Hacker News Reader

Comment by usaphp | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

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.

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 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.

Choosing not to reproduce is also a part of evolution.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com