Hacker News Reader

Comment by unnouinceput | Hacker News Reader

This article is a one off, not at all a "If everyone could stand a few days without grid power...". Wanna know why? Here is the primer quote that's all you need to know: " I’m single, so I could act unilaterally, but I had no access to economies of scale.....and I have no children".

Lemme repeat that quote again: "...and I have no children".

As a single experiment is OK, but once you fully become a member of society, this is not possible, not even for a day! Why? Because you end up in jail for child endangerment!! That's why. And if everyone would be single then guess what!! No more humanity in 50 years, because...yeah, you guess it, no children!

I want a story like this from a family with children, then it will be worth of HN front page. This one is "meh" at best.

View on HN

I was actually an off grid child. My parents were hippies back in the 60's and part of the "back to the land" movement. They bought a bit of land in the middle of nowhere in Maine, miles from the nearest neighbors, built a log cabin, dug a well, and lived there subsistence farming until the mid 80's. My sister was born in the cabin and we both spent our early childhoods there (my parents did eventually get tired of the lifestyle and we moved to a house with plumbing and electricity). We didn't even have things like solar panels or cellphones or laptops. There were definitely challenges and downsides, but I wouldn't call it "child endangerment".

And in ancient times people were living on the land, they didn't had even your log cabin and so on. Your point is not valid. Because we talk current times. Nowadays you go back to living deliberately, especially when you can afford New York, to a farm without anything modern then you're definitely raising your child without best chances in life. I'd call that child endangerment. Your kid will not have the best education you can definitely provide, and it's starting with a handicap in life. So yeah, your point comparing 60's with today is moot.

> Your point is not valid.

Which point? That we didn't have solar panels, cellphones, etc? Because I'm pretty sure we didn't.

Or that "off grid" living with children isn't necessarily "child endangerment"? We had much fewer amenities than most of the current "off grid" people and yet my childhood was perfectly safe, loving, and I developed into an adult with an Ivy League degree and good career in technology. I turned out better than a lot of kids whose parents had high paying jobs and used money to replace actual affection and time spent with them.

Where do you draw the line on "raising your child without best chances in life"? If you don't buy them the absolute latest iPhone and fashionable clothes so they can be popular in their schools is that child endangerment? If you don't take a second job so you can get them into a more expensive private school, is that child endangerment?

You said that you "want a story like this from a family with children". It seems like what you meant was that you want a story like this from a family with children that supports your own conclusions, not one that might refute them.

I strongly oppose the notion that you're not a full member of society without kids. That's an unnecessary attack on a valid lifestyle choice. And even worse, a lot of people don't even get to choose, which you're ignoring entirely.

My point is if you can choose, then choose the best for your kids. Also humanity exists solely because of reproduction and reproduction means kids. So yeah, you're not fully a member of society until you raise kids, yours or adopted it doesn't matter. The ultimate contribution to humanity is to be a parent.

Our societies are built on specializing on what you're good at. If you're not a good parent, you should let people who are good at it handle that part.

Yes, a (developed) society needs about 2.1 children per woman (or have immigration from other societies) but people not having kids can easily be averaged out by other people having three or four kids.

I would actually argue that in the face of climate change, a society having too many kids and thus a growing population and resource usage is disadvantageous for the society's survival.

It also raises question of whether the children are full members of society, and if you lose your membership when your kids reach 18/move out/have their own kids.

Surely potential breeders should be more deserving of membership than those that are no longer capable?

Further, surely rapists are more deserving that abortionees?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com