281–290 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some days are quite long indeed.
And nights as well for that matter. Years of having a cat made it relatively easy for me to adjust to the odd hours, but nothing could have prepared me against the erratic behaviour of an underdeveloped digestive system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think that’s what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that a new kid is not a no-brainer net gain for society. There is clearly an environmental cost to adding more high-consuming people to the planet. See: the planet. I never said that killing people is good for the environment. While (possibly) technically true, it’s not an argument I’m making. My argument: Cars are bad for the environment, so maybe ride a bike.…
> I’m saying that a new kid is not a no-brainer net gain for society There’s a pretty big excluded middle between “no-brainer net gain for society” and “he worst thing a person in the first world can do to the environment”. If you just mean not the former, don’t actually write the latter. > I never said that killing people is good for the environment. Nor did I say you did. What I did say is that what you did say is…
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t intentionally making a ridiculous trolly argument as a reply. I guess I was wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kids are a distraction to intense work. For what it's worth, I've done my most intense productive work after having children.
Kind of a post hoc ergo propter hoc situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extend your analogy out in time: Three people in their 90s, laying side by side at their deathbeds. One filled their life with friends and experiences, the other did nothing but work, the other raised children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Now who is the winner and who the loser?
It seems like you're firmly on the side of the one with kids, but outside the rhetoric this is an interesting personal question to ask yourself. It puts the opportunity cost of working into perspective and makes you re-evaluate the importance of your work.
Not really. I think it's an interesting mental exercise and can see the pros and cons to all paths.
I think the optimal path is a mixture of all three. Work hard enough to afford the life you want to live (ideally at a job that is itself gratifying and meaningful) and then fill the rest of the time with experiences shared with friends and family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you would be a good parent and want kids, then I believe the idea of delaying is harmful, especially if you are over say 25. Trying to set up the perfect nest, or to save "enough", is not a game that most people can win. At least, the above is from what I have seen of friends that had kids, compared with those that delayed too long.
> If you would be a good parent and want kids, then I believe the idea of delaying is harmful, especially if you are over say 25. 25?!? None of the people I know who have kids started trying for them until their 30s. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying your 20s and having kids when you’re ready.
Another pattern is seeing people in their thirties finding it harder to adjust to the necessary changes because they have got accustomed to a lifestyle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those politicians and businesses people are living their best life, doing the thing they are excellent at. Not what I’d do in their situations but no one asks why a novelist or painter is still practicing their art in their 90s.
An artist or writer would have the bulk of their time in their studio or at their desk. Things that people aspire to do as a hobby. There'd optionally be time at galleries/openings. A politician would have day after day packed with events and travel. You'd need to be switched on, constantly. I can appreciate that a career politician would feel it was their calling, but I often wonder when they plan to step back and l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An artist or writer would have the bulk of their time in their studio or at their desk. Things that people aspire to do as a hobby. There'd optionally be time at galleries/openings. A politician would have day after day packed with events and travel. You'd need to be switched on, constantly. I can appreciate that a career politician would feel it was their calling, but I often wonder when they plan to step back and l…
These politicians and businesspeople are also doing things they’d do as a hobby. They’re talking to tons of people, organizing things and getting things done. They’re doing extrovert things. Not my preference but de gustibus non est disputandum .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind of a post hoc ergo propter hoc situation.
Note that I did not claim that I did my best work because of my kids. Only that my work is an existence proof that the presence of kids does not prevent intense work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that I did not claim that I did my best work because of my kids. Only that my work is an existence proof that the presence of kids does not prevent intense work.
Yeah and your original comment wasn't worth much. How do you know your work wouldn't have been better if you hadn't had kids? Maybe your definition of intense changed when you had kids?
Having a rough day, or are you usually this unkind?
> How do you know your work wouldn't have been better if you hadn't had kids?
Still waiting for my time machine to arrive, but in the absence of that, I can state that I believe my work is better because of having kids.
When I felt like I had a less bounded quantity of free time, I was more inclined to squander it. Once kids made it clear that my time is extremely limited, I experienced a much stronger motivation to get something productive out of the small time I had left.
Also, the kids themselves are a motivation to make more out of my life so that I can provide for them better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kids have a massive carbon footprint and are probably the worst thing a person in the first world can do to the environment. This is true in exactly the same broken sense of value “to the environment” that mass murder (especially of the young and rich) is the best thing one can do to the environment.
This is of course a pretty troll-y argument. Mass murder is massively wrong and unethical, procreation choices are at worst arguably defensible. (Unless you're a religious fanatic of the contraception=murder variety...)