4 ms·

>Maybe for you, but the value proposition isn’t there for me. There’s no indication that the world is willing to fix its global problems (climate change, housin

>Maybe for you, but the value proposition isn’t there for me. There’s no indication that the world is willing to fix its global problems (climate change, housing problems and etc.), why would I also subscribe my child to this “fun”? It is weird to write that sentence, as I am generally a fairly optimistic person. But “let me sacrifice a ton, for a decent chance of misery of myself and my offspring” doesn’t sound right to me. Let me offer a different perspective. Whenever I see your sentiment - that you are choosing to not have kids because the world sucks and you don't see us solving anything - my immediate reaction is that you deserve no voice whatsoever in how the rest of us decide to solve those problems. No voting, no representation, nothing. Having kids, in a sense, is a bet that we'll figure things out one way or another. You've made your bet, and are exiting the conversation because you don't have skin in the game (literally). That might sound harsh, but it's essentially just the inverse of your sentiment justifying not having kids in the first place because of overwhelming pessimism about the future.

andrewjl 3y ago
> Whenever I see your sentiment - that you are choosing to not have kids because the world sucks and you don't see us solving anything - my immediate reaction is that you deserve no voice whatsoever in how the rest of us decide to solve those problems. No voting, no representation, nothing. Having kids, in a sense, is a bet that we'll figure things out one way or another. What an odd perspective. Are children the only way to have skin in the game when it comes to the future? One consequence of doing something like this would be an almost complete removal of people who through no fault of their own cannot have children as well as some religious practitioners from public life. Having just read the FDA announcement on artificial wombs, how would those fit into this?
- remarkEon 3y ago
  >What an odd perspective. Are children the only way to have skin in the game when it comes to the future? What, specifically, is odd about it? I think the stranger position is the one that allows people to inform policy that affects future generations when they themselves are intentionally not making themselves a part of that future. Put simply: why do you get a voice in what will affect my kids when you think the future is all for naught anyway? Think of it like this: why do you think politicians always advertise the fact that they have a family when they're running for office (or hide the fact that they don't)? Because it, at a subconscious level, makes people feel comfortable. "This person's progeny have to live with these policies." It's a trust signal. >One consequence... I've stated twice now that intentionality matters. If you're referring to things like Monasteries, where people take vows of chastity (which would obviously preclude children), the idea of political participation is already complicated. I've known a Priest or two who don't believe Clergy should vote. >Having just read... I'm radically opposed to AWT for other not-unrelated reasons.
  - andrewjl 3y ago
    > What, specifically, is odd about it? I think the stranger position is the one that allows people to inform policy that affects future generations when they themselves are intentionally not making themselves a part of that future. It's arbitrary and dogmatic to require having kids in order to have a say in the future, for starters? > why do you think politicians always advertise the fact that they have a family when they're running for office (or hide the fact that they don't)? That's not true in Western Europe and increasingly untrue in the US too. > Because it, at a subconscious level, makes people feel comfortable. "This person's progeny have to live with these policies." It's a trust signal. As an example I can think of many US politicians who had kids that supported the 2017 tax cuts and opposed measures to decarbonize the US economy. Kids or no kids, they don't care about the future.
kredd 3y ago
Good for you. I’d even go further, force us to have kids. That’ll show us! Glad that my attitude is in somewhat majority, otherwise we wouldn’t have potential depopulation problems. Don’t have to worry about these type of takes. Have a good day!
- remarkEon 3y ago
  I'm not really trying to "show" you anything, in that sense. I'm pointing out the absurdity of your position. Look, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim you care about the future and what happens to the planet and then intentionally make yourself not a part of it. I simply tune out and don't consider the opinions of folks who fall into that camp. Why would I?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kredd 3y ago
    I dunno, maybe you should, because unless our opinions are considered, the problems will only get worse? It’s not like we’re some bunch of people who would never change our minds, but actions speak louder or something. If older people want us to take these bets, give us better odds.

andrewjl 3y ago

> Whenever I see your sentiment - that you are choosing to not have kids because the world sucks and you don't see us solving anything - my immediate reaction is that you deserve no voice whatsoever in how the rest of us decide to solve those problems. No voting, no representation, nothing. Having kids, in a sense, is a bet that we'll figure things out one way or another. What an odd perspective. Are children the only way to have skin in the game when it comes to the future? One consequence of doing something like this would be an almost complete removal of people who through no fault of their own cannot have children as well as some religious practitioners from public life. Having just read the FDA announcement on artificial wombs, how would those fit into this?

remarkEon 3y ago
>What an odd perspective. Are children the only way to have skin in the game when it comes to the future? What, specifically, is odd about it? I think the stranger position is the one that allows people to inform policy that affects future generations when they themselves are intentionally not making themselves a part of that future. Put simply: why do you get a voice in what will affect my kids when you think the future is all for naught anyway? Think of it like this: why do you think politicians always advertise the fact that they have a family when they're running for office (or hide the fact that they don't)? Because it, at a subconscious level, makes people feel comfortable. "This person's progeny have to live with these policies." It's a trust signal. >One consequence... I've stated twice now that intentionality matters. If you're referring to things like Monasteries, where people take vows of chastity (which would obviously preclude children), the idea of political participation is already complicated. I've known a Priest or two who don't believe Clergy should vote. >Having just read... I'm radically opposed to AWT for other not-unrelated reasons.
- andrewjl 3y ago
  > What, specifically, is odd about it? I think the stranger position is the one that allows people to inform policy that affects future generations when they themselves are intentionally not making themselves a part of that future. It's arbitrary and dogmatic to require having kids in order to have a say in the future, for starters? > why do you think politicians always advertise the fact that they have a family when they're running for office (or hide the fact that they don't)? That's not true in Western Europe and increasingly untrue in the US too. > Because it, at a subconscious level, makes people feel comfortable. "This person's progeny have to live with these policies." It's a trust signal. As an example I can think of many US politicians who had kids that supported the 2017 tax cuts and opposed measures to decarbonize the US economy. Kids or no kids, they don't care about the future.

kredd 3y ago

Good for you. I’d even go further, force us to have kids. That’ll show us! Glad that my attitude is in somewhat majority, otherwise we wouldn’t have potential depopulation problems. Don’t have to worry about these type of takes. Have a good day!

remarkEon 3y ago
I'm not really trying to "show" you anything, in that sense. I'm pointing out the absurdity of your position. Look, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim you care about the future and what happens to the planet and then intentionally make yourself not a part of it. I simply tune out and don't consider the opinions of folks who fall into that camp. Why would I?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kredd 3y ago
  I dunno, maybe you should, because unless our opinions are considered, the problems will only get worse? It’s not like we’re some bunch of people who would never change our minds, but actions speak louder or something. If older people want us to take these bets, give us better odds.