22 ms·

Anyone who is child free still has a vested interest in the future generation.

by dm319 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago
An opinion, to be sure, but not the only one. If child free, you’re only vested in whatever it takes to get you to the grave comfortably, demographically speaking (and there are already 8 billion people on the planet, headed to 10 billion). Another opinion is that children are a luxury good, not a necessity.
- cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
  That's not a pro-social attitude.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    I’m happy to discuss what “pro social” means in another thread to prevent derailing this one, to be polite to the forum. My thoughts on the idea are that it means taking care of everyone existing first at a reasonable level of quality, before encouraging more folks to have kids with social or economic incentives because the economic pyramid scheme is at risk [1]. If you have the resources, the support network, and the emotional aptitude, by all means, invest in having children. Even if you don’t enjoy the experience (the data shows a significant percentage of parents do not), society gets them as taxpayers eventually. But if you don’t, don’t. The data shows that if unintended pregnancies are avoided (about 40% globally annually, per the Guttmacher Institute and the UN) [2], the fertility rate will settle someone between 50-75% of replacement rate (2.1). TLDR Optimize for your own happiness (“do no harm but take no shit”). Ignore peer and societal pressure. If that means not having kids, and that causes society challenges, that’s a society problem to solve, versus dumping that externality and reduction of agency, freedom, and options on individuals. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36468226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36468226 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36127247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36127247
    - almost_usual 3y ago
      The societal problem is elderly care will skyrocket.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Definitely sucks when liabilities come due and you can no longer kick the can down the road. Society will need to become comfortable with the additional go forward productivity drag incurred.
- kpw94 3y ago
  >> Anyone who is child free still has a vested interest in the future generation. > If child free, you’re only vested in whatever it takes to get you to the grave comfortably Aren't you saying the same thing as parent post? When someone's 60 to 80 years old, which generation is going to "to get them to the grave comfortably"? Basic necessities like food, etc, no matter the current amount of automation to multiply outputs, you still need a baseline of working people.

Anyone who is child free still has a vested interest in the future generation.

by dm319 3y ago

Anyone who is child free still has a vested interest in the future generation.

An opinion, to be sure, but not the only one. If child free, you’re only vested in whatever it takes to get you to the grave comfortably, demographically speaking (and there are already 8 billion people on the planet, headed to 10 billion). Another opinion is that children are a luxury good, not a necessity.

cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
That's not a pro-social attitude.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  I’m happy to discuss what “pro social” means in another thread to prevent derailing this one, to be polite to the forum. My thoughts on the idea are that it means taking care of everyone existing first at a reasonable level of quality, before encouraging more folks to have kids with social or economic incentives because the economic pyramid scheme is at risk [1]. If you have the resources, the support network, and the emotional aptitude, by all means, invest in having children. Even if you don’t enjoy the experience (the data shows a significant percentage of parents do not), society gets them as taxpayers eventually. But if you don’t, don’t. The data shows that if unintended pregnancies are avoided (about 40% globally annually, per the Guttmacher Institute and the UN) [2], the fertility rate will settle someone between 50-75% of replacement rate (2.1). TLDR Optimize for your own happiness (“do no harm but take no shit”). Ignore peer and societal pressure. If that means not having kids, and that causes society challenges, that’s a society problem to solve, versus dumping that externality and reduction of agency, freedom, and options on individuals. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36468226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36468226 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36127247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36127247
  - almost_usual 3y ago
    The societal problem is elderly care will skyrocket.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Definitely sucks when liabilities come due and you can no longer kick the can down the road. Society will need to become comfortable with the additional go forward productivity drag incurred.
kpw94 3y ago
>> Anyone who is child free still has a vested interest in the future generation. > If child free, you’re only vested in whatever it takes to get you to the grave comfortably Aren't you saying the same thing as parent post? When someone's 60 to 80 years old, which generation is going to "to get them to the grave comfortably"? Basic necessities like food, etc, no matter the current amount of automation to multiply outputs, you still need a baseline of working people.