To Breed or Not to Breed?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
To Breed or Not to Breed?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/20/style/breed-children-climate-change.html
73 comments
A common thing I’ve heard is people saying “I wouldn’t want to bring a baby in to THIS world,” which I think shows that we really need to do a better job teaching history. It’s literally the best time there’s ever been to bring a child in to the world. There’s no constant threat of nuclear annihilation, no giant world wars, a large portion of childhood diseases have been eradicated, the chance of the mother dying in childbirth is incredibly low comparatively, and the list goes on and on.
Even if this world is not ideal, it's still fine to breed or bring children to this world.
"Never feel sorry for raising dragon-slayers in a time when there are actual dragons," unknown.
"Never feel sorry for raising dragon-slayers in a time when there are actual dragons," unknown.
There's always an existential threat. That argument is for people who won't have anyone to care for them when they get old, won't have as much joy or love in their lives, and their genes will die with them. An absolutely pointless life, in my unpopular opinion, but only my opinion nonetheless.
There is a constant threat of nuclear annihilation. It never went away.
Sure, but we’re not constantly on the brink and teaching kids to duck and cover.
Duck and cover was pointless fearmongering and safety theater.
We are on the brink from numerous existential threats including, but not limited to: climate change (i.e., more extreme weather damage and deaths, desertification, regional famines, resource wars, and billions/hundreds of millions of CC refugees), asteroids, GRBs, pandemics (viral, bacteriological, and mycotic), epidemics of diabetes, CHD, and cancer, nuclear terrorism, US vs. China over Taiwan, NATO vs. Russia, mega-tsunami.
We are on the brink from numerous existential threats including, but not limited to: climate change (i.e., more extreme weather damage and deaths, desertification, regional famines, resource wars, and billions/hundreds of millions of CC refugees), asteroids, GRBs, pandemics (viral, bacteriological, and mycotic), epidemics of diabetes, CHD, and cancer, nuclear terrorism, US vs. China over Taiwan, NATO vs. Russia, mega-tsunami.
'you want to be more selfish with your time and money' - from my perspective having children is up with the most selfish things an individual can do - you are spending a huge amount of time and resources replicating yourself (to as greater degree as possible with current technology) and then usually trying to give that replication as much advantage over other people's as possible.
From my experience parents are often great for their children but the trade off is they often become worse members of society, switching to focusing time and resources on their family (to give their genetic material an advantage) rather than any wider potentially more utilitarian outlets or considerations.
From my experience parents are often great for their children but the trade off is they often become worse members of society, switching to focusing time and resources on their family (to give their genetic material an advantage) rather than any wider potentially more utilitarian outlets or considerations.
I think you should reflect a little bit more on what a society is and it's goals.
To my point, a society is made up of people. They must be born before they can be useful to society.
To my point, a society is made up of people. They must be born before they can be useful to society.
I don't think lacking a child would make someone any more considerate of society than they are. As the poster above you mentioned, many young couples don't want to have children because the economic and QoL calculation is unfavorable to doing so. They have no concern for the utilitarian needs of society (and for that matter, most people don't).
Can you give some examples of this trade off? I have a different perspective: that non-parents have less incentive to build and maintains communities?
What sort of activities do non-parent adults engage in that is lost in this trade-off?
What sort of activities do non-parent adults engage in that is lost in this trade-off?
I feel like this may be mostly signaling, because the logical conclusion from the argument that more people means more climate change would be to either have your existence reduce climate change (which most people don't do), or to remove yourself from the equation.
Or maybe the argument is about the relative impact, and not having kids allows you to take the plane and still feel good about your actions because your total carbon impact is less than other people? I'm honestly not sure how the reasoning works.
Or maybe the argument is about the relative impact, and not having kids allows you to take the plane and still feel good about your actions because your total carbon impact is less than other people? I'm honestly not sure how the reasoning works.
I don’t think we should hold people to “the logical conclusion” of all of their beliefs. We are not robots. We are capable of believing something without willing to go to the ends of the earth to be consistent with that belief.
For example, I believe it’s good to go to protests for causes I care about. However, I don’t go to even a fraction of the protests near me. Does this mean I don’t actually believe protests are a good thing?
For example, I believe it’s good to go to protests for causes I care about. However, I don’t go to even a fraction of the protests near me. Does this mean I don’t actually believe protests are a good thing?
We can believe something, and believe that this belief influences our actions, but that doesn't mean that it's true. For example, I don't heat my appartment. I could say that it's for the planet. But the reality is that it's not for the planet, it's that I don't need to heat my appartment for it to be at a confortable temperature for me. The consequences are still good for the planet, but this is a consequence, not a reason.
If you think children are a massive pain and your rationalization for that is that it's for the planet, there's nothing wrong with that. That may be also a thing people say so they won't get asked too much questions. I've heard that people can put a lot of pressure on other people to make children, the planet argument might be a good justification/counter to avoid being constantly questioned.
> We are capable of believing something without willing to go to the ends of the earth to be consistent with that belief.
I think my point here is that there's a notion of "intensity" or "importence". Having children is a strong belief in many people, and to counter it, you often seem to need a strong belief of the type "climate change is very important", instead of a less strong believe in the type of "I just don't want to".
If you think children are a massive pain and your rationalization for that is that it's for the planet, there's nothing wrong with that. That may be also a thing people say so they won't get asked too much questions. I've heard that people can put a lot of pressure on other people to make children, the planet argument might be a good justification/counter to avoid being constantly questioned.
> We are capable of believing something without willing to go to the ends of the earth to be consistent with that belief.
I think my point here is that there's a notion of "intensity" or "importence". Having children is a strong belief in many people, and to counter it, you often seem to need a strong belief of the type "climate change is very important", instead of a less strong believe in the type of "I just don't want to".
How to create an idiocracy and ruin the gene pool: The "smart" people worried about their "carbon footprint" or "quality of life" deciding not to have kids while the knuckle-draggers down the street have 10.
You realize Idiocracy is based on highly controversial theories of IQ, genetics and eugenics? And that you're also using a rather laughable definition of "smart" that involves deciding not to have children because of some stuff some academics said, when they've been saying the same things for decades and have been proven wrong many times before? This is not a definition of smart I'd subscribe to.
Are you going to call me racist and sexist now, snowflake?
goodpoint(1)
A whole article about people grappling with whether to make little copies of themselves when there are tons of kids that need adopted. The whole idea of having a kid just seems like a weird selfish ego trip. I know there’s underlying primal instincts at play - years of evolution driving you to breed, but we have the brains to take a step back and say is this the best choice I can make if I’d like to love and raise a human? Could I provide a better life for an already existing human? Or am I just on some ego trip to make a little replica of myself.
As far as I know - there’s no lack of adoptions for babies. The lack of adoption is for people past toddler age. Which makes sense - at that age they’re never gonna be just the product of your nature. They’ll always be a product of whatever came before them.
People like to start with a fresh slate. If they didn’t - they’d run a foster care.
People like to start with a fresh slate. If they didn’t - they’d run a foster care.
I wanted a baby like my wife, and my wife wanted a baby like me. We both like each other so that makes sense. We ended up needing to do IVF. If that hadn’t panned out I don’t think we would have adopted, though I’ve always thought fostering would be rewarding.
it's not ego. It's the drive of your genes to get into the future. Helping someone else's genes (that have some overlap with yours) is also adaptive, but not as much as people more closely related to you.
I can assure you that you will not make a little replica of yourself. It will be a new and different person that inherits some of your traits, but by no means all of them. That you're thinking of a child in that way suggests that you are right to not have one, at least until your thinking on the subject matures.
I don't see any point in arguing with the child-free types, I just see it as evolution at work in the modern world. The future is going to be dominated by those with the desires-to-reproduce phenotype. That's just a scientific fact and no argument will change it.
I don't see any point in arguing with the child-free types, I just see it as evolution at work in the modern world. The future is going to be dominated by those with the desires-to-reproduce phenotype. That's just a scientific fact and no argument will change it.
> The future is going to be dominated by those with the desires-to-reproduce phenotype
"dominated", for sure, and yet we also have a tremendous number of gay people. It's not quite so simple.
"dominated", for sure, and yet we also have a tremendous number of gay people. It's not quite so simple.
[deleted]
I find that argument flawed since it's the ultimate form of "think of the children". It implies successful parenting is a zero sum game, and that by having a child you're taking love away from another.
> years of evolution driving you to breed
The more I think about it the more sense this makes to me: there is no innate urge to breed, only to mate. It's what tricks you into breeding.
The more I think about it the more sense this makes to me: there is no innate urge to breed, only to mate. It's what tricks you into breeding.
One complication for this theory is that fertility affects sexual behavior; women are more likely to have sex during their most fertile time of the month (https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20040609/sex-he...). A breeding urge explains this phenomenon, a mating urge doesn't.
These types of movements never really go anywhere, in large part because their proponents remove themselves from the genepool.
It's the same reason that people having been saying for generations that religion is going to disappear, but it never actually does. Non-religious cultures tend to have below-replacement rate births while religious ones have higher birthrates.
The main thing that not having children does is ensure a future that is full of people with very different values from yourself. That could be a bad thing or a a good thing depending on how you see yourself.
It's the same reason that people having been saying for generations that religion is going to disappear, but it never actually does. Non-religious cultures tend to have below-replacement rate births while religious ones have higher birthrates.
The main thing that not having children does is ensure a future that is full of people with very different values from yourself. That could be a bad thing or a a good thing depending on how you see yourself.
>The main thing that not having children does is ensure a future that is full of people with very different values from yourself.
The first thing you need to accept if you want to have kids, is that they will NOT live the life you want them to live, nor will they accept your values at all, unless you can convince them that your values have merit.
How well have you been able to convince your friends of something? Yeah, you'll have slightly better odds with kids, because in the beginning you have full control over their environment, until school starts.
The first thing you need to accept if you want to have kids, is that they will NOT live the life you want them to live, nor will they accept your values at all, unless you can convince them that your values have merit.
How well have you been able to convince your friends of something? Yeah, you'll have slightly better odds with kids, because in the beginning you have full control over their environment, until school starts.
> The first thing you need to accept if you want to have kids, is that they will NOT live the life you want them to live, nor will they accept your values at all, unless you can convince them that your values have merit
People will do what they want, but most people end up with values fairly similar to those of their family. We tend to focus all of our attention on the differences because those are more interesting and gossip worthy. But most of us are products of our genetics and our environment to a greater extent than we'd like to admit.
People will do what they want, but most people end up with values fairly similar to those of their family. We tend to focus all of our attention on the differences because those are more interesting and gossip worthy. But most of us are products of our genetics and our environment to a greater extent than we'd like to admit.
At what rate do the children of Traditionalist Catholics remain Traditionalist? At what rate do the children of haredi Jewish parents remain haredi? What about grandchildren?
I'd be curious to see some of the demography here. My intuition is that in the U.S., these subgroups are growing their share of religiously identified persons (e.g. a larger fraction of Catholics are traditionalists today than in 1970) but they are not growing as a share of the general population.
I'd be curious to see some of the demography here. My intuition is that in the U.S., these subgroups are growing their share of religiously identified persons (e.g. a larger fraction of Catholics are traditionalists today than in 1970) but they are not growing as a share of the general population.
> At what rate do the children of Traditionalist Catholics remain Traditionalist?
Also, at what rate do apostates produce other apostates?
Living a happy life outside the mold of what you grew up with sets an example for others. Making babies is not a surefire way of producing like-minded people, nor is it the only way.
Also, at what rate do apostates produce other apostates?
Living a happy life outside the mold of what you grew up with sets an example for others. Making babies is not a surefire way of producing like-minded people, nor is it the only way.
This is absurd. The "gene pool" has nothing to do with people's sense of ethics around having kids or not.
We don't have a "don't have kids" gene that can get outcompeted.
We don't have a "don't have kids" gene that can get outcompeted.
> This is absurd. The "gene pool" has nothing to do with people's sense of ethics around having kids or not.
To think that fertility -- one of the key issues in evolution -- would not be influenced by genetics requires a massive detachment from reality as well as lack of awareness of current knowledge about genetics and human behavior.
Note that we have data on this, and a good rule of thumb is that most everything is about half genetic. This includes likelihood to have kids. Why? well, things like sperm counts, and personality traits are influenced by genetics, as are things like tendency to be religious[4]. Values are also strongly influenced by genetics, as is income and intelligence[5], all of which is correlated with decisions to have or delay having children. Similarly the duration of the reproductive lifespan of females is influenced by genetics[2] - something very important as women delay childbirth:
The most recent GWAS conducted in ∼370,000 women of European ancestry identified 389 independent signals explaining ∼7.4% of the population variance in age at menarche (Fig. 1), corresponding to ∼25% of the estimated heritability[2]
And even the decision to delay childbirth is influenced by many factors that have a genetic component.
> We don't have a "don't have kids" gene that can get outcompeted.
An international research team, including the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, has found twelve genes that may help determine why some people have children at an early age, while others remain childless.[3]
See also [1] for an overview and discussion.
- - -
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97281/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41525-018-0068-1
[3] https://www.fhi.no/en/news/2016/twelve-genes-influence-ferti...
[4] https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/beliefs
[5] https://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/1000H/BouchardRev.pdf
To think that fertility -- one of the key issues in evolution -- would not be influenced by genetics requires a massive detachment from reality as well as lack of awareness of current knowledge about genetics and human behavior.
Note that we have data on this, and a good rule of thumb is that most everything is about half genetic. This includes likelihood to have kids. Why? well, things like sperm counts, and personality traits are influenced by genetics, as are things like tendency to be religious[4]. Values are also strongly influenced by genetics, as is income and intelligence[5], all of which is correlated with decisions to have or delay having children. Similarly the duration of the reproductive lifespan of females is influenced by genetics[2] - something very important as women delay childbirth:
The most recent GWAS conducted in ∼370,000 women of European ancestry identified 389 independent signals explaining ∼7.4% of the population variance in age at menarche (Fig. 1), corresponding to ∼25% of the estimated heritability[2]
And even the decision to delay childbirth is influenced by many factors that have a genetic component.
> We don't have a "don't have kids" gene that can get outcompeted.
An international research team, including the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, has found twelve genes that may help determine why some people have children at an early age, while others remain childless.[3]
See also [1] for an overview and discussion.
- - -
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97281/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41525-018-0068-1
[3] https://www.fhi.no/en/news/2016/twelve-genes-influence-ferti...
[4] https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/beliefs
[5] https://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/1000H/BouchardRev.pdf
You are confusing ability to have children (which has genetic components) with the decision of doing so. Then you make a mishmash of claims around other aspects. Then you cherry-pick some random articles, some of which not linked to papers from reliable journals.
Anybody could cherry-pick articles in the same way to make any claim. E.g. that norwegians make better programmers because of some obscure genes potentially related to hand dexterity that might potentially help typing...
Anybody could cherry-pick articles in the same way to make any claim. E.g. that norwegians make better programmers because of some obscure genes potentially related to hand dexterity that might potentially help typing...
> You are confusing ability to have children (which has genetic components) with the decision of doing so.
No, I'm not. Please re-read the sources I mentioned, as well as the text I wrote. I listed both factors and focused on the second - indeed I emphasized this point repeatedly.
> Then you cherry-pick some random articles
None of the points I raised are controversial in the literature, and the journals and textbooks I cited are quite mainstread -- e.g. Nature, NIH, etc. You are welcome to cite even a single paper. I'll wait.
> Anybody could cherry-pick articles in the same way to make any claim.
You know what is even easier that "cherry picking" articles? Not being able to provide even a single scientific paper for any of your claims, because they have no scientific basis.
No, I'm not. Please re-read the sources I mentioned, as well as the text I wrote. I listed both factors and focused on the second - indeed I emphasized this point repeatedly.
> Then you cherry-pick some random articles
None of the points I raised are controversial in the literature, and the journals and textbooks I cited are quite mainstread -- e.g. Nature, NIH, etc. You are welcome to cite even a single paper. I'll wait.
> Anybody could cherry-pick articles in the same way to make any claim.
You know what is even easier that "cherry picking" articles? Not being able to provide even a single scientific paper for any of your claims, because they have no scientific basis.
Low intelligence, low income, and poor self control are associated with greater teen pregnancies and larger families. Smart, high income kids are rarely teenaged moms.
> The main thing that not having children does is ensure a future that is full of people with very different values from yourself.
Who cares? I'll be dead!
Who cares? I'll be dead!
Personal anecdote: My wife and I got married assuming that we would eventually want kids. We were pretty young, and that's what people do, right? We kept checking in with each other and kept not wanting to have kids. 5 years into our marriage, we were certain enough that I chose to have a vasectomy. We were so certain that my biggest fear was NOT that we'd change our minds later, but that my vasectomy would be one of the 0.1% that failed.
Our reasons were mostly personal, and it ultimately wasn't a responsibility we felt equipped to take on. There's some personal traumas that we experienced as kids and didn't want to pass along. There were some "selfish" reasons and things that we gave a higher priority in life than raising children. We had enough executive dysfunction between the two of us that we didn't think we'd be able to give kids enough attention while also juggling our other priorities. There is also nothing so special about our genes that compelled us to procreate--we could have adopted if parenthood called to us later in life. The usual reason we give is "we can barely take care of our pets, we're not bringing kids into this." That's the most concise way I can put it without opening up an argument.
A couple of years after the vasectomy, my wife ended up getting diagnosed with multiple chronic (but not terminal) illnesses, so that became a contributing factor after we had already made our decision. Economic concerns have also always been a factor--not something that I viewed as completely unsolvable, but it obviously requires a huge sacrifice to raise kids today. Climate change and overpopulation eventually became extra reasons to be thankful that we're not bringing kids into this mess, but if we ever felt a strong drive to have kids in the first place, I don't think that alone would be enough to deter us.
The article frames the whole discussion around climate change and current events, and I suppose my personal outlook for humanity has become darker over the years, but the decision to have (or not to have) kids is largely driven by personal circumstances. Some of our closest friends are fabulous loving parents, and the world needs more parents like them. Some of us, IMO, made the right choice by opting out. People love to make value judgements about this decision, as if there should be a default choice, but one thing we don't need more of is parents who don't want to be parents.
Our reasons were mostly personal, and it ultimately wasn't a responsibility we felt equipped to take on. There's some personal traumas that we experienced as kids and didn't want to pass along. There were some "selfish" reasons and things that we gave a higher priority in life than raising children. We had enough executive dysfunction between the two of us that we didn't think we'd be able to give kids enough attention while also juggling our other priorities. There is also nothing so special about our genes that compelled us to procreate--we could have adopted if parenthood called to us later in life. The usual reason we give is "we can barely take care of our pets, we're not bringing kids into this." That's the most concise way I can put it without opening up an argument.
A couple of years after the vasectomy, my wife ended up getting diagnosed with multiple chronic (but not terminal) illnesses, so that became a contributing factor after we had already made our decision. Economic concerns have also always been a factor--not something that I viewed as completely unsolvable, but it obviously requires a huge sacrifice to raise kids today. Climate change and overpopulation eventually became extra reasons to be thankful that we're not bringing kids into this mess, but if we ever felt a strong drive to have kids in the first place, I don't think that alone would be enough to deter us.
The article frames the whole discussion around climate change and current events, and I suppose my personal outlook for humanity has become darker over the years, but the decision to have (or not to have) kids is largely driven by personal circumstances. Some of our closest friends are fabulous loving parents, and the world needs more parents like them. Some of us, IMO, made the right choice by opting out. People love to make value judgements about this decision, as if there should be a default choice, but one thing we don't need more of is parents who don't want to be parents.
Great comment! I'm wondering, why did you choose to post this under a throwaway? Do you fear repercussion, prefer to keep personal separate from business, or just not have an account?
Thanks :) I wanted to add some perspective, but felt some of the details were a little too personal to have it permanently tied to my professional identity. So more of a preference to keep personal separate from business.
The strong anti-natalism doesn't surprise me. There's a lot of millennials and younger on HN. I wonder how much of that is just a cover for their pessimism about being as economically successful as their parents? There are structural disadvantages facing the youth today and not having children is a way of avoiding a rigged game. There's also the guilt about raising children at a lower socioeconomic status than they had. Just a thought...
have kids and raise them to be awesome enough to solve modern world problems
To use an analogy, human beings in general and children in particular should be viewed as assets, not liabilities. Of course they require investment, of time, money, or both, but that's true for most if not all other investments too. And the potential payout is massively asymmetrical. One could raise the child that cracks economical nuclear fusion, discovers a cure for pancreatic cancer, becomes the next Michelangelo, or who something we can't even imagine, all for an effectively fixed up front cost.
>children in particular should be viewed as assets, not liabilities
maybe we could try to not see the future of the human race through a financial prism at all.
maybe we could try to not see the future of the human race through a financial prism at all.
[deleted]
I personally don’t like to have kids because the thought of responsibilities that comes with having kids scares the hell out of me
I already have enough responsibilities in my life, with my work etc and I don’t want to worry further by having kids
Even before having kids you have to take care of your pregnant wife, after delivering you have to take care of the kids, when they are old you have to worry about their education marriage and so on
It’s just too much. I don’t have any kids at the moment but the thought just makes me feel like I’m better off getting a divorce
I already have enough responsibilities in my life, with my work etc and I don’t want to worry further by having kids
Even before having kids you have to take care of your pregnant wife, after delivering you have to take care of the kids, when they are old you have to worry about their education marriage and so on
It’s just too much. I don’t have any kids at the moment but the thought just makes me feel like I’m better off getting a divorce
My reason for not having kids is simply the golden rule. Do unto potential others as I would have had my parents do unto me. Now, you might say that I can't know whether my potential kids would have been annoying optimists who could say that they love life, without sarcasm. To which I say, they would have my genes, and me for a father, and in my view that's enough to tip the scales.
[deleted]
The major problems the human race is facing all have a single solution: fewer humans. It's like fasting for individual health: simple, and solves so much. So maybe this is just nature running its course.
Only very rich and very poor people in this world can afford to have kids.
When people cite money as a reason for not having children, they just usually just don't want children, but don't want to admit it.
The fact is there has never been a better time in human history to raise children. People talk about climate change, but back in the 50's it wasn't any better -- we were in the midst of a nuclear standoff that could have gone apocalyptic at any second. Before that, there was a world war, and another one before that, and so on.
In prior centuries anywhere from one quarter to one half of all kids born wouldn't make it to the first birthday.
Raising kids is hard, even now, but it's still easier than it's ever been.
People are free to have children or not have children, but let's be honest about why.
The fact is there has never been a better time in human history to raise children. People talk about climate change, but back in the 50's it wasn't any better -- we were in the midst of a nuclear standoff that could have gone apocalyptic at any second. Before that, there was a world war, and another one before that, and so on.
In prior centuries anywhere from one quarter to one half of all kids born wouldn't make it to the first birthday.
Raising kids is hard, even now, but it's still easier than it's ever been.
People are free to have children or not have children, but let's be honest about why.
>Raising kids is hard, even now, but it's still easier than it's ever been.
I think the amount of two income households and longer work hours says otherwise. It's still a great time to have kids but there is a lot of time and financial pressure that we did not have in the 60s and 70s. In addition, kids commonly walked to school, went out to play without supervision, etc. I think children cost more and require more time than in the past.
I think the amount of two income households and longer work hours says otherwise. It's still a great time to have kids but there is a lot of time and financial pressure that we did not have in the 60s and 70s. In addition, kids commonly walked to school, went out to play without supervision, etc. I think children cost more and require more time than in the past.
> but back in the 50's
there were many more poor, having lots of kids.
OP didn't say that only rich people can afford to have kids, but that only rich and very poor people can.
Now that people are not as poor as in prior centuries, they can afford to not have kids to survive when they get older.
there were many more poor, having lots of kids.
OP didn't say that only rich people can afford to have kids, but that only rich and very poor people can.
Now that people are not as poor as in prior centuries, they can afford to not have kids to survive when they get older.
I thought this was going to address the burden of finding affordable childcare, rigors of child development, family insurance, and maybe even a stark anecdote about a toddler or teenager. Then I hear a story about climate change and feel super frustrated that’s where this conversation is starting.
I see the anxiety, but I just didn’t anticipate this from the title.
I see the anxiety, but I just didn’t anticipate this from the title.
It's the economic insecurity that does it for me. Everytime I see "we're a team not a family" or the like, I realize how dispensible I am. It's not the content of the message, it's the fact you have to say it. It's a gentle nudge that, hey, remember you don't mean shit to us, ok?
> we're a team not a family
I actually prefer to have boundaries at work. The whole "family" thing is often a way of saying "you'd better work you ass off to serve this business"
I actually prefer to have boundaries at work. The whole "family" thing is often a way of saying "you'd better work you ass off to serve this business"
The way this phrase is used, as popularized by Netflix, they mean to say they don’t hesitate to fire underperformers.
Isn't it strange that the people who claim they don't want to have children for fear of economic hardship or climate change never take the time to criticize their parents for not doing the same?
Can’t change the past, why waste the energy?
why strange?
Children are allowed to have very different ideas than their parents, one doesn't have to criticize what has been done and is irreversible, to think and act differently.
Children are allowed to have very different ideas than their parents, one doesn't have to criticize what has been done and is irreversible, to think and act differently.
[deleted]
The modern world, especially in the US, is quite unfriendly to having kids. Both parents have lots of other opportunities that having children may conflict with, and having children can be horrendously expensive depending on your child rearing style. Given that, if you're subconsciously thinking "I don't want to have kids, it's just too hard", it comes across as "more virtuous" if, instead of giving the reason as you want to be more selfish with your time and money, that you want to protect a potential child from having to go through a future hellish environment.