Hacker News Reader

Comment by gertef | Hacker News Reader

And if you have more children, the prospect of losing one is less daunting, so we don't need to spent ever-increasing sums to eliminate risk.

RAID is not just for computers...

View on HN

Childhood mortality is far lower now than even 50 years ago, falling by 2/3 in the US in that time period.[1] The risks are lower, the consequences proportionally higher in response to that pressure - less replacements, as it were.

[1]https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality/

You clearly don't have children do you?

My grandfather was one of thirteen children in his family. Only seven lived into their twenties. Life could be brutal and fleeting back then.

It's not that children weren't loved as much back then, but when you had events like the Spanish Flu and World War II that claimed millions of lives, events well beyond your control, protecting kids from trivial risks probably didn't seem as big a deal.

Kids are tougher than we give them credit for, but they're also prone to do things that are more dangerous than they realize. I'm not sure as a society we've ever found a balance between letting them run wild and keeping them on a tight leash, we seem to flop from one extreme to another.

I do, and he's right. You clearly don't have more than a half dozen children, with both boys and girls.

It might be taboo to say this, but "I have spares" really makes a difference. People who lose their only son or only daughter seem to fall apart, especially if replacement is no longer an option.

It might be less "I have spares" and more "well, I've got these other kids who still need functioning adult parents, can't fall apart just yet", and then you muddle through for another 10-20 years until those kids are adults, and by that time you've had time to deal with the loss without completely losing your shit.

Human beings are not fungible components.

Tell that to my boss.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com