Each to their own - I don't see it as a bad thing. Having children has made me happier and more fulfilled in ways that I could never have imagined.

You cannot know the feeling of it until you do. You cannot really understand it until you do. It changes your world.

> Having children has made me happier and more fulfilled in ways that I could never have imagined.

That's my main problem with it, it's super selfish to procreate. I don't feel I have the right to force new life (with all the pain and suffering that entails) onto this world for the sake of making me happy. I love my potential children too much to do that to them.

I think this is probably the most self-indulgent thing I've ever read.

Is it just a coincidence that there was an article about this very thing a few days ago here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15869983

In my case, yes. I've been an antinatalist for a long time.

It's self-indulgent to not have children?

How is it not self-indulgent to have a child to fulfill your own sense of purpose?

You are utterly alien to a lot of people.

I don't want to have kids in the slightest, but this is not accurate at all. You can have kids for both reasons, and enjoying the lives of your kids is not wrong if you love and care for them for their sake alone as well. In fact, when I tell people that I don't want kids, people go the other way and tell me I'm being selfish not to.

That's rediculous. For most people, having children is the most selfless possible thing. Kids are extremely expensive.

Use our planets limited resources because you think your DNA needs to survive ? Of course it's selfish.

Give one reason to have children that doesn't include words like "I want".

Give one reason why you do anything you do without "I want".

Wanting something isn't selfish. It entirely depends on what it is you actually want.

Oh yes, you could argue from a hardcore libertarian stance that altruism does not exist and every action is inherently selfish but is that a good way of looking at the world? I think not.

> is that a good way of looking at the world? I think not.

Define 'good' ? It's an accurate way of looking at the world. You can try to convince yourself otherwise but you don't really live in that world.

If it's an accurate way of looking at the world, you've just demolished your own reasons for not having kids.

You don't want kids because it's selfish? That must mean, using objectivist reasoning, that to you not having kids is even more selfish. So your reason for not having kids is no reason at all if you subscribe to that sort of shit.

As for good, in the same way that you reduce a lot of things down to one thing that is objectively true but isn't really useful for everyday life.

Sure, I accept that it's possible to reduce down and argue all behaviours are selfish. Does that provide insights about the world? Nope. Does it explain human behaviour adequately, even if fundamentally accurate? "Why does inequality negatively impact inequality?" Because people are selfish?

Some night even argue that not having kids is selfish.

> Some night even argue that not having kids is selfish.

People argue all kinds of insane things.

Having kids to fulfill your own sense of purpose is very selfish.

On the flip side, there is some probability that your child may save 1 or more lives.

On the flip flip side, there is some chance your child may take 1 or more lives.

Arguing about the selfishness of procreation is silly. It is your biological purpose. Whether you choose to run with that or not is down to you. It is not selfish if you choose whatever way.

As a parent, my children come first. I would die for them. You make that choice when you have children. That is NOT selfish.