4 ms·

I would've expected somewhat differently inclined comments from the hackernews community. Instead, everybody is just saying the same thing expressed in differe

by insuffi 13y ago

I would've expected somewhat differently inclined comments from the hackernews community. Instead, everybody is just saying the same thing expressed in different wording - safety. His point is not to bypass the entire family, house aspect of your life. The point is to not move along life as if you have no choice but to move to the next "stage". Progress is not moving up the stages - getting a house, getting a family, a dog, a kid. Those are just arbitrary checkpoints defined to make you feel like you're making something of your life. The american dream, eh? :) Progress is to construct a life not defined by limits and boundaries. Living it to the fullest - travel, do great big, inspirational things. If you choose to have kids when you're 20, you are almost by definition limiting your life only to be somebody who takes care of your kids and works a stable job with a stable family(a stable car, a stable dog, a stable bed to sleep in, a stable tv and a stable view of the world). In other words, inexperienced and short-sighted.

alex-warren 13y ago
It's not too surprising really - the comments are similar to those I got on my blog post from a couple of weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5951536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5951536 - although it is strange how "conventional" a lot of HN commenters are, you'd think we were more of an ambitious entrepreneurial lot really...
DanBC 13y ago
> If you choose to have kids when you're 20, you are almost by definition limiting your life only to be somebody who takes care of your kids and works a stable job with a stable family(a stable car, a stable dog, a stable bed to sleep in, a stable tv and a stable view of the world). In other words, inexperienced and short-sighted. You're missing the point of children - some people experience intense joy from raising their children.
- insuffi 13y ago
  That may be true. A lot of people, however, choose to have kids only because they think kids will bring joy to their life, not the other way around, which makes for a terrible relationship dynamic. In other words, a couple becomes bored of their stable life. They think - oh, maybe a kid will make our lives more exciting.
- guylhem 13y ago
  You're missing the point of drugs - some people experience intense joy from taking drugs.
user24 13y ago
> everybody is just saying the same thing expressed in different wording - safety. There's this recurring theme in what you and OP are saying, that you think buying a house, getting married, having kids, building a career is somehow 'safe' or 'boring' or that those that do it are 'risk-averse' (or worse, are 'robots', or 'sheep' or 'followers', like you have the answer and everyone else is blind). How is it safe or not risky to commit the next 20 years of my life to caring for my child? Or to commit to providing for my wife through a secure well paid job? And I love my life, it's fascinating. Rarely a boring moment. Or I can travel. Woo. Take lots of photos. Brag about how out-there I am. Inspirational things huh? I agree that one shouldn't live life going through the motions. But take care that you don't see the 2.4 kids and assume too much about the person. What's the use of all your long-sighted experience if you're too quick to judge people? I say again, each of us is a fascinating individual. You and your ilk seem to dismiss some life choices as less worthy - even going so far as declare them incorrect. Is a mortgage and a dog and a kid 'limited'? I don't see why it has to be. Am I limited because I can't get up and move to Canada on a whim? I am free in myself. More than that I am building something greater than myself; my family. I've chosen stability and responsibility over the ephemeral pleasures of whimsy. That is truly inspirational, isn't it?
jasonkester 13y ago
I'm a big fan of substituting the word "and" into choices that traditionally involve an "or". "House Wife & Kids or Travel & Happy Instability" is the latest one for me, and it seems to work just fine doing both thus far. In this case, I think the crux of facing that choice at age 20 is that you pretty much only get to pick one for financial reasons. By around 35, a fella can have enough banked away to happily do both at once.

by insuffi 13y ago

alex-warren 13y ago

It's not too surprising really - the comments are similar to those I got on my blog post from a couple of weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5951536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5951536 - although it is strange how "conventional" a lot of HN commenters are, you'd think we were more of an ambitious entrepreneurial lot really...

DanBC 13y ago

> If you choose to have kids when you're 20, you are almost by definition limiting your life only to be somebody who takes care of your kids and works a stable job with a stable family(a stable car, a stable dog, a stable bed to sleep in, a stable tv and a stable view of the world). In other words, inexperienced and short-sighted. You're missing the point of children - some people experience intense joy from raising their children.

insuffi 13y ago
That may be true. A lot of people, however, choose to have kids only because they think kids will bring joy to their life, not the other way around, which makes for a terrible relationship dynamic. In other words, a couple becomes bored of their stable life. They think - oh, maybe a kid will make our lives more exciting.
guylhem 13y ago
You're missing the point of drugs - some people experience intense joy from taking drugs.

user24 13y ago

> everybody is just saying the same thing expressed in different wording - safety. There's this recurring theme in what you and OP are saying, that you think buying a house, getting married, having kids, building a career is somehow 'safe' or 'boring' or that those that do it are 'risk-averse' (or worse, are 'robots', or 'sheep' or 'followers', like you have the answer and everyone else is blind). How is it safe or not risky to commit the next 20 years of my life to caring for my child? Or to commit to providing for my wife through a secure well paid job? And I love my life, it's fascinating. Rarely a boring moment. Or I can travel. Woo. Take lots of photos. Brag about how out-there I am. Inspirational things huh? I agree that one shouldn't live life going through the motions. But take care that you don't see the 2.4 kids and assume too much about the person. What's the use of all your long-sighted experience if you're too quick to judge people? I say again, each of us is a fascinating individual. You and your ilk seem to dismiss some life choices as less worthy - even going so far as declare them incorrect. Is a mortgage and a dog and a kid 'limited'? I don't see why it has to be. Am I limited because I can't get up and move to Canada on a whim? I am free in myself. More than that I am building something greater than myself; my family. I've chosen stability and responsibility over the ephemeral pleasures of whimsy. That is truly inspirational, isn't it?

jasonkester 13y ago

I'm a big fan of substituting the word "and" into choices that traditionally involve an "or". "House Wife & Kids or Travel & Happy Instability" is the latest one for me, and it seems to work just fine doing both thus far. In this case, I think the crux of facing that choice at age 20 is that you pretty much only get to pick one for financial reasons. By around 35, a fella can have enough banked away to happily do both at once.