9 ms·

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure", or "I feel bad for poor Stallman" or "What a sad man" 3. Are you a parent, or have strong feelings about becoming a parent? If you answered yes on step 3, and want to know how I knew, it's because you disregarded that Richard puts his ethical argument for the implications to humanity first, and you go for personal "attacks" rather than addressing the crux of the argument.

raverbashing 10y ago
Every person is somebody's child "Implications to humanity?" There's no humanity if people don't reproduce. It's that simple
- glass_of_water 10y ago
  You are presenting a false dichotomy. The choice is not between everyone having children and no one having children. Stallman even addresses your objection in his post: > I don't wish that nobody had any children; I don't want humanity to disappear.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Implications would be that future generations of people would have a functional planet to live on. Stallman is making the argument that it's acceptable to not have kids for very good reasons, and that many people might be better off not having kids. He is definitely not saaying everyone should stop having kids. I think all too often people who will turn out to be horrible parents are pressured into having kids. Not everyone should have kids.
  - Dateki 10y ago
    This is a site which works through further arguments. http://vhemt.org/ http://vhemt.org/
- craftkiller 10y ago
  He addressed that: "I don't wish that nobody had any children; I don't want humanity to disappear. But there is no risk of that; for the numbers I could hope to influence, the influence is for the good."
- Shorel 10y ago
  We can perfectly have a few billions less of humanity and be totally fine.
joecool1029 10y ago
Thanks for posting this. It's incredibly frustrating to be attacked for not wanting to have children and continually have to hear negative put downs by people that do. While I don't see myself in Stallman's personal position, I see the logical big picture and agree.
clinth 10y ago
Yes, No, Yes. However, it's possible to be a parent, read and understand his position, and not get into personal attacks. I respect Stallman a mountain, including his choice not to have kids, but the essay is muddied. It starts with explaining why it wasn't good for him and continues on to urge others to not have children, with the reasoning that not everyone will read this essay. It's not a complete thought. It's like saying that you've seen bad software projects, and the time for those people would have been better spent somewhere else, so everyone reading this comment shouldn't do software, because there are more than enough software engineers. There's a better version of this essay within itself.
diea 10y ago
No, no, maybe (I am 25y/o) I read many responses mentioning you should have kids to 'pass on your genes' so potentially your offspring can be a 'better you' and improve the world. I would argue that adoption could be a good alternative. When adopting, you are potentially doing all this without actually contributing to the world population increase. Also, I think RMS made a respectable choice, and probably indeed contributed more to society than if he would have had kids. Not having kids is IMHO probably a harder decision than actually having kids.
- unclenoriega 10y ago
  I think you're right, but your phrasing is a bit odd. If you adopt, you are explicitly not passing on your genes. I think a better word here is 'memes' (in the original sense) or 'values' if 'memes' is too polluted.
  - diea 10y ago
    Agreed :-)
austincheney 10y ago
> it's because you disregarded that Richard puts his ethical argument for the implications to humanity first No. I have spent three years living apart from my family on military deployments. I know what it means to make this ethical argument and live by it in a self-sacrificing way. Many people cannot make this work, which isn't the same as forcing a divisive choice upon those of us who can.
jstewartmobile 10y ago
You quoted me directly on "I feel bad for poor Stallman..." How an expression of sympathy is also a personal attack, I do not know.
- trobertson 10y ago
  > expression of sympathy Whether you intend it or not, it's an expression of condescension. It states that you are in a position where you can look down at (feel bad for) a lesser (poor Stallman). You may not mean it that way, but it's exactly the same sort of phrase as "Bless your little heart".
  - jstewartmobile 10y ago
    So if I feel bad for someone who lost his dog, I'm looking down on him as a "lesser"?
    - trobertson 10y ago
      If you "feel bad for him", you are not looking down on him. If you "feel bad for poor him", you are referring to him in a way that implies his position is lesser. "Poor $noun" is nearly always derogatory towards $noun. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a neutral or positive use for "poor $noun". Verbal communication is imprecise enough that people will overlook "poor $noun". In text, you have the opportunity to proofread and revise your statements, so "poor $noun" drastically changes the meaning of the phrase.
      - jstewartmobile 10y ago
        You're formalizing some kind of culture disconnect. If I say, "Poor John lost his dog." to any native of the Gulf Coast, no one is going to mistake that for an expression of superiority to John.
        mariallery 10y ago
millstone 10y ago
Yes, yes, yes. Adoption enables people to become parents without increasing population. Why didn't rms address this obvious objection? I think it simply didn't occur to him. Now consider that in the context of his line: "Having no dependents, I could dedicate myself to what seemed right rather than to whatever someone with money told me to do." Adoptive or foster parents aren't doing what seems right to them! Why are they wasting their time providing parental love to children in need, when they could be writing emacs patches? As a child of both foster and adoptive parents, I say: What a jerk!

raverbashing 10y ago

Every person is somebody's child "Implications to humanity?" There's no humanity if people don't reproduce. It's that simple

glass_of_water 10y ago
You are presenting a false dichotomy. The choice is not between everyone having children and no one having children. Stallman even addresses your objection in his post: > I don't wish that nobody had any children; I don't want humanity to disappear.
bluejekyll 10y ago
Implications would be that future generations of people would have a functional planet to live on. Stallman is making the argument that it's acceptable to not have kids for very good reasons, and that many people might be better off not having kids. He is definitely not saaying everyone should stop having kids. I think all too often people who will turn out to be horrible parents are pressured into having kids. Not everyone should have kids.
- Dateki 10y ago
  This is a site which works through further arguments. http://vhemt.org/ http://vhemt.org/
craftkiller 10y ago
He addressed that: "I don't wish that nobody had any children; I don't want humanity to disappear. But there is no risk of that; for the numbers I could hope to influence, the influence is for the good."
Shorel 10y ago
We can perfectly have a few billions less of humanity and be totally fine.

joecool1029 10y ago

Thanks for posting this. It's incredibly frustrating to be attacked for not wanting to have children and continually have to hear negative put downs by people that do. While I don't see myself in Stallman's personal position, I see the logical big picture and agree.

clinth 10y ago

Yes, No, Yes. However, it's possible to be a parent, read and understand his position, and not get into personal attacks. I respect Stallman a mountain, including his choice not to have kids, but the essay is muddied. It starts with explaining why it wasn't good for him and continues on to urge others to not have children, with the reasoning that not everyone will read this essay. It's not a complete thought. It's like saying that you've seen bad software projects, and the time for those people would have been better spent somewhere else, so everyone reading this comment shouldn't do software, because there are more than enough software engineers. There's a better version of this essay within itself.

diea 10y ago

No, no, maybe (I am 25y/o) I read many responses mentioning you should have kids to 'pass on your genes' so potentially your offspring can be a 'better you' and improve the world. I would argue that adoption could be a good alternative. When adopting, you are potentially doing all this without actually contributing to the world population increase. Also, I think RMS made a respectable choice, and probably indeed contributed more to society than if he would have had kids. Not having kids is IMHO probably a harder decision than actually having kids.

unclenoriega 10y ago
I think you're right, but your phrasing is a bit odd. If you adopt, you are explicitly not passing on your genes. I think a better word here is 'memes' (in the original sense) or 'values' if 'memes' is too polluted.
- diea 10y ago
  Agreed :-)

austincheney 10y ago

> it's because you disregarded that Richard puts his ethical argument for the implications to humanity first No. I have spent three years living apart from my family on military deployments. I know what it means to make this ethical argument and live by it in a self-sacrificing way. Many people cannot make this work, which isn't the same as forcing a divisive choice upon those of us who can.

jstewartmobile 10y ago

You quoted me directly on "I feel bad for poor Stallman..." How an expression of sympathy is also a personal attack, I do not know.

trobertson 10y ago
> expression of sympathy Whether you intend it or not, it's an expression of condescension. It states that you are in a position where you can look down at (feel bad for) a lesser (poor Stallman). You may not mean it that way, but it's exactly the same sort of phrase as "Bless your little heart".
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  So if I feel bad for someone who lost his dog, I'm looking down on him as a "lesser"?
  - trobertson 10y ago
    If you "feel bad for him", you are not looking down on him. If you "feel bad for poor him", you are referring to him in a way that implies his position is lesser. "Poor $noun" is nearly always derogatory towards $noun. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a neutral or positive use for "poor $noun". Verbal communication is imprecise enough that people will overlook "poor $noun". In text, you have the opportunity to proofread and revise your statements, so "poor $noun" drastically changes the meaning of the phrase.
    - jstewartmobile 10y ago
      You're formalizing some kind of culture disconnect. If I say, "Poor John lost his dog." to any native of the Gulf Coast, no one is going to mistake that for an expression of superiority to John.
      - mariallery 10y ago

millstone 10y ago

Yes, yes, yes. Adoption enables people to become parents without increasing population. Why didn't rms address this obvious objection? I think it simply didn't occur to him. Now consider that in the context of his line: "Having no dependents, I could dedicate myself to what seemed right rather than to whatever someone with money told me to do." Adoptive or foster parents aren't doing what seems right to them! Why are they wasting their time providing parental love to children in need, when they could be writing emacs patches? As a child of both foster and adoptive parents, I say: What a jerk!