Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how provoked you were by another comment, or feel you were. It just makes things worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry! Thanks for moderating things.

> kids have tiny bladders

Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms.

> when did childless folks become such fragile babies?

Huh? I have a 10 month old and a 3 year old. I am offering advice based on my personal experience.

It’s a lot more pleasant for both us and everyone else if we wait for faster groups to clear out first. After sitting on a plane for 2–12 hours, waiting an extra 5 minutes is not a big deal.

Edit: sorry for being needlessly combative.

> Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms.

I have a 5 and 9 year old and fly regularly. I don't know if you've considered the amount of time that can elapse from seat belt sign on for landing to deplaning. Nevermind a turbulent flight.

And trying to use the bathroom at the rear of a plane that just arrived isn't really going to smooth the deplaning process.

But like I said, my family is not slowing anyone down, we're usually faster because we're ready and the adults organized the kids while we waited for our turn.

Access to the plane bathrooms is barely sufficient for me. Too much of the flight you cant get up or vc ant get to them. I've had many a flight involve my own pee pee dance, I think it is fair to say I can be a problem for some families.

We debark trains a lot with my family, and I prefer waiting, but that extra minute can be a lot easier to handle waiting in line with a three year old than sitting down. Every situation is different with people, families are included in that.

When I travel with my toddler, I always wait to get off..well, he is wearing a diaper anyways. I assume when he is a bit older, we will get off much more quickly, but right now...it is just too much of a hassle to rush off the plane.

They’re not babies. They just don’t get it. The totality of the commitment is lost on them.

What’s new is that they also just don’t care.

Or, as I have heard from multiple friends who have chosen not to or can't have children(due to ethical concerns or lack of money), they understand completely and expect that parents take responsibility for the commitments they made without pushing the problems onto everyone else.

>without pushing the problems onto everyone else.

Or as others call it - "common courtesy"

I don't have children but I can understand that parenting is stressful enough as it is. Why go about making it worse for them?

Not to mention that having children sits at the very base of human existence. We built societies around the plain fact that children are necessary. Only those who believe that humanity should just go extinct can argue that having children is just a personal choice.

Good for them for not wanting kids?

I’m not pushing anything into anyone. But just try to push me aside because I have kids!

My kids have just as much right to public spaces as anyone else. If it offends you that the kid acts in a way befitting a kid that’s your problem.

I'm not so sure about that. Two thoughts: The main reason me and my SO don't have kids is a deep concern about there not being any sure way to absolutely guarantee that a new person brought to this world will live a happy and fulfilling life and that the ethical thing to do is to when able (SO finishing education) adopt a child in need to improve their lives.

This of course means that I'm currently pretty sure that most _parents_ don't get it and that the commitment is lost on _them_.

But I'm also sure that they aren't doing anything wrong by having kids, it's just that it aligns with a value we share to not, ever, be a problem for other people. This trickles down into as fine-grain things as walking efficiently in public so that others aren't bothered and running into you and spending countless hours helping people out with without any reciprocation. So when you do encounter a whirlwind-family in public where the parents do not care about affecting others negatively it's unfortunately easy to become judgmental.

>it's just that it aligns with a value we share to not, ever, be a problem for other people

It’s a bit late for that; you’ve already gone through infanthood, toddlerhood, and childhood and benefitted from the patience and generosity of more strangers than you will ever know. Now you imply that perhaps parents and their children should try to not affect others negatively. I think by and large they do, but to the extent they do affect others this way, you owe some debt of patience, and are you so sure it’s paid off?

> It’s a bit late for that; you’ve already gone through infanthood, toddlerhood, and childhood and benefitted from the patience and generosity of more strangers than you will ever know. Now you imply that perhaps parents and their children should try to not affect others negatively. I think by and large they do, but to the extent they do affect others this way, you owe some debt of patience, and are you so sure it’s paid off?

That's the thing though. I don't think children are born with a debt to their parents or to society that they have to pay off. Now I don't go around complaining about people with kids, and just wanted to add that there are people who could have a general dislike for things being annoying or 'in the way' which could include children (or rather their parents, I don't think it's fair to put any responsibility on the children). I have a friend with with ASD that gets extremely upset with any disturbances, and who have posted more than a few rants about parents 'not controlling their kids' online, but in his case those posts are not unique to children, but without that context they read as if written by someone tho specifically dislikes kids.

I don't think children by and large have a negative effect on families and the individuals around them (if we are trusting parents, not happiness-studies) and they do have a beneficial effect on society (more people, more taxes, more welfare and happiness for the population), it's just that I don't want to create a person, that _I_ would owe a great life. The idea of viewing children as owing anything to their parents or to society before being able to make decisions for themselves as an 'ancestral sin' (original sin?) is something I feel very uncomfortable with.

Now, the thinking that the child who has no say about being brought into existence has a debt and saying it's a bit late to opt out implies that I (and other people) should have ended it in infancy to avoid this debt, and to gain the right to want things to not be annoying, but I am also pretty sure that it's a completely unreasonable expectation and doubtfully even a biologically possible decision. The consequences of that view seem awful both morally and ethically, thought I think few people spell them out.

But yeah, I don't dislike kids, but I understand someone going on a rant about them being annoying either because they don't know how hard it is or because they view themselves as not impacting others in the same way and wanting others to share their values. But I don't agree that it can be dismissed with a statement like this

> They just don’t get it. The totality of the commitment is lost on them. > What’s new is that they also just don’t care.

Look, to some extent we’re all ASD. I hate crowds. I get exhausted being in places where people are having thousands of loud conversations.

I’ll complain that I hate people. But you know what? I’m the one with the problem. Not them. They have every right to be and do as they please. If I don’t like crowds, I can easily avoid them by doing my errands some other time.

Point is, we cannot have society change it self to accommodate every whim. Your friend is ASD, it sucks but that’s just the way his (our) life is.

Yes, but venting frustration does not mean that you are actually requesting a societal change, so you can't create arguments assuming everyone complaining really think things should be different. People have every right to voice frustrations.

But, people do not have every right to be and do as they please in public. We have norms and laws and they can change and do vary. There are a lot of limitations specifically on being loud.

> The main reason me and my SO don't have kids is a deep concern about there not being any sure way to absolutely guarantee that a new person brought to this world will live a happy and fulfilling life

There is almost NOTHING you can do with an absolute guarantee in this world: You can't even drive down the road with an absolute guarantee that you won't end up having a stroke and killing few people. IOW - this is the true scotsman equivalent of justification. The idea here is that smart, empathetic and introspective folks have children and in turn raise smart, empathetic and introspective kids, thereby tilting humanity towards enlightenment. I look at it as my part to move humanity forward (the other part being me doing my best to provide for them AND ensure my own life has meaning as well). IOW I don't buy this reason - it sounds like perfection blocking reality to me.

> and that the ethical thing to do is to when able (SO finishing education) adopt a child in need to improve their lives.

It is awesome that folks adopt: Those kids do need a home. It may even be an ethical thing to do. BUT that doesn't make having your own kid unethical. As I mentioned before, I do believe you have an ethical commitment to move humanity forward as well. Ending your own gene branch just because there are other branches you could take care of is not an alternative: It is more of an orthogonal thing. IOW foster as many kids as you can. I don't buy that it is a replacement to not have kids, especially considering the argument above. If you can't foster, you can always contribute as well to foster care systems in your country.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what we're looking for here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Especially please don't take HN discussion further into generic flamewar, i.e. replacing a smaller particular topic with a larger and even more flamey one. That always has bad effects.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

> You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that

Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / could not have them ourselves.

Most people will agree that there's a collective obligation to safeguard children. Not so much for a collective obligation to go out of our way to make parenting more convenient for those who can afford to raise kids AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them. Particularly when, IME, the people most fervent about the well-being of their own children tend to care little about other's. I assume you're, say, an ardent supporter of equalizing school funding across your state, such that your kids would receive the same quality of education as those of poorer parents, yes? No? Telling.

'...AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them'

But not be willing to pay a few quid for all of them to sit together, yet expect other passengers to move in order for them to do so...

I'm not sure why you presume that. While I'm on a flight, I do everything possible to prevent my baby from disrupting others flight.

However, some stuff flight companies do are incredibly helpful (e. G. Allow us to board first) and make everyone 's experience better.

Unfortunately it's either that, or have no kids, or never fly (for some people this means: never meet your family again). All things that are limiting for a human being that should get a decent quality of life (culture and such)

I would support equalization of funding subject to purchasing power parity.

That's a bit of a red herring to the conversation, and I'm a bit confused why that is the filter you choose to engage rather than policy for ensuring proper nutrition, UBI, or any other economic impact, or why my non-response intra-sentence to your comment online is a purity test for said support.

But taking a step back, even if parents are individually genetically biased towards their brood, that doesn't impact that part of a society's very essence and existence is to ensure children grow to adulthood. Eusociality and all that.

I don't think it's a red herring. It gets right to the heart of the very personal entitlement parents have, to the exclusion and detriment of people around them. I asked (rhetorically, admittedly) your stance on school funding equity because it's an issue where there can be no question that the status quo is something along the lines of, "Fuck you, getting mine, and also let me have some of yours," which is roughly analogous to what you've held is appropriate for the issue at hand.

We could make things better, and it would require maybe not having your kids in particular at the front of the line. That doesn't mean society is absolutely thwarting your endeavor to be a good parent; it's a recognition that while children are important, they are not the only, nor the altogether and at all times, primary concern of civilization. I mean, if you want to define human nature solely by the effort to advance one's progeny... I mean, even then, you have to admit that the well-being and conceens of the adults who support that effort are also important. Evolution is the process of surviving the day, serially.

I certainly am.

Most people who choose to have children don't do so to enable society structures to persist though. I could argue that by not having kids I'm saving the planet from the effects of over population?

You could! And it is important to note that limited antinatalism is not unreasonable, so long as it is remembered that replacement rate!=overpopulation unless already above carrying capacity.

This is a classic example of we vs. them, I guess there will always be people with kids who think the same as you so it might not only be about perspective. My conclusion is that kids are their own beings and they are prone to behaviours that is not the norm in society, we all just have to adjust to that, you can't really reason with children.

I find that being sleepless and being hungery affects my mood a lot, I believe these are things that families can have a hard time regulating, so my bar for the expected behaviour from families is set a lot lower than for young adults. Just because I know they have a hard time.

Sure obnoxious people get families too so there is always a chance that they really are entitled.

> Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens?

Well, the simple answer on a societal level is "your peaceful retirement depends on people having more kids".

The optimal solution doesn't work because it's not actually optimal outside of a laboratory environment, hence no airline does it.

If you have a legitimate reason to get off so fast that you can't wait, convince a flight attendant. They're great at helping you.

Otherwise, I suggest maybe buying your own plane.

> Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens?

Because it is a cultural and societal phenomenon. In different cultures it might be different.

> That's quite entitled.

Sure, and on paper could swing the argument either way. But in practice arguing with the airline staff about not letting the families with young children board or disembark first, just doesn't work well and gets you a lot of dirty looks.

It’s not about entitlement, it’s about helping people who are less physically capable. Sometimes that will be due to age, sometimes due to disability, sometimes it will be because they’re carrying a toddler with them. But you can’t expect everyone to be rushing around like they’re in their childless 20s just because that’s the lifestyle you have chosen.

One day you will be older and a little less capable than you are today and I hope people don’t hesitate to offer you help and patience when you need it.

The question could also be asked for the contrary. It's more of a philosophical question, mostly diving into discussions for/against natalism in the end.

The backdrop is that raising kids is incredibly hard and the birth rate is below replacement and falling in the US because fewer people are willing or able to do it. Society should endeavor to make it easier for parents, at the expense of the childfree, if it cares about maintaining itself.

Only by ignoring this context could one conclude that deplaning efficiency for single people is the priority.

We’re already way beyond our planet’s capabilities for providing for human life at first-world standards of living.

Maybe not encouraging more children isn’t a bad thing.