Keep in mind, most of the lonely old people you see have children. And I’m not sure it’s a good, caring thing to tell childless people that they will be lonely in old age, because it need not be true.
Having kids is very little fun. It is work. But helping new people to be the best people they can be is fulfilling, joyful work.
We're having one of our roughly weekly sleepovers tonight where we all spread out cots on the family room floor. (Everyone falls asleep before me, and so sometimes I make my way online). I like this time because we have a long talk about the world as they get sleepy and settled. Now I hear all these people I deeply love breathe and shift and sleep and feel contentment. Tomorrow there will be problems to solve. As they grow older, the problems become less frequent... and more complicated.
I sure hope they continue to be a big part of my life in their adulthood, but that's not exactly why one does it.
So anyway, children aren't the only path.
And I know that she sought community, at least in part, because she'd had no children.
I had to give up a number of hobbies and intelectual pursuits in order to be there for my kids. Building a caring, trust-based long term relationship is hard work - sharing the same blood and providing a roof and a meal is not enough, which sadly is many people’s definition of parenting.
I know I am giving up things. I know there is no sure-fire bet that I will get “returns”, but I love my kids and knowing you can love someone so much is a gift by itself, IMHO.
Also, worth remembering the alternative to such a "pointless cycle" is a pointless short existence and then human life would be over. Sure, you can argue that's a good thing for earth, but even life on earth is pointless in the grand scheme of things if you're going to use that line of reasoning.
Also I don't think I have become a less fun, interesting person since having kids. I may have become wiser (and more tired).
She had a set of evolutionary drives paired with societal pressures that made the choice inevitable.
You don’t exist as an independent being. You are part of a long line of humans. Lots of studies showing how trauma of our ancestors is encoded in our DNA and carried forward.
Social patterns change but the underlying human drives stay constant more or less.
Not to say having kids is ever super easy but there are definitely people that live a pretty kid friendly lifestyle without them.
It's important to keep this in mind because we do tend to place weight on others deciding to do something. It's why companies like to slap their logo on everything. If my friends were jumping off a bridge I absolutely would consider following them. I like to think one would stop to briefly inform me of whatever horror they're running from but absent that yeah I'd be pretty tempted to follow suit.
So we see all of these people having kids and think "the sacrifice must be worth it" but so many of those people would have been working standards 9-5's and pairing up to go live in the same suburb for the rest of their life where they'll wear clothes in the house and barely even walk each other on leashes anyway. They didn't have to give up their hobbies and dreams. If you do, you're facing a different equation than they did.
There are definitely people who WANT kids, like another commenter in this chain describes. I don’t get the impression MOST people are like that though. Anyone who suspects they might have regrets or will be giving things up... I don’t know if they should go through with it.
That's where we're at. We're open to changing our minds depending on our situation, which is about as good as we could hope for (not rich but relatively secure and very happy). Since things are good and we feel fulfilled, it's hard to justify significant compromises. We're really clear that if either of us changes our mind, we'll talk about it, and we check in with each other from time to time just to make sure, but we already have more interests than we have time to properly nurture.
You shouldn't feel any guilt about existing, though.
Please note that effort that goes into raising children isn't just dumped somewhere that may return dividends someday. You develop a lot of skills and improve others a ton by being a parent.
My children (2 and 4) don't "prevent" me from hobbies any more than one hobby "prevents" me from pursuing other hobbies. I choose to spend time with them because it's rewarding to me to see them learn and grow. Don't get me wrong, they are excellent at making me feel like crap at times, but on the whole I enjoy and value my time with them, especially as they grow older.
If they decided to be world-class professionals in some are they would also have to give up other hobbies, dreams, and travel.
If they decided to know the inside-out of some hobby, they would also have to give up other hobbies, dreams, money, and travel.
Life is made of choices. They made one, what excluded a lot of others. It's a big choice, but it's not like the alternatives are completely free of constraints. Children also do not completely restrict those things, it's just one of the many restrictions that make their affordability limited, but not zero.
With children: ~100% chance because you'll be in your child's life.
I think that just means more children get less fulfilling lives.
At least that seems to be the case in countries where children are not subsidised.
On the contrary I'd bet that if both these services weren't subsidized so much, they'd be far cheaper. Nature will create the need either way.
How do you measure that statistically? All you have are personal experiences. Saying, "not statistics, isn't valid" is obtuse, it leaves you unable to understand anything that is difficult to measure at scale.
Somewhat off-tangent here, but this is a frequent misunderstanding of this particular quote. The actual quote is: “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb” and it means the exact opposite of what we now use it for. The intended meaning is that relationships entered into as adults are much stronger and deeper than those we are forced into through accident of birth simply because they are intentional. While I hope my children will be there for me in old age, I know that I will be there for my wife and closest friends even though we are not bound by any particular genetic imperative.
I hadn't heard of that expression before, so I looked a little at the corresponding Wikipedia page [0] and the sources that talks about this quote [1 and 2]. I also looked at Quora question about the quote [3].
From what I understand, there is no way one with any certainty can say that: "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb” => "blood is thicker than water".
There doesn't seem to be a direct "the blood of the covenant . . ." quote either.
My own thought: I think it is possible that the meaning of both quotes can be true at the same time:
a) If you make a blood covenant with someone => Strong bond, and maybe stronger than with family members.
b) If something serious happens in your life, family bonds tend to be stronger than that of a friend, at least if you don't have some type of covenant (in a broad sense) with that friend.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water
[1] https://archive.org/details/shaggydogsblacks00jack/page/94/m...
[2] http://www.bac2torah.com/covenant-Print.htm#SectionII
[3] https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-phrase-The-blood-of-the-...
straight up no true Scotsman. Literally, no true Scotsman.
Sometimes children are raised well and turn out to be little shits, but given that we're not drafting a scientific study in the comment section conversational generalities should be forgiven, unless you want every conversation to be so paralyzed by pedantry that no real content is discussed.
could you show us that data on that correlation to us from somewhere besides out your ass then?
Probably have friends that loyal, but they’ll all be the same age and you might just end up being the last one.
Hopefully your kids have a comfortable margin on you in your old age.
Our old friend Dunning-Kruger rather spoils this strategy. I know many people who have been abandoned by their children, but none who could proffer even the vaguest hint of why they might be to blame. Very few people intentionally set out to alienate their children, but plenty of people do it anyway.
Note that the entire perception of children has changed over the previous century, and the modern notion of emotionally as well as physically providing for children as a universal constant is a VERY new concept. We still haven't figured out how to do it en masse, although a decent chunk of the population seems to figure it out on their own.
Honestly, I appreciate the point counter point.
On the other hand, it's almost impossible to actually discuss certain socially-mandated topics objectively without someone playing the "emotionally stunted" card against anyone who takes the negative off the socially mandated position. And the poster in this case didn't call anyone names, and is also responding in a thread about worldwide birthrates. Far from being out of place and not reading the room, I think the second poster trying to effectively stigmatise his reply is the one in the wrong/ that can't read the room. If this is not the place for such a reply, it's hard to imagine where would be.
Being prudent about which battles to fight and which debates to pick up and what statements merit argument is part of understanding social norms.
I think the (inadvertent) tone-deafness can work both ways. The gp (gregfjohnson) in telling his personal account was also inadvertently tone-deaf to some potential readers.
If I can compress his comment into 2 parts:
- part 1: "I would like to contribute a bit of information. [...heartfelt story of the joys children and grandchildren...]" <-- can't criticize the part about personal joys
- part 2: "I highly recommend it." <-- this advice inadvertently rubs some readers the wrong way
Although some replies (from nostromo, drukenemo, etc) didn't agree with gregfjohnson, it was triggered by the "recommendation". A reader can dismiss part 2 (recommendation) without dismissing part 1 (personal joys) at all. There are 2 separate concepts there.
Likewise, someone else could write the opposite story, "I don't have the hassle of kids and can go vacations whenever I want. I highly recommend it." -- and a reader with happy children will dismiss the "recommendation" without invalidating the freedom of vacations.
tldr: just because you're relaying a wonderful personal story doesn't mean your "advice" will be accepted at face value because some readers don't see the positive personal anecdote as (logical) evidence for the advice.
It's not surprising that someone immediately jumped on it to argue the maths so to speak, but it is slightly disappointing even if predictable. IMHO it should be ok for someone to recommend something to you that you don't like without it being seen as an invitation to a fight.
They are not arguing over who is right or wrong, they are cooperating so that everyone is more informed.
So either way, there’s going to be work if you do not want to be alone.
The worst is when you put in the work and end up alone anyway. No one calls, no one cares, a life wasted on something that was ultimately meaningless. You could have done other things that brought you intrinsic joy.
How many of y'all are visiting elederly and helping them now? If you never help the elderly now, how can you expect anything else than lonliness when you are in their place?
One of the most tragic results of the "modern" American life is that we throw away are elderly as obsolete while any other sane societies treates them as the holders of wisdom.
Only a tiny minority of elders have any wisdom worth purveying in my experience. Most are as mediocre at 70 as they were at 25, and can't tell you anything except how to be as mediocre as they are. An even larger fraction actually are obsolete and haven't kept up to date with the latest cultural changes or technology.
I'll take advice from the 70+ year old who's still working and staying abreast of their field/maintaining good relationships with friends and family, or the 70+ year old who did something great once upon a time (and I'll limit the advice I take to said great thing and related subjects). The retiree who worked a mid-level factory job, begrudgingly learned how to check their email and largely lives alone/with their spouse in a rancher with Christian TV playing 24/7 who rants about whatever Sean Hannity said (a direct description of some of my relatives) probably less juice in the squeeze there from a wisdom perspective.
Most of everything is trash, there are no exceptions -- if we think there is an exception somewhere, it often comes from emotional bias.
Old or young, most people live a dull live of no practical value. People may be angry to hear that, but the fact they don't try to randomly make friends outside of their usual circles only shows a degree of hypocrisy.
That can be true. There is a difference, in my heart, between an "Elder" and an "old person".
I would advise you, if I may, to expand your experience.
By holding onto that narrow view (can we dare call it ageism?), you could be missing out on some truly amazing individuals whom might have something very important to convey to you and your generation.