The ethics of having children while in sub-standard metabolic condition
-
@Norwegian-Mugabe said in The ethics of having children while in sub-standard metabolic condition:
You should start running around town fucking babies into ladies.
Lol, I'm content with just one lady, I want to be a father, not a 'baby daddy'.
-
@Gull said in The ethics of having children while in sub-standard metabolic condition:
Being Peaty and knowing about early development shouldn't stop you from having children, on the contrary, as some of the problems of childhood that will arise may be solved with lesser damaging ways.
This is the clou of my problem, basically. I could do so much for my kids with the knowledge I have (and I'm not just thinking about the medical side, there's so much things I wish my parents taught me instead of having to learn everything the hard way)... but how well they can be if they're my kids and I'm so messed up?
You have no ethical obligations to be in the 100% best metabolic shape of your life, just do your best, you have good tools at your disposal.
Maybe not 100%, but how low is too low? I know many people who just shouldn't have children. If I cannot even take care of myself, should I bring new people to the world who will be entirely dependent on me?
-
@DonkeyDude I'm just some dude on the internet so take my advice or don't. I don't really know what you mean by so messed up. If your original post about IQs and such is correct it would seem your are not at all somebody who shouldn't have children. Maybe I'm being idealist but a child is born out of love, questions about responsibility etc are good to ponder before but should not preclude you from being a father if that is what you want to do. In general, taking yourself out of the gene pool voluntarily when you have a wife seems extreme.
-
Is this any different from normies who say they're not ready to have children due to finances, their career, wanting to travel, wanting to not settle down etc.? These reasons may have truth to them but you're also losing valuable time. Also, keep in mind that babies have a 50% higher metabolism than adults. If you raise a baby pro-metabolically from birth it might be much healthier than its parents.
-
@Gull @VehmicJuryman I actually agree with both of you, what you wrote out matches my own internal conversation. Maybe it's just because both me and missus had parents who were too occupied with their own bullshit to actually parent.
By messed up I mean I had a high score on the IQ test, but I work a minimum wage job I might lose when they finally notice I'm going to the toilet every two hours to wait out a panic attack; our house looks like some junkie den because we don't have energy to clean it properly, and so on.
Maybe I'm overthinking this; after all, tons of actual junkies I know do have kids and I sometimes get this thought that they have already staked their part in the future and we didn't because of some postmodern anxiety. Thanks for participating, it really helps.
-
I think you are asking all the right questions.
Low wages are designed to keep workers exactly where they are whilst the rich get richer. The system is being milked by the globalists who have stolen the pension funds and are resulting to killing the elderly and the weak. It’s not the poor that are milking the system. Understanding this should give you a better perspective.
Staggering 17 Million Deaths After Covid Vaccine Rollout
Nearly 500 People Became Billionaires During The Pandemic Year
-
At the least, there are many people who are far less fit to procreate and yet worry far less about said fitness than you do. If you want consensus on this quandary, you can go into any mass crowd and see the consequences of people saying yes to life under their circumstances, and judge for yourself if those consequences were good or not. This will at least gauge your optimism or pessimism for the quality of human life, and I bet it'll create a feedback loop in either direction; the more I see, the less affirming I am of their decisions.
Deciding this on principle is the tough question. In context, fairly easy, frankly. Ask yourself: Are you content with your own upbringing? Can you objectively measure its quality and say it meets a standard worthy of perpetuation? If so, then you can probably guarantee your children will be above this standard, considering your foreknowledge in their upbringing. And, under ideal circumstances, this would cause an upward spiral of health in the world.
Now, when faced with the question of if your life is 'good,' the answer should, at least according to Christian scholasticism, always be yes. There is no condition in which you can rightly say it were better if you were never born, even if you hate your own life. For life itself is a good thing to possess, and its deprivation thence evil (God's preservation of souls in hell in this sense is considered a form of mercy, because obliterating the damned from existence would be a loss on their part, even though some argue they merit it).
Does this mean that procreation is a moral imperative? Not exactly. For one thing, you can't deprive life from those who don't exist yet. And the idea of creating life for its own sake (animal instinct, I doubt most people think this deeply about procreating) seems to at least result in disastrous social problems due to the proliferation of low quality life, which, while an entirely secular concern, has become big enough of an issue that one may want to come up with some moral principle to ward against it, lest modern civilization collapse entirely under the weight of the ill-constituted.I never liked anti-natalist arguments about how the child would go on to live a poor life. While it could be made appealing with rhetoric such as "what if there's a 99% chance the baby grows up to be a 5'2" 90IQ hunchback PUFA goblin who does nothing honorable and slaves away in a warehouse for 75 years before shriveling up and croaking gracelessly?", to which, yeah, now it seems unappealing to encourage pro-natalism; the arguments are on principle morally unsound. And if, at the end of the day, one must always affirm thankfulness to be alive, then it seems impossible to quantify some degree of poorness/illness/etc before one can justly say they shouldn't exist. I mean, I was born and raised under some pretty piss-poor circumstances, and I still feel obligated to muster gratefulness for the fact. I'm certainly not gonna say my parents committing some sin by creating me.
Of course, you could just deny all of this by being an atheist, but saying that you can quantify a life's quality and its worthiness for proliferation thereof often leads to ideas like eugenics, which are... controversial, to say the least.
I think to methodically provide ethics for procreating or not, you need another factor, or something that goes beyond mere life. Do you want your blood to persist in the world, or should you want that? Do you want the responsibilities of children to provide some sense of fulfilment of duty in life? Will the child make use of its potential and do some good for the world, or for himself, or for God? After all, most of us end up nitpicking this or that flaw plaguing our lives, or some defect that we have no agency over. Few of us are going to be perfect, eugenic or even perfectly healthy specimens. But each life does have a modicum of potential with which to actualize something good and noble, and you can at least guarantee that much with procreation. Some will have more than others, but if you can ensure you fulfil your duties as a parent (many forget that part of the equation) in motivating and enabling the child to actualize that potential, then upward spiral will take place, small as it may be for some.
In any case, and on principle, saying that one's child will be suboptimally healthy, metabolic, etc, at least because of one's own current condition, is wresting away more agency from ourselves than we have; for the child's wellbeing is also determined by how it's developed in the womb, and how it's raised in its early life. And stressing out over minute details regarding childbearing is... probably not peaty, ironically!
-
@Tahodama Very nice reply and much better worded than I could have.
-
@DonkeyDude As for panic attacks, cleaning your house etc... You can do something about it, even if minor, and try to compound the results with time, over a year or two. This isn't to say that it is your fault if it is hard for you to get out of this tough situation.
I think, if you haven't, you should read Ray Peat's article on Learned Helplessness ( https://raypeat2.com/articles/articles/dark-side-of-stress-learned-helplessness.shtml ) because you may recognize patterns about this deadly behavior.
Maybe start by asking yourself practical questions :
- Do you WANT a child ? (it seems that you do from this post)
- Are you ready to provide a correct environment for this child ?
- If not, why ? As in in practice. Quality of life ? Job? Personal problems? What could you do to overcome these obstacles ? How long do you think it would take ? etc
While it may be overwhelming to face these questions, it may provide you with a few small things to improve about your situation, making you comfortable enough to do you what you want to do.
I hope I'm not sounding condescending, and what I want to stress is that you have more agency that you may think and that is a good thing.
-
This is a very interesting thread with some very interesting responses. I would say though that a lot of the chat seems rather pessimistic, almost like its clinging on to an ideal that if not achievable in full, is rejected altogether. This is a dangerous trap, energy, life, thought should always be in motion. each generation should strive to improve upon the last.
Your typical part time peater is much better placed to reproduce than your typical resigned and asleep commoner. The fact that you can post here already indicates the earnest attitude and intellect that is so important in parenthood.
Regarding the actual physical concerns of being able to produce healthy kids, you most certainly can. My partner and I were both brought up on extremely deficient diets with rampant health issues, hypo thyroidism, sever depression, Rheumatoid arthritis, balding, IBD, hypoglycemia, bla bla etc etc. I was chronically stressed, malabsorbing, adicted to marathon running, zero body fat vegan. Partner on SSRI's, etc. we drastically change our lifestyles for about a year, naturally conceived first try, extremely healthy baby girl, high birthweight, precocious, tall and full of energy. we will likely pass on some genetic baggage, as did our parents to us, but we are trending in the right direction. If there is one thing that the human body excels at its adapting. change your environment and your genes will come along for the ride.
Ontop of this there isn't a single more powerful stimulator of change than parenthood. For the woman her entire body is reborn afresh. for the father his soul is scrubbed clean and deeply energized. The financial concerns are BS, kids don't need money, they need engaged, attentive and sincere parents and a clean simple environment. I can guarantee you will be better of with kids.
And even apart from any of this, WTF could you possibly occupy that next 70 years of life with that could justify even getting out of bed in the morning. With IQ's in the 120-140's your mind will simply bore itself into atrophy. Kids are there to balance and complete our existence, to burden us with obligation so we don't fester in our own egos.
xx
-
Peat harder. If u were healthy you wouldnt be worrying about any of this
-
@celestialrestrcn said in The ethics of having children while in sub-standard metabolic condition:
Peat harder. If u were healthy you wouldnt be worrying about any of this
Well that's the point - what if I don't peat myself to health quickly enough, or ever?
As for the rest of the replies: thank you for the thoughtful posts. I need time to digest them and respond.
-
Don't stress
Just avoid problems like autism and they will be 100% fine, I can promise you that, if you do the things to avoid the worst issues small things here and there won't hurt them. But brain damage from premature birth or vaccines is brutal and not easy to recover from. I speak from experience okay man. I think you should move with total confidence as long as you eat good food and avoid modern poisons. Theres no stress. God takes care of you
-
@DonkeyDude thats what im saying bro. Have u and ur foid tried progest e, penicillin, thyroid, cyproheptadine, high dose thiamine/aspirin/K2 Mk4/D3/Egg shell etc? If conventional peating alone is not showing the results you want I mean
I dont think ur children will have much problems even if u have them now unless you are severely ill or stressed (if uve been peating for a while now I doubt u are) Nobody in this day and age is thriving everybody is fucked in some way or another plus everybodys diet is shit
-
@celestialrestrcn said in The ethics of having children while in sub-standard metabolic condition:
progest e, penicillin, thyroid, cyproheptadine, high dose thiamine/aspirin/K2 Mk4/D3/Egg shell etc?
Out of that list we haven't tried penicillin (I tried azythromycin, but it has caused stomach inflammation) but I don't think our problems are gut related (phenyl salicylate, carrot salad and other stuff in that vein didn't do much) and K2 Mk4 (not available in our country, idealabs is too expensive for a vitamin). We have also tried tons of other stuff, both Peaty and not so much; we have drawers upon drawers full of failed supplements. I have started on thyroid this year and it does seem to have some effect, but it is literally the last possible thing that could help.
-
@Tahodama said in The ethics of having children while in sub-standard metabolic condition:
Are you content with your own upbringing? Can you objectively measure its quality and say it meets a standard worthy of perpetuation?
This was the easiest question in this post, and I can answer it truthfully for my wife too without consulting her: absolutely not. In fact, I have a long list of things not to do that is directly inspired by my own past. And this is a part of my desire to have kids. No matter what I do in life, I will never change my past, my childhood, my formative experiences; I cannot do that for myself, but I can create that gift for someone else, someone new.
@Tahodama said in The ethics of having children while in sub-standard metabolic condition:
I mean, I was born and raised under some pretty piss-poor circumstances, and I still feel obligated to muster gratefulness for the fact. I'm certainly not gonna say my parents committing some sin by creating me.
Cannot one be grateful for their existence and yet contend their parents were incompetent? I'm certainly happy that my wife exists, yet it's pretty obvious to me her parents were not qualified to properly rear and train a puppy, much less an actual person.
But indeed, it does seem that it's hard to come up with an ethical standard for reproduction. It's just too deeply intertwined with mystery of life and existence it general. My hindbrain's reaction to this is to push even more strongly to just take a leap of faith.
-
@DonkeyDude You can certainly say so; I'm speaking in the terms of moral theology, and admitting one's parents weren't ideal is not the same as saying they committed an unjust act, although that's being very technical.
Nobody in this day and age is thriving everybody is fucked in some way or another plus everybodys diet is shit
This is both a saddening and encouraging statement. Sad, in the sense that life quality is so poor, or to put it with more stinging words: So far below what it could be! But encouraging in the sense that this almost endows one with a sense of duty to procreate in order that humans collectively can rise to higher standards of life.
I think it's almost a noble instinct to be hesitant to procreate, for it at least displays an awareness of the common good (a trait of hajnal civilization) and concern for societal wellbeing. But in a case when we're all at a disadvantage it might be time to put those concerns aside, at least when most of us have an equal chance to provide society with better progeny, and thus equal duty. -
@DonkeyDude I'll take a different angle:
The nature of marriage is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. One cannot then fully conform to the nature of marriage without children when he's physically able to have them.
It is then unethical to not have children in marriage.
-
I think I have finally realized what my big contention is. I do believe any kids we have will have a massive advantage due to Peaty knowledge and other generally useful skills/philosophy we have picked up over the years. We are basically in the situation of a sports coach that knows everything there is about getting to a championship, yet just doesn't have the physical prerequisites to use this knowledge himself.
Even the money will not be that big of a problem long term - our kids and grandkids stand to eventually inherit from like 20-30 bare branch aunts and uncles, and despite our general loserdom we have put together a nest egg that in time, God willing, should grow enough to enable our kids to perpetually NEET in our basement if they wish so.
What I'm really worried about is that they will hate us for having them. Despite lofty future prospects, their childhood will likely be quite hard and they will have to solve their problems on their own. In a sense, I fell like I'm passing my duty to secure safe and easy life to the next generation. That's probably selfish, and I probably overestimate the problem.
-
@DonkeyDude Why would they hate you ? I mean outside of the teen phase where it's 'cool' to hate your parents ?
