Hacker News Reader

Comment by blisterpeanuts | Hacker News Reader

These responses just make me sad. Family is, by far, the most important and redeeming thing in my life. We have one child, an amazing and talented and beautiful girl, who along with my wife is worth more to me than all the money in the world. You could offer me $50 billion in exchange, and I would turn it down.

Unfortunately, this concept is unknowable until you experience it for yourself. That is why our civilization is in trouble; when people choose not to raise a family, they forego a natural and essential part of life, they have little understanding or empathy for those who do have children, and society becomes ever grimmer and coarser as a result.

Mr. Nicklaus could be a millionaire or a poor man and his words would ring just as true.

View on HN

Being a parent does not magically make you a more empathetic person, nor does it teach you “unknowable” things. Perhaps you lacked empathy before having a child, but it is unfair and just plain wrong to project that onto all childless people.

There are some parents like the parent comment, who claim that having a child is some essential ingredient for learning empathy.

To me, all that says is that they lacked empathy before having a child, and continue to lack empathy for anyone but their child. And they're so shocked by their new experience of empathy for this person they've created, that they unempathetically claim that others must also create a person to experience the same shocking feeling of caring about more than just themselves.

I didn't say people without children "lack empathy".

I'm fine for empathy for people who have children. I'm not fine with people who challenge my decision to be without children as "forgo[ing] a natural and essential part of life" and being responsible for society "becom[ing] ever grimmer and coarser..."

We don't need 16 billion people in the next century. But to the point of the article, my choice to not replicate is not a choice to avoid work life balance. That said, it does mean I may be able to take more risks because I don't have as many people depending on me. This is not a bad thing to have a mix of stability and risk-taking in society.

I 100% agree that society should support and encourage all ways of life, but I have to disagree so hard on characterizing the responsibility of raising a family as "risk-free". :)

From another perspective: having dependents reduces some avenues of risk that one might otherwise pursue.

I'm not sure that civilization's problems (especially given our massive overpopulation problems) can be ascribed to a general lack of "empathy" on the part of people who don't have children.

Actually, I am sure that they can't. I'm sure we've all observed plenty of people with kids who seem to lack all empathy.

My general point was that a family centric society is safer, more stable, and more functional than a post-family society. More boring, perhaps, but when you're raising children, boring and predictable are advantages.

We can all agree, though, that dysfunctional families do not contribute to said stability.

As someone who comes from India which is a country with lots of corruption when these people are caught red-handed often they say they did it for their kids.

Screwed everyone's life to ensure better life for your kids, a masterstroke in India.

I disagree completely. Being child-free is about others and their children.

Being child-free, my aim is to not leave the planet more burdened, so your children can have it a tad easier. Also, I will leave all my money to people who don't share my DNA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com