2.8 million delaying parenthood due to housing costs

ninky_2

Orpheo wrote: »

Evidently it appears that owning a house is now more important than having children, that is, continuing your genetic existence. Whatever have we become?

rational? increased education and wealth tends to lead to lower birthrates. also human reproduction through the majority of history has been driven by the urge for sex and the absence of contraception. without education or knowledge we wouldn't know that the moment of passion lead to baby nine months later. perhaps evolution has failed to provide a suitable biological urge to have children per se across the species when the rational results and individual costs of having them are presented. only time will tell.

Percy1983

Because there isn't enough rights for somebody who rents, If I could rent for 20 years and they can only kick me out if I break good behaviour agreements, then I would feel secure, but as you say I could only be 12 months away from having to move, I don't fancy having to move every year, yes it probably wouldn't happen like that but there is a risk it would. Owning my own home on the flip side gives a much more secure way of life without worrying once a year we might get kicked out and have to disturb our childrens lives again and again. Do you not agree stability is very important with children?

Orpheo

ninky wrote: »

rational? increased education and wealth tends to lead to lower birthrates. also human reproduction through the majority of history has been driven by the urge for sex and the absence of contraception. without education or knowledge we wouldn't know that the moment of passion lead to baby nine months later. perhaps evolution has failed to provide a suitable biological urge to have children per se across the species when the rational results and individual costs of having them are presented. only time will tell.

No it is not rational and I'm struggling to see your point in this post. Increased education does lead to lower birthrates as families chose to have fewer children because of a lower infant mortality rate. It is not because "rational" people have decided that children are too expensive. I don't think it took humanity too long to determine that sex may lead to conception and you seem to divorce the "urge for sex" from the imperative to reproduce. You also need to recognise that religion (superstition) still holds influence over the world's population and that the religious imperative is also to reproduce. If the "rational" wish to not have children, then be that as it may and their genetic material will be removed from the gene pool. I am beginning to think that this may perhaps be evolution at its very best. Nevertheless the human race will continue to reproduce, with or without you.

Orpheo

Percy1983 wrote: »

Do you not agree stability is very important with children?

Is this intended to be a loaded question? Ah, perhaps you don't know what stability is with regards to children. Let me help you, I have been a primary school teacher for 13 years and I have raised a child who is almost 13 years old.

If you define stability as living in the same house for 20 years then no. If you define stability as cushioning children from change, then no.

If you define stability as parents who demonstrate that the child is loved, demonstrate that they love each other, who raise the child within a calm environment where structure and discipline are provided consistently and within a framework of care, if stability is a place where the child knows that they are safe from harm and knows that those taking care of her or him are not unpredictable, violent or addicted and the child feels secure then yes I agree that stability is very important for children.

My daughter has had to change schools twice in two years. You see, we decided that food on the table was more important than staying in the same place. she has recently arrived home and told me about her school day and as I write this she is in her room singing.

ninky_2

Orpheo wrote: »

No it is not rational and I'm struggling to see your point in this post. Increased education does lead to lower birthrates as families chose to have fewer children because of a lower infant mortality rate. It is not because "rational" people have decided that children are too expensive. I don't think it took humanity too long to determine that sex may lead to conception and you seem to divorce the "urge for sex" from the imperative to reproduce. You also need to recognise that religion (superstition) still holds influence over the world's population and that the religious imperative is also to reproduce. If the "rational" wish to not have children, then be that as it may and their genetic material will be removed from the gene pool. I am beginning to think that this may perhaps be evolution at its very best. Nevertheless the human race will continue to reproduce, with or without you.

quite agree with the last sentence and it means that as i share my genetic material with others in the human race they will continue to be passed on free of charge to me. they're not "my genes" after all, just ones that have been thrown up in my being in the genetic lottery. so isn't it rational to allow others to bear the burden of the costs (financial and timewise) to continue that dna rather than do it myself?

the urge for sex is clearly an evolutionary one that has meant those with the most rampant sex drives were historically likely to have the most children (unless they were coerced into sex). however we are well able to divorce this need for sex from reproduction now and the majority of human sexual encounters now seemingly occur with the desire for it not to lead to reproduction - as is evidenced by the decline of large families in the west apart from perhaps a few old school catholics who still see birth control as the devil's work.

i will miss some of the sweet moments of holding a child in my arms that i've given birth to and also the experience of love towards my own genetic offspring. it's a compromise but one i'm willing to make. all choices cut off other choices and experiences.

Orpheo

Genetics is not a lottery.

Percy1983

Orpheo wrote: »

Genetics is not a lottery.

True its millions of years or random chaos.

Back to stability, I do agree that a loving etc is a huge part of stability, but so is not having to move every year. If I change my childs school every year how will they ever form lasting friendships, at what point would they stop trying because it will all change soon anyway. The thought of moving every year stresses me just to think about it and its not even happening to me so it would be stressful if I had to and of course children would pick up on that stress.

In short I have delayed having children until I can provide what I deem to be a stable environment and support my children in full, I don't expect anybody else to pay for my decision to have children, basically taking full responsibilty for my choices in life.

pushedtothelimit

Percy1983 wrote: »

Because there isn't enough rights for somebody who rents, If I could rent for 20 years and they can only kick me out if I break good behaviour agreements, then I would feel secure, but as you say I could only be 12 months away from having to move, I don't fancy having to move every year, yes it probably wouldn't happen like that but there is a risk it would. Owning my own home on the flip side gives a much more secure way of life without worrying once a year we might get kicked out and have to disturb our childrens lives again and again. Do you not agree stability is very important with children?

Agree, totally. I'm 25 and got married this year. We both have good careers and we rent. This year we had to move in February (LL wanted to move back in to property) and again August (LL was having an affair and so moved us out so he could move in). This has probably cost us about a grand in extra agency and moving fees and incredible amounts of upheaval and upset. The instability and lack of security is an enormous issue for us and is truly a barrier to us starting a family. We really want to have a family and could survive well enough on one wage (currently, we are just pushing all my salary into savings in the hope that one day we might be able to own) but the insecurity of renting strikes fear into us as we are very scarred from our experience.

Orpheo

Not random chaos. It is order. It is millions of years of selecting a mate based on their physical and intellectual qualities. Millions of years of conscious and unconscious choices of qualities we would like in our offspring.

Ultimately my appearance on this thread was to challenge the views in the initial pages that certain sections of society should be prevented from having children.

If you choose not to have children then I respect that right, but it is not acceptable to suggest that that choice is the only "rational" or "responsible" thing to do, that is just narcissistic rollocks. However, there is no denial that choosing not to have children is removing yourself from the gene pool. We are animals. I have a humanistic view of life, I do not believe in higher purposes, higher beings or the immortal soul. What I do believe in is living your life according to reasonable moral values and that our immortality is through our offspring.

There is no moral superiority in putting off having children until some perceived ideal time, it is just a personal choice. If you are comfortable with your choice then all is well.

olly300

Orpheo wrote: »

Is this intended to be a loaded question? Ah, perhaps you don't know what stability is with regards to children. Let me help you, I have been a primary school teacher for 13 years and I have raised a child who is almost 13 years old.

If you define stability as living in the same house for 20 years then no. If you define stability as cushioning children from change, then no.

If you define stability as parents who demonstrate that the child is loved, demonstrate that they love each other, who raise the child within a calm environment where structure and discipline are provided consistently and within a framework of care, if stability is a place where the child knows that they are safe from harm and knows that those taking care of her or him are not unpredictable, violent or addicted and the child feels secure then yes I agree that stability is very important for children.

My daughter has had to change schools twice in two years. You see, we decided that food on the table was more important than staying in the same place. she has recently arrived home and told me about her school day and as I write this she is in her room singing.

I suggest you talk to adults who had father who was in the military or worked around the world and followed them, if you think moving a lot helps the child feel secure.

As a child gets older they rely more on their peers.