2/28/2026 at 8:32:24 PM
In the nicest possible way, this is basically the oldest lesson there is.You weren’t happy because you optimized your feelings or had the right opinions. You were happy because you stopped focusing on yourself and became responsible for other people. Six kids needed you, in the real world, every week. That kind of outward focus kills emptiness fast.
Chasing happiness, moral righteousness, or political engagement just loops you back into your own head, helping people doesn’t. Feeling good is a side-effect of being useful, not the goal.
by bengale
2/28/2026 at 8:44:20 PM
There’s an entire generation of mostly childless adults who are shocked to find they enjoy contributing to others’ happiness. I have friends like this, their only purpose in life is to have no responsibilities, FIRE, and never give to anyone but themselves. Seems like a terribly depressing way to live but pretty common in tech/upper middle class circles.by nvarsj
2/28/2026 at 10:59:21 PM
> but pretty common in tech/upper middle class circles.It's common in some tech and upper middle class bubbles, but outside of some startups and a few VHCOL cities most of the 40+ people in tech I encounter have families.
I think the mindset is most popular in internet bubbles like Reddit. Reddit went mainstream a decade ago and many people in their 30s and 40s grew up reading a lot of Reddit. Reddit cleaned up their popular subreddits list years ago, but for a while subreddits like r/childfree were constantly in everyone's default feeds. Redditors would talk about people who had kids as "breeders" as a derogatory term and treat them like they'd made terrible decisions with their lives.
I didn't realize how much this carried over into the real world until my friends and I started having kids. I knew a few people who treated our decisions like we were making terrible mistakes and throwing our lives away. I still encounter people from younger generations who are confused when I say that I like spending time with my kids. They can't imagine how that would be enjoyable in any way. When you grow up with your chosen social media telling you that the smart people are maximizing their bank accounts, minimizing their responsibilities, and doing as little as possible to get there, they can't fathom how someone could be happy with kids.
by Aurornis
3/1/2026 at 1:11:10 AM
I am about to hit 40 soon and have an alternative take on all that. I agree reddit was and still is a very toxic echo chamber, but the rest of us who have avoided having kids shouldn't be lumped in with those people.I came from a big family and grew up somewhat poor watching remorseful adults who didn't recognize the gravity of bringing a life into this world, let alone several, basically drink themselves to death to cope.
My social life is mostly offline and I enjoy helping people in any way I can, but I am fully aware of my own flaws. I find balance by being generous in what seems like a million other ways I might not have the energy or time for if I had a family. To each their own.
by sublinear
3/1/2026 at 6:05:57 PM
You seem to be polarising the choices. You do not have to have a big family or no kids at all. I have two kids.For the vast majority people nothing else they can do with their lives will be anywhere near as fulfilling as having children. There are exceptions, of course, but it takes something like an unusual personality, or a great commitment to something else (e.g. celibacy in religious orders etc.), or something else really fulfilling.
I strongly suspect that someone who has the sense of responsibility that you have about children would make a great parent and not do what you grew up with.
by graemep
3/1/2026 at 8:21:30 PM
Sorry, I'm not trying to be polarizing. I'm trying to emphasize what I've learned at the extremes. That can inform a choice much more clearly.The outcomes of the children are directly correlated with the quality of the relationship the parents have. No relationship I've ever seen, then or now, seems to be stable enough to do much better.
In my case, they made up for it with love and attention that brought plenty of comfort but few answers. I know many people pine for that sort of thing, but it's very heavy for a child to go through. People often foolishly romanticize a life where anything seems possible as long as they feel supported. They think that support is the missing piece. What they don't think about is all the times that kid is going to walk directly into a wall and have to find the courage to not be mad at the wall or lose their shit and turn radical like those people on reddit. Love is not enough for hope, and hope is not a plan.
On the other end I had some friends whose parents brought plenty of answers without much love. Those people found some early success in life, but ended up restless and unsatisfied following someone else's path.
You can again say I'm being extreme, but my own experience with relationships is to bridge this gap is almost impossible. Trust is hard and must go both ways, and the current social climate makes it harder than ever. I am still young enough to give it time I guess. I'm not saying no to a family ever. I'm saying I don't know enough to be confident I can do better.
To be clear, I'm saying I've never met someone that has the curiosity and unyielding stubbornness to truly know something (in the Richard Feynman sense) while still being strong enough to be vulnerable and really love their family over all else. What few out there exist and meet that bar must then somehow find each other and commit. It's tough.
by sublinear
3/2/2026 at 2:45:03 PM
I do not think you are deliberately trying to be polarising and I can understand why you feel the way you do.I think where we disagree is that I am more optimistic and I think you have higher expectations of what is needed to give children a life worth living. There is a lot of pressure on parents to be perfect.
For example, I agree about outcomes being correlated with the quality of relationships parents have, but its not the only factor. I brought up my kids for many years in a deteriorating marriage, and in the last few years by ex-wife became increasingly emotionally abusive towards me and the children in the last few years of our marriage. That was painful for them, but there were a lot of happy times in their childhood before that.
In terms of outcomes they are balanced, kind people with great relationships with everyone in their lives except their mother. They have done well academically and the older one has a job she loves.
From my own point of view, I regret marrying my ex, but I do not regret having children with her.
The fear of bringing up kids who become extremists or other bad outcomes is reasonable, but its always been a problem. I love what Kahil Gibran says about this: https://poets.org/poem/children-1 Its a small risk as very few people are like extremists on social media, and the rewards are enormous.
I do think there are social problems in both developing good relationships, and in lack of social and financial support for bringing up children. We make parenting far to difficult these days.
by graemep
3/1/2026 at 4:55:01 PM
I said this in a different comment but the real key is just knowing what’s right for you. Knowing yourself is actually very hard though.by chasd00
3/1/2026 at 5:35:59 PM
I don't really know myself either, just the flaws I have (right now). I found them by pushing outside my comfort zone.Sometimes you just need to know when to stop pushing for a while and come back later. Later can be sooner than you think, or never. It's the whole point of living. I'd find it miserable to be over my skis the entire time, but I still take risks here and there. How else do you find out?
by sublinear
3/1/2026 at 11:46:11 AM
This is the way!by abc123abc123
3/1/2026 at 5:20:29 PM
I don't understand why people, generally on both sides of the issue, just ignore the social effects of it and instead just focus on the personal. I suspect most don't intuit how rapidly fertility shifts population sizes, because it's an exponential. A fertility rate of 1 means each generation decreases by more than 50%, compounding. So after just 5 generations and your generational size is down 97% with your population doing the exact same, staggered out by a few decades.And fertility determines not only the size of a population, but even the age ratios within that population. Low fertility means you end up with far more elderly than you do working age. Far from this vision of being a society with more for everybody, we'll be creating societies where labor is ever-more scarce, economies are primarily dedicated to helping sustain the elderly and simultaneously collapsing at the same time. It's not going to be pretty.
For these reasons, and many others, I think the social aspect is one of the most important. Self fulfillment and these other things are very important and good, but if we don't have children then we're going to be creating some pretty messed up societies for our descendants. We're likely going to get to see this play out in South Korea during our lifetimes. And I do wonder what their descendants will think of the South Koreans of today.
by somenameforme
3/1/2026 at 10:17:06 PM
Western societies solve that problem by letting in immigrants. I'm not sure what SK or Japan are going to do though.by lII1lIlI11ll
3/2/2026 at 4:22:16 AM
I don't really think immigration is a long-term solution, because of the scale issue - which most greatly underestimate. We're talking about needing a never-ending stream of hundreds of millions of people. And you'd ideally want people that speak the language, have at least some basic skills, and so on. It's not particularly realistic, even before getting into the social chaos that such would cause.And it becomes even less realistic if you look outward to times when this becomes necessary. Japan is a good example of this issue. Migrating to Japan is not difficult. The only meaningful barrier is learning basic Japanese. Beyond that, after just 5 years of residency you can even apply for citizenship which has a very high acceptance rate. And there are a ton of 'Japanese enthusiasts', many of whom already speak basic Japanese.
And many of them have tried to migrate, but they don't last at all. They quickly realize that a Japan in decline is not the Japan in their minds. Getting paid $1500 a month to work a job with extremely high expectations and demands in a country with a median age of 50 (and increasing) isn't the Japan they thought they were moving to.
by somenameforme
3/2/2026 at 9:06:50 AM
Yes, of course! No one expects a bunch of western weebs to save Japan's demographics. Obviously, Japan will have to change their insular culture and work ethics, if they attempt to deal with the problem by significantly increasing immigration.Yet there are many western countries where the issue is how to prevent all the people attempting to get in from doing so.
by lII1lIlI11ll
3/2/2026 at 12:07:42 PM
The people America is trying to prevent from coming in are largely low skill, low education, generally do not speak the language, and so on. These people are no more a solution than our idealistic weebs. In most cases, they're rather worse off since weebs at least tend to have language and other skills, but are trying to move to a place that doesn't exist.by somenameforme
3/2/2026 at 1:16:43 PM
> The people America is trying to prevent from coming in are largely low skill, low education, generally do not speak the language, and so on.US also put a lot of roadblocks in a way of highly skilled immigration. For example, check the waiting time of Indian engineers to obtain Green card.
> These people are no more a solution than our idealistic weebs.
Not sure I agree with this assessment. Unskilled immigrants tend to be over-represented on hard low-paying jobs, both in EU and US. Someone has to build, pave roads, cook, deliver, tend of elderly, etc.
by lII1lIlI11ll
3/2/2026 at 5:20:21 PM
You've gotta separate cause and effect, especially when these things will change in the future. For instance decades ago I had family that worked in construction. They were earning about $20/hour in a rural area back when that was quite a lot of money, even in an urban area.It was enough that, even with the on-off nature of the work (you're not getting paid when nothing's getting built), they could easily raise a large family very comfortably. Now a day construction in the US pays awfully and a big factor is the large number of illegal migrants working in it for sub-market wages. So you're talking about the necessity of solving a problem by expanding the thing that caused it.
It's very difficult to predict what demographic collapse will look like in a place like the US, but one general trend that might inform us is that fertility within places like the US remains strongly inversely correlated with income. Those who are earning a lot aren't having children, those who aren't earning much - are. Pair that alongside fairly low upward mobility, and again I think it's unlikely that significant numbers of unskilled workers will have any real value in the future (or present).
by somenameforme
3/2/2026 at 6:19:27 AM
That solves the problem by removing western society. Which can hardly be called a solutionby moi2388
3/1/2026 at 11:45:17 AM
I find the polarization of the child/no-child discussion revolting. One side poo-poo:ing on the other, have a child? Breeder! The other poo-poo:ing back... no child, you f*cking egoist, I'm happy your gene line dies out.Personally I am of the opinion that everyone is entitled to their own life, and that the default assumption should be that they make conscious decisions in line with their own preferences.
Have a child? Great, but don't complain to me about early mornings and stress... you knew that before you had one. No child? Go for it! But don't complain to me about loneliness and lack of purpose.
I'm leaning towards the no child camp myself. I love my long morning, and complete lack of some little createurs (rightful) demand on my time. Yes, I won't have the pleasure of seeing that little creature grow up, and I might have a lonelier old age (but there's plenty of social settings I can inject myself into), but that's life. There's advantages and disadvantages to everything.
The trick is to find out which ones you like more.
by abc123abc123
3/1/2026 at 7:29:07 PM
It strikes me that both these views are selfish, in that they focus on direct impact on one's life. But what about the broad impact on society for the descendants? What if by abdicating procreation we create conditions where only communities that force childbearing survive? Ought we not figure out a system where we can have both freedom and equality, as well as a sustainable population?by foobarian
3/1/2026 at 10:21:59 PM
> Ought we not figure out a system where we can have both freedom and equality, as well as a sustainable population?That would be great, but I never heard any realistic proposals how to make educated women with good opportunities want to birth and rear 3+ children.
by lII1lIlI11ll
3/2/2026 at 12:18:16 AM
Make it so that they don’t birth and rear but instead birth and then rear with a partner who will contribute equally. Also financial subsidies so that a child becomes at least neutral in terms of cost. Social help to make raising a child less exhausting. Improve the climate to that we can be positive about the child’s future. All difficult but not impossible.by profunctor
3/2/2026 at 9:02:10 AM
> Make it so that they don’t birth and rear but instead birth and then rear with a partner who will contribute equally. Also financial subsidies so that a child becomes at least neutral in terms of cost.Countries like Sweden and Norway have equal non-transferable paternity leaves and "free" daycare/education/healthcare. They birth rates are still nowhere near replacement levels. The hard truth seems to be that majority of women with education and opportunities don't want to spend their best years on children and bear the cost to their health from multiple child births.
> Improve the climate to that we can be positive about the child’s future.
Please. Now is objectively the best, safest time to have children. When western societies had high birth rates the expectation was basically "it is a coin toss whether a child will survive until adulthood and then they will have to deal with wars, famines and epidemics".
by lII1lIlI11ll
3/3/2026 at 11:50:44 AM
> Please. Now is objectively the best, safest time to have children. When western societies had high birth rates the expectation was basically "it is a coin toss whether a child will survive until adulthood and then they will have to deal with wars, famines and epidemics".This argument is rather one dimensional. If you're trying to solve the problem in modern developed society, you can't look to what happens at a more primal level, you need to address the actual concerns people are living with.
We have more choice and visibility into options and unfair power structures now, and unless your solution is to remove choice again, then looking back to a time when people depended on children for survival and safety isn't going to offer much relevant insight. Instead it's going to lock you into positions with no way out.
by strangegecko
3/1/2026 at 7:09:34 PM
Same. My wife and I very much enjoy being child-free in our late-30s, but we avoided joining child-free groups to avoid the "parents are breeders" crowd.by nunez
3/1/2026 at 12:35:08 PM
Agreed except people encounter loneliness and lack of purpose for reasons besides choosing not to have kids and doing so is absolutely not guaranteed to resolve those feelings - you can build community, engage in service, etcby littlexsparkee
3/1/2026 at 6:56:31 AM
Yeah, everyone I know who doesn’t have a child/not planning to have zero connection to Reddit or anything online. Tldr is, people find fulfillment without children easier nowadays. And as they watch other going child free or 1-2 children, they realize that life is possible nowadays.by tokioyoyo
3/1/2026 at 7:28:05 AM
"Tldr is, people find fulfillment without children easier nowadays"Do they? Or have most just become too distorted to feel allright filling their emptiness with empty online debates and netflix?
I know people who are really happy without kids (and who will never have them), but the majority is rather miserably lonely when you look past the facade. And with many, there isn't even a facade.
by lukan
3/1/2026 at 8:41:00 AM
The parents aren't lonely, but they're tired and mostly miserable.I haven't asked "why should I even try" in ages. The question "how do I even manage this hell" has been on my mind more often.
by tasuki
3/1/2026 at 8:54:23 AM
Well, unfortunately I also have asked myself that question way too often, but I cannot agree on the "mostly miserable" part when comparing childless single persons and parents. Life can be hell, but with kids you don't ask the question so much why even get up - because the purpose is clear. There are people depending and counting on you.by lukan
3/1/2026 at 9:24:02 AM
> but with kids you don't ask the question so much why even get up - because the purpose is clear.No question about that. My life has become simpler in many ways: the annoying big questions have gone away.
by tasuki
3/1/2026 at 2:11:16 PM
[dead]by ryanmcl
3/1/2026 at 9:37:13 AM
> but the majority is rather miserably lonely when you look past the facadePeople make their own choices, and it’s not up to me, nor you, to make assumptions on their lives. If children give you fulfilment, god speed to you. If others can find happiness without children, god speed to them.
By the way, I’m speaking as a person who wants children. But I totally get my child-free friends. I know people in their 60s as well, who debated this question and found a life for themselves. There is always a “what if question” hanging around, but all in all, they’ve weighed their options and are generally happy.
I think a lot of people who ended up having children to find fulfilment did not find happiness in other means. So they can’t experience the “other side’s argument”. Same applies to child-free people, as they haven’t experienced the other side.
by tokioyoyo
3/1/2026 at 9:56:58 AM
Well, I do think I can make assumptions about other people's life, but yes it is their choice and life. (But I did experience the child free independent state for a long time, I wasn't unhappy, it was a different life, but I was always clear that I wanted to have children one day)And I did not, nor would I ever say people need to have children to be fullfilled. Those who question whether having children is the right choice, I would never urge to do it. Rather the contrary as you cannot reverse this decision and if you find out after the act, no, children are too much for me - then it is too late.
by lukan
3/1/2026 at 9:05:46 AM
Kids are a cheat code to finding fulfilment. Some rare people are able to make it themselves, but they are the exception. I think most people who post on social media about living their best DINK lives are either lying to us, themselves, or have never experienced fulfilment and confuse it with margaritas on the couch with Netflix.by Gareth321
3/1/2026 at 5:00:59 PM
A lot of is biological, all life is hardcoded to be rewarded by the success of their offspring. I’m a father of two teen boys, the ups and downs of parenthood has brought me more joy than I ever thought possible. Two of my best friends have no kids while one other has 4(!). They all seem to be doing fine and are happy healthy people. They key is just knowing what works best for you.Edit: my friends without kids have more cash for toys (boats, trips, etc) but it doesn’t make me resentful or anything. Besides, they let me play with their toys whenever I want :)
by chasd00
3/1/2026 at 1:41:19 PM
No DINK I know posts anything about their lives ever. Probably the most "quietly enjoying their lives" people ever. Most people get jaded through social-media as it's just pure hate-rage baited content from all the sides. Most people are normal, they're just living. It's not up to you, or me to dictate what they're supposed to find fulfillment in.by tokioyoyo
3/1/2026 at 11:49:00 AM
This sounds to me like rationalizing the regret of losing independence due to having children, and realizing one can never go back.by abc123abc123
3/1/2026 at 12:41:31 PM
That's a sweeping statement. I find fulfillment in learning things and focusing on issues I care about (environment, housing, politics).by littlexsparkee
3/1/2026 at 9:45:34 AM
I think this is an oversimplification of a much more general social phenomenon. In much of the world, the mainstream social message is still that kids are what you should get your life's purpose and fulfillment from. Maybe not so much for men, but very much so for women. There is a reaction to that social expectation, which is independent of Reddit (it's true even in China etc).I'm myself very happy I don't have children. I'm gay and can't adopt in my country, so I'm also happy I don't have any desire to have children, because that would be a problem. However I do really like working with teens, and it's very important to me on a gut level.
by martopix
2/28/2026 at 9:30:53 PM
People who want to be childless usually champion the importance of building strong community through friends and neighbors, just because they don’t want kids doesn’t mean they don’t want to contribute to others’ happiness lol. People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kidsby whaleidk
2/28/2026 at 11:06:20 PM
> People who want to be childless usually champion the importance of building strong community through friends and neighbors,This describes all of the childless people age 50 and older than I know.
It does not describe the social media r/childfree mindset people I know at all. They have their bubble of friends they keep in touch with only when they feel like it but that's about it.
There's a big difference between childless and r/childfree style people, though.
> People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kids
FIRE rose to popularity before this economy, though. It felt like peak FIRE was during ZIRP when it was easy to get a high paying tech job even if you barely had the skills for it. All the blogs and influencers made it sound so easy to just keep that going straight into early retirement as long as you continued living an austere lifestyle, which came with implied advice to avoid having kids.
I followed several of the FIRE blogs and forums in the early days but had to stop reading after they started filling up with people convinced they could retire at age 36 with $1.2 million in the bank because they they lived frugally last year and decided they could keep coasting that way for another 50 years without their lifestyle changing. I remember reading a few disaster stories from people who thought they were doing leanFIRE with their spouse until their spouse grew up and realized they actually wanted kids and to be married to someone who had a little more ambition in life. I know these stories aren't what FIRE is supposed to be about in the theoretical optimal sense, but there were so many stories like this that the forums just felt like a sad place to be.
by Aurornis
3/1/2026 at 3:00:28 AM
>It does not describe the social media r/childfree mindset people I know at all. They have their bubble of friends they keep in touch with only when they feel like it but that's about it.Do you actually know a lot of those people? I know a lot of people that don't have kids and they all are very normal, well adjusted people. None of them hate kids. Using the word "breeders" as derogatory is weird, bordering on mentally unwell behavior. I've never met anyone that doesn't have kids that's like that. Even for the few people I've met that don't particularly care for children, they just keep it to themselves.
Reddit I think is not representative of real life for the vast majority of people.
by ryan_n
3/1/2026 at 1:42:48 AM
I've read and posted to r/childfree and similar subs in the past, but I quickly came to realize that the people there are not your typical child-free people.They're mostly bitter anti-child people who rail against what they see as entitlements that parents get that non-parents don't. They derisively call parents petty and mean things like "breeders" and seem to be a very cynical bunch. I'm not saying their feelings are always ridiculous; certainly some of them have reasonable reasons for feeling the way they do. But they're a mostly-toxic, vocal minority.
It really annoys me when people assume all (or even a significant number) of childfree people are like those reddit folks (not accusing you of that, just saying in general.
And I don't get the automatic association between FIRE and childfree that some people are making here. Sure, FIRE is easier if you don't have kids, but IME the two groups are only loosely connected, at most.
by kelnos
3/1/2026 at 7:42:29 AM
I'm in my mid-30s with a partner that also doesn't want kids, saved probably 80% of my takehome for 5-6 years, and leanfire is within reach so it's doable. I don't need much, my main interests are cooking, learning, biking, etc. It's been a godsend as I developed a mobility issue and have to take time off to heal. I'm naturally frugal but had I not been intentional about planning for my future I would be in a bind. YMMV.by littlexsparkee
3/1/2026 at 12:12:17 AM
I think more than FIRE people should just focus on FI. You still have to do something with your day after becoming financially independent and a job is still one of many good ways to contribute to the community even if you don't technically need one. So retiring is an option but not the only one.On the other hand it remains quite confusing that after centuries of capital achieving vastly better results than labour people still keep going for labouring as their primary strategy. Building up a strong income-generating capital base is just common sense and it is an extremely good idea to have enough that you could technically avoid working if it made sense.
by roenxi
3/1/2026 at 2:45:28 PM
You don’t have to do something with your day. Most people will but you don’t have to.by dyauspitr
2/28/2026 at 10:23:36 PM
> dont want to deal with kidsSomeone has to bring up the next generation, the no kids crowd want all the luxury of having the next generation without putting in the effort or spending the money.
by arealaccount
3/1/2026 at 3:50:32 AM
I suppose that people who actively do not want to have kids should not have kids. Their hypothetical kids won't be happy and well-developed, but instead always feel that they are an undesired burden.Instead, people who like having kids should have more kids. This would proliferate a healthy culture that sees kids as a source of happiness, not a burden of misery taken out of necessity.
by nine_k
3/1/2026 at 7:28:03 AM
> Instead, people who like having kids should have more kids.To make this work you need some kind of cross-subsidy (e.g. large child tax credit), because having a larger number of kids requires the means as well as the will and the people willing to do it aren't all billionaires.
But then we do essentially the opposite and drive up housing prices when larger families need more house. Higher housing prices are essentially a transfer from young and future families to retirees.
by AnthonyMouse
3/1/2026 at 6:10:42 PM
I am not convinced that is true. Once you actually have kids it changes your outlook too dramatically. Someone who does not want to have kids before they have a kid, will almost certainly love any kid they actually have.by graemep
3/1/2026 at 7:16:01 PM
Having a look at your state/country's foster care registry and the foster care industry as a whole might change your feelings on that.by nunez
3/1/2026 at 10:00:12 PM
I doubt there is a correlation between kids being wanted before birth and their likelihood of entering foster care. People who do not want kids do nkt have them.by graemep
3/1/2026 at 8:43:47 PM
> I suppose that people who actively do not want to have kids should not have kids.I would describe myself as being the converse of that statement. I do not believe my desires should truly have much of a bearing on my situation.
by hirvi74
3/2/2026 at 12:01:55 AM
There's an easy and natural way: don't use contraception. This is how it worked for millennia.by nine_k
3/1/2026 at 11:54:52 AM
That's a very instrumental and de-humanizing way to look at humans. Only as enablers of further enablement. Know that there is no inherent reason at all why there should be a next generation, if we, collectively, do not want one. Some are interested in this, others not, and that's perfectly fine.The assumption that humanity must, and shall, exist forever has no proof.
by abc123abc123
3/3/2026 at 12:03:34 PM
Agreed. I actually don't want more generations of humanity. The degree of abuse and destruction and selfishness is too depressing.I grew up with emotional neglect and all sorts of mental health struggles that grew from that, so I find the cavalier attitude people have towards parenting and how people in the world treat each other in general appalling.
My parents (and honestly most, in my opinion) were not qualified to be parents. They were deeply broken themselves and didn't even have awareness of that.
I know humans could do better, but looking at the state of things, greed and hatred and aggression in all forms from interpersonal to wars are propagating themselves as the most successful traits. In a dog eat dog world, I'd much rather leave everything to animals, at least they don't destroy the entire planet when they maul each other
by strangegecko
3/1/2026 at 10:33:01 PM
> Someone has to bring up the next generation, the no kids crowd want all the luxury of having the next generation without putting in the effort or spending the money.Who do you think pays for schools-kindergartens for your kids while you getting tax credits for them and likely for your dependent wife who doesn't work while rearing them? And on top of that for your kid's healthcare in many European countries...
by lII1lIlI11ll
3/1/2026 at 7:13:41 PM
There are other ways to give to the next generation than having kids of your own. Kids love "fun" uncle/aunts too!In my opinion, it's better to not have kids when you are not 100% LOCKED IN on wanting them instead of gambling and potentially being forced into a commitment you never wanted to make.
by nunez
3/1/2026 at 12:50:03 PM
Nonsense, there are plenty of childless teachers, scientists, etc that devote themselves to helping humanity. If someone wants to become an expert in their field towards this end, how can they devote themselves while having kids? It would kneecap you.by littlexsparkee
3/1/2026 at 6:15:08 PM
Why would having kids kneecap you? Most people who are experts in their fields do have kids.Almost all the teachers I know have kids. Most scientists do. Einstein had three kids, Dirac four, and Planck five. Marie and Pierre Curie managed two.
by graemep
3/1/2026 at 7:14:36 PM
It is a massive financial strain and time sink. It's hard enough to make it as is. Tech in particular requires so much self study, especially in this market. Einstein, Dirac, Planck - they did minimal housework and led lives almost completely centered around their academic work. Curie seems to be an exception afaict.by littlexsparkee
3/1/2026 at 7:31:48 AM
[dead]by trick-or-treat
3/1/2026 at 2:39:01 PM
> People wanting FIRE is a lot more to do with the current economy and wealth of useless or harmful jobs than kidsThat is not restricted to the “current” economy. It has been that way throughout all of human history (and probably applies to other animals too).
Who wouldn’t want security of energy, food, shelter, healthcare, and education?
Everyone worries about what happens to their kids if they get injured, or even just lose their job. It’s only in the last few decades that a significant portion of people have access to more of that security (even though it’s only an increase of 1% to 10% of the US).
Now we have free brokerage accounts and low cost index funds so being financially independent has a catchy acronym.
by lotsofpulp
3/1/2026 at 4:46:35 AM
They really don’t.They just post about how important those things are online but not doing much about it.
by jimbokun
3/1/2026 at 9:50:50 AM
> There’s an entire generation of mostly childless adults who are shocked to find they enjoy contributing to others’ happiness.This is very well put.
I think the culture today is what pushes us towards that: we have a very individualistic culture, which I think comes from the US. I'm from southern Europe, where family used to be very important, whereas now we've adopted a much more individual-centered view.
We have "freedom" as a value, but it's hard to tell what to do with it. You are privileged, therefore you can do whatever you want. But what is it that I want? What do I do with my freedom, privilege, options? We also need an objective, and "to be happy" is not a good objective, because we humans are very bad at predicting what will make us happy. Seeing stereotyped photos of happy people on tropical beaches on Instagram makes it even harder to remember what happiness is.
For happiness you need objectives, things you believe in, a sense of purpose.
by martopix
3/1/2026 at 7:00:42 PM
> We have "freedom" as a value, but it's hard to tell what to do with it. You are privileged, therefore you can do whatever you want. But what is it that I want?Well, that's the key question isn't it? What do we actually want?
In America it is dead simple. Having successfully cut all of our important social ties & creating all this existential anxiety via propaganda, "free enterprise" has swooped in promising to solve all our ills with the simple tap of a credit card.
Lonely? Here pay for a therapist. Need childcare? Get a nanny. Need exercise? Buy a gym membership. All in service to inflating the vanity metric that is the US GDP.
by stuxnet79
3/1/2026 at 12:31:06 AM
No one chooses to be born. Once they are, they may find that procreation is impossible for them or just not something they'll do well or even want. None of these is necessarily depressing.We have no shortage of humans, so there's no need to try to shame the childless. Nor those who focus on themselves.
by paulryanrogers
3/1/2026 at 4:51:19 AM
We are on course to have far more elderly people than young people.A global retirement community without even any grandkids to visit them strikes me as a depressing dystopian future.
by jimbokun
3/1/2026 at 7:57:27 AM
I see less burden on earth's environment as a positive.by littlexsparkee
3/1/2026 at 12:19:57 PM
More likely it will be a larger burden on the environment. If there are no future generations to care about then why bother investing in a better future?by jurgenburgen
3/1/2026 at 12:25:26 PM
the earth regenerates itself, provided we stay out of the way. if anything there's more motivation to care when the degredation slows down and makes change feel tangible.by littlexsparkee
3/1/2026 at 10:52:33 AM
not necessarily connected to the number of people but the type - if they are all conservationists that would be a net positive, not counting OTT population numbers.by ionwake
3/1/2026 at 12:24:28 PM
we're talking about aging in advanced economies - those are folks with heavy footprints. if the west could be content with africa's growth and allowing for more migration, this problem is licked.by littlexsparkee
3/4/2026 at 1:55:53 PM
i dont think I agree at all broby ionwake
3/1/2026 at 7:34:16 PM
The question is what happens after they are gone?by foobarian
3/1/2026 at 9:56:33 AM
Not to contradict your conclusion but many countries definitely have an extreme shortage of new humansby zwaps
3/1/2026 at 12:07:28 PM
Lines on a map are just that. Globally we're doing fine. And anyway, constant growth can't continue forever, it's probably a good thing if we stabilize or even shrink a bit.by komali2
2/28/2026 at 9:17:37 PM
Yeah, and I do get it to some extent. Everything about having a child seems burdensome and hard. Turns out it's doesn't feel anything like that and I can't think of anything I'd rather be doing. I wouldn't swap with another person on this planet.by bengale
2/28/2026 at 9:33:48 PM
> Everything about having a child seems burdensome and hard. Turns out it's doesn't feel anything like that and I can't think of anything I'd rather be doing.You got lucky and had kid(s) that were not extremely difficult to raise. Not everybody gets that. Not all kids are alike. Some will make your life a living hell. It is a total crapshoot.
Also, not everybody enjoys parenting, even if they have easy kids. We are not all built the same.
I did get lucky and had relatively easy kids. I love them. But, I do not enjoy parenting.
by cheema33
2/28/2026 at 9:27:12 PM
100%. I never was excited about having a kid but it's totally amazing to be helping a little human that you love to figure out the world and grow into a good person.People can obviously make the opposite choice, but I'd encourage anyone that's never been around good little kids as an adult, to find a way to be around them in a helpful or fun role for a while. Volunteer at a youth group, sports camp, coding class, whatever. Or just be an "uncle" to some of your friends' kids. My volunteering at a church youth group in my early 20's probably gave me the nudge I needed.
by nlavezzo
3/1/2026 at 3:46:32 AM
I coached a sports team for 6-10 year olds during the summers as a college student and agree that there are some incredible kids who are a joy to mentor and be around.But probably my biggest concern with having kids of my own is that you can't really choose their personalities. Even the best parents can end up with kids who are frankly much less enjoyable to be around.
by rudhdb773b
3/1/2026 at 3:36:25 AM
> Volunteer at a youth group, sports camp, coding class, whatever. Or just be an "uncle" to some of your friends' kids.I’d love to have had kids, but ew. That is creepy. When you’re a single man even just beyond 30, trying to be around other’s kids isn’t a good idea in today’s society. Besides, trying to play your part while the kid is in another education schema is inconvenient because any meaningful perspective on life might conflict with the parents’.
by eastbound
2/28/2026 at 11:16:53 PM
> Everything about having a child seems burdensome and hard.I love my kids and they're pretty great (and seem easy by comparison to others), but it's definitely burdensome and hard.
by jebarker
3/1/2026 at 12:24:22 AM
Existence is suffering. But there are moments that make it worthwhile. When you have a kid, you not only get more of those moments, but you give those moments to people in the future.by Cook4986
3/1/2026 at 4:52:27 AM
Yeah kids are often more interesting and insightful and fun than adults. It’s wonderful to have their refreshing perspectives in your life.by jimbokun
3/1/2026 at 5:07:15 AM
> Seems like a terribly depressing way to liveThis sounds very judgmental. Don't assume there's a single way to live a happy life. People with kids aren't immune to depression or lack of purpose.
by yodsanklai
3/1/2026 at 12:35:14 PM
> People with kids aren't immune to depression or lack of purpose.Especially when their kids turn into adults and don't need them anymore. Having "kids" doesn't last that long.
by thunky
3/1/2026 at 5:10:57 PM
> Having "kids" doesn't last that long.The day my oldest son (he’s 16) was born I was holding him and my mom said “enjoy every minute because you’ll blink and it will be over”. I got two years left and he’s off to college. Just two years, it feels like I’m getting fired. She was right, as mothers usually are.
by chasd00
3/1/2026 at 9:49:01 AM
> I have friends like this, their only purpose in life is to have no responsibilities, FIRE, and never give to anyone but themselves. Seems like a terribly depressing way to liveDoes it?? That sounds like the perfect life for me - I don’t need to contribute to others to make myself happy, I’m already happy on my own.
To me, this sounds like there’s something wrong with you - your capacity to just be happy by yourself is broken, you need the happiness of others to validate your life, and that’s a terrible way to live, always desperate to get what you need from others.
by mock-possum
3/1/2026 at 2:54:16 AM
I slept and dreamt that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy.Rabindranath Tagore
by MengerSponge
3/1/2026 at 1:04:00 PM
This has clearly triggered a lot of people, with the full spectrum of arguments for and against having kids below. I'm bookmarking this as an example of driving engagement by taking a fairly benign topic ('helping others was rewarding!') with an extreme view on a topic that everyone has a stake in ('an entire generation lost the plot on life').How amazing and ironic or a reminder it is that the comments below that seem the most reasonable and avoid generalizing an entire group of people or way of life are the ones that are the least likely to drive more comments because they are perfectly reasonable.
by mchinen
3/1/2026 at 11:02:23 AM
I agree with you but i'd add our cultures pushed these psychological profiles (not far from mine) into running for some kind of (supposed) early safety because entering adulthood felt too bland heavy and risky.From the few ive read about previous decades, people joined adult life earlier, with easier and better integration around adults and cheaper housing or similar needs. This creates a different existential landscape imo
by agumonkey
3/1/2026 at 2:20:51 AM
Sure why not get trapped youself with responsibilities and work your life off making rich people even richer.by asdfe3r343
3/1/2026 at 4:49:42 AM
That's just childish. Eventually you'll have to learn responsibilities (towards other people) are a privilege and necessary for a full life. You'll just keep getting (more) bitter and lonely until you understand that.by boca_honey
3/1/2026 at 12:10:47 PM
I think what they mean is that "responsibility to society" has been co-opted by capitalists such that even our own children are a resource we're expected to raise to further contribute to endless growth and someone else's profit margins.None of us are really contributing to each other when we work, or the commons, since that's all been purchased and is being rented back to us.
by komali2
3/1/2026 at 2:23:47 AM
[dead]by cindyllm
3/1/2026 at 4:47:30 PM
> Seems like a terribly depressing way to live but pretty common in tech/upper middle class circles.For some it works for some it doesn’t. The hard problem is knowing yourself well enough to make the right choice. Personally, I’m in the “you get what you give” camp but I know not everyone is. Again, the key is knowing which camp you actually belong in. I want to add that “knowing yourself well enough” is no small task and can take a lifetime meanwhile you encounter the forks in the road of life almost daily so.. much easier typed than done.
/turning 50 in about 2 months so, while not that old enough to be considered wise, have been around the block once or twice
by chasd00
3/1/2026 at 7:05:57 PM
Yeah it’s kind of crazy. My opinion of course, but I think it’s a big part of growing up to realize that your life being “yours” only lasts about 20-25 years. You have your childhood, then your time as a young adult to have your fun and set yourself up/work towards your own life goals, find your place in the world.Once that’s done there really isn’t a purpose in life other than to pass it along to someone else. Dare I say that’s your responsibility. What are you gonna do, buy another toy? Go to another bar?
by mlsu
2/28/2026 at 11:34:58 PM
I want to do that some of the time, not all the time, that's the difference.by satvikpendem
2/28/2026 at 11:42:05 PM
The problem though is that relationships with others are risky. When I look at my social circle about half of my friends express some kind of regret related to their marriages. Call me an entitled prick, but I honestly believe that 90% of people are liquid crap. I realized that in order to have a good social life I need to filter very hard who I hang out with. Even if I could reproduce by budding, this is not an environment I want my kids to grow up in. "Dad, why did you make me into a world full of normies?"by anal_reactor
3/1/2026 at 12:02:03 AM
> When I look at my social circle about half of my friends express some kind of regret related to their marriages. Call me an entitled prick, but I honestly believe that 90% of people are liquid crap. I realized that in order to have a good social life I need to filter very hard who I hang out with.Candidly, if half of your friends are in regretful marriages and 90% of the people you encounter are "crap" then I would be questioning your social filtering.
by Aurornis
3/1/2026 at 1:33:18 AM
From experience I think 90% of people are really liquid crap. filtering can get it down to 50% or less but it also means you are WAY more lonelyby throwaway290
3/1/2026 at 4:16:03 AM
There’s an old saying regarding what you’re saying.by N_Lens
3/1/2026 at 6:26:42 AM
Higher social classes have always despised the lower ones. Imagine going to ancient Rome and saying that slaves should be given full citizenship and treated as equals.by anal_reactor
3/1/2026 at 3:45:30 PM
"liquid crap" is obviously exageration but if you take a truly random slice of population 90% will be any combination of not interesting/not a nice person/hidden agenda or want to exploit you/have crazy views/...many of them are higher class than me. in absolute numbers it's more lower class simply because there are fewer rich people than poor people but take 5 truly random people of either high or low, I think you would agree with me that only 1 at best you would want something to do with.
by throwaway290
3/1/2026 at 5:12:22 PM
In low socio-economic communities shit behaviors are more tolerated.by anal_reactor
3/2/2026 at 7:39:43 AM
Disagree. I think it's about the sameby throwaway290
3/1/2026 at 3:41:16 AM
Did you just try to illustrate his point? Not emphasizing with someone’s difficulty and trying to turn his difficulty into a flaw of his character is a good example of how society is destructuring itself.by eastbound
3/1/2026 at 1:04:23 AM
The world is always full of danger. This moment in time is exceptional only in the form of that danger, not in its substance.When those of us with noble traits -- intelligence, empathy, morality and so on -- refuse to reproduce, we do so at the cost of allowing the OTHERS who lack those traits to make up a larger and larger percentage of the population. They WILL reproduce.
Food for thought.
by popalchemist
3/1/2026 at 5:24:49 AM
Are we back to the beliefs into inherited nobility already?by rixed
3/1/2026 at 6:36:50 AM
There are things that aren't true but the wider society must believe to be true in order to maintain social order. Think of religion for example. "We are all equal" is also one of those things.by anal_reactor
3/1/2026 at 6:56:02 AM
This could also be read as a take on the nurture aspect of childrearing.by johnmaguire
3/1/2026 at 8:19:56 PM
It is literally just game theory. If you don't act, others still will. Multiply that times 8 billion and you have an evolutionary process that rewards the dumbest amongst us.by popalchemist
3/1/2026 at 8:25:11 AM
So just teach those traits to other people? You don't need to have kids to help.by littlexsparkee
3/1/2026 at 8:20:30 PM
Yes, that is possible, and I didn't claim that having kids is the only way to influence humanity... obviously.by popalchemist
3/1/2026 at 4:56:23 AM
Let me guess: you are somehow NOT part of the “liquid crap” category?by jimbokun
2/28/2026 at 10:37:00 PM
It's always funny how many people think that the only font of altruism is taking care of children who have your DNA, like that's some kind of selfless act. It is, in fact, the ultimate vanity of which humans are capable. Raising little variations of yourself might make you feel good, but if you think it's a unique path to a fulfilling life I suggest you are the one in the little bubble.by idiotsecant
2/28/2026 at 11:10:51 PM
I think what usually gets mixed up is how the responsibility works, and biological children sit at the overlap.The thing I most crucially remember about my son being born is that it felt downright easy to simply dive into all the things I would now be doing: because there was no one else. I either got it done or it didn't get done.
Someone else's kids on the other hand there is a choice: their parents.
It's not absolute IMO but you also see it echoed by working too: when it's your job, it's a lot easier to simply go "right I need to handle this" then when it's not.
by XorNot
3/1/2026 at 12:13:14 PM
I think this mindset might be unique to western "atomic families." I have friends that would talk similarly about this kind of responsibility to cousins or non "genetically related" people in their village.by komali2
2/28/2026 at 11:23:19 PM
> It's always funny how many people think that the only font of altruism is taking care of children who have your DNA, like that's some kind of selfless actThis is a strawman position in my opinion. I don't think there's that many people who think they're carrying out some selfless act by having children. It's simply biologically true that the children you'll probably have the easiest time raising are your own and, assuming we want to continue as a species, we do need people to have children. It's fine to have them, fine to not, neither side has some moral high ground.
by jebarker
3/1/2026 at 2:19:39 AM
Whether it is vanity or not is not determined by what you are doing, but why you are doing it. The vanity is not intrinsic.by popalchemist
3/1/2026 at 12:05:58 AM
It’s uh, historically proven, so to say.by Aeolun
3/1/2026 at 4:59:02 AM
We are having fewer children and also seeing huge increases in loneliness and mental health problems.by jimbokun
3/1/2026 at 5:07:14 AM
Even despite the mitigating effect of having fewer children, we are seeing huge increases in loneliness and mental health problems.by card_zero
3/1/2026 at 7:35:57 AM
Fortunately I have this magic tiger rock that keeps tigers away, I think it works for those things too.by idiotsecant
3/1/2026 at 7:54:50 AM
This is a rather uni-dimensional and, might I say, judgemental view of the CF movement. People choosing to be child-free just want to have "no responsibilities, FIRE, and never give to anyone but themselves" - really? What about women finally taking agency and rejecting the belief that they must have kids to be fulfilled? You also seem to completely ignore the economic state of the world. The economic conditions we grow up in leave a psychological imprint and influence the choices we make, even as adults.I have the utmost respect for people with kids, but I also think that an individual needs to be 100% ready to have one, and not just reproduce because it would somehow provide them with a purpose.
by nanopasta
3/1/2026 at 3:13:20 AM
Something about FIRE makes people have a visceral reaction. How DARE people not work like the rest of us. I get the purpose part if they were like teachers or doctors or something. Nope. SWE at Meta.by tock
3/1/2026 at 7:46:13 AM
A lot of people can't comprehend trying to restrain their consumption either, they try to poke holes in your plans to assuage themselves that their lifeplan is the right one.by littlexsparkee
2/28/2026 at 11:38:21 PM
what does “FIRE” mean in this context? I can’t figure it outby dec0dedab0de
2/28/2026 at 11:50:20 PM
Financial Independence, Retire Earlyby kashunstva
2/28/2026 at 9:53:01 PM
Childlessness seems to be an increasingly compassionate choice. Degrowth by force.by RGamma
3/1/2026 at 6:01:11 AM
Quick reminder than you can have (gradual) degrowth with every couple having 2 children.The extreme mode of 50% of child-bearing age adults going 0 kids is not necessary and will probably end up being disastrous.
by antisthenes
3/1/2026 at 3:56:46 AM
Childlessness is a beautifully self-removing trait.by nine_k
3/1/2026 at 5:15:13 AM
Ideas aren't genetic.by card_zero
3/1/2026 at 5:29:26 AM
It doesn't have to be genetic to be 'self-removing'.What happened to the Shakers?
by bigDinosaur
3/1/2026 at 5:37:46 AM
OK, religious ideas are kind of genetic via indoctrination. (Epigenetic? Heh.)Meanwhile ideas can be "self-removing" due to being bad, but then you'd just say "that's a bad idea" not "that's self-removing", so genetic descent was implied.
by card_zero
3/1/2026 at 9:35:40 AM
I didn't say the Shakers had a bad idea, it just was an idea that led to them removing themselves from further existence that was not genetic. Whether that was a good or bad decision is an entirely separate judgement call.by bigDinosaur
3/1/2026 at 4:54:51 AM
No choice is more selfish and misanthropic.by jimbokun
3/1/2026 at 5:25:25 AM
"Degrowth" is misanthropic, I guess, unless you think the world is overpopulated structurally somehow, as in you'd like more humans but only in due course and under more favorable (global?) circumstances.But I think looking at this in global terms is wrong-headed anyway, whether you're for or against. The question is whether a specific person should be a parent here and now in specific personal circumstances. So of course it tends to be selfish. It's not entirely selfish since others are involved locally, including the future child. But "the world needs more children" or "the world needs fewer children" is barely relevant at all.
by card_zero
3/1/2026 at 3:57:06 PM
I did not want to come across as misanthropic. I like humanity for the overwhelming part, if not for its unfortunate tendency to go apeshit from time to time or to ruthlessly exploit the most beautiful and conplex machine in this part of the universe. I also don't mean to say it is necessarily desirable for societies to age this fast.It's a choice I made for myself, that I am ready to bear the consequences of, say paying a greater share for other's childcare/making society more family-friendly/later retirement. I just would not want to add another ~copy of my soul to this pile. Yet I respect those who do.
by RGamma
2/28/2026 at 10:03:10 PM
The entire zeitgeist of software technology revolves around the assumption that making things efficient, easy, and quick is inherently good. Most people who are "sitting in front of rectangles, moving tiny rectangles" have sometime grandiose notions of their works' importance; we're making X work better for the good of Y to enable Z. Abstract shit like that.No man, you're just making X easier. If the world needs more X, fine. If not, woops.
The detachment from reality makes it all too easy to deceive yourself into thinking "hey this actually helps people".
by perrygeo
2/28/2026 at 10:15:07 PM
> Most people who are "sitting in front of rectangles, moving tiny rectangles"Hey dude these are my emotional support rectangles!
Truth is, anything can be meaningful. We make our own meaning and almost anything will do as long as you believe in it. If optimizing rectangles on the screen makes you happy, that’s great. If it doesn’t, find something else to do.
by Swizec
2/28/2026 at 11:04:40 PM
Yup, because there are plenty of opportunities to get tokens to feed your family outside of moving those rectangles. Not.by temp8830
3/1/2026 at 5:01:54 AM
It’s really just because those of us choosing this profession are also very good at optimizing chosen metrics. But don’t always ask whether they are good metrics and whether they become counterproductive past some point.by jimbokun
3/1/2026 at 3:43:17 AM
These are all value judgements that reflect your disillusionment rather than some universal truth.No one is attached to some mythical objective reality. Everyone is imprisoned by the same social, economic and thought prisons.
by bitexploder
3/1/2026 at 5:37:59 AM
This is one of the reasons why I'm so disgusted by the mainstream voices around AI. As if I'm going to be "left behind" because my only priority isn't increasing shareholder value or building a saas that makes the world a worse place.by slopinthebag
2/28/2026 at 8:59:41 PM
Also, I think for a good number of people, their first job out of college is oftentimes one they will look fondly back on because they've just finished ~17 years of school, have financial independence with a salary, and are still bright-eyed about all the possibilities.by et-al
3/1/2026 at 12:11:24 AM
I’ve spent too much time talking to Claude, because this sounds exactly like one of its messagesby steeleyespan
3/1/2026 at 12:27:10 AM
Absolutely! That’s a great point.For real though, I’m not wasting tokens on comments. I do wonder if we will pick up habits when interacting with them a lot though.
by bengale
3/1/2026 at 12:29:33 PM
I 100% thought this was written by an LLM. You copy its style if it wasn't. Or it has copied yours! Lolby steezeburger
3/1/2026 at 9:53:36 PM
My understanding is it learns from us. It's to be expected that it often speaks the way we speak, especially in places like this, since it's a free source of training data.I'm not sure playing "spot the llm" is going to be a good use of time in many cases.
by bengale
3/1/2026 at 10:53:46 AM
For real the grammar is so good its sus, did you aprse this through claude?by ionwake
3/1/2026 at 12:29:52 PM
I don't think the grammar is "good", it just uses speech patterns like LLMs do.by steezeburger
3/1/2026 at 9:54:34 PM
No. I do have the gammarly tool running though, and it often corrects my writing.by bengale
2/28/2026 at 11:46:16 PM
Even if it's the oldest lesson, it's one we all need to learn, sometimes multiple times. Yesterday was the best time to have learned it. 2nd best is always today.There is never a bad time to learn this lesson.
by popalchemist
3/1/2026 at 12:34:31 AM
Agreed! I'm not sure why the GP comment has a somewhat negative attitude about it, I think it's great for people to realize this and talk about it, every year a whole new year's worth of young adults turn up not knowing it! Insert XKCD lucky 10,000 comic hereby pickledish
3/1/2026 at 1:27:02 AM
Not meant to be negative.by bengale
3/1/2026 at 2:59:55 AM
Ah -- IME people usually start a sentence with "in the nicest possible way" when they're couching something mean is all. Often it's even sarcastic, and the meanness isn't even meant to be couched, so I wasn't sure how to read itby pickledish
3/1/2026 at 10:04:32 PM
Ironically, I went back and added it because I thought the comment sounded a little bit unfriendly on a first pass. Mission failed.by bengale
3/1/2026 at 3:18:52 AM
Agreed, the default connotation / reading of this phrase implies a snide attitude.by popalchemist
3/1/2026 at 9:21:25 PM
So, as you saw, this provoked the age-old parenting vs CF "debate." (There isn't a right answer.)I'm child-free by choice, so I can only offer the CF perspective. If you're a parent who wants to better understand our viewpoint, or if you're not a parent but are on the fence about kids, I recommend reading "Childfree by Choice" by Dr. Amy Blackstone. It's an extremely comprehensive book that deeply explores why we choose this life and how we find fulfillment beyond the material benefits that come with this decision.
(I want to be clear: There are loads of happy and very fulfilled parents out there, and it is possible to have a rich life with kids!)
by nunez
3/1/2026 at 9:39:35 PM
I didn't even mention them being his kids, the point really is that focussing on giving to others is the path to happiness and fulfilment vs focus on self. It doesn't have to specifically be children at all.I guess I get why that irks a lot of the child-free people but it wasn't really the point I was making.
by bengale
3/1/2026 at 1:50:05 PM
> That kind of outward focus kills emptiness fast.I used to race on a friend’s sailboat. One of the things that people noticed on a sailboat is that you need to and have to be focused on immediate problems, rather than any problems on land. If you fail to pay attention to problems at sea, you may no longer have any problems on land, or anywhere.
This can allow you, at least temporarily, to forget any problems you might have on land.
by mr_toad
3/1/2026 at 11:22:05 PM
[dead]by iguhhyfchh
3/1/2026 at 2:17:14 AM
Yep yep and yep. The massive move towards individualism in our culture is making people lonely and empty.by Fr0styMatt88
3/1/2026 at 8:50:35 AM
^^ This comment sums up the entire philosophy of happiness very well, although you first have to go through life to get the context to understand it.I'm over 40 and single and childless. I work in Tech, have a good salary, a house, a car, investments and a second property. I have everything people work for in life but I'd give it all up for a family. I wish I hadn't been so proud and arrogant and full of myself when I was younger and made different decisions. I'd much more prefer to not have the material wealth that I have today, but instead have a home to come to after work and kids to wake me up in the morning.
I used to shrug it off in the sense that there is still time and as years went by I suddenly woke up one day to be 40y old and realised the time left me behind. I have more money than I need but have nothing that needs me. And it's nice to be needed.
I did achieve a lot in terms of professional career but now I can't help but feel that I was scammed. Nobody cares about the things that I had built or features I helped develop and ship, I doubt anyone can even see them. All those decades of my life completely invisible to the world. All I'm left with now is money and countless mental health conditions I have to deal with as a consequence of my life choices.
And I don't believe for one second that there are people who are 40-50 without any dependencies and feel happy in life. That's just bull shit. The reason why people say that is because they keep their minds preoccupied and when you don't have time to think you have no problems. The problem with that is that eventually kicking the can down the road doesn't work anymore and you reach a point when you have to stop and take a break. And that's when all your baggage comes rushing forward into your consciousness and you crash.
I often remember Blaise Pascal's quote: "All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."
by joshkojoras
3/1/2026 at 12:02:02 PM
Plenty of time left. Create a tinder account, or adopt a child. Adpoting a child is the most self-less thing you could do. There are countries where single men are allowed to adopt. If you are rich, move there, become resident, adopt, and move back. Problem solved! As a bonus, being a single father then makes it more probable for you to meet a woman.by abc123abc123
3/1/2026 at 2:04:24 PM
This, I got married at 40 to a 36 year old. We both wanted kids and a family but for reasons it hadn’t worked out for either of us. This wasn’t a Disney romance by any means but we get along and we put in the work to make it work. We had two kids back to back and I can say without a doubt what we have built is greater than any one of us.Trust there are some really great women in their thirties, they may not have been your first choice, you probably wouldn’t have been theirs either, but from where I sit it was worth it.
by throwaway1492
3/1/2026 at 6:23:02 PM
I think the modern idea that it is only OK to marry and have kids because you are in love is part of the problem.Lots of cultures have arranged marriages that most people are happy with. There is nothing immoral about seeking someone you can live with in order to build a life together and to have an raise children with them.
its probably a safer path to happiness than the romantic one. I did that and it very definitely did not work out and I am now divorced. I do have two kids though and have been a single dad for the last few years (the younger one is about to turn 18 so that phase of my life is coming to an end).
by graemep
3/1/2026 at 11:58:43 AM
It is a good reminder that most of us that work in software engineering will never build anything remarkable and will fade into history. Even if you do brilliant engineering work for a company, said work was commissioned by the company and the intellectual property rights belong to said company. It wasn't yours to begin with.by ane
3/1/2026 at 9:17:12 AM
Children are not typically known for sitting quietly in a room alone. Blaise Pascal himself was unmarried and childless, and died at the relatively young age of 39.by JuniperMesos
3/1/2026 at 6:56:53 PM
You could easily still have a marriage and children.by throwaway920102
3/1/2026 at 12:59:20 PM
Just because you can't relate to a way of living doesn't mean it doesn't exist.by littlexsparkee
2/28/2026 at 8:50:33 PM
Similar for me. Happiest I've ever been was when I was an assistant guide for birthright Israel.My job was to make sure the 40 kids that came were having a good time. When your job is to make others happy, you become happy.
by jraby3
3/1/2026 at 4:58:23 AM
> Chasing happiness, moral righteousness, or political engagement just loops you back into your own head, helping people doesn’t. Feeling good is a side-effect of being useful, not the goal.Presumably you imply that moral righteousness, too, is best attained intuitively, by being useful to others and helping them (to do whatever, like a useful idiot?) without conscious thought for what's right.
Or else you're saying "help people for no reason even though it isn't right, and you'll end up feeling good that way so it's fine".
by card_zero
3/1/2026 at 9:50:09 PM
This feels like a bit of a staw man argument, I'm not sure there's any reason to read into it that you could help someone do morally bad things and feel good about it.To be clear though feeling good is not the justification per se, it's pretty much just the signal that you're aligned correctly. When you aim outward, morality becomes less about self image and more about stewardship which is why it tends to work.
I’m also not claiming morality is relative or "attained" particularly beyond normal development as an adult. I would assert that we already know what’s right, the problem isn’t discovering the moral law, it’s obsessing over our own righteousness instead of living it.
by bengale