So you think it's better to have children before you have an education, career, stability, or money? I don't. I think people should only have children when it's feasible, not because of a mistake, to save their failing relationship, to trap a guy, because you're lonely, you thought it would be cool, you think it will make you more mature, or any other reason. This is a new life were talking about not a gym membership! If you're goal for having a child is to satisfy your own biological desires with little to no concern for the child or society at large then you shouldn't be having children.
So you think it's better to have children before you have an education, career, stability, or money? I don't. I think people should only have children when it's feasible, not because of a mistake, to save their failing relationship, to trap a guy, because you're lonely, you thought it would be cool, you think it will make you more mature, or any other reason. This is a new life were talking about not a gym membership! If you're goal for having a child is to satisfy your own biological desires with little to no concern for the child or society at large then you shouldn't be having children.
No because I said no of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You wrote, "If you are going to have children, I think you should do it early and learn to juggle parenting and career."
At what age are humans biologically ready to have children? At what age do American humans typically graduate college and embark on a career?
You apparently just want to pick a fight. But I'll humor you for a moment.
Husband and wife meet in college, marry after graduation and both find employment right out school in professional occupations.
They buy a modest house, and start a family. After maternity leave the woman continues to work and the husband has an understanding employer who allows him to work flexible hours which enables his wife to further her career. They share all of the duties of parenting and earning income. Happily ever after.
I'm not sure where you got all the doom and gloom from my post. Your post is complete BS in my opinion.
No because I said no of that.
<p style="margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-top:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-top:0px;">You apparently just want to pick a fight. But I'll humor you for a moment.
</p>
Husband and wife meet in college, marry after graduation and both find employment right out school in professional occupations.
They buy a modest house, and start a family. After maternity leave the woman continues to work and the husband has an understanding employer who allows him to work flexible hours which enables his wife to further her career. They share all of the duties of parenting and earning income. Happily ever after.
I'm not sure where you got all the doom and gloom from my post. Your post is complete BS in my opinion.
And BTW that is my true story.
Based on the previous posts early is not after college, after getting married and after having stable professional careers.
Based on the previous posts early is not after college, after getting married and after having stable professional careers.
Why would you jump to a conclusion that I was suggesting unmarried teen pregnancy was my definition of early? Early rather than later meaning mid-to late 20s not mid to late 30s or 40s. You should have been able to discern that based on my comment that I thought retirement age parents of a young adult was a less than desirable situation.
In my opinion if you wait until you are mid 30s or 40, which would be a reasonable but short amount of time to have accomplished a significant career, you are pushing the extremes of the age differential between parent and child.
Why would you jump to a conclusion that I was suggesting unmarried teen pregnancy was my definition of early?
Because I define early as, "happening or done before the usual or expected time." As I stated previously I think that it should be done once all those factor you later stated have happened, not before or during.
On a more serious note, where did you come up with this cockamamie (I am being charitable) number? Care to share your (ahem) logic?
I came up with this from reading. There are innumerable reports by every sovereign nation on the issue of resource need and resource renewal. Our growth rate is simply not sustainable under these conditions. Note that you'll see that ideal and peak population levels are based on a lot of soft data, as well as assumptions about "quality of life." Sustainable for the average person in India v average person in America v average person in Iceland you get vastly different results, but many things are constant, like depleting of ocean resources, reducing the salinization of the oceans, increased greenhouse gases, higher water levels, increased storms, etc., and yet the data for all those will only be hard in retrospect.
Because I define early as, "happening or done before the usual or expected time." As I stated previously I think that it should be done once all those factor you later stated have happened, not before or during.
The word "early" does not have to have a negative connotation. I can pay off my mortgage early, retire early, wake up early, etc. I didn't read all the remarks you made 'earlier' in thread but I feel you jumped on my comments as if I was attacking your position when I didn't even quote you. If you disagree with my position now that you understand it, well we just disagree. Whatever, I disagree with many of your comments.
On a more serious note, where did you come up with this cockamamie (I am being charitable) number? Care to share your (ahem) logic?
I came up with this from reading. There are innumerable reports by every sovereign nation on the issue of resource need and resource renewal. Our growth rate is simply not sustainable under these conditions. Note that you'll see that ideal and peak population levels are based on a lot of soft data, as well as assumptions about "quality of life." Sustainable for the average person in India v average person in America v average person in Iceland you get vastly different results, but many things are constant, like depleting of ocean resources, reducing the salinization of the oceans, increased greenhouse gases, higher water levels, increased storms, etc., and yet the data for all those will only be hard in retrospect.
TL;DR: We have finite resources and space at this time so it's foolish to believe we can continue on this path forever.
Really, a bunch of random cites? NYT oped? Huffington Post? Some NGO whose agenda or antecedents are opaque? WHO (wtf do they know about sustainability?). Wikipedia?
C'mon, you made a sweeping assertion, ignoring an entire sweep of human history where time and again, we have shown the ability to innovate and adapt -- and many, many before you, starting at least with Malthus, have had to suck eggs making similar arguments -- and you can't provide your argument?!
It's like my asserting, say, 'communism sucks, capitalism rules', and your asking 'why', and my replying "read this and this."
SolipsismX, for a guy with a brilliant posting history such as yours, this has to be one of the most puzzlingly lazy replies.
[@]anantksundaram[/@], there is plenty of excellent information in those links and I did't choose a single viewpoint in some attempt to persuade you to a side. It was intended for you to see the complexity of the issue from various sources. WHO is definitely worth reading.
I won't be posting anymore tonight be we can pick up on this tomorrow, if you'd like.
So basically, we're now giving women the opportunity to do that WRONG thing that men have a physiological capability to do, make babies at an age where they're likely to not be healthy enough to take them into adulthood with all their educative abilities?
Think of becoming a father at 50. That's getting your kid to adulthood around 70.
Why the hell would that be a good thing for women either?
I wish big companies with lots of cash would instead help foster long-term perspectives of families/single parents, in order to allow young people to start a family longer rather than having to try and build a career. This is a clear case of using science to solve a consequence rather than a cause.
theres nothing wrong with becoming a father at 50 or having a grown child at 70. my dad is 72 and playing first baseman on his softball team. get real.
@anantksundaram, there is plenty of excellent information in those links and I did't choose a single viewpoint in some attempt to persuade you to a side. It was intended for you to see the complexity of the issue from various sources. WHO is definitely worth reading.
I won't be posting anymore tonight be we can pick up on this tomorrow, if you'd like.
I actually know bit about what's out there related to sustainability.
That aside, yes, let's pick up on this later. (My day is a bit crazy tomorrow, but hopefully I'll be able to squeeze in a few responses.)
And this is a good idea because? Encouraging women to have babies later in life doesn't seem like s good thing to me. How about providing better work/life balance so employees aren't stuck working nights, weekends or being on call 24/7.
theres nothing wrong with having children later in life. my partner is 46 and we'd like to, except risk of flipper babies is much higher for women over 34.
god, i can't believe i have to explain this to you people. the ugly side of IT workers...
I don't think it is possible to generalize that adamantly. It varies on circumstances and at least the eggs will be the healthiest possible if taken when younger. If men were the ones that got pregnant, like so many other 'birth related issues', there would be a totally different attitude to many of them.
agreed.
if people don't believe theres a social war on women, look no further than our own apple forums. "Keep them breeders out of my workforce!"
Because I think people having children later in life is selfish (and in some cases can have health risks). But anyway this benefit was never mentioned in the recent leaked email from Apple's HR chief. So while it might be a benefit offered to employees it sure doesn't seem like something Apple is making a big deal about. Of course it makes for the perfect click bait headline. I'm sure Business Insider jumped on the story the minute they heard about it.
selfish!? what insanity. some of us prefer to hold off on pushing out babies until we've established ourselves.
Comments
So you think it's better to have children before you have an education, career, stability, or money? I don't. I think people should only have children when it's feasible, not because of a mistake, to save their failing relationship, to trap a guy, because you're lonely, you thought it would be cool, you think it will make you more mature, or any other reason. This is a new life were talking about not a gym membership! If you're goal for having a child is to satisfy your own biological desires with little to no concern for the child or society at large then you shouldn't be having children.
No because I said none of that.
You wrote, "If you are going to have children, I think you should do it early and learn to juggle parenting and career."
At what age are humans biologically ready to have children? At what age do American humans typically graduate college and embark on a career?
So you think it's better to have children before you have an education, career, stability, or money? I don't. I think people should only have children when it's feasible, not because of a mistake, to save their failing relationship, to trap a guy, because you're lonely, you thought it would be cool, you think it will make you more mature, or any other reason. This is a new life were talking about not a gym membership! If you're goal for having a child is to satisfy your own biological desires with little to no concern for the child or society at large then you shouldn't be having children.
No because I said no of that.
You wrote, "If you are going to have children, I think you should do it early and learn to juggle parenting and career."
At what age are humans biologically ready to have children? At what age do American humans typically graduate college and embark on a career?
You apparently just want to pick a fight. But I'll humor you for a moment.
Husband and wife meet in college, marry after graduation and both find employment right out school in professional occupations.
They buy a modest house, and start a family. After maternity leave the woman continues to work and the husband has an understanding employer who allows him to work flexible hours which enables his wife to further her career. They share all of the duties of parenting and earning income. Happily ever after.
I'm not sure where you got all the doom and gloom from my post. Your post is complete BS in my opinion.
And BTW that is my true story.
Based on the previous posts early is not after college, after getting married and after having stable professional careers.
Based on the previous posts early is not after college, after getting married and after having stable professional careers.
Why would you jump to a conclusion that I was suggesting unmarried teen pregnancy was my definition of early? Early rather than later meaning mid-to late 20s not mid to late 30s or 40s. You should have been able to discern that based on my comment that I thought retirement age parents of a young adult was a less than desirable situation.
In my opinion if you wait until you are mid 30s or 40, which would be a reasonable but short amount of time to have accomplished a significant career, you are pushing the extremes of the age differential between parent and child.
Because I define early as, "happening or done before the usual or expected time." As I stated previously I think that it should be done once all those factor you later stated have happened, not before or during.
Yeah, let's just nuke those extra pesky little 3B already with us. Where and with whom would you like to start?
On a more serious note, where did you come up with this cockamamie (I am being charitable) number? Care to share your (ahem) logic?
(I had trouble figuring out whether and where to jump in with this entirely weirded out thread, dominated by males no less -- but this one wins!)Younger than 30.
I came up with this from reading. There are innumerable reports by every sovereign nation on the issue of resource need and resource renewal. Our growth rate is simply not sustainable under these conditions. Note that you'll see that ideal and peak population levels are based on a lot of soft data, as well as assumptions about "quality of life." Sustainable for the average person in India v average person in America v average person in Iceland you get vastly different results, but many things are constant, like depleting of ocean resources, reducing the salinization of the oceans, increased greenhouse gases, higher water levels, increased storms, etc., and yet the data for all those will only be hard in retrospect.
TL;DR: We have finite resources and space at this time so it's foolish to believe we can continue on this path forever.
So why do you have a problem with a woman who is 30yo using an egg she harvested a decade earlier?
Because I define early as, "happening or done before the usual or expected time." As I stated previously I think that it should be done once all those factor you later stated have happened, not before or during.
The word "early" does not have to have a negative connotation. I can pay off my mortgage early, retire early, wake up early, etc. I didn't read all the remarks you made 'earlier' in thread but I feel you jumped on my comments as if I was attacking your position when I didn't even quote you. If you disagree with my position now that you understand it, well we just disagree. Whatever, I disagree with many of your comments.
On a more serious note, where did you come up with this cockamamie (I am being charitable) number? Care to share your (ahem) logic?
I came up with this from reading. There are innumerable reports by every sovereign nation on the issue of resource need and resource renewal. Our growth rate is simply not sustainable under these conditions. Note that you'll see that ideal and peak population levels are based on a lot of soft data, as well as assumptions about "quality of life." Sustainable for the average person in India v average person in America v average person in Iceland you get vastly different results, but many things are constant, like depleting of ocean resources, reducing the salinization of the oceans, increased greenhouse gases, higher water levels, increased storms, etc., and yet the data for all those will only be hard in retrospect.
TL;DR: We have finite resources and space at this time so it's foolish to believe we can continue on this path forever.
Really, a bunch of random cites? NYT oped? Huffington Post? Some NGO whose agenda or antecedents are opaque? WHO (wtf do they know about sustainability?). Wikipedia?
C'mon, you made a sweeping assertion, ignoring an entire sweep of human history where time and again, we have shown the ability to innovate and adapt -- and many, many before you, starting at least with Malthus, have had to suck eggs making similar arguments -- and you can't provide your argument?!
It's like my asserting, say, 'communism sucks, capitalism rules', and your asking 'why', and my replying "read this and this."
SolipsismX, for a guy with a brilliant posting history such as yours, this has to be one of the most puzzlingly lazy replies.
I won't be posting anymore tonight be we can pick up on this tomorrow, if you'd like.
This is not good news.
So basically, we're now giving women the opportunity to do that WRONG thing that men have a physiological capability to do, make babies at an age where they're likely to not be healthy enough to take them into adulthood with all their educative abilities?
Think of becoming a father at 50. That's getting your kid to adulthood around 70.
Why the hell would that be a good thing for women either?
I wish big companies with lots of cash would instead help foster long-term perspectives of families/single parents, in order to allow young people to start a family longer rather than having to try and build a career. This is a clear case of using science to solve a consequence rather than a cause.
theres nothing wrong with becoming a father at 50 or having a grown child at 70. my dad is 72 and playing first baseman on his softball team. get real.
I don't see an issue with it. Do they have a similar program for sperm bank deposits?
not necessary -- you can spew sperm at any age.
@anantksundaram, there is plenty of excellent information in those links and I did't choose a single viewpoint in some attempt to persuade you to a side. It was intended for you to see the complexity of the issue from various sources. WHO is definitely worth reading.
I won't be posting anymore tonight be we can pick up on this tomorrow, if you'd like.
I actually know bit about what's out there related to sustainability.
That aside, yes, let's pick up on this later. (My day is a bit crazy tomorrow, but hopefully I'll be able to squeeze in a few responses.)
(Aargh... frickin' autocorrect...)
And this is a good idea because? Encouraging women to have babies later in life doesn't seem like s good thing to me. How about providing better work/life balance so employees aren't stuck working nights, weekends or being on call 24/7.
theres nothing wrong with having children later in life. my partner is 46 and we'd like to, except risk of flipper babies is much higher for women over 34.
god, i can't believe i have to explain this to you people. the ugly side of IT workers...
I don't think it is possible to generalize that adamantly. It varies on circumstances and at least the eggs will be the healthiest possible if taken when younger. If men were the ones that got pregnant, like so many other 'birth related issues', there would be a totally different attitude to many of them.
agreed.
if people don't believe theres a social war on women, look no further than our own apple forums. "Keep them breeders out of my workforce!"
Because I think people having children later in life is selfish (and in some cases can have health risks). But anyway this benefit was never mentioned in the recent leaked email from Apple's HR chief. So while it might be a benefit offered to employees it sure doesn't seem like something Apple is making a big deal about. Of course it makes for the perfect click bait headline. I'm sure Business Insider jumped on the story the minute they heard about it.
selfish!? what insanity. some of us prefer to hold off on pushing out babies until we've established ourselves.