We shouldn't have children.

First of all, the term children generally refers to those in the age span from birth to adolescence. Expecting altruism from these young children is simply ridiculous. As studies of renowned psychologists Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg have indicated, children are not capable of thinking beyond themselves. In Piaget"s theory, he proposes that children aged roughly between the ages two and seven are in preoperational stage. Piaget used the "Three Mountain Task" to observe children displaying a strong sense of egocentrism. In this test, Piaget discovered that children almost always chose the scene showing their own perspective. Piaget theorized that children simply are not developed enough to grasp the idea that different people have different point of views. [1] Similarly in Kohlberg"s stages of moral development, children are in premoral or preconventional stage. In this stage, Kohlberg theorized that most children are motivated by either pleasure or pain. Their actions are generally based to avoid punishment (negative reinforcement) and gain rewards (positive reinforcement). [2] Labeling children as burdensome because they don"t care about the others while in fact they are simply not old enough to care for others is inane. No parents expect their 5 year old to care for others. In addition, don"t all human being young or old care for themselves? Isn't this care for oneself called survival instinct? I believe that Pro has a very different view towards the purpose of reproduction. Nowadays, it is generally accepted that all living things live to reproduce and continue on their species. This also applies to humans. No matter how advanced we are, the instinct to spread our genes still exists. Although parents still experience joy of watching their children grow and integrate into the society, the aim of having children is not to derive pleasure from them, but to fulfill our duty as a species. It is undeniable that nurturing children takes a tremendous amount of resources. However, if we don't have offsprings, where will we use these resources? Using the pro's word, this is ultimately 'problemic' because we are using the resouces we have to take care of ourselves. As for pollution and global warming, simply stop reproducing will not solve these problems. Even if, for some reason, we do not reproduce, the harmful effects of pollution and global warming will remain for centuries. A world where children do not exist will still struggle from these problems. Lastly, I believe what the pro was saying at his conclusion is that there is no purpose of living or even attempting to live in fear of death. This statement is like saying going to school or to work is pointless as we will eventually end up back in our homes. There will be no development or advancement of any kind if people were to cease all activities in fear of some consequences that will happen. Since death is inevitable, why not make the most of it by contributing to our species and living as best as we can? Also, can pro please explain further on how children will suffer? I am looking forward to pro's arguments. [1] . http://psychology.about.com... [2] . http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu...'s%20Stages%20of%20Moral%20Development.htm