Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#31

Post by bluejekyll »

While I tend to agree with I him I did decide to have kids. And they're awesome, a lot of work, and completely all consuming of your time. That's why this statement from someone who opted not to have kids seems so disconnected:

> You can also say, "Having children is selfish. If you don't have children, you can dedicate your time to something that the world really needs."

Actually, I believe successful (and I suppose my success or lack of is probably still 13 years from proving out) parenting requires complete selflessness. An ability to look past your own desires and needs to focus on those of your kids. There isn't a better trial in life, than having to make the difficult decision about doing something for yourself, or something for your kids. Marriage is similar.

When I explain being a parent to people, I make it clear that you will be giving up significant amounts of your own time and desires. So if your good with that, then when you have kids, try and be as present as possible for them to help them grow into decent humans.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#32

Post by joecool1029 »

Jamesbeam wrote: post #26

I think you should respect his choice, but we can argue about the reasons and argumentations for that choice. I don't know if Mr. Stallman has siblings. But if not, it means that his bloodline will end with his death. Let that sit for a moment and think about it. Think about the hundreds of people in your ancestry that lived through world wars and the dark ages and all kinds of other "bad times," compared to the hund…

There's no logic to this. Let me shorten:

'I'm supposed to have feels about people who are dead that I never knew.'

If you do that's fine. Just don't expect that feeling to be universal and don't try to guilt it onto people that don't

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#33

Post by glass_of_water »

raverbashing wrote: post #24
theonemind wrote: post #18

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure", or "I feel bad for poor Stallman" or "What a sad man" 3. Are you a parent, or have strong feelings about becoming a parent? If you answered yes on step 3, and want to know how I knew, it's because you disregarded…

Every person is somebody's child "Implications to humanity?" There's no humanity if people don't reproduce. It's that simple

You are presenting a false dichotomy. The choice is not between everyone having children and no one having children.

Stallman even addresses your objection in his post:

> I don't wish that nobody had any children; I don't want humanity to disappear.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#34

Post by crasp »

Disclaimer: I am a parent. Regardles here's my 2c:

I can't speak for the places where this article was published but given this site is its only source this will mostly be read by people that are in general interested in programming or have some interest in open source software. I think we need some kind of future where these genes might be needed to actually help turn the tide on most of the problem with overpopulation, the environment and climate change.

This will most likely not be read by people that do not care about programming or open source software or simply do not care about any of this stuff. They will still reproduce and make the problem bigger. I would say the people that DO care about all these things need to be well represented in the future as well if we want to see change in the future as well.

I am not saying he makes no valid points but these points mostly miss their target audience and are read by the wrong group of people.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#35

Post by bluejekyll »

raverbashing wrote: post #24
theonemind wrote: post #18

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure", or "I feel bad for poor Stallman" or "What a sad man" 3. Are you a parent, or have strong feelings about becoming a parent? If you answered yes on step 3, and want to know how I knew, it's because you disregarded…

Every person is somebody's child "Implications to humanity?" There's no humanity if people don't reproduce. It's that simple

Implications would be that future generations of people would have a functional planet to live on.

Stallman is making the argument that it's acceptable to not have kids for very good reasons, and that many people might be better off not having kids. He is definitely not saaying everyone should stop having kids.

I think all too often people who will turn out to be horrible parents are pressured into having kids. Not everyone should have kids.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#36

Post by craftkiller »

raverbashing wrote: post #24
theonemind wrote: post #18

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure", or "I feel bad for poor Stallman" or "What a sad man" 3. Are you a parent, or have strong feelings about becoming a parent? If you answered yes on step 3, and want to know how I knew, it's because you disregarded…

Every person is somebody's child "Implications to humanity?" There's no humanity if people don't reproduce. It's that simple

He addressed that: "I don't wish that nobody had any children; I don't want humanity to disappear. But there is no risk of that; for the numbers I could hope to influence, the influence is for the good."

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#37

Post by djoldman »

orthoganol wrote: post #23

I think this is the kind of discussion that requires careful disclaimers or self-disqualification from participants. If you have chosen to have kids, or sworn to never have them, your position will be irrevocably slanted. The same goes for discussions about marriage, or fundamental lifestyle choices like being a digital nomad vs. working at a well known tech company. I don't think I have ever seen one side bridge the…

"If you have chosen to have kids, or sworn to never have them, your position will be irrevocably slanted."

This seems to me to be the first step towards an ad hominem argument. Perhaps it would be better to analyze a particular argument's logic rather than its source. If I'm mistaken, I apologize; please advise.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#38

Post by bluejekyll »

crasp wrote: post #34

Disclaimer: I am a parent. Regardles here's my 2c: I can't speak for the places where this article was published but given this site is its only source this will mostly be read by people that are in general interested in programming or have some interest in open source software. I think we need some kind of future where these genes might be needed to actually help turn the tide on most of the problem with overpopulat…

It doesn't necessarily need to be your own kids that you teach these skills to.

There are lots of programs to which you can donate your time to help teach children, and we should all be doing that more.

Yes, there is some amount of genetics that will not get represented, but I don't actually believe that the human genetic pool is so focused that we will actually miss out on some next evolutionary step.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#39

Post by Dateki »

bluejekyll wrote: post #35
raverbashing wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every person is somebody's child "Implications to humanity?" There's no humanity if people don't reproduce. It's that simple

Implications would be that future generations of people would have a functional planet to live on. Stallman is making the argument that it's acceptable to not have kids for very good reasons, and that many people might be better off not having kids. He is definitely not saaying everyone should stop having kids. I think all too often people who will turn out to be horrible parents are pressured into having kids. Not e…

This is a site which works through further arguments.

http://vhemt.org/

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#40

Post by bluejekyll »

orthoganol wrote: post #23

I think this is the kind of discussion that requires careful disclaimers or self-disqualification from participants. If you have chosen to have kids, or sworn to never have them, your position will be irrevocably slanted. The same goes for discussions about marriage, or fundamental lifestyle choices like being a digital nomad vs. working at a well known tech company. I don't think I have ever seen one side bridge the…

Well, in that case why debate anything at all?

People will always have biases, and if you limit discussions to those that don't have biases, then you remove all real life experience from the debate, at which point how would you possibly reach a valid conclusion?

Stating you bias upfront, then trying to come to objective consensus is the entire point of debate and discussion, isn't it?

Post reply on HN