Hacker News Reader

Comment by twojacobtwo | Hacker News Reader

There is a question that I think needs to be asked more often: Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens? You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that your choice to have children automatically grants you the right to impinge on the rest of us. That's quite entitled.

View on HN

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what we're looking for here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Especially please don't take HN discussion further into generic flamewar, i.e. replacing a smaller particular topic with a larger and even more flamey one. That always has bad effects.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

> You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that

Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / could not have them ourselves.

Most people will agree that there's a collective obligation to safeguard children. Not so much for a collective obligation to go out of our way to make parenting more convenient for those who can afford to raise kids AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them. Particularly when, IME, the people most fervent about the well-being of their own children tend to care little about other's. I assume you're, say, an ardent supporter of equalizing school funding across your state, such that your kids would receive the same quality of education as those of poorer parents, yes? No? Telling.

'...AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them'

But not be willing to pay a few quid for all of them to sit together, yet expect other passengers to move in order for them to do so...

I'm not sure why you presume that. While I'm on a flight, I do everything possible to prevent my baby from disrupting others flight.

However, some stuff flight companies do are incredibly helpful (e. G. Allow us to board first) and make everyone 's experience better.

Unfortunately it's either that, or have no kids, or never fly (for some people this means: never meet your family again). All things that are limiting for a human being that should get a decent quality of life (culture and such)

I would support equalization of funding subject to purchasing power parity.

That's a bit of a red herring to the conversation, and I'm a bit confused why that is the filter you choose to engage rather than policy for ensuring proper nutrition, UBI, or any other economic impact, or why my non-response intra-sentence to your comment online is a purity test for said support.

But taking a step back, even if parents are individually genetically biased towards their brood, that doesn't impact that part of a society's very essence and existence is to ensure children grow to adulthood. Eusociality and all that.

I don't think it's a red herring. It gets right to the heart of the very personal entitlement parents have, to the exclusion and detriment of people around them. I asked (rhetorically, admittedly) your stance on school funding equity because it's an issue where there can be no question that the status quo is something along the lines of, "Fuck you, getting mine, and also let me have some of yours," which is roughly analogous to what you've held is appropriate for the issue at hand.

We could make things better, and it would require maybe not having your kids in particular at the front of the line. That doesn't mean society is absolutely thwarting your endeavor to be a good parent; it's a recognition that while children are important, they are not the only, nor the altogether and at all times, primary concern of civilization. I mean, if you want to define human nature solely by the effort to advance one's progeny... I mean, even then, you have to admit that the well-being and conceens of the adults who support that effort are also important. Evolution is the process of surviving the day, serially.

I certainly am.

Most people who choose to have children don't do so to enable society structures to persist though. I could argue that by not having kids I'm saving the planet from the effects of over population?

You could! And it is important to note that limited antinatalism is not unreasonable, so long as it is remembered that replacement rate!=overpopulation unless already above carrying capacity.

This is a classic example of we vs. them, I guess there will always be people with kids who think the same as you so it might not only be about perspective. My conclusion is that kids are their own beings and they are prone to behaviours that is not the norm in society, we all just have to adjust to that, you can't really reason with children.

I find that being sleepless and being hungery affects my mood a lot, I believe these are things that families can have a hard time regulating, so my bar for the expected behaviour from families is set a lot lower than for young adults. Just because I know they have a hard time.

Sure obnoxious people get families too so there is always a chance that they really are entitled.

> Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens?

Well, the simple answer on a societal level is "your peaceful retirement depends on people having more kids".

The optimal solution doesn't work because it's not actually optimal outside of a laboratory environment, hence no airline does it.

If you have a legitimate reason to get off so fast that you can't wait, convince a flight attendant. They're great at helping you.

Otherwise, I suggest maybe buying your own plane.

> Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens?

Because it is a cultural and societal phenomenon. In different cultures it might be different.

> That's quite entitled.

Sure, and on paper could swing the argument either way. But in practice arguing with the airline staff about not letting the families with young children board or disembark first, just doesn't work well and gets you a lot of dirty looks.

It’s not about entitlement, it’s about helping people who are less physically capable. Sometimes that will be due to age, sometimes due to disability, sometimes it will be because they’re carrying a toddler with them. But you can’t expect everyone to be rushing around like they’re in their childless 20s just because that’s the lifestyle you have chosen.

One day you will be older and a little less capable than you are today and I hope people don’t hesitate to offer you help and patience when you need it.

The question could also be asked for the contrary. It's more of a philosophical question, mostly diving into discussions for/against natalism in the end.

The backdrop is that raising kids is incredibly hard and the birth rate is below replacement and falling in the US because fewer people are willing or able to do it. Society should endeavor to make it easier for parents, at the expense of the childfree, if it cares about maintaining itself.

Only by ignoring this context could one conclude that deplaning efficiency for single people is the priority.

We’re already way beyond our planet’s capabilities for providing for human life at first-world standards of living.

Maybe not encouraging more children isn’t a bad thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com