We get out as little as possible because we run into almost nothing BUT idiots with children. It's hard to imagine a world that's otherwise, quite frankly, but then again I've been out of university too long.
Wanting to have a large family could be diagnosed as a mental illness in and of itself (it seems irrational and self-destructive to sublimate one's one life completely to the goal of creating a horde of new life on an overpopulated world which will only decrease the net standard of living for the entire generation that your children will be cohorts of, thus inflicting, however indirectly, pain and deprivation not just on the offspring that you are presumed to care for, but their entire society as well).
Setting that aside, insisting that your large family be composed of your genetic relatives is an obvious narcissistic ploy when, as mentioned above, so many children go unraised, unloved and uncared for in the first place. Assuming you can't find another way to productively occupy your time, that you have to have a large family in order to feel complete somehow and counseling is ineffective, the logical question to ask is why you insist on adding to, instead of subtracting from, the net generational rearing costs for society. That's without even addressing the issue of the cost on the social welfare net assuming you die, lose your job, become tragically ill or disabled, etc, and your children became wards of the state.
Then there's the point of having one set of intermediate children help raise another set of younger children. If your kids have to raise themselves as a group, isn't that a sign that you've had more than you're capable of raising in the first place? Happiness is relative and experiential; just because someone thinks they're happy, that doesn't mean they a: actually are, b: are relative to other people, c: are objectively living in a safe and comfortable environment or d: are participating in a socially responsible lifestyle.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-05-11 07:12 am (UTC)Wanting to have a large family could be diagnosed as a mental illness in and of itself (it seems irrational and self-destructive to sublimate one's one life completely to the goal of creating a horde of new life on an overpopulated world which will only decrease the net standard of living for the entire generation that your children will be cohorts of, thus inflicting, however indirectly, pain and deprivation not just on the offspring that you are presumed to care for, but their entire society as well).
Setting that aside, insisting that your large family be composed of your genetic relatives is an obvious narcissistic ploy when, as mentioned above, so many children go unraised, unloved and uncared for in the first place. Assuming you can't find another way to productively occupy your time, that you have to have a large family in order to feel complete somehow and counseling is ineffective, the logical question to ask is why you insist on adding to, instead of subtracting from, the net generational rearing costs for society. That's without even addressing the issue of the cost on the social welfare net assuming you die, lose your job, become tragically ill or disabled, etc, and your children became wards of the state.
Then there's the point of having one set of intermediate children help raise another set of younger children. If your kids have to raise themselves as a group, isn't that a sign that you've had more than you're capable of raising in the first place? Happiness is relative and experiential; just because someone thinks they're happy, that doesn't mean they a: actually are, b: are relative to other people, c: are objectively living in a safe and comfortable environment or d: are participating in a socially responsible lifestyle.
Just a few thoughts.