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

No one wants to have kids anymore

torturechambersmalltalk.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 457 posts

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#431

Post by rendall »

rendall wrote: post #237
notch656a wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No disagreement there, although I think perhaps society should stop treating children as crops to be harvested for the commons. A tragedy of the commons has been created as society claims social security tax from grown children to pay to the elderly, so the economic incentive is to be a free-rider and live off other people's children while having none of your own.

> so the economic incentive is to be a free-rider... I'm reminded of societies in which families have more children than they want because there is no social safety net. Children are the safety net. Talk about harvesting human beings. Children suffer immense pressure and even abuse in such places.

Just to think through this a little bit further. There is a proportion of "free-riders" in every given population, even those without a safety net. Some free-riders will exploit their own children, the government, their family's status, their spouse, or whatever or whoever is at hand. Some people decide they would rather be homeless than exploit anyone. In short, let us acknowledge that free riding is a thing that happens, and that it is usually morally reprehensible.

Which will lead to a more stable society: social safety net, or no social safety net?

In my experience and observation, societies that have protections from poverty seem to be far more stable as compared to societies that do not have them.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#432

Post by mcv »

nicodjimenez wrote: post #422
mcv wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the next 30-40 years, the world's population will continue to grow. And banning condoms or sex is a bit of a weird take. I've got the feeling you're not really talking about population growth, but simply about sex you disapprove of.

It’s not about morality it’s about pragmatism. I don’t want to live in a dying country like Japan with suicide forests and old people committing crimes so they can go to jail and actually have human contact, I want to live in a young and vibrant and growing country. A big part why people are so lonely in USA these days is because of birth rate collapse, people have less siblings and young people are heavily outnumber…

I understand that, but I also don't want to live in a country where people have children they can't afford to raise. Simply forcing people to have kids they don't want is going to create more problems. You have to address why people don't want kids in the first place.

Japan, even more so than the US, is an extremely work-centric country. People there live for work, rather than for their family. Work is their family. If you don't give people time with their actual families and children, why would they have any? People need to work less, and be financially secure enough to raise a family.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#433

Post by [deleted] »

shapefrog wrote: post #341
ehutch79 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real parents consistently make it clear how terrible having kids is. The childless among us hear every complaint and lament about how terrible it is. Why would we do that to ourselves?

There are tons of "having a kid is great" in this thread. I have been present at many conversations in groups along these lines ... in multiple cases, the same people 1 on 1 tell me afterwards the exact opposite, what they have said in a group setting was an outright lie. Nobody wants to be the one who speaks out, everyone is saying its amazing because the others say it is amazing.

[deleted]

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#434

Post by rhn_mk1 »

gls2ro wrote: post #429
thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #36

> But deep down I get it. Babies are a huge opportunity cost. Financially speaking, they are like winning the lottery but backwards. You can't even think of having one without cancelling your subscription to a good night's sleep. And if you take into account inflation, economic recession, and the rest of the news cycle's highlight reel, even a one-child family can seem to have one too many mouths to fish Lego pieces…

Just to preface this with: I don't try to convince you of anything, nor anyone else. But there is a side of this conversation that I almost never see discussed: What I want to add to this conversation is the following: it is a privilege (in the true sense that only a small group can afford to do this) for you to be able to decide not to have children and keep your conform. And this priviledge relies or borrows on the…

By the time the person without children retires, they already completed the duty of supporting the previous generation, making your case for a tax weaker.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#435

Post by Theory42 »

osullivj wrote: post #148
thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #36

> But deep down I get it. Babies are a huge opportunity cost. Financially speaking, they are like winning the lottery but backwards. You can't even think of having one without cancelling your subscription to a good night's sleep. And if you take into account inflation, economic recession, and the rest of the news cycle's highlight reel, even a one-child family can seem to have one too many mouths to fish Lego pieces…

The shift from child free adult to parent is similar in scale to adolescence. Can you remember being a pre-sexual child, all the confusion of teendom, and then sexual maturity. As a sexually mature adult, would you ever elect to revert to being a pre-sexual person? That's the best analogy I can give to explain how parenthood changes you. Life is messier and more complex afterwards, just like sex, but immeasurably ric…

I don't have kids; I really like this perspective, though. I don't happen to share it, but I can appreciate it.

It's obviously a necessary and good thing for people to have children if humanity is going to continue. However, one thing that isn't discussed much by Team Parents is the prospect of there being too much of a good thing. The population explosion over the last 150ish years is a clear trade between more people and less everything else in the natural world. At some point (now, anyone?), that trade is not worth making. It's an irresponsible trade. Does not promote the maturity of society, even if it matures the individual.

What say ye to this line of reasoning? I grant you that city-living and domestication is 'naturally' reigning things in as far as population growth, hence the article. I'm asserting that perhaps there is a kind of virtue in foregoing the wonderful self sacrificial experience known as being a parent, in that the childless are helping the general state of affairs.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#436

Post by egman_ekki »

jleyank wrote: post #82

If the state wants babies let it act so as to make them easier to have. Medical care, parental leave, inexpensive day care even per child funding. Some have done this but it’s in disagreement with the conservative approach to governing. People get what they vote for.

Why would a/the state wanted babies? The most rational thing to want is educated proffessionals from lower cost countries (so you can lowball them more easily) who pay their taxes and stay until retirement, and then they can be sent where they came from for retirement. Minimum social and education costs, maximum tax income, lower costs of doing business for local population who would still be mostly in charge of local companies.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#437

Post by inetknght »

nicodjimenez wrote: post #425
inetknght wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans like kids naturally especially their own. I personally do not like children. I know a lot of unnatural humans then; a lot of humans who neither like kids nor ever want kids of their own. And there's many (!!!) anecdotes of people who had children they do not like or want. And that's on top of the responsible adults who realize that they can't afford to give a child a healthy loving home when they can't even…

Healthy loving homes are over rated. A lot of the best people I know didn’t grow up in such environments and ALL of the worst people I know grew up in “healthy loving homes” where parents made lots of money. For example Jeff Bezos’ mom had him when she was still in high school and struggled quite a bit. You say you don’t like children because you don’t have any. It’s that simple.

> Healthy loving homes are over rated.

No, they are not.

> A lot of the best people I know didn’t grow up in such environments.

Cool. Same here.

> ALL of the worst people I know grew up in “healthy loving homes” where parents made lots of money.

Remember that correlation is not causation.

> For example Jeff Bezos’ mom had him when she was still in high school and struggled quite a bit.

I know not Jeff Bezos and I am not so egotistic to judge him one of the "worst" people I know as such. I only know he's rich on paper and has built a large and profitable business empire. Good for him. I don't agree with how he uses that empire, and I believe that it's used for bad purposes at many layers. But I'm not a part of that empire and I also believe that any large empire falls into similar categories. Is that the fault of Jeff Bezos though? I can recognize an argument for it but that doesn't make it true. There are many (!) confounding situations such that he's could simply be a product of the people and circumstances around him. That doesn't make him one of the worst people.

Have you actually met Jeff Bezos?

> You say you don’t like children because you don’t have any. It’s that simple.

I think it's extremely presumptuous of you to assume why I do or do not like something. Your comments here so far come across as extremely, almost dangerously, naive and bigoted.

I've spent a lot of time introspecting myself to learn why I do or do not like things. I can tell you right now that it's not because I don't have any. It's the opposite. I don't have any children because I know I would not be good to them. I don't enjoy dealing with children. I enjoy typing, video games, building things, burning things, and being alone.

I know that because I grew up in a poor and abusive family. I grew up in a large family as the second-oldest of nine children. I raised my siblings myself. I saw early on how neglectful parents cause problems, how cruel children can intentionally be, and how people who could help but don't are even worse.

I've had many opportunities to work with children, forcefully and voluntarily. I have never ever enjoyed the experiences. So, frankly, your comment here is disrespectful and sociopathic. Not everyone enjoys children and you are wrong to assume that everyone must enjoy the things that you enjoy.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#438

Post by osullivj »

Theory42 wrote: post #435
osullivj wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shift from child free adult to parent is similar in scale to adolescence. Can you remember being a pre-sexual child, all the confusion of teendom, and then sexual maturity. As a sexually mature adult, would you ever elect to revert to being a pre-sexual person? That's the best analogy I can give to explain how parenthood changes you. Life is messier and more complex afterwards, just like sex, but immeasurably ric…

I don't have kids; I really like this perspective, though. I don't happen to share it, but I can appreciate it. It's obviously a necessary and good thing for people to have children if humanity is going to continue. However, one thing that isn't discussed much by Team Parents is the prospect of there being too much of a good thing. The population explosion over the last 150ish years is a clear trade between more peop…

Perfectly sound line of reasoning. The obvious counter is to point out that many of the world's biggest economies require young productive folk paying taxes to support the elderly. That's a problem for developed economies with falling birth rates and low immigration. And the counter to that counter is to point at the economic model that bakes in the requirement for growth.

Remaining childfree avoids a lot of exhausting and messy complications. Just as remaining celibate avoids emotional entanglements and STDs, at the cost of loneliness. Historically, virtue has attached to celibacy in many religious traditions. Maybe a sufficiently strong and pervasive environmentalist worldview could impute virtue to the childfree. It is possible to change popular ethics in a decade or so: cf LGBTQ rights or attitudes to drink driving.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#439

Post by rapsey »

DonHopkins wrote: post #428
rapsey wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice straw man you have built here. I did not answer your question because it is absurd. There is a difference between having an opinion and forcing that opinion on others. My children are their own people and they are allowed to disagree and I will not hold it against them. Because I love them more than they can understand until they have children themselves. I however hope they will be confident and flexible in the…

You didn't answer my questions because they made my point and you don't want to follow what you said through to its logical conclusions and ultimate consequences. It's not my questions that are absurd, it's your condescending attitude and statements, and I specifically asked you those questions to point out the absurdity of what you said, and by refusing to answer you proved my point. Your demeaning judgements could…

Ad hominem

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#440

Post by gls2ro »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #434
gls2ro wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to preface this with: I don't try to convince you of anything, nor anyone else. But there is a side of this conversation that I almost never see discussed: What I want to add to this conversation is the following: it is a privilege (in the true sense that only a small group can afford to do this) for you to be able to decide not to have children and keep your conform. And this priviledge relies or borrows on the…

By the time the person without children retires, they already completed the duty of supporting the previous generation, making your case for a tax weaker.

So lets see:

Person A (no children) gives 60% of all income for 40 years.

Person B (with children) gives 60% of all income and a child which will work and generate income and give taxes

Are you saying they are equal when thinking who contributes more for the future of society?

Post reply on HN