5 ms·

This speaks to a larger problem: The world simply doesn't need many of the people born into it. Parents in the US have children for recreational purposes - chi

This speaks to a larger problem: The world simply doesn't need many of the people born into it. Parents in the US have children for recreational purposes - child birth rates do not fluctuate with the demand for labor. These kids grow up, and many of them wind up sleeping on the streets of their chosen city or more commonly just barely living paycheck-to-paycheck, because there is no societal need for them. This bears itself out in statistics: 25% of households have a net worth of zero or less (negative net worth). 22% of children in the US live in homes below the poverty line. In our world, the needs of many can be met by the work of a few. Only those few will prosper, while the rest languish. The harsh reality is that prospective parents that don't have anything to pass onto their children need to take a hard look at whether they should be having children, given that going forward there may very well be no way for those children to earn a living.

noonespecial 14y ago
You need a great number of many to create a pool large enough to get those precious few that can advance humanity enough to do all of that providing by the few. Humanity could be two people living in a grass hut finding just enough berries to eat each day, but it wouldn't be much fun.
- VMG 14y ago
  Those "precious few" will probably not come from unfit parents who already have six children. Broken families and lack of family planning lie at the heart of crime and poverty. (I can already see the "eugenictler" strawman being put up in the distance)
  - pfortuny 14y ago
    You -as well as I- most probably come from unfit ancestors with lots of children. And that is irrelevant, as far as I can tell. So your argument is?
    - VMG 14y ago
      Going back far enough, you and I probably came from rape and lack of contraception as well. Your argument is?
      - pfortuny 14y ago
        That he was making no argument.
  - subsystem 14y ago
    Crime and poverty lie at the heart of broken families and lack of family planning.
downandout 14y ago
FYI whomever is downvoting this - you can downvote it all you want. It doesn't make it any less true. I'll take the hit on my karma points on the off chance it makes someone think, even for a second, about not perpetrating the selfish act of cruelty that is bringing a child into an impoverished existence.
- throwit1979 14y ago
  Heh. Daring to suggest people think before they procreate is certainly one of those things you cannot say. Ironic on HN, because http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- nisa 14y ago
  See you on the other side of this discussion if you loose your wealth and your job for whatever reasons. You'll enjoy beeing jugded by your own words. Empathy and social justice are crucial for any society that wants to be respected. You are proposing barbary. Social Darwinism.
  - downandout 14y ago
    I am dealing with reality.
    - nisa 14y ago
      We all have to deal with reality. The question is how we want to shape our societies and reality. Is it acceptable to have few lucky ones with huge incomes that are far beyond the necassary amount for living a fullfilled live and have the rest die on the streets? Or would it be more beneficial for the society at large if all have the possibility to live free from existential dangers such as homelessness, disease and hunger. Robots, computers and automatisation are great tools. At the moment the profit that these tools generate is not shared among all people. It's time to socialise the profits that are gained through automatisation in order to be able to live in peaceful societies. If you discard huge parts of the population as worthless you'll have to invest even more in your security. You will have slums, riots, terrorism and violence and walled gardens. That is not the reality I want to live in.
ippisl 14y ago
But long term , those kids, who will face the huge struggle ,will be those who'll change the system and make history. So let them be.
pi18n 14y ago
You are probably right that impoverished parents are going to have a hard time raising children, but you are also advocating a form of social Darwinism. I agree that fewer people should procreate but disagree with measuring the necessity of a person by net worth. The vast majority of wealth being accumulated by a few persons surely skews the demand for labor as we have many Fords but not many laborers paid enough to buy Ford's cars. I said I think fewer children would be good, I just don't know which group of people should stop having children. I guess all of them should tone it down.
- gcheong 14y ago
  People like me who have no desire to have them perhaps? I think that's the best place to start. Also more people will probably choose not to have kids when there is more social acceptance of the choice and we are honest with ourselves about the realities of bringing more human life into this world. I like kids and want every measure of support we can provide to people who have chosen to have them - we just need to be clear on the realities and I think much of the rest will take care of itself.
josefresco 14y ago
"Parents in the US have children for recreational purposes" Really?!? I don't know a single parent who would list or even hint that they needed "recreation" when deciding to have a child. Let's assume you were half-joking, I still don't see having kids as something anyone takes lightly no matter what country you are born in. "child birth rates do not fluctuate with the demand for labor" Another horrible reason to have kids. I hope this isn't your metric for deciding upon your prior statement about recreation. Just because the US doesn't need the labor, does not mean parents are having kids "recreational". Kids are not a tool of society that should be effected by labor output. Also the numbers on net worth most likely take into account home values that have recently fallen off a cliff. While it's still accurate to say that most people have a zero or negative net worth you can't assume the value of the home/amount owed on the mortgage will always be static.
- downandout 14y ago
  When I say "recreational" I mean that there is no need for parents to have children, other than the fact that they are biologically motivated to. We have more people than resources in this world. That is a problem, and the only way to fix it is to encourage people to be realistic about the potential for their children to have happy, productive lives in a society that almost certainly has no use for them.
  - reinhardt 14y ago
    Overpopulation is a myth. Actually in the first world underpopulation is greater risk, most European countries have a lower fertility rate than the 2.1 children replacement rate. Even at a global level the world population will reach a plateau somewhere around the middle of the century.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- VMG 14y ago
  > I don't know a single parent who would list or even hint that they needed "recreation" when deciding to have a child. Your friends are not a representative sample of the population of the united states. Those who choose to have children are responsible for providing for them, not their neighbors. People who can't take care of their children should be discouraged from procreating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
cdoxsey 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
roguecoder 14y ago
It is not a given that "the rest" need to languish. If survival was not based on winning the metaphoric lottery, the rest could engage in creative work and experimentation, leading to a renaissance in entrepreneurship and the arts. Everyone could have more luxury time; perhaps eventually 15 hours a week of paid work will be sufficient. To instead overwork those who are employed and leave the rest to language is a conscious decision.

noonespecial 14y ago

You need a great number of many to create a pool large enough to get those precious few that can advance humanity enough to do all of that providing by the few. Humanity could be two people living in a grass hut finding just enough berries to eat each day, but it wouldn't be much fun.

VMG 14y ago
Those "precious few" will probably not come from unfit parents who already have six children. Broken families and lack of family planning lie at the heart of crime and poverty. (I can already see the "eugenictler" strawman being put up in the distance)
- pfortuny 14y ago
  You -as well as I- most probably come from unfit ancestors with lots of children. And that is irrelevant, as far as I can tell. So your argument is?
  - VMG 14y ago
    Going back far enough, you and I probably came from rape and lack of contraception as well. Your argument is?
    - pfortuny 14y ago
      That he was making no argument.
- subsystem 14y ago
  Crime and poverty lie at the heart of broken families and lack of family planning.

downandout 14y ago

FYI whomever is downvoting this - you can downvote it all you want. It doesn't make it any less true. I'll take the hit on my karma points on the off chance it makes someone think, even for a second, about not perpetrating the selfish act of cruelty that is bringing a child into an impoverished existence.

throwit1979 14y ago
Heh. Daring to suggest people think before they procreate is certainly one of those things you cannot say. Ironic on HN, because http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
nisa 14y ago
See you on the other side of this discussion if you loose your wealth and your job for whatever reasons. You'll enjoy beeing jugded by your own words. Empathy and social justice are crucial for any society that wants to be respected. You are proposing barbary. Social Darwinism.
- downandout 14y ago
  I am dealing with reality.
  - nisa 14y ago
    We all have to deal with reality. The question is how we want to shape our societies and reality. Is it acceptable to have few lucky ones with huge incomes that are far beyond the necassary amount for living a fullfilled live and have the rest die on the streets? Or would it be more beneficial for the society at large if all have the possibility to live free from existential dangers such as homelessness, disease and hunger. Robots, computers and automatisation are great tools. At the moment the profit that these tools generate is not shared among all people. It's time to socialise the profits that are gained through automatisation in order to be able to live in peaceful societies. If you discard huge parts of the population as worthless you'll have to invest even more in your security. You will have slums, riots, terrorism and violence and walled gardens. That is not the reality I want to live in.

ippisl 14y ago

But long term , those kids, who will face the huge struggle ,will be those who'll change the system and make history. So let them be.

pi18n 14y ago

You are probably right that impoverished parents are going to have a hard time raising children, but you are also advocating a form of social Darwinism. I agree that fewer people should procreate but disagree with measuring the necessity of a person by net worth. The vast majority of wealth being accumulated by a few persons surely skews the demand for labor as we have many Fords but not many laborers paid enough to buy Ford's cars. I said I think fewer children would be good, I just don't know which group of people should stop having children. I guess all of them should tone it down.

gcheong 14y ago
People like me who have no desire to have them perhaps? I think that's the best place to start. Also more people will probably choose not to have kids when there is more social acceptance of the choice and we are honest with ourselves about the realities of bringing more human life into this world. I like kids and want every measure of support we can provide to people who have chosen to have them - we just need to be clear on the realities and I think much of the rest will take care of itself.

josefresco 14y ago

"Parents in the US have children for recreational purposes" Really?!? I don't know a single parent who would list or even hint that they needed "recreation" when deciding to have a child. Let's assume you were half-joking, I still don't see having kids as something anyone takes lightly no matter what country you are born in. "child birth rates do not fluctuate with the demand for labor" Another horrible reason to have kids. I hope this isn't your metric for deciding upon your prior statement about recreation. Just because the US doesn't need the labor, does not mean parents are having kids "recreational". Kids are not a tool of society that should be effected by labor output. Also the numbers on net worth most likely take into account home values that have recently fallen off a cliff. While it's still accurate to say that most people have a zero or negative net worth you can't assume the value of the home/amount owed on the mortgage will always be static.

downandout 14y ago
When I say "recreational" I mean that there is no need for parents to have children, other than the fact that they are biologically motivated to. We have more people than resources in this world. That is a problem, and the only way to fix it is to encourage people to be realistic about the potential for their children to have happy, productive lives in a society that almost certainly has no use for them.
- reinhardt 14y ago
  Overpopulation is a myth. Actually in the first world underpopulation is greater risk, most European countries have a lower fertility rate than the 2.1 children replacement rate. Even at a global level the world population will reach a plateau somewhere around the middle of the century.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
VMG 14y ago
> I don't know a single parent who would list or even hint that they needed "recreation" when deciding to have a child. Your friends are not a representative sample of the population of the united states. Those who choose to have children are responsible for providing for them, not their neighbors. People who can't take care of their children should be discouraged from procreating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

cdoxsey 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

roguecoder 14y ago

It is not a given that "the rest" need to languish. If survival was not based on winning the metaphoric lottery, the rest could engage in creative work and experimentation, leading to a renaissance in entrepreneurship and the arts. Everyone could have more luxury time; perhaps eventually 15 hours a week of paid work will be sufficient. To instead overwork those who are employed and leave the rest to language is a conscious decision.