The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Subsidize daycare, fund schools (from pre-school to university) and focus on learning at-school and not at-home, and pass laws forcing employers to allow parents to reduce their working hours, should they wish to. You can rebuild your cities to be bike able, change gender norms, or change work culture, but honestly the most change will come from the first list.
My situation as a parent here:
On the cost side, recurring costs for after-school daycare (2x week), school 'contributions' (field trips), violin lessons and rental, gymnastics classes, and normal clothing purchases are €200/month. Daycare is subsidized and we are lucky that we only need two days, but bumping that up to 3 or 4 would not be insane on the cost side. Baby day care was also subsidized, but can get expensive if you are sending them 5x week... it depends on the parent's income. For us subsidies covered about a third of the costs, but we earned well.
The school here takes care of education, with very little homework. It's well-funded, and does not require much extra effort or money from our side. We can be as involved as we want to be.
We are able to use only 2x of day care per week because a) most employers understand the needs of parents but mostly b) by law employers are required to let you reduce your hours to, for example, take care of your kids. We both work a half-day once a week, with another family member helping on the remaining day.
While the Dutch will complain about higher education costs, the costs are reasonable. A 4 year study will cost you around €10k in tuition, total. That 4 year study results in a masters if the student is able / wants to follow a university track.
Oh, and suddenly your whole population tends to think and act alike for many important subjects because of the built-in propaganda at school. The effects of this can clearly be seen in the current active generation.
As a French that until recently had better fertility than most European countries because of heavy subsidy for having kids I find it funny that you think it even works long-term because it clearly doesn't, even France has dropped fertility and not only you get all the help in the world to have kids, mother are actually paid to have them, yet it doesn't work...
The reality is that it's all about division of labor/responsibility between the sexes but because of previously mentioned "universal education" this is something that cannot be said, because not politically correct (in pretty much any political side which is hilarious in itself).
It's very easy to idealize this coercive system when you were able to choose it but realistically if you would ask many past a certain age, they would definitely choose some other arrangements than to rely on the government for their kids, considering the ongoing cost via taxation (you get to pay forever, how cool) and low quality results...
Being a Dutchman myself I'll just put this down to the following piece of Dutch wisdom: Ik klaag, dus ik besta [1], a derivation of Descartes' first principle.
[1] ...which translates to I complain, therefore I am
And yeah, complaining is the national pass-time, until you visit certain other countries ;)
fwiw 4 year study ends with a bachelors degree
> successful, meaningful careers, and they just didn't see how they could juggle those jobs and the demands of parenthood.
That's a false dilemma. Meaning does not come from a bare "career". It comes from how that "career" relates to others. Not everyone can have kids, and many of us find ourselves alone. "Kids" could equally be replaced by charity work, intimate relationships, sports or whatever. But rising up the ranks and accumulating a big pile of money brings neither success nor meaning.
I think the observed change in attitudes has less to do with parenting (or not) than that the present generation have bought into the corporate lie much more than earlier ones.
It shocked me to find quite how devious and aggressive workplaces can be towards women that get pregnant (or who they simply suspect of being in a potentially "fertile" relationship).
Shouldn't it be illegal for employers to monitor communications that might indicate impending motherhood? What about measuring their body temperature covertly? Spying on eating habits. Or making comments about weight and shape?
So you don't have to deal with searching for "Pregnant and screwed" :) here's a link I dug up for people [0] and some real accounts from women in IT who get the sharp end of this [1].
One woman I know went through a wrenching and drawn out court case and won a small fortune against a big British company. She was not able to come on the show because that settlement for constructive dismissal came with a serious NDA/gagging order.
The problem is mostly women who wants to have it all either you want to suffer through the sacrifice that are asked to a man for work or you want kids, you choose; but complaining about this just show the unreal level of entitlement the women of todays have imposed on society.
Its particularly insane to have peoples complaining about this in the current society, when women have received an insane level of positive discrimination and the major problem is actually how bad most of the men have it.
I get that most people recoil in horror at the latter one. I think they're silly. The fact of the matter is the world is a safer and more prosperous place than ever before. You should be able to invest less into your children than your parents did before you and still have them lead happy lives.
If you have a child, and your own life isn't a pile of misery, you can be reasonably confident your kid's life won't be either. After all, you grew up in a poorer world than they did. But if you hold back on having children because you fear you can't afford to send them to Yale, or buy them all the Steam games they ever wanted, you're probably not saving them from a life of pain, you're just depriving the world of another soul which could've had a beautiful experience here.
No, this is a problem of poor planning and preventing building up (dense).
Plenty of “developed” countries outside of the Anglo world have solved this issue.
Since the locals already got theirs and experience a lot less of the market pressure non-locals experience, restrictive housing policy follows fairly naturally. This is true for both renting and renter locals.
Most people can afford a house, even in the Randstad. So it's not a lack of land, and it's not development blocking. I'm not suggesting anything else, but though I'd take those two out behind the shed.
>The fact of the matter is the world is a safer
>and more prosperous place than ever before.
Sadly, it's often not even a matter of safety from "danger", but safety from the law. Getting CPS called on you[1][2], or getting arrested[3][4] as a parent is not good, even if you are fortunate enough to win.
Then there's the whole angle of disappearing third places, lack of places that can be reasonably visited without driving privileges, nobody's outside because of all of the above so there's nobody to "hang out" or "play" with, desire to funnel kids/teens into more "productive" activities like academics and sports (depending on affluence and interest, this isn't AS bad as the above points), places outright banning[5] young people, etc etc.
[1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/09/05/mom...
[2]https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/living/feat-maryland-free-ran...
[3]https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arreste...
[4]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-mom-accused-of-leaving-ki...
[5]https://www.businessinsider.com/teen-bans-curfews-malls-them...
When nearing end of life, many people, especially fathers, say they wish they'd dedicated more time to their children rather than work. While meaningful work can provide purpose, it doesn't compare to the happiness derived from building meaningful relationships with loved ones. Children offer a rare opportunity to enjoy one of the deepest forms of human connection available, and I think it's shortsighted to put career advancement over building a family. Balancing work and family life is challenging, but the payoff is well worth it.
I don't give a shit what some old man version of me might end up regretting on this front. My kids deserve to be born because life for them is probably going to be great and filled with joy and adventure, with or without me.
Couple that with the fact that most people leave their hometown to work in big cities and you got the perfect mix of time/money and social network issues
That's my mom's job, she takes care of kids, parents drop them as 6am and picks them up at 7pm+. I've talked to these kids, they're miserable, they spend twice as much time with my parents than with theirs, and theirs are so exhausted after work they don't even take care of them once they pick them up (micro waved food and netflix on the daily)
(I'm not saying that applies to you, your comment just made me think about that)
But the current propaganda is very strong and you cannot say anything at the risk of passing for the biggest asshole. Yet I'm pretty sure that if you offered the previous women deal to men, many would take it in a heartbeat.
Instead, we have to listen to insufferable people lecture us on the "meaning" of work, wich hilariously for many women, literally translate into taking care of other people's kids, just for much longer (for example in France they represent up to 80% of the teachers).
This double working parent nonsense is really big bullshit, there is very little benefit for anyone but very few ultra privileged...
Famously easy to switch to this when you live in an HMO in Statesville, State USA or a housing development in Suburbiton, Townshire UK.
You could hire a chef and a maid to cook your kids organic bullshit every day, fly around the entire world once a month and still come under 10k. Whatever they are doing to spend that much needs to be reconsidered. Insurance, tennis practice, private school, whatever it is. 80% of it needs to be cut, and put into savings or invested at regular intervals. Its just plain irresponsible, and to complain about the cost of kids while waving numbers like that around would piss off 90% of families in the US living well under that outflow.
There are many families in the US, in NY, that make less than 10k/year.
There is some state coverage but the income limits are low (50-70 for 1-2 kids)
https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/ccap/help.php#CCAP-in...
Daycare outside of that is incredibly pricey, and if you're as 'blessed' as we were with a multiples pregnancy then the nanny quickly becomes cheaper.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/nyregion/child-care-nyc.h...
Which is to say, if you make less than 67 you get sizeable benefit, but if you earn more you are likely net negative (but child positive) until you pass about 100k. That's a scary gap.
You are in a ridiculously privileged state to be able to simply afford that and you act as though it's impossible to get by without it.
Regular daycare costs multiples less than an at-home nanny, just as public school is far cheaper than private+tutors.
So again my point is that these are not necessary expenses but chosen.
And that I know right now people doing skilled and licensed labor-intensive jobs for less than 30/hr.
Unless, as I said, you have a multiples pregnancy.
I don't know where you're getting your figures but two infants is going to be $3k at least, and that's assuming you can transport them to the daycare facility and assuming that the hours line up with your work. 2x that for the city.
I really hope I'm wrong but two adults with full time in-office jobs don't have much choice here.
https://winnie.com/resources/guide-to-child-care-costs-in-ne...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskNYC/comments/dbki6j/childcare_co... [note several years old]
Also, there is a long waitlist, so it needs really good luck to get an "offer" from the day care when you need it.
But your reply was not any more of a practical solution. I was trying to centre it on a more realistic observation that money outgoings are connected to much less easily fixable lifestyle circumstances.
look how much disagreement im getting for even suggesting someone should be spending less than 10k a month on 4 kids. These are resistant responses from people who dont even exhibit the behaviour.
Now I grew up not that long ago. I am still in my twenties and I did grow up in a major city. But I might be able to provide some perspective.
I grew up without a computer except for old donated beaters. Free. For fun we ran around outside, and hit ant piles with sticks. We ate beans and hotdogs, and old clothes from yard sales. There were injuries. Scrapes and bruises.
There was not a single moment me or my siblings were concerned about wealth or costs or feeling poor. We just had an amazing time playing. Balls, sticks, junk, broken bikes, old hammers, string, nails, grocery bags, old books, half used art supplies. Children do not care about quality. They dont care about nice clothes. They dont care about formal education. They just crave stimulation.
Quality stimulation does not come from money. I dont even know that it can be bought.
When I look back and think about what I would change, I wouldnt add daycare. I wouldnt add nice food or clothes or technology, or tennis teams or memberships. I wish I could have seen my dad everyday. I wish my step dad became better friends with me and showed me coding years before he got cancer and died.
Money is just not what kids need.
Just in daycare alone, they should be at ~8k/mo for four (~$500/wk/kid, daycares can't do bulk discounts). I have friends in TN that are at ~1k/wk. per kid with a ~2.5 year waiting lists. Daycare isn't well tied local cost of living in the US.
Also, rent for one person isn't rent for a family of six, it should be a bit higher for the extra space. And $2.5k per month is, nationally speaking, really high for one person! Wow. I had no idea it was that bad in the Bay these days.
lentils and potatos, my friend. lentils and potatos.
How would you go about raising four kids in the Bay?
Not super detailed, but you know, just a sketch. Daycare? Food costs? Housing? Health Insurance? Those kinds of big ticket items. I'd love to know how to get my costs down more.
The reality is that he truly has no clue, he just thinks he knows better and he clearly has pretty low standards. I would say he is the kind that shouldn't have kids because they would probably suffer but he will have them nonetheless and he will rationalise all the corner cutting as something normal even though there is a price paid, he just doesn't know it yet or prefer to deny it.
Looks like the last time there was a big change was 1960, I assume that was the development of good birth control techniques. I'd theorise that families never really wanted children, and once given the means to make effective choices we discover that humans don't think it is that rational to have kids.
It is a weirdly philosophical problem - similar to what we will soon face with artificial intelligence - of what exactly are we trying to do as living entities. It is hard to find a path that isn't either nihilism or, from a factual and materialistic perspective, insanity.
I personally think this is probably a good thing. Evolutionary forces will push society above replacement rates sooner or later by whatever means it takes, but we should enjoy the window where we don't need to fight about resources for as long as is possible. If only the African nations would get their birth rates under control, anyway.
Still, I embrace my lack of rationality. It's what makes me human.
So what else are we supposed to do but grind it out and hope things get better
I think that the populations of developed countries will start to decline, and a gradual decline is acceptable. We can't rely on immigration forever, presumably less rich countries will start to have less children too as they modernize.
It's a universal trend. The exact same issue is happening in countries that are far more family-friendly.
The world used to REQUIRE you to have children. As your personal pension plan. By cultural or religious force. Or because of the lack of education or contraceptives.
Now in most parts of the world, you're not required. It becomes a question of WANT instead of MUST. And when you ask people how many children they want, the answer is typically 0, 1 or 2. Most people still want children, and quite a few prefer 2. But that averages out to 1.5-1.8 in the aggregate. Which is far below replacement level.
People still want children, just not many per household. Why the cut-off at 2? Because 3, 4, 5 does not fundamentally improve upon the joy of having children whilst it adds a lot of challenges. Bigger home, bigger car, many more trips to take them everywhere, cooking is more complex, it's a mess.
Anyway, the point being is that the article is largely wrong. People that do not want any children because of their focus on career will still not want children when policies are more family-friendly. There's plenty of evidence of this not working. It doesn't move the needle.
You should still go for better policies, just don't expect it to fix this problem.
Asking for a friend :)
I've never really had the urge, and it's only ever been friends/relatives pushing the "you should have kids, they're amazing!" narrative.
I'm sure they are, but I equate it with e.g. painting. I'm sure painting is very enjoyable, frustrating at times, and can bring a ton of joy and wonder to the world. But I just don't enjoy painting, or have any desire to learn, and don't feel the world is so desperately short of artists that I have a duty to do it.
Seeing many friends of mine seriously struggle with money and time also convinces me I made the right choice. I also don't envy a lot of issues they have to go through, e.g. bullying, teen pregancy, phone addiction, tuition fees, serious/lifelong medical issues, etc.
Then I ended up with a boyfriend, but medical tech isn't quite there yet for Mpreg :P
If you can't/won't have kids, men make better partners anyway. Everything else can be solved one way or another...
[1] Would be five, but I'm too old for sperm donation.
I see all the strings my friends have, having to book meetings months in advance. Where I can go out dancing till 6am whenever I feel like it (which I do a lot) or wake up at 3pm on a Saturday. I don't think my life would have been so full if I'd been so tied down with a family.
Our decision was really my wife’s decision, I was always indifferent, which may explain the feelings described above. Wife remains staunchly committed to a child free lifestyle and couldn’t be happier.
I don't know anyone who had kids a bit later in life who regretted it purely due to their age. Though being now in my mid 40's I think I would struggle with the sleep deprivation and noise of a new baby....
As I travel more, my opinion that there are enough humans already has only strengthened.
If I feel the need to scoop up the purported "joy of children", I can visit my sister and wind up my nephew for a few hours, then leave the sugar crash and ensuing tantrums to be her problem as I whizz off back to reality.
I'm so very grateful that my home doesn't have some little narcissist in it running around wearing my face and destroying my property, sanity, and finances. Or at least, not another one. :)
What I don't get is why people keep forcing their lifestyle onto those with a different lifestyle? Do they see me having all this free time and get jealous and want me to spend the best years of my life also stressing out and raising kids or why is that?
I have kids, I love them, I love parts of what having kids is about, and I hate other parts. If for some reason I had to hit rewind, I would probably choose it without having kids with the information I gained over the years.
And I totally understand people not wanting kids.
If is not a 'lifestyle' thing to have children, rather the opposite: not having children is a 'lack of life' style. If enough people take up this 'lack of life' style your culture will die out and be replaced with one where having children is the norm. This is not a value proposition but simple math - every couple needs to have ~2.1 children to keep the population at a steady level [1].
Also, 'they' do not see you having all this free time and get jealous, they notice that you're spending time on hedonistic pursuits while time is running out - there is a set time frame within which having children is a viable proposition. They are not jealous of your free time at all because from their perspective it is wasted time - time which could be spent with your family instead of just by yourself or with your partner.
Does this mean you are a horrible person for not wanting to have children? No, of course it does not. Not everybody is brought into this world to raise children. It does mean you are missing out on one of the most formational experiences life has to offer, all that free time you gain does come at a certain cost. The choice is yours to make due to the advent of birth control - choose wisely.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...
Yes some are.
This is incredibly inpopular to articulate it out loud but there is a large enough proportion of parents who regret having kids.
And that doesn't mean they don't love their kids.
I respect antinatalists, but I chose differently. I chose to bring laughter and joy to this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit, even if for a brief lapse. Is it the right choice? Perhaps not. Is it a selfish choice? Yes. Why did I do it then? For the same reason I keep breathing. I don't know much more than that.
It doesn't suggest that people are having fewer children because they are "antinatalists" or consider having children a "selfish choice". It's right there in the title: they think they just don't have time due to their work/life balance. As I said in another comment, that's more likely to be an economic problem (specifically, housing) rather than a philosophical change as you seem to be saying.
I guess most commenters jumped to their own reasons. In that sense, I think it's a natural reaction to the topic.
The article is locked down, so I have no idea what it says after the second paragraph. I can imagine though.
The comment I was replying to said that people aren't having kids because they are morally against the concept of (anyone) having kids. The article is about people who perhaps want to have kids but their job pays too little and takes up too much time. Those are about as different as reasons can be.
Another top-level comment included a link that lets you read the whole article (though there's not much substance to it, and the distinction was already clear about by the end of the first paragraph). There isn't much discussion about it because that's discouraged on Hacker News. From the FAQ, under "Are paywalls ok?":
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/parents-children-pare...
I'm in my mid 20s, in tech and couldn't afford that at all, I could barely afford my gf being unemployed. I don't have a car and live in a small flat. If I can barely afford a comfortable but frugal lifestyle while being paid more than 60% of my peers I'm not too surprised most people literally can't afford kids
The reality is that if you are a couple both working an average job you won't have a whole lot of extra time depending on living situation (commute and access to transport) but on top of that you have very little extra cash that could be helpful to solve logistical pains kids make.
All the people of my age that had kids now have unenviable lifestyles, it feels like they can have what the poor boomers had and not much more and nowadays the expectation is that it will last up to a quarter century because of how much we came to overvalue diplomas (even though they do not sort the good from the bad, at all...).
Because of the insanely collectivist system around the world, it makes no difference to have kids or not for the end of your life, so it becomes more of a decision of accepting to be poorer for the privilège of reproduction.
This pretty stupid all things considered, it seems like a feature to have parents dependent on their kids for the end of their life, this way they would have a lot more motivation to do the job right and those who would do a bad job would have it coming...
In the end, collectivism has a way to always destroy the foundation it relies on, which is hilarious. We just are in the destructive phase, what will come out after is bound to be better I think (hard to do worse).
You don't do it or not do it for humanity, society or whatever random shit you make up.
I respect not having kids. The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense.
I love my son, but it's also easily one of the hardest things I've ever done and will continue to be so for the next 18+ years. I wouldn't recommend having children to anyone: it's a singularity, and there's also no undoing it. You need to be very sure it's what you want. It will be expensive, it will limit what you can do in all sorts of ways, because it is relentless in a way which exposure to it as an aunt or uncle or friend simply won't communicate adequately (heck: even parents with older children seem to rapidly forget what having younger children is actually like, as I've experienced).
I've got 3 kids. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Or not recommend it. How the fuck should I know what you want to do or how it'll turn out? I'm glad I had mine and I'm glad we started at 25 instead of 35. Regrets? Some, but if you've none I may not believe you. You can regret things even if you also wouldn't want them to turn out differently.
That's the point: these aren't equal opposites.
The answer to "should I have children?" is "you have to decide that for yourself but be aware of what it is you're deciding".
It is, contrary to some commenters, not a selfish thing to do, but a completely selfless act. You can see it for yourself when you watch the children around you: The pure joy of being alive! The full range of emotions! The good, the bad and the ugly…
You could argue that the children are thrown into the world and are now stuck with it, and you rather would prefer nonexistence to existence. If you can answer the question, is life worth living, positively, then you can argue, that existence is better than nonexistence and consequently being thrown into this world is better than to pass on the experience. It would, however, be selfish to keep this experience all to yourself and not allow potential offsprings to take part in this experience.
> You need to be very sure it's what you want. It will be expensive, it will limit what you can do in all sorts of ways, because it is relentless in a way which exposure to it as an aunt or uncle or friend simply won't communicate adequately
This is right! Having kids is total; It will dominate your life. Every second of your day for at least 4 to 5 years. If you are not willing or able to endure, then you should not have kids. And again: You cannot fathom what it means to have someone who is so dependent on you and the life and future depends on you. No, not even the clingy partner you had.
The hardship is soon forgotten — this is why the uncles and aunts and friends — don't communicate it adequately. These corny moments are real: Memories that will stick with you forever, even the bad parts, that somehow and with time get twisted into fond memories. (My son was crying every night for 8 months when he was falling asleep. I carried him on my arm until he was so exhausted that he slept. I sang songs for him for hours. Then he would sleep from 11 pm to 4 am. So at 4 I went to the living room with him, and we tried to catch some sleep on the couch. It got better after thees 8 months, but what a ride — now I like to think back and miss these nights when he slept in my arm).
You might be in these first years, or I am having a short respite, but it gets easier after the first years. But you don't have kids for yourself, but for your kids.
Ok I'll bite. It's not anywhere near the hardest thing anyone can ever do. It's very easy to get started, most people just do it day by day, it's integrated with life, and throwing in the towel is kinda frowned upon. I'm sorry your kid had colic, my first had the same although not for as long and my second would just scream in bed when she was a little older so I'd stay and read and doze while holding her hand. But it wasn't hard like if I decided to write a book or climb a mountain or something.
For me this was the hardest part. You don't get to get out. Maybe it's a mindset thing.
Starting a book, an app, a diet. You all can just throw the towel and be done. Kids, not an option.
Having kids is not strictly synonymous with raising kids well and while you may not just kill the kid you can also do the strict minimum and let it be as much as possible (or transfer the responsibility to someone else). It is extremely current and something many parents do, just as much as soft quitting any of the other activities you mentioned... The bar is rather low, it needs to have foods to not starve, clothing to not be naked and a place to sleep; if you do those things for yourself, you are more than a third of the way done; all the rest is completely optional and many parents definitely chose to leave the option on the table.
You are literally adding N + 1 complexity to the universe. There is a whole world of possibility opened through having children.
What you see as reduced options is actually a series of choices you decided you’d want to have to make. And good parents choose the options that payoff in the long term.
That doesn't mean it's bad. But it's also not going to end (it will however, get different - but not easier).
Since you have children, I think you'd agree with me that it's changed you in a way that you can't explain to someone who doesn't have any? Wouldn't you rather everyone underwent that change?
The broadest group of my cohort decided to have children. It was the easiest path to begin - most folks are straight and have sex drives and that will often result in babies. Those few of us seniors who decided not to have had a weird expectations foisted on us from some and strange condemnation from others - social pressures I could claim parents will never understand.
So please stop this one-side-or-the-other nonsense. And the "mystical experience of being 'me'." We all make choices. We're all similar. We are each unique.
We're in a world where we constantly told that we have to give up meat/dairy, powered transport, heating/cooling, and a whole lot more to avert climate catastrophe.
I'm surprised there's so few mentions of the incredible destructiveness of having kids (e.g. vs. owning an ICE car or taking a few flights per year)
Having kids and no cars helps ensure the continuation of humanity.
Turns out there's only one sure way to ensure human extinction, and it's for humans to stop reproducing.
But human extinction, no. Some areas will even become more habitable.
And humans will only become extinct if everyone stops having kids which won't happen because some people like having them.
> Some areas will even become more habitable.
Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.
No, but that's the case even now. The bottom end of humanity is having a horrible time. I'm sure people in North Korea or the war-torn countries in Africa won't be that much worse off than they are now.
> Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.
I agree think it will lead to conflict over land, for sure. Siberia might even become a hospitable place :) Mass migrations will cause huge problems for sure and probably even some wars. But again, those things are something we have now too.
But it's not an extinction event, especially not for us here in the west. We'll have to deal with a lot of inconveniences but we have the resources to mitigate them.
It's not fair but really nothing in the world is fair now (and it seems to be getting even worse with pretty much all the world leaders being hardliners now)
Buddy: you're posting on a forum for tech workers. Not owners. Not billionaires. Not only are we not on anyone's radar as "essential", no one needs that many of us. Might want to rethink your place in the decaying world order if you think an ecosystem collapse needs a lot of programmers.
The world order is decaying anyway due to all the hardliner world leaders I mentioned, all intent on conflict. But I don't think this has an awful lot to do with the climate issue. More with overpopulation and countries like China getting richer and wanting to play the geopower game.
And yeah it may well be very bad for me but there really isn't anything I can do about it. I stand by my original point that it's not a human extinction-level event though.
We're stuck on a finite planet with diminishing natural resources. Endless growth isn't possible.
Maybe we should just accept that some things auto regulate. It's the way of nature.
They see human extinction as a possibility to accept, rather than as something to necessarily avoid.
I know a few people like this, and their reasons vary. These range from "if humanity goes extinct, it's god's will" to "dinosaurs went extinct and the earth survived, something else will evolve if we're not here" to "we've shown we can't be trusted to care for the planet, let nature take its course".
In most cases they'd rather avert climate catasrophe, but for the continued habitability of the planet (for many species), rather than for the continuation of humanity.
If it did, then I personally have no environmental impact; it's already all on my parents ;)
The idea that you’re inherently better off having kids is nonsense as well.
Nonetheless nothing I condemn.
At the end of the day it's harder not to have kids and stop this cycle than not, thanks to evolution.
But we know in which world we bring humans in.
Climate change, rassism, bulling etc.
I believe the environmental/climactic concerns raised by antinatalists are just a feeble deflection. They are primarily interested in personal comfort.
For some, these are possible medical complications, e.g. history of heart defects, high risk of childbirth fatality.
For others, its that they had abusive or traumatic childhoods, and either don't feel they'd be up to the task of parenthood, or associate childhood with something so unpleasant that they wouldn't want to inflict it on others.
I believe creating new life is playing 'god'.
It's easier to never exist than life life.
This has nothing to do what you thought
That's an unusual definition of "playing god", since it includes something that pretty much every life form back to the earliest single-cellular bacteria does.
I'm not sure I do this most of the time.
> can't think about the implications
I definitely don't do this bit.
Although I've not fully understood what makes that decision "selfish" in the sense that I'm not acting in a way that is a detriment to others.
If I were to create people in order to try and find some meaning but leaving them as adrift in this meaninglessness as I, would that really be a selfless act? It seems quite the opposite to me.
Perhaps this is indeed “cope” in one way or another, but it’s what I’ve felt from a very young age, though I think it took me a lot of reflection to realize it and be able to put it into words.
I am not an "antinatalist" because of this.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with comfort (or the environment or climate).
I note that the "unto" here is a very interesting word choice that hints at an underlying belief structure that drives your opinion.
To maximise quality of life, maximise duration of life, or maximise the numer of humans?
At the moment, we seem to be aiming for 'maximum number of humans'. But in a world of climate crisis and depleted resources, that means ever-fewer freedoms, rapidly declining quality of life, and increasing levels of war/conflict.
To create their future workers/slaves.
That's a false dichotomy, people without kids can bring joy and laughter to "this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit". You don't have to justify yourself for what you have chosen.
On the other hand; stop being a little wuss. The reasons I see being given by those fretting the responsibilities seem to be born from general anxiety and over-thinking. Nobody is ever ready to have a child, but we do it any learn along the way because we're arrogant enough in the beginning, and humble enough afterward the beginning.
What I see with this generation however, is never trying because on paper it's impossible. Yes, it's impossible, but that shouldn't stop you if it's what you really want.
But it's good for environmental reasons to not have kids anyway.
Nevertheless, I'm sure if I had PG's wealth, I could have kids and have a lot better work life balance with them. But I do not.
But I'm glad we don't have this kind of social pressure to have kids anymore. Like there was in the 50s and some countries still do.
Humans are the only hope for other species including animals and plants, since we can bring them into outer space and use energy storage or from other parts of the solar system / galaxy to preserve life further.
That said, here's a fine poem in support of your angle: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-ver...
It's just something that was previously seen as a virtue (or for example for Catholics almost a holy priority) is now becoming a hobby. And if not everyone takes up that hobby we can be sustainable for a lot longer. Even a population decline wouldn't be bad after we've been growing so hard as a species.
Of course we can't keep growing forever. And hoping the future comes up with a magical answer is exactly how we got into the climate mess we're in right now.
Am I wrong to interpret it like that?
The ones who insist on having children as an ultimate virtue, I find them to be just as wrong.
Either choice is fine, and the moral objections to either one are unreasonable.
Edit: edited to expand the last sentence.
In fact I really hate moral judgments of people's personal lives, like is being done to the LGBT community in the US at the moment.
And that position can still be reassessed in the next 30 years.
I am still not convinced that a globally aging population is a big issue in the long term.
If you care about quality of life, employment, pensions, shortages, smooth transitions, immigration, it's a whole other story
Such a phase sucks but it's temporary. Eventually the wave of old people is gone and things are back to normal. It's not something we can't overcome.
What do you mean by back to normal ? The African demographic boom, even if we didn't have our own fertility problem, will ensure there will be no back to "normal". History is never about going back to normal
We've seen the same here in Europe. My parents' generation usually had large families, my generation had mostly 1-2 kids, and these days many families have no kids.
Of course poorer countries and countries that are still very religious are a bit behind but they will catch up too. Humanity won't go extinct, there will always be people happy to have children.
And if we can't, is that fair to future generations? Aren't we condemning them to a more miserable life? (On the other hand, if 8 billion people leads to destroying the environment, that also leaves them more miserable...)
Food will be a bigger problem but less people also means less food needed.
That's what they told us in the 60s/70s/80s and we're still working as much while our standards are lowering but ok, we'll automagically fix things, we're just waiting for the right time
The only reason we could have so many people on the planet at once is because almost half of them live in poverty, close to animal standard with some human technology sprinkled in some place...
It's just shortsighted to believe that having so many people was sustainable in the first place.
I guess if you don't care about your country or continent legacy that could work yes
In contrast, kids are necessary to stop overaging and the collapse of our society.
But anyway, if you need active workforce, the solutions is simple: immigration.
The best thing you can do for the environment is to find someone as passionate as yourself and create a large family of conscientious, thoughtful, active environmentalists.
The absence of people with bad ideas won't help as much as a surplus of people with good ideas. Since even if we had half the people they could still pollute like crazy.
If humanity has to go extinct in 40 years might as well tear up all current climate agreements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA [IDIOCRACY Opening Scene (2006) Mike Judge]
Kids is the hardest thing to come to life, I call it "life on hard mode". And I've moved across the world. But the gains are immense.
You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible.
Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring.
People on HN are typically pretty well off. Low social economic couples tend to have 3, 4, 5+ kids. Certain countries with extremely low standards of living have many kids as well.
Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning.
Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too.
If being "smart" is not having kids, we've failed at the game of life!
I don't think that should be a life goal. It is just a basic reaction to the fear of death.
Then don't do that. I go clubbing a lot and I'm almost 50 and I really enjoy it. My partner is pretty polyamorous like me so we're not really monogamous either, making it even more interesting.
Maybe this doesn't work for you but I don't like the idea of society saying what I should want to do with my life. I'm very happy as it is.
> we're decreasing, the typical white middle-class couple is facing extinction. [...] I don't mean this with a grain of racism
Please don't do this. "We" on HN and in the west and in world in general is incredibly diverse. Your comment disrespects this human diversity. Please take some time to think about that.
> Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too.
Society needs fixing to preserve the place of the white middle class?
I am, to be clear, a well-educated white single man over 40 (who has enough to do without this restaurant-based existence you think is the apotheosis of childlessness). But I think society needs fixing so that I am not in a class protected by privilege. So far I think the threat of extinction is having no meaningful impact either way.
That is a very strange perspective.
And there’s always delivery.
As opposed to sitting at home with your partner when you're 40+ because your kids are out being teenagers and you need to be available in case they need you? Life at either extreme looks boring.
Yes, having kids is incredibly taxing on ones time and nerves and all that. And yes, most parents probably love their children and have warm pleasant feelings when they see their children grow up. And also at least some percentage of people need to have kids, so that we can continue to exist as a species and all that jazz. All not questioned.
What I do question are the following things, and disclaimer, it is going to be a bit philosophical. I also don't tell you this to tell you, that you are doing something wrong. I am telling you this to give another point of view:
> You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible.
As a determinist I can understand, that to most people children are a very tangible result of their lives. That's fine. But there are so many other things in life that one could do or achieve, that have nothing to do with children. Your children are not solely your own work's result either. Think of all the people involved in raising them. Think of the rest of society contributing to your kids being able to be raised the way they are. Daycare people, kindergarten, primary school, secondary school, the friendly neighbor, relatives, friends helping with school homework or additional teaching if necessary, ... probably I am forgetting many. And so many people in various professionsa and jobs can claim just as well, that they leave behind something very tangible, even though they might never have kids themselves.
Many actions of many people all day long all contribute just as much, only that their influence on the children's lives are less direct. Butterfly effect and all that.
Ultimately I even find that focus on ones own children a bit selfish. It is probably a very natural tendency and ones own children are ones dearest usually, so I can understant why it exists. However, there is nothing that says society must be this way. Nothing that mandates, that we look after our own child before others.
> Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring.
There are many other huge parts of life. Unfortunately we have to choose in our lives which huge parts we pursue. Why don't you do other good things for society with your partner? You could offer tutoring for pupils in need or for talented ones. You could work for charity saving children around the world. You could do many great things. Those are not lesser things compared to having kids yourself.
> People on HN are typically pretty well off. Low social economic couples tend to have 3, 4, 5+ kids. Certain countries with extremely low standards of living have many kids as well. > Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning.
I see no problem. The only problem I see there is that of broken education systems in my country. I don't care where a child or adult comes from. I care about their education and skills. I care about how they can contribute to our society. I don't have the fear of being replaced by people from other countries. If they are friendly and willing to contribute well to our society, I welcome them.
> Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too.
> If being "smart" is not having kids, we've failed at the game of life!
I partially agree, that society needs fixing. I don't agree on a theoretical basis, that smart people having kids is necessary. I think it is necessary for smart people to pass on their skills and knowledge. Which should be how we fix society. We make the smart people pass on their stuff, through a good education system. Yes, it will be a lot of fixing needed.
Lastly, I do understand, that there are many reasons, why retroactively many people (not saying you in particular) need to justify to themselves the sacrifices they undoubtedly make in raising children. It would be a strong dissonance, if they could not convince themselves of it having been the right choice. It's fine! We all need to cope with our lives. What I would ask parents to do is to consider, that there are other, just as valid viewpoints and that other people can be well aware of all of that and still prioritize differently in their own lives.
Anyways, I have one child and hoping for a second. He has been a total joy for me and my wife since he was born.
It just means you don't want to have kids. It doesn't imply any kind of belief structure.
Who knew HN had such a trad subculture.
Does not wanting children rule you out from being a role model for them (or anyone else) or being "exemplary"?