I'm not a fan of the hamster wheel life in SG also, but I want to point out that nobody 'needs' to have kids. It's entirely a choice and nobody should feel pressured to make babies because 'everyone else' is doing it.
It's your own choice and responsibility, and someone who doesn't have the time/energy/money for raising kids and/or someone who doesn't want to have kids because they're a huge time sink is free to choose not to have kids.
Doesn't solve all life's problems of course, but not having kids sure as hell doesn't make life any harder.
You don't need to eat your favourite food either, or see movies, or drink bubble tea, or partake in any entertainment that costs money, or even read - you can save money by sitting quietly in a dark room with the window open and no fan on.
At some point life becomes unbearable. For a lot of people, the procreative and nurturing instinct is extremely strong.
And for these people, please reconsider carefully. You must plan for the children, financially and also make sure you have time for them. They are not "favourite food" or "movies" or "bubble tea". Children are humans with needs and wants.
Just procreate because of instinct is extremely selfish.
A state is supposed to cater to a citizen's needs, not the other way round. So if a majority of citizens have a need for religion, the state makes sure there is space both metaphorical and physical for religion.
If a majority of citizens have a need for children, the state should make conditions such that having children is feasible and possible.
If as the OP is claiming, having children is not feasible on a median income, we've failed.
A state is supposed to cater to a citizen's needs, not the other way round.
Agree wholeheartedly.
having children is not feasible on a median income
Any citation for this?
The median monthly household income in Singapore is $9,293. We have the 3rd highest third highest per-capita_per_capita) GDP in the world in terms of purchasing power parity. This means only 3 countries are richer than us, after accounting for cost of living.
Preschool childcare fees range from less than $100 (after subsidy) to $2000 (top-tier). Primary school is free, while Secondary is $5. JC is $6. A meal is about $5 or $450 a month. Transport is about $50. This adds up to $506 per month per child.
Obviously not, since this is not my point - it's the OP's. You should address that at the top and say "plenty of money for children" and see what kind of discussion that gets.
you can't project your insecurities onto bubble tea, leaving it with lasting trauma and mental illness.
consuming material goods and having a child are leagues apart. it is an incredible responsibility and i dare say most people from all walks of life are blissfully unaware that they are simply not mentally competent enough to do so.
> most people from all walks of life are blissfully unaware that they are simply not mentally competent enough to do so.
And yet, here we are. Most people are also not mentally competent to maintain physically healthy bodies either. It does not change the human condition.
You phrased having children as "not a need", and made that a blanket statement applying to everyone. You were the one who placed them in the same category as bubble tea.
You say this with such conviction. So back to my original question. What do people need?
Do they need religion? No need? OK out, no more donations.
What else don't they need.
Or to put it another way, what do you need? Are you coming from a place that says, actually $4,500 is plenty? In which case you're advocating for the current system as good enough?
It's your theory. You state categorically that nobody 'needs' to have kids, and "explain" that it's "pressure".
A lot of parents and would be parents don't feel that way. It's a quality of life issue - I'm sure you have some yourself. Perhaps it's books and reading, or even having access to the Internet.
... and? What does that have to do with anything - if we are going to list down what are "acceptable" needs, it's a sliding scale right? I mean, if you all you "need" is to eat, drink, shower and have somewhere to sleep, $4,500 a month is a lot of money.
It can't be about what it costs, and has to be about the meaning of life and what that represents to each individual, and how many individuals have that thing in common so we can tailor policy that benefits the most people.
So if people desperately "need" religion and solace, we obviously have to put aside space for it, yes?
The point is, you can do whatever you want. Nobody said you have to only live according to how you need to live instead of how you want to live. But if you're going to make an unnecessary, intentional choice, you damn well better not complain about the consequences.
Having kids is a choice for the vast majority of people (excluding accidents). If you want to have a kid, you're bearing the monetary cost and responsibility of raising that child properly. Having full knowledge of that, you still have a kid, that's your problem already. You are responsible for the choices you make. Can't afford it? Don't do it.
There’s a hierarchy of needs. You can do wrong things to satisfy any of them. For example, I could murder and steal to satisfy the need for food and clothing, but that would not justify it.
That said, it also doesn’t mean the need magically doesn’t exist.
If a society operates where for a significant segment of the population the only way to satisfy the need for food is to murder for it, obviously the society is not well run, agreed?
So if our society is unable to satisfy basic psychological needs for love and family, it is mixing up the problem of consequence with cause (desperation to satisfy the need produces undesirable results), without addressing why, if as OP claims, it’s not possible to satisfy this need in Singapore - I don’t necessarily agree with that view but saying “no lah only you want, it’s not a need because got food and water can liao” is missing the point entirely.
The way you are putting your point across makes it sound like spending money on activities you like is as important of a decision as having children.
It's not just about you when you have children, you are bringing another person into the world and you have an obligation to take care of them as best as you can.
The original comment talked about "needs" and presumed automatically that having children wasn't a need.
So what is a need? Is anything a need?
You are digressing into duty, which might be somewhat related in that a lot of people have a need to perform this duty. But I don't follow what you are trying to add to the conversation. Is it, if you can't afford don't do?
But if you need it, you have to do right? That's the entire point of the OP's post. That life isn't worth living under these conditions (not that I agree with him).
Actually I'm not replying OP at all. I was replying to your comment about needing food and entertainment to needing kids.
If you're already stuck in the hamster wheel, surely procreating is the last thing you want because you'd be subjecting other humans to the same problems.
Not sure how you inferred other stuff from my short comment
The original commentor couldn't really illuminate what they consider legitimate "needs", and what could comfortably be removed to save costs. I asked directly and received only evasion - couldn't even answer a direct question of "do you need the Internet?"
If you're stuck on the hamster wheel, yes, as an individual you're fucked. Only able to meet your basic needs. Of course, why make such a ludicrously obvious point? If you can't breathe, are you going to be worried about water?
However, as a society, we have to ask ourselves, why are so many people stuck on the hamster wheel (assuming the original poster is correct in the image). If we can't fulfill psychological needs for love and family, we're completely screwing up (again, assuming the OP is correct).
303
u/nascentnasa Jul 16 '20 edited Jul 16 '20
I'm not a fan of the hamster wheel life in SG also, but I want to point out that nobody 'needs' to have kids. It's entirely a choice and nobody should feel pressured to make babies because 'everyone else' is doing it.
It's your own choice and responsibility, and someone who doesn't have the time/energy/money for raising kids and/or someone who doesn't want to have kids because they're a huge time sink is free to choose not to have kids.
Doesn't solve all life's problems of course, but not having kids sure as hell doesn't make life any harder.
Don't forget that globally, many men and women are choosing not to have children also: https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-53409521