Hacker News Reader

Comment by EddieDante | Hacker News Reader

I'm one of the co-workers who don't want to hear about the struggles of working parents. I had to raise my younger brothers instead of getting to be a kid myself because my parents were workaholics and fucking useless at home, so I haven't bothered to have children of my own because I've done my time. I'm not going to defer my vacation or take on extra work because of parents who try and fail miserably to "have it all". If that means the management doesn't have enough hands on deck, boo fuckin' hoo. Push me hard enough and I won't come back from my vacation; I'll just ghost your asses and get a better job elsewhere.

If it ain't my kid, it ain't my problem.

View on HN

This attitude is how societies age out and die.

Raising children is part of the social contract of a society. It’s you who wants it all: to live free from that burden and to benefit from the generation raised at that time as you age.

Or do you prefer that the next generation not be there as you age and need assistance?

None of that is intended to diminish your efforts in raising your siblings. Unfortunately that doesn’t absolve you of societal duties if we want to continue as a society.

The unfortunate fact is that to raise a child now really does require two incomes in the US. How do you propose these parents solve this issue?

Individuals do not owe society perpetuation of the status quo through reproduction. They are entitled to their own life of happiness without children if they so choose.

The world has 8 billion people currently, peaking at 10-11 billion by end of century [1]. There will be people for when the childfree age to take care of them, and the $280k per child cost savings of not having them can be directed to investments to fund later life care (US centric).

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-update-2022

Who provides this later life care? Do you care if it's a society that doesn't value you or has completely different values? Do you care if the children of those who had them decide they are entitled to their own happiness and that doesn't include taking care of those retirees who aren't their parents?

These are philosophical questions as much as anything.

This attitude of "money fixes everything and I don't need to worry about society" is at direct odds with "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." I tend to think the proverb is right and the attitude of money fixes everything is wrong.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

I agree, and believe in this value wholeheartedly, but fall on the side of the argument that having no kids or less kids is more in the spirit of this idea than having more kids. 400k kids are in foster care in the US, 100k of which are adoptable. 11.6 million children live in poverty. 26k people die every year due to a lack of health insurance. 150k per year die from deaths of despair. Take care of existing humans and maybe the argument to have more will hold some water. Until then, the data strongly suggests having less or no kids is a net benefit for the individual (both from economic as well as emotional/happiness perspectives), and if society desires more children, fix the socioeconomic systems (with policy, social safety nets and such) citizens are exposed to instead of attempting to shame folks into taking on societal debt they are under no obligation to assume.

I wrote a longer comment on the topic with sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31372370

EDIT:

> Do you care if the children of those who had them decide they are entitled to their own happiness and that doesn't include taking care of those retirees who aren't their parents?

I do care, and I fully support the idea that you are not responsible for taking care of your parents in their old age. If you want to, that is a respectable and commendable choice! But if you don't, I will not judge you; you had no consent in your existence and owe your parents nothing. You are entitled to your own happiness, and if you are not selfish for you and prioritize your own happiness, no one else will. Strong believer in breaking suffering cycles and not wasting one's own life experience.

I think we agree here and are coming at it from two different directions.

I don't think people should HAVE to have children; I think we should be taking better care of ALL of our people; I think that society needs to understand that long term investment in our people is the only real way forward.

I liked your comment. I don't have time to dig into the sources but will later. Thanks for sharing it!

Appreciate the kind words and the discourse, genuinely.

> I don't think people should HAVE to have children; I think we should be taking better care of ALL of our people

I don't think these two sentences go well together. To take better care, we need younger people to provide care, food, entertainment, security and other comforts for an old person. And if that person hasn't paid their dues[1] by raising the next generation, then I don't think society owes them anything.

[1] of course, there are exceptions like having medical problems which bar you from having kids. But I am talking about selfish individuals who don't want to do the hard work of raising kids.

> Do you care if it's a society that doesn't value you or has completely different values?

I learned at a young age that society doesn't value me, and I've shaped my life accordingly. I have this quote from Dumas in my profile for a reason.

> "Perhaps what I am about to say will appear strange to you gentlemen, socialists, progressives, humanitarians as you are, but I never worry about my neighbor, I never try to protect society which does not protect me -- indeed, I might add, which generally takes no heed of me except to do me harm -- and, since I hold them low in my esteem and remain neutral towards them, I believe that society and my neighbor are in my debt."

Fair enough, and I can sympathize with that having grown up in a difficult situation myself.

I went further and do believe society can be, and should be, better. It’s perhaps a less happy way to live as I can’t just live for myself, but from a philosophical perspective I can’t do otherwise after thinking on it.

Please don’t take that as judgemental of YOUR choice; as I said I’m actually highly sympathetic to it. I honestly believe there’s a better way to live and strive for it, and would love to convince others that way.

> It’s perhaps a less happy way to live as I can’t just live for myself, but from a philosophical perspective I can’t do otherwise after thinking on it.

I do take it as judgment, because you also said this:

> Raising children is part of the social contract of a society. It’s you who wants it all: to live free from that burden and to benefit from the generation raised at that time as you age.

Here's the deal: I didn't ask to be here. None of us did. Furthermore, society's welfare is no more my concern than my welfare is to society -- assuming society even exists as an entity and isn't an emergent property of interactions between individuals.

I see no reason why I should devote my life, which is likely to be the only one I'll ever get, to serving some abstraction. Whether it's one's god, one's country, or one's society, these are all phantasms that get shoved into your head before you're old enough to fight back and neither of us owe any of them a damned thing. I'm certainly not obligated to provide the Molochian maw of neoliberal capitalism with more sacrificial victims.

If the Ponzi scheme we mistake for an economy crashes because there aren't enough new wage slaves to support the old ones, so be it. I'll roast weenies over this worthless society's funeral pyre before I myself am consumed in the flames.

Besides, my parents didn't want me or any of my brothers. They just wanted to fuck, but didn't have the courage to defy or renounce their Roman Catholic religion that demanded that sex be confined to marriage and only done for procreation. We were just the price they paid for their pleasure.

You didn't know it, but by telling me that I owed the world children you poked a scar. Don't bother apologizing; just do better next time.

> $280k per child cost savings of not having them can be directed to investments

and what exactly those investments will be when you grow old if everyone decides for themselves and has no kids? stocks need underlying companies which needs workers. Same for corporate bonds. Government bonds need taxpayers, i.e. a working generation, which again means someone's kids. So tell me - where exactly are you going to put these 280K when there are very few kids?

> Individuals do not owe society perpetuation of the status quo through reproduction.

That goes both ways. If a society with thinkers like you have 1 working adult for 3 old people when you grow old, it may decide to ignore those who didn't do their fair share in building the next generation.

Your perspective just looks weak.

At least CobaltWaves had the decency to offer something resembling an argument, even if I find his premises repugnant. You couldn't even manage that.

I did you a service, you should know how pathetic this sounds.

With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com