Please, join the anti-natalist movement. I need more space for the swimming pool in the backyard.
The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
131–140 of 201 posts
Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
#132For those of you who decided not to have kids in your 20s-30s, and are now in your 40s+, when changing that decision now becomes increasingly more difficult: did you regret it? Did your position of “I want to live my life, I don’t want the hassle or the cost, or there are too many humans already, or something else”, did that position change or weaken? Asking for a friend :)
In my 40s, never wanted kids, and my position hasn't changed at all.
I've never really had the urge, and it's only ever been friends/relatives pushing the "you should have kids, they're amazing!" narrative.
I'm sure they are, but I equate it with e.g. painting. I'm sure painting is very enjoyable, frustrating at times, and can bring a ton of joy and wonder to the world. But I just don't enjoy painting, or have any desire to learn, and don't feel the world is so desperately short of artists that I have a duty to do it.
Seeing many friends of mine seriously struggle with money and time also convinces me I made the right choice. I also don't envy a lot of issues they have to go through, e.g. bullying, teen pregancy, phone addiction, tuition fees, serious/lifelong medical issues, etc.
Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's weird how a whole bunch of parents jump into threads like these to tell us all about how totally awesome having kids is. I love my son, but it's also easily one of the hardest things I've ever done and will continue to be so for the next 18+ years. I wouldn't recommend having children to anyone: it's a singularity, and there's also no undoing it. You need to be very sure it's what you want. It will be expensive,…
It's a different experience for different people. Why wouldn't parent's comment if they enjoy having kids? It's no different than the people who jumped in to state the reasons why they wouldn't have kids, why do they do it? Why did you feel the need to put your comment in, maybe answer that too? I think it's weird how someone always jumps in to comment on how weird it is that some people jump in to comment. I've got…
> I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Or not recommend it.
That's the point: these aren't equal opposites.
The answer to "should I have children?" is "you have to decide that for yourself but be aware of what it is you're deciding".
Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having kids is the hardest thing anyone can ever do — I am thinking of counterpoints while writing, but none comes to mind. However, I recommend having children. It is, contrary to some commenters, not a selfish thing to do, but a completely selfless act. You can see it for yourself when you watch the children around you: The pure joy of being alive! The full range of emotions! The good, the bad and the ugly… You cou…
> Having kids is the hardest thing anyone can ever do Ok I'll bite. It's not anywhere near the hardest thing anyone can ever do. It's very easy to get started, most people just do it day by day, it's integrated with life, and throwing in the towel is kinda frowned upon. I'm sorry your kid had colic, my first had the same although not for as long and my second would just scream in bed when she was a little older so I'…
> and throwing in the towel is kinda frowned upon.
For me this was the hardest part. You don't get to get out. Maybe it's a mindset thing.
Starting a book, an app, a diet. You all can just throw the towel and be done. Kids, not an option.
Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's weird how a whole bunch of parents jump into threads like these to tell us all about how totally awesome having kids is. I love my son, but it's also easily one of the hardest things I've ever done and will continue to be so for the next 18+ years. I wouldn't recommend having children to anyone: it's a singularity, and there's also no undoing it. You need to be very sure it's what you want. It will be expensive,…
> it will limit what you can do in all sorts of ways You are literally adding N + 1 complexity to the universe. There is a whole world of possibility opened through having children. What you see as reduced options is actually a series of choices you decided you’d want to have to make. And good parents choose the options that payoff in the long term.
When an infant needs feeding and cleaning every 4 hours, believe me your choices in life haven't "expanded".
That doesn't mean it's bad. But it's also not going to end (it will however, get different - but not easier).
Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a selfish thing to do. Nonetheless nothing I condemn. At the end of the day it's harder not to have kids and stop this cycle than not, thanks to evolution.
This is a remarkable inversion. The primary reason people forego children in the west is because it throws a wrench in their comfortable lifestyle. They prefer to live unto themselves, instead of unto children, i.e. selfishly. I believe the environmental/climactic concerns raised by antinatalists are just a feeble deflection. They are primarily interested in personal comfort.
I think I never wanted children because I realized quite young that there’s no god and when I died I would be done and gone and nothing I had done would ever have mattered. It did not make for a happy childhood and is not something I’d wish upon a child. And I don’t even have any happy stories about religion to pass onto a child like my parents tried to impart on me.
If I were to create people in order to try and find some meaning but leaving them as adrift in this meaninglessness as I, would that really be a selfless act? It seems quite the opposite to me.
Perhaps this is indeed “cope” in one way or another, but it’s what I’ve felt from a very young age, though I think it took me a lot of reflection to realize it and be able to put it into words.
Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense. We're in a world where we constantly told that we have to give up meat/dairy, powered transport, heating/cooling, and a whole lot more to avert climate catastrophe. I'm surprised there's so few mentions of the incredible destructiveness of having kids (e.g. vs. owning an ICE car or taking a few flights per year)
What's the point of averting climate catastrophe? I thought it was to avoid human extinction. Having kids and no cars helps ensure the continuation of humanity. Turns out there's only one sure way to ensure human extinction, and it's for humans to stop reproducing.
Not in all cases - I know people that don't hold any special place in their hearts for humanity as a whole.
They see human extinction as a possibility to accept, rather than as something to necessarily avoid.
I know a few people like this, and their reasons vary. These range from "if humanity goes extinct, it's god's will" to "dinosaurs went extinct and the earth survived, something else will evolve if we're not here" to "we've shown we can't be trusted to care for the planet, let nature take its course".
In most cases they'd rather avert climate catasrophe, but for the continued habitability of the planet (for many species), rather than for the continuation of humanity.
Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point of averting climate catastrophe? I thought it was to avoid human extinction. Having kids and no cars helps ensure the continuation of humanity. Turns out there's only one sure way to ensure human extinction, and it's for humans to stop reproducing.
Climate change won't cause human extinction. It will cause destruction of the environment, leading to it being able to support even less people than it does now. Because nature can't keep up with the speed we're changing it. But human extinction, no. Some areas will even become more habitable. And humans will only become extinct if everyone stops having kids which won't happen because some people like having them.
The bottom-end of "human's as a species still exist" is not an existence you are familiar with or want, and is worse then what our hunter-gatherer forebears had to deal with.
> Some areas will even become more habitable.
Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.
Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs. Famously easy to switch to this when you live in an HMO in Statesville, State USA or a housing development in Suburbiton, Townshire UK.
They said they spend 10k a month for their kids. I lived in the bay area before. My rent was like 2.5k. 10k outflow a month is fucking insane. Its absolutely indefensibly out of touch spoiled beyond imagination. You could hire a chef and a maid to cook your kids organic bullshit every day, fly around the entire world once a month and still come under 10k. Whatever they are doing to spend that much needs to be reconsi…
Nanny here in NY is $30/h. If you work full time (and commute) you'll need about 10 hours a day. 30x10x5x4 is 6000, then add food (formula is insanely expensive), diapers, clothes, basic medical and you're easily up to 7k/m before they've taken their first steps.
Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Climate change won't cause human extinction. It will cause destruction of the environment, leading to it being able to support even less people than it does now. Because nature can't keep up with the speed we're changing it. But human extinction, no. Some areas will even become more habitable. And humans will only become extinct if everyone stops having kids which won't happen because some people like having them.
The bottom-end of "human's as a species still exist" is not an existence you are familiar with or want, and is worse then what our hunter-gatherer forebears had to deal with. > Some areas will even become more habitable. Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.
> The bottom-end of "human's as a species still exist" is not an existence you are familiar with or want, and is worse then what our hunter-gatherer forebears had to deal with.
No, but that's the case even now. The bottom end of humanity is having a horrible time. I'm sure people in North Korea or the war-torn countries in Africa won't be that much worse off than they are now.
> Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.
I agree think it will lead to conflict over land, for sure. Siberia might even become a hospitable place :) Mass migrations will cause huge problems for sure and probably even some wars. But again, those things are something we have now too.
But it's not an extinction event, especially not for us here in the west. We'll have to deal with a lot of inconveniences but we have the resources to mitigate them.
It's not fair but really nothing in the world is fair now (and it seems to be getting even worse with pretty much all the world leaders being hardliners now)