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

41–50 of 65 posts

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

#41

Post by Jamesbeam »

fourthark wrote: post #30
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…

You can certainly pass values down to the next generation without having kids.

Sure you can, it's not exclusive to your kids.

But let me give you an example. My ancestry is very well documented back to 1100ish.

Most of my ancestors had either a military function or later on were law enforcement officers. When I grew up, my parents left me the choice to do anything I want.My grades were good enough to go to a University and become a doctor or lawyer. But since I've been a child I had a natural desire to protect people. I did that in school. And well I am retired now, but I did that for all of my life more or less.

This could of course just be imagination as there is no scientific proof.

But I think that some of these values were passed down our bloodline. And that is just different than learning values from someone else. It's like an imprint.

So if you decide not to have kids and you don't have a brother or sister who can keep the bloodline going that is an absolutely fine choice, but it's also a shame that that genetics and traits that were passed down for centuries get lost.

English is not my mother tongue, I hope you can get my point.

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

#42

Post by darod »

While the overpopulation argument is debatable, the decision to have or not have kids is a personal one. While some believe reproduction is our prime directive as a life form, I would argue passing information to the next generation is our prime directive. Whether it's through DNA or a book, this is the way our species evolves each generation.

On another note, I find it interesting that having been inflicted with cancer at 33 that I have friends who still encourage me to have kids. I don't think changing diapers between rounds of chemo would be a wise decision.

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

#43

Post by clinth »

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…

Yes, No, Yes. However, it's possible to be a parent, read and understand his position, and not get into personal attacks. I respect Stallman a mountain, including his choice not to have kids, but the essay is muddied.

It starts with explaining why it wasn't good for him and continues on to urge others to not have children, with the reasoning that not everyone will read this essay. It's not a complete thought. It's like saying that you've seen bad software projects, and the time for those people would have been better spent somewhere else, so everyone reading this comment shouldn't do software, because there are more than enough software engineers. There's a better version of this essay within itself.

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

#44

Post by dingaling »

darod wrote: post #42

While the overpopulation argument is debatable, the decision to have or not have kids is a personal one. While some believe reproduction is our prime directive as a life form, I would argue passing information to the next generation is our prime directive. Whether it's through DNA or a book, this is the way our species evolves each generation. On another note, I find it interesting that having been inflicted with can…

> Whether it's through DNA or a book, this is the way our species evolves each generation.

That's a great point and although I am currently raising a toddler I really don't feel that I've 'contributed' to society or humanity in general at this point. Many colleagues talk about their hope that their kids will 'grow up to do something great' but that's abstract and wishy.

My wife was very keen to have a child before she was too old to accept the risks, so we did so. But I'd much rather have put the time and money into research for a book that would propagate at least a little knowledge forward in time.

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

#45

Post by LisaDziuba »

If I told it to my mother, that would be the worst disappointment in her life. In our culture, you must be married and have children (before 25 y.o). Otherwise, you are not normal and everybody around (parents, friends, acquaintances) will ask you stupid questions:

"when are planning to merry?" "when are planning to have children?" + long educational lecture on why it's so important. That's a disaster.

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

#46

Post by clinth »

I have a ton of respect for people who choose not to have children, for whatever reason. Good on them. I think the societal drive to marry and have children is bullshit, especially for women. You can be a fully-realized person without children.

Having said that, it's not a bad choice to have children. This essay covers a lot of ground very quickly, but the part about effort distribution resonated with me and I disagree with it. Yes, career plus family are challenging, but I'm glad I have both.

There's never 100% done with with anything, including parenting and work. I don't know a single person who has fully accomplished everything they want to do, no matter how singly focused they are. I don't know what 100% parenting would look like. Kids aren't sculpture which stop progressing when not being worked. They're people. Yes, as a parent you spend time with them, and thinking of them, but you're not failing when you're thinking of something else.

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

#47

Post by diea »

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…

No, no, maybe (I am 25y/o)

I read many responses mentioning you should have kids to 'pass on your genes' so potentially your offspring can be a 'better you' and improve the world.

I would argue that adoption could be a good alternative. When adopting, you are potentially doing all this without actually contributing to the world population increase.

Also, I think RMS made a respectable choice, and probably indeed contributed more to society than if he would have had kids. Not having kids is IMHO probably a harder decision than actually having kids.

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

#48

Post by Normal_gaussian »

reducesuffering wrote: post #22
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #9

Whilst in principle I agree with him the piece reads as a desperate post-event justification for not having had children. I think the real reasons he has no children can be found in the last email on this page: https://stallman.org/ex-boyfriends-list.html As for having children - it is something I am greatly concerned about. Personally I really want children, though I do not want them unless I am convinced I am with…

Oh wow. Those emails could very well explain why he doesn't have children. Why would he put those up?

It was the fourth link on a google search for "stallman married".

As to why somebody would put such a thing up I don't know. I started to click around his site a bit more after posting and became increasingly uncomfortable.

I find it saddening, but of what I did see of the rest it seems he views his ventures into personal relationships as amusing, and I can't help but consider such openness in his specific case to be useful as a warning for those in our society who may fall down a similar path without intending to.

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

#49

Post by Thiez »

Jamesbeam wrote: post #41
fourthark wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can certainly pass values down to the next generation without having kids.

Sure you can, it's not exclusive to your kids. But let me give you an example. My ancestry is very well documented back to 1100ish. Most of my ancestors had either a military function or later on were law enforcement officers. When I grew up, my parents left me the choice to do anything I want.My grades were good enough to go to a University and become a doctor or lawyer. But since I've been a child I had a natural d…

> So if you decide not to have kids and you don't have a brother or sister who can keep the bloodline going that is an absolutely fine choice, but it's also a shame that that genetics and traits that were passed down for centuries get lost.

That's silly, unless you family has been has been having a single child for each generation the last 9 centuries, the genes of your ancestors from back then will probably be in hundreds or thousands of people living today. On average, people have been having more than two children per family for hundreds of years, so each generation you go back will have exponentially more descendants, and up to some limit the number of ancestors you have also doubles each generation you go back. Of course once you go back far enough it turns out we're all related.

So it may be the case that some of the genes of your direct parents will not get passed on if you and your siblings never have children. But it's extremely unlikely that this means the end of a 900 year bloodline.

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

#50

Post by unclenoriega »

diea wrote: post #47
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…

No, no, maybe (I am 25y/o) I read many responses mentioning you should have kids to 'pass on your genes' so potentially your offspring can be a 'better you' and improve the world. I would argue that adoption could be a good alternative. When adopting, you are potentially doing all this without actually contributing to the world population increase. Also, I think RMS made a respectable choice, and probably indeed cont…

I think you're right, but your phrasing is a bit odd. If you adopt, you are explicitly not passing on your genes. I think a better word here is 'memes' (in the original sense) or 'values' if 'memes' is too polluted.
Post reply on HN