7 ms·

I appreciate their sacrifice, though I'm afraid that in most cases it is dysgenic. It's going to be intense for our descendents in a couple generations when th

I appreciate their sacrifice, though I'm afraid that in most cases it is dysgenic. It's going to be intense for our descendents in a couple generations when the gene pool is only left with high fecundity actors. The real resource wars will start then.

pokstad 3y ago
How is it sacrifice? Many people simply don’t want kids or can’t afford them. Has little to do with sacrifice.
- sourcecodeplz 3y ago
  I think it is actually selfish because you were given the greatest gift of all, life, and you should "pay it forward".
  - saiojd 3y ago
    Not really selfish at all when you consider that the Earth's population cannot grow infinitely. Some people have kids, others don't, not a big deal.
    - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
      That’s assuming the human race naturally reducing or eventually dying out is considered selfish in the first place. We really place too much longevity of humans while extinguishing animals for sport.
    - pokstad 3y ago
      That’s not necessarily true. The biggest resource constraint on the earth we can’t live without is food and we are extremely inefficient at producing it. Right now it takes large fields of biological crops, but the future might solve that problem.
      - saiojd 3y ago
        That's a good point. The more I think about it the more what I said was a way of rationalizing not agreeing with the parent comment. Even if there were no ressource constrains it still doesn't feel selfish to me not to have children.
    - antisthenes 3y ago
      Every couple can have 2 kids and it would keep the population constant. In fact everyone having just 2 isn't enough, it has to be slightly higher, even with modern medicine.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        That would be assuming that we've not already overshot sustainable population. With every biodiversity marker pointing that we're in the middle of a mass extinction, it really does seem like that may be the case.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    I am paying it forward. Many people will live better lives because of me. The fact that they share 99.99% of my genes rather than 99.999% is not my main concern.
  - eyelidlessness 3y ago
    I didn’t ask for the gift and I don’t owe anyone anything for it. If you want to treat life as some kind of exchange, you at least need consent from the parties to it.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Sounds like a miserable point of view…
      - eyelidlessness 3y ago
        I’m happy that I’m under no obligation to procreate, nor to raise children I don’t want. What’s miserable about that?
  - gumby 3y ago
    I don’t understand. You should have as many kids as you possibly can (à la Monty Python) to provide the “gift” as widely as possible? Or you owe other people (mostly ppl you don’t know) the existence of a child for some reason?
  - Teever 3y ago
    I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from? How did you come to that conclusion, was it something you came to one day after careful consideration or was it something you heard one day and just started saying because everyone else was saying it? I don't mean that to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Like what's so selfish about it? If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Is someone who has 10 kids in poverty less selfish than someone not poor who only has 1? What's the ideal number of children to minimize selfishness?
    - tivert 3y ago
      > I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from? Why is it so puzzling? You're part of a whole, and producing children is important work to sustain that whole. If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption). > If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Maybe people like that, with one-in-a-billion achievements, are the exceptions that prove the rule.... except they both also had children.
      - robotshmobot 3y ago
        > If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption). There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous.
        tivert 3y ago
        > There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous. What's ridiculous is how much you completely misunderstood my comment. Personal "consumption" has nothing to do with the core idea I was talking about. The only way it factors in at all is like the "insult" in "add insult to injury" (i.e. an ancillary thing that just makes perception of an underlying issue worse).
  - nunez 3y ago
    What does that even mean in this context? How is having kids you don't want "paying it forward?"
- agonmon 3y ago
  1. The people that don't want kids, cannot accurately model what it is like having kids. Your brain and hormonal output changes after a birth. 2. Children aren't that expensive unless the parents are playing status games (e.g. acting rich), and statistically it's poorer people that end up having more kids. On the topic of sacrifice: One of my kids is just starting to stand up, and is using my shirt to pull herself up while squealing in triumph and delight. It's hard to express the fulfillment and existential meaning provided from children. If I was told I would have to give them all up, it would be a soul-crushing sacrifice. Irrecoverable.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    You can model the experience before having kids. Babysit a few different ages. Hormones don't always (ever?) change enough to overcome the predictable and significant costs. Likely more than 250k per child to get them to adulthood, and unlikely to stop there. It also matter with whom and how you parent. Are sleep training, daycare, diapers, Tylenol, and bottle feeding the devil? Must you potty train from birth, diaper free? Naturopath parenting or bust? Prepare yourself for sleep deprivation, higher risk of depression, many trips to the ER, and the smell of shit and piss. If your doctor or therapist insists you'll need medication and/or change your parenting style, then how many second opinions will you seek out before trying something else? There is a balance of course, no one should neglect kids. Yet finding that, especially with an opinionated partner and the parent industrial complex, may be a long journey.
    - VirusNewbie 3y ago
      >Babysit a few different ages. That's such a weird thing to say. If I said "you can model what its like to be in a happy marriage. Hang out with some randos wife for a bit" you'd think that is crazy. Plenty of kids are little shits. I really really like my kid (and some others). Just like I wouldn't marry most people I meet...
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        It's an approximation of course. IME far better than just hoping you'll like it and adapt, having never done anything like it. Dating and living together before marriage is much the same idea. Of course you may babysit a bad kid and have your own great kids. Babysitting first will still at least provide a frame of reference.
- smegsicle 3y ago
  > Many people simply don’t want kids there's a bit of a gender disparity in that group. three obvious solutions: 1. not care that most of this 1/5 of women are missing out on something they want 2. legalize and normalize polygamy 3. redirect culture to 'man up' and help provide families for the women who want them other (esoteric?) solutions?
  - seedead99 3y ago
    4. Have these women adjust their expectations. How many dozens or hundreds of men have they rejected that would have been perfectly acceptable fathers?
    - smegsicle 3y ago
      found the incel
s5300 3y ago
>> when the gene pool is only left with high fecundity actors. The real resource wars will start then. I’ve become a bit convinced that we’re essentially going to see Incestuous Kings II except this time with feudal tech lords. Quite a depressing future if that ends up being it. Working class probably needs to get around to killing some bad actors sooner or later.
- VirusNewbie 3y ago
  You think working class people need to murder people? You may want to seek professional help if you actually believe this.
  - s5300 3y ago
    Could you take the time to explain to me how labor movements have made meaningful progress throughout all of history? Where I’m from, when the big city law-man came to foreclose/auction on poor widows homes, the entire town showed up with guns & stared until nobody bid over $1 on the home. Do you view these people with disdain for doing so? How do you feel about Peter Thiels “let’s put suicide collars on the security guards” schpiel? Is murder okay when the rich or right people say it is?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > You think working class people need to murder people? You may want to seek professional help if you actually believe this. It's called a revolution, and they have to happen from time to time for society to stay healthy. Sort if like forest fires in some biomes.
hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
Well it wont be my descendants taking part in the resource war. Maybe the problem isn’t the people choosing not to breed.
- agonmon 3y ago
  I have many smart, empathetic friends in tech who are not having kids. Meanwhile my redneck neighbor has 5. It seems to me that all of the conscientious people who look out for the greater good and environment, are leaving the gene pool. This feels like a problem for the future.
  - gauku 3y ago
    I’ll entertain that thought - How is that a problem?
    - agonmon 3y ago
      I'm mostly imagining a dysgenic future similar to Idiocracy; but really, it's more of an emotional appeal than an actual argument.
      - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        The pretty reasonable copium is that the differences you're focusing on are traits which exist in the DNA of every person you see, including ones that don't exhibit those traits. They're just expressions of a random/environmentally-determined subset of the DNA within everyone. As anecdata, wait until you meet a girl from a broken family of alcoholic rednecks who live in the woods and find out that she can code circles around you despite growing up without anything you can call broadband. ;p
  - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
    Are you somehow superior to your neighbour? Do you have evidence that your neighbour doesn’t care about ‘the greater good’? Is there even a universally accepted definition for ‘the greater good’?

pokstad 3y ago

How is it sacrifice? Many people simply don’t want kids or can’t afford them. Has little to do with sacrifice.

sourcecodeplz 3y ago
I think it is actually selfish because you were given the greatest gift of all, life, and you should "pay it forward".
- saiojd 3y ago
  Not really selfish at all when you consider that the Earth's population cannot grow infinitely. Some people have kids, others don't, not a big deal.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
    That’s assuming the human race naturally reducing or eventually dying out is considered selfish in the first place. We really place too much longevity of humans while extinguishing animals for sport.
  - pokstad 3y ago
    That’s not necessarily true. The biggest resource constraint on the earth we can’t live without is food and we are extremely inefficient at producing it. Right now it takes large fields of biological crops, but the future might solve that problem.
    - saiojd 3y ago
      That's a good point. The more I think about it the more what I said was a way of rationalizing not agreeing with the parent comment. Even if there were no ressource constrains it still doesn't feel selfish to me not to have children.
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    Every couple can have 2 kids and it would keep the population constant. In fact everyone having just 2 isn't enough, it has to be slightly higher, even with modern medicine.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      That would be assuming that we've not already overshot sustainable population. With every biodiversity marker pointing that we're in the middle of a mass extinction, it really does seem like that may be the case.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I am paying it forward. Many people will live better lives because of me. The fact that they share 99.99% of my genes rather than 99.999% is not my main concern.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  I didn’t ask for the gift and I don’t owe anyone anything for it. If you want to treat life as some kind of exchange, you at least need consent from the parties to it.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Sounds like a miserable point of view…
    - eyelidlessness 3y ago
      I’m happy that I’m under no obligation to procreate, nor to raise children I don’t want. What’s miserable about that?
- gumby 3y ago
  I don’t understand. You should have as many kids as you possibly can (à la Monty Python) to provide the “gift” as widely as possible? Or you owe other people (mostly ppl you don’t know) the existence of a child for some reason?
- Teever 3y ago
  I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from? How did you come to that conclusion, was it something you came to one day after careful consideration or was it something you heard one day and just started saying because everyone else was saying it? I don't mean that to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Like what's so selfish about it? If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Is someone who has 10 kids in poverty less selfish than someone not poor who only has 1? What's the ideal number of children to minimize selfishness?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from? Why is it so puzzling? You're part of a whole, and producing children is important work to sustain that whole. If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption). > If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish? Maybe people like that, with one-in-a-billion achievements, are the exceptions that prove the rule.... except they both also had children.
    - robotshmobot 3y ago
      > If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption). There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous. What's ridiculous is how much you completely misunderstood my comment. Personal "consumption" has nothing to do with the core idea I was talking about. The only way it factors in at all is like the "insult" in "add insult to injury" (i.e. an ancillary thing that just makes perception of an underlying issue worse).
- nunez 3y ago
  What does that even mean in this context? How is having kids you don't want "paying it forward?"
agonmon 3y ago
1. The people that don't want kids, cannot accurately model what it is like having kids. Your brain and hormonal output changes after a birth. 2. Children aren't that expensive unless the parents are playing status games (e.g. acting rich), and statistically it's poorer people that end up having more kids. On the topic of sacrifice: One of my kids is just starting to stand up, and is using my shirt to pull herself up while squealing in triumph and delight. It's hard to express the fulfillment and existential meaning provided from children. If I was told I would have to give them all up, it would be a soul-crushing sacrifice. Irrecoverable.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  You can model the experience before having kids. Babysit a few different ages. Hormones don't always (ever?) change enough to overcome the predictable and significant costs. Likely more than 250k per child to get them to adulthood, and unlikely to stop there. It also matter with whom and how you parent. Are sleep training, daycare, diapers, Tylenol, and bottle feeding the devil? Must you potty train from birth, diaper free? Naturopath parenting or bust? Prepare yourself for sleep deprivation, higher risk of depression, many trips to the ER, and the smell of shit and piss. If your doctor or therapist insists you'll need medication and/or change your parenting style, then how many second opinions will you seek out before trying something else? There is a balance of course, no one should neglect kids. Yet finding that, especially with an opinionated partner and the parent industrial complex, may be a long journey.
  - VirusNewbie 3y ago
    >Babysit a few different ages. That's such a weird thing to say. If I said "you can model what its like to be in a happy marriage. Hang out with some randos wife for a bit" you'd think that is crazy. Plenty of kids are little shits. I really really like my kid (and some others). Just like I wouldn't marry most people I meet...
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      It's an approximation of course. IME far better than just hoping you'll like it and adapt, having never done anything like it. Dating and living together before marriage is much the same idea. Of course you may babysit a bad kid and have your own great kids. Babysitting first will still at least provide a frame of reference.
smegsicle 3y ago
> Many people simply don’t want kids there's a bit of a gender disparity in that group. three obvious solutions: 1. not care that most of this 1/5 of women are missing out on something they want 2. legalize and normalize polygamy 3. redirect culture to 'man up' and help provide families for the women who want them other (esoteric?) solutions?
- seedead99 3y ago
  4. Have these women adjust their expectations. How many dozens or hundreds of men have they rejected that would have been perfectly acceptable fathers?
  - smegsicle 3y ago
    found the incel

s5300 3y ago

>> when the gene pool is only left with high fecundity actors. The real resource wars will start then. I’ve become a bit convinced that we’re essentially going to see Incestuous Kings II except this time with feudal tech lords. Quite a depressing future if that ends up being it. Working class probably needs to get around to killing some bad actors sooner or later.

VirusNewbie 3y ago
You think working class people need to murder people? You may want to seek professional help if you actually believe this.
- s5300 3y ago
  Could you take the time to explain to me how labor movements have made meaningful progress throughout all of history? Where I’m from, when the big city law-man came to foreclose/auction on poor widows homes, the entire town showed up with guns & stared until nobody bid over $1 on the home. Do you view these people with disdain for doing so? How do you feel about Peter Thiels “let’s put suicide collars on the security guards” schpiel? Is murder okay when the rich or right people say it is?
- tivert 3y ago
  > You think working class people need to murder people? You may want to seek professional help if you actually believe this. It's called a revolution, and they have to happen from time to time for society to stay healthy. Sort if like forest fires in some biomes.

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago

Well it wont be my descendants taking part in the resource war. Maybe the problem isn’t the people choosing not to breed.

agonmon 3y ago
I have many smart, empathetic friends in tech who are not having kids. Meanwhile my redneck neighbor has 5. It seems to me that all of the conscientious people who look out for the greater good and environment, are leaving the gene pool. This feels like a problem for the future.
- gauku 3y ago
  I’ll entertain that thought - How is that a problem?
  - agonmon 3y ago
    I'm mostly imagining a dysgenic future similar to Idiocracy; but really, it's more of an emotional appeal than an actual argument.
    - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
      The pretty reasonable copium is that the differences you're focusing on are traits which exist in the DNA of every person you see, including ones that don't exhibit those traits. They're just expressions of a random/environmentally-determined subset of the DNA within everyone. As anecdata, wait until you meet a girl from a broken family of alcoholic rednecks who live in the woods and find out that she can code circles around you despite growing up without anything you can call broadband. ;p
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  Are you somehow superior to your neighbour? Do you have evidence that your neighbour doesn’t care about ‘the greater good’? Is there even a universally accepted definition for ‘the greater good’?