Hacker News Reader

Comment by tbrooks | Hacker News Reader

> Having no dependents, I could dedicate myself to what seemed right rather than to whatever someone with money wanted me to do.

I don't buy the false choice of GNU/no children or children/no GNU. Why does it have to be either/or?

View on HN

it just is either or -- or probability wise close to it. from the time and demand it takes to be a good parent, to the many things you have to do to afford children, to the fact that being responsible for somebody makes you largely beholden to people with money and health insurance, it just is.

at least for the salary earning classes.

people's range of behavior is narrowed by the hierarchy of needs. having a child amplifies this effect.

if you want to do something revolutionary that potentially threatens the status quo, it is better to be either independently wealthy or have much fewer economic needs and pressures.

If you want to do something revolutionary that potentially threatens the status quo, first you have to be born.

Sure. But the question on this thread is if you also have to have offspring, which is orthogonal to being born yourself.

Some people want to make the world a better place by having families. To me this makes at least as much sense most plans for world-improvement.

What about having families makes the world a better place?

Plenty of abusive, criminal, ..., families. Matter of fact, every negative historical figure was also born into a family.

"What about having families makes the world a better place?"

Families are vital. That everybody from Genghis Kahn to Jonas Salk was born into one ought to be the tip-off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com