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

Having Kids

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 902 posts

Re: Having Kids

#721

Post by WhiteAussie »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #690
whiddershins wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off I agree with you about the parent’s comment. Second of all the cost of living thing makes no sense. People throughout all of time were poorer and had more kids, and people tend to have less kids during this time period when they have more advantages. The notion that one “needs” a certain amount of wealth to have kids is actually an expression of values: some minimum material baseline that is arbitrary from…

Well we shouldn't compare across all history to look at families that lived in abject squalor compared to today with atrocious infant mortality rates. We should compare to recent history, such as the economic conditions experienced by the greatest/silent generation, baby boomers, and Gen X before reaching our current economic scenario where aging millenials and older gen-Z folks are putting off having children. Look…

To me, this sounds ridiculous. There are far more important things in life than maintaining that Bay Area lifestyle. The birth rate in Niger is over 7. You can't tell me that the average woman in Niger enjoys a wealthier standard of living such that she can support over 7 children.

I know, 7 is ridiculous too. But there's got to be a happy medium. Relatively wealthy Westerners can't afford to have enough children of our own even to maintain our current numbers, yet we can afford to send billions to Africa where women are having 7+ on average with many of them moving to our countries to take advantage of our wealth...? Something doesn't add up. Even among our own people, plenty of broke, unemployed teenagers are having no trouble reproducing.

I'd suggest you re-evaluate what's important in life. In 60 years, your boss won't be there by the side of your deathbed lovingly holding your hand as you pass into the void. Your colleagues won't remember your name or all those giggles at the family dinner table. Your clients will never give you a hug and a kiss as you walk in the door after a hard day at work to make it all worthwhile.

What are you going to do with the last 40 years of your life?

Re: Having Kids

#722

Post by city41 »

buboard wrote: post #471
jumelles wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's the total opposite of what the planet needs.

The planet needs less cars, not less people. It's entirely fatalistic to assume that future humans will have the same unhealthy habits as we do

Not having children is the single most impactful thing one can have on their carbon footprint. I simply can’t imagine with the way society is going, that this will change in many generations.

Re: Having Kids

#723

Post by WhiteAussie »

astura wrote: post #631
WhiteAussie wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you feel pity for Group A? The most important thing in their lives is a movie and hanging out? They're just killing time. What's even the point?

Why would you make a throw away account just to repeatedly insult people for not having kids? That's extremely sad.

Not a throwaway. Are new members not allowed?

If I'm insulting anyone, it's only out of genuine concern rather than intent to denigrate. I don't want them waking up one day at 45 realising they've missed their chance and have 40+ long years of emptiness and regret to reflect on their mistake. I don't want them observing the demographic changes around them with overwhelming guilt for their doing nothing.

I want them to experience the joy and fulfilment of family. Parenthood fundamentally changes people. I see it. You do too.

Re: Having Kids

#724

Post by kortilla »

abalashov wrote: post #675
kmarc wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm... I thought the 9-5, office work, working for other people/businesses are the modern inventions and for tens of thousands of years mankind spent 80%+ of the day with their offsprings/families/villages. It's interesting to think that "quality time" which in this context simply means "2 hours per day together" should be enough. This is not how humans evolved. As harsh as it sounds, the philosophical question above…

This question assumes that daycare is just, generically, a warehouse for kids. That is certainly true of some daycares. Some do perform a useful pedagogical function, more in line with what one can expect in more well-developed public state kindergarten/preschool/daycare systems in the Western European states. Moreover, as a sibling commenter pointed out, they get to see other kids there and develop socially--and thi…

American kids in the suburbs play with each other without being placed in daycare intern camps (at least out here in the west).

Re: Having Kids

#725

Post by licebmi__at__ »

triangleman wrote: post #131

Hey guys. Anyone else have the experience of having kids, getting a burst of energy, but of course all that energy goes directly back into the kids and house, and you have absolutely no life for 3-5 years or more? Because my kids are 2 and 4 and so far it's been 4 years of no life, no freelance clients, almost no learning/hobbies, just 35-40 hours a week of working as much as I can at the office and then everything i…

It might be more difficult for you as you have 2 kids, but my approach is that there's a lot of interesting stuff to work on and learn that might align with your own kids' interests.

As for myself, just to name a few; I got the opportunity to build big stuff with lego, I learnt how to draw, got to know a lot more about mythology to tell him stories, honed my cooking skills, I even tried golfing (it was boring for both of us).

My kid at this moment is only 5, but I can say that my interests and myself as a human is greater than before. I might have delved deeper into some stuff if I didn't have him, but I think my perspective would be smaller.

Re: Having Kids

#726

Post by kortilla »

coldtea wrote: post #582
kmarc wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm... I thought the 9-5, office work, working for other people/businesses are the modern inventions and for tens of thousands of years mankind spent 80%+ of the day with their offsprings/families/villages. It's interesting to think that "quality time" which in this context simply means "2 hours per day together" should be enough. This is not how humans evolved. As harsh as it sounds, the philosophical question above…

> for tens of thousands of years mankind spent 80%+ of the day with their offsprings/families/villages For tens of thousands of years kids played with other kids or hanged in the village watched by the older people in the community, while fathers did some guild style job or worked at the fields, and moms cooked and tended the house. They got together to eat and sleep at various points. For less fortunate families, ki…

If you’re living hand-to-mouth, that’s not a great environment for your kids anyway. Not being in that position is privileged, but it’s a privilege shared by all of the middle and upper class in western societies, which is who dominates this readership.

Not every comment needs to disclaim its privilege because the author speaks English, is literate, and has access to the internet.

Re: Having Kids

#727

Post by kortilla »

blago wrote: post #689
mrfusion wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. That also sounds appalling g to me to see your kids 2 hours a day and putting them to bed early on top of that.

People are responding to how the argument was presented, not the premise. The post contained a lot of presumptions, logical fallacies, and judgment. Some examples: > And then people wonder why... > ...they only interact with you for 1-2 hours during the day > ...don't really know who you are > Why have kids at all... > ...all you do is try to get away from them and make them not bother you... Combined with the userna…

Which logical fallacies would those be?

Re: Having Kids

#728

Post by kortilla »

coldtea wrote: post #575
kmarc wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's rather more time than kids historically got. But... But... Any reference to this? All I can see here that some people think that "history" is how their great-grandparents were. No! After industrialization and urbanization, so less then a couple hundred years ago did humans start this new lifestyle. You don't even have to travel back in time, just travel to places where tribes and their commons are still around…

If you check the people from the 15th century, 1950s villages, or even the "tribes" you mention, you'll find that the children are either helping (small tasks, actually working, after a certain still young age), hanging out with members of the community at large, or mostly playing around with other children. They don't hang out with the parents after a certain age, and they don't helicopter them...

Most of the work children did was for the parents. That’s spending time with them.

Re: Having Kids

#729

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

unfocused wrote: post #673
triangleman wrote: post #131

Hey guys. Anyone else have the experience of having kids, getting a burst of energy, but of course all that energy goes directly back into the kids and house, and you have absolutely no life for 3-5 years or more? Because my kids are 2 and 4 and so far it's been 4 years of no life, no freelance clients, almost no learning/hobbies, just 35-40 hours a week of working as much as I can at the office and then everything i…

-Do go on vacations with your kids. You are investing in having them travel with you in the future, and liking it. You can do it! Just give them tasks and treat them with respect. -Ignore the kids menu. It's shit. Just order off the regular menu and share with your kids. -Some kids are hard to raise, some are easy. You will probably have both if you many more than 1. C'est la vie. -If you're like me and value time, g…

You should most definitely not take them on vacation and traveling. You are already forcing them to live their adult lives in a world wrecked by climate change, no need to hasten the demise even faster. Stay at home and teach them skills useful in their future, like growing crops and repairing failing machinery.

Re: Having Kids

#730

Post by nl »

bryanmgreen wrote: post #459
throwaway2519 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my kids started school at 4. I've put them in full time after school care as well, ending at 6pm > you get them asleep before 8pm > you can give them a book and that will keep them quiet And then people wonder why kids don't listen to and respect their parents when they grow up. You're basically just giving school teachers full control to raise your kids at age of 4, and they only interact with you for 1-2 hours du…

No clue why you're being downvoted. I too wonder why anyone would want children if they don't actively want to spend time and raise them.

It's being downvoted because it seems exactly like the kind of advice a non-parent gives to parents before they have to deal with the reality of the costs of children and how modern work is structured.

It's unsympathetic, unhelpful, and doesn't sound like it's based on anything except the author's prejudices about how "things should be".

Raising kids is hard.

As other posters have pointed out it's at least partially wrong, too in the sense that historically non-parents were much more involved than they are now.

Post reply on HN