Hacker News Reader

Comment by abound | Hacker News Reader

I don't think dead people care how long they've been dead before they're found. It's unpleasant to think about dead bodies sitting around, but ultimately not their biggest problem.

If your argument is "have children so someone will check on you when you're old", I'd argue that bringing sentient beings into the world for just that purpose is a bit overkill. Other options include: being part of a strong community, living in some sort of communal place for elderly folk, or even just some sort of basic health monitoring that can alert emergency services if something looks off.

Adopting is also an option if you're really sold on the "sentient beings" thing.

View on HN

> I don't think dead people care how long they've been dead before they're found. It's unpleasant to think about dead bodies sitting around, but ultimately not their biggest problem.

I think one unspoken assumption is that if someone is checking in with you regularly, they might actually find you before you die, and either call an ambulance to help you, or notice that something might be a problem before it becomes severe.

Agreed, and I tried to address that with my suggested alternatives, all of which would also find you in such circumstances.

Mostly just noting that creating humans solely for the purpose of caring for you in old age is a fairly nuclear option.

Is that why they call it a nuclear family? :)

Not sure about "solely," but what you describe is actually a mainstream concept in many cultures.

The US and other individualistic Western countries are probably the exception.

> The US and other individualistic Western countries are probably the exception.

It's probably because the areas of greatest economic opportunity keep shifting, so children don't end up in the same city as their parents to care for them.

I always thought the main issue this was exposing is that if it takes months for anybody to notice you’ve died, then you must have been living a rather sad life at the time.

Maybe, but a solitary life doesn't have to be a sad one.

I’ve lived alone, and I’ve lived with the right people, and I’ve lived with the wrong people. Living with the right people was good. Living alone was perfectly fine. Living with the wrong people was hellish.

If you live a life so isolated from other people that you can die and nobody notices for months, you are either living a sad life, or you’re highly socially dysfunctional.

Agreed. It's not exactly a nice thing to say or think about but it's obviously true in the general case. I'd be curious about the perspective of those that disagree.

I'm not sure if you realize what it seems like you're advocating for: solitary life and dying alone. Having biological children because you want biological children is not as nuts as you seem to imply.

I'm not trying to imply that, and I have children.

You're assuming that they died quickly and peacefully.

How many died after breaking their leg and starving alone on their floor?

Who knows, but its probably a very small percentage if you look at the causes of death for people over 65 in Japan.

Starving takes a long time, i kinda figure almost anyone would crawl to the front door in that time

I think the general argument is have kids so you don't leach off someone else's when you're old and take more from society than you contribute.

I've never understood this argument. Caregivers are paid; it's a job. No one is forced to go into elderly care.

Having kids isn't even a guarantee that they'll be around to care for you in your old age. My grandparents had four and still needed to be moved to a home with a full time carer at the end because none of their kids were able to move back home to take care of them.

It probably still holds on the level of the whole society. Modern society and division of labour means it doesn't have to be specifically your kids who care for your, but it still need to be somebody's kids. If nobody had kids any more, nobody would be left to provide any care, paid or not.

Plus it's not just about really literal full-on elderly care, but also simply keeping society running even when you're old enough that you can no longer actively contribute your share as much.

It's not about caring for you, it's, in cynical terms, about building the future tax base to maintain the infrastructure you will utilize in your old age. Every Western society has the elderly using more resources than they contribute, esp. regarding healthcare. Some even use more resources than they ever earned in life.

I know it's horribly cynical, but if you don't have kids then go on Medicare then rack up a huge bill, you've basically burdened a smaller next generation with a higher tax bill and basically are setting up a Japan 2.0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com