Hacker News Reader

Comment by lordleft | Hacker News Reader

The decision to have kids is a lot like the decision to continue living. There is no logical basis for it. Or rather, any latticework of logic you erect to justify this choice is based on a foundation that has nothing to do with reason. It is an emotional and spiritual desire to live and love, and give more life and more love to the world.

That's why I when see people engage in complex rational calculations about the utility a child may or may not bring into their life, I feel like they are missing the point. Of course people ought to be thoughtful about the decision to have children. And there are very good reasons to abstain. But in a sense they are not grasping that having children is a profound act of hope.

View on HN

> There is no logical basis for it. Or rather, any latticework of logic you erect to justify this choice is based on a foundation that has nothing to do with reason.

Any formal system is going to be based upon some set of axioms. You can't apply reason without some foundational choices (ie. your axioms).

The bright line you are looking for is a lot fuzzier than it seems at first glance.

If you take as axiomatic that "the human race surviving is a good thing we should work towards". Having kids becomes an exceptionally rational thing for people to do.

Funny how my belief system is basically the contrapositive.

"Having kids is not universally good so the survival of the human race might not be that important (but we should still work for the quality of life for the people who are and will be alive.)"

Agree. In many ways I wonder if we're seeing a couple compounding forces at play:

* The introduction of birth control and giving people (yes both men and women) too much control over procreation without having to control the impulse for procreation.

* Seeing people solely as material beings as a consequence of the Enlightenment. After all, if you're just the matter you're composed off then you're no more special than a rock or your iPhone or a dog. Why sacrifice so much material comfort in exchange for the material discomfort that parenting will inevitably cause if the baby is just matter?

Yes, and you're getting downvoted, but the whole framework of individualism and enlightenment principles prioritizing individual autonomy above all else often locks people's views in such a way they cannot conceive of having children as a fundamental responsibility/obligation to continue legacy of their ancestors.

There is this enlightenment western philosophy that everyone is an atomized, isolated blank slate acting only in their own self interest, severed from any ties to the past... it goes against long standing views of having inherited legacy, and responsibility to continue this legacy which applied much social pressure to having children, even many children like in more traditional/religious cultures, and this has been abandoned in a very short period of time (seen in declining birth rates, marriage rates, increasing age of having children etc.)

There is no responsibility or obligation to one's ancestors to have children. This is a construct you are creating to justify your choice, or rather "lack of choice". You're playing the logic games you're saying others play to justify not having children.

>There is no responsibility or obligation to one's ancestors to have children

I think it's probably a philosophical, maybe even a spiritual argument. Enlightenment individualism has ingrained in western cultures the idea they have no connection or ties to the past, or their ancestors, and shouldn't even conceive of themselves in terms of these other people. Blank slate, complete autonomy, etc. I think it's just a fundamental philosophical disagreement to start from a different premise that isn't self interest per se.

"Lack of choice", I like that. It removes the consideration to construct arguments about self-interested "choice".

I'll make a logical one though:

Every single person's existence is the sum total of all previous generations of ancestors action of making the choice that led to you. Not just one or a few of your ancestor's, but all of them are owed this choice. Maybe even this choice is owed to the universe (~God) itself?

The evolutionary "winners" will be the ones that consistently take this action. You can simply say, are you evolutionarily a winner, or a loser? Will you continue the propagation of your genes, or won't you? This is the "forest for the trees" way to frame it, I believe, as it steps back to avoid endless lower-level convenience rationales for opting out (if the choice is available to you of course).

Evolutionary arguments in this day and age are moot points. We are already a genetically modified species (through IVFs and more recently , crispr) and won't be long before we can grow babies extracorporeally. And it's pretty certain , when designer babies become the norm, the trend is not to select traits that resemble some mythical ancestors, but the traits that are likely to maximize their happiness in the future.

Glorification of your ancestors, or having the expectation that your descendants will procreate in your honor, sounds like self-interested ego stroking and a vain attempt at establishing ones own importance in the universe, when that importance in the grand scheme of things is questionable.

Adopting a belief of "Lack of choice" is still a choice, as no one holds a gun to your head to have children, and birth control options are readily available to much of the world. This sounds like an excuse to remove inhibitions around sex, in that you are somehow doing this sexual act to honor "something greater than yourself", rather than it being your own self-interested pleasure seeking.

Species that adopt breeding = winning behaviors often experience overpopulation pressures which leads to catastrophic die offs. Turning this into a winners vs losers argument, over an act that is not that terribly complex or worthy of ticker-tape parades, seems again more self-interested ego stroking. How many points do you score when you have a baby, and who is keeping score? Maybe just you.

> The introduction of birth control and giving people (yes both men and women) too much control over procreation without having to control the impulse for procreation.

Why "too much" control? I'm curious why you think the amount of control is larger than it should be (and to what end).

Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from East of Eden

> You have not bought these boys, nor stolen them, nor passed any bit for them. You have them by some strange and lovely dispensation.

To add to everything you said, which I agree with, having children is also a profound act of responsibility, or even obligation.

Along with all the logic games people play to justify not having children, they miss the overarching principle that they have a responsibility, to their ancestors, to match the gift of life that was given to them, to the sense of continuing the legacy of their parents, grandparents etc.

Or... one should, or even must, think this way to overcome the obsession with seeking a logical or selfish reason to have kids when they might not find one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com