Monday, April 9, 2012

A philosophical digression about the bearing of children

Why do we have children?  In "Why Have Children?:  The Ethical Debate,"  Christine Overall finds several reasons, and suggests that these reasons, when examined, are debatable.  Here are three of them:

1.  Having a child benefits the child.  Without being "had", the child has nothing.  But the supposed benefit is unknowable at the time of conception.  The random nature of growing up could well, in fact, be a detriment to the child.  Plus, if "becoming" is an intrinsic benefit to the child, then by implication "not becoming" must be a relative detriment.  But nonexistent people have no standing in the argument, no skin in the game.  Someone who does not exist has no argument for existing.  Or not.  Among the infinite number of non-existential individuals who have ever not existed, no one has ever complained about their lot in non-life (thanks, EK).  Therefore, the argument for "having" is spurious.
2.  Having a child perpetuates the family name and gene pool.  Overall's counter-arguments here are a little weaker, but follow the line of "So what?"  The greater mass of humanity does not care if your tiny pool of unique identifiers carries forward, and your providing for the continuation of the species, if carried to its extreme conclusion, would turn all women into "procreative serfs." Think of the breeding of horses and cattle.
3.  There will be someone to care for us in our old age.  A direct quote is the best refutation:  "Anyone who has children for the sake of the supposed financial support they can provide is probably deluded."  It just does not happen.  A matter of opinion, as I have seen no research on this subject, but one I suspect is valid.  (Same does not hold for godchildren with boats in the Bahamas, who are sure to be supportive.)
4.  Parenthood will make us happy.  Nope.  In a 2004 study, one of the few activities that women found less enjoyable than caring for their children was doing housework.

 The first two arguments propose a benefit to those who either do not exist or do not care.  The last two indicate a certain level of selfishness.  So, does having children come down to selfishness?  Are we-who-have-none actually paragons of virtue for having not?  Or are we the more selfish ones, denying the benefits of existence, however debatable, in order to pursue our own agenda of leading lives without the [hinderance, burdens, obligations, joys, anguish, ecstasy, insert preferred descriptor here] of having sons and daughters?

As a couple, we made a decision early in our married lives to forgo children.  Permanently.  Neither of us had a strong procreation urge, and peer/family pressure was light.  Maybe the reason our families went easy on us was that they were quite surprised when, eight months after marrying at a very young age, we did not deliver.  Who knew we married for love?

Our decision was not made lightly, but may have been made selfishly.  There were places we wanted to go.  Things we wanted to do.  Worlds we wanted to conquer.  We wanted to see what was beyond the horizon, free and unburdened.  Children would have complicated things.  Taken us down different paths.  Maybe better, more rewarding paths.  But they would have been paths not entirely our choice.  So we made our choice, knowing that we would be missing some things while experiencing others.  The choice was right for us, and we understand that it would not be right for others.  We are OK with that.

Frankly, I reject the whole philosophical discussion above.  Having children should not be an "ethical debate".  The real reason we did not have children is that we did not desire them.  No one should have children unless they desire them, want to love them, are prepared to care, nurture, coach and support them.  Boiling it down to a rational decision removes the magic from life.  It really is magical.

My apologies for the digression.  This blog is intended to address the practical considerations of non-familied elders.  But when I do see children lovingly caring for failing parents, I really admire them for their love, and their parents for inspiring such love.

Michael

[reference: The New Yorker, April 9, 2012, "The Case Against Kids", Elizabeth Kolbert]

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Retirement home hint

This is a hint from a friend who has traveled the road:

"When you begin to think you might be about ready to start thinking about the possibility of maybe some day moving into a retirement community of some short - retirement home or assisted living - consider acting on that thought while you still have enough energy to meet people and make friends.  Energy will fade with age.  Being a friend and making friends will take some effort."

This is obviously not a direct quote.  But you get the message.  Perhaps it is a little like sailing - the time to reef is when you first think of it.  But, I am thinking about this topic now and it is way too early to act.  So how do you figure out the right time?  I guess you just have to keep thinking about it until it feels right.

This could be a useful approach to many things in life.  The time to get a glass of wine is when you first think about it.  I think I'll get one now.

Any thoughts?

Michael

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Independent Living

WHAT DOES INDEPENDENT LIVING MEAN

Independent Living is what those of us who no longer live with our parents have been doing since moving out.  We take care of ourselves.  We are in control of our lives.

In the context of eldering (the process of elderfication), IL means continuing to be in control in our own, preferred space.  Living "at home."

That does not mean that we do not need anyone else's help.  We will at some point likely need help.  But if we don't need too much help, we can continue to function in our own space, and not move into assisted living space.  I suggest that if we plan carefully, we can create, in our own space (our "home"), the characteristics of assisted living so we need not hang out with all those other old people in a more communal setting.

What that involves is, in part:

1.  Making "home" safe so we are less likely to hurt ourselves and therefore need to leave "home".

2.  Finding care givers (health, financial, maintenance and repair, cleaning, transportation, communications, cooking, wine and scotch procurement, etc.) that can replace the things we used to do for ourselves but can no longer do.

There are a lot of private businesses and public agencies that can help identify resources for both of these issues.  For example, this morning I had a coffee with Greg DiGasper, of Dwell At Ease.  Among other things, they perform assessments and provide recommendations for home improvements that will prevent one from ever having to utter those dreaded words, "I've fallen, and I can't reach my wine glass!"

Resources vary by locale, so I am not going to try to list them here.  But if there are any in particular that you would like me to look into as an example, let me know.  Happy to do it.

ONE STRATEGY FOR REMAINING INDEPENDENT

I am going to provide an example of one strategy for extending independence.  Some of you will find this familiar.  May not work for everyone.  In particular, it might only work for someone with enough capital to participate.  I have not done a financial plan for this.

Objective:  Stay in my own space, with my own stuff, forever.  Stay connected with my buds.  Choose which old farts I will hang with.  Share my music with people I know will like it.

Strategy:  Join together with good friends to form a small private independent living community (association,  condominium, partnership, commune?)  Separate, independent living space around  communal space for social activities, visiting children, grandchildren, godchildren, other friends.  Communal space for live-in care givers when needed.  Communal interest in looking out for each other.  Perhaps independent administration of shared services and facilities, group financial and legal support/resources, and long term care planning for the group.  Shared vehicles.  Near-by assisted living and nursing care when needed, where group contact and support can continue.  Carefully crafted "exit strategy" and new member admission standards.

Note:  There is documentation that friends can help friends remain independent better than family.  People will listen to the advice of their friends before family.  At some level, these friends would replace the support of the family you may not have (that is, after all, the premise of this blog) or the family that does not really want to deal with your needs, or that you do not want touching your diaper.

A side benefit of this strategy is that it would seem to be less expensive than living independently in a larger community.  Shared services might mean shared costs.  Again, I do not have a financial plan for this.

This is a means of creating a support network.  It is just one way to approach things.  Not the only solution.  There are several open questions with this particular strategy.  For example, when is the best time to set this up?  Do you develop this community early, while still employed, when you retire, or just before you are ready to move in?  At what age would you likely want to move in - 70, 75, 80?  Do you set it up yourselves, or hire someone to do it for you (sounds like a business plan to me!)  Is there financial help available to set this up?

I am sure a lot of people would not be comfortable in a communal setting.  I would be interested in hearing how others would approach the goal of staying independent as long as possible.  Give me some ideas.

PS:  I saw the most INTERESTING ad on TV last night.  For Depends.  a FASHION ad, as in "no more unsightly panty (diaper) lines".  I'M NOT READY TO THINK ABOUT THAT!

Michael