• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Babies - what's the big deal?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
So, does anyone have a reason that isn't based on:...
Click to expand...
See my first post. I'll link the important part again. Please see here.

Children directly or indirectly meet virtually all of those needs. You are helping others, you get personal growth and self-fulfilment. You get balance in your life, and few would deny that they bring some form of beauty. They can give meaning to your life and if you raise them right they can bring you a lot of knowledge. Children certainly help with achievement of goals (for some people) as well as responsibility and the potential for status. There is no denying that they meet your needs for family, affection, and relationships. They may bring security or shelter in older life, but no one should expect it.

Maybe for you, you don't have each of those needs. Or maybe a baby won't meet some of them for you. For example, you don't yet have a goal of having a child, so a child won't meet a non-existant goal. But, even then, a child will meet many other needs that you might not even know you have.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with your assessment here to a certain extent. If you are having kids simply for self-fulfilment and personal balance in your life, those are the wrong reasons to have them. You should be having kids for the reason of bringing someone into society that is going to make it a better place to live for others.

I bolded the last part which was a complete flip/flop over what you said earlier.
 
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
So, the sister of a friend of mine just had a kid. My friend is babysitting it most days. The thing is just a few months old, and does nothing but scream, shit, and projectile-vomit. However, every time I see her (or anyone else who's there) with the kid, everyone can't stop going on about how incredibly awesome the thing is. Even when someone's holding it and it regurgitates half-digested mammary-milk onto their shoulder, the reaction is "AWWW, BABY ARE YOU OK? YOU SO CUTE OMG I LOVE TEH BABY."

Seriously, why would anyone ever choose to create one of these monstrosities? They're completely useless, and are just a crapload of work to maintain. Not only that, but you're responsible for them for the next EIGHTEEN YEARS, more if you're unlucky! Let's not also forget that almost as soon as they can control their own bodily functions and not need you to scrub the poop from their ass, they become angsty, hormone-infused teenagers that hate their parents and spend their days trying to catch std's and make more of their kind.

Honestly, with nearly 7 billion people on the planet, why is each new baby greeted with trumpets and confetti? Why not adopt a kid that's already here but doesn't have parents? Why not donate the million you're going to spend raising your own useless pile of walking flesh to a charity which improves the lives of kids already here?

The other day I suggested to my friend and a couple other people that a perfect baby play-pen would be a plywood box with a dog bed in it. Or even just a big laundry basket with a dog bed in it. And the reaction I got was like... violently angry. But how is a dog bed in a laundry basket different than what's sold at Babies 'R Us, other than the psychedelic decorations and an extra $100?
Click to expand...

The irony of this daitribe is that the writer was once one of those useless poop machines. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Could still be one for all we know 😛
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Nightfall
Lets break it down again.
Click to expand...
There is a difference there that you are incapable of understanding. I see no benefit to me in explaining it further.
Click to expand...
Nice flip/flop by the way.

You don't need to sound elitist about it. If you make a mistake, then don't try to flip/flop around it. Just admit it and move on.
 
Originally posted by: Nightfall
You don't need to sound elitist about it. If you make a mistake, then don't try to flip/flop around it. Just admit it and move on.
Click to expand...
There is a difference there that you are incapable of understanding. Just admit your limits and move on.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Nightfall
You don't need to sound elitist about it. If you make a mistake, then don't try to flip/flop around it. Just admit it and move on.
Click to expand...
There is a difference there that you are incapable of understanding. Just admit your limits and move on.
Click to expand...
The only difference I see here is your indifference to admit you were wrong. Whatever....
 
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Then we could all die old and lonely with no legacy to leave behind?

Sounds...fun. 😕
Click to expand...

If the point of life is happiness, then why don't we sell heroin at wal-mart?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that if heroin were legal you could buy it at walmart.

What is the point of life if it isn't happiness?
 
Terror Managment Theory:

The idea that making children gives you "meaning" and "purpose" is BS for the following reason:

People derive meaning only insofar as that it evades the reality of death - the anihalation of everything that is you. Fear of death is averted through child rearing because because "something about me continues to live on" a metaphorical imortality.

Unfortunatly this is entirely a delusion, like heaven\hell, god, culture self esteem etc.

Having children is pointless, your death is pointless, so stop worrying about it and enjoy life.
 
Originally posted by: ixelion
Terror Managment Theory:

The idea that making children gives you "meaning" and "purpose" is BS for the following reason:

People derive meaning only insofar as that it evades the reality of death - the anihalation of everything that is you. Fear of death is averted through child rearing because because "something about me continues to live on" a metaphorical imortality.

Unfortunatly this is entirely a delusion, like heaven\hell, god, culture self esteem etc.

Having children is pointless, your death is pointless, so stop worrying about it and enjoy life.
Click to expand...

Take it one step further: life itself is utterly pointless. The Earth gets nothing out of it... but oh well, we're here now, so might as well make the best of what's been given to us.

The urge to have children is both instinct and ingrained through modern life.
Firstly, instinct is well... obvious. That's how a species survives. Males want the species to survive just as much as the females, but the females are prized while the men and praised but ultimately there for one reason: security of strength and to be the one to help get the process going. We are the brutes, the one who provides animals to eat for the family, while the females would have been the ones who raised the young and were the gatherers. Of course, that is from instinct due to the early lives of primates and humans specifically.

But the modern life aspect. We have family names. We have genetic lines that are common to all in the family. Pride in heritage, ancestry, and ethnicity provide additional backing to the genetics concept. But essentially, this provides males an additional urge to mate, so they can continue the family line.
Me? My ancestry actually dates back to the Founding Fathers. I find I am actually quite like that specific man in terms of beliefs and wisdom, but he was blood family, not direct lineage though (he was the brother of my direct lineage).
But that, coupled with I am now the only male capable of having kids in my family (at least my half, bearing the family name), I feel pressure, all created by me and from no external sources, to have a male child so as to allow the bloodline and family name to live on.
 
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

I'm sure that if heroin were legal you could buy it at walmart.

What is the point of life if it isn't happiness?
Click to expand...

Well, happiness can't even be an option, because then heroin would be legal, right?
 
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Promise us OP that you will get a vasectomy .
Click to expand...

I promise I will not attempt to propagate my genes, which have the diabolical capacity to endow a human with the ability to see beyond his or her sex organs.
 
Obviously I am late to this gem.

I love the earnest advice and admonishments you got, Paperclip. Awesome rant! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

(note to some of you here at ATOT, you suck at sarcasm and BS)
 
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

I'm sure that if heroin were legal you could buy it at walmart.

What is the point of life if it isn't happiness?
Click to expand...

Well, happiness can't even be an option, because then heroin would be legal, right?
Click to expand...

So, the only way for man to be truly happy is to be on heroin? 😕

Your logic is...illogical.
 
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Promise us OP that you will get a vasectomy .
Click to expand...

I promise I will not attempt to propagate my genes, which have the diabolical capacity to endow a human with the ability to see beyond his or her sex organs.
Click to expand...

We can only hope. :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: MrMatt
It's funny, there was this study done taking baseline self-reported happiness measures of couples before they had kids, and then after their first child. The researchers figured happiness ratings would go up after...it actually plummeted.
Click to expand...

We didn't evolve to raise children in this weird void (at least from what I can tell here in the U.S.) that we currently do. We evolved to raise children from within a tribal/village support group. The men would hang out, the women would hang out, the children would hang out. Everyone is supposed to help out the tribe unit, evolutionarily.

Maybe our current nuclear family/child-rearing patterns are detrimental to the happiness of a couple with a new child? Just thinking out loud.
 
Originally posted by: ruu
Originally posted by: MrMatt
It's funny, there was this study done taking baseline self-reported happiness measures of couples before they had kids, and then after their first child. The researchers figured happiness ratings would go up after...it actually plummeted.
Click to expand...

We didn't evolve to raise children in this weird void (at least from what I can tell here in the U.S.) that we currently do. We evolved to raise children from within a tribal/village support group. The men would hang out, the women would hang out, the children would hang out. Everyone is supposed to help out the tribe unit, evolutionarily.

Maybe our current nuclear family/child-rearing patterns are detrimental to the happiness of a couple with a new child? Just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...

But we've been moving steadily in that direction for centuries, which would imply, to me at least, that smaller family units are more successful at proliferation than larger ones. So proliferation trumps happiness? That wold support the theory that biological/societal pressure is really the driver behind people's decision to reproduce. 😉

Also just thinking out loud...
 
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: ruu
Originally posted by: MrMatt
It's funny, there was this study done taking baseline self-reported happiness measures of couples before they had kids, and then after their first child. The researchers figured happiness ratings would go up after...it actually plummeted.
Click to expand...

We didn't evolve to raise children in this weird void (at least from what I can tell here in the U.S.) that we currently do. We evolved to raise children from within a tribal/village support group. The men would hang out, the women would hang out, the children would hang out. Everyone is supposed to help out the tribe unit, evolutionarily.

Maybe our current nuclear family/child-rearing patterns are detrimental to the happiness of a couple with a new child? Just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...

But we've been moving steadily in that direction for centuries, which would imply, to me at least, that smaller family units are more successful at proliferation than larger ones. So proliferation trumps happiness? That wold support the theory that biological/societal pressure is really the driver behind people's decision to reproduce. 😉

Also just thinking out loud...
Click to expand...

I think we are just succumbing to the pressure of society and our own selfishness to horde material goods and wealth. Having two normal paying jobs and wanting nice things + kids just isn't a winning combination for many households. You either cut down on the shiny trinkets or you cut down on the kids. The more kids you have, the less trinkets you acquire or the less time you can devote to your job...which in turn yields you less money for toys and retirement funds.

For many households, kids and personal wealth goals usually are incompatible. There are compromises to be made. The last few generations have been bombarded with the idea that you have to BUY BUY BUY!!! to be worth anything. Paying for diapers, daycare, and college funds is a direct threat to that mentality.

Same thing with basic living arrangements. Not counting the recent adjustment to home rates, simply living in a "desirable" home took two incomes. Having kids either costs an income, or costs you in daycare bills, both of which minimize your buying power.

As costs for things continue to increase, having kids gets to be more and more of a choice between paying for them and paying for stuff you want to buy. It's a squeeze play that's been in effect for 30 years now.

I don't buy that it's something "centuries" in the making. Even two or three generations ago having very large families wasn't uncommon and frowned on. Nowdays, anything more than three is considered a herd.
 
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
So, the only way for man to be truly happy is to be on heroin? 😕

Your logic is...illogical.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's not the only way to be happy... but it's a way to stay consistently happy. I suppose any popular recreational drug would work, though. If the point of life is happiness, then why are drugs bad - they keep us happy all the time. Living life without some sort of opiate makes you vulnerable to unhappy things.

e.g., when people are dying of cancer, we pump massive amounts of morphine into them - why? because we want them to be free of pain and unhappiness for their last hours.
 
Originally posted by: ggnl
Originally posted by: ruu
Originally posted by: MrMatt
It's funny, there was this study done taking baseline self-reported happiness measures of couples before they had kids, and then after their first child. The researchers figured happiness ratings would go up after...it actually plummeted.
Click to expand...

We didn't evolve to raise children in this weird void (at least from what I can tell here in the U.S.) that we currently do. We evolved to raise children from within a tribal/village support group. The men would hang out, the women would hang out, the children would hang out. Everyone is supposed to help out the tribe unit, evolutionarily.

Maybe our current nuclear family/child-rearing patterns are detrimental to the happiness of a couple with a new child? Just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...

But we've been moving steadily in that direction for centuries, which would imply, to me at least, that smaller family units are more successful at proliferation than larger ones. So proliferation trumps happiness? That wold support the theory that biological/societal pressure is really the driver behind people's decision to reproduce. 😉

Also just thinking out loud...
Click to expand...

Actually, now that you mention it, proliferation absolutely trumps happiness---or at least the well-being of the reproducing individual---with respect to biological adaptation. Species will strive to reproduce before they will strive to ensure the individual's own well-being; it's why lots of species massively reproduce and then die afterward---the manner of reproduction that said species has worked out is the most beneficial way of perpetuating their genes onto the next generation.

Perpetuation > health of the individual

...what does that imply about human children, then? Hmm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top