I see no problem. Extinction happens. We die, so what? Something else evolves. Is it sad? Yes. Will we get over it? No.
The planet has gone through worse. Stopping its change is useless, even if that change was caused by us. If we collectively stop it, good. We live for longer. Who knows what space may have.
GDP certainly reflects useful output. The claim I'm hoping they're making is that GDP fails to capture some things we care about, which is like the most 101 claim ever. So for the claim to fly you have to argue that negative externalities must've outpaced the growth of the positive externalities measured by GDP. That claim requires substantiation though, considering GDP historically correlates with a bunch of things that we do care about.
You’re demanding somebody else meet terms of debate you’ve made up, after *you* made the ludicrous claim that the global increase in GDP is a flawless indicator of an increase in the value of the entire planet, and you’re chasing your own cock trying to reframe those terms with every comment
It’s pathetic and I know as well as anybody else you’ve not pursued any economic thought beyond Econ 101, if that, and popular books by Tyler Cowen
If I cut down the entire Amazon rain forest and turn it into usable lumber, GDP goes up, but we still have a shittier planet as a result.
You're just so hilariously shortsighted. "What do you mean this car sucks, it's going 140 mph!" you're declaring as smoke pours from the engine, the tires are stripping away, and the windshield explodes in my face.
Why don’t you quantify global nominal GDP as the real value of the world, not just the economy, (a stochastic view would be nice, given the environmental concerns!) with a speck of granularity yourself?
"Why don’t you quantify global nominal GDP as the real value of the world, not just the economy" - so those are definitely words, but they don't mean anything. "Quantify NGDP as the real value of the world". A truly remarkable sentence. Not only would it not make any sense to speak in terms of *nominal* GDP, since *real* GDP would be the thing to care about. Further, GDP doesn't quantify the *value* of anything. It's a measure of output, so all it *might* do is *correlate* with some things we care about. Further, if the world was a family then GDP wouldn't be household net worth - it would be annual income. So if by "value of the world" you mean something like "net worth" of the world, then that's not even what GDP pretends to be.
Idk what this subreddit is, but yall better give me someone better or I'm outtie
I said GDP went up, and since GDP correlates with good things, GDP going up was good. Which is the argument against the "planet is worse now than when our parents were born" argument.
Stubborn attachments
Actually, it's your claim that GDP inherently correlates with a more livable planet, which is easily disproved, literally by just saying the words "paperclip maximizer"
So "livable planet" is definitely a term you imported. There are many indicators you can use to prove that value has on net been created, I just picked GDP because historically it correlates with a bunch of things that we care about. You should read Tyler Cowen's Stubborn Attachments.
I'm just asking you to substantiate that claim that negative on net outsize positive ones. Like you said, we now have more lumber but less amazon forest. You must've somehow quantified these negative externalities in order to arrive at that opinion of yours, because believing that without doing the work would be really stupid hahaha wouldn't it? So what is it?
>I just picked GDP because historically it correlates with a bunch of things that we care about
So does gigabytes of child porn in existence, doesn't mean that's a number we want to increase.
We're capturing energy in the atmosphere? That sounds tops, folks pay good money for that stuff! \*pumps eyebrows, waggles cigar in mouth, pupils turn into dollar signs\*
I wasn’t asked to do anything, I was informing you that a brute increase in the value of a public good is a terrible indicator, and you are a bad economist if you think it isn’t
Conservatives have a weird obsession with controlling their children
that approaches a feeling of ownership.
Parents can’t be creating children 1. out of an obligation to their
own parents to give them grandkids, 2. in order to get grandkids of
their own, 3. and to gift their child with existence, all at the same
time.
Hanson trying to make all of humanity a pyramid scheme.
Note also that A explicitly asking B for a favors trade is not a
strong requirement here, even for legally enforced debts. For example,
hospitals can charge for the help they give to people brought to them
unconsciously. Rescuers can charge for rescuing those who didn’t ask to
be rescued.
Those debts are bad things, not good things, Robin.
all in the name of "freedom". conservatives have convinced themselves to be the last crusaders of true freedom, democracy, and all that remains holy and just, when in reality, they are only good to their own. even if an individual conservative might be a reasonable, rational soul, the party leaders take agreeable ideas and contort them into a facistic power grab. its like drinking water but some asshole pourd salt in it. the real problem in America is that too many people kept drinking salt water instead of danding fresh water.
after a heated argument with my dad about how fucked america is, he said something along the lines of "you can always enlist and be set". if your only options are to suffer in poverty or enlist in the military, you don't really have a choice or freedom.
This is why Marx called for "from each according to his ability, to each according to whether or not he's currently stuck in a ravine in the middle of the wilderness"
Hi, I wasn’t checking Reddit for a while so I just saw this.
I didn’t read the article but I did see the tweet, so I posted the tweet. If you would prefer for me to share the articles in the future, I will avoid posting tweets that link articles, but that would also mean I just skip posting this, becuase I am not going to read the article, for fairly obvious reasons.
(I know that probably sounds snarky, but I mean it sincerely, I am happy to follow whatever mod rules you have, I just didn’t realize I was supposed to read Hanson’s nonsense before posting his summary of it).
All I’ll say is that it’s in the spirit of the sub that users can be relied upon to laugh at things in more detail, and *should* take the view that while a dumb headline is fun to laugh at it’s rarely the whole story
A link to the tweet would have been better
I am very confused about what this sub is because this post was advertised to me by reddit because I was subbed to r/philosophy Is this place is similar to r/antiwork r/lostgeneration r/antinatalism ? or are those sneer clubs you are memeing?
Or chalk it up to that the OP was about children and this is reddit so almost any sub will have a melt down.
SneerClub was originally an offshoot of /r/badphilosophy when /r/badphilosophy was good (I mod both), created as a sluice due to an excess of posts about Eliezer Yudkowsky’s weird shit
Over time it’s grown to be about anything worth taking the piss out of that happens to be associated with Yudkowsky, either materially or on the basis of vibe
With reddit promoting this sub all sorts of places, maybe some of the pinned post info could go in the sidebar? Especially if people can get to posts without hitting the main page. idk, I think there've been more people stumbling in here asking this sort of question so that might cut down on it. but also i would never want to see this place taken seriously so maybe the confusion is good.
I feel like posting the article would encourage people to read the article, while an image of the tweet provides sneertent (sneer content) without additional harm.
At some point you might have to accept that a noticeable portion of this sub's enthusiasts are dumb and reactive and in it for the outrage points. Not all of them, still.
I had to go dig up the original article to figure out on what basis
this claim could possibly be made. It was as I expected.
I’m disappointed he didn’t explore this idea any further than
“grandkids”. It’s probably not the only thing parents might hope for or
expect from their kids. What else might we owe them? A comfortable
retirement? Free and legal child labor? A chance to relive one’s youth
vicariously through their children? Love and respect that need not be
earned, that comes from filial obligation?
Where might it end? After all, when one owes one’s entire existence
to their parents, what right do any of us have to choose
anything of our own? Why should I be able to choose my own
hairstyle, if it displeases the parents who created me? Let alone my
vocation or the person I’ll end up marrying?
I’m glad Robin evidently had good parents, who never actually ended
up making any of these demands on him, otherwise I think he’d very
quickly find out what’s so unsatisfactory about a world system where no
one lives for themselves, where the only hope of self-actualization is
to have kids of one’s own that one can impose their choices and
preferences upon.
I’d rather believe my parents got their reward for creating me the
night I was conceived. Very good chance they didn’t really have me in
mind at the time anyways. I’d rather believe that it is the parent who
owes something to the child for bringing it into the world, and it’s a
debt to be repaid only on to the next generation when that child grows
up one day to be a parent themselves of their own free choice and
volition.
The only thing my son owes me is to not grow up to be an asshole like
Robin Hanson.
to me the parent has to EARN respect and love by giving the child a good LIFE.
the birth itself is negligible
i think the parent owes THE WORLD (everyone else) to ensure the child becomes a decent person, since they brought the new person in to the world which was already inhabited.
just like if you bring your dog over to someone elses house, YOU are responsible for making sure your dog behaves, not the owner of the house. and YOU should be punished if your dog misbehaves because you neglected to either train the dog properly, or put it down if it is determined to be untrainable.
*controversial opinion*
Didn’t Hanson endorse the rightness of a cannibal eating orphans as
long as the cannibal paid and the orphans couldn’t pay more not to be
eaten?
So shouldn’t one only owe their parents grandkids if the parents were
willing to pay them to and the children couldn’t pay more?
Low key though one could probably write a really fun essay about
Hanson and sexuality. You’ve got the ‘gentle, silent rape’ piece, the
redistributing sex articles, a final exam for legal remedies for
cuckoldry, whatever this baby debt thing is, etc.
> Didn't Hanson endorse the rightness of a cannibal eating orphans as long as the cannibal paid and the orphans couldn't pay more not to be eaten?
Me: there is no fucking way anyone on earth would unironically believe that, no way. This is made up.
*googles*
Oh. Well then.
This is awkward cos I'm literally halfway in the middle of reading Robin Hanson's book *Elephant in the Brain* atm, and i was kind of enjoying it. Makes ya think
> Me: there is no fucking way anyone on earth would unironically believe that, no way. This is made up.
I wrote the post from my memory of Caplan's [opening statement](https://web.archive.org/web/20090530000153/http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/hansondebate.htm) in his debate with Hanson and on his [post-debate article](https://web.archive.org/web/20220128134439/https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/04/are_grotesque_h.html).
Looking at the two, it's a bit confusing.
The belief that the Holocaust would have been justified if there were more Nazis seems like a bog standard utilitarian view. The weird thing is assuming capacity to pay is the same as utility.
In the opening statement, Caplan presents the cannibal scenario as a reductio of Hanson's position. But in the post-debate article, he states that Hanson bit both bullets on advising genocide and cannibalism.
I think the possible readings are:
1. Caplan and Hanson are misunderstandings each other. Hanson is using willingness (not capacity) to pay as a proxy for utility, while Caplan believes Hanson is using capacity to pay itself as the measure.
2. Caplan is lying about Hanson's beliefs.
3. Caplan is being imprecise in his writing. The cannibal is a utility monster.
4. Hanson actually endorsed the scenario outlined.
Since Caplan and Hanson are friends, I'm sceptical (2). A plain reading of Caplan suggests (4). I concede (1) and (3) are possible.
Looking at Hanson's [pre-debate post](https://web.archive.org/web/20100711083250/http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/on-liberty-vs-efficiency.html), Hanson frames the situation differently. He frames it as actions one should take contingent to roles and, on my reading, thinks that in one's role as an economic adviser, one ought advise whatever promotes efficiency but that one doesn't have that limitation in their role as a person. I'm actually sympathetic to that!
But I don't think that changes the set of readings, since on Caplan's account, Hanson still thinks one ought advise genocide or cannibalism in some circumstances. But it might increase one's belief in the mutual misunderstandings reading (1).
> This is awkward cos I'm literally halfway in the middle of reading Robin Hanson's book Elephant in the Brain atm, and i was kind of enjoying it. Makes ya think
Eh. I haven't read it, but people can be right about some things and wrong about others. I think I once read Hanson make an argument effectively about how capitalism requires and creates work discipline in labourers. Not using those terms exactly though, but seemed like a bog standard argument you'd find in EP Thompson.
I’ll bite. Owe “a bit” huh? Okay, which “bit” of a grandbaby is owed?
Would a few toes suffice? A whole leg? Inquiring minds must know!
On a side note, for being as much of a “rationalist” as he proclaims,
he really does tend to make irrational emotional screeds on things that
impact him personally. Who wants to bet one of his kids recently
declared they are child-free?
This baby bust fear these guys have, is this just because they don’t
think there’ll be enough economic growth to sustain Elon’s colonies on
Mars or whatever? Or are they specifically scared that the educated
classes where fertility is crumbling won’t propagate their genetic gifts
into future generations so we won’t be able to summon the
Messiah create the Properly Aligned AGI? We basically made it
illegal to build enough housing and made it super duper illegal for
housing to get cheaper instead of infinitely appreciating maybe these
guys could take it up with their local zoning board if they want more
people?
The most reasonable version of it I've heard is a fear that once most countries have below replacement fertility, there won't be enough young people to meet the care needs of the elderly population without overworking them/accepting worse standards of elder care/accepting a general decrease in QoL as a greater fraction of the working population is needed in eldercare. They're basically afraid everywhere will soon have the same eldercare issues as Japan and South Korea. I don't know how much the numbers actually support this worry.
There are also some progress studies types who are afraid that a skewed age ratio will decrease economic growth. Many of them argue that this projected decrease in technological innovation/entrepreneurialism from not enough young people will harm the fight against climate change to a greater degree than the lessened population will help. A few of the more techno-optimist ones probably are straight up worried that there won't be enough people for Elon's Mars colonies, even if they don't state it outright. And there are also some social conservatives and religious types putting a wonkish sheen on what is basically a cultural anxiety about fertility.
It's weird, this whole baby bust thing has basically become huge over the past year or two over a swath of neoliberal twitter. To your point, almost all of the ones I've seen talking about it are yimbys.
I'm a pretty hardcore yimby but I can't imagine how population growth won't just keep making the problem worse when no one has anything close to a realistic plan for dismantling all the stuff that makes nimbyism so powerful in the first place. If yimbyism ever got serious sustained political traction Tucker Carlson would just do a segment on it and every Republican in the country would triple down on single family zoning. With that being the reality for the foreseeable future it seems cruel to keep demanding more young people we don't have enough housing for.
I don't know what the Republican machine would actually think of yimbyism, given it could help to concentrate young people in urban areas where their votes count less.
In general, the people I'm seeing the pro-natalism talk from are free markets types who want more population growth, so it makes sense they'd be yimbys as a consequence. And they seem to be viewing it as a worldwide concern.
That logic is flawed. Not just because you can't ask someone before they're born. But you can't even ask a kid as they aren't mature enough to make rational decisions.
You don't owe them having kids I agree with that. For many reasons, biggest being it's your life and your right to decide if you want kids. As for owing your parents nothing, the only parents who aren't owed anything for bringing a person into existence, raising, clothing and providing for said children are horrible parents. Such as those who abuse their children (in any form) or those who didn't take care of their children or have mooched off them.
If you feel you don't owe your parents anything then I'm sorry that you had horrible parents.
> raising, clothing and providing for said children
That's an obligation of parents to their children, not a debt owed to parents by their children. You can like your parents without feeling you owe them anything.
this.
the parent makes a choice to create the child without consent, therefore the parent owes the child a good life.
thats it. there is no "and"
though I would also say the onus is on the parent to ensure the child does not turn out to be a psychopath or a rampant prick, this is something the parent owes THE WORLD (everyone else) because they chose to bring this new human in to the world where people already existed.
Just like if you brought a dog over to a friends house, its on YOU to make sure your dog behaves, its not on the owner of the property to manage your dog.
I don’t “owe” my parents anything. They decided to have a child and
provided for me as they should. Things like respect are earned
not a given. Conservatives have to break everything down into some sort
of hierarchical ownership with “debts” to be paid which is flat out
weird.
Y’all can save yourselves the time and skip the article… I read it
and it is in fact terrible. His argument hinges on the “norm of
reciprocity” in human relationships which is ethically dubious in and of
itself. It becomes more dubious when you consider that the magnitude of
the costs involved in having children are so much greater than any of
the examples he gives.
There is a scene in the movie Immortals where Mickey Rourke as King
Hyperion orders some dudes balls crushed with a hammer after he gave
some weird rant about bloodlines/ancestors whatever and that always
struck me as a very rightwing weird conservative fear. (the idea that
you cannot procreate for your ancestors I mean, not the ballcrushing,
that is a more general fear).
I always think about that when people have weird takes like this.
E: forgot to mention, I do wonder how different that scene lands if
you are in fact a weird ‘muh bloodline’ conservative. For me the speech
was very ‘euh that is pretty weird’ (and then the actual hammer to
crotch scene overpowered the whole moment, but I do wonder how it all
lands in different groups if the movie didn’t go for over the top
‘gritty’ violence).
It was for half a second. No one uses punctuation or syntax on Twitter, so I initially read it as "parents' grandkids" and went "yeah, you do owe your children something." Then I realised why he had rendered it that way and the point is as inane as you'd expect. Reinforcing (an almost universal, unspoken) bias.
In our defence, he can't write for shit. We must have language understanders here. Are there structures -- or languages -- which would render "(baby debt)" such that it were sufficiently differentiable from "baby (debt)?"
"Learn to formulate a fucking sentence." Yeah, but without the author being expected to read a book after high school. We live on a Animal Farm in 1984.
I wonder if this is an idiomatic confusion. “When are you going to give your parents grandkids?“ is a question every white millennial Midwest young person has been asked in my experience.
>a question every white millennial Midwest young person has been asked
Truly twisted. There are lives you *physically* couldn't become drunk enough to lead, aren't there? Of course the secret to parental expectations is to grind them down gradually. In your early twenties you've not yet had a decade to sacrifice to this end.
>There are lives you *physically* couldn't become drunk enough to lead, aren't there?
Not with that attitude! Then again I am also a white millennial from the Midwest, so drunkenness comes naturally to me.
I'm not from the Midwest, haha, so that might contribute. I'm from the Southeast. I've never heard "parents grandkids" as a common phrase, so it sounds weird to me.
I don’t owe dead idiots a damned thing, and they can enjoy hell or
oblivion as much as they like to whatever extent to pretend that I
fucking care about their blood. Fuck DNA. Let them rot with the history
they sowed.
Force fed a religion that caused trauma (not near as much as some
others have, but trauma nevertheless) raised under the philosophy that
I’m worthless because “being allowed to live and in our home is your
gift” as they put it, and my parents now hate each other and are
separating because my mother wanted multiple kids, my dad didn’t want
any, and they both got stuck with one. Now they want grandkids as if
conflicting feelings on children wasn’t THE REASON THEY STARTED HATING
EACH OTHER. Thinking I owe them anything is either very arrogant, very
stupid, or some combination of both
60% of DNA shared with a banana? Agreed. Dudes with 3 human kids think they're hot shit, but look at me I've got 6 bananas. 6 x 60% > 3 x 100%. So who's the real winner? Me
Nearly every problem facing humanity right now would be improved by
less humans. Have you improved the world enough to deserve grandkids,
mom? HAVE YOU?!
This is a bad take and leads almost inevitably to eco fascism. Moreover it's inaccurate. The world could support vastly more humans than we have today. Rather, nearly every problem facing humanity right now would be improved by different consumption habits in industrial and postindustrial nations.
ie, we need a completely different economic structure, since capitalism naturally encourages the waste and over consumption of goods because it is profitable
This is a bad faith argument. Our habits may be able to change, but they won't. We all know they won't. The ultra-wealthy, those with power, don't want that change because they would lose money from it.
It's only bad-faith if I don't mean it, and I do.
You have chosen the silliest way possible to fill out my vague formula of "change consumption habits". Of course we aren't going to just voluntarily consume less. There is no way to change our consumption habits while leaving the powerful and ultra-wealthy powerful and ultra-wealthy.
My view, which I did not think needed to be fully stated in a left-leaning forum, is: we can reduce carbon emissions etc more by revolting than by just letting lots of people die. Our problems are created by a social structure, not a mass of people.
Uh what? I can very easily list problems that would be helped by more people, not less. Poverty is a lack of productive capacity, and productivity rises exponentially with the number of humans because of economies of scale. Innovation pays outsized returns for the simple reason that you only need one person with a good idea and then that can be used to help more than one person - e.g. one person writes Lord of the Rings - millions can read it.
Poverty is a distribution of wealth problem. More people would only magnify it. There has never been more productivity in history, likewise, never more comparative poverty.
your viewpoint only makes sense if you insist on defining productive capacity in terms of what the people with all of the power are willing to pay for a good or service, or, rather, the minimum amount they are able to strongarm their peons into accepting, which is obviously a bad measure, and then simultaneously act like that's the inherent value and not something that is ever exploitative, when in fact the exploitation is key to how the system works
Morally i guess you are obliged to have kids just as a human animal.
Its also not really fair to act like boomers and act in our own interest
and not the community.
If our generation doesnt have a good amound of kids. those few will,
will have to burden to support us as elders much like china now has.
Do it again, but this time use at least one full, preferably grammatically correct, sentence which explains the *normative*, that is *moral* or *ethical*, dimension of instinct and organisme
And they owe me a planet.
Conservatives have a weird obsession with controlling their children that approaches a feeling of ownership.
Parents can’t be creating children 1. out of an obligation to their own parents to give them grandkids, 2. in order to get grandkids of their own, 3. and to gift their child with existence, all at the same time.
Hanson trying to make all of humanity a pyramid scheme.
Those debts are bad things, not good things, Robin.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I had to go dig up the original article to figure out on what basis this claim could possibly be made. It was as I expected.
I’m disappointed he didn’t explore this idea any further than “grandkids”. It’s probably not the only thing parents might hope for or expect from their kids. What else might we owe them? A comfortable retirement? Free and legal child labor? A chance to relive one’s youth vicariously through their children? Love and respect that need not be earned, that comes from filial obligation?
Where might it end? After all, when one owes one’s entire existence to their parents, what right do any of us have to choose anything of our own? Why should I be able to choose my own hairstyle, if it displeases the parents who created me? Let alone my vocation or the person I’ll end up marrying?
I’m glad Robin evidently had good parents, who never actually ended up making any of these demands on him, otherwise I think he’d very quickly find out what’s so unsatisfactory about a world system where no one lives for themselves, where the only hope of self-actualization is to have kids of one’s own that one can impose their choices and preferences upon.
I’d rather believe my parents got their reward for creating me the night I was conceived. Very good chance they didn’t really have me in mind at the time anyways. I’d rather believe that it is the parent who owes something to the child for bringing it into the world, and it’s a debt to be repaid only on to the next generation when that child grows up one day to be a parent themselves of their own free choice and volition.
The only thing my son owes me is to not grow up to be an asshole like Robin Hanson.
My genes make me not want to breed. If my ancestors wanted me to breed, I guess they should have done a better job of making me.
Didn’t Hanson endorse the rightness of a cannibal eating orphans as long as the cannibal paid and the orphans couldn’t pay more not to be eaten?
So shouldn’t one only owe their parents grandkids if the parents were willing to pay them to and the children couldn’t pay more?
Low key though one could probably write a really fun essay about Hanson and sexuality. You’ve got the ‘gentle, silent rape’ piece, the redistributing sex articles, a final exam for legal remedies for cuckoldry, whatever this baby debt thing is, etc.
I’ll bite. Owe “a bit” huh? Okay, which “bit” of a grandbaby is owed? Would a few toes suffice? A whole leg? Inquiring minds must know!
On a side note, for being as much of a “rationalist” as he proclaims, he really does tend to make irrational emotional screeds on things that impact him personally. Who wants to bet one of his kids recently declared they are child-free?
This baby bust fear these guys have, is this just because they don’t think there’ll be enough economic growth to sustain Elon’s colonies on Mars or whatever? Or are they specifically scared that the educated classes where fertility is crumbling won’t propagate their genetic gifts into future generations so we won’t be able to
summon the Messiahcreate the Properly Aligned AGI? We basically made it illegal to build enough housing and made it super duper illegal for housing to get cheaper instead of infinitely appreciating maybe these guys could take it up with their local zoning board if they want more people?I didn’t get asked if I wanted to be here, so no,I don’t owe them anything
I don’t “owe” my parents anything. They decided to have a child and provided for me as they should. Things like respect are earned not a given. Conservatives have to break everything down into some sort of hierarchical ownership with “debts” to be paid which is flat out weird.
“You exist to breed”
Y’all can save yourselves the time and skip the article… I read it and it is in fact terrible. His argument hinges on the “norm of reciprocity” in human relationships which is ethically dubious in and of itself. It becomes more dubious when you consider that the magnitude of the costs involved in having children are so much greater than any of the examples he gives.
C’mon Hanson, challenge your priors, discover Antinatalism! You owe it to your least common ancestor.
There is a scene in the movie Immortals where Mickey Rourke as King Hyperion orders some dudes balls crushed with a hammer after he gave some weird rant about bloodlines/ancestors whatever and that always struck me as a very rightwing weird conservative fear. (the idea that you cannot procreate for your ancestors I mean, not the ballcrushing, that is a more general fear).
I always think about that when people have weird takes like this.
E: forgot to mention, I do wonder how different that scene lands if you are in fact a weird ‘muh bloodline’ conservative. For me the speech was very ‘euh that is pretty weird’ (and then the actual hammer to crotch scene overpowered the whole moment, but I do wonder how it all lands in different groups if the movie didn’t go for over the top ‘gritty’ violence).
“Parents grandkids”
Is this confusing to anyone else?
while we’re canceling student debt can we cancel genetic debt too
More commodification of children, now also found in forced birth adoptions
Tradition is peer pressure by dead people. The dead literally can’t give a shit.
Is this common law?
I wonder where he got this legal theory.
Just so I can pass my mental illnesses onto my child? Yeah fuck that, no kid should have to ever feel the way I felt.
I don’t owe dead idiots a damned thing, and they can enjoy hell or oblivion as much as they like to whatever extent to pretend that I fucking care about their blood. Fuck DNA. Let them rot with the history they sowed.
[removed]
Force fed a religion that caused trauma (not near as much as some others have, but trauma nevertheless) raised under the philosophy that I’m worthless because “being allowed to live and in our home is your gift” as they put it, and my parents now hate each other and are separating because my mother wanted multiple kids, my dad didn’t want any, and they both got stuck with one. Now they want grandkids as if conflicting feelings on children wasn’t THE REASON THEY STARTED HATING EACH OTHER. Thinking I owe them anything is either very arrogant, very stupid, or some combination of both
It’s always written by a dude
also, he’s basically describing a Ponzi scheme
This comes across as absurdly selfish lol
Just because a person who has kids loves kids and wants grandchildren doesnt mean anyone owes them a god damn thing.
We need to do something about the rampant narcissism in this world. like. right now.
I share 60% of my DNA and 99% with a chimpansee. If I don’t breed they have a better chance at surviving.
The federal government should be giving every child on earth a 000 (way more than that honestly) savings bond when they are born.
Nearly every problem facing humanity right now would be improved by less humans. Have you improved the world enough to deserve grandkids, mom? HAVE YOU?!
Lololol ok sure just pay us all living wages and like stop killing the planet.
Lol. No. Today’s youth lives for…. today’s youth.
Morally i guess you are obliged to have kids just as a human animal. Its also not really fair to act like boomers and act in our own interest and not the community.
If our generation doesnt have a good amound of kids. those few will, will have to burden to support us as elders much like china now has.
[removed]
He’s right