Hacker News Reader

Natural way of being a human is shitting under a tree and sleeping on this tree, and certainly isn't writing a comment on this site. I couldn't care less of arguments based on some kind of naturalistic fallacy.

Sleeping in a bed in a house is certainly the way humans prefer it. But thinking a society with not enough kids can survive and thrive, on the other hand, is wrong, because it is biologically impossible. It’s not a fallacy, it’s harsh truth.

There probably is a society where there are "not enough kids", but it certainly does not come remotely close to current one with over 8 billion humans scraping for resources.

The problem is just that we don't live in ONE society having 8 billion members, but in about two hundred different ones. And being in one of those that are in decline is not exactly a good feeling.

It's only a problem because we set up our economy as a pyramid scheme, and that is now biting us in the ass.

If there was no economic problem due to the decline in population, there was no problem, period.

Oh yes, the economy... right.... the only thing we should ever think of.

Until the global birth rate is sub-replacement for generations, there's no point in even having this conversation. If the issue is that the "right" kind of people ("native" people in advanced economies) aren't having children, but the "wrong" kind (aka the Global South, immigrants, etc.), then that's just racism. There's no baby shortage -- the ethnic makeup of humanity is simply changing and we will need to erase most of those artificial borders in order to survive. We ARE a single society, and pretending that we're not is a mutual suicide pact.

So when your company is going broke you don't care and are happy because in TV they said that the economy is growing? Are you a company-racist because you want your company to be healthy and non declining? Are you not trading with and appreciating other companies because you only love your own?

The same is with countries and their societies.

I will not be that defeatist to say "my country/my region/my continent can go down because there are others". And to say that is not racist.

Not really sure what you're getting at exactly, but I think you're comparing countries in the world to firms in a market, with the point that I must obviously care about my country's fortunes relative to other countries?

In the current order, I sort of do, but that whole Westphalian order of "countries" is artificial (and also relatively new in its specifics, though of course kingdoms and empires go back far longer): we're all related and share one biosphere, and more recently we share one globalized economy. The truth is that we will sink or swim together -- if we have abandoned houses in Peoria because American-born people aren't having their own children, that is an opportunity to house people who come from somewhere without enough housing or infrastructure. The only barrier to this happening is our suicidal apartheid regime of borders and passports that's even newer than the Westphalian system!

Borders are not erected to help you, an ordinary citizen. They are there to divide you against the ordinary citizens on the other side of them.

> "The amount of work".... oh dear. As if caring for other people is only work. From what will you get distracted by having other people around you (kids)? From Instragram? Cycling? Reading books?

What if they prefer Instagram, Cycling and Reading Books rather than raising children? Why are you so concerned about other people's lifestyles? Are you going to pay their rent or help them with their chores?

I decided to have a child, and it was a conscious decision I made with my partner, fully aware that our previous lifestyle would be no more. Deciding not to have a child would have been equally as valid.

I find it funny that this discussion elicits so much passion from people that decided to have children. Do you need validation from other people to justify your own decisions?

Whenever I am asked about it, I say that you should not have children unless you are absolutely certain that you want a child in your life, and that your life is stable enough to accommodate one. The world sucks even in the best of times. To condemn someone to existence when their lives will be made more difficult is selfish and cruel.

No children: no society. Or: a very old, geriatric, undynamic, fearful society with no innovation. Simple.

What happened that after a few hundred thousand years of having families we suddendly need to be "absolutely certain" to have kids? Human nature is the EXACT other way round. What we currently see is an outgrow of pure hedonism. It kills societies (literally, at least in the sense of "no new life").

Concerning "being fully aware that our previous lifestyle would be no more": this in itself partly shows the problem. So our casual life choices are in such a way that it is completely uncompatible with having a family? Sure - when you're 20, you might not be ready. But do we, as a society, promote lifestyles that even when you're 30 are impossible to combine with having kids? Then maybe our lifestyle as a society is wrong, what we tell ourselves to be "good life" is wrong.

And then again... maybe we take having kids too seriously? I really can't say having missed out on much since having kids (and no, we have no nanny). We simply did the stuff people "fear". We went out for dinner together two weeks after our first one was born (together with the baby). And we repeated, until today. We went on those 10 hour flights. We explored foreign countries. We visit museums with modern art. We spent months abroad. Is it always easy? Nope. But it was, overall, not too different from the life before. Kids get used to stuff, parents get used to stuff. Most of us can do it if we let go of the instagrammy thought of having to be perfect. And this is how society always was and always will be.

EDIT: In the current medical climate where child mortality is very, very low, of course, as a society we CAN afford to have less kids overall. And as long there are a few people who LIKE to have 3 or more kids, we can afford to have some more people having no kids as all. I don't promote growing society ad infinitum. But having sub-replacement birth rates will NOT make our countries better for sure (and the economy is my very LAST concern). France 10-15 years ago can lead as an example with a healthy rate of births, wealth and personal freedom.

In my view, having children without being prepared for them is the most hedonistic thing one can do - creating people for your own reasons without a clear way of supporting them.

As someone without children, I find it strange that I'm perceived as living some hedonistic lifestyle. There are indeed material concerns when it comes to the idea of children, but they tend more towards maintaining housing and especially for me who has some medical needs, health insurance. I'm certainly not traveling all the time or living it up with a fancy brunch every weekend; I'm actually quite happy with a modest living arrangement and diet, but even that seems to get more expensive as time goes on, and my job tenures get shorter as the layoffs come quicker.

You don't feel like you've missed out on much since having children and I think that's a great attitude; I don't feel like I've missed out on much since not having children. We can both be correct in this because we are each our own people with our own wants.

Well, of course, I am not getting at you personally, as I don't know you. And of course I am not getting angry at people around me for not having kids (do I know their reasons well?). I speak more about society as a whole.

Much of what you write are modernity made problems. When we are really getting deep into what is going on, then YOU/ME/WE should not be living on our own alone anyway. YOU/ME/WE, in a healthy society, should be living in a multigenerational home where close to NOTHING changes if there is one more kid running around. OF COURSE having kids is a much more difficult choice when we all have to live on our own, only together with our partner (with which we also have to maintain a PERFECT relationship because there is no other person around or to go to to cool down a bit anyway), we all have to pay for our housing ALONE, plus taxes, plus (in many countries) health insurance, childcare etc. . A more humanly organized society would have much more of us simply live together, share more stuff. But most of us have to start at zero. Which some say is "fair". But in reality, it is making us poorer. Financially, emotionally.

In fact I'm a 30-something man who lives in a multi-generational household (with my parents). I'm under the impression that it's not considered an attractive quality.

You are right: it is not considered attractive. I myself do, as an example, not live in one (that said: all family lives in my region). Because we as a society somehow made "independence" the "cool" way to live.

I was thinking it was a behavioral evolution thing - demonstrating status and suitability as a mate; that sort of thing. But really it just seems like a waste of money if your needs are modest. I only need a room really. The funny thing is that I went through the trouble of buying a house before I realized that.

>And then again... maybe we take having kids too seriously? I really can't say having missed out on much since having kids (and no, we have no nanny). We simply did the stuff people "fear".

I'd commend you for that. Not helicopter parenting is the way to go.

You act like no one is having kids at all. The birthrate being lower on a planet with 8 billion going on 11 billion is just fine.

> No children: no society.

Also not my problem. I'll be dead.

> What happened that after a few hundred thousand years of having families we suddendly need to be "absolutely certain" to have kids? Human nature is the EXACT other way round.

Human nature was to live out as a hunter-gatherer in some African savannah. Why would this hold any power over how people choose to live their lives in the Year of our Lord 2024?

> Concerning "being fully aware that our previous lifestyle would be no more": this in itself partly shows the problem.

You sound oddly interested in how I make life changing decisions that don't affect you in any way.

I do not know you personally, but I reply to what you say because it is not only you who says it, but seems to exemplify what at least I see as a problem in society. I recognise thought patterns that I've heard before.

> Also not my problem. I'll be dead.

This is another example of a thought pattern often encountered. The thought of "being free to do what ever I feel like" and not caring.... is a meme.

> Human nature was to live out as a hunter-gatherer in some African savannah. Why would this hold any power over how people choose to live their lives in the Year of our Lord 2024?

You are taking a thing where Humans have proven to be quite flexible (the style of living) and bring it to a discussion that is, at its base, biological (no babies: no society). Sure, we can now say that it all doesn't matter if our more and more babyless societies go to die.... but is this really the way to go on?

> Also not my problem. I'll be dead.

So why do you want to live now?

Because I am already alive. So I'll see this amusement park ride to its conclusion.

Isn't that a sad way to be and think?

Is it? I don't feel particularly sad.

There's nothing to be sad or happy about it. It is just a fact of life. Like gravity.

Well put and agreed 100%. Source: parent of 18 year old.

Do not over-think it. Just be careful to pick a partner who shares the same values and then get on with it.

This is a classic appeal to nature.

The natural way of being a human for thousands of years was to hunt and gather, and then die before 40. But that didn't stop us from progressing past that point.