20 ms·

Here's a thought and I am writing this as I don my kevlar flame retardant jacket. For most things in life where we could impact the lives of other people mater

• novok 3y ago
  High School class?
• hadlock 3y ago
  The daylight between instituting a parenting license and eugenics is not very much.
  • monkeywork 3y ago
    that's a hell of a leap - saying take some basic classes (likely not that much unlike how catholic churches require couples classes prior to marrying folks) to understand how to properly care for a child is nothing like eugenics and gene manipulation.
    • somenameforme 3y ago
      All eugenics requires is reducing to fertility of a target undesired population to below sustenance. It's actually extremely easy to do because of how 'invisible' it is. Imagine there was a society where literally every single woman had an average of 1 child. It'd be quite weird to claim they were being driven extinct as everybody loads up on diapers, yet that society's population would indeed be trending towards 0 at an exponential rate, but with an 80 year 'lag' in the first wave of deaths that would mask the impact. And country after country has demonstrated how relatively easy it seems to be to reduce fertility. Iran is a not so well known example. Back in the 80s Iran started to feel that their fertility was a problem. Their population was growing far faster than they had the resources to sustain, so they instituted birth control availability and mandated 'marriage classes' [1], not entirely unlike what's being suggested here. And in these classes they worked to try to reduce overall fertility. It succeeded far beyond any expectation. Their fertility went from 6+ to 2 in less than a decade. And then it just kept dropping. Today it's down to below 1.7 and it keeps falling. They've long since tried to reverse this trend and started an equal but opposite pro fertility program, but like China also showed - it's far easier to reduce a population's fertility, than it is to bring it back up. These sort of programs work as a perfectly viable proof of concept of a practically invisible eugenics program, and that's quite dangerous. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Iran
      • dustypotato 3y ago
        > Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. What you described is not eugenics though.
        • somenameforme 3y ago
          Eugenics is generally carried out not through selective breeding, but by removing the populations you do not want to breed. Same thing in 20th century America where the main effort was simply on removing elements from society that "we" didn't want breeding - which has the same effect while reducing the constraints on liberty, which would not be well received otherwise. See, for instance, the famous quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Interestingly enough, the ruling from that court case (Buck v Bell) was never formally overturned. It's simply that eugenics fell out of fashion, following it being taken to extremes by a certain vegetarian artist in Germany with a knack for rhetoric.
  • andsoisthis 3y ago
    Well there already is eugenic like behavior going on. Partners select for money, tall and handsome. It's just not framed that way. End result is the same.
    • mediaperpetuals 3y ago
      The media perpetuates certain ideals deemed desirable, the masses follow. You don't need a vegetarian artist somewhere in Europe spewing nonsense. You can still achieve the same thing. I would even go as far to say that modern day advertising and public relations borrowed a lot from Goebbels.
      • somenameforme 3y ago
        As much as I loathe advertising, I think this assessment is provably wrong. We're genetically driven to pick out mates most likely to produce fertile, healthy, and effective offspring. Even in relatively isolated tribes with 0 access to advertising of any sort, preferences like low waist-to-hip ratios are ubiquitous [1] (random study that also references a bunch of others - this is not a controversial statement). The reason is that low waist-to-hip ratios correlates with all sorts of health, fertility, and genetic strengths. So we are genetically attracted to such. I think you could also make an argument in reverse here as well. An increasingly large chunk of Western advertising is actively seeking to push values like contravening said genetic proclivities, yet it seems to have had little to no impact on what people find attractive. That's even more telling as obesity is rapidly becoming the norm rather than the exception. [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01916-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01916-9
  • localplume 3y ago
    [dead]
  • stared 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • boffinAudio 3y ago
      Eugenics is a vile and repugnant subject to be supporting. Nobody is qualified to state whether another human being should be allowed to live on the basis of 'faults' in their person. It is a totalitarian-authoritarian dogma that must die. EDIT: downvoters showing their roots. Come on, engage in the dialog and defend eugenics ...
      • stared 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • boffinAudio 3y ago
          Absolutely nonsense. You are attempting to equivocate heinous racist ideology with 'natural cause'. EDIT: those defending eugenics without engaging in dialog, by downvoting, are showing their real mettle. Eugenics dogma must die. NONE of you are qualified to make the call.. every single one of you could be qualified for the cull.
        • bdowling 3y ago
          > Eu-genics is literally good-birth. This is a reverse straw man argument [0]. You present your position as something easy to defend (good birth, choice of mates, good diet, etc.), even though some parts of it (forced sterilizations, genocide, etc.) are difficult or impossible to defend. [0] https://en.liberpedia.org/Reverse_straw_man https://en.liberpedia.org/Reverse_straw_man
          • stared 3y ago
            A false dichotomy. It is like saying that if I one is in favor of medicine, they are in favor of the human vivisection and lobotomy. We can (and often - need to be) selective. I don’t argue for every kind if eugenics. Yes, a lot of it were atrocious. And I am against that as well. Yet, I guess you are in favor of things we already do (mentioned in my previous comment).
  • literalis 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • esalman 3y ago
      Close to 10 years of marriage and one child. I agree with the sentiment of the OP.
  • sacado2 3y ago
    "Preventing births within a group" is one of the definitions of a genocide.
• monkeywork 3y ago
  Along this same thought - if you know anyone who has ever adopted the process and review procedures of the adoptive parents can be intense... and this is for people who desperately WANT to be parents, meanwhile at least in the USA you have a ton of people not being able to terminate a pregnancy that they are not prepared for and this leads to children raising children, hurting both.
• brigandish 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • Shared404 3y ago
    > (that humans are sexually dimorphic and ramifications of that) We're actual a bimodal distribution. Even not accounting for intersex folk it's a lot less binary than most people assume or was covered in 8th grade bio.
    • hackinthebochs 3y ago
      We're bimodal in distribution of traits, but dimorphic in terms of participants in sexual reproduction. Sex is a classification of reproductive roles and the distribution of traits downstream from the dimorphic roles.
    • brigandish 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • stubybubs 3y ago
        You're talking about gametes and OP and GP are talking about dimorphism, which is generally considered the difference in forms not including gametes. It's a very specific word to do with size differences, body hair etc. That is absolutely a bimodal distribution. Even just in height it is not binary. Sex does have several meanings, and form is one of them.
        • brigandish 3y ago
          Sexually dimorphic. That was the phrase used, was it not?
          • stubybubs 3y ago
            Yes, I just said dimorphism for short. My bad. What I said still stands, sexual dimorphism is the non-gamete differences between sexes.
• beau_g 3y ago
  This already exists if you wish to adopt in the US - just doesn't apply to the other method
  • noname2021 3y ago
    interesting - one way to test the efficacy of something like this might be to compare median outcomes of adopted kids (whose parents went through some parenting education) with that of the non adopted general population (after controlling for other factors). Now which PhD candidate will bite :)
    • NhanH 3y ago
      Hard to imagine how to design such study: (close to) 100% of people that adopt kid WANTED to have kid, and planned for them. Some XX% number of people having kid via pregnancy wasn't planning for them, and some even smaller YY% number doesn't want the kid at all. Not to mention that unless the adoption of kids are done blind by parents, there has to be some biases there. As an example out of my ass, kids with behavioral problems might have way less adoption rate, and potentially those are the one with below median outcome in any case.
      • kortilla 3y ago
        Compare adoptions of infants (handles the behavior issue) with parents who took blatant processes to improve pregnancy odds (IVF, etc). That gets you two categories of people do definitely want kids, and only one is subject to the classes, interviews, and checkups.
        • laverya 3y ago
          There's certain to be natal/genetic/etc differences in the kids, though. (Are infants put up for adoption more likely to have been born to mothers who are in poverty? Who smoke, drink or use drugs? Who are younger or older? Does IVF itself have positive or negative effects? Etc) Really the ideal test would be, in order of preference: 1. randomization (some parents get the classes, some do not, chosen randomly) 2. geographic (parents in state/area A get classes, rest do not) 3. temporal (parents after year X get classes) 4. twins (parents of twin A get classes, twin B do not)
• mc3301 3y ago
  Would you be surprised to learn that there is something similar in Japan? Though not necessarily required, there are "mama papa" classes done by the government with the basics covered. And there are checkups (1 month, 3 months, 6, 1 year, 2, 3) which have some involvement in checking the child's health, wellbeing, development, as well as that of the parent(s).
  • marcod 3y ago
    Plenty of parents in America have taken classes like that at local hospitals or through their school, but the reality is that a lot of people don't have the means and the desire to take some.
    • fragmede 3y ago
      If we wanted to incentivize attendance, pay parents to attend the classes, with a bonus at the end for doing well on the test. That we wouldn't actually do that speaks spades about our priorities.
    • raxxorraxor 3y ago
      And usually those that take the classes would have done fine anyway since they are engaged in parenting. I am critical of a governmental breeding licence, even if it is just for additional monetary support. Difficult to quantify anything that reflects successful parenting and the bureaucracy would probably be counter productive. Stressed parents are often bad parents, you don't want to make it worse with audits. Also, as someone not from the US who heard unsubstantiated rumors about parents getting in trouble with law enforcement for leaving their kids alone for 5 minutes, I doubt this could in any way be sensibly handled. Similar problem exist in other countries too of course. Best make room in school for some basic education, as there isn't any in most countries.
    • lozenge 3y ago
      They shouldn't need means, it should be free and at convenient times.
• afpx 3y ago
  It could be that parenting isn’t as much of a factor as growing up poor.
  • oblio 3y ago
    Oh, parenting is absolutely a factor and this can be observed in underdeveloped or developing countries. Kids in families with good parenting, a focus on education, etc are the ones that make it out.
    • esarbe 3y ago
      It seems that poverty is much more of a factor than good parenting. In rich countries, most of the kids "make it out", not just the ones with good parenting.
  • ripvanwinkle 3y ago
    Poverty is certainly a factor but its another factor. There are kids who have the basics covered and then some but don't get the emotional support they need and that impacts them over their adult life. every factor we mitigate helps
• screye 3y ago
  People aren't having enough children. Every extra hurdle is going to reduce the number of people who end up parents. > Potentially break the cycles of bad parenting You can't break cycles of bad parenting, because they are 2nd order effects of cycles of trauma. And cycles of trauma have been a fundamental part of human civilization since we've existed. We absolutely should teach compassion, good parenting 101s and basic logistical upskilling as a part of high school for both men and women. But, expecting humans as a whole to suddenly start acting with decency is not going to happen.
  • oblio 3y ago
    > People aren't having enough children. Every extra hurdle is going to reduce the number of people who end up parents. There's 8 billion of us. Reducing the number of (unfit, unwilling, unplanned) parents is a net positive.
    • screye 3y ago
      Birth rates are plummeting everywhere. I'm with you. We can have fewer people on earth. But, that means 2-ish generations will have to do 2x-the-work per capita while receiving 0.5x the care when they retire. Our social welfare and economic systems are not built to deal with decreasing populations, let alone halving of population every 2 generations. I am approaching 30. I very much feel like the generation that is going to pay for a comfortable retirement for boomers, never be able to afford real estate, pay huge amounts to raise kids and get nothing in return. Because, by the time I retire, the work-force will have halved. If even fewer people have kids, society will find itself staring at collapse. The definition of 'good parenting' has changed rapidly over the last few decades and it is going to keep changing. As of now, it seems like an impossible bar to reach. It's better to expect just 'slightly less worse' from each generation, and let the momentum carry it forward.
      • Xixi 3y ago
        Look at it from the bright side: you are likely born towards a local maximum in terms of human development. Too late not to notice the decline, but early enough that you aren't likely to suffer too much from it for the best part of your life. Current forecasts put generalized famines, all around the globe, at somewhere between +2.5ºC and +3.0ºC of global warming. We are on track to cross +2.0ºC around 2050, at best 2055 [1]. So really, it's just around the corner. At current trend, it's not lack of birth, but lack of food that is going to drive population decline... [1] https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/world-likely-to-see-2-c-warming-by-2050-even-under-low-emissions-predicts-new-study-87386 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/world-lik...
• antigonemerlin 3y ago
  It's exactly what my father did. He took parenting classes at the library, because he wanted to learn more and didn't think that just because he considered himself successful in business and life, he would necessarily understand pedagogy. To that, I am eternally grateful to him. It's very hard for people to swallow their pride and admit humility, to say "I don't know" and listen to the experts. I have an immense amount of respect for anybody who does, and it is an example I try to live by (though not always successfully).
  • skinkestek 3y ago
    Also you were a bit lucky. Over the years there has been an insane amount of bad advise from "health specialists". I was born in a time when kids were supposed to sleep with their backs up and mothers were supposed to wash their nipples using antibacterial before breastfeeding...! Sometime before that there was a time (at least around here) were kids were supposed to eat sour cream porridge from early life. Of course kids died left and right, but the logic was, if so many died following the best practices, how many wouldn't have died if babies were left drinking only milk! (Retold as best I can describe it from what an older person in the family told me.) All this is before we start talking about parenting fads like "no rules parenting" (not sure about the exact English term) which must have caused untold harm. So creds to your dad for finding the correct advice and sticking with it.
    • folli 3y ago
      I'm not at all disagreeing with you, but your examples also demonstrate that a lot of parental advice rely and reflect the era's zeitgeist. How do we make sure that what you call 'correct advice' is not again a reflection of today's zeitgeist and 50 years from now will make fun of these suggestions in a similar way as of applying antibacterial before breastfeeding?
      • thriftwy 3y ago
        We don't, and that's why we should encourage parents to diversify their approach as opposed to doing the same set of things mandated from the above.
• somenameforme 3y ago
  A simple question for you, what exact measurable and quantifiable differences would you expect to see in, for instance, the children of psychologists of the sort this article appeals to, and those of e.g. Joe [demographically equivalent] Normal's children? And this naturally somewhat leads into, and what factors, as a society, should we prioritize? To me it seems quite trivial to create unfalsifiable arguments, for near anything, using extremely nebulous terms like "reducing public health risks." It's not like anybody's ever going to say, "No way man - I really think we should work to increase public health risks!" But what separates science from pseudoscience is falsifiability. So it's only once you break things down into actual, specific, and measurable goals that the conversation can even begin. --- As but one example, the most fundamental component for a society to perpetuate itself is fertility. And so, in my mind, a child's upbringing should absolutely be focused on ensuring this person will be able to both raise and support their own healthy family in the future. Yet of course even this simple goal is going to prove controversial because there's some conflict between it and certain cultural norms. And you'd need to reconcile this in some way that people, independent of worldview, can be generally happy with. I'm not sure this is possible.
  • ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > measurable and quantifiable differences would you expect to see. Amount of psycological trauma and repression, neuroticism, insecurity. Suicides. All easilly measurable.
    • red-iron-pine 3y ago
      define trauma. sometimes kids need to learn hard lessons. where is that line? define repression? given that this is HN I'd imagine the definition will be different than from someone who was from, say, Malaysia or Saudi. what does neuroticism mean? at some level we can agree what "crazy is" but where do you draw the line? ditto for insecurity. most of this is NOT easily measurable, outside of suicides, which are discrete events. definition of things like sexual assault, child abuse, or repression vary by state, and even more so by country.
• nprateem 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • zo1 3y ago
    Rather than sterilizing people, I've often thought that maybe we should rather have things like means-testing. Originally it was more in the context of not letting poor kids suffer, but perhaps we expand it to make sure kids will have a healthy and safe and loved childhood. There is something very visceral that comes out of people when you suggest that procreation should perhaps not be a universal right. And don't get me wrong, I think parenthood is integral to a society, but we're broken atm and need to get to a place where we have an upward trajectory.
    • esarbe 3y ago
      How about means-providing instead? Poverty is not a choice but dictated by economic circumstances. If you want to "fix" humanity, it's not by taking away a universal right from humans, but by making sure that their needs are are taken care of.
      • zo1 3y ago
        I think that's what I meant, perhaps I used the wrong word. So we "test" that they have the "means" to provide a roof and food for their children? And yeah, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be helping them at the same time
        • esarbe 3y ago
          Thanks for clarifying!
        • zimpenfish 3y ago
          > So we "test" that they have the "means" to provide a roof and food for their children? But when? Pre-conception seems like the best choice and yep, they have $$$. Oh, no, month 2 of the pregnancy has a complication which wipes out $$ of their money. Still, good to go. Oh no, there's a birth complication and that's another $$ wiped out. Basically on the edge of financial viability now - do you take the baby away? Then there's, say, a global economic meltdown and our unlucky parents are now wildly underwater - do you take the baby away? Or the landlord decides to jack up the rent or sell the building or ... It's a nice idea but ultimately unworkable unless you can predict the future.
• KronisLV 3y ago
  > For most things in life where we could impact the lives of other people materially - driving is a good example - we ensure some minimal amount of training before letting people perform that activity. > How about some minimal coaching so that all parents are aware of the state of the art in child psychology and techniques to do better as parents. In my country, we had a housekeeping class in school, that taught everything from basic cooking skills, to safety with electrical appliances. There was also a woodworking class, where you were taught how to use various tools correctly and safely. Later, in university, there were courses that concerned things like paying taxes in more detail, employment law and how small businesses work etc. I think that parenting classes sound like a good idea. It can also help people figure out when they're absolutely not ready for something or are not comfortable with it - like happened to me and getting a driver's license.
• orasis 3y ago
  You don’t learn how to parent, you learn how to live, in a wholehearted way, and you model that for your children. Good parenting is foremost about growing up before your kids do.
  • Guthur 3y ago
    Wholeheartedly agree, the thought that we can school our way out this seems overly simplistic. And I'd go as far as to say the schooling philosophy is part of this pathology. Society decided to dump most doctrinal support but unfortunately this has left a significant portion of the masses with little direction. But also many have little inclination or time to work it out for themselves. And even if you did start to read Jung, Nietzsche, Hegel, Hiedeger or whichever philosopher you chose there's a myriad of directions one could take it and it's a heady mix. I've started to read these philosophers but I bring it a traditional Creator grounding and it's still pretty wild. Ultimately I don't think we have a clue what we're doing and we are prone to getting very scared and taking it out on those around us or in our care.
  • d--b 3y ago
    This is terrible "magic thinking" advice. Kids are VERY counterintuitive (mine at least). Our kid has had behavioral problems at school and at home. And it's extremely difficult to understand the root of the issues (it turns out that the pandemic, moving houses, starting school and having a baby brother all at once can be a bit much for a 3 year old). Literally EVERYONE who is not a professional told us to smack our kid into submission. But by reading stuff and talking to professionals, you learn that some kids do have weird ways of expressing their emotions, and that acknowledging that and supporting them works. You have to completely turn the way you speak to them around. It's really hard to do cause nobody wants to confort a kid who's annoying, but it works. None of the stuff I do with my kids would have been possible had I not learnt it as an adult. Stop the magic thinking. Read about children, they're weird and wonderfully different.
    • pastage 3y ago
      > smack our kid into submission What does this mean? I never talk child care in any significant way on the net, so I feel there are way to many ways too misinterpret this. Even the nice interpretation of this would border on illegal here. (FWIW I think I agree with you on all accounts and I have had it easy)
• d--b 3y ago
  This is a great idea. One of the things that Finance people do is force employees to have short computer-based trainings every year. They seem stupid and bother everyone, but I think they are fairly effective (and they've been going on for years, so they must have proven some level of effectiveness). Health insurance providers could be forced to have parents do a yearly 1-hour training on how to handle kids to enable benefits. You're not going to solve the biggest problems, just like SEC trainings don't prevent money laundering, but whateveer moves the needle a little bit may be worth doing...
  • kneebonian 3y ago
    > and they've been going on for years, so they must have proven some level of effectiveness They are effective In reducing the liability of the company that is forcing it's employees to take the course. As for actual behavioral change, that is often not the case.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• natmaka 3y ago
  Schools may present the set of validated (consensus among pertinent professionals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_work_with_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_work_with_... ) explanations/guidelines to each adequate target (from children to young adults).
• earthnail 3y ago
  There’s a saying: “it takes a village to raise a child.” Historically, the role of the “parentin school” you’re proposing has been played by the family, most importantly grandparents. As we move away as a society from relying on family structures, we need to recognise their utility and find equivalents. We moved away successfully from family structures in many areas of society: succession of rulers, for example. So this doesn’t need to be a bad thing. But I think the role that grandparents played should be studied carefully when proposing certain types of schooling for parents.
  • gabereiser 3y ago
    Not necessarily family structures but tribes. Could be a small group of families helping each other. Doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the values imparted on the youth come from a position of trust (from the youth) and not a forced daytime prison run by folks whose dreams died when they found out how much they owe for their PhD without deferment. Seriously though, those tribes or large familial structures that keep the youth accountable because their authority is established and trusted is what all children need. Sometimes that trust comes from teachers but rarely.
  • phil21 3y ago
    > find equivalents There is no equivalent. Full stop. Maybe you could re-create an extended family w/ friendship and local community - "the village" so to speak - but let's say I have my severe doubts about finding enough like-minded people in at least the US to accomplish it. Very few with options have the commitment. The government and institutions seriously cannot even hope to replace a tiny fraction of this support structure though. People actually have to care about each other on a individual human level. It turns into checkboxing CYA otherwise - having seen a bit of this implementation in social work.
  • esalman 3y ago
    This is an underrated comment. American lifestyle forces people to make tough choices about their extended, sometimes even closest family. The % of the population who earn enough to support one or more dependents comfortably, be it a child or a parent, is probably in single digits. The result is the mental health epidemic.
• prepend 3y ago
  > However with parenting we have nothing and the result it seems is we pay with a ton more resources downstream in the way of therapy, detention centers, jails etc. I think it’s a situation where we can’t stop people from having babies so we don’t even attempt to limit. There have been attempts to prevent births in “undesirable” populations that people thought weren’t capable of properly raising kids. [0] But unless we’re going to have a super controlled society with forced birth control and abortion, there’s not a qualification to give birth. And developing nations have really low birth rates so anything to further lower birth rates has some negative societal and economic impact. That being said, there are many free programs available to parents but they have to reach out to find them. I live in a pretty backwards, relatively speaking, state and there were numerous state, county, charity, and religious programs to help with parenting coaching before and after birth. It does seem like a good idea to add coaching into the maternal health programs to give more education and support to expecting and new parents. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/43208...
  • mh- 3y ago
    > developing nations have really low birth rates Did you mean to write developed, perhaps? I'm under the impression - and a quick google confirms - that the more economically developed a country is, the lower its birth rate tends to be. (I'm sure I'm oversimplifying. I've not studied in this area, which is why I'm replying)
    • prepend 3y ago
      Thanks. You are right. I meant developed[0]. I like to think I typed “developing” and didn’t check my autocomplete. There does seem to be a function of the more money and education for women, the lower the birth rate. Some countries are increasing immigration to compensate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
• itronitron 3y ago
  I think a society would have better outcomes by teaching young people the consequences to their lives of having children, such as time and financial costs. In one of the classes in my high school, students had to carry around a sack of flour for a week without damaging it.
  • iosystem 3y ago
    A reward/benefit system is possibly better. We can examine how teaching consequences concerning the law, isn’t working sufficiently if we look at the US prison system population and the US prisoners reoffending rate. I think something like offering a tax deductible for completing a parenting program that’s specifically designed for outlining psychology negatives of not being there for the child is obvious. The money for financing the said program should be taken by a tax of adults with kids that haven’t completed the said program. I wouldn’t apply and cutoff age as well because everyone that has kids regardless of how long ago would still benefit society by completing such a program.
    • itronitron 3y ago
      Only problem with tax deductible is that it doesn't benefit lower income families as much. I think a better reward would be the ability for someone having gone through the parenting program to have the ability to tell child protective services, or law enforcement, to fuck off straight to their face without any negative consequences.
• itsoktocry 3y ago
  >How about some minimal coaching so that all parents are aware of the state of the art in child psychology What is "state of the art" in psychology? A bunch of irreproducible papers?
  • ed25519FUUU 3y ago
    Yes exactly that. Appeal to authority. Many people have such broken relationships with their parents that they refuse to believe their parents can offer them good advice. Before they take a parenting class, they might be better served taking a counseling class to repair their relationship with their own parents.
• brazzy 3y ago
  My city (Munich, Germany) automatically sends "parent letters" to every child registered here (they are addressed "To the parents of <child's name and address>), which contain advice on dealing with common problems and questions as well as providing information about support services, sorted by age. So for example, the one for 3,5 years has sections on how to deal with food pickiness, or with excessive preference for one parent.
• naasking 3y ago
  > How about some minimal coaching so that all parents are aware of the state of the art in child psychology and techniques to do better as parents. 1. We don't know as much as people think we do about what constitutes "good parenting". At best, we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that, and the people exhibiting those behaviours need therapy themselves, so a parenting course won't fix that. 2. You're basically turning what is normally considered an innate human right into a privilege for which you need to earn a license. This invites all kinds of abuse (only the right kinds of people get this license!).
  • zkelvin 3y ago
    Is childbirth an innate human right? Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them?
    • naasking 3y ago
      > Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them? That question is incoherent.
      • zkelvin 3y ago
        It's a perfectly coherent question! I'd kindly ask that you try to comply with Hacker News's guidelines about engaging in kind dialogue, and specifically the line "please don't post shallow dismissals". Here's what I consider to be a simpler question to answer: do you think people have the right to give birth to a child whose existence would be only horrible, endless suffering before eventually succumbing to death? This isn't just a hypothetical: people tend to agree that a parents who are at high chance of birthing a child with a terrible genetic disease probably shouldn't take that risk (or, at least, should protect against it with some preimplantation genetic testing). But everyone suffers at least a little bit at some point in their life. If you don't think people have a right to birth children whose lives would be pure suffering, but you do think people have a right to birth children who would suffer at least a little bit in their lives, then how do you justify one but not the other? Is there some threshold amount of misery which you think is okay to inflict on someone without their consent? There may be some other moral framework or argument which articulately justifies this, and I'm genuinely curious to see if someone has come up with an interesting answer to the question.
• rich_sasha 3y ago
  I guess this is simply straight-up unenforceable. Making babies is the one thing almost anyone over 12 is capable of doing, with no effort. A key tenet of public policy is that it must be achievable, else forget about it.
• literalis 3y ago
  [flagged]
• grugagag 3y ago
  What to do about multiple parenting styles that are at odds with one another (sometimes even in the same household)? How about the baggage that parents are carrying that influence how they’re gonna parent, many of those suitcases inherited from their parents? That’s one thing for sure, but some parents aren’t even parenting for various reasons, not enough time, lack of responsibility or not being around for various reasons. If we could tackle all that we’d basically get a much better society but it’s a nearly impossible problem to solve in a practical way…
• esalman 3y ago
  It is funny that you mention driving as an example. Driving and cars are not designed for pregnant woman. As a typical man with passion for cars and driving, this never occurred to me until my wife got pregnant.
• A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  << For most things in life where we could impact the lives of other people materially - driving is a good example - we ensure some minimal amount of training before letting people perform that activity. The issue is that in US driving license is trivial to get and it shows on the roads ( queue explanations that it is just the function of car being a necessity -- true, but irrelevant too the point ). Even if instituted, I don't think people would accept that kind of infringement though I admit this is probably one place, where we should be able to self-regulate ( we clearly can't though and some systems are built for ever increasing population, which is a separate force that would prevent that kind of change ). In short, I agree. I don't think we are doing it well now.
• stcroixx 3y ago
  Lobotomy was once state of the art and the last one done in the US was 1967. Experts and gatekeepers who think they know better are not helpful here.
• EligibleDecoy 3y ago
  Something I don’t think many people know about is that marriages licenses, (yes you need a license to gain some tax benefits) often have an incentive to do pre-marital counseling. Tennessee, for instance, at least halves the price of the marriage license if you got any premarital counseling. Which they very broadly define, so you could get it from just about anyone a reasonable person could call trained in counseling. Something along those lines, such as cheaper hospital stays or government covering part of childcare or some incentive like that could support what you are thinking. Not required, but a financial incentive. This is especially useful because it targets lower income families, hopefully reducing the correlation from parental income and career/health/etc outcomes. PS: Smart of you to wear your nomex, this thread is a conflagration.