Why it is important not to have children (2012)
stallman.org
stallman.org
Stallman makes his argument from a position that parenthood is a reasonable choice for most of us. That is no longer the case. For most of us, parenthood is out of reach.
We are living in a 4 (typical) income economy. My adult children have no likely path to support themselves, nevertheless to be part of a self-sustaining, married couple.
It's also because parenting time rose 20-fold between my childhood and my kids'. My mom parented some hours a week. During my grade-school years, I could roam miles in every direction.
I had to supply a 24/7 adult presence to my kids. My kids had ~nowhere to go.
Compared to most of human history, modern parenting/childhood is a treadmill of restrictions, overload and unaffordability. At the end of it we grow emotionally harmed adults and then blame social media for the results.
You've made this claim multiple times recently. What do you consider a "typical" income to base this on?
It used to be a rate of pay that young people could start a family on. In the 1990s I could answer an ad for a job that most people could do. That job alone would be nearly enough to support wife, me, 2 young kids. I'd make up the diff on the side.
That's gone and birth rates can't climb without it.
Why did you have to be a 24/7 presence for your kids? Your parents let you roam everywhere and that worked fine? Don't trust the news and their endless doom scrolling... The world is far safer now than what you were raised in.
Anyone could choose to do their own very small business, even just being a handyman, and have your kids go with you.
The only thing kids actually require is food, water, and shelter. Everyone in the modern world can do that. Kids don't need helicopter parents or endless driving around to activities or money being spent on college. I would argue college is a net negative now compared to trade school.
Kids are just happy to be alive, they don't need a billion things.
1) Like most kids here, my 5 had nowhere to go. They step out of the house and in every direction is a road and a trespassing risk.
What there wasn't: A large selection of (or any) places kids could safely reach and congregate every day without a risk of harm by cars or misguided adults (like police).
2) My wife and I risked arrest if my kids were seen without a supervising adult. Like all the other parents.
> Your parents let you roam everywhere and that worked fine?
It didn't just work fine, it was where most of my critical growth happened. It's where I learned to sort problems, work with peers, concoct and carry out plans, develop new interests based on actual experiences and navigate an endless array of complex situations.
It's where I developed the foundations that nurture mental health.
> The only thing kids actually require is food, water, and shelter.
If this is all kids have then they are likely experiencing neglect.
This is wholly false. Me+kids frequently ate nothing but white rice for most of the 2010s. We sometimes couldn't afford rice. If it was during a school month, the kids could still eat twice. If not, then they didn't.
We barely stayed housed. The water was cut off more than once.
This is the US and our story is pretty common.
Having children / treating them well / them treating you well when you are old is great imo , and when we eventually die , we know that there would be a deep legacy left to somebody.
Yes we do have friends. But I am saying in a sense to maximize legacy.
I don't want to say something offensive , but friends are mine in a , yes I know him personality kind of way , family relations on the other hand are formed through the strands of dna itself sooo , IDK.
This line of thinking feels a lot like utilitarian (like its okay to do somethng bad short term for good long term)