Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

> As the philosopher John Rawls pointed out, a society of happiness-seekers would have no reason not to borrow heavily and leave the debt to future generations. (...) What’s more: if the only reason to have children is to make oneself happier, rather than to fulfill a social or moral duty, a lot fewer people will have children. Mounting national debt and a birthrate well below replacement level: that describes Western Europe today rather well.

Those two statements are inconsistent. If "mounting national debt" is evidence that the people of Western Europe only seek their own immediate pleasure, and if having children makes oneself happier, then we should expect those same people to have many children.

Maybe the author meant that having children don't make people happy (which may or may not be the case); but it's not what he said.

View on HN

When you're not dating someone seriously, you're asked if there is anyone special in the picture.

When you are dating someone for a while, you're asked if this is the one.

When you've made that official, you're asked if there is any news, children-wise.

There's a lot of societal pressure from family and friends to have kids or risk being perceived as a disappointment or failure.

If none of that was there, fewer people might have kids.

I sometimes wonder whether this pressure is exerted because children are the main way one's parents, grandparents and extended family can stay relevant in one's life.

I've heard that there might be some evolutionary biological reasons why families would be inclined to desire children and grandchildren... :)

Or you know, because with fewer children, it would be quite possible that neither those asking the question "why are children needed" would exist to pose it, nor the species in general.

I suspect it’s just fun to be a grandparent - I imagine it’s a tiny bit like being a parent, but nowhere near as intense, esp. regarding the stress and workload.

When you have 3 kids, your asked if you are going to have any more kids.

> As the philosopher John Rawls speculated....

The reason for my seemingly useless pedantic correction is because it seems to me that using language like "pointed out", as if "a society of happiness-seekers would have no reason not to borrow heavily and leave the debt to future generations" is a matter of fact (he has no way of knowing such things, obviously) results in valuable ideas and perspectives being rejected by those who have a more rationalist approach to ideas.

>If "mounting national debt" is evidence that the people of Western Europe only seek their own immediate pleasure, and if having children makes oneself happier, then we should expect those same people to have many children.

He doesn't say that "having children makes oneself happier" (i.e he doesn't say that that's a fact).

He says that "if the only reason to have children is to make oneself happier" -- meaning if having children is just upon your fancying having children or not (as opposed to "fulfill a social or moral duty") -- then there would be fewer children.

So the two statements are not contradictory.

People procreate more on a personal whim (based on whether or not they feel like it) nowadays, and less based on moral / societal pressure (they is still that, but way less), and as such, indeed fewer people have children.

> Maybe the author meant that having children don't make people happy

He did not necessarily mean this, but necessarily did mean a weaker thing: Having children does not make some people happier. Let me explain.

> if the only reason to have children is to make oneself happier, rather than to fulfill a social or moral duty, a lot fewer people will have children.

1. (happy) ⊨ (children) 2. (happy) ∨ (duty) ⊨ (children)

If (1) is the case rather than (2) being the case, then you can expect that (children) will be the consequence in fewer cases. You may disagree with the idea that a lot fewer people will have children, but he certainly said what you thought he possibly meant.

> Maybe the author meant that having children don't make people happy (which may or may not be the case); but it's not what he said.

The author at least strongly implied it by "if the only reason for one to do X was if it made one happy, a lot fewer would do X".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com