4 ms·

I have two kids. It's tough. But this kind of "opinion" column on a large network is just despicable. Kids is the hardest thing to come to life, I call it "lif

by keyle 3y ago

I have two kids. It's tough. But this kind of "opinion" column on a large network is just despicable. Kids is the hardest thing to come to life, I call it "life on hard mode". And I've moved across the world. But the gains are immense. You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible. Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. People on HN are typically pretty well off. Low social economic couples tend to have 3, 4, 5+ kids. Certain countries with extremely low standards of living have many kids as well. Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning. Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too. If being "smart" is not having kids, we've failed at the game of life!

andyjohnson0 3y ago
I was agreeing with you until you wrote: > we're decreasing, the typical white middle-class couple is facing extinction. [...] I don't mean this with a grain of racism Please don't do this. "We" on HN and in the west and in world in general is incredibly diverse. Your comment disrespects this human diversity. Please take some time to think about that.
- Uinchuling 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - saagarjha 3y ago
    This isn't how discourse works and you know it. It is eminently acceptable to censure people who put forward racist and eugenicist views even if done so politely.
    - Uinchuling 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - saagarjha 3y ago
        Yeah, now you're both racist and impolite.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    "Our very survival" is not threatened and you know it. Pretty sure no wealth-controlling multi-billionaires look like indigenous Bolivians.
    - the_third_wave 3y ago
      They can look like Carlos Slim Helu (#8 on the Forbes list of billionaires), Mukesh Ambani (#9), Zhong Shanshan (#15), Gautam Adani (#24), etc. There is no reason why a wealth-controlling multi-billionaire can not look like a native Bolivian.
      - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
        Of course there isn’t. But you understand that wasn’t my point, yes?
- keyle 3y ago
  I actually removed it after trying it to word it differently as I knew someone would pick on this instead of focusing on my main point. Thanks.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    Your main point is, to be clear, inherently discriminatory on a basis that looks a lot like a shallow proxy for race.
trevyn 3y ago
>Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. That is a very strange perspective.
- keyle 3y ago
  How so?
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    Because it's not the high-water mark of childless existence?
bemusedthrow75 3y ago
> Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning, the typical white middle-class couple is facing extinction. > Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too. Society needs fixing to preserve the place of the white middle class? I am, to be clear, a well-educated white single man over 40 (who has enough to do without this restaurant-based existence you think is the apotheosis of childlessness). But I think society needs fixing so that I am not in a class protected by privilege. So far I think the threat of extinction is having no meaningful impact either way.
maccard 3y ago
> going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. As opposed to sitting at home with your partner when you're 40+ because your kids are out being teenagers and you need to be available in case they need you? Life at either extreme looks boring.
dTal 3y ago
https://xkcd.com/603/ https://xkcd.com/603/
cpursley 3y ago
Huh, my wife and I still go to restaurants. Nice ones, too. We just bring our 2 year old daughter. And there’s always delivery.
wkat4242 3y ago
> Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. Then don't do that. I go clubbing a lot and I'm almost 50 and I really enjoy it. My partner is pretty polyamorous like me so we're not really monogamous either, making it even more interesting. Maybe this doesn't work for you but I don't like the idea of society saying what I should want to do with my life. I'm very happy as it is.
prmoustache 3y ago
> When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible. I don't think that should be a life goal. It is just a basic reaction to the fear of death.
zelphirkalt 3y ago
This is typical parent speak/perspective though. Yes, having kids is incredibly taxing on ones time and nerves and all that. And yes, most parents probably love their children and have warm pleasant feelings when they see their children grow up. And also at least some percentage of people need to have kids, so that we can continue to exist as a species and all that jazz. All not questioned. What I do question are the following things, and disclaimer, it is going to be a bit philosophical. I also don't tell you this to tell you, that you are doing something wrong. I am telling you this to give another point of view: > You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible. As a determinist I can understand, that to most people children are a very tangible result of their lives. That's fine. But there are so many other things in life that one could do or achieve, that have nothing to do with children. Your children are not solely your own work's result either. Think of all the people involved in raising them. Think of the rest of society contributing to your kids being able to be raised the way they are. Daycare people, kindergarten, primary school, secondary school, the friendly neighbor, relatives, friends helping with school homework or additional teaching if necessary, ... probably I am forgetting many. And so many people in various professionsa and jobs can claim just as well, that they leave behind something very tangible, even though they might never have kids themselves. Many actions of many people all day long all contribute just as much, only that their influence on the children's lives are less direct. Butterfly effect and all that. Ultimately I even find that focus on ones own children a bit selfish. It is probably a very natural tendency and ones own children are ones dearest usually, so I can understant why it exists. However, there is nothing that says society must be this way. Nothing that mandates, that we look after our own child before others. > Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. There are many other huge parts of life. Unfortunately we have to choose in our lives which huge parts we pursue. Why don't you do other good things for society with your partner? You could offer tutoring for pupils in need or for talented ones. You could work for charity saving children around the world. You could do many great things. Those are not lesser things compared to having kids yourself. > People on HN are typically pretty well off. Low social economic couples tend to have 3, 4, 5+ kids. Certain countries with extremely low standards of living have many kids as well. > Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning. I see no problem. The only problem I see there is that of broken education systems in my country. I don't care where a child or adult comes from. I care about their education and skills. I care about how they can contribute to our society. I don't have the fear of being replaced by people from other countries. If they are friendly and willing to contribute well to our society, I welcome them. > Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too. > If being "smart" is not having kids, we've failed at the game of life! I partially agree, that society needs fixing. I don't agree on a theoretical basis, that smart people having kids is necessary. I think it is necessary for smart people to pass on their skills and knowledge. Which should be how we fix society. We make the smart people pass on their stuff, through a good education system. Yes, it will be a lot of fixing needed. Lastly, I do understand, that there are many reasons, why retroactively many people (not saying you in particular) need to justify to themselves the sacrifices they undoubtedly make in raising children. It would be a strong dissonance, if they could not convince themselves of it having been the right choice. It's fine! We all need to cope with our lives. What I would ask parents to do is to consider, that there are other, just as valid viewpoints and that other people can be well aware of all of that and still prioritize differently in their own lives.

by keyle 3y ago

andyjohnson0 3y ago

I was agreeing with you until you wrote: > we're decreasing, the typical white middle-class couple is facing extinction. [...] I don't mean this with a grain of racism Please don't do this. "We" on HN and in the west and in world in general is incredibly diverse. Your comment disrespects this human diversity. Please take some time to think about that.

Uinchuling 3y ago
[flagged]
- saagarjha 3y ago
  This isn't how discourse works and you know it. It is eminently acceptable to censure people who put forward racist and eugenicist views even if done so politely.
  - Uinchuling 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - saagarjha 3y ago
      Yeah, now you're both racist and impolite.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  "Our very survival" is not threatened and you know it. Pretty sure no wealth-controlling multi-billionaires look like indigenous Bolivians.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    They can look like Carlos Slim Helu (#8 on the Forbes list of billionaires), Mukesh Ambani (#9), Zhong Shanshan (#15), Gautam Adani (#24), etc. There is no reason why a wealth-controlling multi-billionaire can not look like a native Bolivian.
    - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
      Of course there isn’t. But you understand that wasn’t my point, yes?
keyle 3y ago
I actually removed it after trying it to word it differently as I knew someone would pick on this instead of focusing on my main point. Thanks.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  Your main point is, to be clear, inherently discriminatory on a basis that looks a lot like a shallow proxy for race.

trevyn 3y ago

>Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. That is a very strange perspective.

keyle 3y ago
How so?
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  Because it's not the high-water mark of childless existence?

bemusedthrow75 3y ago

> Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning, the typical white middle-class couple is facing extinction. > Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too. Society needs fixing to preserve the place of the white middle class? I am, to be clear, a well-educated white single man over 40 (who has enough to do without this restaurant-based existence you think is the apotheosis of childlessness). But I think society needs fixing so that I am not in a class protected by privilege. So far I think the threat of extinction is having no meaningful impact either way.

maccard 3y ago

> going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. As opposed to sitting at home with your partner when you're 40+ because your kids are out being teenagers and you need to be available in case they need you? Life at either extreme looks boring.

dTal 3y ago

https://xkcd.com/603/ https://xkcd.com/603/

cpursley 3y ago

Huh, my wife and I still go to restaurants. Nice ones, too. We just bring our 2 year old daughter. And there’s always delivery.

wkat4242 3y ago

> Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. Then don't do that. I go clubbing a lot and I'm almost 50 and I really enjoy it. My partner is pretty polyamorous like me so we're not really monogamous either, making it even more interesting. Maybe this doesn't work for you but I don't like the idea of society saying what I should want to do with my life. I'm very happy as it is.

prmoustache 3y ago

> When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible. I don't think that should be a life goal. It is just a basic reaction to the fear of death.

zelphirkalt 3y ago

This is typical parent speak/perspective though. Yes, having kids is incredibly taxing on ones time and nerves and all that. And yes, most parents probably love their children and have warm pleasant feelings when they see their children grow up. And also at least some percentage of people need to have kids, so that we can continue to exist as a species and all that jazz. All not questioned. What I do question are the following things, and disclaimer, it is going to be a bit philosophical. I also don't tell you this to tell you, that you are doing something wrong. I am telling you this to give another point of view: > You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible. As a determinist I can understand, that to most people children are a very tangible result of their lives. That's fine. But there are so many other things in life that one could do or achieve, that have nothing to do with children. Your children are not solely your own work's result either. Think of all the people involved in raising them. Think of the rest of society contributing to your kids being able to be raised the way they are. Daycare people, kindergarten, primary school, secondary school, the friendly neighbor, relatives, friends helping with school homework or additional teaching if necessary, ... probably I am forgetting many. And so many people in various professionsa and jobs can claim just as well, that they leave behind something very tangible, even though they might never have kids themselves. Many actions of many people all day long all contribute just as much, only that their influence on the children's lives are less direct. Butterfly effect and all that. Ultimately I even find that focus on ones own children a bit selfish. It is probably a very natural tendency and ones own children are ones dearest usually, so I can understant why it exists. However, there is nothing that says society must be this way. Nothing that mandates, that we look after our own child before others. > Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. There are many other huge parts of life. Unfortunately we have to choose in our lives which huge parts we pursue. Why don't you do other good things for society with your partner? You could offer tutoring for pupils in need or for talented ones. You could work for charity saving children around the world. You could do many great things. Those are not lesser things compared to having kids yourself. > People on HN are typically pretty well off. Low social economic couples tend to have 3, 4, 5+ kids. Certain countries with extremely low standards of living have many kids as well. > Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning. I see no problem. The only problem I see there is that of broken education systems in my country. I don't care where a child or adult comes from. I care about their education and skills. I care about how they can contribute to our society. I don't have the fear of being replaced by people from other countries. If they are friendly and willing to contribute well to our society, I welcome them. > Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too. > If being "smart" is not having kids, we've failed at the game of life! I partially agree, that society needs fixing. I don't agree on a theoretical basis, that smart people having kids is necessary. I think it is necessary for smart people to pass on their skills and knowledge. Which should be how we fix society. We make the smart people pass on their stuff, through a good education system. Yes, it will be a lot of fixing needed. Lastly, I do understand, that there are many reasons, why retroactively many people (not saying you in particular) need to justify to themselves the sacrifices they undoubtedly make in raising children. It would be a strong dissonance, if they could not convince themselves of it having been the right choice. It's fine! We all need to cope with our lives. What I would ask parents to do is to consider, that there are other, just as valid viewpoints and that other people can be well aware of all of that and still prioritize differently in their own lives.