3 ms·

Even the childless are benefited by the continuation of society that children manifest. Parents pay far more costs than the childless in capital, time, attenti

Even the childless are benefited by the continuation of society that children manifest. Parents pay far more costs than the childless in capital, time, attention, freedom, happiness, et cetera. Having children is increasingly a choice but replacement reproduction is also a requirement (although I could imagine a world that would invalidate this, that is not our current state). However, because it is a choice the argument that parents should take responsibility for the consequences can seem sensible. At some point and scale it gets entangled in everyone's well-being. Everyone able to make these arguments has benefited from the sensible and self-interested arrangements having been a child themselves. While I understand and have had the objections myself, they represent a rejection of the deal we were all forced into: that society will support us to grow in value and we in turn pull up the following generations who will soon shoulder the load in their own middle lives when we become more dependent on them for our care.

spider-sandlet 6y ago
I realize that expectation for elderly care varies across cultures, but even in industrialized Western countries, there's some expectation of adult children taking care of their elderly parents. So the argument that we should all pay for the next generation because we rely on them to take care of us rings a bit hollow. Is my neighbor's kids going to look after me when I get Alzheimers? I imagine not. I'll have to live with whatever service I can afford with my retirement account. For the childless, it's a choice they make to prioritize present comfort over future security. Parents are making the opposite tradeoff, but expect the childless to subsidize their present loss in time/money/leisure. How does that seem fair?
- erikerikson 6y ago
  > I'll have to live with whatever service I can afford with my retirement account. Exactly the point. If the supply of labor is sufficiently reduced due to a reduced population of able bodied people, your retirement capital will not go far. To clarify my comment, I wasn't discussing the intergenerational support between related peoples but the intergenerational support provided via any source but conventionally by the marketplace through care homes.
gandutraveler 6y ago
Parents also get tax credits from govt. This is not companies responsibly but governments to control population

spider-sandlet 6y ago

I realize that expectation for elderly care varies across cultures, but even in industrialized Western countries, there's some expectation of adult children taking care of their elderly parents. So the argument that we should all pay for the next generation because we rely on them to take care of us rings a bit hollow. Is my neighbor's kids going to look after me when I get Alzheimers? I imagine not. I'll have to live with whatever service I can afford with my retirement account. For the childless, it's a choice they make to prioritize present comfort over future security. Parents are making the opposite tradeoff, but expect the childless to subsidize their present loss in time/money/leisure. How does that seem fair?

erikerikson 6y ago
> I'll have to live with whatever service I can afford with my retirement account. Exactly the point. If the supply of labor is sufficiently reduced due to a reduced population of able bodied people, your retirement capital will not go far. To clarify my comment, I wasn't discussing the intergenerational support between related peoples but the intergenerational support provided via any source but conventionally by the marketplace through care homes.

gandutraveler 6y ago

Parents also get tax credits from govt. This is not companies responsibly but governments to control population