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

441–450 of 457 posts

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#441

Post by nicodjimenez »

inetknght wrote: post #437
nicodjimenez wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't "like children" either because I'm a masculine person by nature and I don't have the baby loving gene, but it's a special thing to have a child with a woman you love. I grew to love my kids even though initially it's just a really odd thing to have a newborn in the house. Having kids changes you. It's especially transformative for women.

I hope one day you find a woman you love and have kids and a happy family, perhaps even giving them a more loving home than the one you grew up in yourself.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#442

Post by DonHopkins »

rapsey wrote: post #439
DonHopkins wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At least I'm not making ad hominem attacks against my own children and everyone else who choses not to reproduce themselves, like you did FIRST.

I'm merely pointing out that your own original ad hominem attacks could also apply just as well to your own children, which you don't want to admit.

And that you could drive your children to suicide with that kind of disrespectful attitude, judging your own children's lives as empty and sad, devoid of happiness, and incapable of truly experiencing love, just because they didn't deliver you grandchildren.

Are you really that homophobic and paternalistic, or do you more generally hate and demean and devalue the lives and love of everyone who doesn't breed "equally"?

So be careful, stop being so judgemental and demeaning, and try to be a better parent!

And stop complaining about ad hominem attacks, when you're the one who threw the first stone at the most number of people, possibly including your own children.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#443

Post by nicodjimenez »

Retric wrote: post #426
nicodjimenez wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economy is roughly proportional to number of people and economic growth is roughly lagging indicator of birth rates. China for instance has a billion people which is why it’s economy is so huge but as the birth rate has collapsed so has the economic growth.

It’s per person GDP that matters not total GDP, would you rather be in a tiny rich country like Switzerland or a giant poor one like Pakistan? Also, the data doesn’t support your conclusions in terms of China’s growth. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=C... https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/gdp-growth-r... Looking at per capita growth rates it even goes in the other way with hig…

Switzerland is rich because it's a hub for international trade and finance, and therefore has an "effective market" that is much larger than their actual population. Same was true of England in its heyday. If you cut off international trade and finance Switerland's economy would be a tiny fraction of what it is today.

It's strangely difficult to get intelligent people to understand the basic concept of more people -> bigger economy. Intelligent people a lot of times think that if the logic for something is too obvious and simple it must be false, because if it was true, their favorite intellectual / institution would be saying it.

That's why a lot of times, lower status people actually have more accurate perception of politics than higher status people, because all they have is common sense and their wits, and not some status driven perspective on "the truth", because by definition lower class people aren't winning status games so all they are left with is the truth.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#444

Post by nicodjimenez »

mcv wrote: post #432
nicodjimenez wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

"I understand that, but I also don't want to live in a country where people have children they can't afford to raise."

It's a catch 22, because people can't afford to have kids if there isn't enough economic growth, and not enough optimism for the future. Why would you be optimistic about your country's future if it's going to look like a depopulated geriatric wasteland? Of course people don't want to have kids under such circumstances!

This is why the low birth rate -> low economic growth feedback is so vicious. Smart countries - eg Indonesia - are currently attempting radical social policies to escape this catch 22.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#445

Post by DonHopkins »

rapsey wrote: post #304
RHSeeger wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said that many of their coworkers that had children seem like shells of their former selves. Not all of them, and not by definition. You are saying that anyone that doesn't have children automatically empty and sad. - One of the statements is "in the people I've seen do x, an outcome of y seems common". - The other is "in any person that does x, y is true" Those are not the same thing.

> You are saying that anyone that doesn't have children automatically empty and sad. No I am saying that is what they seem to me. Just like people with children are shells of their former selves to him. You are splitting hairs and putting words in my mouth to make an obvious point. In the end you are just proving me right that one can not express any kind of negative about being childless without having people jump d…

You just don't like it when somebody points out that your own ad hominem attacks could just as well apply to your own children. You threw the first stone, without considering that you could be attacking your very own children too, and now you're mad at me for pointing that out. I'm not the one attacking your children, I'm just pointing out that you are, which is terrible parenting.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#446

Post by mcv »

nicodjimenez wrote: post #444
mcv wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

"I understand that, but I also don't want to live in a country where people have children they can't afford to raise." It's a catch 22, because people can't afford to have kids if there isn't enough economic growth, and not enough optimism for the future. Why would you be optimistic about your country's future if it's going to look like a depopulated geriatric wasteland? Of course people don't want to have kids under…

It's not about economic growth, it's about being able to afford a house big enough to raise kids in, have time to raise them, and be able to give them a good education. Housing costs in particular are so ridiculously high that lots of young people simply can't afford to move out of their parents' place, and if they can, it's to a tiny apartment.

Economic growth isn't going to help them if all that money is going only to the rich, and if you divide society's wealth right, you can still make sure they have enough during low or no economic growth. The problem is in political economic decisions.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#447

Post by DonHopkins »

gls2ro wrote: post #440
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're conspicuously failing to account for the burden on society, the economy, and the environment that your children and their descendants will inflict, which is exponentially larger than a single non-breeder's finite contribution.

And you're also not addressing the fact that maximizing the number of humans on the earth is too much of a good thing, and makes life much worse for an exponentially larger number of people in the long run. Fewer people will suffer the sooner we slow and even gradually reverse population growth.

And you're incorrectly assuming that the only alternative to exponential population growth is sudden extinction, when it's much more likely that sudden extinction is actually the most likely result of overpopulation, due to ecological and climactic collapse and war.

If parents really altruistically cared for the wellbeing of their children and their descendants in the long term, and they're not just self-servingly and short-sightedly breeding in order to make their old age and retirement easier, then they should have fewer children to reduce the destruction they inflict of the environment from overpopulation, and stop driving their children to and from school in gas guzzling SUV minivans, when they could just as well ride their bikes or take a bus or public transit.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#448

Post by dang »

snapcaster wrote: post #118
icare_1er wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It is sort of funny how any anti-natalist political position will get outbred out of existence haha. Reminds me of the Shakers who kind of died off because their belief system prevented procreation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Similarly, there are religions that don't proselytize - like the fascinating Oahspe religion, which has about a dozen "Faithists" left, who meet on Skype.

Orphan Utopia: John Ballou Newbrough’s desert colony (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27175739 - May 2021 (2 comments)

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#449

Post by Copernicron »

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…

How is it a privilege when something like 10% or more of all people to have ever been born never reproduced? Not everyone who doesn’t have kids chose that. Some die before they can. Some are sterile. And some simply never get the chance for one reason or another.

I agree that we all have a duty to society but I disagree that I should have to pay absurd sums of money simply because you say so. I meet my duty how I choose and I already pay for your kids education through my taxes. Comments like that come across as envy that people without kids frequently have more disposable income than those with kids.

Re: No one wants to have kids anymore

#450

Post by Copernicron »

mrighele wrote: post #395
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…

Getting kids is the best retirement investment that you can do, because they will be there to help you when your physical and mental state will start to degrade. They will be the ones taking you to doctor for visits, the ones that will keep you from getting scammed from your retirement money, and in general they will help you navigate the future society that will be much different from the current. So even if you hat…

Bullshit. There is no guarantee your kids will be there for you in your old age. Just look at all the seniors living in care homes that have no one visiting or sending them presents for Christmas. Perfectly normal parents can raise selfish little shits who abandon them in their old age. And some parents are downright awful to their kids and deserve to be alone.

Anecdotally speaking, my grandfather was an abusive old bastard who drove away his children. He died alone. My own father is selfish, negligent, and arguably emotionally abusive. I’m the only one of his children who talks to him and I only do it a few times per year. I know for a fact none of us are going to take him in when he can’t live on his own anymore.

Post reply on HN