4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- throwaway675309 5y ago
  Lot of Buddhist monks would disagree with you pretty strongly. I think you are projecting your own needs/wants/desires and I get that, it's hard to get "out of your own head"... so to speak.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    How is common needs of human being my own needs? How is Buddhist monks a good argument here? Whenever someone makes a general statement in psychology, it never excludes exceptions.
- kerkeslager 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. I understood that was your point. The problem is that your point simply isn't true, and you've provided absolutely no evidence of your belief beyond your patronizing "some people realize this earlier than others". I do think that intimacy is a necessary part of happiness for most people, but there are many ways to find intimacy besides a spouse. As for kids: people who don't ever want kids and end up happy are common enough that I'd consider it common knowledge. There are all sorts of families out there, and many of them don't involve marriages or children.
war1025 5y ago
> the choice to not have children meant giving up much of heterosexual sex. A bit personal maybe, but my wife has never been on birth control, we don't use protection, and have never had an "oops" baby. We had kids when we wanted kids, and haven't had kids when we didn't want kids. It's really just... not that hard...
- kerkeslager 5y ago
  That's great for you, but as a societal discussion, that's about as useful as a story of how someone prayed and their mom's cancer went away. You're taking a risk, in the context of a committed relationship where you've already had kids (so the stakes are lower than for a lot of people). So far that risk has worked out for you. That doesn't mean that is the right risk for everyone. It also doesn't mean that what you're doing is reliable for everyone. And it certainly doesn't mean that you're somehow more intelligent or competent than the people for whom similar methods of family planning have failed.
  - war1025 5y ago
    > it certainly doesn't mean that you're somehow more intelligent or competent than the people for whom similar methods of family planning have failed. I personally think it is a sign of modern hubris to assume that effective family planning didn't exist prior to 1960s and the advent of birth control. All forms of family planning can fail. I don't think that's contentious. Personally, the bigger issue I see among my peers is inability to conceive at all. They squandered their fertile years and are now going to enormous expense to start a family.
    - kerkeslager 5y ago
      > I personally think it is a sign of modern hubris to assume that effective family planning didn't exist prior to 1960s and the advent of birth control. Effective toward what end? Having kids when and only when you want them? Sure. "Only have sex when you want a kid" has always been an option. Having kids when and only when you want them, and fulfilling your biological urges? Not so much. I'm glad for you that your family planning worked for you and fulfilled your needs, but if you're going to extrapolate your experience to literally all humans throughout history, you aren't really in a position to be talking about other people's hubris.

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.

throwaway675309 5y ago
Lot of Buddhist monks would disagree with you pretty strongly. I think you are projecting your own needs/wants/desires and I get that, it's hard to get "out of your own head"... so to speak.
- temp8964 5y ago
  How is common needs of human being my own needs? How is Buddhist monks a good argument here? Whenever someone makes a general statement in psychology, it never excludes exceptions.
kerkeslager 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. I understood that was your point. The problem is that your point simply isn't true, and you've provided absolutely no evidence of your belief beyond your patronizing "some people realize this earlier than others". I do think that intimacy is a necessary part of happiness for most people, but there are many ways to find intimacy besides a spouse. As for kids: people who don't ever want kids and end up happy are common enough that I'd consider it common knowledge. There are all sorts of families out there, and many of them don't involve marriages or children.

war1025 5y ago

> the choice to not have children meant giving up much of heterosexual sex. A bit personal maybe, but my wife has never been on birth control, we don't use protection, and have never had an "oops" baby. We had kids when we wanted kids, and haven't had kids when we didn't want kids. It's really just... not that hard...

kerkeslager 5y ago
That's great for you, but as a societal discussion, that's about as useful as a story of how someone prayed and their mom's cancer went away. You're taking a risk, in the context of a committed relationship where you've already had kids (so the stakes are lower than for a lot of people). So far that risk has worked out for you. That doesn't mean that is the right risk for everyone. It also doesn't mean that what you're doing is reliable for everyone. And it certainly doesn't mean that you're somehow more intelligent or competent than the people for whom similar methods of family planning have failed.
- war1025 5y ago
  > it certainly doesn't mean that you're somehow more intelligent or competent than the people for whom similar methods of family planning have failed. I personally think it is a sign of modern hubris to assume that effective family planning didn't exist prior to 1960s and the advent of birth control. All forms of family planning can fail. I don't think that's contentious. Personally, the bigger issue I see among my peers is inability to conceive at all. They squandered their fertile years and are now going to enormous expense to start a family.
  - kerkeslager 5y ago
    > I personally think it is a sign of modern hubris to assume that effective family planning didn't exist prior to 1960s and the advent of birth control. Effective toward what end? Having kids when and only when you want them? Sure. "Only have sex when you want a kid" has always been an option. Having kids when and only when you want them, and fulfilling your biological urges? Not so much. I'm glad for you that your family planning worked for you and fulfilled your needs, but if you're going to extrapolate your experience to literally all humans throughout history, you aren't really in a position to be talking about other people's hubris.