6 ms·

Isn’t public schooling sufficient childcare? Not too sure how I feel about my tax dollars going toward superfluous childcare for other people’s kids. Especially

Isn’t public schooling sufficient childcare? Not too sure how I feel about my tax dollars going toward superfluous childcare for other people’s kids. Especially when I’ve made the conscious decision to not have a child myself due to the environmental impact. Echo everything else you said, though.

yummypaint 5y ago
I don't have kids either and i want my tax money to pay for pre-k and quality childcare for other people's kids. They are children now but they will be our future colleagues, caretakers, and fellow citizens. We all have a personal stake in the fate of the next generation.
- tediousdemise 5y ago
  I think the onus of childcare is on the parents, not society. If one is relying on family, friends, and society at large to raise their kids, I don’t think they should have had them in the first place.
  - acuozzo 5y ago
    I have two young boys. The older one is autistic. I earn a decent amount per year working as a computer programmer just as I did when they were born. If I were to survive a stroke tomorrow, would you tell me that I shouldn't have had them in the first place since I'd require all kinds of assistance to care for them? Would you support legislation to ensure that I don't get help?
    - tediousdemise 5y ago
      This is an exceptional edge case and I absolutely think that additional assistance would be in order. But generally, emergency funds, health insurance, disability assistance, and welfare are all able to alleviate this type of situation. If you intentionally have kids, you should have had an emergency fund stockpiled long before conception.
      - acuozzo 5y ago
        > This is an exceptional edge case It is, but it wouldn't be challenging to construct far less exceptional cases to consider. * workers of dangerous jobs e.g. oil rigs and mining * workers in seemingly-stable jobs that are suddenly outsourced e.g. GMC factory workers in Flint, MI * workers in industries on the verge of collapse e.g. milkmen and telephone switchboard operators * lost income after the birth of a disabled child forcing one parent to stay home full-time > If you intentionally have kids, you should have had an emergency fund stockpiled long before conception. By shifting 100% of the responsibility to the parents, you're ignoring the issue of far greater importance: the wellbeing of the children. Telling parents that they should have planned better and saved more does nothing for their children, but those children WILL have an impact on the future society you inhabit.
  - yummypaint 5y ago
    It's the responsibility of every driver to yield to pedestrians. That doesn't mean we should all just walk into the street without looking.
    - tediousdemise 5y ago
      Parenthood is a choice. One who chooses to have kids is also choosing the consequences and financial burdens that it may have. It is not okay to shift that burden to other people, especially those who made a different choice.
      - OccamsMirror 5y ago
        So only the rich should have children? Who is going to do all the manual labour once the lower classes go extinct?
        chii 5y ago
        > So only the rich should have children? If you have the financial means to have children, and feel like having children, then you should be free to have them. But if you want to have children but do not have the financial means, then why should anyone else in society (whom would have to give up some of their financial capacity) take on the burden for you? If i replaced "children" with "yacht", would you have a different opinion? > Who is going to do all the manual labour if there's fewer people doing manual labour, the price would grow to match demand - the statement you made is a non sequitur.
        OccamsMirror 5y ago
        I take it you’re a libertarian?
        moshmosh 5y ago
        There's rarely room for doubt. We may be about to step through some undergrad poli-sci and IPE coursework and (as inevitably happens) a review of book 1 of Plato's Republic up-thread, if you're interested. Or the poster may just leave it at a downvote and not respond. :-/ I tried to take Socrates' side of Book 1's exchange re: the definition of justice once already with another probably-libertarian, but we got derailed by your parent poster. (the short version for the uninitiated: if you try for a simple, inflexible, & complete definition of justice, you've almost certainly opened yourself to obvious contradictions and/or consequences that everyone hates as soon as you start gaming it out—workable definitions of justice that survive serious scrutiny are hard to come by)
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    If everyone followed that principle, humanity would have died out hundreds of thousands of years ago.
    - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
      Historically the "emergency fund" was multiple generations living under one roof.
burtmurphy1 5y ago
Is your sole reasoning for not having kids because of the environmental impact or is there another reason? If everyone that cared for the environment took this stance - the only people alive in 100 years would be those that care nothing for the environment.
- tediousdemise 5y ago
  Environmental impact is probably the biggest factor. I also just don’t have any motivation or desire to have children. Parenting is a lifelong commitment and requires responsibilities beyond that which I am willing to commit. I think bringing new carbon generators, who are capable of profound suffering, into the world would be doing a disservice to the environment, everyone around me, myself, and most importantly the child.
  - romski 5y ago
    User name checks out

yummypaint 5y ago

I don't have kids either and i want my tax money to pay for pre-k and quality childcare for other people's kids. They are children now but they will be our future colleagues, caretakers, and fellow citizens. We all have a personal stake in the fate of the next generation.

tediousdemise 5y ago
I think the onus of childcare is on the parents, not society. If one is relying on family, friends, and society at large to raise their kids, I don’t think they should have had them in the first place.
- acuozzo 5y ago
  I have two young boys. The older one is autistic. I earn a decent amount per year working as a computer programmer just as I did when they were born. If I were to survive a stroke tomorrow, would you tell me that I shouldn't have had them in the first place since I'd require all kinds of assistance to care for them? Would you support legislation to ensure that I don't get help?
  - tediousdemise 5y ago
    This is an exceptional edge case and I absolutely think that additional assistance would be in order. But generally, emergency funds, health insurance, disability assistance, and welfare are all able to alleviate this type of situation. If you intentionally have kids, you should have had an emergency fund stockpiled long before conception.
    - acuozzo 5y ago
      > This is an exceptional edge case It is, but it wouldn't be challenging to construct far less exceptional cases to consider. * workers of dangerous jobs e.g. oil rigs and mining * workers in seemingly-stable jobs that are suddenly outsourced e.g. GMC factory workers in Flint, MI * workers in industries on the verge of collapse e.g. milkmen and telephone switchboard operators * lost income after the birth of a disabled child forcing one parent to stay home full-time > If you intentionally have kids, you should have had an emergency fund stockpiled long before conception. By shifting 100% of the responsibility to the parents, you're ignoring the issue of far greater importance: the wellbeing of the children. Telling parents that they should have planned better and saved more does nothing for their children, but those children WILL have an impact on the future society you inhabit.
- yummypaint 5y ago
  It's the responsibility of every driver to yield to pedestrians. That doesn't mean we should all just walk into the street without looking.
  - tediousdemise 5y ago
    Parenthood is a choice. One who chooses to have kids is also choosing the consequences and financial burdens that it may have. It is not okay to shift that burden to other people, especially those who made a different choice.
    - OccamsMirror 5y ago
      So only the rich should have children? Who is going to do all the manual labour once the lower classes go extinct?
      - chii 5y ago
        > So only the rich should have children? If you have the financial means to have children, and feel like having children, then you should be free to have them. But if you want to have children but do not have the financial means, then why should anyone else in society (whom would have to give up some of their financial capacity) take on the burden for you? If i replaced "children" with "yacht", would you have a different opinion? > Who is going to do all the manual labour if there's fewer people doing manual labour, the price would grow to match demand - the statement you made is a non sequitur.
        OccamsMirror 5y ago
        I take it you’re a libertarian?
        moshmosh 5y ago
        There's rarely room for doubt. We may be about to step through some undergrad poli-sci and IPE coursework and (as inevitably happens) a review of book 1 of Plato's Republic up-thread, if you're interested. Or the poster may just leave it at a downvote and not respond. :-/ I tried to take Socrates' side of Book 1's exchange re: the definition of justice once already with another probably-libertarian, but we got derailed by your parent poster. (the short version for the uninitiated: if you try for a simple, inflexible, & complete definition of justice, you've almost certainly opened yourself to obvious contradictions and/or consequences that everyone hates as soon as you start gaming it out—workable definitions of justice that survive serious scrutiny are hard to come by)
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  If everyone followed that principle, humanity would have died out hundreds of thousands of years ago.
  - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
    Historically the "emergency fund" was multiple generations living under one roof.

burtmurphy1 5y ago

Is your sole reasoning for not having kids because of the environmental impact or is there another reason? If everyone that cared for the environment took this stance - the only people alive in 100 years would be those that care nothing for the environment.

tediousdemise 5y ago
Environmental impact is probably the biggest factor. I also just don’t have any motivation or desire to have children. Parenting is a lifelong commitment and requires responsibilities beyond that which I am willing to commit. I think bringing new carbon generators, who are capable of profound suffering, into the world would be doing a disservice to the environment, everyone around me, myself, and most importantly the child.
- romski 5y ago
  User name checks out