4 ms·

As a father of 2, my fate is sealed. But I can totally understand the above points as being true. Being a parent is the most difficult, most expensive and long

• kbenson 3y ago
  Having kids is actually playing rather than being a bystander for the vast majority of people. How many people actually have an impact that actually means anything to the future otherwise? Vanishingly few.
  • seydor 3y ago
    That's interesting. Yet encyclopedias record billions of achievements, but almost never "having children"
    • nickpp 3y ago
      Every single human being alive today owes his/her very existence to an uninterrupted chain of such achievements going back to the beginning of life on this planet. Do we need to record these in encyclopedias? That would be silly. Are they extremely important for us? No kidding. Is failing to "continue the habit" exiting the long game and electing not to play any more? I would say so.
      • seydor 3y ago
        I think it's because having children, as necessary and rewarding it is, is trivial.
        • nickpp 3y ago
          > trivial Quite the opposite of that, IMHO. I would regard my having children as both the most challenging and most fulfilling thing I ever did in my life - way above what I thought would take that spot for me (things like business ventures, career, adventures, extreme endeavors and achievements).
        • red-iron-pine 3y ago
          ain't nothin trivial about having a kid unless you're a deadbeat dad and can just walkaway.
    • Ygg2 3y ago
      Sure it does. All biographies mention spouse and children.
      • defrost 3y ago
        All biographies ?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan Not even a picture.
      • seydor 3y ago
        Only wikipedia did that. In general encyclopedias did not use to have a 'personal life' segment at all
        • Ygg2 3y ago
          The GP mentions encyclopedias. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If other online encyclopedias omit this information that's pretty weird imo. Print encyclopedias have a spacing budget.
    • mr_mitm 3y ago
      Having children is easy. Being a good parent is the hard part. Unfortunately, those two don't necessarily overlap.
  • johnnyworker 3y ago
    Exactly. I refuse to take part in what currently is trending towards a global concentration camp, nobody excluded, and I refuse to throw more bodies into it. If anything, I'd adopt a child that already exists. I pride myself more in the things I don't do than the things I do. You may say that doesn't have an impact, but it makes a universe of difference for myself.
  • tapland 3y ago
    You as an individual would have the same impact as your individual children would? But yes, keeping a population going that will continue to work and support society is important, but don't forget that you are having a positive impact there as well.
• lordnacho 3y ago
  The thing is it's a hard mode that's gotten harder. All my family in the generations above me had way more kids than me. Maybe it's an anomaly due to survival rates jumping, but even my aunt has six kids. It didn't seem to be such a burden until very recently. Even cousins who are older than me and make less money seem to be able to have more kids. You're right about purpose though. I don't know what I'd do without them. I have a number of friends who are just straight up single, never had a girlfriend (or boyfriend, friends are both genders), never even tried, live alone despite having plenty of means. It's like a sort of secular monk. So in a way I get it, but also in a way I could never do it.
• dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  > They give me life, strength and purpose like nothing ever has. Congratulations! You've discovered the meaning of life, ie reproduction. It's so fulfilling because it's what you're programmed to do, as an organism. Living things (as a group) exist only to reproduce, nothing else matters, and everything they do is geared to toward it. If an individual doesn't follow that goal, it is removed from the gene pool, and those that reproduce fill the vacuum. Of course human vanity and ego will insist there is something higher (thus things like religion), but there isn't.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • benterix 3y ago
    I only partly agree with your comment, because the dilemma is false. All living organisms reproduce and humans as mammals are no exception. At the same time, you can almost feel it's not all. If you stop to think about the original cause, things get very complicated (if you adopt Penrose's thesis regarding Big Bangs, there is no original cause). If you start to analyse the macro- (dark energy and maybe dark matter) and especially microcosm (all things quantum), suddenly ordinary perception collapses. Even plain old relativity with time-space curvature seems at odds with what we are used to perceive. So maybe, just maybe, it's not so far-stretched to think the so-called objective reality is a kind of hologram or whatever we call it. I'd say it's far more probable than just believing everything is accidental and has little purpose (e.g. just reproducing and that's all).
  • RetroTechie 3y ago
    It is survival of the species that counts, and the 'geological' timescales over which it does. Some individuals from that species reproducing is obviously a requirement - but only as a means to an end. Whether individuals reproduce or not, usually doesn't matter much unless you have really small # of individuals left and it's "have babies or go extinct". At this point, one could well argue that our species has a better shot at (longterm) survival when fewer individuals reproduce, vs. when our numbers keep increasing. If so, depopulation would enhance chance of our species' survival.