Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Personally, I don't think this is great danger. The urge to have children is tremendously strong - it's primary purpose of our evolutionary dna, after all!

Although I'm a father of two, I look around me and I see that we could probably benefit more as a society if fewer people didn't bow to that pressure to procreate. Most people that choose not to have children are doing so for very good reasons (whether it is "not now" or "never").

Perhaps you are influenced by an immediate circle that shares a rather harsh view of children, but I can tell you that from my experiences, there is rather little bias in our society against the next generation directly - I will allow that we do a lot of things that indirectly cause harm to our children, and theirs.




I probably wasn't clear on what I meant by "creating an unfair bias against it in future members of society".

When children grow up in a world where sex doesn't automatically mean children, it biases them towards having sex without having children, and prevents them from considering the option of children as often as they naturally would have. This violates the integrity of future generations, implicitly taking away some amount of their individual personal choice.


That's an interesting stance that I see no evidence to support. The urge to procreate is tremendously powerful. In many cases it is even more powerful that the urge for sex, believe it or not. I think you are massively understating it.

Now, this may not seem likely when you look at those in their 20s, but it jumps out at you if you look at those in their 40s. It's so bad that it actually leads to all sorts of loveless marriages and bad situations - particularly for women worrying about "running out of time". These are first world problems though.

What the third world problems are is children being born far to soon for the parent to become established - financially, emotionally, and spiritually, if you will. This leads to less than ideal environments for children to be raised, and as a result a poorer 'end product', if you will.

You've got to remember that many third world countries do not have the options and environment we do in the first world. A "pro-contraception" message isn't needed here. When the default is switched however, and you have the procreation urge matched with little to no knowledge of contraception at all, you have a far greater negative effect than what you are concerned with.


"and as a result a poorer 'end product', if you will."

I guess this is where we differ. I think a person's actions are far more important than anything incidental like income or health. Thus it's much less relevant where, when, or how they're born.


Better Income and/or Health begets better actions, generally. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a real thing.

It's rather difficult to be noble when you are starving. That isn't to say it's impossible, but if we are talking about increasing odds of success, it is true.

I'm concerned with enabling people to become better than what they are now. All people. Regardless of their mistakes, the mistakes of their great grandparents or their particular luck in the geography lottery. Can you say you are for the same? Because although you are presenting that outwardly, in detail it seems you are content with enforcing an unequal distribution of hardship based primarily on an ignorance of the human struggle outside of small town USA.

I'm always very wary of people and opinions that suggest suffering is beneficial, particularly when such suffering is notably absent from their own lives.


I can understand and appreciate where you're coming from.


Thanks for the conversation. I hope I encouraged you to not to be afraid of voicing the reasoning behind your opinion in the future.

Dialogue is the best way to learn and grow.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: