3 ms·

It's such a strange thing to argue that a child who is poor would be better off never to have been born at all—and then to characterize that argument as somehow

It's such a strange thing to argue that a child who is poor would be better off never to have been born at all—and then to characterize that argument as somehow being in favor of that child's interest. My point is that a hard-working, upright and moral couple that wants a child should have one even if they are dirt poor, and shouldn't stop themselves because they don't have money. If the child ends up being unhappy in that environment purely as a result of the lack of money, then that is society's failing—our failing—not a failing of the parents'. We haven't done our duty to help this couple raise a happy family. > In which family did you grow up? Pops and moms were happy campers with middle class income? This is a strangely personal comment. Is this argument very personal for you? Is there something about your own life that makes you want to deny life to others?

kajaktum 3y ago
> It's such a strange thing to argue that a child who is poor would be better off never to have been born at all—and then to characterize that argument as somehow being in favor of that child's interest. > My point is that a hard-working, upright and moral couple that wants a child should have one even if they are dirt poor, and shouldn't stop themselves because they don't have money. If the child ends up being unhappy in that environment purely as a result of the lack of money, then that is society's failing—our failing—not a failing of the parents'. We haven't done our duty to help this couple raise a happy family. This is such a ridiculous point. Hypothetical children do exists because they will be when its enacted upon. For example, if a couple keep giving birth KNOWING that their children will suffer, are they not responsible for their children suffering? Sure, it is not their fault that the children suffers. Perhaps because they have bad genes, stuck in a warzone, lives in an awful country, have mental health issues, cannot provide for their children, or whatever. The fact is still that they KNOW this hypothetical children will suffer. Imagine if we are able to write an executable that will startup a simulation where it will simulate a universe with maximum suffering. I have compiled the program, its right there to be executed. Is it immoral to execute this binary? Yes of course it is. Similarly, if I KNOW that having a child right now, given all the circumstances that I am in, whether its my fault or not, will cause this potential child to suffer, then I am immoral.
wiseowise 3y ago
Of course it is. You didn’t pick that up from the time of my comment? I think we’re discussing this from different dimensions. You’re talking from some abstract concept of family and society relationship and I’m talking from a real word experience of growing up poor. It sucks, big time. So don’t start rationalizing suffering of millions growing up poor as “we’ve failed them, oh well, back to the drawing board!”
- nightwing 3y ago
  Not everyone growing poor has the same experience. I also grew up much poorer than my peers, plus that was in a war torn country where we didn't even have electricity for several years. And it did not suck at all. Your mistake is thinking that the goal of life is to minimize suffering. But that is completely wrong, only result that this goal can lead to is complete elimination of life. The goal of life is maximizing complexity, divercity, and capacity of life. The amount of suffering i had to experience was completly justified because i had a chance to grow up and improve the lives of others. I happened to be lucky enough to realize that chance, but my parents had no way to know beforehand if i would be successful or not, that's why they were right to try.
wiseowise 3y ago
> It's such a strange thing to argue that a child who is poor would be better off never to have been born Someone who didn’t grow up poor will never understand this.
- sneak 3y ago
  It's the same reason we catch and fix stray cats. It's better that they not have kittens, than their kittens be born and starve to death. With people, it takes even longer and more suffering to die of poverty than one first winter.
  - l3mure 3y ago
    Sounds almost like some old slogan, "life unworthy of life" was it?
  - legutierr 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization
    - sneak 3y ago
      There is nothing dehumanizing about saying that any person in significant poverty, regardless of any membership in any demographic sector, should not have kids, because their kids are going to suffer. I'll go a step further and share my personal belief that no one should have kids. Children, while traditional, are nevertheless (and this fact seems to be inconvenient to many) optional. Every human has the choice available to them to not have children.
- themaninthedark 3y ago
  I grew up poor and I don't understand it either. Children a century ago had a high likelihood of dying before they were 5. Now, that risk is greatly diminished. At the same time, the standard of living has greatly increased across the board for rich and poor. I am sorry that you had a bad childhood. Future generations of children, even the poor will have it better.

kajaktum 3y ago

> It's such a strange thing to argue that a child who is poor would be better off never to have been born at all—and then to characterize that argument as somehow being in favor of that child's interest. > My point is that a hard-working, upright and moral couple that wants a child should have one even if they are dirt poor, and shouldn't stop themselves because they don't have money. If the child ends up being unhappy in that environment purely as a result of the lack of money, then that is society's failing—our failing—not a failing of the parents'. We haven't done our duty to help this couple raise a happy family. This is such a ridiculous point. Hypothetical children do exists because they will be when its enacted upon. For example, if a couple keep giving birth KNOWING that their children will suffer, are they not responsible for their children suffering? Sure, it is not their fault that the children suffers. Perhaps because they have bad genes, stuck in a warzone, lives in an awful country, have mental health issues, cannot provide for their children, or whatever. The fact is still that they KNOW this hypothetical children will suffer. Imagine if we are able to write an executable that will startup a simulation where it will simulate a universe with maximum suffering. I have compiled the program, its right there to be executed. Is it immoral to execute this binary? Yes of course it is. Similarly, if I KNOW that having a child right now, given all the circumstances that I am in, whether its my fault or not, will cause this potential child to suffer, then I am immoral.

wiseowise 3y ago

Of course it is. You didn’t pick that up from the time of my comment? I think we’re discussing this from different dimensions. You’re talking from some abstract concept of family and society relationship and I’m talking from a real word experience of growing up poor. It sucks, big time. So don’t start rationalizing suffering of millions growing up poor as “we’ve failed them, oh well, back to the drawing board!”

nightwing 3y ago
Not everyone growing poor has the same experience. I also grew up much poorer than my peers, plus that was in a war torn country where we didn't even have electricity for several years. And it did not suck at all. Your mistake is thinking that the goal of life is to minimize suffering. But that is completely wrong, only result that this goal can lead to is complete elimination of life. The goal of life is maximizing complexity, divercity, and capacity of life. The amount of suffering i had to experience was completly justified because i had a chance to grow up and improve the lives of others. I happened to be lucky enough to realize that chance, but my parents had no way to know beforehand if i would be successful or not, that's why they were right to try.

wiseowise 3y ago

> It's such a strange thing to argue that a child who is poor would be better off never to have been born Someone who didn’t grow up poor will never understand this.

sneak 3y ago
It's the same reason we catch and fix stray cats. It's better that they not have kittens, than their kittens be born and starve to death. With people, it takes even longer and more suffering to die of poverty than one first winter.
- l3mure 3y ago
  Sounds almost like some old slogan, "life unworthy of life" was it?
- legutierr 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization
  - sneak 3y ago
    There is nothing dehumanizing about saying that any person in significant poverty, regardless of any membership in any demographic sector, should not have kids, because their kids are going to suffer. I'll go a step further and share my personal belief that no one should have kids. Children, while traditional, are nevertheless (and this fact seems to be inconvenient to many) optional. Every human has the choice available to them to not have children.
themaninthedark 3y ago
I grew up poor and I don't understand it either. Children a century ago had a high likelihood of dying before they were 5. Now, that risk is greatly diminished. At the same time, the standard of living has greatly increased across the board for rich and poor. I am sorry that you had a bad childhood. Future generations of children, even the poor will have it better.