I think I hear you and you're saying this -
......................................................................

.

You didn't do it for the child either. It is a selfish action of the parents' desires and beliefs. There is not one ethical, rational, selfless reason to bring a child into the world, that purely benefits the child. In your case, it benefited your wife, thus benefitting you (happy wife, happy you). The child, not existing, would have been just fine in non-existence.Arising_uk wrote:Er? No Bill, not sure what world you live in but making another happy is not generally considered a selfish act in mine. I can understand it is in yours as yours is all about you isn't it.Bill Wiltrack wrote:.So, in a word, your motivation was selfish.
No Bill, self-interest is a great motivator but selfishness can be counter-productive to this and interestingly enough what one decides is in ones self-interest may not necessarily be what one would like.That's not bad. Selfishness is what motivates us to do 99% of ALL our actions.
Save your false platitudes, I didn't do it for youWell done.
I am glad you reproduced.
Bill should subscribe to it since then he can carry on postingArising uk wrote:
Roll on the time when only mag subscribers can post here
Where did I say I did? But by-and-large I think existing probably better than not.Dalek Prime wrote:... You didn't do it for the child either. ...
What's selfish about it?It is a selfish action of the parents' desires and beliefs. ...
Apart from being alive as opposed to never existing that is.There is not one ethical, rational, selfless reason to bring a child into the world, that purely benefits the child. ...
Actually I think about it slightly differently, no-children, very unhappy childless women, unhappy me. But since what you say is what I said I take your point and find very little wrong with my position.In your case, it benefited your wife, thus benefitting you (happy wife, happy you). ...
No it wouldn't as there would have been no child being fine in non-existence.The child, not existing, would have been just fine in non-existence.
Who said it was a selfless act? Personally I think it a natural one and one that is pretty much the raison d'être of life, that it removed an unsuspected existential nag was a surprise to me but most welcome.I'm not berating you for your choice. But let's stop kidding ourselves about the selflessness of procreation. It's always about a child's utility, whether for the happiness of the parents, or the future of society when it grows up.
Of what, the commitment?Bill Wiltrack wrote:. Luck. Chance. I'd pull out... .

Really? Wow! Your wife is a saint if she's agreed not to have children because you want to be the only one in her life.Bill Wiltrack wrote:.Not a biological problem but more like a conscious choice. My wife is fine with whatever comes our way.
Not quite, as, for this male, having a child caused an unexpected release of an unsuspected existential angst about being alive, i.e. upon seeing my child I realised that dying was not so much an issue as a, if not the, point of living had just occurred. Now of course there was also the added impetus to live at least until one see's the child at the state where they can go off and live their own life.Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
Yeah, I know having a family is one of, if not, THE most important reasons to live.
Kicking what can down the road?But that is sort-of the focus of this thread. To question the kicking of the can down the road. Why?
Well one could be a Dawkinite about such things and say its because the gene is the unit of evolutionary selection and one is a composite of genes all clamouring to be reproduced. This would also explain why you feel so empty as your genes now 'realise' that they are spinning their processes for no good reason.Why do it?
Because your dick found a vagina?
So what? Apparently approximately 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct, why should we be any different....I don't know...I think the time for humans is on the wane..
Bill Wiltrack wrote:I think the time for humans is on the wane.[/size].
Yeah 'so what'? Who cares if you don't exist and have no knowledge of anything? Why waste your time being depressed?Arising_uk wrote:So what? Apparently approximately 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct, why should we be any different.