6 ms·

I don't really think it's fair to call parenthood a "personal choice". It's not a complete necessity like food and water, but it's also not a complete personal

by Zababa 4y ago

I don't really think it's fair to call parenthood a "personal choice". It's not a complete necessity like food and water, but it's also not a complete personal choice like getting a tattoo. The majority of humans are going to be parents. All living humans come from a long unbroken line of parents. It's more fundamental than a simple personal choice.

krapp 4y ago
Parenthood must be an entirely personal choice. Otherwise the implication is that "society" or government have the right to regulate bodily autonomy, force people to have children, outlaw abortion or homosexuality as "threats to society," engage in eugenics, etc. Most would consider the implications of that to be highly immoral.
- jseban 4y ago
  > Most would consider the implications of that to be highly immoral. I think it's already immoral how society punishes people for being childless when it's a natural thing and can be 100% caused by characteristics that you are born with and have no control over.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Yes, both can be immoral.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    How does society punish you for being childless?
    - jseban 4y ago
      - DangitBobby 4y ago
        I guess it depends on where you live, but it is so much less expensive to be childless in the US. Monetary aid provided by the government does not cover the costs, let alone make it profitable. And government aid is not just for unfortunate events, it's used to promote desired behavior. That's why there are subsidies for companies developing green energy and EVs, for farmers growing certain crops, for animal feed (very frustrating as someone who always has to pay more for veggie burgers), and many other things. Clearly, though, the US doesn't value parenthood very much because the monetary incentives simply are not enough. I guess when you know your replacement rates are kept afloat by immigration, you don't care much if your citizens have kids. It's funny that you say being social is easier, because what I see is the opposite. Being a parent isn't a panacea for socialization. It can be very isolating when your childless friends can drop whatever they are doing to go have a good time (so they don't bother to make plans, they just go) while you have to secure a babysitter just to get a quiet dinner. Your friends have to accommodate you, and many will not. As someone who is currently childless with both new parent friends and not-so-new parent friends, it's very clear to see how much simpler it is for the ones of us who don't have kids have to be social or follow their own interests. I feel in no way compelled by any law or incentive to have children and am in fact dreading the day my wife is serious about having them, because I have seen first hand what it does to your bank account and your personal life.
        jseban 4y ago
        > It can be very isolating when your childless friends can drop whatever they are doing to go have a good time Yeah parents can't have as much spontaneous fun, but they don't have to deal with unhealthy loneliness of being alone on thanksgiving, christmas, vacations etc. Society is organised for the family unit, and there are no options for single people.
7952 4y ago
Yes, people can have very strong instinct to have a baby. It is unreasonable to expect people to suppress that.
jseban 4y ago
> The majority of humans are going to be parents. Only because of the subsidies. It's hardly "natural" for all humans to reproduce. All living humans come from a long unbroken chain of natural selection and rejection of bad genes and reproduction of only the fittest to enable adaption to a changing environment. If you create subsidies so that every human can reproduce, you are going to reverse natural selection and create survival of the unfittest where every bad gene will reproduce endlessly. Not having children is just as "natural" as having children, it all depends of how your particular set of characteristics do in the current environment and foreseeable future.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Huh? It has to work out that or the human race dies out. I guess you could have a few couples who have a lot of kids instead, but developed societies are really adverse to that. It is “natural” in the sense that we wouldn’t be here to talk about it if it wasn’t the case.
  - jseban 4y ago
    > Huh? It has to work out that or the human race dies out. I guess you could have a few couples who have a lot of kids instead, but developed societies are really adverse to that. Obviously the human race somehow made it until we created developed societies. I think you are confusing survival of the human race with survival of our current pension system. Who knows if it's really better or worse to suddenly allow everyone to reproduce? For sure it's not "natural", and as far as I can see it would actually reverse evolution to regression instead. And it seems like we can't really stop it anyway with how many men today are becoming outsiders in society because they get rejected to reproduce.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      It’s natural only in the sense of a selection bias: we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t so. Men aren’t the limiting resource here, but if women start having less than 2.1 kids on average, we eventually just disappear. This is just math, not related to economics, morality, or ideology.

by Zababa 4y ago

krapp 4y ago

Parenthood must be an entirely personal choice. Otherwise the implication is that "society" or government have the right to regulate bodily autonomy, force people to have children, outlaw abortion or homosexuality as "threats to society," engage in eugenics, etc. Most would consider the implications of that to be highly immoral.

jseban 4y ago
> Most would consider the implications of that to be highly immoral. I think it's already immoral how society punishes people for being childless when it's a natural thing and can be 100% caused by characteristics that you are born with and have no control over.
- krapp 4y ago
  Yes, both can be immoral.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  How does society punish you for being childless?
  - jseban 4y ago
    - DangitBobby 4y ago
      I guess it depends on where you live, but it is so much less expensive to be childless in the US. Monetary aid provided by the government does not cover the costs, let alone make it profitable. And government aid is not just for unfortunate events, it's used to promote desired behavior. That's why there are subsidies for companies developing green energy and EVs, for farmers growing certain crops, for animal feed (very frustrating as someone who always has to pay more for veggie burgers), and many other things. Clearly, though, the US doesn't value parenthood very much because the monetary incentives simply are not enough. I guess when you know your replacement rates are kept afloat by immigration, you don't care much if your citizens have kids. It's funny that you say being social is easier, because what I see is the opposite. Being a parent isn't a panacea for socialization. It can be very isolating when your childless friends can drop whatever they are doing to go have a good time (so they don't bother to make plans, they just go) while you have to secure a babysitter just to get a quiet dinner. Your friends have to accommodate you, and many will not. As someone who is currently childless with both new parent friends and not-so-new parent friends, it's very clear to see how much simpler it is for the ones of us who don't have kids have to be social or follow their own interests. I feel in no way compelled by any law or incentive to have children and am in fact dreading the day my wife is serious about having them, because I have seen first hand what it does to your bank account and your personal life.
      - jseban 4y ago
        > It can be very isolating when your childless friends can drop whatever they are doing to go have a good time Yeah parents can't have as much spontaneous fun, but they don't have to deal with unhealthy loneliness of being alone on thanksgiving, christmas, vacations etc. Society is organised for the family unit, and there are no options for single people.

7952 4y ago

Yes, people can have very strong instinct to have a baby. It is unreasonable to expect people to suppress that.

jseban 4y ago

> The majority of humans are going to be parents. Only because of the subsidies. It's hardly "natural" for all humans to reproduce. All living humans come from a long unbroken chain of natural selection and rejection of bad genes and reproduction of only the fittest to enable adaption to a changing environment. If you create subsidies so that every human can reproduce, you are going to reverse natural selection and create survival of the unfittest where every bad gene will reproduce endlessly. Not having children is just as "natural" as having children, it all depends of how your particular set of characteristics do in the current environment and foreseeable future.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
Huh? It has to work out that or the human race dies out. I guess you could have a few couples who have a lot of kids instead, but developed societies are really adverse to that. It is “natural” in the sense that we wouldn’t be here to talk about it if it wasn’t the case.
- jseban 4y ago
  > Huh? It has to work out that or the human race dies out. I guess you could have a few couples who have a lot of kids instead, but developed societies are really adverse to that. Obviously the human race somehow made it until we created developed societies. I think you are confusing survival of the human race with survival of our current pension system. Who knows if it's really better or worse to suddenly allow everyone to reproduce? For sure it's not "natural", and as far as I can see it would actually reverse evolution to regression instead. And it seems like we can't really stop it anyway with how many men today are becoming outsiders in society because they get rejected to reproduce.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    It’s natural only in the sense of a selection bias: we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t so. Men aren’t the limiting resource here, but if women start having less than 2.1 kids on average, we eventually just disappear. This is just math, not related to economics, morality, or ideology.