghostly Scorpy hippies on cupcakes* There she goes!

Posted by SatoriFierce
Ghosts are free spirits, man. They can't be expected to take part in anything as bourgeois as rent-paying. 😛







I'm sorry, that was really bad, and it took me a long time to think of that too. 😭

Hey, points are awarded for the appropriate usage and spelling of bourgeois! 😛

Hmmm...how did the cupcakes come to be haunted? Or are they possessed?