No, the act of raising a kid itself gives people purpose, so it's not a pyramid scheme by any means, but let's not let facts come in the way of a zinger of a one-liner I guess?
It is perhaps a pyramid scheme if you look at it in a certain way. Which doesn’t mean it is bad (unless you are anti-natalist). It’s just funny that it can be conceptualized like that.
You spend 20–40 years trying various things, living for yourself, finding nothing that sticks. Apparently being an idiot, but you’re just inexperienced. There’s some hole in your life. Then you have kids. Aha! It makes sense. Living for others! This is it! The irony being that now those people-you-live-for have to go through the same process, where 1/3 to half their life they spend in that apparently meaningless phase where they haven’t found their purpose yet.
This is totally void if you are the kind of person who cruised by and was happy without children but then the transition to having children made total sense as well.
it is, just like everything else, a manufactured purpose used to paper over the normal state of existential dread. just happens to be the one that most people default on.
I personally don't want to have a kid of my own blood. But I want to adopt one or two and maybe foster a few IF I become financially capable, which is probably a decade or so away.
I do believe that having a kid of your own in this day and age (esp. when you are working day job and depending on that job for healthcare, housing, etc.) is unfair for the kid who will join you in your life. Sure you'll love him/her, but the reality is the kid will have to grind (again, assuming that you are not a multi-millionaire) when s/he reaches certain age. The best use of our resources, when we accumulate a good amount of wealth to sustain ourselves and have a bit more extra to spare, is to adopt/foster or do something philanthropic entirely (so many homeless, sick, hungry people that you can help).
"The point" for me would not be spreading my genes. It would be to spread my parenting and resources.
Possibly an easier idea for me because several of my many siblings already have multiple children that could be swapped in to my childhood photos without anyone noticing. My genes are pretty well established.
What point does it defeat and why? I’m assuming that you’re talking about evolution here, where having your own kids rather than taking care of someone else’s have been adaptive, but that’s just like saying that the point of a large rock on a beach is to be so large as to not be swept into sea by the waves.
No, the act of raising a kid itself gives people purpose, so it's not a pyramid scheme by any means, but let's not let facts come in the way of a zinger of a one-liner I guess?
It is perhaps a pyramid scheme if you look at it in a certain way. Which doesn’t mean it is bad (unless you are anti-natalist). It’s just funny that it can be conceptualized like that.
You spend 20–40 years trying various things, living for yourself, finding nothing that sticks. Apparently being an idiot, but you’re just inexperienced. There’s some hole in your life. Then you have kids. Aha! It makes sense. Living for others! This is it! The irony being that now those people-you-live-for have to go through the same process, where 1/3 to half their life they spend in that apparently meaningless phase where they haven’t found their purpose yet.
This is totally void if you are the kind of person who cruised by and was happy without children but then the transition to having children made total sense as well.
it is, just like everything else, a manufactured purpose used to paper over the normal state of existential dread. just happens to be the one that most people default on.
What do your kids do then when they start looking for their purpose in life? Have more kids? Lol Your coming in aggressive though
They will be independent humans who can choose the find it the way they want, including by having kids of their own if that works for them.
1 reply →
It was a humor-joke.
A unique (and IMO, correct) way to put it.
I personally don't want to have a kid of my own blood. But I want to adopt one or two and maybe foster a few IF I become financially capable, which is probably a decade or so away.
I do believe that having a kid of your own in this day and age (esp. when you are working day job and depending on that job for healthcare, housing, etc.) is unfair for the kid who will join you in your life. Sure you'll love him/her, but the reality is the kid will have to grind (again, assuming that you are not a multi-millionaire) when s/he reaches certain age. The best use of our resources, when we accumulate a good amount of wealth to sustain ourselves and have a bit more extra to spare, is to adopt/foster or do something philanthropic entirely (so many homeless, sick, hungry people that you can help).
>don't want to have a kid of my own blood. But I want to adopt
Can you elaborate? This is totally alien to me. It basically defeats the point. There must be some monstrous self-loathing involved?
It’s not necessarily self-loathing to accept that you have genes you don’t want to pass on, but still want to have a child.
"The point" for me would not be spreading my genes. It would be to spread my parenting and resources.
Possibly an easier idea for me because several of my many siblings already have multiple children that could be swapped in to my childhood photos without anyone noticing. My genes are pretty well established.
1 reply →
What point does it defeat and why? I’m assuming that you’re talking about evolution here, where having your own kids rather than taking care of someone else’s have been adaptive, but that’s just like saying that the point of a large rock on a beach is to be so large as to not be swept into sea by the waves.
If you meant something else, please clarify!
No understanding it to me points out a monstrous narcissistic complex in you.
While I can understand not wanting to have a kid of your own blood very easy for many different reasons
That’s humanity for you
you're getting downvoted, but know that you are correct.