6 ms·
In 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 ra
by gaius 9y ago
In 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.
- andrewaylett 9y agoReplacement rate is a smidge over two _on average_. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to have more than two children, any more than it means it's wrong to have fewer than two. If you look at my wider family, you'll see some people with no children and some with five. But even on such a small scale, we average out at around replacement rate.
- coryfklein 9y ago> 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 have to laugh at this, because 3 years ago I was this person and I know exactly how the conversation would go. I had 3 kids and planned for 6-7 of them, then I left the Mormon religion. But I would love to hear the conversation. I can't speak for everyone, but in Mormonism at least you literally believe that having children is commanded by deity and any environmental offsets are not an issue because the Second Coming is soon and the earth will be cleansed by fire at that time anyway. Besides, God created the earth, he would never let man destroy it. There just is no real discussion to be had with somebody who believes those things. Fortunately, higher education and sex ed are highly correlated with lower birth rates, so I'd push for those if you're looking to reduce birth rates - even in Mormonism or other religions.
- edbarbar 9y agoOdd. I wonder how many not so thoughtful people think your way and act upon it. To the extent there is a genetic component to "thoughtfulness," or even a trait that can be nurtured by other thoughtful people, is the extent that thoughtfulness will be selected against and disappear.
- nsxwolf 9y agoI have 4 and I really hope that makes you feel bad. If everyone adopted your rationale, the human race would go extinct. We haven't gone so far that we are indifferent to the survival of our own species, have we?
- ido 9y agoI am a father myself and don’t think you are a “bad person” or anything like that. But seriously, we have no shortage of humans - you are not doing mankind a favor by having lots of kids.
- 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.