Technically that makes everyone who's over the age of 60 a sort of parasite. That doesn't mean we look down on them.
Is a childless teacher refusing to do their part to create the next generation? Arguably a good teacher can have more impact on society than any parent will. How about someone who invents a technology that has decades long repercussions.
George Washington didn't have children. Was he a parasite taking just the benefits from society?
I've got kids, but I'm not naive enough to think that people without kids are all parasites. I think a healthy society has a balance of people doing different things - raising children needs a huge amount of attention and emotional labour, and it's definitely not for everyone. But you can contribute to society in other ways.
> Technically that makes everyone who's over the age of 60 a sort of parasite. That doesn't mean we look down on them.
No, they just frontloaded their contribution. Nothing in the definition says that it has to perfectly meter out its contribution to the symbiosis so that there's never a second where it's not giving some little portion.
> Is a childless teacher refusing to do their part to create the next generation?
I've seen what teachers do, firsthand. It'd be better for everyone if they just sat it out and did nothing. So they're pretty far into the negative.
> but I'm not naive enough to think that people without kids are all parasites.
Nothing naive about it. It's just the definition of parasitism. Taking from the host, giving nothing in return. Sure, some may have some medical issues that prevent it... they have my sympathy. Maybe that's Georgie W's excuse, dunno. But for those that make it a choice, yes, 110% parasite.
> I think a healthy society has a balance of people doing different things
There's nothing healthy about a society that doesn't make the next generation.
> and it's definitely not for everyone.
The trouble is that it really is for everyone. If you think that someone else can have children for you, then you don't get to make society. Which might be a bit of a problem for you, considering that you live in it.
> Technically, that makes you a sort of parasite. You have no trouble taking your share of the benefits that come from living in our society, but refuse to do your part to create the next generation of people who would comprise that society.
The benefits of living in society are generally paid for by OP's tax money, not some imaginary bonds that theoretical children will repay some day afterwards. On the other hand the epithet you used could be easily applied to poor people having bunch of children while on welfare...
> The benefits OP will take in his old age will largely be paid by the children of his generation.
Bringing up the children of OP's generation is paid by OP's taxes. Moreover, parents probably pay less, not more taxes for having children in a lot of western countries.
> You have no trouble taking your share of the benefits that come from living in our society
They didn't ask to be born, did they? Why should that accident of existence saddle them with obligations to birth others? This is such a shallow "yet you participate in society" argument.
It's also a zero-sum argument. Participating in society is likely to amount to giving, not taking. It's like Marxists thinking there's only so much wealth to go round and thus anyone who has any should feel ashamed.
The argument could be made that those who have children are the parasites, selfishly diverting resources to the useless ineffectual new humans that they've made for the fun of it. This argument would be nonsense too, but it wouldn't be worse than the other one.
Yes, how selfish. Giving birth to and raising the children that will grow the food you will eat when you're too old and decrepit to do it yourself.
Do you all just plan on suicide whenever you feel you've hit your peak? Or will you go on, and just look at those who provide for you as suckers too unlucky to have skipped the grift?
I mean, I'm not judging here, but it's clearly parasite behavior.
I will set aside money during my productive years and pay for food when I'm old. Just because the food is not made by fruit of my loins doesn't mean I'm being a parasite.
He is working, creating value for society, capturing only a portion of the value he creates, and deploying that value through consumption of experiences and services.
The fact that you would prefer he spent his money on children, instead of on other experiences, is irrelevant. Your desire to control other peoples spending, and to vilify them, for it, shows only that you are an immoral, authoritarian, asshole, and that you do not respect other people.
It is somewhat sad, that an immoral, authoritarian, freedom, hating, asshole, such as yourself might have children. I only hope that women are able to recognize that you are a monster, and that you do not respect other people.
> It is somewhat sad, that an immoral, authoritarian, freedom, hating, asshole, such as yourself might have children. I
Already have two. My daughter tells me she wants to have six. That seems ambitious, I'd be happy if she has three.
I guess from your perspective this really is sad. That makes me happier than I already was. If you weren't so sad, maybe you could do something about it. My descendants will tell each other stories and legends of the sad childless people who couldn't be bothered to shape society and create the next generation of people, and how they'd just throw barbless insults at those who did.
