4 ms·

As a 24 year old married man sitting in the nursery with my premature son, I feel truly sad that more people cannot experience this. I don't have a house, I ren

As a 24 year old married man sitting in the nursery with my premature son, I feel truly sad that more people cannot experience this. I don't have a house, I rent my apartment, we share a car and we both (were) working. So what? Time marches on. So many people seem cynical about having kids or doing anything else involving sacrificing happiness for meaning. And yet people complain of indulgence and a lack of meaning? It confuses me. You can have difficult but meaningful if you want: start a company and a family. You can also have happy and (likely) less meaningful: go all in on hedonism. People can't seem to cope with all the opportunity and optionality modern life presents. Makes people anxious it seems. So much self loathing (don't have kids for the environment?). If you don't want kids, don't have them. If you do, have them. They will not starve and you won't either. Life will never be easy, to expect it to be is somewhere in between whining and delusion.

chillwaves 8y ago
I mean, if folks are working for $10 an hour and living at home, it is not exactly the time to start a family. And I am not going to use the fact they own a (financed) iphone as an excuse to chide them.
throw_this_one 8y ago
People shouldn't have kids if they're not ready. If a guy has a kid with a woman and then they get divorced in 5 years. That kid will turn out worse. Also, if everybody has kids early, the population of the world is going to rise above the carrying capacity of the planet. Which will cause future famines, wars, etc. Finally, maybe other people derive meaning from other things. What life experiences would you have had if you didn't have a kid at 24? From 24-35 you could've experienced a music scene more deeply, traveled the world and become fluent in languages, worked on a Phd in a field. But you chose a kid, which is great! But other people chose otherwise. I agree that having a kid is a MUST-DO in life. But maybe later is better.
- Programmer88 8y ago
  Our population growth comes almost entirely from Africa. Africans who are aware of this are quite happy with the thought of the world becoming more Africanized (most people like themselves, even if their societies aren't known for being super productive or well run). They won't stop having children any time soon. Ironically, the genes being selected out of the gene pool are the genes of people in productive and highly organized societies. Especially those genes that lend themselves towards selflessness and universal empathy/friendliness. What I mean is, you aren't doing the world a favor by not having children. If you want to enjoy your money and play Nintendo Switch in lieu of passing on your genes, that's fine. But it's not a moral high ground.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
> If you do, have them. They will not starve and you won't either. Plenty of Americans live in poverty, and plenty of kids go hungry every day. "Have kids, things will magically turn out fine" is terrible advice. "Have kids and start a company, two of the most stressful things a person can do" is also terrible advice. Congratulations on the birth of your son, and I wish you and your family all the best; I've got a two year old tot at home, and I love her and I'm glad I have her. But it's not for everyone, and not all times are equally good to start a family.
mikestew 8y ago
So many people seem cynical about having kids or doing anything else involving sacrificing happiness for meaning. Ah, the ol' "kids give my life meaning, how can anyone live a life without meaning?" trope. Hey, more power to you, but spreading DNA around isn't the only road to a meaningful life. Your false choice of "have kids, or live a life of hedonism" strikes me as the argument of the religious zealot. Speaking of religion, Jesus Christ didn't have kids, and he seemed to do okay on the "meaningful" scale. If you don't want kids, don't have them. And if you do have them, try to avoid attempting to convince the rest of the world that yours is the only right, moral, and meaningful choice.
- sbinthree 8y ago
  I tried to engage more deeply with this post, but your counter-argument involves calling me a religious zealot and invoking Jesus as an example of someone who proves my ignorance. Presumably if the point is that Jesus had a meaningful life without having children, that I would relate to the Jesus example. I am an atheist, no one told me to have kids, but I'm glad I did. Jesus can do whatever he wants, I am pro personal freedom, and pro kid-having (clearly). In terms of being a zealot in general, there are few things harder to counter-argue as adaptable than having children. Certainly it doesn't make sense for the majority of people to have kids in the context they are in, but it's very hard to against having kids period. It's an old thing because it is in many cases true in practice. So it's hard to counter-argue on the basis that we are monkeys on a rock who should know better, when we don't, and never will. Because eventually, everyone exists because someone had kids, and so on. There is a significant relativity to meaning. It's not that having kids is a binary (meaning vs. no meaning). It's that for me, I feel, and others, it's that having kids is a step function in what meaning is. The first time you work and have that feeling of contributing, that's very meaningful. Having a kid is like that times 100. So kids are impactful on meaning in a relative, as opposed to binary sense. Very meaningful, relative to other meaningful things. And certainly relative to meaningless things. So I think almost all of history too much emphasis has been placed on kid having. But among this community (Western Liberals?), kid having has a bad rep, for mostly bad reasons, that will almost definitely turn out be a failed social experiment (or else, this community as it exists will just stop existing and be replaced by children of those who chose to have them, in whatever form that takes, better or worse). The point isn't, everyone should have kids, at all. The point is, it's meaningful, and you don't need a house, two cars or two incomes to make it sustainable. That in fact, the struggle and financial impact may be worth it in the end.

chillwaves 8y ago

I mean, if folks are working for $10 an hour and living at home, it is not exactly the time to start a family. And I am not going to use the fact they own a (financed) iphone as an excuse to chide them.

throw_this_one 8y ago

People shouldn't have kids if they're not ready. If a guy has a kid with a woman and then they get divorced in 5 years. That kid will turn out worse. Also, if everybody has kids early, the population of the world is going to rise above the carrying capacity of the planet. Which will cause future famines, wars, etc. Finally, maybe other people derive meaning from other things. What life experiences would you have had if you didn't have a kid at 24? From 24-35 you could've experienced a music scene more deeply, traveled the world and become fluent in languages, worked on a Phd in a field. But you chose a kid, which is great! But other people chose otherwise. I agree that having a kid is a MUST-DO in life. But maybe later is better.

Programmer88 8y ago
Our population growth comes almost entirely from Africa. Africans who are aware of this are quite happy with the thought of the world becoming more Africanized (most people like themselves, even if their societies aren't known for being super productive or well run). They won't stop having children any time soon. Ironically, the genes being selected out of the gene pool are the genes of people in productive and highly organized societies. Especially those genes that lend themselves towards selflessness and universal empathy/friendliness. What I mean is, you aren't doing the world a favor by not having children. If you want to enjoy your money and play Nintendo Switch in lieu of passing on your genes, that's fine. But it's not a moral high ground.

pavel_lishin 8y ago

> If you do, have them. They will not starve and you won't either. Plenty of Americans live in poverty, and plenty of kids go hungry every day. "Have kids, things will magically turn out fine" is terrible advice. "Have kids and start a company, two of the most stressful things a person can do" is also terrible advice. Congratulations on the birth of your son, and I wish you and your family all the best; I've got a two year old tot at home, and I love her and I'm glad I have her. But it's not for everyone, and not all times are equally good to start a family.

mikestew 8y ago

So many people seem cynical about having kids or doing anything else involving sacrificing happiness for meaning. Ah, the ol' "kids give my life meaning, how can anyone live a life without meaning?" trope. Hey, more power to you, but spreading DNA around isn't the only road to a meaningful life. Your false choice of "have kids, or live a life of hedonism" strikes me as the argument of the religious zealot. Speaking of religion, Jesus Christ didn't have kids, and he seemed to do okay on the "meaningful" scale. If you don't want kids, don't have them. And if you do have them, try to avoid attempting to convince the rest of the world that yours is the only right, moral, and meaningful choice.

sbinthree 8y ago
I tried to engage more deeply with this post, but your counter-argument involves calling me a religious zealot and invoking Jesus as an example of someone who proves my ignorance. Presumably if the point is that Jesus had a meaningful life without having children, that I would relate to the Jesus example. I am an atheist, no one told me to have kids, but I'm glad I did. Jesus can do whatever he wants, I am pro personal freedom, and pro kid-having (clearly). In terms of being a zealot in general, there are few things harder to counter-argue as adaptable than having children. Certainly it doesn't make sense for the majority of people to have kids in the context they are in, but it's very hard to against having kids period. It's an old thing because it is in many cases true in practice. So it's hard to counter-argue on the basis that we are monkeys on a rock who should know better, when we don't, and never will. Because eventually, everyone exists because someone had kids, and so on. There is a significant relativity to meaning. It's not that having kids is a binary (meaning vs. no meaning). It's that for me, I feel, and others, it's that having kids is a step function in what meaning is. The first time you work and have that feeling of contributing, that's very meaningful. Having a kid is like that times 100. So kids are impactful on meaning in a relative, as opposed to binary sense. Very meaningful, relative to other meaningful things. And certainly relative to meaningless things. So I think almost all of history too much emphasis has been placed on kid having. But among this community (Western Liberals?), kid having has a bad rep, for mostly bad reasons, that will almost definitely turn out be a failed social experiment (or else, this community as it exists will just stop existing and be replaced by children of those who chose to have them, in whatever form that takes, better or worse). The point isn't, everyone should have kids, at all. The point is, it's meaningful, and you don't need a house, two cars or two incomes to make it sustainable. That in fact, the struggle and financial impact may be worth it in the end.