3 ms·

People who want to be childless usually champion the importance of building strong community through friends and neighbors, just because they don’t want kids do

People who want to be childless usually champion the importance of building strong community through friends and neighbors, just because they don’t want kids doesn’t mean they don’t want to contribute to others’ happiness lol. People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kids

arealaccount 7mo ago
> dont want to deal with kids Someone has to bring up the next generation, the no kids crowd want all the luxury of having the next generation without putting in the effort or spending the money.
- nine_k 7mo ago
  I suppose that people who actively do not want to have kids should not have kids. Their hypothetical kids won't be happy and well-developed, but instead always feel that they are an undesired burden. Instead, people who like having kids should have more kids. This would proliferate a healthy culture that sees kids as a source of happiness, not a burden of misery taken out of necessity.
  - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
    > Instead, people who like having kids should have more kids. To make this work you need some kind of cross-subsidy (e.g. large child tax credit), because having a larger number of kids requires the means as well as the will and the people willing to do it aren't all billionaires. But then we do essentially the opposite and drive up housing prices when larger families need more house. Higher housing prices are essentially a transfer from young and future families to retirees.
  - graemep 7mo ago
    I am not convinced that is true. Once you actually have kids it changes your outlook too dramatically. Someone who does not want to have kids before they have a kid, will almost certainly love any kid they actually have.
    - nunez 7mo ago
      Having a look at your state/country's foster care registry and the foster care industry as a whole might change your feelings on that.
      - graemep 7mo ago
        I doubt there is a correlation between kids being wanted before birth and their likelihood of entering foster care. People who do not want kids do nkt have them.
  - hirvi74 7mo ago
    > I suppose that people who actively do not want to have kids should not have kids. I would describe myself as being the converse of that statement. I do not believe my desires should truly have much of a bearing on my situation.
    - nine_k 7mo ago
      There's an easy and natural way: don't use contraception. This is how it worked for millennia.
- trick-or-treat 7mo ago
  [dead]
- abc123abc123 7mo ago
  That's a very instrumental and de-humanizing way to look at humans. Only as enablers of further enablement. Know that there is no inherent reason at all why there should be a next generation, if we, collectively, do not want one. Some are interested in this, others not, and that's perfectly fine. The assumption that humanity must, and shall, exist forever has no proof.
  - strangegecko 7mo ago
    Agreed. I actually don't want more generations of humanity. The degree of abuse and destruction and selfishness is too depressing. I grew up with emotional neglect and all sorts of mental health struggles that grew from that, so I find the cavalier attitude people have towards parenting and how people in the world treat each other in general appalling. My parents (and honestly most, in my opinion) were not qualified to be parents. They were deeply broken themselves and didn't even have awareness of that. I know humans could do better, but looking at the state of things, greed and hatred and aggression in all forms from interpersonal to wars are propagating themselves as the most successful traits. In a dog eat dog world, I'd much rather leave everything to animals, at least they don't destroy the entire planet when they maul each other
- littlexsparkee 7mo ago
  Nonsense, there are plenty of childless teachers, scientists, etc that devote themselves to helping humanity. If someone wants to become an expert in their field towards this end, how can they devote themselves while having kids? It would kneecap you.
  - graemep 7mo ago
    Why would having kids kneecap you? Most people who are experts in their fields do have kids. Almost all the teachers I know have kids. Most scientists do. Einstein had three kids, Dirac four, and Planck five. Marie and Pierre Curie managed two.
    - littlexsparkee 7mo ago
      It is a massive financial strain and time sink. It's hard enough to make it as is. Tech in particular requires so much self study, especially in this market. Einstein, Dirac, Planck - they did minimal housework and led lives almost completely centered around their academic work. Curie seems to be an exception afaict.
- nunez 7mo ago
  There are other ways to give to the next generation than having kids of your own. Kids love "fun" uncle/aunts too! In my opinion, it's better to not have kids when you are not 100% LOCKED IN on wanting them instead of gambling and potentially being forced into a commitment you never wanted to make.
- lII1lIlI11ll 7mo ago
  > Someone has to bring up the next generation, the no kids crowd want all the luxury of having the next generation without putting in the effort or spending the money. Who do you think pays for schools-kindergartens for your kids while you getting tax credits for them and likely for your dependent wife who doesn't work while rearing them? And on top of that for your kid's healthcare in many European countries...
Aurornis 7mo ago
> People who want to be childless usually champion the importance of building strong community through friends and neighbors, This describes all of the childless people age 50 and older than I know. It does not describe the social media r/childfree mindset people I know at all. They have their bubble of friends they keep in touch with only when they feel like it but that's about it. There's a big difference between childless and r/childfree style people, though. > People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kids FIRE rose to popularity before this economy, though. It felt like peak FIRE was during ZIRP when it was easy to get a high paying tech job even if you barely had the skills for it. All the blogs and influencers made it sound so easy to just keep that going straight into early retirement as long as you continued living an austere lifestyle, which came with implied advice to avoid having kids. I followed several of the FIRE blogs and forums in the early days but had to stop reading after they started filling up with people convinced they could retire at age 36 with $1.2 million in the bank because they they lived frugally last year and decided they could keep coasting that way for another 50 years without their lifestyle changing. I remember reading a few disaster stories from people who thought they were doing leanFIRE with their spouse until their spouse grew up and realized they actually wanted kids and to be married to someone who had a little more ambition in life. I know these stories aren't what FIRE is supposed to be about in the theoretical optimal sense, but there were so many stories like this that the forums just felt like a sad place to be.
- kelnos 7mo ago
  I've read and posted to r/childfree and similar subs in the past, but I quickly came to realize that the people there are not your typical child-free people. They're mostly bitter anti-child people who rail against what they see as entitlements that parents get that non-parents don't. They derisively call parents petty and mean things like "breeders" and seem to be a very cynical bunch. I'm not saying their feelings are always ridiculous; certainly some of them have reasonable reasons for feeling the way they do. But they're a mostly-toxic, vocal minority. It really annoys me when people assume all (or even a significant number) of childfree people are like those reddit folks (not accusing you of that, just saying in general. And I don't get the automatic association between FIRE and childfree that some people are making here. Sure, FIRE is easier if you don't have kids, but IME the two groups are only loosely connected, at most.
roenxi 7mo ago
I think more than FIRE people should just focus on FI. You still have to do something with your day after becoming financially independent and a job is still one of many good ways to contribute to the community even if you don't technically need one. So retiring is an option but not the only one. On the other hand it remains quite confusing that after centuries of capital achieving vastly better results than labour people still keep going for labouring as their primary strategy. Building up a strong income-generating capital base is just common sense and it is an extremely good idea to have enough that you could technically avoid working if it made sense.
- dyauspitr 7mo ago
  You don’t have to do something with your day. Most people will but you don’t have to.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
jimbokun 7mo ago
They really don’t. They just post about how important those things are online but not doing much about it.
lotsofpulp 7mo ago
> People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kids That is not restricted to the “current” economy. It has been that way throughout all of human history (and probably applies to other animals too). Who wouldn’t want security of energy, food, shelter, healthcare, and education? Everyone worries about what happens to their kids if they get injured, or even just lose their job. It’s only in the last few decades that a significant portion of people have access to more of that security (even though it’s only an increase of 1% to 10% of the US). Now we have free brokerage accounts and low cost index funds so being financially independent has a catchy acronym.

arealaccount 7mo ago

> dont want to deal with kids Someone has to bring up the next generation, the no kids crowd want all the luxury of having the next generation without putting in the effort or spending the money.

nine_k 7mo ago
I suppose that people who actively do not want to have kids should not have kids. Their hypothetical kids won't be happy and well-developed, but instead always feel that they are an undesired burden. Instead, people who like having kids should have more kids. This would proliferate a healthy culture that sees kids as a source of happiness, not a burden of misery taken out of necessity.
- AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
  > Instead, people who like having kids should have more kids. To make this work you need some kind of cross-subsidy (e.g. large child tax credit), because having a larger number of kids requires the means as well as the will and the people willing to do it aren't all billionaires. But then we do essentially the opposite and drive up housing prices when larger families need more house. Higher housing prices are essentially a transfer from young and future families to retirees.
- graemep 7mo ago
  I am not convinced that is true. Once you actually have kids it changes your outlook too dramatically. Someone who does not want to have kids before they have a kid, will almost certainly love any kid they actually have.
  - nunez 7mo ago
    Having a look at your state/country's foster care registry and the foster care industry as a whole might change your feelings on that.
    - graemep 7mo ago
      I doubt there is a correlation between kids being wanted before birth and their likelihood of entering foster care. People who do not want kids do nkt have them.
- hirvi74 7mo ago
  > I suppose that people who actively do not want to have kids should not have kids. I would describe myself as being the converse of that statement. I do not believe my desires should truly have much of a bearing on my situation.
  - nine_k 7mo ago
    There's an easy and natural way: don't use contraception. This is how it worked for millennia.
trick-or-treat 7mo ago
[dead]
abc123abc123 7mo ago
That's a very instrumental and de-humanizing way to look at humans. Only as enablers of further enablement. Know that there is no inherent reason at all why there should be a next generation, if we, collectively, do not want one. Some are interested in this, others not, and that's perfectly fine. The assumption that humanity must, and shall, exist forever has no proof.
- strangegecko 7mo ago
  Agreed. I actually don't want more generations of humanity. The degree of abuse and destruction and selfishness is too depressing. I grew up with emotional neglect and all sorts of mental health struggles that grew from that, so I find the cavalier attitude people have towards parenting and how people in the world treat each other in general appalling. My parents (and honestly most, in my opinion) were not qualified to be parents. They were deeply broken themselves and didn't even have awareness of that. I know humans could do better, but looking at the state of things, greed and hatred and aggression in all forms from interpersonal to wars are propagating themselves as the most successful traits. In a dog eat dog world, I'd much rather leave everything to animals, at least they don't destroy the entire planet when they maul each other
littlexsparkee 7mo ago
Nonsense, there are plenty of childless teachers, scientists, etc that devote themselves to helping humanity. If someone wants to become an expert in their field towards this end, how can they devote themselves while having kids? It would kneecap you.
- graemep 7mo ago
  Why would having kids kneecap you? Most people who are experts in their fields do have kids. Almost all the teachers I know have kids. Most scientists do. Einstein had three kids, Dirac four, and Planck five. Marie and Pierre Curie managed two.
  - littlexsparkee 7mo ago
    It is a massive financial strain and time sink. It's hard enough to make it as is. Tech in particular requires so much self study, especially in this market. Einstein, Dirac, Planck - they did minimal housework and led lives almost completely centered around their academic work. Curie seems to be an exception afaict.
nunez 7mo ago
There are other ways to give to the next generation than having kids of your own. Kids love "fun" uncle/aunts too! In my opinion, it's better to not have kids when you are not 100% LOCKED IN on wanting them instead of gambling and potentially being forced into a commitment you never wanted to make.
lII1lIlI11ll 7mo ago
> Someone has to bring up the next generation, the no kids crowd want all the luxury of having the next generation without putting in the effort or spending the money. Who do you think pays for schools-kindergartens for your kids while you getting tax credits for them and likely for your dependent wife who doesn't work while rearing them? And on top of that for your kid's healthcare in many European countries...

Aurornis 7mo ago

> People who want to be childless usually champion the importance of building strong community through friends and neighbors, This describes all of the childless people age 50 and older than I know. It does not describe the social media r/childfree mindset people I know at all. They have their bubble of friends they keep in touch with only when they feel like it but that's about it. There's a big difference between childless and r/childfree style people, though. > People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kids FIRE rose to popularity before this economy, though. It felt like peak FIRE was during ZIRP when it was easy to get a high paying tech job even if you barely had the skills for it. All the blogs and influencers made it sound so easy to just keep that going straight into early retirement as long as you continued living an austere lifestyle, which came with implied advice to avoid having kids. I followed several of the FIRE blogs and forums in the early days but had to stop reading after they started filling up with people convinced they could retire at age 36 with $1.2 million in the bank because they they lived frugally last year and decided they could keep coasting that way for another 50 years without their lifestyle changing. I remember reading a few disaster stories from people who thought they were doing leanFIRE with their spouse until their spouse grew up and realized they actually wanted kids and to be married to someone who had a little more ambition in life. I know these stories aren't what FIRE is supposed to be about in the theoretical optimal sense, but there were so many stories like this that the forums just felt like a sad place to be.

kelnos 7mo ago
I've read and posted to r/childfree and similar subs in the past, but I quickly came to realize that the people there are not your typical child-free people. They're mostly bitter anti-child people who rail against what they see as entitlements that parents get that non-parents don't. They derisively call parents petty and mean things like "breeders" and seem to be a very cynical bunch. I'm not saying their feelings are always ridiculous; certainly some of them have reasonable reasons for feeling the way they do. But they're a mostly-toxic, vocal minority. It really annoys me when people assume all (or even a significant number) of childfree people are like those reddit folks (not accusing you of that, just saying in general. And I don't get the automatic association between FIRE and childfree that some people are making here. Sure, FIRE is easier if you don't have kids, but IME the two groups are only loosely connected, at most.

roenxi 7mo ago

I think more than FIRE people should just focus on FI. You still have to do something with your day after becoming financially independent and a job is still one of many good ways to contribute to the community even if you don't technically need one. So retiring is an option but not the only one. On the other hand it remains quite confusing that after centuries of capital achieving vastly better results than labour people still keep going for labouring as their primary strategy. Building up a strong income-generating capital base is just common sense and it is an extremely good idea to have enough that you could technically avoid working if it made sense.

dyauspitr 7mo ago
You don’t have to do something with your day. Most people will but you don’t have to.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

jimbokun 7mo ago

They really don’t. They just post about how important those things are online but not doing much about it.

lotsofpulp 7mo ago

> People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kids That is not restricted to the “current” economy. It has been that way throughout all of human history (and probably applies to other animals too). Who wouldn’t want security of energy, food, shelter, healthcare, and education? Everyone worries about what happens to their kids if they get injured, or even just lose their job. It’s only in the last few decades that a significant portion of people have access to more of that security (even though it’s only an increase of 1% to 10% of the US). Now we have free brokerage accounts and low cost index funds so being financially independent has a catchy acronym.