This is very misguided. If you get old with no exercise and deteriorating health, it's gonna fall upon your family to take care and worry a lot about you. It's immediatist if not selfish (by not wanting to face the different kind of discomfort) to do as you say.

Being strong helps everyone around you passively and actively, with stronger effects as the decades pass by, and remember from other research that a strong body keeps a mind keen, with better blood flow for all functions. Sacrificing that is not being smart about helping people.

Last and less scientifically, if you want to heal your environment and community, first heal thyself. It's the only subject from whom you can guarantee cooperation.

>If you get old with no exercise and deteriorating health, it's gonna fall upon your family to take care and worry a lot about you.

No it isn't, just off yourself when you feel like the time is right. I don't get why everyone wants to stretch these years out until the bitter end and would rather end up in a home than just taking a nice walk one day and not coming back.

I suspect this plan might be rather upsetting to friends and family.

Further, I suspect you wouldn't actually do this. And then you're a terrible burden to others.

The Lotus Eater by Maugham is a good read on this theme: http://facultyweb.wcjc.edu/users/jonl/documents/LotusEater.p...

I agree with you 100%. I think I’ll just get more reckless as I get older and start to deteriorate. Pick up activities with a higher probability of death. I’d rather die skydiving or in a sailing accident than from chemo.

Your first priority should be taking care of yourself. Remember the plane safety demonstration? You always put your own mask on first, even if it seems selfish.

You're in the best position to help others and make good decisions when you feel stability in your own life. Making sure you'll be around a long time also makes you last longer as a resource to society, and to your family.

You can't do any of those things you mentioned if you're dead, sick, or miserable.

Ya right. I work with politicians day to day. You have no idea how much society would benefit if they all died in their 60s.

How about before they get elected?

I don't buy that 100%. At some point you will get old and sick enough that you risk becoming a huge resource drain. It may sound heartless but I am saying it imagining myself in that position and saying no to millions of dollars in medical treatment for a few more months/years of misery and pulling the plug instead. The benefit for my kids/family would be huge.

Then look at it like this: the better you take care of yourself, the less likely you are to have a severely degraded quality of life before your luck (or health) runs out.

Lives are long and pass through many phases. We will all be dead, sick, or miserable someday, and one hopes we will be cared for as we cared for others and taught them to care.

This also applies to eg. rescue workers. Rescuing the rescuers is not just embarrassing, it also uses up so many resources!

I love the kind of discussion you can see on HN, but this is splitting hairs. He clearly means in the context of making yourself healthier and fitter.

Virtue signaling? Your main priority should always be yourself. No one, except yourself, will look out for you.

You don't have anyone else looking out for you? Imo it's give and take. You look out for others, others look out for you.

(That said, it's wise to ensure you have yourself taken care of before helping others; else you may end up making things worse. )

Apparently, family planning is rocket science.

What is your rational definition of "appropriate resources"? Public school? Public school in a better but more expensive district? Extracurriculars? Tutoring? Private school? Fully supported university education? Love is not rational... it's giving your all and more for someone that matters.

Workaholics are not inherently good parents, but good parents do go the "extra" mile to improve their child's life.

It's not. Saying it is doesn't make it so. Neither does thousands of people choosing misery for themselves and their children. Just like physical health, people very much want family planning to be complicated, because it allows them more room to rationalize short-sighted, self-gratifying decisions.

Appropriate resources are resources that give you the space to be healthily present for yourself and your child. It means time and money, or more specifically, the money to buy time.

Love is not having a baby. You can't love someone who doesn't exist, and making someone to love if you don't have the money to take care of you both is equal parts selfish and self-defeating.

This is the quote you responded to:

>The older folks with the desk jobs are often quite literally sacrificing their own well-being for their family's, "deprioritizing their health" for another priority.

We are not talking about impoverished one-night-stands having babies out of ignorance of contraceptives. These are tech workers who are well-off but still intentionally sacrifice their long-term quality of life in order to improve their children's.

I will probably fall in that group, I had to work through college and want to ensure my child does not. It's a probabilistic utilitarian argument, my cumulative change in quality of life gained from switching to a less demanding career is less than what my child gains from the freedom to explore more opportunities in college (plus my joy at seeing their happiness). Of course, love is an essential part of that calculation. I would not make those sacrifices for some arbitrary child.

Remember that while family planning may not be rocket science, it does require coverage or money for contraceptives, a doc who'll prescribe them, a guy who'll use the condom or get a vasectomy, and the ability to get an abortion if the above fail. In many parts of the US that's not so easy. https://harpers.org/archive/2016/12/with-child/

I was with you up until "donating to the poor". Does that include feeding those who dont want to work but could and should? Unless we're talking about donating time to guide and counsel, to awaken them, and if they're on the right track, supporting them.

How does donating encourage justice? What is the definition of justice? It's the light which reveals 'what is' in a society. That is not accomplished by donation alone, and in fact, generally it's easier for the opposite to occur. One can draw the conclusion that to donate without confirming how it's used is equivalent to a misdeed.

You could, for example, donate to an organization fighting for justice like the ACLU or SPLC.

It'd be just great if you gave some of your self-care time to guide and counsel.

People try in their own ways. So there are some organizations who do good. But they cannot revive justice after it has gone to sleep, in these circumstances. Would you play a game someone has rigged against you? Are those organizations capable of undoing what has been set in motion and of redesigning the game at this stage?

Secondly, what self-care time? lol