William T Goodall wrote: > >>> This just in: living only for yourself is less stressful > than taking > >>> responsibility for the mental, physical and moral development of > >>> another human being. > >> So why would anyone want to do that then? > > > > I dunno. Here's some possibilities, though: > > Because there's more to life than a low stress level? > > Not much.
Depends on how good you are at tolerating boredom. :) Some of the most interesting jobs and occupations are not good for one's stress levels. But they are fun, and they are fulfilling. Now you may enjoy being bored out of your brains as long as your stress levels are low, me, I enjoy challenges and can handle stress. To each his/her own. :) > > Because you did a favorable cost-benefit analysis? > > Enormous costs and intangible benefits that sound like members of a > cult :) Hee! So is this your new Cause then? > > Heck, I figure if someone knows himself well enough to realize he'd > > make a lousy parent or that when push comes to shove he > just can't be > > arsed putting his energy into child-rearing, that saves society a > > great deal of time and money. For the rest of us, I > suppose we just > > suck it up and deal. > > Why? Because the little monsters have a great deal of appeal. They are soft and cuddly when they are born; they are good for the ego [for a few years] because they think you hung the sun, and the moon, and the stars; their questions challenge your assumptions when they are older; they are great companions; and above all, they are wonderful teachers. And then there are the squishy emotional reasons but I am not good enough with words to try and articulate them. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
