Have you heard the expression, It takes a village to raise a child? We don't have villages, so many people have to be a village for their child, and it's very hard and requires a lot of sacrifice. It's good to question whether it's worth it.

I sympathize with the people, but why is our society like this? A society that punishes having children is almost by definition dysfunctional.

I think it's partially a outcome of work getting more specialized. You need to move to find work that's a good fit and you need to move before that to acquire that skill set at a good University. If you don't get very skilled you likely will end up poor at some point which brings its own issues. It's true in any developed country I know of. Fingers crossed that this is temporary till remote work and education becomes the norm and we maybe even get guaranteed basic income.

It's like this because people are inclined to instant gratification. In America this effect with respect to raising children augments the inclination toward selfishness (disguised as individualism).

Looking at birthrates in other countries I'm not inclined to believe this phenomenon is limited to the US. In fact it seems weaker than in many other developed countries. I'm also not sure if I would call it selfish to decide against reproducing yourself. The other extreme of having children just because you want them for yourself and then not being able to give them proper opportunities is much more selfish to me. I think we should try to avoid moral judgements of people we don't know especially on something this intimate.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the language of people who eschew children weren't so often focused on their selves ("independence", "freedom", etc.) or simultaneously accusational ("how could you bring a child into this world!"). "Selfish" isn't a moral judgement in this case: it's an accurate description.

I think having children is pretty selfish also. You bring a child into this world... for what? To see yourself continued in the next generation? To make some future friends for yourself? To have that experience? How are these not selfish things? Both choices are selfish in different ways. The fact that one requires some personal sacrifice doesn't make it selfless.

Forget about dysfunctional, it has no FUTURE.

As you point out the support network is gone for many people, especially more ambitious people who moved for career reasons and likely also have student debt...

On top of that though it seems like requirements for parenting have gone through the roof. Between helicopter parenting and all the activities one is supposed to do these days the effort must have gone up tremendously.

I haven't seen any massive upsurge in the sentiment, and I pay attention, because I'm someone who gets grief about choosing not to spawn.

But what's surprising about that "mentality"? Breeding is something some people indeed come to regret, and having the self-awareness to recognize that likelihood in one's self leads to better outcomes for the not-parent and the not-child[1].

A big part of what what I've seen in having these discussions is people resenting those who made different choices. A lot of people follow a script - get married around this age, acquire home, make a kid or two once you can afford the tax privileged accounts, etc. Some of those people resent those who saw they can write their own script and fail to look unhappy about it.

[1] I always hear, "but what if you're wrong?" To which I reply with some variant of, "You should go to medical school. Sure, you're a bit old for that, it is expensive, a huge, somewhat risky commitment, an enormous change in your life for a long time, and you think you'd hate being a doctor. But what if you're wrong?"

That medical school thing is an awesome response, if only I could use it on a doctor.

I guess I should go with "you should go to engineering school"

Can you give some other examples of this mentality on display? Have there been other articles on HN? This sentiment has been prevalent among my peer group (b. Late 80s/Early 90s) for at least a decade. Very few of my friends outside of the very religious are looking forward to having children.

As far back as June 2014, Pope Francis spoke about this phenomenon.

http://time.com/2814527/pope-francis-dogs-cats-pets/

It's a very common sentiment to hear on Reddit. There are subs dedicated to promoting and discussing a child-free lifestyle (e.g. /r/childfree/).

There are also subs devoted to how much an individual character in a book series sucks (eg, /r/fuckmoash). The existence of a subreddit does not really imply a dominant cultural phenomenon.

From the first page of a google search for "reddit parenting": /r/parenting, /r/parents, /r/raisingkids, /r/askparents, /r/newparents, and /r/parentsofmultiples. I suspect it depends on what part of reddit you hang out on.

As a person who doesn't want children, I still hear much more of the "you're deluded to believe you don't want kids," "you'll change your mind," "you're a bad person for not wanting kids" and (from coworkers) "your personal/work-life balance needs must always be immediately and completely subjugated to mine because I have kids" mentalities.

It's a side-effect of modern societies. This is actually a trend spanning at least several decades. As societies become more modern, they start wanting fewer to zero kids.

This is actually the main reason why I've never been so worried about those overpopulation predictions, or worried about what happens if the technology starts allowing us to live hundreds of years.

Well, if we knew for sure that we would live 500 years (and continue to be young and health), nobody in their right mind would want a kid at 30. And you'd likely still be able to die from accidents for the next 100-200 years.

This was my reaction. I was surprised to see all the sentiment in these comments that this is _counter_ to the popular narrative. I see articles like this all the time, and hear it expressed by friends in person.

I think this might be one of those things like atheism, where your ideology becomes generally accepted enough that you forget you're not being rebellious anymore.

At what point in the last 10-20 years has the image of the nuclear family not been under attack?

Beyond medicine and the fact that it's less violent than 200 years ago, it would be incredibly hard to argue we now live in healthy societies.

There is a growing anti-natalist movement, lately.

Rather than help address then problem a sister comment alludes to "get a dog" folks are helping to perpetuate it.

> Rather than help address then problem a sister comment alludes to "get a dog" folks are helping to perpetuate it.

Sorry, can you help me parse this sentence?

Sorry, "then problem" should be "the problem", and the "sister comment" is the one about how we (in America, presumably) no longer have "a village" to raise children: parents are mostly on their own for the task.

My point is that folks who have the "get a dog" mentality are supporting the forces that make child rearing increasingly burdensome.

I'd say that the "get a dog" mentality is more of a symptom of the root forces than support of them. Others have already explained it but essentially the trend of tribe/village -> urban neighborhood multigenerational/extended family single home -> suburban nuclear family -> transplanted dual-career couple has eroded any support network parents had. On top of other lifestyle, economic, and environmental pressures, the "get a dog" people are just saying "fuck it." Sure they add some social/peer pressure but that's blue on black compared to everything else.

> I'd say that the "get a dog" mentality is more of a symptom of the root forces than support of them.

Perhaps it is both? These things tend to be cyclic. "Fuck it" tends to breed conditions where more people say "fuck it."

That said, I do believe in something like a "get a dog and help care for the community" mentality that's not a "fuck it" at all.

We're mostly in agreement. By "fuck it" I meant "fuck it" to having kids, not towards contributing to the greater community. Anecdotally the "get a dog"/DINK married couples I know are probably the most active in community building, local political and social issues, helping out the underprivileged in their area... all that good stuff.

Mainstream media nudges the unfit to choose a child-free life by their own volition. It's a lifelong marshmallow test: do you want to have fun now, or do you want to have a legacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...

Sounds like you want (or already have) children to fulfill your own self-interested goals ('to leave a legacy'). That's a recipe for disappointment.

If you have children you do it for them, not for yourself.

And there are better, more predictable ways to leave a legacy. Having a kid is a shot in the dark; sure maybe they'll cure cancer, but maybe they'll be the next hitler, or more likely, they'll be an average joe with no lasting impact on humanity.

I love my parents but I am not their legacy.

By definition you are their legacy.

Do you think people shouldn't talk about it?

Immaturity. People refusing to grow up and get on with life.