Theory: people without children have no stake in the future.

Sounds about right.

I was reading an article where Elon Musk was musing about limiting voting rights only to people who have children. I wouldn't go that far (and I suspect neither would Elon Musk, if it became more than a trivial mind experiment) ...but there is a solid point there. People who have no stake in the future are probably only voting based on what benefits themselves now.

And FTR I don't exactly have children. I have step children and step grandchildren now. But I do want children, and I want a world my stepchildren -and any bio children I may manage to have in the future- would enjoy living in.

I suspect there's a fair amount of people out there who arent voting -or living- with that in mind.

Personally I think the most gratifying world for adults would be the brutal hunter-gatherer lifestyle of our ancient ancestors. Hunting all day, fighting rival tribes, doing w/e the hell you want once you have good food and shelter for the forseeable future... but thats not a good lifestyle for raising children. That's why we built civilization. To raise better children. Without children in mind, civilization serves no real purpose. I don't expect people who don't procreate are particularly interested in preserving a world that benefits those that do.

 

You don't have to support just your own children to have a stake in the future.

 

I've always believed voting rights should belong to people who pay income taxes.

 

That's true. You can have a stake in the children of people you care about. But I don't think that translates well to strangers or 'the collective' whole. I also think there's a mindset shift that occurs once you have children of your own, ones that will carry on your genetic traits and your genetic memory into the distant future. Or so I've been told by people who have children, anyway....

 

Except that the theory is easily proven false by all the selfless contributions made to the world, to human society, by people who were childless.

 

Lets try and avoid the absolutism fallacy. Just because I didn't specifically say 'most people', lets just assume that we're both reasonable people who understand there's exceptions to every rule.

I'm speaking in general, not totality, since that apparently wasn't clear.

 

5 Fathers of Science who were Childless:

<Google Snip>
They took care of their parents, siblings and children of siblings, but their prime commitment remained towards the greater common good.


Nicolaus Copernicus. Father of Astronomy. ...


Isaac Newton. Father of Physics. ...


Nikola Tesla. Father of Radio. ...


Gregor Mendel. Father of Genetics. ...


Leonardo da Vinci.



https://lifestyletodaynews.com › home

 

Then what is the point of your thread? Are you advocating any difference in treatment between those with, and those without, children? And so your attitude would be, f**k the exceptions? I just made another post before this, listing 5 of the great fathers of human science, none of whom had kids.

But sure, they're not as important as those with children. What could those childless "exceptions" really have contributed? Look at the previous post, to find out.

 

Im not calling for any action. I'm open to ideas tho.

 

Sort of flies in the face of the whole "Christ as Savior" thingy since Christ had no children.

Empathy transcend the gamut of humans - and I do know of a number of parents who could really give a rat's ass about their kids or anyone else's kids.
Just to many exceptions on both sides to make too much of your theory.

 

While @Daniel Light 's post is in his typical nonchalant, slacker-sounding style, it also "sounds about right." That is, some people, by nature, feel empathy for, and a commitment to, our human family, while others-- not so much. Just having a kid, does not change those people whose orientation is all about "looking out for number one," into humanitarians (excepting the rare "exceptions," of course). Though it may seem logical that it should happen this way-- people aren't entirely logical.

 

Christ isn't recorded in the Bible as having had children. Doesn't mean he didn't... But assuming he didn't, we're all still the children of God, as was Christ, who was both God and the 'son of God', and incest jokes aside, that makes us all brothers/children of Christ.

And yes, having children doesn't necessarily imbue one with a vision for the future, just as not having children doesnt necessarily imbue one with only a care for the present. But I think it makes it far more likely.

 

I think it tends to.

 

i believe you need to think a bit more about the benefits of civilization to the old and to the literate. i'm sure mrs pallidin appreciates the cleanliness and comfort provided by our civilization.

 

Well, ex-'mrs paladin' was fairly well fed up with civilization. I assume she still is. It seemed more like she would've actually preferred to raise kids as a hunter-gatherer... but then again, if I really knew what she wanted, maybe we wouldn't be ex...

I don't think civilization particularly benefits 'the old.' My dad once told me that if he ever becomes such a burden that we contemplate placing him in a home, he'd rather we just take him camping ...and leave him camping. I'm of the same mindset for myself. That's not to say the old are worthless. But I don't think we built civilization as a means to continue existing beyond self sufficiency or our own usefulness. If we did, then we're fools.

As to 'the literate', I'm not sure what you mean. Civilization wouldn't be possible without written language. Literacy isn't a result of civilization, its a necessary ingredient.

 

And can you cite any objective evidence, suggesting this theory has validity, or are you resting your entire argument, just on your hunch?

To be clear, I'm not saying that having a child, can't change people's perspectives, to be more concerned for the welfare of society, beyond the pale of one's own lifetime-- though I don't think that it normally does. More often, the changes are more on the order of a person's buying life insurance, than turning against fossil fuels.

But my main counterargument would be that just because there might be a small change, so that, on average, any large number of parents could have slightly more concern for the society's future, than the average of an equal number of non parents-- and I am only saying this hypothetically, for the sake of argument (because there are a hell of a lot of dumbass, small minded people with kids; and there are some people who don't have kids, specifically because they had already been thinking about civilization's future)-- unless you could quantify that, and demonstrate that it would be likely to translate into action, and that the action would actually be beneficial, it is meaningless, with regard to affecting anyone's rights, based on this one criterion.

Your proposition actually is a lot like another argument I've seen here, which says that people are generally more mature at 30, than they are at 18 (which, of course, is true), so therefore it would be a smart thing to not allow anyone to vote until the age of 30 (which, of course, does not at all, logically follow).

 

Fck what Elon Musk thinks.

 

I think our kids would rather we just stayed out of the future and minded our own business.

 

Don't you pretty much completely contradict your own argument though?

You don't (yet) have biological children but you do have children in your life you care about and the prospect of having biological children in the future. At least one of those things could apply to anyone who doesn't have biological children. There are also people who do have biological children but don't demonstrate any care, for their own children specifically or future generations in general. Also, even people who have their own children can limit their interests to their children specifically (or those perceived as being like them), to the detriment of other children and adults. Ultimately, I'd suggest consideration of future generations and the world they'll be living in is much, much more complex than simply a matter of whether you've have biological children or not.

Are you suggesting none of them parents though?

I'm not sure why that would be especially gratifying for adults but nor why it would be especially bad for children. It worked for thousands of years in as much as it allowed the species to continue and evolve and essentially continues to work for most other animal species.

I think the development of civilisation is a more complex question but not one especially relevant to this specific idea. Consciously, it would have still been primarily about making life better for the current generations (at least the ones in charge) and any elements around providing for the future generations would be simply a reflection of our underlying instincts to procreate. And again, that is commonly a case of the future of our own children over and above anyone else's.

 

This is a good topic. On a personal level, I know people who consciously decided against having children to protect the planet from overpopulation, and the consequences of it. I also know people who chose to not have children because they selfishly feel that children would impede their freedom-loving lifestyle. And then, there is the growing number who are childless not by choice, but because of fertility issues.

As to people with children, again there types who are environmentally conscious, who care about protecting the planet, and those who just use their children as a justification for wanton consumerism without a care for the future. I think what all parents have in common is that they want a better future for their children. The visions of that future, however, vastly diverge. Does that future involve clean air, water, sustainability, environmental protection, or does the future mean more stuff that the parents didn't have or couldn't afford? I'd say the last attitude, that unfortunately is pretty prevalent in giant SUV-driving soccer moms, is not something that will help the future of our children and grandchildren.

At the end, a lot of this is driven by human behavior, which is rooted in basic scientific physical principles. Our system (earth) strives to maximize the rate of entropy production. Therefore, life (including humans), as a catalyst for entropy production, will continue to increase the energy consumption footprint until they become limited by the system (lack of resources etc.). It is not something that we can help, it is hardwired into our brain.

P.S.: For full disclosure, I have two children and have to admit that without them, life would be much less meaningful.

 

That was your first mistake. Made worse by taking what you read and coming up with a bizarre theory. Are there people who live for themselves and say "to hell with the world once I'm dead?" Yes. Is that the attitude of most childless people? I see no evidence of it.

 

I think we should specify that the children need to be legitimate.

 

Theory: people without children have no stake in the future.

To say this is true in general is totally asinine. People who don't have children often do have nieces and nephews. They are also often just good people who aren't self-centered A holes. Not to mention this glaringly obvious fact...unless you're close to dying, whether a disease or you're 90, everyone has a stake in the future. For example, when I voted in my 20s I had quite a bit of future to have a stake in regarding voting.

 

that is not true in that theory. Although some may not have children, either because of biological or a choice, they have a stake in the future as elders who have been there and done that, especially to young people. As for Elon Musk, no, he is not a US Citizen in this country and therefore any proposal would violate the US Constitution and current law on voting. We have an amendment that guarantees women the right to vote, and therefore men too, we have an amendment that guarantees people from 18 on up the right to vote no matter their circumstances.

If you take Elon Musk's proposal literally, then according to him you cannot vote because you have no future. In his article, he specifically mentions biological children and never considered stepchildren at all.

In this country, historically, about 50% of the eligible voters have voted. What has happened in the last two presidential elections is around 60% with a high influx of young people, like 18-25 who generally do not have children and are very tech savvy, who have voted. Finally, we have evolved from hunter-gathers as a society as a whole. This has caused change, but mostly for the good of cities, towns, and communities. What we have done is isolate ourselves from those communities we live in generally. Most don't even know who their neighbors are whether living in a house, condo, or apartment. But we tend to use some techniques from hunter-gathers when we try to find a mate or look for a job. But that is about it.

 

It speak what Elon musk thinks about his fallow human. I don’t have to have children, wife, brother, sister, mom, dad, friend to do good for my fellow human. It seems like only reason Elon Musk wants to do good is for Himself and his
beneficiary.