3 ms·

archive: https://archive.ph/T4y0M https://archive.ph/T4y0M I'm one of the co-workers who don't want to hear about the struggles of working parents. I had to ra

archive: https://archive.ph/T4y0M https://archive.ph/T4y0M I'm one of the co-workers who don't want to hear about the struggles of working parents. I had to raise my younger brothers instead of getting to be a kid myself because my parents were workaholics and fucking useless at home, so I haven't bothered to have children of my own because I've done my time. I'm not going to defer my vacation or take on extra work because of parents who try and fail miserably to "have it all". If that means the management doesn't have enough hands on deck, boo fuckin' hoo. Push me hard enough and I won't come back from my vacation; I'll just ghost your asses and get a better job elsewhere. If it ain't my kid, it ain't my problem.

hackreader63 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
CobaltFire 4y ago
This attitude is how societies age out and die. Raising children is part of the social contract of a society. It’s you who wants it all: to live free from that burden and to benefit from the generation raised at that time as you age. Or do you prefer that the next generation not be there as you age and need assistance? None of that is intended to diminish your efforts in raising your siblings. Unfortunately that doesn’t absolve you of societal duties if we want to continue as a society. The unfortunate fact is that to raise a child now really does require two incomes in the US. How do you propose these parents solve this issue?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Individuals do not owe society perpetuation of the status quo through reproduction. They are entitled to their own life of happiness without children if they so choose. The world has 8 billion people currently, peaking at 10-11 billion by end of century [1]. There will be people for when the childfree age to take care of them, and the $280k per child cost savings of not having them can be directed to investments to fund later life care (US centric). [1] https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-update-2022 https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-update-2022
  - CobaltFire 4y ago
    Who provides this later life care? Do you care if it's a society that doesn't value you or has completely different values? Do you care if the children of those who had them decide they are entitled to their own happiness and that doesn't include taking care of those retirees who aren't their parents? These are philosophical questions as much as anything. This attitude of "money fixes everything and I don't need to worry about society" is at direct odds with "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." I tend to think the proverb is right and the attitude of money fixes everything is wrong.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." I agree, and believe in this value wholeheartedly, but fall on the side of the argument that having no kids or less kids is more in the spirit of this idea than having more kids. 400k kids are in foster care in the US, 100k of which are adoptable. 11.6 million children live in poverty. 26k people die every year due to a lack of health insurance. 150k per year die from deaths of despair. Take care of existing humans and maybe the argument to have more will hold some water. Until then, the data strongly suggests having less or no kids is a net benefit for the individual (both from economic as well as emotional/happiness perspectives), and if society desires more children, fix the socioeconomic systems (with policy, social safety nets and such) citizens are exposed to instead of attempting to shame folks into taking on societal debt they are under no obligation to assume. I wrote a longer comment on the topic with sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31372370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31372370 EDIT: > Do you care if the children of those who had them decide they are entitled to their own happiness and that doesn't include taking care of those retirees who aren't their parents? I do care, and I fully support the idea that you are not responsible for taking care of your parents in their old age. If you want to, that is a respectable and commendable choice! But if you don't, I will not judge you; you had no consent in your existence and owe your parents nothing. You are entitled to your own happiness, and if you are not selfish for you and prioritize your own happiness, no one else will. Strong believer in breaking suffering cycles and not wasting one's own life experience.
Thetawaves 4y ago
Your perspective just looks weak.
- EddieDante 4y ago
  At least CobaltWaves had the decency to offer something resembling an argument, even if I find his premises repugnant. You couldn't even manage that.
  - Thetawaves 4y ago
    I did you a service, you should know how pathetic this sounds.
    - EddieDante 4y ago
      With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?

hackreader63 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

CobaltFire 4y ago

This attitude is how societies age out and die. Raising children is part of the social contract of a society. It’s you who wants it all: to live free from that burden and to benefit from the generation raised at that time as you age. Or do you prefer that the next generation not be there as you age and need assistance? None of that is intended to diminish your efforts in raising your siblings. Unfortunately that doesn’t absolve you of societal duties if we want to continue as a society. The unfortunate fact is that to raise a child now really does require two incomes in the US. How do you propose these parents solve this issue?

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Individuals do not owe society perpetuation of the status quo through reproduction. They are entitled to their own life of happiness without children if they so choose. The world has 8 billion people currently, peaking at 10-11 billion by end of century [1]. There will be people for when the childfree age to take care of them, and the $280k per child cost savings of not having them can be directed to investments to fund later life care (US centric). [1] https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-update-2022 https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-update-2022
- CobaltFire 4y ago
  Who provides this later life care? Do you care if it's a society that doesn't value you or has completely different values? Do you care if the children of those who had them decide they are entitled to their own happiness and that doesn't include taking care of those retirees who aren't their parents? These are philosophical questions as much as anything. This attitude of "money fixes everything and I don't need to worry about society" is at direct odds with "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." I tend to think the proverb is right and the attitude of money fixes everything is wrong.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." I agree, and believe in this value wholeheartedly, but fall on the side of the argument that having no kids or less kids is more in the spirit of this idea than having more kids. 400k kids are in foster care in the US, 100k of which are adoptable. 11.6 million children live in poverty. 26k people die every year due to a lack of health insurance. 150k per year die from deaths of despair. Take care of existing humans and maybe the argument to have more will hold some water. Until then, the data strongly suggests having less or no kids is a net benefit for the individual (both from economic as well as emotional/happiness perspectives), and if society desires more children, fix the socioeconomic systems (with policy, social safety nets and such) citizens are exposed to instead of attempting to shame folks into taking on societal debt they are under no obligation to assume. I wrote a longer comment on the topic with sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31372370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31372370 EDIT: > Do you care if the children of those who had them decide they are entitled to their own happiness and that doesn't include taking care of those retirees who aren't their parents? I do care, and I fully support the idea that you are not responsible for taking care of your parents in their old age. If you want to, that is a respectable and commendable choice! But if you don't, I will not judge you; you had no consent in your existence and owe your parents nothing. You are entitled to your own happiness, and if you are not selfish for you and prioritize your own happiness, no one else will. Strong believer in breaking suffering cycles and not wasting one's own life experience.

Thetawaves 4y ago

Your perspective just looks weak.

EddieDante 4y ago
At least CobaltWaves had the decency to offer something resembling an argument, even if I find his premises repugnant. You couldn't even manage that.
- Thetawaves 4y ago
  I did you a service, you should know how pathetic this sounds.
  - EddieDante 4y ago
    With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?