7 ms·
In America, at least, having children is most definitely a sacrifice. "Noble" is a subjective qualifier that's actually irrelevant. The fact is without kids the
by sidlls 9y ago
In America, at least, having children is most definitely a sacrifice. "Noble" is a subjective qualifier that's actually irrelevant. The fact is without kids the thing that fuels our economy, consumption, disappears. In many ways parents are subsidizing the childless. It isn't a bad thing to note that.
Also, nobody knows the extent of what one must give up to parent. No matter how prepared a person thinks he or she is, they aren't. Having kids is very abstract right up to the point that it's not. The concrete realization starts to happen earlier and more intimately for the mother because of the gestational period, but that realization sets in eventually for both parents.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoAs my old buddy John McGinty put it "I knew having kids would be a big job; I just didn't know it would be relentless!"
- gaius 9y agoIn many ways parents are subsidizing the childless What complete nonsense. There are 7Bn+ people in the world. Making more people is not a problem the human race has. Far from subsidising the child-free, you are destroying the ecosystem with your selfishness.
- dundercoder 9y agoToo bad your parents were so selfish.
- mattthebaker 9y agoHonestly, having children is one of the most selfish things you can do. I.e. thinking your genetic material is special and passing it on to another person in an overcrowded world. Any “sacrifice” in raising a child is not — they are half you and an extension of self.
- bostik 9y agoPersonally I believe that bringing a consciousness to this world without the subject's consent is morally corrupt.
- Pokepokalypse 9y agoNot so sure having kids AT ALL is an immoral choice in an overcrowded world. 1 kid, or 2 kids; is replacement level at worst. I would have a bone to pick with folks who feel entitled (or "commanded by $deity") to have 6, 7, 8 or more kids. That's just absurd stupidity. I, personally, found parenthood to be enormously rewarding. And that may not be something one comes to grips with when kids are 3. Or 10. Or even 18. Having kids with medical problems, or mental health problems, can be a challenge, and you can miss out on the immediate sense of accomplishment when it's overwhelmed with "just get through today". This is a big-picture thing. I'm also not blinded by illusions of; having a legacy, having something that is a "permanent" accomplishment, or even just having someone else in this world who I can relate to. My feeling is that my kids turned out to be pretty good people, and the world as a whole is a better place with them in it. In Net. Considering even their resource consumption. They are part me. They are my intention and will. But they are their own beings as well, with their own hopes and dreams. Hell: we're all worm food in the end. It's not pleasant facing or contemplating death. Maybe we all would have liked to have been asked permission before being brought into this world against our will. I think the main difference it made for me was that I participated in life. The process of life. The continuation of life. The strife for survival. I did not look at the world, and decide to simply persist until I perished. I lived. Even if I have another 30-50 years on this world. I gave it a shot.
- vixen99 9y agoAnd how are you determining the correct number of people and on what criteria? Or do we take your word for it?
- Pokepokalypse 9y agoGet in car. Drive to work. Wait in line on the freeway for opportunity to use freeway to get to work. While we're waiting in line; burning fossil fuels and contributing to carbon buildup in the atmosphere; which is essentially permanent. All - to spend a day earning imaginary money - whose value is arbitrarily and capriciously set by others. Seems like a criteria for overcrowding to me.
- simplify 9y agoThat's not very specific. What about your scenario indicates overcrowding?
- Banthum 9y agoThe world will be overcrowded, yes. But the world is not, and will not be, overcrowded with the kind of people who are on Hacker News. Birth rates in basically all advanced countries are under replacement, and it's even worse for the subset of high-IQ people who we need to build and run the future. This is an objective fact.
- simplify 9y agoHow is bearing children destroying the ecosystem?
- coderjames 9y agoAny idea how many dirty diapers a baby produces? We don't use cloth diapers with our daughter, so those go to the landfill. She drinks milk. That comes from cows. Cows are bad for the environment. By having another person on the planet, we need that much more milk.
- simplify 9y ago> We don't use cloth diapers with our daughter, so those go to the landfill. Isn't that simply a consequence of how people today and in the past decided to solve these problems in general? This issue is not limited to diapers. > Cows are bad for the environment. Interesting, so cows are not part of the environment? What separates things from being part of the environment and not being part of it?
- lgas 9y agoAll things that are bad for the environment are part of the environment.
- coryfklein 9y agoBecause children are people and people by necessity must displace natural ecosystem fixtures to survive.
- simplify 9y agoDoes this mean the natural ecosystem fixtures are more valuable than people?
- Sohcahtoa82 9y agoThe problem is that our current pace of ecosystem destruction in order to satisfy people is not sustainable.
- edbarbar 9y agoSocial Security is one example of the young subsidizing the old. Medicare is another. Old folks homes are another. Seems to me there is ample evidence of the young supporting the old. Consider what your aged life would be like if everyone suddenly elected to not reproduce. What would it be like to be 70, when the youngest person is 60? Clearly, the young support the aged.
- gaius 9y agoClearly, the young support the aged. The young, by definition live in a world built by their elders, benefiting from all the infrastructure and institutions they created. So it’s not nearly as one-way as you think. Any care of the elderly is merely a part payment on that debt the young owe them.
- burfog 9y agoCultures are going extinct due to lack of children. A good number of cultures in Europe and East Asia have close to 1 child per woman, meaning that the population is cut in half with every generation. Those cultures will be gone forever.
- Aloha 9y agoIn many ways parents are subsidizing the childless. My tax bill sure indicates otherwise. I decided at an early age not to have kids - at 12-13 I figured out that I was not suitable to be a father - one, I wanted the chain of crappy childhoods to stop with me, and two I have various conditions that I believe are largely genetic - I didn't want to pass those on.
- sidlls 9y agoNo, your tax bill does not indicate otherwise. Credits for children are a tiny, tiny fraction of tax subsidies for people in lower income brackets, and property taxes are generally quite low and cover much more than schools. Even if they were a huge fraction, you're considering one single axis. You're not considering population support or economic contributions by and on behalf of children, both of which are arguably much more significant than tax bill distribution.
- Aloha 9y agoThe tax code is geared up to help people who are married and have children - my married friends pay 20% less than I do, my married friends with kids pay even less then they do. I take umbrage with this.
- burfog 9y agoYou benefited when you were a child. You took those benefits. You might say it wasn't your choice, but your parents made that choice on your behalf. Having benefited yourself, you shouldn't be bothered that others also benefit. It is only fair. BTW, you can earn a 6-figure income and have negative taxes. The key is to have a double-digit family. This is what I do. Nothing is stopping you from doing likewise.
- Aloha 9y agoHow exactly does one have a double-digit family?
- randomsearch 9y agoI don’t know about America, but it’s the childless that subsidise the parents in the UK. Having kids is a massive draw on the state - the vast majority of people go from being net contributors to net drains on the public purse when they have kids.
- ziotom78 9y agoGiven that parents need to buy diapers, kid clothes, and other stuff needed by babies, if UK still has VAT I do not believe that parents are «net drains».
- andrewaylett 9y agoOn the other hand, having children isn't exactly cost-free, and society needs the next generation around to support the previous in old age.