Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdietrich | Hacker News Reader

The second author is a narcissist and a fool.

People have chosen not to have children for at least as long as people have been writing down their thoughts. Most cultures throughout history have a monastic class of some sort, who renounce many aspects of conventional life to pursue other aims. There are myriad ways to live a significant, meaningful life without children. If you cannot think of a worthwhile use of your life that is not focussed on either your own material enrichment or raising your own progeny, that is merely a reflection of your own worthlessness.

Saying "I regret having children" is one of the most taboo sentences in our society. Until we address that taboo, we are unlikely to find an honest answer as to whether having children really is a source of fulfilment.

View on HN

Saying "I regret having children" is one of the most taboo sentences in our society.

Spot on. I've had some family members and friends admit to me that they wish they hadn't had kids, and I know they mean it in the abstract. Too many people would hear a parent say that and have some emotional knee-jerk "you don't love me! you wish I was dead!" reaction, so it never gets said. You can still love a child but wish that you'd taken a different path in life.

"we are unlikely to find an honest answer as to whether having children really is a source of fulfilment"

That sounds as if you already have a made up answer: of course if we were honest, it wouldn't be a source of fulfillment? Well, you are wrong - at least for some people. Obviously nobody can generalize for other people.

I don't really care if other people have children or not, I only find it sad if they decide against them for the wrong reasons. I suspect the people who started this "kids are only a nuisance" meme are silently laughing to themselves about the fools who believed them while playing with their 5 kids.

Why isn't it sad if people decide to have kids for the wrong reasons?

I didn't say that is not sad. Or rather, that in itself wouldn't be sad, it would only be sad if they then also would be unhappy about having children.

Also, I'd say not having kids is missing some kind of experience you can not have otherwise, whereas having kids doesn't really make you miss out on things you could not have otherwise (unless you count stuff like "partying hard for ten years of my life instead of just 3 years"). In that sense I'd say it is sad. Of course it is not the only sad thing in the world.

The first author says "we" and "me" and "I" and talks about their own experience, including some consideration on what they may be missing.

The second author says mostly "you" and projects their own experience onto every childfree couple. That's pretty presumptuous and, as you noted, narcissistic.

Another thought about the "I regret having children" line: it is not a given that the people who would say so would not have regretted not having children, too.

Obviously all sorts of attitudes exist. There are even kids who regret having been born and who commit suicide.

Don't know if he's a narcissist, but he's definitely sanctimonious about having seen the light.

I think caring parents, regardless of whether they regret having children, recognize it will make those children feel like shit to hear you say wish you hadn't had them. I hope I am not interpreting incorrectly what you are saying, but I think it's not merely the threat of abuse from others if they say they regret having kids. Legitimate care for their children even into adulthood may be preventing parents from saying this. That will make the taboo hard to break, if it were even desirable to do so, which I don't think it is. The question is important, but breaking that taboo not so much.

actually narcissist and fool will be a person who decides that satisfying his own hunger for travel and business is more important than evolution.

Choosing not to reproduce is also a part of evolution.

Not really.

#2 is a narcassist because having kids is all about him and his fulfillment/ego.

It was kind of creepy to read. To me it was the epitome of "I don't know what to do to feel whole so I'll have kids" and the implication that everyone else is selfish or unfulfilled if they prefer or prioritize something else.

Creepy indeed. What happens if #2 has kids... and he's still unfulfilled?

On another selfish part it sounds like a lot of people who have kids say: "if you don't who will take care of you?" So...You having kids so they can wipe your ass when you are old? I rather be dead than be a major pain in the ass and bother my kids when they have their own problems (their own kids perhaps, crazy work, maybe illness and their own interests) and not be able to function on my own. And if you take care of yourself now, maybe you won't be sick, miserable fuck and have enough money to live on your own or have a med-girl visit you time to time.

> What happens if #2 has kids... and he's still unfulfilled?

Send them back to the factory and try something else?

[Taken literally, it's of course a joke; but taken less literally, it's a bit scary... oO; ]

Creepy I guess. But not uncommon, and I don't hold it against him.

Ultimately we have to procreate to continue to species. And I for one can't claim to never have felt those social pressures or biological impulses.

If I accepted "I was taught it and ignorantly don't question it" as an excuse for the stupid things people say, I wouldn't have nearly the problems with religious people and political opinions that I do.

Man, us gay guys with no desire to contribute to the gene pool must be real monsters.

Lots of gays want to adapt kids and have family actually.

I worried this would be the intrepretation. I didn't offset "with no desire to contribute to the gene pool" with commas, meaning I was still just describing myself. I know plenty of people who want to adopt and/or want to have their genes involved in a surrogate child or what not.

I suppose I could have just elided the "gay" part, but then it would just be the same as referring to anyone who doesn't want kids as opposing evolution. I don't really understand the argument anyway I suppose. Are we supposed to just be machines of evolution? Pump out kids, toss the normal ones and try to weed out ones with traits to promote? Eugenics?

Adapt? :-x

I have kids, love em, but why the fuck should anyone's life decision be termed narcissistic for not participating in a large scale, indifferent physical process? Am I narcissistic when I jump because I'm (momentarily) defying gravity?

Evolution takes care of itself. We've evolved a society where the majority of our children survive to adulthood, so now it's expected that there will be people who don't care to have children of their own and the tribe will survive.

Evolution is brutal and without mercy. To fight it’s brutality and lack of mercy should always be our goal. It is not and never will be our friend. We shall triumph over it.

To make any of our decisions dependent on it makes no sense.

With a population of 7 billion humans and growing, "evolution" is doing fine.

Evolution can jump in a lake. It is not a moral imperative. It has no importance to me. When one considers whether or not to have kids, "evolution" is not a consideration for an individual to weigh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com