2.8 million delaying parenthood due to housing costs

JonnyBravo

Orpheo wrote: »

If you have voluntarily removed yourself from the gene pool then you have committed genetic suicide, I might argue that you have failed at life. Your genetic material will cease to exist, instead the genetic material of the breeding chav and the breeding stupid will replace it. Congratulations, you have abused your intelligence to ensure the evolution of the unfit.

Watch Idiocracy, a film starring Luke Wilson.

Seems like you know just enough genetics to be dangerous?
Is your failure to procreate as often as you can, with as many females as you can, less of a failure to any significant degree?

You have lumbered yourself with a one trick pony. What if your partner was supplying "bad" genes? Seems like 'Wayne' who has 6 kids by 5 women has outcompeted you too!

Your genes aren't unique. You don't own them all uniquely. Your particular mix, is probably unique (unless you're an ident twin?) but you aren't passing that on. You're passing some of it on.
These genes exisit in your siblings and your relatives in large numbers too. They exist in the general population to varying degrees. It is extremely probable your genetic material will not continue in any meaningful way above and beyond someone with no children.

Congratulations your ill placed faith in the genetic viability of one child has not ensured your genetic survival in any meaningful way.

Orpheo

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Congratulations your ill placed faith in the genetic viability of one child has not ensured your genetic survival in any meaningful way.

Oh absolutely. But that's life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIiUqfxFttM

ninky_2

Orpheo wrote: »

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.

.

not true. there would have been little choice for females. the alpha male pretty much mated all of them. the survival of genes occurs at the genetic level not as a result of actions of the individual / organism. see richard dawkins "the selfish gene" for further explanation.

to put it simply - when you mate you and your partner do not decide which genes are passed on. when that offspring goes on to mate there is a further lack of control over which genes are passed on. all of the genes in you will exist in other individual organisms. you are merely a 'host' for them for a while. therefore, all the genes you or i contain will exist or cease to exist as a result of struggles at the genetic level whether i as an individual choose to breed or not. it's pure arrogance to assume you contain any "unique" genetic material that will cease to exist if you fail to reproduce.

JonnyBravo

ninky wrote: »

not true. there would have been little choice for females. the alpha male pretty much mated all of them. the survival of genes occurs at the genetic level not as a result of actions of the individual / organism. see richard dawkins "the selfish gene" for further explanation.

There are plenty of species where a mutual consent, and indeed lifetime partnership, are the norm. It is not simply a "male choice"

ninky wrote: »

to put it simply - when you mate you and your partner do not decide which genes are passed on. when that offspring goes on to mate there is a further lack of control over which genes are passed on. all of the genes in you will exist in other individual organisms. you are merely a 'host' for them for a while. therefore, all the genes you or i contain will exist or cease to exist as a result of struggles at the genetic level whether i as an individual choose to breed or not. it's pure arrogance to assume you contain any "unique" genetic material that will cease to exist if you fail to reproduce.

Absolutely.
"Genetics is not a lottery" - simply depends on how we're defining it. At the level of individual genetics, it is very much a lottery. Will you have a unique mutation? Will it be passed on? Will you die before you pass it on? Will your "bad genes" be passed on? Will your partner supply "good genes"?
It is clearly less of a "lottery" the larger the population and the larger the timescale we consider.

Percy1983

Orpheo wrote: »

When did I say this? Quote me.

You are the second person to put words in my mouth.

I have said before in this thread that if you have children you man up and take responsibility.

But you are saying that those of who have had to wait to be in a responsible situation have done it wrong and we should have done it sooner while we where at our peaks as such, yet it would have been irresponsible of me to have children 4-5 years ago.

Orpheo

Percy1983 wrote: »

But you are saying that those of who have had to wait to be in a responsible situation have done it wrong and we should have done it sooner while we where at our peaks as such, yet it would have been irresponsible of me to have children 4-5 years ago.

No I didn't. I respect your choice to have children whenever you please. But that doesn't make it irresponsible for people to have children younger. How does that translate to expecting everyone else to pay for them?

You said that I said something that I didn't say. I refute it. You then say that I said something else that I didn't say. I'm beginning to wonder if you can read.

I have stated the fact that the a woman's peak of fertility is 20-24 and the later you leave having children beyond that the higher the risk. I have also pointed out the link between older fathers and autism. These are the facts that should be borne in mind when you decide when you want to have children. I have also said that choosing to have children later does not give you the moral high ground as some posters have implied.

I have also pointed out that in spite of having our daughter at what many on here would consider the wrong and irresponsible time, that we have raised her as well as getting on with our jobs, buying a house, etc, etc. We are debt free and have the financial means to step back on the housing pyramid tomorrow should we wish to do so. In the meantime, there are those who are still waiting for the elusive 'right time' to have their children when in fact they will continue to find reasons not to. And in spite of their protestations, nobody on this thread has been billed for my daughter's upbringing.

Orpheo

JonnyBravo wrote: »

You have lumbered yourself with a one trick pony. What if your partner was supplying "bad" genes? Seems like 'Wayne' who has 6 kids by 5 women has outcompeted you too!

No, Wayne has simply had more children, they are likely to be less competetive than my daughter.

Percy1983

Maybe I should simplify whay I am saying.

Right time = You can support the child emotionally and financially.
Wrong time = You can't support the child emotionally or financially.

My point is due to young people getting shafted on all fronts (rip off wages if training, house prices too high, car insurance stupidly high) then the right time is later for more and more people.
As for the wrong time, well it is irresponsible if you can't support the above 2 things.

I will add on the stability front, I am a forces child and not all of my life has been in this country due to it, my education suffered in the early years and I still remember being the outsider in infant school as they where all in there friend groups and then I appear from nowhere, as much as some children my be outgoing and be fine in that environment I just closed up (in hindsight I would go and kick myself out of it) which generally made my childhood unhappy. Yes this experience may have effected my opinion here but I would never risk doing that to my own child especially since they have a chance of ending up like me and repeating the process.

LilacPixie

I guess it depends on your own personal definition of financial support. In some areas you may be able to rent a larger home in a nicer area for less than the mortgage payment required. In some cases couples are happy to both work and share childcare between them or pay for childcare, others want enough financial stability for one person to take a career break and be a stay at home parent. There is no right or wrong its whatever you want for your own circumstances

olly300

Orpheo wrote: »

No, Wayne has simply had more children, they are likely to be less competetive than my daughter.

How do you know?

Wayne is cunning enough to play the system. No-one knows whether if he had been nurtured properly he would have been successful in a more conventional way in society.

Plus we can't presume that none of the mothers of one of his multiple children haven't found a good mate to nurture the off-spring they had with Wayne.

There are people who are knowing brought up by fathers who aren't genetically theirs, plus there always statistics given by genticists and sociologists who study this about x% of fathers who who think they are bringing up their genetic off-spring actually aren't.