3 ms·

Seriously. No judgement. It's your life, so figure out how you want to live it and go wild. I put things in stark terms, though, because I think children are,

Seriously. No judgement. It's your life, so figure out how you want to live it and go wild. I put things in stark terms, though, because I think children are, if we're being realistic, one of the only routes to a life with meaning available to the vast majority of people. Most people do not have fulfilling careers. Most marriages fall apart at some point. Children are forever, though. And I think people need meaning in their lives. If you're a person who is deeply into some other calling and you think that can sustain you for your entire life, then go for it. I can think of many people in my life who could probably find a lot of meaning without children. But they're not the majority of the people I know. And yet the majority of the peers on my Facebook are not on track to ever have children.

exolymph 8y ago
> I think children are, if we're being realistic, one of the only routes to a life with meaning available to the vast majority of people. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  FWIW, all you've put forward in this thread are ad hominen attacks. If you think most people's lives have a source of deep meaning that is not their children, then I'm all ears. But that's not at all what I see when I look out into the world.
  - exolymph 8y ago
    It's not an ad hominem to say that you're failing to imagine how else someone could get meaning out of their life. I agree with you that lots of people find having children to be the most important, rewarding experience they have; it does not follow that childless people's lives are lacking in meaning. Parent-child relationships are not the only meaningful ones, for one thing. And then achievements or practices outside of p2p relationships can be tremendously satisfying — meditation, religious experience, mastery of a craft. These are just examples.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Until the paragraph you had just written, you hadn't put forward any argument addressing anything I had said. First you dismissed me as judgmental. Then you dismissed me as having a myopic view of the world. Those are ad hominem arguments. Regarding what you just wrote, here's me acknowledging that there is meaning to be found outside of children (which, logically, implies that childless people can find meaning): > I can think of many people in my life who could probably find a lot of meaning without children. My argument is about playing the odds. Children are the most meaningful thing in most people's lives. Most people do not find many of the other things they spend time on meaningful (their career and, proxied through their spending, consumption of goods and services). As a result, I think it's a pretty good default strategy to have children. Which is why I promote that strategy whenever somebody is on the fence (OP sounded like they were on the fence, after all). But if you've thought seriously about it and decide that there's something else you'd rather do with your life, then by all means, follow your heart.

exolymph 8y ago

> I think children are, if we're being realistic, one of the only routes to a life with meaning available to the vast majority of people. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy

toasterlovin 8y ago
FWIW, all you've put forward in this thread are ad hominen attacks. If you think most people's lives have a source of deep meaning that is not their children, then I'm all ears. But that's not at all what I see when I look out into the world.
- exolymph 8y ago
  It's not an ad hominem to say that you're failing to imagine how else someone could get meaning out of their life. I agree with you that lots of people find having children to be the most important, rewarding experience they have; it does not follow that childless people's lives are lacking in meaning. Parent-child relationships are not the only meaningful ones, for one thing. And then achievements or practices outside of p2p relationships can be tremendously satisfying — meditation, religious experience, mastery of a craft. These are just examples.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Until the paragraph you had just written, you hadn't put forward any argument addressing anything I had said. First you dismissed me as judgmental. Then you dismissed me as having a myopic view of the world. Those are ad hominem arguments. Regarding what you just wrote, here's me acknowledging that there is meaning to be found outside of children (which, logically, implies that childless people can find meaning): > I can think of many people in my life who could probably find a lot of meaning without children. My argument is about playing the odds. Children are the most meaningful thing in most people's lives. Most people do not find many of the other things they spend time on meaningful (their career and, proxied through their spending, consumption of goods and services). As a result, I think it's a pretty good default strategy to have children. Which is why I promote that strategy whenever somebody is on the fence (OP sounded like they were on the fence, after all). But if you've thought seriously about it and decide that there's something else you'd rather do with your life, then by all means, follow your heart.