8 ms·

IMO this is a very unconvincing article. I think most people bring children into this world hoping their kids will have a better life then they do. If you're al

IMO this is a very unconvincing article. I think most people bring children into this world hoping their kids will have a better life then they do. If you're already unhappy with your life, why bring in kids when you know the world is going to be even worse for them?

amelius 5y ago
Because only smart people think like that. If only the not-so-smart part of the population has kids, then do you think the world will be better off?
- chucksta 5y ago
  Maybe not, but the kids I didn't have could be
- yesco 5y ago
  This is a question of morals, intelligence has nothing to do with it
  - amelius 5y ago
    Ok, so we end up with a population lacking moral sense. Is that much better?
    - yesco 5y ago
      I actually disagree that it is immoral in the first place. I see nothing wrong with having children, knowing full well that they may face greater adversity in their life than I have. For generations throughout human history many have had similar thoughts, that having children was sinful since they would have to suffer through the human experience. Whether ultimately right or wrong, they failed to propagate and so their opinions didn't matter. I said that this was a question of morality not intelligence. If one believes they are at least more capable than their peers at raising a child, then to refuse is what I consider to be ultimately immoral. The future generation comes regardless of you decide.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  > Because only smart people think like that. If your game plan is to die out, how smart are you really? It's literally the Darwin Awards on mass scale.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Why is it smart to want to continue passing down your genes?
    - xyzelement 5y ago
      > Why is it smart to want to continue passing down your genes? What a great question, thanks for the thought provoking challenge. The best way I can engage with this is asking a question in return: is someone who crosses the street safely "smarter" than someone who wanders into traffic and dies? If we think the survivor is smarter, then we can ask your question in another way: "why is it smart to wish to live another day?" If we come up with a satisfactory answer here, we will get closer to answering your question too.
      - wander_homer 5y ago
        > The best way I can engage with this is asking a question in return: is someone who crosses the street safely "smarter" than someone who wanders into traffic and dies? Well, given that wandering into traffic likely causes some sort of pain and is a terrible way to end a life, I'd say it's not a smart choice in most situations. If the goal for a person is to die, e.g. because they're in terrible pain, then there are usually smarter (more reliable, less painful, less harmful to others, ...) options available. But of course, there are likely situations, where crossing the street hastily is a smart choice, e.g. when you're being chased by something even more dangerous. Otherwise ... > If we think the survivor is smarter, then we can ask your question in another way: "why is it smart to wish to live another day?" You can only accumulate pleasure and good experiences if you stay alive. Hence staying alive is a smart choice if the chances of having good experiences is high enough and the chances of having lots of terrible experiences is low enough.
lampe3 5y ago
Because there is nothing more beautiful than a baby smiling at you just because you look at her/him?
- falcolas 5y ago
  I get that with nieces and nephews. And the crying. And the diaper changing. And the sullen teen angst. And pretty much every other experience.
  - lampe3 5y ago
    Babies cry, that is how they communicate. Yes you have to change diapers, it's not that hard. Waking up at night every 2 to 3 hours because the baby wants to eat. Yes teens are teens and? Pretty much life as it always was... Sounds to more like people are stuck in a comfort zone Or in a TV world of the 80s/90s with sitcoms like full house.
    - tomjen3 5y ago
      It sounds to me like you should have gotten a puppy instead. Cheaper, cuter and can learn not to shit everywhere in 14 days or so.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      You’re mistaking my covering of the entire baby experience (sans childbirth) as disliking those things. They’re just baby things. My point is, I can get the full experience (namely the called out smiling) without them being mine.
    - lampe3 5y ago
      Okay sorry got the wrong. I can tell you from experience, it is different if it is your own child.
      - falcolas 5y ago
        And yet, I don’t feel any lack. I have two nieces who call me “Dad” because their own don’t love them. I have helped three nieces and nephews reach adulthood. I have another nephew who was just born and giggles at my voice. And, as much as I don’t have the experience to say how my life would be different with a child, you appear to lack the experience to know how your life would be different without a child. I have over 25 years of childless adult life, an experience many of my parent acquaintances don’t - can’t - have. It’s been a fulfilling life.

amelius 5y ago

Because only smart people think like that. If only the not-so-smart part of the population has kids, then do you think the world will be better off?

chucksta 5y ago
Maybe not, but the kids I didn't have could be
yesco 5y ago
This is a question of morals, intelligence has nothing to do with it
- amelius 5y ago
  Ok, so we end up with a population lacking moral sense. Is that much better?
  - yesco 5y ago
    I actually disagree that it is immoral in the first place. I see nothing wrong with having children, knowing full well that they may face greater adversity in their life than I have. For generations throughout human history many have had similar thoughts, that having children was sinful since they would have to suffer through the human experience. Whether ultimately right or wrong, they failed to propagate and so their opinions didn't matter. I said that this was a question of morality not intelligence. If one believes they are at least more capable than their peers at raising a child, then to refuse is what I consider to be ultimately immoral. The future generation comes regardless of you decide.
xyzelement 5y ago
> Because only smart people think like that. If your game plan is to die out, how smart are you really? It's literally the Darwin Awards on mass scale.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Why is it smart to want to continue passing down your genes?
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    > Why is it smart to want to continue passing down your genes? What a great question, thanks for the thought provoking challenge. The best way I can engage with this is asking a question in return: is someone who crosses the street safely "smarter" than someone who wanders into traffic and dies? If we think the survivor is smarter, then we can ask your question in another way: "why is it smart to wish to live another day?" If we come up with a satisfactory answer here, we will get closer to answering your question too.
    - wander_homer 5y ago
      > The best way I can engage with this is asking a question in return: is someone who crosses the street safely "smarter" than someone who wanders into traffic and dies? Well, given that wandering into traffic likely causes some sort of pain and is a terrible way to end a life, I'd say it's not a smart choice in most situations. If the goal for a person is to die, e.g. because they're in terrible pain, then there are usually smarter (more reliable, less painful, less harmful to others, ...) options available. But of course, there are likely situations, where crossing the street hastily is a smart choice, e.g. when you're being chased by something even more dangerous. Otherwise ... > If we think the survivor is smarter, then we can ask your question in another way: "why is it smart to wish to live another day?" You can only accumulate pleasure and good experiences if you stay alive. Hence staying alive is a smart choice if the chances of having good experiences is high enough and the chances of having lots of terrible experiences is low enough.

lampe3 5y ago

Because there is nothing more beautiful than a baby smiling at you just because you look at her/him?

falcolas 5y ago
I get that with nieces and nephews. And the crying. And the diaper changing. And the sullen teen angst. And pretty much every other experience.
- lampe3 5y ago
  Babies cry, that is how they communicate. Yes you have to change diapers, it's not that hard. Waking up at night every 2 to 3 hours because the baby wants to eat. Yes teens are teens and? Pretty much life as it always was... Sounds to more like people are stuck in a comfort zone Or in a TV world of the 80s/90s with sitcoms like full house.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    It sounds to me like you should have gotten a puppy instead. Cheaper, cuter and can learn not to shit everywhere in 14 days or so.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    You’re mistaking my covering of the entire baby experience (sans childbirth) as disliking those things. They’re just baby things. My point is, I can get the full experience (namely the called out smiling) without them being mine.
  - lampe3 5y ago
    Okay sorry got the wrong. I can tell you from experience, it is different if it is your own child.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      And yet, I don’t feel any lack. I have two nieces who call me “Dad” because their own don’t love them. I have helped three nieces and nephews reach adulthood. I have another nephew who was just born and giggles at my voice. And, as much as I don’t have the experience to say how my life would be different with a child, you appear to lack the experience to know how your life would be different without a child. I have over 25 years of childless adult life, an experience many of my parent acquaintances don’t - can’t - have. It’s been a fulfilling life.