I just don't have any interest in kids. They're expensive and they require a ton of sacrifice. I'd rather travel, golf, do hobbies and generally enjoy my life. The only people that seem to want me to have babies are my parents so they can have grand kids... too which I've told them "Thank you for having me, but that's not a valid reason for me to sacrifice my life". I don't really care about the preservation of the human species. I'm going to be dead in the next 40 years or so, why should I care?
Whenever I encounter this attitude I like to remind that person that they should have no voice, whatsoever, in what happens in government and politics anymore. I don't want people who are self-selecting themselves out of the future having any say in what happens for my children. It's fine that you don't want kids, enjoy the golf course I guess. But in general I will discount your opinions to zero on anything else of consequence.
Some parents boast about how they'd impetuously shoot anyone who threatened their offspring. Here you are excluding those who leave behind only ideas and creative works from having a say in the future, in case that threatens your offspring. Reproduction makes people slightly crazy. First it's must have sex, then it's must protect the brood. I resent being manipulated by these mindless instincts, which serve only DNA. Your apparent vision of the purpose of life is a dichotomy between reproducing and golf.
They aren’t mindless. They’re what preserve the species and the arts and the culture and the science etc etc. I’m sorry you feel resentful about normal human instincts.
That's different, then, if it's a thoughtful project carried out in the cause of culture. But then why disenfranchise all the creative and science types, just because their only offspring are the ideas that they nurture? They're doing basically the same thing, they're still investing in the future, and less randomly as well (since you can't ethically control the ideas of your actual flesh and blood children by any means beyond suggestions).
Also, instincts are nothing to be proud of, they're just dumped on us by nature.
>Also, instincts are nothing to be proud of, they're just dumped on us by nature.
But instincts are something to be proud of. They're a product of extremely complex processes that occur over incredible timescales. At a minimum that's remarkable and interesting.
It makes perfect sense. Their preference set is limited to their own desires, for as long as they are terrestrially bound. They have no skin in the game for ensuring that things are functional after they die. Why should I listen to someone who only cares about their own gratification?
This strikes me as not dissimilar to religious people who are terrified of atheists because, without God, they must have no reason not to become mass murderers.
There are many people with kids who have revealed the value they place on the sustainability of the environment, democratic society, or the economy through the lifetime of their children, let alone their children's children, to be zero. Why would you assume that the childless are any more selfish, as a group? Why can one not care about the continuance and betterment of humanity without one's own direct descendents being involved?
Wow, that's a pretty extreme interpretation of all this.
Like a sibling poster, it reminds me of all the religious people who claim that atheists can't be moral because we don't have a god to guide us.
I do have skin in the game, even without kids. On a basic level, I care about the rest of my life, which hopefully will last another 50 years. I care about the planet and about future generations because that's the right thing to do, because short-termism and excessive consumption is a cancer.
And even if I won't have kids, I have nieces and nephews, and I have dear friends who have children. I want them to be able to grow up and live in a good, safe, comfortable world.
Frankly I find your point of view profoundly condescending and insulting. You don't need to have children to care about the future.
There's a bunch of old people that have kids that also very clearly don't give a damn about preserving the world for the next generation. Should they also not be allowed to vote?
Hell, I would bet that childfree people are more likely to support "future-preserving" plans than parents, on average. I'm thinking climate change, Fridays For Future.
Anecdotally, of the 4 sets of parents I know well enough to know their political opinions, none of them are really concerned about preserving the world for their children. I'm vegan, car-free, childfree and vote for the "green" options.
In your system of morality some guy who's condom broke or a rapist are more moral than someone who is infertile, and you are so sure of it you propose taxation to pile on top. Maybe you should reconsider if it makes perfect sense.
GP didn't write a moral judgement, but a practical one. People who don't have/care for kids don't have long-term skin in the game, therefore their influence on the shape of future society should be downweighed. There is a logic to that.
> some guy who's condom broke
Yes, this is how a lot of families are made. Unplanned != unwanted != unloved.
> or a rapist are more moral than someone who is infertile
Again, not about morality. GP's logic isn't about whether one's good or bad, but whether one has skin in the game of continued improvement of society and civilization.
But I guess a better way of scoping it is whether or not the person is a parent (EDIT: or in legal terms, caregiver?). Infertile people can become parents too (and that could be an indication of extra special caring about the future generation). And then people can be biological parents, but not actual parents, e.g. if they give their child away.
But the definition on "skin in the game" varies from person to person. Plenty of people with kids don't consider them as skin in the game. Plenty of people without kids have lots of skin in the game.
Sure you can. The parent was describing a heuristic they apply. If I don't know you, but need to quickly judge whether or not you're likely to care about future over immediate-term, you being a parent is... not the worst proxy I could use.
FWIW, I don't exactly agree with the poster on this. I feel that parents are biased towards near-term almost by definition: caring and nurturing children is an immediate job. Whether or not a typical non-parent is likely to be a "fuck you, got mine" kind of person, I find that parents tend to become more of a "fuck you, my kids got theirs" kind of people. Not out of ill intent - just more of "concrete needs of my kids today trump abstract speculative needs of their generation a few decades from now".
I think it's a bit more than that. The person upthread goes a bit farther than just whether or not someone cares about the future or not. It sounds like they've basically judged all childless people as hedonists who would gladly burn down the world as long as we get in one last round of golf.
Maybe that person doesn't really believe that, but if so, should probably be clearer about their position and not resort to veiled personal attacks.
Been stewing on this comment. You are right, I think, for roughly half of the parents in my peer group. They do indeed act with a "fuck you, my kids got theirs" attitude. But I think the heuristic still works, because the near term things that those parents care about tend to be highly correlated with what makes sense in the long term. Another comment, in this dumpster fire of a thread that I started, noted that becoming a parent makes you crazy. Alas, I think becoming a parent makes you normal. After all, everyone has a parent.
This might surprise you, but people can care about other people that aren't their blood relatives. Don't play morally superior just because you decided to procreate.
I think I would word it differently, but I more or less agree. Skin in the game is important.
Particularly with people who are old with no kids, I don't think they are totally cynical, but they do seem to have an incentive to vote society into schemes where they are taken care of by younger people, at no cost to themselves or their descendants. For instance they could decide the government needs to take out a massive 30 year loan to pay for care homes to be built.
But I also think that just because you have kids, that doesn't mean you're completely aligned with a longer term future. There's going to be a lot of desperate older people needing help from the few young people who are left, and that goes regardless of whether they made any of those young people. I mean sure, if you have kids you are less likely to be as short-termist as a childless old person.
I think it's a major issue that doesn't get talked about enough. People are happy to say "oh but plenty of old people care about society" which is true, but there's also plenty of foreigners who care about society, who can't vote. And it ignores the actual problem that we will be facing, which is that there will be fewer working people supporting older, non-working people. We need a system for equitable power sharing between generations.
> Their preference set is limited to their own desires, for as long as they are terrestrially bound.
This exact same sentence could be used to describe parents who bring children into a world rapidly becoming less hospitable due to climate change, the full extent of which they won't be alive to suffer.
> I will discount your opinions to zero on anything else of consequence
I’d settle for a much higher tax rate for the voluntarily childless to very inadequately offset the lack of contributing to the next generation. Probably the best way to implement this is that the child tax credit should be much bigger.
I'm impressed by the idea that it's even possible to stop people in general from having kids. In 1974 there were 4 billion people, and we were worried about overpopulation, with scare stories in the media on the theme of "standing room only". Now we are 8 billion, and worrying about low birth rates, even in China (see the "lying flat" trend). So, get back to me when we're down to 4 billion again and I'll consider supporting financial incentives to support future human life, but right now I don't see an existential threat from low birth rates. I do however think that it's really cool that people have the capacity to refrain from having kids when they know that it's a bad idea in their specific circumstances. I like this because it shows the malthusian overpopulation doom-mongers to be wrong, and they were getting annoying.
I already pay tax that ends up paying your child support money, builds kindergartens for you, funds schools, even though I have no kids. But no, let's punish me more because I don't fit your view of the world by raising my taxes more, even though I benefit from the existing ones a lot less than you do already.
You seem to have not read what I replied to. It is punishment if I pay MORE taxes than those with children, just because I don't have any, even though those with children benefit more from taxes, taxes that I already pay.
> You seem to have not read what I replied to. It is punishment if I pay MORE taxes than those with children, just because I don't have any, even though those with children benefit more from taxes, taxes that I already pay.
Think if it this way: in the childlessness-tax scenario, the parents would be paying society in-kind by raising kid(s), and you'd paying society with money instead. You're both paying, just in different ways.
Taxes also aren't some kind of payment-in-exchange for services thing. It's foolish to complain about programs because you don't personally benefit from them.
That kind of already happens in countries where government monetarily supports families with children since it's tax money. But the effective difference in taxes isn't probably that large.
It's just peanuts compared to having one less job for a while.
Maybe that is what to do, give tax credits on the order of an income. That way you are basically tax free while having young children, but you'll still want a job when they are a little bit older.
If we really want to go down this route we should do away with parenting. Children our are future therefore the government will be responsible for producing and raising children to meet our necessary societal workforce quotas. Parenting is a messy business that introduces too many quality control issues. Our glorious future means we must have only perfectly standard issue babies that conform to exact government measurements and standards. Men must donate sperm and women will be artificially impregnated until we can figure out how to grow test tube babies.
> If we really want to go down this route we should do away with parenting. Children our are future therefore the government will be responsible for producing and raising children to meet our necessary societal workforce quotas.
Come on, that's just idiotic sarcasm that doesn't even understand the GP's point, let alone actually skewer it. It's as stupid as trying to mock childfree people by sarcastically advocating a total ban on having children, like in ZPG (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069530/).
> Whenever I encounter this attitude I like to remind that person that they should have no voice, whatsoever, in what happens in government and politics anymore. I don't want people who are self-selecting themselves out of the future having any say in what happens for my children.
And you said we should deny political rights to people without children, a pretty mundane life choice all things considered. You're a straight up fascist plain and simple. Good job.
I weep for your offspring as they're probably poisoned by your brand of cruel morality.
It's actually people like you that have no regard for other people's wishes and desires, a downright hostile attitude towards people who live different lifestyles from you and who force their own lifestyle onto others as the "one true way of living", that should be removed from the ability to vote, imo.
Absolutely well said. I agree a 100%. If someone wants to be selfish, let him be, but don’t expect the rest of us to give much credence to his opinions since he very well doesn’t care about our society.
Because parents can't be selfish too? We all have our motivations for doing what we do. People's drive to have children can be selfish. Their drive to not have children can be selfish. There can be selflessness mixed in to either scenario.
Equating not wanting to have children with not caring about society is absurd. While we're throwing around ridiculous ideas: if anyone should have no say in politics of society, it's people who make these kinds of blanket judgments.
> That is bizarre. Someone disagrees with you so all their political rights should be removed? What?
You're misunderstanding him. I think it's more on the line of "freeloaders shouldn't have a say on what work gets done."
The GGP literally said "I don't really care about the preservation of the human species. I'm going to be dead in the next 40 years or so, why should I care?" If someone has that attitude, and explicitly rejects responsibility to go all-in on selfishness, they've pretty clearly given up the moral right to be part of decision-making for the future.
No, they haven't. Again, that's just you saying that because of their disagreement they should have their political rights removed. You are misunderstanding me, in thinking I'm misunderstanding him. I'm understanding him exactly, and I'm saying that saying you "don't really care about the preservation of the human species" is an opinion and that you and GP are bizarrely claiming that those with that opinion should have their political rights removed.
> No, they haven't. Again, that's just you saying that because of their disagreement they should have their political rights removed.
I think there's two aspects where you misunderstand:
1. The original comment is ambiguous about whether they think their "voice...in what happens in government and politics" should be formally removed, voluntarily given up, or just passively ignored.
2. I think simplistically framing this as mere "disagreement" fails to capture what's actually being discussed, and ignores important aspects of governance. It's sort of (but not exactly) like the question if insurrectionists should keep their places in the government they're subverting (e.g. should the Confederate States have kept their seats in Congress, ability to vote for the presidency, have it's members hold important positions in the US government, etc. while they were rebelling)?
> I don't really care about the preservation of the human species. I'm going to be dead in the next 40 years or so, why should I care?
If most Homo sapiens had the same attitude, the species would have gone extinct since forever lol.
You can have any personal goal you'd like, but from the evolution perspective, the purpose of any living organism is to survive and to reproduce, hence preserving its own species. That's why.
The funniest bits about this sort of argument is that I often see people become completely estranged from their parents because the attitude of 'I need my children to take care of me when I'm older' is like a package deal for a whole host of other shitty behaviors.
Oh I mean you have an obligation to be a parent that your kids would want to take care of.
I don't talk to my parents and have no interest in taking care of them, because, like you said, they are horrendous people. I think you're right that the entitlement to your kids time is something that comes with poor parenting.
That doesn't mean that on-net people's kids won't take care of them. Like everything with your kids, it's a two way street.
If they work for money and use it to pay the children to care for them, what difference does it make if they also have kids or not? Why would your kids have to be the ones to care for you for it to “even out”? In that argument, is daycare banned because the child is not cared for by the parents of the child? What if one of the parents dies? Is it ok to pay for help then?
You do realise this system is unsustainable, though ? We just cannot grow infinitely just because .end of life care costs money.
We are way too many, and the #1 source of global warming is human activity. At one point we'll have to stop growing, so the system of how we pay for elderly care has to change.
We don't have to grow infinitely. Population collapse comes with a huge host of problems though.
The problem of elder care isn't purely financial. It's not the model of paying that's the problem. At the end of the day, (kinda oversimplified) money represents a fractional value of the work output of a population. The output of the population depends on the number of people working in productive roles. The value of the currency is related to the consistent output of services and confidence in the existence of your country.
Shifting over an increasing fraction of your population to elder-care is non productive. It has a tension with both stability of currency and value of currency.
This is a false belief, that is increasingly common. Even if you're paying people to take care of you in old age, you are in fact contributing nothing while they are contributing everything. You will be only a burden, because the money is fake and in physical reality not worth anything. It is only in imagined reality that the money is worth anything, because it is something people agree to work for. Future workers will not be so dumb as to waste their life caring for somebody they are not related to, that are not a friend in any way, for no other benefit than fake "money". When the majority of elderly are childless, the cost of elder care and all other labour will increase faster than your bank account can ever keep up. It was different before atomisation of people, there was an exchange in the idea of "society" and "money". Now those concepts are only used to leech, abuse and destroy young working people, so why would they keep playing that foolish game?
Previous generations built the cities, farms, railroads and universities that we all use today. Just because somebody is no longer working does not mean that you are not still benefiting from work they did.
That's a false myth, used to guilt young workers to more easily leech from them. The food you eat today was not farmed by the people who are old now. Your consumer products were made in China, not by the elderly. The infrastructure you use has been repaved and remade several times during the decades that have passed since old people worked.
Except for a few relics, nothing remains today of what the elderly made. The exception being real estate, and that's why the elderly demand to each become a millionaire to let go of any of their real estate.
It's not like today's elderly worked to build something for future generations. They worked to benefit themselves at the moment.
In general when somebody comes to you selling guilt and murky reasons to why you are indebted to them, that's an enemy and a scammer, seeking to leech from honest people. Whether that's an employer, a generation of elderly, the government, a guild or whoever.
That's not giving away your money. That's just saying you will.
You need to either give it to someone all in cash, or transfer all the money in whatever bank accounts you have into someone else's account. Until then, you are a hypocrite.
That's how all money is created. Now it's up to you if you value that note I've issued, or if you value another note that the elderly issued before you were born. All money is created out of thin air in the form of debt notes. All money is debt notes. It can be used as a tool to grease the gears of a common economy, or it can be used as a tool by those in power to enslave others. Like a skilled worker with a good education having to work for 30 or 50 years at extremely high productivity to afford shelter, while an elderly person of today can become a millionaire without lifting a finger because of some real estate he inherited in the 80s – thanks to the monetary system pumping out newly inflated currency chiefly through real estate debt.
Yeah I know. Cash is just paper, that happens to have an agreed upon value by the majority of the population. And the money in a bank account is just a number in a database that happens to have an agreed upon value by the majority of the population.
Your hackernews comment just happens to be some text in a database that has a value which is NOT agreed upon by the majority of the population.
So my point was, since you don't seem to also agree that your money is valuable, please give all your cash to someone who does. And please transfer all the money in your bank accounts to someone else's bank account that does value those numbers.
> Cash is just paper, that happens to have an agreed upon value by the majority of the population.
There really is no such agreement, it is a belief system. And you know that "the majority of the population" has had no say in monetary policy, nor do they understand it. There is no democracy involved and has never been. Billions of dollars, euros and etc are conjured out of thin air and into the hands of the chosen ones as we speak.
Before cash started to rule everything around us, people would carry letters from kings, princes or other nobles, that would instruct subjects to provide the bearer with horses, lodging and hospitality. For example if they were travelling. Or if they were to lead a project. People had to work by decree, people received their benefits and etc by decree.
Just as the rulers today create an endless amount of money out of thin air, monarchs of the past would create noble titles out of thin air. With rights to estates and the servitude of the people who were born there and etc. People defending that oppressive and invented aristocracy system would say "it is the will and decree of God", just like you're now saying that today's oppressive and invented monetary system "is the will of the majority". Because most will always defend the status quo, no matter what.
If the money value is the will of the people, then when did the majority decide they wanted to have high inflation and even hyper inflation? I don't remember any such vote in any country, do you?
> There really is no such agreement, it is a belief system.
If everyone believes it, do they not agree on the same thing?
> And you know that "the majority of the population" has had no say in monetary policy, nor do they understand it.....
I never said they did. It doesn't change the fact that most people still value $1 the same amount.
> If the money value is the will of the people
I never said it was their will, I said they mutually agree to it's value.
> then when did the majority decide they wanted to have high inflation and even hyper inflation?
They didn't. The value of money (or anything) may go up and down over time, for any reason. But in a single moment most people will agree to the value of $1.
But anyway, back to my only point, since you think money is worthless, why don't you give all your money away? Why are you keeping it?
So until you give all your cash away, and transfer all the money in your bank accounts to someone else's bank account, you will remain a hypocrite.
If that's what you're stuck on, I'll gladly let you stay mentally stuck there.
> So until you give all your cash away, and transfer all the money in your bank accounts to someone else's bank account, you will remain a hypocrite.
Except for short-term liquidity you can be damn sure that I don't keep any fiat money in my possession, and neither should anybody else. That's why the stock market keeps going up, everybody wants to get rid off inflation currency as quick as they can.
I guess my incredible hypocrisy is much worse than the geriatric rulers completely destroying the wealth of their nations in less than a generation by enslaving young workers with their fake monetary system.
It’s a normal and perfectly healthy reason to have children if you also love and cherish them. I would bet the number of parents having children for the sole and totally disinterested benefit of the children is approximately zero. The OP not caring about humanity tells me they’re profoundly selfish and therefore probably not capable of the love and cherish part though.
No, it's an incredibly selfish reason to have children.
Certainly people have children for a variety of reasons, but if a big one is "who else will take care of me when I get old?", that's incredibly selfish, and not healthy at all. Loving and cherishing your children regardless doesn't change that.
I love how you've somehow twisted the person upthread's words into the idea that they don't care about humanity. This entire subthread is bizarre.
I respect my father more for telling me he actively doesn't place care expectations on me in his old age. "I made you, you are not responsible for me but I am responsible for you".
Does that mean I won't care for him? Of course not, but it's good to know I haven't come into existence just for that.
You can care about humanity without needing to want to have kids.
Why are we acting like everyone's lifestyle preferences are of paramount importance to everyone else's existence? OP is not taking from any other parents here, and there are still plenty more humans to make more humans.
Is there a hidden fear here that having an enjoyable childless life will somehow spread everywhere and we all die in a generation?
Well, someone will have to take care of him. If it's not his children then probably some nurse in a nursing home. And guess what? That nurse is also someone's child. No children today equals labor shortage tomorrow.
This is one of the most selfish arguments you can make for having kids. You just want someone to take care of you when you are old. If we'll ever have capable robots, you people can stop having children.
Assuming those people are being compensated for the elder care they provide, why is that selfish?
I remember my grandmother moving in with us for a while when I was a kid. It was miserable. Our house wasn't set up for another bedroom. My parents were both stressed out about it and it put a strain on their relationship. My grandmother certainly wasn't thrilled with the situation.
Certainly not all elder care situations are like that, but I bet grandma would have been way more comfortable in an assisted living situation, where people who are trained could have seen to her needs. And my immediate family would have been way more comfortable too.
> Assuming those people are being compensated for the elder care they provide, why is that selfish?
The thing is that an elderly person in care can never compensate those who take care of them, because they do not work and do not produce anything. They can only scam their caretakers by paying with fake fiat money that was allocated to the elderly before their care takers were even born.
I was mainly just challenging the assertion that having children, with at least part of the motivation being care in old age, is selfish.
I interpreted this as not "I will have children so my children can look after me", but rather "I will have children so there will be younger people around, who can (amongst other things) look after older people and do other important things".
Based on that way of looking at it, I think that not having children but still benefiting from younger people is more selfish than not having children and benefitting from younger people (if either of these is indeed selfish).
Basically, I was questioning why it is more selfish to use a resource while contributing to that resource, rather than not contributing but still using.
Put another way, who is more selfish - a farmer who buys some vegetables, or a software developer who buys some vegetables? Yes, they are both paying for them, so they are not directly exploiting anyone. But if no-one wanted to be a farmer, then there would be no vegetables.
Yes, I know this analogy is a stretch, but hopefully you get what I mean. Anyway, I don't think that either having or not having children is inherently "selfish", but there are almost certainly selfish motivations for each.
People's taxes do not cover their EoL care, full stop.
If we are paying the fair market cost of hiring someone to be a carer, the cost of having them not do something else has to be realized. This will mean that cost of carers will skyrocket, meaning that people's care becomes more expensive. If we start to pay the true cost -- and have it paid directly -- then when population collapse happens, a ton of the elderly will die on the street.
Technically that makes everyone who's over the age of 60 a sort of parasite. That doesn't mean we look down on them.
Is a childless teacher refusing to do their part to create the next generation? Arguably a good teacher can have more impact on society than any parent will. How about someone who invents a technology that has decades long repercussions.
George Washington didn't have children. Was he a parasite taking just the benefits from society?
I've got kids, but I'm not naive enough to think that people without kids are all parasites. I think a healthy society has a balance of people doing different things - raising children needs a huge amount of attention and emotional labour, and it's definitely not for everyone. But you can contribute to society in other ways.
> Technically that makes everyone who's over the age of 60 a sort of parasite. That doesn't mean we look down on them.
No, they just frontloaded their contribution. Nothing in the definition says that it has to perfectly meter out its contribution to the symbiosis so that there's never a second where it's not giving some little portion.
> Is a childless teacher refusing to do their part to create the next generation?
I've seen what teachers do, firsthand. It'd be better for everyone if they just sat it out and did nothing. So they're pretty far into the negative.
> but I'm not naive enough to think that people without kids are all parasites.
Nothing naive about it. It's just the definition of parasitism. Taking from the host, giving nothing in return. Sure, some may have some medical issues that prevent it... they have my sympathy. Maybe that's Georgie W's excuse, dunno. But for those that make it a choice, yes, 110% parasite.
> I think a healthy society has a balance of people doing different things
There's nothing healthy about a society that doesn't make the next generation.
> and it's definitely not for everyone.
The trouble is that it really is for everyone. If you think that someone else can have children for you, then you don't get to make society. Which might be a bit of a problem for you, considering that you live in it.
> Technically, that makes you a sort of parasite. You have no trouble taking your share of the benefits that come from living in our society, but refuse to do your part to create the next generation of people who would comprise that society.
The benefits of living in society are generally paid for by OP's tax money, not some imaginary bonds that theoretical children will repay some day afterwards. On the other hand the epithet you used could be easily applied to poor people having bunch of children while on welfare...
> The benefits OP will take in his old age will largely be paid by the children of his generation.
Bringing up the children of OP's generation is paid by OP's taxes. Moreover, parents probably pay less, not more taxes for having children in a lot of western countries.
> You have no trouble taking your share of the benefits that come from living in our society
They didn't ask to be born, did they? Why should that accident of existence saddle them with obligations to birth others? This is such a shallow "yet you participate in society" argument.
It's also a zero-sum argument. Participating in society is likely to amount to giving, not taking. It's like Marxists thinking there's only so much wealth to go round and thus anyone who has any should feel ashamed.
The argument could be made that those who have children are the parasites, selfishly diverting resources to the useless ineffectual new humans that they've made for the fun of it. This argument would be nonsense too, but it wouldn't be worse than the other one.
Yes, how selfish. Giving birth to and raising the children that will grow the food you will eat when you're too old and decrepit to do it yourself.
Do you all just plan on suicide whenever you feel you've hit your peak? Or will you go on, and just look at those who provide for you as suckers too unlucky to have skipped the grift?
I mean, I'm not judging here, but it's clearly parasite behavior.
I will set aside money during my productive years and pay for food when I'm old. Just because the food is not made by fruit of my loins doesn't mean I'm being a parasite.
He is working, creating value for society, capturing only a portion of the value he creates, and deploying that value through consumption of experiences and services.
The fact that you would prefer he spent his money on children, instead of on other experiences, is irrelevant. Your desire to control other peoples spending, and to vilify them, for it, shows only that you are an immoral, authoritarian, asshole, and that you do not respect other people.
It is somewhat sad, that an immoral, authoritarian, freedom, hating, asshole, such as yourself might have children. I only hope that women are able to recognize that you are a monster, and that you do not respect other people.
> It is somewhat sad, that an immoral, authoritarian, freedom, hating, asshole, such as yourself might have children. I
Already have two. My daughter tells me she wants to have six. That seems ambitious, I'd be happy if she has three.
I guess from your perspective this really is sad. That makes me happier than I already was. If you weren't so sad, maybe you could do something about it. My descendants will tell each other stories and legends of the sad childless people who couldn't be bothered to shape society and create the next generation of people, and how they'd just throw barbless insults at those who did.
