What about raising children?

is not a contribution by default?

That sounds very short sighted. You are preconditioned on all of your ancestors having kids. Everything you like, love, care about was created by someone who was first created by their parents. If not for those people there would be nothing.

Raising children is the greatest, riskiest, and costliest contribution to the world most of us can make. It should be respected.

HN is so bizarrely blood-and-soil sometimes.

I didn't ask my ancestors to screw, thanks. I mean, good for them, I guess? But I wish people would stop insinuating that having children is the pinnacle of human achievement, when, in fact, it's actually the bare minimum. I wish they would realize that not everyone needs to have children (the math alone simply doesn't work out on a finite planet...), and I wish they wouldn't cast aspersions on those of us who choose to live the way we do. How about we go after the people who had kids but shouldn't have, instead?

The black and white question is - would you rather be dead? To the extent that your life is valuable, enjoyable, and meaningful - none of that joy/value/meaning would exist if your ancestors "didn't screw."

This is a real question, not a rhetorical one, and its answer is subjective to your values and experience. If your answer is something akin to "I am indifferent to whether I exist or not" then your entire argument is logically sound. On the flip side if you attach value to what you have and are, then it logically follows that if you have the chance to "ask your ancestors to screw" - you would.

As for "casting aspersions" and "going after" - that's not what I am doing here. You do you. The more interesting question is - which should society value and which should someone emulate based on their own values. That again goes back to the question I asked. If a view is contingent on someone feeling "meh" about their own existence, it's not a very appealing perspective.

> On the flip side if you attach value to what you have and are, then it logically follows that if you have the chance to "ask your ancestors to screw" - you would.

Why does that follow?

who will change your diapers when you need them again?

spoiler: if not your children, then someone else’s - the robots may not be sufficiently dexterous by that point.

it is fine to not want children. or to want them. to pretend either side is morally superior is rather foolish. practically speaking, you’re gonna need your diaper changed.

So which do you prefer to tack on the end of that: "...except for the disabled" or "...and to hell with the disabled"? Both are widely used.

I have people with disabilities in my family so I know their realities up close - unlike most leftist politicians who only seek them for photo ops.

My wife volunteers pro-bono in a foundation that employs solely people with disabilities. They do work (according to their capacities), they get paid a wage, and they pay (little) taxes off it. And they are super proud that they can “pull their weight” and be equals in a society that tends to look down on them either as limited (usually from the right) or as “must-be-kept-cotton-balled” (usually from the left).

They want to be seen as people, which is what they are.

One of the big issues with severe disability is the stupidly low cap on assets to qualify for social programs (SS, Medicaid). It was set in the 70s at $2000 and hasn't been changed since.

This keeps people with severe disabilities out of the workforce more than anything else.

Those limits -all of them should follow inflation. The 10,000 you can carry on a plane, the amount you can deposit without scrutiny, etc. all had reasonable limits when set, but things have changed since the ‘70s except those caps.

For the disability cap, it should simply be eliminated. What do I care if some millionaire kid gets SS and Medicare? They are likely paying for it in taxes (or should be).

I'd rather that than have someone lose healthcare because they saved $15k (1970 2k in today's money). Or worse, because Grandma left them an inheritance not knowing the impact that has on their heath coverage.

Severe disability does not go away after your bank account hits 2k.

>unlike most leftist politicians who only seek them for photo ops.

Why the flamebait?

I think we can assume it's because I came on unnecessarily sarcastic. But he seems to have rolled back from "tangible contributions are the only thing", which is nice.

It’s a sensitive topic. Too much coffee. Who knows…

Just that at least in my country (not US), the left is slowly encroaching into a daily dictatorship on how to run our lives - and that includes regulations which might seem rosy to the general population but really hurt the people with disabilities. They don’t understand them, nor their families, nor care to listen and understand - they just legislate to show their audience that “they care”. And that includes photo ops and empty promises every four years.

“Zing! dang! Thank you madam! Your money is on the dresser. See you in four years when is reflection time”

Good. Now... why isn't an addiction a disability?

Because despite significant variance, resisting to the lure of addiction using willpower is much more effective than using willpower to reconnect one's spine.

If you examined that statement fully you'd realise how little sense it makes as an answer to the question.