Hacker News Reader

>Maybe for you, but the value proposition isn’t there for me. There’s no indication that the world is willing to fix its global problems (climate change, housing problems and etc.), why would I also subscribe my child to this “fun”? It is weird to write that sentence, as I am generally a fairly optimistic person. But “let me sacrifice a ton, for a decent chance of misery of myself and my offspring” doesn’t sound right to me.

Let me offer a different perspective. Whenever I see your sentiment - that you are choosing to not have kids because the world sucks and you don't see us solving anything - my immediate reaction is that you deserve no voice whatsoever in how the rest of us decide to solve those problems. No voting, no representation, nothing. Having kids, in a sense, is a bet that we'll figure things out one way or another. You've made your bet, and are exiting the conversation because you don't have skin in the game (literally).

That might sound harsh, but it's essentially just the inverse of your sentiment justifying not having kids in the first place because of overwhelming pessimism about the future.

Good for you. I’d even go further, force us to have kids. That’ll show us!

Glad that my attitude is in somewhat majority, otherwise we wouldn’t have potential depopulation problems. Don’t have to worry about these type of takes.

Have a good day!

I'm not really trying to "show" you anything, in that sense.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of your position. Look, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim you care about the future and what happens to the planet and then intentionally make yourself not a part of it. I simply tune out and don't consider the opinions of folks who fall into that camp. Why would I?

I dunno, maybe you should, because unless our opinions are considered, the problems will only get worse?

It’s not like we’re some bunch of people who would never change our minds, but actions speak louder or something. If older people want us to take these bets, give us better odds.

> Whenever I see your sentiment - that you are choosing to not have kids because the world sucks and you don't see us solving anything - my immediate reaction is that you deserve no voice whatsoever in how the rest of us decide to solve those problems. No voting, no representation, nothing. Having kids, in a sense, is a bet that we'll figure things out one way or another.

What an odd perspective. Are children the only way to have skin in the game when it comes to the future?

One consequence of doing something like this would be an almost complete removal of people who through no fault of their own cannot have children as well as some religious practitioners from public life.

Having just read the FDA announcement on artificial wombs, how would those fit into this?

>What an odd perspective. Are children the only way to have skin in the game when it comes to the future?

What, specifically, is odd about it? I think the stranger position is the one that allows people to inform policy that affects future generations when they themselves are intentionally not making themselves a part of that future. Put simply: why do you get a voice in what will affect my kids when you think the future is all for naught anyway?

Think of it like this: why do you think politicians always advertise the fact that they have a family when they're running for office (or hide the fact that they don't)? Because it, at a subconscious level, makes people feel comfortable. "This person's progeny have to live with these policies." It's a trust signal.

>One consequence...

I've stated twice now that intentionality matters. If you're referring to things like Monasteries, where people take vows of chastity (which would obviously preclude children), the idea of political participation is already complicated. I've known a Priest or two who don't believe Clergy should vote.

>Having just read...

I'm radically opposed to AWT for other not-unrelated reasons.

> What, specifically, is odd about it? I think the stranger position is the one that allows people to inform policy that affects future generations when they themselves are intentionally not making themselves a part of that future.

It's arbitrary and dogmatic to require having kids in order to have a say in the future, for starters?

> why do you think politicians always advertise the fact that they have a family when they're running for office (or hide the fact that they don't)?

That's not true in Western Europe and increasingly untrue in the US too.

> Because it, at a subconscious level, makes people feel comfortable. "This person's progeny have to live with these policies." It's a trust signal.

As an example I can think of many US politicians who had kids that supported the 2017 tax cuts and opposed measures to decarbonize the US economy. Kids or no kids, they don't care about the future.

People have lived through plague, famine, mass deaths caused by invasion, etc and still manage to raise and pass the torch to the next generation.

Get over yourself.

Arguably many suffered and died young or lost young children. Some likely regretted having, or skipped having kids. It's completely legitimate to consider the societal costs and not only the benefits to birthing children.

Yeah and arguably, many survived to see the light on the other side of the tunnel.

It's completely legitimate in the same way as this argument is: "since there's a risk of me being hit by a car, or having an unpleasant day when I go outside, I better stay inside."

Overly focusing on the negative outcome to the point of inaction is often a thinly veiled excuse for some other often internal/personal reasons.

Doomerism doesn't have legitimacy because it's just a decaying idea. If ideas had an evolutionary tree, it is a recurring branch(leaf) that always died off while legitimately calling itself legitimate, every single time.

I have never seen this sort of extreme existential pessimism in real life (not online). Altering major life decisions like having children based on fears of a negative future. Im not sure if its just more commonly expressed online or if its more common in other place (Europe maybe?) or different age groups (teens or young adults?) but if I asserted this to people locally they would think im nuts.

Another possibility is this isn’t actually the difference between you wanting kids or not. Perhaps this is an oversimplified reason, but Im taking you at your word.

Not sure what to say, but do you have friends in their 20s? It’s not exact doomerism, but more of a “if I am struggling, why should I burden someone that I will love even more”.

And again, for a lot of people life can be more fulfilling without having a child as well. The general economy want these people to have children for its own benefit, not for the benefit of the parents.

> The general economy want these people to have children for its own benefit, not for the benefit of the parents.

Well maybe the parents aren’t supposed to be the beneficiary in the parent-child relationship.

Is anyone?

As someone with kids I can tell that you I often wonder if it was the right thing to do. Have I brought them into a world which will deliver them misery? Are the opportunities that were available to me, and even more so my parents, gone now? The evidence is looking grim. The prognosis is not good. This world is going to shit and the billionaires in charge don’t give a single fuck.

I'm from Europe so maybe you're right about that part, but almost every girl in college had that opinion or at least partially agreed to it, age being around 18-25.

You shouldn't take OP at his word though. The glaring observation I had that was shared by many, many, is that this is a very age-group specific thing.

Even the most vocal ones of this existential pessimists stopped it at around 28-30 years old, when the question stopped being idealization but very personal.

Existential pessimism leading to life decisions are usually just an rationalized excuse for other, often more personal, situational and emotional, reasons.

"are humans rational or irrational? It's a trick question, humans are ratioanalizers. We make up our mind and then come up with a plausible reason and believe in it"

Existential dread is a catchy, relatable idea without any consequences.

Holding that idea when you're under 30 doesn't mean much because most people don't have any important life decision they can't postpone while holding it. As soon as the reality offers the consequence of said belief, people will actually have a serious thought about it.

Very few people I know that in the end decided to live child free at later age, claimed existential dread as the reason. Most people grew up enough to realize that it is ultimately a decision based on personal/ego reasons/preferences, a gut feeling, and trying to justify it with some limited scope "rationalization" is just kidding themselves

The "challenging activity" stuff comes from the fact that my brain just can't compute the "I'd rather have all these great experiences than having kids"-type statements and not seeing any potential for great experiences in child-rearing, especially when those experiences often seem to be a lot more copy-paste.

"Challenging" also maybe doesn't quite capture what I meant. Do you know how you sometimes have to bike somewhere two hours on a slow, heavy MTB that makes it a slog for a 15min downhill descent? It's more that kind of challenge.