You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Especially if we try to rationalize the choice. If you talk about "feelings", then fine. But be aware that "feelings" could simply be your hormone levels changing after having kids.
Until it is your kid in front of you you can’t know what you’ll feel as a parent. Maybe it’s all hormones and monkey brain, but that doesn’t make it any different.
Many people do not have that Hollywood Magic moment where “everything changed.” Some of my friends experienced this, some of them did not. None of us experienced what we thought we would.
We are talking past each other because some/most parents in those discussion cannot get out of their self-centered view of the worlds based on "feelings". But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world, you should be able to substantiate that claim without going back to "feelings" that only you can feel.
Yes, they should. We are, after all, replying to the initial assertion that (and I quote) "you don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings [love, being needed, needing someone]".
> But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world
That wasn't a claim anybody made in this thread, and specifically everyone was talking from a personal perspective about parenthood, not making universal claims. Certainly not the person who wrote this (and to whom you indirectly replied):
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
If you don't like talking about feelings, fine. But this discussion was about feelings, not about some universal "most important thing in the world".
There is a ton of philosophy written around this. Feelings are a very self-centric view of the world. The goal of rationalization is to take a wider systemic view without being self-centered.
Because if you push feelings and chemistry to the max you could also make an argument that taking meth and heroin is the most important thing in the world, as the feelings coming out of it are very real.
Also, the context of this conversation was replying to this assertion:
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings
So it's about feelings, not about "rational discussion". Not a "fallacy" like you claimed, but the actual topic of discussion.
>>> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
Also, nobody here -- the people you're debating with, I mean -- is arguing that having kids is universally the most meaningful thing anyone can do with their life; they are instead offering their personal perspectives. For example, in the sentence you quote:
> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life
The operating words are "I have done with my life"; it's not telling you what you should do with yours.
In fact, the whole debate in this sub-thread was sparked by a very aggressive comment (not yours), but which you chose to implicitly defend:
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Well, whether the person saying the above has or doesn't have children is entirely relevant. It's not a "fallacy". We're discussing feelings, even the above comment acknowledges it; and in relation to parenthood the fact remains: these feelings must be experienced, you cannot truly comment on them otherwise. I mean, you can, but your opinion wouldn't be of much value.
Read again the comment that prompted the above comment:
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
Really, it's all about subjective feelings. Which, essentially, is all that matters in the context of this conversation. If you don't have children, you won't have felt like this. You simply cannot. So it's not a fallacy to ask if you have them.
edit:
> a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life
The blog doesn't claim this, either.
In the case of being a parent, yes, yo do. This is not something you can experience second-hand.
Remember that once you have kids you are stuck in that situation forever. There is a lot of coping and trying to persuade yourself that this is the best thing in the world. It might as well be as there is no escape anyways!
It's kind of like balance. You can read all about balance in a book and watch YouTube videos but until you get on a bicycle and experience it you'll never really "get" balance.
You can't imagine until you experience it. It's as simple as that.
Have kids or don’t, live your life the way you want. But taking unsolicited dumps on other people’s decisions is a pretty lame way to live.
And yes, you do have to have kids in order to understand what it feels like to have kids. You do not know what it’s like, as evidenced by your thinking having kids entitles a parent to their love. Let me tell you clearly and unequivocally: it does not. Love is earned. A family is a big lesson in that.
To use a less charged example: I can’t claim to know what strawberries taste like if I never try a strawberry.
TL;DR: I understand anti-natalism is in vogue right now, but some of y’all are really shitty about it.
Furthermore I don’t need to shoot heroin to know that shooting heroin feels extremely good and that the people that do it really enjoy the feeling. I also don’t need to shoot heroin to see the harms it causes to the people that do it, and those around them.
You are trying to make a logical argument for the observed preferences of an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA. It’s a shame that so many people are blinded to that by instinct and emotion.
If I were developing nanotech grey goo in my basement, everyone would rightly point out that it’s a risk to society. Yet, humans doing the exact same thing (just more slowly) are praised.
People get unreasonably defensive when confronted with these facts, as you have demonstrated.
Can you name one thing that benefits from people creating more selfish and self-replicating creatures other than the emotional state of people who share some of their DNA?
PS: No mother “earns” the love of a one or two year old. It’s automatic and meritless. To assert otherwise to bolster your argument is obviously silly and should clue you in to how shaky the logical foundation for your claims is.
Also you seem to be saying that not having children is the "only intelligent choice". Intelligent for what? Then you state that we are "an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA." while in the same breath excluding yourself from being said system, calling yourself logical and calling your preference superior to others.
And "harms everyone" assumes the damages of the life you create outweigh the goods. That's your value judgment, not a measurement, and plenty of the people actually created have thought it through and disagree... As for one benefit? Existing people benefit, including you. Everything keeping you alive was built by people who had to be born.
Peak HN comment.
Technically you don't "need" anything in life besides food and shelter. You don't need to have children, or loved ones, or friends, or ambitions, or projects, or goals... but life is very sad if you miss all of them.