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

The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 201 posts

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#31

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

Uinchuling wrote: post #14
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was agreeing with you until you wrote: > we're decreasing, the typical white middle-class couple is facing extinction. [...] I don't mean this with a grain of racism Please don't do this. "We" on HN and in the west and in world in general is incredibly diverse. Your comment disrespects this human diversity. Please take some time to think about that.

[flagged]

"Our very survival" is not threatened and you know it. Pretty sure no wealth-controlling multi-billionaires look like indigenous Bolivians.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#32

Post by lm28469 »

remoquete wrote: post #11

I've three kids. It's wonderful, it's exhausting, and it's often terrifying. Being a parent is a painful experience, but so is living life. Would my life be easier and less painful without them? Yes. Would my life be better without them? No, just different. I respect antinatalists, but I chose differently. I chose to bring laughter and joy to this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit, even if for a brief lapse. Is i…

I think you get it backward, lot of people would like to have kids, the problem isn't life with kids, it's life with modern jobs and everything that come with them

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#33

Post by _hzw »

remoquete wrote: post #11

I've three kids. It's wonderful, it's exhausting, and it's often terrifying. Being a parent is a painful experience, but so is living life. Would my life be easier and less painful without them? Yes. Would my life be better without them? No, just different. I respect antinatalists, but I chose differently. I chose to bring laughter and joy to this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit, even if for a brief lapse. Is i…

It's interesting to note that you consider having children a selfish choice, because in some cultures, not having children is considered selfish.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#34

Post by menschmanfred »

Affric wrote: post #26
remoquete wrote: post #11

I've three kids. It's wonderful, it's exhausting, and it's often terrifying. Being a parent is a painful experience, but so is living life. Would my life be easier and less painful without them? Yes. Would my life be better without them? No, just different. I respect antinatalists, but I chose differently. I chose to bring laughter and joy to this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit, even if for a brief lapse. Is i…

Life is what any of us make it. The antinatalist position is fundamentally fatalistic. It’s a total negation of the one redeeming feature of the universe: anything could happen. I respect not having kids. The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense.

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.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#35

Post by remoquete »

lm28469 wrote: post #32
remoquete wrote: post #11

I've three kids. It's wonderful, it's exhausting, and it's often terrifying. Being a parent is a painful experience, but so is living life. Would my life be easier and less painful without them? Yes. Would my life be better without them? No, just different. I respect antinatalists, but I chose differently. I chose to bring laughter and joy to this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit, even if for a brief lapse. Is i…

I think you get it backward, lot of people would like to have kids, the problem isn't life with kids, it's life with modern jobs and everything that come with them

Life with kids has always been problematic.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#36

Post by maccard »

keyle wrote: post #6

I have two kids. It's tough. But this kind of "opinion" column on a large network is just despicable. Kids is the hardest thing to come to life, I call it "life on hard mode". And I've moved across the world. But the gains are immense. You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're lea…

> going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring.

As opposed to sitting at home with your partner when you're 40+ because your kids are out being teenagers and you need to be available in case they need you? Life at either extreme looks boring.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#37

Post by ben_w »

notfried wrote: post #18

For 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 :)

I've just turned 40, and I'm currently childless, but not because that was my goal. Twice wanted to settle down with a woman, but I wasn't her Mr Right. I'm still friends with the second, but she's (metaphorically) married to her activism; she and I split just as I moved to Germany which was itself just before the pandemic.

Then I ended up with a boyfriend, but medical tech isn't quite there yet for Mpreg :P

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#38

Post by wkat4242 »

supersrdjan wrote: post #21
wkat4242 wrote: post #3

I can imagine. For me it's the reason also to not want kids. I want to enjoy my life. But it's good for environmental reasons to not have kids anyway.

The environmental argument against kids insults me (not that you should care). As if it's a binary choice between preserving the environment and preserving our species. I like to think that humans of tomorrow will find ways to solve problems we don't yet know how, so that we can save the environment and our species :) That said, here's a fine poem in support of your angle: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419…

It's not as if less people having kids leads to humanity becoming extinct. We're still growing way too fast. Some people will just want them and that's fine.

It's just something that was previously seen as a virtue (or for example for Catholics almost a holy priority) is now becoming a hobby. And if not everyone takes up that hobby we can be sustainable for a lot longer. Even a population decline wouldn't be bad after we've been growing so hard as a species.

Of course we can't keep growing forever. And hoping the future comes up with a magical answer is exactly how we got into the climate mess we're in right now.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#40

Post by anonymousDan »

menschmanfred wrote: post #34
Affric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life is what any of us make it. The antinatalist position is fundamentally fatalistic. It’s a total negation of the one redeeming feature of the universe: anything could happen. I respect not having kids. The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense.

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.

What nonsense. Having kids is not selfish.
Post reply on HN