4 ms·

> 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 i

> 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.

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.