4 ms·

>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 stra

>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.

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.