5 ms·

It is not minimalism if it is not a choice. It is like saying couples with no access to birth control automatically love children. No, this children are likely

It is not minimalism if it is not a choice. It is like saying couples with no access to birth control automatically love children. No, this children are likely just accidents that people endure.

nsxwolf 10y ago
I've never met a person that regretted a single one of their children no matter how many they had or how poor they were. If I ever do meet such a person I will gleefully judge them as a bad person.
- logicalDuck 10y ago
  It's a surprisingly high percentage... Here's an article about it, apparently the choice to have a child or not apparently plays pretty heavily into how you feel about it. I think it's cruel to judge people for regretting having a child, they already deal with the guilt of that as well as raising the child. There are all sorts of feels and viewpoints towards the world so I think as long as the parent still does their best it's best to respect their feelings rather than judge them as a bad person for having them. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/not-wanting-kids-is-entirely-normal/262367/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/not-wantin...
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    The only percentage that I can find in that article that lists 'unwanted' is 10, and the study is anything but scientific. For most people birth control is about when they will have their children, not whether or not they want children. Having kids is - in mosts parts of the world - still the norm and not having kids the exception. Maybe that will change over time, it is now socially acceptable not to want children whereas say 200 years ago that meant that you were either destined to become part of some religious organization as a monk, nun or in the clergy.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- maze-le 10y ago
  Maybe you never met them, because they won't admit it openly, you know... because some people might judge them as a 'bad person'.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jacquesm 10y ago
What a luxury position to take. So you really can't be a minimalist unless you're wealthy enough to own a whole bunch of stuff but don't. Poor poor people, they can't even be minimalists. > It is like saying couples with no access to birth control automatically love children. That's like saying that couples without access to birth control can't love their children because they can't make a conscious choice. But guess what, most of them do love children. In fact, most people love children, it's rare to find someone that does not. > No, this children are likely just accidents that people endure. No, these children are for the most part desired, and their parents love them, just like those parents that had access to birth control.
- MAGZine 10y ago
  I'll take a gander at drawing the distinction. Minimalism as an aesthetic is certainly luxurious. It implies that it was well thought out and contains only the necessary elements for a high-standard of living. It doesn't necessarily require you to be very wealthy, it just requires you to own less stuff than you could otherwise. Living with the only pair of clothes that are on your back could indeed be minimalist, though in the case of homeless, it's less minimalism and more survivalism. So yes, minimalism is luxury. It's a conscious decision in the face of people who don't have the time/money/energy to begin thinking decluttering.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    No, Minimalism is a fad cooked up by people who were all-out consumers until they realized they didn't need all that crap who now have found permission from their guru (cited in the article) to get rid of their crap. Aka: common sense. Real minimalism is the life of a monk, and is not generally something compatible with functioning in society, and even monks live in places that take care of their needs by offloading some of their burdens on others. A friend of mine - who is a declared minimalist - always wants to borrow my stuff (especially tools), go figure.
    - MAGZine 10y ago
      If it were common sense, then why is the idea so radical, shocking, and/or controversial?

It is not minimalism if it is not a choice. It is like saying couples with no access to birth control automatically love children. No, this children are likely just accidents that people endure.

nsxwolf 10y ago

I've never met a person that regretted a single one of their children no matter how many they had or how poor they were. If I ever do meet such a person I will gleefully judge them as a bad person.

logicalDuck 10y ago
It's a surprisingly high percentage... Here's an article about it, apparently the choice to have a child or not apparently plays pretty heavily into how you feel about it. I think it's cruel to judge people for regretting having a child, they already deal with the guilt of that as well as raising the child. There are all sorts of feels and viewpoints towards the world so I think as long as the parent still does their best it's best to respect their feelings rather than judge them as a bad person for having them. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/not-wanting-kids-is-entirely-normal/262367/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/not-wantin...
- jacquesm 10y ago
  The only percentage that I can find in that article that lists 'unwanted' is 10, and the study is anything but scientific. For most people birth control is about when they will have their children, not whether or not they want children. Having kids is - in mosts parts of the world - still the norm and not having kids the exception. Maybe that will change over time, it is now socially acceptable not to want children whereas say 200 years ago that meant that you were either destined to become part of some religious organization as a monk, nun or in the clergy.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
maze-le 10y ago
Maybe you never met them, because they won't admit it openly, you know... because some people might judge them as a 'bad person'.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 10y ago

What a luxury position to take. So you really can't be a minimalist unless you're wealthy enough to own a whole bunch of stuff but don't. Poor poor people, they can't even be minimalists. > It is like saying couples with no access to birth control automatically love children. That's like saying that couples without access to birth control can't love their children because they can't make a conscious choice. But guess what, most of them do love children. In fact, most people love children, it's rare to find someone that does not. > No, this children are likely just accidents that people endure. No, these children are for the most part desired, and their parents love them, just like those parents that had access to birth control.

MAGZine 10y ago
I'll take a gander at drawing the distinction. Minimalism as an aesthetic is certainly luxurious. It implies that it was well thought out and contains only the necessary elements for a high-standard of living. It doesn't necessarily require you to be very wealthy, it just requires you to own less stuff than you could otherwise. Living with the only pair of clothes that are on your back could indeed be minimalist, though in the case of homeless, it's less minimalism and more survivalism. So yes, minimalism is luxury. It's a conscious decision in the face of people who don't have the time/money/energy to begin thinking decluttering.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  No, Minimalism is a fad cooked up by people who were all-out consumers until they realized they didn't need all that crap who now have found permission from their guru (cited in the article) to get rid of their crap. Aka: common sense. Real minimalism is the life of a monk, and is not generally something compatible with functioning in society, and even monks live in places that take care of their needs by offloading some of their burdens on others. A friend of mine - who is a declared minimalist - always wants to borrow my stuff (especially tools), go figure.
  - MAGZine 10y ago
    If it were common sense, then why is the idea so radical, shocking, and/or controversial?