Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012) | Hacker News Reader

Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

stallman.org

51 pointsshubhamjain60 comments

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure", or "I feel bad for poor Stallman" or "What a sad man" 3. Are you a parent, or have strong feelings about becoming a parent?

If you answered yes on step 3, and want to know how I knew, it's because you disregarded that Richard puts his ethical argument for the implications to humanity first, and you go for personal "attacks" rather than addressing the crux of the argument.

Every person is somebody's child

"Implications to humanity?" There's no humanity if people don't reproduce. It's that simple

You are presenting a false dichotomy. The choice is not between everyone having children and no one having children.

Stallman even addresses your objection in his post:

> I don't wish that nobody had any children; I don't want humanity to disappear.

Implications would be that future generations of people would have a functional planet to live on.

Stallman is making the argument that it's acceptable to not have kids for very good reasons, and that many people might be better off not having kids. He is definitely not saaying everyone should stop having kids.

I think all too often people who will turn out to be horrible parents are pressured into having kids. Not everyone should have kids.

This is a site which works through further arguments.

http://vhemt.org/

He addressed that: "I don't wish that nobody had any children; I don't want humanity to disappear. But there is no risk of that; for the numbers I could hope to influence, the influence is for the good."

We can perfectly have a few billions less of humanity and be totally fine.

Thanks for posting this.

It's incredibly frustrating to be attacked for not wanting to have children and continually have to hear negative put downs by people that do.

While I don't see myself in Stallman's personal position, I see the logical big picture and agree.

Yes, No, Yes. However, it's possible to be a parent, read and understand his position, and not get into personal attacks. I respect Stallman a mountain, including his choice not to have kids, but the essay is muddied.

It starts with explaining why it wasn't good for him and continues on to urge others to not have children, with the reasoning that not everyone will read this essay. It's not a complete thought. It's like saying that you've seen bad software projects, and the time for those people would have been better spent somewhere else, so everyone reading this comment shouldn't do software, because there are more than enough software engineers. There's a better version of this essay within itself.

No, no, maybe (I am 25y/o)

I read many responses mentioning you should have kids to 'pass on your genes' so potentially your offspring can be a 'better you' and improve the world.

I would argue that adoption could be a good alternative. When adopting, you are potentially doing all this without actually contributing to the world population increase.

Also, I think RMS made a respectable choice, and probably indeed contributed more to society than if he would have had kids. Not having kids is IMHO probably a harder decision than actually having kids.

I think you're right, but your phrasing is a bit odd. If you adopt, you are explicitly not passing on your genes. I think a better word here is 'memes' (in the original sense) or 'values' if 'memes' is too polluted.

Agreed :-)

> it's because you disregarded that Richard puts his ethical argument for the implications to humanity first

No. I have spent three years living apart from my family on military deployments. I know what it means to make this ethical argument and live by it in a self-sacrificing way. Many people cannot make this work, which isn't the same as forcing a divisive choice upon those of us who can.

You quoted me directly on "I feel bad for poor Stallman..."

How an expression of sympathy is also a personal attack, I do not know.

> expression of sympathy

Whether you intend it or not, it's an expression of condescension. It states that you are in a position where you can look down at (feel bad for) a lesser (poor Stallman).

You may not mean it that way, but it's exactly the same sort of phrase as "Bless your little heart".

So if I feel bad for someone who lost his dog, I'm looking down on him as a "lesser"?

If you "feel bad for him", you are not looking down on him.

If you "feel bad for poor him", you are referring to him in a way that implies his position is lesser.

"Poor $noun" is nearly always derogatory towards $noun. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a neutral or positive use for "poor $noun".

Verbal communication is imprecise enough that people will overlook "poor $noun". In text, you have the opportunity to proofread and revise your statements, so "poor $noun" drastically changes the meaning of the phrase.

You're formalizing some kind of culture disconnect. If I say, "Poor John lost his dog." to any native of the Gulf Coast, no one is going to mistake that for an expression of superiority to John.

It comes down to the context: yes, when poor John loses his dog, we can all understand, what you meant. However, Stallman did not lose anything, furthermore, he is successful and happy with his choices, therefore your "poor Stallman" comment is by definition condescension.

Nothing but respect here for RMS. Successful: yes. Happy with his choices: debatable. His writing and his countenance don't really give off the "happy" vibe.

Perhaps the condescension in my writing (of which there was none) was not so much in the signal as it was in the receiver? Your reply is absolutely dripping with it, window-dressing a cry of "is not / is so" with: "however", "furthermore", "therefore", and "by definition."

The only thing that would have made it worse would be putting it into pseudocode!

Yes, yes, yes.

Adoption enables people to become parents without increasing population. Why didn't rms address this obvious objection? I think it simply didn't occur to him.

Now consider that in the context of his line: "Having no dependents, I could dedicate myself to what seemed right rather than to whatever someone with money told me to do."

Adoptive or foster parents aren't doing what seems right to them! Why are they wasting their time providing parental love to children in need, when they could be writing emacs patches?

As a child of both foster and adoptive parents, I say: What a jerk!

What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure. I am very active in writing OSS (probably more so than with my primary job). I also have two jobs (corporate web developer for a major dot com and army reserves) and yet still find time for the healthy marriage and kids (of whom are now teenagers). It certainly can be done. It certainly hasn't made me wealthy though.

I wouldn't be able to make this happen at all if it weren't for personality. A certain amount of charisma, dedication, humor, and patience. I am also a bit more hyper than the average person and require far less sleep than average and don't spend any time on Twitter or Facebook.

As a new father, what he said about fathers doing what it takes to support their kids hit home. That said, I have made a decision (it wasn't a grand plan but sort of happened over the past few months) to put my family over my career. This meant forgoing a promo to management when I was next in line, and some other things. I'm not going to say it doesn't hurt .. but when I see my kids smile, I know it was the right decision for me.

I am so glad I had children. I enjoy their company tremendously, and the added responsibility has sharpened my game.

That, and the whole eco-disaster angle is overblown. Thanks to birth control, Westernized peoples are barely replacing themselves.

I feel bad for poor Stallman. Too focused on saving the world to save himself.

Western people aren't even replacing themselves without immigration Europe would be in a population decline.

The US still has a positive natural population growth but many countries do not.

I find the arguments for not having children a disastrous one.

Reproduction is effectively our prime directive as a life form. Furthermore it's utterly ironic that the people that could care for their offsprings the most seem to have the least interest in reproduction.

And arguably the best way to avoid and ecological disaster is to reproduce and teach the next generation better, with each child we also increase the chance of someone being born that will have a huge impact on society, technology and culture.

That presupposes some reason for humanity to keep existing.

I really don't understand these types of comments - humanity shouldn't exist; fine then practice what you preach, but I doubt you are willing to go first.

Not replacing ourself is a good thing. We are too many, and right now we want the population to grow because our economical system depend on it. This is reverse thinking. We have economical problems because there are too many of us. Too many to feed. Too many to host. Too many with a car, a smartphone, heaters in the winter, and eating meat 5 times a week.

We would have zero resources problem with 1/3 or our current population. Pollution, climat change, administration issues, education... All that stuff are way harder because there are too many of us.

Of course, we could consume less, but since we are unable to do that, being a smaller number is a much easier solution.

There is also a very unhealty "cult of having children". People that don't have children are considered incomplete and looked down. It's a must have, a goal you are supposed to try to reach in your live.

And of course, there is the fact most people I met in my life suck at being parent. They are feeding and clothing their children, but their ability to educate is terrible, and they spend years at training their children to have the same fear and ignorance they have. The children that were creative, full of energy, of potential, turn into the same zombies their parent are. Scared, unable to create something. Unhappy.

So no, you are not a bad person for having children. But it's sane to say most people should at least consider not having any. There should be a debate. It should not be obvious.

Raising children correctly is one of the hardest job ever, yet, most people have children almost without thinking about it. It is scary.

May be we can start fixing the economic model to not to need continuous growth, and the rest will follow.

A more closed society, like the Japanese, can show us the way by improving the lives of the future generations while having fewer people.

The whole eco-disaster thing is more about our highly environment-unfriendly and inefficient material and energy lifestyle more than another mouth to feed.

The whole planet cannot afford to live like a westerner even if we want to.

I think this is the kind of discussion that requires careful disclaimers or self-disqualification from participants. If you have chosen to have kids, or sworn to never have them, your position will be irrevocably slanted. The same goes for discussions about marriage, or fundamental lifestyle choices like being a digital nomad vs. working at a well known tech company. I don't think I have ever seen one side bridge the gap with the other.

EDIT - I'm not saying this applies to all discussion, I'm saying this applies to a special class of discussion. I'm also not saying don't discuss, I'm saying if you're already in one camp, know that your position is irrevocably slanted so take that into consideration.

"If you have chosen to have kids, or sworn to never have them, your position will be irrevocably slanted."

This seems to me to be the first step towards an ad hominem argument. Perhaps it would be better to analyze a particular argument's logic rather than its source. If I'm mistaken, I apologize; please advise.

Well, in that case why debate anything at all?

People will always have biases, and if you limit discussions to those that don't have biases, then you remove all real life experience from the debate, at which point how would you possibly reach a valid conclusion?

Stating you bias upfront, then trying to come to objective consensus is the entire point of debate and discussion, isn't it?

A very smart programmer who's made a large contribution to society decides not to have kids while people of which neither can be said breed like rabbits. Looks like we'll be watering crops with Brawndo pretty soon.

^ Idiocracy (the movie) to anyone who missed the reference.

I think it boils down to the fact that you can't give 100% to multiple things. If you're passionate about your work and want to give 100% to that, your social life, your home life, your health, or any other portion of your life simply won't get 100%.

That said, this'll get a bunch of people jumping on him. People hear this in general and and it makes sense, but hearing it with respect to childcare tends to elicit a more combative reaction. Which is understandable, nobody likes to be made to feel like they're a bad parent.

Whilst in principle I agree with him the piece reads as a desperate post-event justification for not having had children.

I think the real reasons he has no children can be found in the last email on this page: https://stallman.org/ex-boyfriends-list.html

As for having children - it is something I am greatly concerned about. Personally I really want children, though I do not want them unless I am convinced I am with the right person. My motivation is both selfish and a desire to put better individuals than myself into future society. Adoption and sponsorship spring to mind as incredibly likely occurrences even if I have children.

Oh wow. Those emails could very well explain why he doesn't have children. Why would he put those up?

It was the fourth link on a google search for "stallman married".

As to why somebody would put such a thing up I don't know. I started to click around his site a bit more after posting and became increasingly uncomfortable.

I find it saddening, but of what I did see of the rest it seems he views his ventures into personal relationships as amusing, and I can't help but consider such openness in his specific case to be useful as a warning for those in our society who may fall down a similar path without intending to.

While the overpopulation argument is debatable, the decision to have or not have kids is a personal one. While some believe reproduction is our prime directive as a life form, I would argue passing information to the next generation is our prime directive. Whether it's through DNA or a book, this is the way our species evolves each generation.

On another note, I find it interesting that having been inflicted with cancer at 33 that I have friends who still encourage me to have kids. I don't think changing diapers between rounds of chemo would be a wise decision.

> Whether it's through DNA or a book, this is the way our species evolves each generation.

That's a great point and although I am currently raising a toddler I really don't feel that I've 'contributed' to society or humanity in general at this point. Many colleagues talk about their hope that their kids will 'grow up to do something great' but that's abstract and wishy.

My wife was very keen to have a child before she was too old to accept the risks, so we did so. But I'd much rather have put the time and money into research for a book that would propagate at least a little knowledge forward in time.

I think you should respect his choice, but we can argue about the reasons and argumentations for that choice.

I don't know if Mr. Stallman has siblings. But if not, it means that his bloodline will end with his death. Let that sit for a moment and think about it.

Think about the hundreds of people in your ancestry that lived through world wars and the dark ages and all kinds of other "bad times," compared to the hundred or so years we are currently living in so that you can make a choice to end your bloodline for good.

While he has some pretty compelling reasons, he also potentially denies humanity not only the best version of himself and his values but maybe one of the greatest minds of their time. If you don't have kids, you'll never know or see their real potential.

I personally think you owe it to the people who went through pain and hunger, slavery, world wars, and all of the kind of other terrifying things that we can read up in our history that you keep the bloodline going.

So while I respect the choice he made, I wouldn't necessarily call it clever for a man with his intellect.

It is only one thing for sure and that is egocentrically and selfish. On the other hand, if he truly thinks he has nothing of value to pass down the line, be it genetic material or his values, then it is a good thing he decides to have no kids.

You can certainly pass values down to the next generation without having kids.

Sure you can, it's not exclusive to your kids.

But let me give you an example. My ancestry is very well documented back to 1100ish.

Most of my ancestors had either a military function or later on were law enforcement officers. When I grew up, my parents left me the choice to do anything I want.My grades were good enough to go to a University and become a doctor or lawyer. But since I've been a child I had a natural desire to protect people. I did that in school. And well I am retired now, but I did that for all of my life more or less.

This could of course just be imagination as there is no scientific proof.

But I think that some of these values were passed down our bloodline. And that is just different than learning values from someone else. It's like an imprint.

So if you decide not to have kids and you don't have a brother or sister who can keep the bloodline going that is an absolutely fine choice, but it's also a shame that that genetics and traits that were passed down for centuries get lost.

English is not my mother tongue, I hope you can get my point.

> So if you decide not to have kids and you don't have a brother or sister who can keep the bloodline going that is an absolutely fine choice, but it's also a shame that that genetics and traits that were passed down for centuries get lost.

That's silly, unless you family has been has been having a single child for each generation the last 9 centuries, the genes of your ancestors from back then will probably be in hundreds or thousands of people living today. On average, people have been having more than two children per family for hundreds of years, so each generation you go back will have exponentially more descendants, and up to some limit the number of ancestors you have also doubles each generation you go back. Of course once you go back far enough it turns out we're all related.

So it may be the case that some of the genes of your direct parents will not get passed on if you and your siblings never have children. But it's extremely unlikely that this means the end of a 900 year bloodline.

There's no logic to this. Let me shorten:

'I'm supposed to have feels about people who are dead that I never knew.'

If you do that's fine. Just don't expect that feeling to be universal and don't try to guilt it onto people that don't

If I told it to my mother, that would be the worst disappointment in her life. In our culture, you must be married and have children (before 25 y.o). Otherwise, you are not normal and everybody around (parents, friends, acquaintances) will ask you stupid questions:

"when are planning to merry?" "when are planning to have children?" + long educational lecture on why it's so important. That's a disaster.

Having kids is the best thing that ever happened to me.

While I tend to agree with I him I did decide to have kids. And they're awesome, a lot of work, and completely all consuming of your time. That's why this statement from someone who opted not to have kids seems so disconnected:

> You can also say, "Having children is selfish. If you don't have children, you can dedicate your time to something that the world really needs."

Actually, I believe successful (and I suppose my success or lack of is probably still 13 years from proving out) parenting requires complete selflessness. An ability to look past your own desires and needs to focus on those of your kids. There isn't a better trial in life, than having to make the difficult decision about doing something for yourself, or something for your kids. Marriage is similar.

When I explain being a parent to people, I make it clear that you will be giving up significant amounts of your own time and desires. So if your good with that, then when you have kids, try and be as present as possible for them to help them grow into decent humans.

I have a ton of respect for people who choose not to have children, for whatever reason. Good on them. I think the societal drive to marry and have children is bullshit, especially for women. You can be a fully-realized person without children.

Having said that, it's not a bad choice to have children. This essay covers a lot of ground very quickly, but the part about effort distribution resonated with me and I disagree with it. Yes, career plus family are challenging, but I'm glad I have both.

There's never 100% done with with anything, including parenting and work. I don't know a single person who has fully accomplished everything they want to do, no matter how singly focused they are. I don't know what 100% parenting would look like. Kids aren't sculpture which stop progressing when not being worked. They're people. Yes, as a parent you spend time with them, and thinking of them, but you're not failing when you're thinking of something else.

Disclaimer: I am a parent. Regardles here's my 2c:

I can't speak for the places where this article was published but given this site is its only source this will mostly be read by people that are in general interested in programming or have some interest in open source software. I think we need some kind of future where these genes might be needed to actually help turn the tide on most of the problem with overpopulation, the environment and climate change.

This will most likely not be read by people that do not care about programming or open source software or simply do not care about any of this stuff. They will still reproduce and make the problem bigger. I would say the people that DO care about all these things need to be well represented in the future as well if we want to see change in the future as well.

I am not saying he makes no valid points but these points mostly miss their target audience and are read by the wrong group of people.

It doesn't necessarily need to be your own kids that you teach these skills to.

There are lots of programs to which you can donate your time to help teach children, and we should all be doing that more.

Yes, there is some amount of genetics that will not get represented, but I don't actually believe that the human genetic pool is so focused that we will actually miss out on some next evolutionary step.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement It fits on a bumper sticker: May we live long and die out.

https://vimeo.com/7652051

"A short film by Nina Paley that explores the topic of human population growth and how it is affecting life on the planet. Using humor and some great clips featuring Les Knight of VHEMT.org, and Cris Korda of the Church of Euthanasia, Paley brings light to a topic that gets little attention in the traditional media."

Sure, kids complicate things. They also have the unique attibute of being non-undoable. And life is surely much simpler without them. But aren't all enriching things in life complicated? Like love, starting a company, friendship, learning. I have kids, and i dont think of people who decide not to have any as "wrong". This is clearly a personal choice, but i can definitely say they are missing out on a great source of richness, and tons of joy.

I had similar beliefs when I was in my 20s and now I have two children in my late 30s. We all have to row our own canoe. That being said. This is an interesting topic that has to have some academic research and/or modeling behind it. Anyone have some sources? What happens if our best minds do not reproduce? What is the expected outcome of Japan's population decline?

<Not having children is an important contribution to humanity.

The only thing that matters is having children that have healthy children that have healthy children. It's our purpose to keep the species going.

Two emerge. Those that keep the species going and those that support those that keep the species going.

Thank you for your contribution to humanity as you stated.

i can't tell if Stallman is trying to become an amalgam of Roald Dahl antagonists to maintain his lore, or if it's just his baseline demeanor. Also his point that you can't get anything worthwhile accomplished while being a competent parent misses quite a few amazing parents and contributors to humanity.

Can somebody please explain to me why this got flagged?

What a sad man.

Seems like he forgot that he himself was a child. He wouldn't exist to say this if not. Ironic!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com