@OwlInASack Yet most people are well meaning, really evil intent is rare. At the extreme for the sake of argument; you save someone from drowning, you save a life, but you also contribute to the population crisis. At the extreme it may often be that there are no good choices. Therefore how likely is it that we make the best ones any of the time.

It was once said that all the worlds problems would be solved overnight, if everyone was content with a bowl of gruel for each meal, gave up their houses and spent the rest of their, none working, time in a well insulated box like a coffin. With modern technology we would have to work perhaps an hour or two a week for that lifestyle and would use very little land or resouces. Our negative impact on the world and each other would then be small, ninety nine percent of everything we do and nearly all of the harm the human population causes, is caused by our need for entertainment, including all that we call "meaning and community". When we help others to fullfill their potential in any way, we contribute to the problems of the planet.

[snopes.com]

@OwlInASack The difference in what?

@OwlInASack Gotcha.

I view selfishness sort of like I would a lion. By nature it tends to be dangerous and if not managed properly, it can cause serious damage. But when you are aware of it, you can keep it in check and even use it to the benefit of everyone. I wouldn't say that makes selfishness a virtue but when you are aware of your selfish nature, you can use it in virtuous ways. I also believe that when you aren't aware of the human tendency within you to be selfish, that is when you are at most risk of being selfish in destructive ways.

You know she was a hypocrite right?...
[snopes.com]

@Lizard_of_Ahaz A lot of writers were...it doesn't mean you shouldn't read it so that you have a strong exposure to all sorts of thought and philosophies to base your own...I think we could spend a lifetime with every single writer in the world...just because you read something does not mean you believe it is all true or even valid...it means you read and read and read...

@thinktwice Actually I know her and many other Cuckatarians philosophies from listening to their idiotic ramblings.... You do know that the Cuckatarian Party is funded by Mousilinii fascists right?... The Kochs have funded them since the start just like they financed the TEA Party from the start and have purchased the GOP as well... These parties all are targeting different gullible voting blocks but they all work towards the same end... Corporate ownership of both the government as well as the slave caste they are creating...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz I read her books to for exposure to other ideas...how they were adapted to fit the agendas of conspiracy and other political lunacy is of no interest to me...just as I read the Bible to see what ideas and philosophies shaped the way people think who are Christian and the Quran to understand their views...a purely selfish educational journey for myself...to be honest, you sound no different than those who espouse the other side...

@thinktwice They weren't "adapted" she was paid and encouraged to write her garbage.... Remember those books were written during the McCarthy anti-communist era...
You might also want to consider she was born into a middle class household in Czarist Russia just before the fall of the religious theocratic royal family. This was the cause of her hatred of communism...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz What I am politely trying to say is that I don't give a shit...I read books for the sake of reading...I read everything - Mein Kamp ,theCommunist Manifesto, Chia Ling, etc. I am not about to let the opinions of others who disagree censor my reading...I will make up my own mind, thank you

@Lizard_of_Ahaz I don't see it as hyprocrisy. You can think that a certain system shouldn't exist, but if it does and you paid into it, why shouldn't you use it?

@Stephanie99 She was a hypocrite and used her husbands Social Security because she didn't have the credits needed to have her own...

Funny, me too, but I was 16 at the time.

Libertarianism is simply emotional retardation and selfishness dressed up in a political philosophy. I have no time for them. They need to grow up and learn to share, the latter being something the rest of us learned in kindergarten.

@TomMcGiverin pardon the religious word, but amen!

g

@TomMcGiverin If someone share a million dollars worth of goods and services what should they get in return?

@Happy_Killbot that is a ridiculous question because you have not said shared with whom, shared voluntarily or otherwise, shared for what reason, shared where or when, or what the other party has, needs, whether the other party has asked to be shared with or is just a random recipient, whether the other party is an individual, more than one individual, a nation, a corporation or a pigeon in the park. the question is too general to answer reasonably at all.

g

@genessa I second that!

@genessa with whom is irrelevant, if it isn't voluntary it isn't sharing, its theft, reason is because they decide to, where, when and what are to specific anything reasonable will do, lets say Chicago last week and tacos. The other party has time and resources with subjective value, needs or wants whatever that someone is selling, and did ask for it. They are an individual, or a collective. Possibly an individual acting for a collective, or a collective acting for an individual. They could be a nation, or a corporation,

But they are most certainly not a pigeon in the park.

Why should the circumstances of the sharing have an effect on what is fair for the sharing individual to receive? What is the value of the act of sharing? Is it 1:1, 1:0, 1:2, any ratio in between, and why.

@Happy_Killbot if it isn't voluntary it isn't sharing? who wrote THAT rule? certainly not any kindergarten teacher! why should the circumstances have an effect on what is fair? because if the sharer is sharing voluntarily, and without conditions, that is different from the sharer's making a trade or a bargain, that's why! it's very simple. so the ratio might be 1:0, or otherwise. the question is still impossible without the circumstances and even then it's subjective.

g

@genessa If I point a gun at your face and say "mind sharing your money with me?" Is that really sharing?

If I give you my wallet, and you walk away with no gun involved, is that really sharing?

If I give you my wallet and you give me something that has equal value is that really sharing?

I would argue only one of these is sharing. The others are extortion and bargain.

@Happy_Killbot then if it is really sharing, why does the sharer expect something back?

g

@Happy_Killbot I don't know, if you are referring to some kind of philanthropic act, I suppose it would be the good feeling that they helped others in need and bettered the world. Like the comment below said, beyond that scenario which I assumed you meant in my answer to your ?, I would need to know more what you are meaning before I could answer.

@Happy_Killbot If you want to live in your Libertarian utopia where you get to be an island, then get the hell out of the US if you don't want to share thru paying taxes. Good riddance, we don't need you.

@TomMcGiverin if you think authorities can make you free, then I don't want to live in that society. Government can not give rights, only take them away, and thus should be minimized in order to maximize personal freedom.

@TomMcGiverin, @genessa he doesn't. That's the point I'm trying to make. If you share all the time, you lose to those who do not, so they survive where you don't. Sharing is inherently self destructive.

@Happy_Killbot You don't have to live in it. Bye, bye......I only wish our govt. wasn't so owned by the rich so that rich people who give up their citizenship to avoid American taxes are still allowed to own homes here and visit the US freely. They should be barred permanently from visiting here.

@Happy_Killbot if you share all the time, you lose to those who don't? do you think this is a contest of acquisition? what a shamefully selfish attitude! and i do not mean that as a compliment. i have nothing more to say to you about this.

g

@OwlInASack libertarians are not right wing, and neither am I. They tend to lean to the right, because of similar economic philosophy. If left and right is the only metric you use libertarian is centrist but that discredits the authoritarian egalitarian metric of which libertarian is very egalitarian.

Libertarians are adamantly anti-fascist, anti-socialist, and anti big government. They are pro personal freedom, something the government can not give, only take away.

@OwlInASack, @genessa if you don't collect resources, you will die. If you give away all your resources you will die unless you get something in return.

That's just common sense.

@OwlInASack, @genessa, @TomMcGiverin You realize high taxes help the rich and hurt the poor right? All it does is prevent class mobility by making it harder for anyone to move up.

The rich don't manage their money the same as most people. They keep it in investments and assets that increase in value, and then they don't pay taxes on those things.

They end up spending very little on taxes, about 10-15% of their net wealth over their lifetime, where everyone to dumb to utilize these meathods pays more like 50% for various reasons.

Consider inflation, if you have $1000 and prices of things go up 5%, now your money is worth the same as if there was no inflation and they took $48 from you. Inflation is a tax, because the excess value went to the central banks that supplied that money.

@Happy_Killbot That's the problem with the capitalist/libertarian analysis. Where did that "million dollar worth of goods and services" come from and how did it come to be in possession of one person? Did he (yes, it's usually he in libertarian world) magically create them himself?

Any Rand's idea of "giver and taker" are just rich people's wet dream, because it allows them to fantasize that they must be so much better people than the rest and they DESERVE the wealth.

In real life, the wealth is created by someone other than the one who possesses it. It is a product of forced redistribution of resources. That is, it is a product of "forced sharing" that Ayn Rand's of the world find so offensive.

@AtheistReader So, If I invest in a company, then I shouldn't get a share of the profit because I didn't make the goods or services...

Then why should anyone invest at all? You give your money away because you might get something in return. This is acting altruistically for ones own self interest. Our economy would crash and burn without entrepreneurial activity.

If someone gives you shovels and pays you to dig holes on their land, and you find gold, why should that gold belong to you? You don't own the land, the shovels, or the gold. To take it would be theft. The man paying workers to dig holes takes all the risk by buying shovels and paying people to dig holes. The workers get paid the same if they do or do not find any gold.

Saying what I earned by investing belongs to everyone is very greedy and selfish. The only way you can claim part of that reward is if the workers take the risk, meaning that if the company they work for fails they should be losing money.

@AtheistReader, @OwlInASack The world has never been more peaceful or wealthier in human existence. People complain about the abuse of capitalism, but they have never been a true slave. The overwhelming majority of the worlds population doesn't have to deal with starving, war, or poverty.

These things are at an all time low. Capitalism has risen more people out of poverty than any other economic model.

@AtheistReader The answer is yes, he made what he had for himself, but if the work load is high enough he might pay someone else to do his job for him, then he only collects the profit from that work, so everyone benefits. If the paid worker thinks he demands a share of the profit, he should do the work for himself.

If the workers are laid off due to advances in automation, then they can spend their time elsewhere not working for the employer, possibly ( if they are smart and ambitious ) make their own business and provide more products and services for everyone.

@OwlInASack Unfettered capitalism has never existed. Also, don't look at averages when some things are extreme. Would you drive across a river that was on average 2 feet deep? You don't have enough information to make any meaningful analysis this way.

@OwlInASack My point is that the number of people in poverty is very low when compared to historical figures, and the countries that adopt free markets tend to see vast economic benefits that ends up making everyone more productive as a whole. This leads to lower poverty rates. Giving people a steady source of income is good for the people, and if they got that money by producing something with value that is even better.

The number of people living in poverty is high, nut there are also more people. The percentage has gone down significantly.

There is no guarantee that increasing spending on welfare programs will help people get out of poverty, and the evidence is strongly against that. The US welfare system is grossly ineffective at reducing poverty and has a tendency to reduce social mobility of those who receive its benefits.

@OwlInASack notice how my last question never got answered, supporting my observation that libertarians, when asked a question they cannot answer (which would be MOST reasonable questions) they change the subject. my question was "then if it is really sharing, why does the sharer expect something back?" note too how it's always all or nothing. you have to give away ALL your resources. there is no consideration of actual sharing. sharing, to a libertarian, means giving up, curling up and dying. they are the ultimate selfish creatures.

g

@genessa I answered your question a long time ago. Scroll up to: "he doesn't. That's the point I'm trying to make." You just ignored it because you didn't like the answer. You expecting to receive a portion of what I have against my will is selfish.

@Happy_Killbot oh yeah i ignored it. it's not as if there were a gazillion responses back and forth and i might have MISSED it (and that is in fact what happened). but you assume i ignored it. but it's a dumb answer anyway because if that's your point you HAVE no point. your assuming i expect to receive anything at all from you is dumb too. you make assumptions at such a fast rate you should sell assumptions on ebay; some fool would buy them. i don't buy any of it. and by the way, stop calling it "sharing" if you contend it's against your will. you asked about sharing and then changed it to being robbed, essentially. sharing isn't being robbed and being robbed isn't sharing. you just use whichever one you think proves your point at a given moment, but you don't HAVE a point.

g

@OwlInASack Child labor was decreasing before child labor laws were put into effect, the laws only maintained that status quo.

Suffrage of women was fueled by the women who worked in American factories during WW2 who then decided they would rather work than be housewives.

Slavery failed as an economic system because machines can do better work than low or unpaid laborers, who also tend to revolt on occasion.

minimum wages devalue work for everyone, not increase the value of work for them. Think about it like this: If I charge $0.25 for something, including your time, then the government says you can't buy/sell it for less than $1, then the price of everything else will go up, meaning that your time is now undervalued until you demand a higher salary. See push pull economic theory.

The universal education we get in public schools is designed to keep people complacent and uniformed, so that the students will grow up to be obedient docile workers with no critical thinking skills. Even the way schools are set up to function is deliberately made to be like working in a factory, with everyone doing the same things at the same times and responding to authority the same way it works in factories. This was intentional.

If someone is accumulating money, that means that society owes them, not them owing society. They traded goods and services to obtain that money, it is a placeholder for what they already gave society. If they give that money away or have it forcefully taken, then why should they continue to participate in that society that is essentially stealing from them.

Even the poor have to pay taxes, and that hurts their ability to move upward. All taxes can manage to do is keep people where they are, it can not move the aggregate up. When wealth is redistributed to the poor forcefully, they will not get out of poverty because they lack the skills and knowledge necessary to do so. If you want people to get out of poverty, you have to teach them how to do it.

@Happy_Killbot nothing you have said directly above is factual. not a damned thing.

g

@genessa "why pay to educate someone else's kids? because 1. you were a kid and you didn't pay; pay now." That was in your comment to the original post. It was always about sharing.

My point was: If someone shares and gets nothing in return, then they lost whatever they shared, meaning they hurt themselves intentionally. So if you have a million dollars, and you share a million dollars but get nothing from that, then you just lost a million dollars. That's why most of the charity organizations owned by rich people are philanthropic disguises for foreign investment, and the ones that are public tend to take the majority of the donated funds for "administrative purposes".

Please, if you can prove that any of my claims are not factual, then do so. Do you really think a few slaves can do better work than a paid employee with a tractor?

@Happy_Killbot you quote ME to prove YOU are talking about sharing. uh....

if your point is about someone with a million dollars sharing a million dollars, then you do not understand taxes, or sharing, or anything. no one is sharing everything, not even mother teresa (when she was alive).

i don't have to prove your claims are unfactual. prove there is no santa claus. that is how ridiculous your claims are.

g

@genessa That's not how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove anything, You have to falsify it. I am innocent until proven guilty. That is how all of science operates!

If you can prove I am wrong, then I am wrong. If you can't prove me wrong, you have to accept the possibility that I am right.

No, sharing =/= taxes I never said that, you are just making a straw man because you don't understand what I am trying to say, so you can claim yourself morally superior.

@Happy_Killbot actually it IS how the burden of proof works. you make the claims, you provide the proof. meanwhile, if i can't be bothered to prove your ridiculous and false claims wrong, and you can't be bothered to support them, i do not have to accept a damned thing. you are making shit up.

you are the one making straw men and telling people they said things they never said. again, you tend to make shit up.

but i did speak incorrectly some distance above. i said i had nothing more to say to you. i apologize. this time i will remember what i said and say no more to you. this may not stop me from speaking ABOUT you to others. i will no longer be trying to convince YOU of anything.

g

@OwlInASack A lot of leftists tote the Scandinavian model as the prime example of welfare working, but then politely hide the fact that they don't have much public debt, they are a small, culturally homogeneous, and have trustworthy politicians. The Nordic model definitely works for Norway, but I am skeptical if it works everywhere.

Compare them to India, which has 23% of the worlds poverty, and has been democratic for a lot longer than they have been capitalist, and this has lead to a lot of their problems, mostly around welfare and a small middle class. If they were to spend the same amount of their GDP on welfare as Nordic countries, they would probably stop growing their economy altogether.

@OwlInASack No, that is how proof works. an anti-vaxer makes a claim: "Vaccines cause autism" that is a falsifiable claim. Scientists look at the data and determine that there is no statistical correlation, therefor that isn't true. Proving what we don't know is the cornerstone of all knowledge.

@OwlInASack No, science is the obtaining of that evidence through rigorous testing. Science is not the evidence. I could provide infinite amounts of evidence supporting my claims, that would never prove me right. If you provide a single piece of evidence contradicting my claim, the whole thing is false.

That is why I provided evidence to contradict all the claims you gave for things governments did. I proved you claims are wrong. You never gave any evidence in support of your claims:

"All social progress has come about because of anti-capitalist agitation. Without it we’d still have kids down the mines. Suffrage, paid sickness and holidays, minimum wages, universal education"

I refuted all of those. Why the double standard?

Also, you take my quote out of context. It was a response to genesa saying "nothing you have said directly above is factual. not a damned thing." With no evidence. If it is false you can prove it wrong.

@HomeAloneSunday True, and I was aware of that when I chose to be childless, so it made the decision easier. It's possible that I might meet a woman who has kids that would "adopt" me as a parent figure, but I'm not counting on it. I do believe tho, that this desire is the reason that it seems like all the childless women on Match indicate that they are not interested in men who are also childless, because, they are also realizing how they may need people to look after them in old age, so they are hedging their bets that way.

You chose to be chid-free. Not child-less.

@Robecology What is the difference?

@Robecology Thank you. We'll see what happens......

i have 2 children & i certainly couldn't count on either of them taking care of me in my old age.
my wife is more than 10 yrs younger than me & i know that she would take care of me until the end. the sad, depressing thing is that i probably won't be around to look after her when she needs me.

@callmedubious My late wife was 16 years older than me and when she got dementia in 2011, my main worry was that nothing happened to me before I saw her thru the rest of her life. She died over two years ago and now it seems like I will be on my own the rest of my life, not by choice. I am estranged from my family and soon my last parent will be dead. My friends are supportive, but they are not enough for me to be satisfied with being alone the rest of my life. I am 60 and, unlike most men and women my age, I will date someone several years older than me if they are otherwise compatible, but I am not going to date someone more than 8 years older than me because I do not want to go thru watching someone get sick and die anytime in the next decade. I have been thru it once and it almost destroyed me emotionally, as well as taking a toll on my physical health.

I suppose my explanation of why I won't date someone ten years older than me explains a lot of why women who are several years younger than me on Match show no interest in dating men several years older than them, which leaves guys our age with very limited prospects until we get old enough to date the elderly widows out there.

@TomMcGiverin ,
there has to be many potential partners (younger widows, divorcees) within 8 yrs of your age.
just a matter of meeting the right one (serendipity).

@callmedubious In theory, there are, but when you whittle away all the younger ones who won't date anyone more than a couple years older than them (the vast majority of women on Match in my local area), the women who won't date a man without kids, (about 85% of the women in my area in my age range) and the women who are not hipsters like me, (don't like country music and are not religious) it leaves very few women in my local area.

And that's before we even get into who is at least attractive-looking, as in average-looking.

@callmedubious Your younger wife is taking the same chance on you that I did on my late wife, namely hoping that the time with you will be worth the risk that she will be widowed at such an older age that she is unable to find another compatible partner. That is what I am experiencing now. I used to think that with my better than average track record on relationships compared to most divorced people-one LTR that was happy and lasted 22 years-that I would have a relatively easier time finding someone compatible to date after I was widowed. Boy, was I wrong. Track record by itself means nothing in online dating and no one is impressed by it. Most people in online dating appear to act more like they are in high school or college and choose who to date as if no one has a history and everyone is presumed to be equally prepared to do relationships, when nothing could be further from the truth.....

The definition of altruism says it is not to be of a benefit for the individual [merriam-webster.com] There is a lot of research trying to prove it even exists. Any tit for tat, present or future benefit is not altruism.

i think what you're saying is that friends are important; b/c you can & will help each other.

@JackPedigo That seems perfectly consistent with the example I used. If you help someone now, maybe they help you or your society in the future. Doing it inherently or with deliberation does not change anything because I'm describing the act.

In short, I didn't say "altruism" a noun, I said "Altruistically" which is an adverb.

• rubs forehead because arguing semantics is a waste of time *

If you invest in a startup, there is no saying if you will get your money back with interest in your own lifetime, so even though that is the goal you still have to have act selflessly. It's the exact same thought process as giving money to a homeless person, you think, if I give this person money maybe they can get off the streets, but there is no guarantee of that. Neither is altruistic, but in both cases the actors are behaving altruistically.

If there were no evolutionary benefit to helping out the weak and the poor, we would most likely have evolved tendencies to kill or expel those who are of little or no value to our social groups, as this is typically the norm for the overwhelming majority of species.

@callmedubious Yes, but I would also take it a step beyond that to also include limited cooperation with ones adversaries. You don't have to like your neighbors, but you should still respect their territory. If they have more of something you want, and you have more of something they want, why not trade? That way everyone wins a little, and over time that builds up.

@Happy_Killbot This is why scientist debate on it's very existence. To me, true altruism means no personal benefit. Helping others with a thought of them helping oneself is a form of insurance and not real altruism. Again, to me, altruistically refers to altruism and one can't have one meaning and the other a different one.

@JackPedigo A hard definition like that has some interesting meaning when taken to it's logical conclusion. If it only counts as altruism if nothing is received in return, you would have to wait an infinite amount of time before you knew if that action was altruistic, therefor you can never know if it was altruistic. I prefer labels I can actually put on something that has already happened.

They have the same meaning, but an adverb modifies the verb. In this case the verb is "acting".

@Happy_Killbot I would think 'knowing' if something you did has had an effect would negate it being truly altruistic.

@JackPedigo This reminds me of quantum mechanics, with some systems being in superposition until observed. Also reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 with the changing of history to meet the party's needs.

That would mean that if you help a homeless man, and a year latter he has a job and a home, then he buys you a drink you weren't being altruistic.

Your definition therefore demands that people who need help stay in need of help in order for altruism to exist. If everyone became wealthy no one could be altruistic.

I don't like your more strict definition for pragmatic reasons.

@Happy_Killbot I disagree about the part of pragmatism. Pragmatism is about not having feelings except for things to succeed and helping other humans is not the road to success. We don't run the planet but need it to sustain us. I don't help homeless people as I see their plight as a symptom of a bigger problem. I have also had dealings with homeless people some of who were happy with their situation.

What does altruism have to do with someday getting something out of your actions? To me altruism has to do with a much bigger picture and emotions should have little to do with it. Often, the reasonable (and altruistic approach) goes against one's + feelings. There is a philosophy called the Trolley Dilemma. A whole book was written about this with ever increasing dilemma's. Sorry but to be truly altruistic is to not give a fig about what other's think. It's only about doing what one believes is necessary.

@JackPedigo What I mean is that your definition isn't pragmatic, meaning it has little or no use. Pragmatism isn't about feelings or success, its the counter to absolutism that argues that there is absolute truth and absolute falsity. In the pragmatic philosophy, we assume that there is no such thing as true and false or right and wrong and chose what to believe based on how useful it is.

For example, you believe that we need this planet to survive and we should always maintain it. I believe that we should disassemble planets for their resources and build space habitats, or find other ways to live in space. Neither is right or wrong, but using a planet for its resources is an excellent way to increase your population beyond what planets support with ever running out of space, so it is more pragmatic to do so.

"There is a philosophy called the trolley dilemma" do you prof read your own posts? The trolley problem is a question in philosophy, not a philosophy itself. The classic trolley problem is about morality, not altruism, and has little to do with what we are discussing.

One thing about Libertarians that confuses people is that many are atheists. Yet they ally themselves with Republicans.

@JackPedigo Yes. There’s a group here for Libertarian Atheists. I think most have blocked me. Lol, I can’t imagine why!

@CarolinaGirl60 I know as I have already experienced the ire of one member from the group.

Ill help you!

Greed is but a word jealous men inflict upon the ambitious

@OwlInASack If you were truly ambitious you would detest the suffering of the unambitious.

Fortune favors the bold.

If someone can't make a good life for themselves in the US it's more likely their own fault than bad luck.

If you are ambitious, you will get ahead. If you are not ambitious, you will fall behind. Then you will say those who got ahead are greedy to make yourself feel morally superior. It's classic slave morality.

Judging by all of the quotation marks and attitude in the OP, the goal is just to piss all over AR.

@IAMGROOT that happens a lot..are you a fan?

Not sure what I was getting at either. But it seemed to me that there is an increasing number of instances when people talk about "self-love" and "taking care of one's own" stuff that I had been seeing. I think it is a by-product of self-justification aided by AR. I think it is a dangerous attitude to have.

Your statement that "I didn't have children because I am selfish" is an example of different meanings that term "selfish" can have. I cannot imagine however why anyone would accuse anyone else of selfishness for their choice not to have children....

The bottom line as you put is, is that I believe there is new cult of "self-love" that ends up being a silly excuse for truly selfish behavior or worldview. And that is dangerous.

@AtheistReader If you are trying to use personal selfishness as the trend you are seeing about not caring about such things as whether a poor person should or should not get food stamps, yes, I agree with you...a society that does not take care of the lowest level of suffering is bound to be doomed in more ways than we can imagine...uprisings, war, disease, etc. all caused by not thinking of others as well as ourselves...how can we evolve and be enlightened if we cannot give a hand up to others? In so many ways available from a kind word to a safe home...

That kind of selfishness is more based on cruelty and meanness of heart...of lack of empathy...of using misinformation to fit the end you want...to think backwards, from the conclusion and then forward to fit that conclusion is dangerous and just plain ignorant...

It is not self-love...you can't love yourself if you can't feel the pain of others...self love as you describe it is a game of marketing to justify anything...being unhealthy and overweight, is a perfect example and we see where that has gone to improve people...we tell people it is ok to be fat at their detriment and the detriment of our society...it has backfired in so many ways...

I see being child free from another angle. People usually have kids out of selfishness. We even have a woman here who is in her mid-40's and is desperate to have a child. She knows of the environmental impact but her biological clock's alarm is sounding. She has had no experience with child raising and most people who have kids haven't a clue. I admire women who forgo having kids especially when it is a conscious decision.

Thinktwice...You are such a cool human being.

@thinktwice Am I a fan of Rand/Objectivism? Yes. I have taken heat for it before on this site. I'm sure people who really do not understand what rational selfushness is will piss all over me now too for merely making this statement.

@IAMGROOT I read her when I was very young...I still have my original Atlas Shrugged...

@JackPedigo ,
that poor woman is captured by Schaupenhauer's overpowering force of Universal Will. just like the rabbits that are breeding in our complex.

@callmedubious I never felt the biological clock syndrome...never heard it ticking or even listened for it...perhaps early in life, I plugged my ears so I could choose a different path rather than motherhood...

@thinktwice ,
i respect your choice.

@callmedubious I am always grateful I had a choice..many women do not...perhaps the reason I advocate for women a lot...

@thinktwice My late partner's sister-in-law (they were very close) was brought up to believe women are here to serve men. They are Iranian and lived in Dubai and her husband (my brother-in-law) was a very kind, wealthy and generous man. They have 3 kids and applied for Canadian citizenship. They are in the process of getting it and are living in Vancouver BC (near me). The sister-in-law with her daughter came first and the daughter was (is still) enrolled in UBC and was always at school so my partner tried to get the sister-in-law to have a life outside of family. She got her enrolled in a volunteer club, take English lessons and so on. She told her soon her kids would be grown and gone but the sister-in--law wouldn't hear of it. As soon as the rest of the family arrived she dropped everything to be the maid she was brought up to be. Her son was tired of being tied to his family's strings and left for Toronto. The oldest daughter married and had a kid of her own but, of course the family set up an apartment in their lavish home so now she too is trapped with her son and husband.

In my family we were totally free range and all have our separate lives. I believe this is natural and am glad we had choices of our own.

@JackPedigo Fascinating story...interesting thread...we have choices of all kinds that we don't give enough attention to...including what we read...our own understanding and interpretations, etc. I am always glad to see that...it validates that we can all see, read, hear the exact same thing and yet come out with our own conclusions and experiences...it is grand...

I find it interesting as well that you used the word "trapped"...is that how YOU feel it is or does she feel that way? I look at women with kids and think how awful, but obviously, they do not all feel that...it is my own feelings imposed on them...

Traps come in all forms...trapped in jobs, trapped in marriages, etc. Only the trapped can get themselves out and if they don't, perhaps to them, it is not a trap...choices...yes, so glad to have them

@thinktwice There is a curse, "may you live in interesting times" and I feel it every day. I have thought a lot about 'choices' and whether or not they were choices as many I had no control over (some I did but didn't think of that at the time).

What is trapped? To me it is being in a situation one may get some comforts and safety but the cost is freedom. My 2nd partner came from a somewhat dysfunctional home and couldn't wait to leave. She had a hard time but made it. She had a younger sister who never really questioned things and found herself staying at home and allowing mom and dad to meet her needs. The parents were basically grooming her to be their future caretaker (she was 23). She did complain to her older sister about this but did nothing. She had one boyfriend but the parents didn't approve so she dropped him. She did find another and the parents approved and they got married, she had a kid and moved away from home. However, she had no idea of life as a wife and couldn't do the most basic chores. Her husband was caught up in his work and was always busy. She then had an affair and the marriage crashed. The parents were devastated and disowned their daughter, that is until she dumped the other guy and came home. My partner was livid at this. This sister was definitely trapped.

In 2007 my late partner's (Parvin) Niece (Pegah) and her mother were visiting us and we went on a tour of the N Cascades National park. Pegah was 26 and had a boyfriend in Dubai who was also Iranian and had a good job. A problem existed in that he (Eman) had a part-time job in a disco and Pegah's parents didn't approve. She finally blew up on this trip and yelled at her mother. She reminded her that at 26 a Middle-Eastern woman was practically a spinster and they were standing in the way of her happiness. The mother was shocked at this 'disrespect' but Parvin laughed and supported Pegah. Eman dropped his disco job and they did get married and were on their own for a period. They had to apply separately for their PR (permanent residence) but did get it and did move to Vancouver. Pegah (and I am sure Eman) want to have a life of their own but can't really do this (I sense this when I see them). Vancouver is enormously expensive (the house the parents bought was a 1967 fixer-upper in the edge of the city and cost $1.2 million) and with a kid it is even harder. The family is nice and pays for everything so here we are again at security at the expense of freedom. I guess being trapped, in one way or another, is a part of life.

@JackPedigo did they feel trapped or is it your perception? One person's trap is another person's comfort?

And yes, life is full of compromise and accepting...they don't need to be traps all the time...

@thinktwice Wow, a really fast reader.

The son did feel trapped and complained about the trap of having his parent's pay for everything. It became an addiction and only when he graduated and found a job was he able to break this. He told us this numerous times which was why he moved to Toronto. Unfortunately, maybe, he does not have the lavish, free wheeling lifestyle he had before. He lives in a small efficiency apartment and has a good job and friends and, he says, he is satisfied.

Pegah never told this to me but Parvin and I often spoke of it. She did want to have her own life with her husband and son but, again, money. When the family first visited us in 2006 they told us how they had so much more money and a bigger, nicer domicile than us but they were envious of our relationship and our living standard. That sounds like a form of entrapment. It is one reason they wanted to immigrate to the west. How does one deal with a benevolent dictator when one feels they are losing their autonomy? This sounds like a deep issue and perhaps, inside we all feel there are things we wish we could change about our lives. I am starting to feel trapped with all the gardens and property maintenance I have. it hurts to start letting go but to try and manage things and not succeed hurts more.

@JackPedigo I am a very fast reader...I read about six books a week... ...

I am giving up my gardens and home for a free life...we can let go of the things that appear to trap us...we cannot do the same for others...they must find their own way out of the traps they want

I am trapped in marriage because of fear...out of comfort...because of money...when the pain gets to be too much, I will have to decide to stay in the trap or leave...

@thinktwice Thank you for your words. However, I think there are levels of entrapment and we all have areas we might feel things are not perfect. Life here makes up for the stressers and I just have set limits on my time and energy. I understand life is a balancing act and everything has a price.

I am sorry to hear about the marriage thing. I was in 2 relationships that ended in failure. I thought things were bad but heard other stories and realize they really weren't.

@thinktwice , to be candid: my wife (2nd) decided to not have children. she was only 24 when we got together..
i think meeting my 2 kids made her decision easier. one turned out to be callous bitch & the other a useless alcoholic.
had i to do it over i never would have had offspring. they were bad genes just waiting to be released.

@callmedubious I am sorry to hear that...we have no real idea how children turn out...even the best parenting often does awry...I had a great childhood...nothing bad influenced my decision...I just never felt any maternal pull and I was always intellectually curious and did not want anything to stand in the way of my pursuit...I have never regretted my decision...it did help in other decisions, such as how to be cared for when I get too old to do so...but I am free to live where I want and do what I want without offending or hurting family...etc. I would have been a good mother, I think....but it was not what I wanted...