It doesn't suggest that people are having fewer children because they are "antinatalists" or consider having children a "selfish choice". It's right there in the title: they think they just don't have time due to their work/life balance. As I said in another comment, that's more likely to be an economic problem (specifically, housing) rather than a philosophical change as you seem to be saying.
I guess most commenters jumped to their own reasons. In that sense, I think it's a natural reaction to the topic.
The article is locked down, so I have no idea what it says after the second paragraph. I can imagine though.
The comment I was replying to said that people aren't having kids because they are morally against the concept of (anyone) having kids. The article is about people who perhaps want to have kids but their job pays too little and takes up too much time. Those are about as different as reasons can be.
Another top-level comment included a link that lets you read the whole article (though there's not much substance to it, and the distinction was already clear about by the end of the first paragraph). There isn't much discussion about it because that's discouraged on Hacker News. From the FAQ, under "Are paywalls ok?":
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
I respect not having kids. The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense.
We're in a world where we constantly told that we have to give up meat/dairy, powered transport, heating/cooling, and a whole lot more to avert climate catastrophe.
I'm surprised there's so few mentions of the incredible destructiveness of having kids (e.g. vs. owning an ICE car or taking a few flights per year)
Having kids and no cars helps ensure the continuation of humanity.
Turns out there's only one sure way to ensure human extinction, and it's for humans to stop reproducing.
They see human extinction as a possibility to accept, rather than as something to necessarily avoid.
I know a few people like this, and their reasons vary. These range from "if humanity goes extinct, it's god's will" to "dinosaurs went extinct and the earth survived, something else will evolve if we're not here" to "we've shown we can't be trusted to care for the planet, let nature take its course".
In most cases they'd rather avert climate catasrophe, but for the continued habitability of the planet (for many species), rather than for the continuation of humanity.
But human extinction, no. Some areas will even become more habitable.
And humans will only become extinct if everyone stops having kids which won't happen because some people like having them.
> Some areas will even become more habitable.
Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.
No, but that's the case even now. The bottom end of humanity is having a horrible time. I'm sure people in North Korea or the war-torn countries in Africa won't be that much worse off than they are now.
> Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.
I agree think it will lead to conflict over land, for sure. Siberia might even become a hospitable place :) Mass migrations will cause huge problems for sure and probably even some wars. But again, those things are something we have now too.
But it's not an extinction event, especially not for us here in the west. We'll have to deal with a lot of inconveniences but we have the resources to mitigate them.
It's not fair but really nothing in the world is fair now (and it seems to be getting even worse with pretty much all the world leaders being hardliners now)
Buddy: you're posting on a forum for tech workers. Not owners. Not billionaires. Not only are we not on anyone's radar as "essential", no one needs that many of us. Might want to rethink your place in the decaying world order if you think an ecosystem collapse needs a lot of programmers.
The world order is decaying anyway due to all the hardliner world leaders I mentioned, all intent on conflict. But I don't think this has an awful lot to do with the climate issue. More with overpopulation and countries like China getting richer and wanting to play the geopower game.
And yeah it may well be very bad for me but there really isn't anything I can do about it. I stand by my original point that it's not a human extinction-level event though.
We're stuck on a finite planet with diminishing natural resources. Endless growth isn't possible.
Maybe we should just accept that some things auto regulate. It's the way of nature.
If it did, then I personally have no environmental impact; it's already all on my parents ;)
Nonetheless nothing I condemn.
At the end of the day it's harder not to have kids and stop this cycle than not, thanks to evolution.
But we know in which world we bring humans in.
Climate change, rassism, bulling etc.
I believe the environmental/climactic concerns raised by antinatalists are just a feeble deflection. They are primarily interested in personal comfort.
For some, these are possible medical complications, e.g. history of heart defects, high risk of childbirth fatality.
For others, its that they had abusive or traumatic childhoods, and either don't feel they'd be up to the task of parenthood, or associate childhood with something so unpleasant that they wouldn't want to inflict it on others.
I believe creating new life is playing 'god'.
It's easier to never exist than life life.
This has nothing to do what you thought
That's an unusual definition of "playing god", since it includes something that pretty much every life form back to the earliest single-cellular bacteria does.
I'm not sure I do this most of the time.
> can't think about the implications
I definitely don't do this bit.
If I were to create people in order to try and find some meaning but leaving them as adrift in this meaninglessness as I, would that really be a selfless act? It seems quite the opposite to me.
Perhaps this is indeed “cope” in one way or another, but it’s what I’ve felt from a very young age, though I think it took me a lot of reflection to realize it and be able to put it into words.
I am not an "antinatalist" because of this.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with comfort (or the environment or climate).
I note that the "unto" here is a very interesting word choice that hints at an underlying belief structure that drives your opinion.
Although I've not fully understood what makes that decision "selfish" in the sense that I'm not acting in a way that is a detriment to others.
To maximise quality of life, maximise duration of life, or maximise the numer of humans?
At the moment, we seem to be aiming for 'maximum number of humans'. But in a world of climate crisis and depleted resources, that means ever-fewer freedoms, rapidly declining quality of life, and increasing levels of war/conflict.
To create their future workers/slaves.
I love my son, but it's also easily one of the hardest things I've ever done and will continue to be so for the next 18+ years. I wouldn't recommend having children to anyone: it's a singularity, and there's also no undoing it. You need to be very sure it's what you want. It will be expensive, it will limit what you can do in all sorts of ways, because it is relentless in a way which exposure to it as an aunt or uncle or friend simply won't communicate adequately (heck: even parents with older children seem to rapidly forget what having younger children is actually like, as I've experienced).
I've got 3 kids. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Or not recommend it. How the fuck should I know what you want to do or how it'll turn out? I'm glad I had mine and I'm glad we started at 25 instead of 35. Regrets? Some, but if you've none I may not believe you. You can regret things even if you also wouldn't want them to turn out differently.
That's the point: these aren't equal opposites.
The answer to "should I have children?" is "you have to decide that for yourself but be aware of what it is you're deciding".
It is, contrary to some commenters, not a selfish thing to do, but a completely selfless act. You can see it for yourself when you watch the children around you: The pure joy of being alive! The full range of emotions! The good, the bad and the ugly…
You could argue that the children are thrown into the world and are now stuck with it, and you rather would prefer nonexistence to existence. If you can answer the question, is life worth living, positively, then you can argue, that existence is better than nonexistence and consequently being thrown into this world is better than to pass on the experience. It would, however, be selfish to keep this experience all to yourself and not allow potential offsprings to take part in this experience.
> You need to be very sure it's what you want. It will be expensive, it will limit what you can do in all sorts of ways, because it is relentless in a way which exposure to it as an aunt or uncle or friend simply won't communicate adequately
This is right! Having kids is total; It will dominate your life. Every second of your day for at least 4 to 5 years. If you are not willing or able to endure, then you should not have kids. And again: You cannot fathom what it means to have someone who is so dependent on you and the life and future depends on you. No, not even the clingy partner you had.
The hardship is soon forgotten — this is why the uncles and aunts and friends — don't communicate it adequately. These corny moments are real: Memories that will stick with you forever, even the bad parts, that somehow and with time get twisted into fond memories. (My son was crying every night for 8 months when he was falling asleep. I carried him on my arm until he was so exhausted that he slept. I sang songs for him for hours. Then he would sleep from 11 pm to 4 am. So at 4 I went to the living room with him, and we tried to catch some sleep on the couch. It got better after thees 8 months, but what a ride — now I like to think back and miss these nights when he slept in my arm).
You might be in these first years, or I am having a short respite, but it gets easier after the first years. But you don't have kids for yourself, but for your kids.
Ok I'll bite. It's not anywhere near the hardest thing anyone can ever do. It's very easy to get started, most people just do it day by day, it's integrated with life, and throwing in the towel is kinda frowned upon. I'm sorry your kid had colic, my first had the same although not for as long and my second would just scream in bed when she was a little older so I'd stay and read and doze while holding her hand. But it wasn't hard like if I decided to write a book or climb a mountain or something.
For me this was the hardest part. You don't get to get out. Maybe it's a mindset thing.
Starting a book, an app, a diet. You all can just throw the towel and be done. Kids, not an option.
Having kids is not strictly synonymous with raising kids well and while you may not just kill the kid you can also do the strict minimum and let it be as much as possible (or transfer the responsibility to someone else). It is extremely current and something many parents do, just as much as soft quitting any of the other activities you mentioned... The bar is rather low, it needs to have foods to not starve, clothing to not be naked and a place to sleep; if you do those things for yourself, you are more than a third of the way done; all the rest is completely optional and many parents definitely chose to leave the option on the table.
You are literally adding N + 1 complexity to the universe. There is a whole world of possibility opened through having children.
What you see as reduced options is actually a series of choices you decided you’d want to have to make. And good parents choose the options that payoff in the long term.
That doesn't mean it's bad. But it's also not going to end (it will however, get different - but not easier).
Since you have children, I think you'd agree with me that it's changed you in a way that you can't explain to someone who doesn't have any? Wouldn't you rather everyone underwent that change?
The broadest group of my cohort decided to have children. It was the easiest path to begin - most folks are straight and have sex drives and that will often result in babies. Those few of us seniors who decided not to have had a weird expectations foisted on us from some and strange condemnation from others - social pressures I could claim parents will never understand.
So please stop this one-side-or-the-other nonsense. And the "mystical experience of being 'me'." We all make choices. We're all similar. We are each unique.
The idea that you’re inherently better off having kids is nonsense as well.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/parents-children-pare...
I'm in my mid 20s, in tech and couldn't afford that at all, I could barely afford my gf being unemployed. I don't have a car and live in a small flat. If I can barely afford a comfortable but frugal lifestyle while being paid more than 60% of my peers I'm not too surprised most people literally can't afford kids
The reality is that if you are a couple both working an average job you won't have a whole lot of extra time depending on living situation (commute and access to transport) but on top of that you have very little extra cash that could be helpful to solve logistical pains kids make.
All the people of my age that had kids now have unenviable lifestyles, it feels like they can have what the poor boomers had and not much more and nowadays the expectation is that it will last up to a quarter century because of how much we came to overvalue diplomas (even though they do not sort the good from the bad, at all...).
Because of the insanely collectivist system around the world, it makes no difference to have kids or not for the end of your life, so it becomes more of a decision of accepting to be poorer for the privilège of reproduction.
This pretty stupid all things considered, it seems like a feature to have parents dependent on their kids for the end of their life, this way they would have a lot more motivation to do the job right and those who would do a bad job would have it coming...
In the end, collectivism has a way to always destroy the foundation it relies on, which is hilarious. We just are in the destructive phase, what will come out after is bound to be better I think (hard to do worse).
You don't do it or not do it for humanity, society or whatever random shit you make up.
That's a false dichotomy, people without kids can bring joy and laughter to "this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit". You don't have to justify yourself for what you have chosen.
I respect antinatalists, but I chose differently. I chose to bring laughter and joy to this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit, even if for a brief lapse. Is it the right choice? Perhaps not. Is it a selfish choice? Yes. Why did I do it then? For the same reason I keep breathing. I don't know much more than that.