9 ms·

Of course people can choose not having spouse or kids. What do you mean there is zero alternative? There are people born rich enough to not have to work, but d

Of course people can choose not having spouse or kids. What do you mean there is zero alternative? There are people born rich enough to not have to work, but do they live a happy life by not working all the way?

p1esk 5y ago
What do you mean there is zero alternative? For most of the human history, for vast majority of the people, choosing not to have spouse and kids would mean choosing not to have sex, e.g. to become a monk. Also, the societal pressure to choose a traditional way of life if you were poor was a lot higher.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Not at all, the oldest profession is sex worker for a reason. Paying for sex is an option to being a monk.
chromanoid 5y ago
Choice comes in various flavors. A single woman was very vulnerable some decades ago. While single men had it better there were and are still many stereotypes that affect your life. Just read the parts about feeling disconnected to many old friends. Imagine that a thousand times when you look at the past.
- temp8964 5y ago
  The whole point is that when you have more and more choices , you can't escape your psychological needs as a human being. You can have sex with random strangers with protection from modern technology, but they don't provide the same intimacy you need from your spouse. You can live alone with single wage, but it does not fulfil your psychological needs can only be gained from living with a family.
kerkeslager 5y ago
> Of course people can choose not having spouse or kids. What do you mean there is zero alternative? You're doing that thing where you claim there's freedom of choice because you're ignoring the punishment inflicted on one choice. The choice not to commit to a long-term relationship has had severe financial implications for centuries, especially if you are female. Until the invention of effective birth control, the choice to not have children meant giving up much of heterosexual sex. While there are still problems, the ability to have healthy heterosexual sexual relationships without children is largely solved by modern birth control. But I would argue that the choice to not marry is still financially punished pretty severely, though perhaps not as much as in centuries past. > There are people born rich enough to not have to work, but do they live a happy life by not working all the way? You're asking this as if it's a rhetorical question, but it's not. Being a rock climber, I've met plenty of Trustafarians who haven't done a lick of work in their lives, and are quite happy being skiing, surfing, or rock climbing bums. The flipside, is when I've met people who tried not working and said they didn't like it, that has always been coupled with a profound lack of imagination or self-awareness. I distinctly remember a post on HN where someone took a week off and just played World of Warcraft for the entire week, and when he found this unfulfilling he concluded that not working wasn't for him. It should be no surprise that a lifestyle with no physical activity or direct human interaction is dissatisfying--this isn't proof that work is a necessary part of human happiness, it's just proof that giving up work without replacing it with something better doesn't succeed.
- temp8964 5y ago
  The whole point is that even with material support, people still need to live with spouse and kids, and having a regular work (not necessarily work for someone else), to have a happy life. Yes, modern technology and economy makes it easier for you to live alone but it does not change the basic human needs. Eventually you will need a spouse (same or opposite sex), not just for the money, not for the sex, but for the intimacy. And you will want to have kids when you get older. And as other comments pointed out, you want to live with people who really cares about you and you care about them, i.e. your family. There is nothing magic about this. Just some people realize this earlier than others.
kbenson 5y ago
> Of course people can choose not having spouse or kids. What do you mean there is zero alternative? It's worth noting that these people are by definition going to be outliers in the population, as they don't reproduce, so there will always be a selection bias the other way.

p1esk 5y ago

What do you mean there is zero alternative? For most of the human history, for vast majority of the people, choosing not to have spouse and kids would mean choosing not to have sex, e.g. to become a monk. Also, the societal pressure to choose a traditional way of life if you were poor was a lot higher.

ipaddr 5y ago
Not at all, the oldest profession is sex worker for a reason. Paying for sex is an option to being a monk.

chromanoid 5y ago

Choice comes in various flavors. A single woman was very vulnerable some decades ago. While single men had it better there were and are still many stereotypes that affect your life. Just read the parts about feeling disconnected to many old friends. Imagine that a thousand times when you look at the past.

temp8964 5y ago
The whole point is that when you have more and more choices , you can't escape your psychological needs as a human being. You can have sex with random strangers with protection from modern technology, but they don't provide the same intimacy you need from your spouse. You can live alone with single wage, but it does not fulfil your psychological needs can only be gained from living with a family.

kerkeslager 5y ago

> Of course people can choose not having spouse or kids. What do you mean there is zero alternative? You're doing that thing where you claim there's freedom of choice because you're ignoring the punishment inflicted on one choice. The choice not to commit to a long-term relationship has had severe financial implications for centuries, especially if you are female. Until the invention of effective birth control, the choice to not have children meant giving up much of heterosexual sex. While there are still problems, the ability to have healthy heterosexual sexual relationships without children is largely solved by modern birth control. But I would argue that the choice to not marry is still financially punished pretty severely, though perhaps not as much as in centuries past. > There are people born rich enough to not have to work, but do they live a happy life by not working all the way? You're asking this as if it's a rhetorical question, but it's not. Being a rock climber, I've met plenty of Trustafarians who haven't done a lick of work in their lives, and are quite happy being skiing, surfing, or rock climbing bums. The flipside, is when I've met people who tried not working and said they didn't like it, that has always been coupled with a profound lack of imagination or self-awareness. I distinctly remember a post on HN where someone took a week off and just played World of Warcraft for the entire week, and when he found this unfulfilling he concluded that not working wasn't for him. It should be no surprise that a lifestyle with no physical activity or direct human interaction is dissatisfying--this isn't proof that work is a necessary part of human happiness, it's just proof that giving up work without replacing it with something better doesn't succeed.

temp8964 5y ago
The whole point is that even with material support, people still need to live with spouse and kids, and having a regular work (not necessarily work for someone else), to have a happy life. Yes, modern technology and economy makes it easier for you to live alone but it does not change the basic human needs. Eventually you will need a spouse (same or opposite sex), not just for the money, not for the sex, but for the intimacy. And you will want to have kids when you get older. And as other comments pointed out, you want to live with people who really cares about you and you care about them, i.e. your family. There is nothing magic about this. Just some people realize this earlier than others.

kbenson 5y ago

> Of course people can choose not having spouse or kids. What do you mean there is zero alternative? It's worth noting that these people are by definition going to be outliers in the population, as they don't reproduce, so there will always be a selection bias the other way.