This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
On choosing to have more kids:
This is a personal essay, I'm musing out loud, and sharing here only because I get the sense my own perspective is quite orthogonal to most natalism discussions here.
I have three kids. They're all (in my unbiased opinion you can take with as much salt as you please) smart, talented, physically healthy, and reasonably kind/generous/prosocial as appropriate to their age level.
(Side note: I don't feel I can take credit for my stellar parenting being the cause, although I do sometimes wonder if my more hands-off parenting approach is better for them than the more deeply enmeshed styles I see my therapist friend pursuing (...I have a friend who spends one hour per kid every single night "unpacking" their day. I know this because she was complaining about how exhausting not having any evening time to herself was. I don't know I would stay sane doing that. Possibly relatedly, her kids help way less around the house than mine do.))
In any case I see my kids as probably a net benefit to the world and it would probably be a good thing to have more. The youngest is 2 now, so now is around when I have to start thinking about having a fourth.
(I'm in my lower 30s and got married in my lower 20s, which is relevant.)
Most of my reluctance boils down to fear.
The first fear is having a child who is not, ah, as fortunate as the preceding three. Every single child is a Russian roulette where the bullet chamber features some of the worst misery mankind can experience. I used to volunteer with special needs kids so I have a mental graph of how bad the upcoming disability would be for me to unambiguously want to abort if I knew about it in advance, but so many of the most awful things you can be handed in a child are not something you can test for in advance. A bad child can pretty thoroughly destroy the happiness of their family unit and there's so very many different kind of badness out there. I see my friends dealing with real hard shit and they're not even the top percentiles of bad luck, like having a kid who has gotten expelled three times for violence and no school is willing to take him anymore isn't even the worst hand you can get dealt.
So every time I get pregnant I am risking my entire family's happiness and the number of people I'd be harming grows with each child I've already had.
That's fear number one.
Fear number two is more personal. Every single pregnancy has wrecked my body and health in some way, and it's a different way each time, so I can't even predict and prepare for it in advance. The first pregnancy I spent nine months straight vomiting, which was very unpleasant at the time but also did permanent damage to my teeth and oral health I haven't recovered from, the second pregnancy I got PPD and while my mental health is basically back to stable it took years, the third pregnancy wasn't as bad as the previous two, I just got horrific hip pain that made it extremely hard for me to move or sleep but after the pregnancy I didn't have long-lasting issues. I have been, relatively speaking, lucky, as plenty of my friends have had worse outcomes. (I'm grateful I still have urinary continence, something that's not common for women who've had kids.)
When I think about having a fourth kid, I envision committing to nine months of which somewhere between 6-9 of them will be marked by almost constant physical discomfort, and then hoping the birth goes smoothly (I've been very lucky with my births/labors, so it probably would), and then hoping the recovery goes smoothly, and hoping I don't lose my sanity like the one time that happened, and then all of this on top of the constant anxiety for the health of the fetus and baby, and then I sprinkle "will I get a lifelong health problem as a bonus" on top.
Dead last on my list of concerns is the "everything else" that I see people discussing when they discuss pronatalism. I'm gonna need to get a second car or a minivan since this will be the fourth kid, and our apartment is gonna be less comfortable to live in adding in another person into the small space. Dealing with sleep deprivation yet again will be annoying. I'm not concerned about my career, I've got solid protections and this will my fourth time taking 4-6 months of maternity leave (the variation is based on when daycare becomes available, which depends on when the baby is born, but I don't do less than four months because before that the baby sleep schedule is bad enough driving to work is dangerous). Kids are a lot of work but a fourth kids isn't that much work than three, Bryan Caplan has that much right, I felt overwhelmed at the transition from 0 to 1, and the transition from 1 to 2, and the transition from 2 to 3, but each time the transition was a little bit less extreme and overwhelming and I expect that trend to hold.
But the Russian roulette and the guaranteed health costs, that part makes me really wonder why I want a fourth kid instead of just stopping at three and being done with it.
Why do I want a fourth kid?
My current kids seem like a net benefit to the world, a future one could also be (not every bullet in the chamber is a blank or a bad bullet, you always have the possibility of creating a real great human being)
More siblings is good. Three kids felt like the bare minimum but it's so meagre and miserly. I come from a family of six and my husband from a family of seven, and less than five just feels so small.
Since I'm still at the age where I can have more kids, the nagging question of if I should is basically constantly present, and I hate nagging questions and kind of want to have a kid just so the question goes away for 2-3 years before it comes back again.
The social norm around here is definitely larger families. I don't think anyone would judge me for having smaller, people just assume it's because you couldn't, but I'd feel weird and vaguely jealous.
I'm not a very maternal person and don't enjoy kids very much, but babies are cute-ish and toddlers are very cute and I'm definitely not at peace with just bidding that entire stage of my life a permanent goodbye until I become a grandparent.
I don't have a good reason not to except for the fears outlined above, and I really dislike making decisions based on fear.
All of these reasons feel relatively weak against the reasons to not have another kid, but I still basically want to have another kid, if I can just overcome the barrier of shaking dread I feel every time I think about it. Like even as I start breathing faster with elevated heartbeat every time I think about going off birth control I'm still mostly planning on going off it this year anyway. I just have to psyche myself up for it.
I had an ex-boss who said childbirth must be less painful than getting kicked in the balls because no one chooses to get kicked in the balls twice.
This is quite stupid, if you could have a kid by getting kicked in the balls you'd do it more than once.
I broke a bone while pregnant — this happens, the ligaments get weaker during pregnancy so you're at higher risk of breaks — and I still remembered the pain of getting the bone set when I was in labor, so I had a good basis of comparison for how bad back labor hurt towards the peak of labor, which was basically if they set your bone and then set your bone and then set your bone and then set your bone...
(Although my cousin who has had multiple bone breaks says different bones hurt more or less to break so it's not a perfect comparison, it's just that before labor it was my highest grade for pain).
Normal non back labor hurts a lot less, although hours of it is really exhausting and hard. (Epidurals are of course an option. I got one eventually for the back labor, absolutely magical going from horrific pain to nothing, I was even able to go to sleep. My subsequent births just weren't nearly as painful as that first one so I didn't feel the need)
But labor is a maximum two day long experience, it's the months beforehand that are much more grueling... Or the months afterwards, if you're not lucky (I have only gotten very minor stitches, not like my friend who had severe tearing that then got infected, or all my friends who ended up needing C-sections...)
Typing this out I can't believe I'm voluntarily thinking about going through it again. But anyway that's what goes through my head as I think about it. If I could have a baby inside of an incubator with reliable genetic screening to make sure they were healthy it would eliminate most of the concerns completely. No horrible permanent costs to myself, no constant fear about the baby, what a utopian world that would be.
What does any of this have to do with women who don't have kids deciding to have some? Idk, I think the fear of physical pain and permanent health ramifications for the mother, as well as the fear of a negative outcome for the kid, might rank a lot higher than men discussing the issue seem to assume. (I find it odd that it never seems to come up when discussing relevant factors for women choosing not to have kids/having fewer kids when they do).
I used to attend baby circle meetups with my first kid and a lot of the mothers there turned out by funny coincidence to be single mothers by choice (one had a steady boyfriend, not the father of her child since if he wasn't willing to marry her she wasn't willing to bear his kid, which I found, um, interesting) so my impression might be biased but I do think lots and lots of women would have at least one kid if it wasn't so scary and risky and painful, even if the aftermath (the actual child) involves a lot of work and inconvenience. Even the women like me who aren't especially excited about kids, let alone all the women like (many of) my friends who have actively wanted kids forever and love and adore kids. It's just that the process of actually having kids really sucks and is scary so you can push it off a lot and then eventually you've pushed it off too long.
Thanks for sharing your experience (and welcome to the Motte!). There were always similar concerns in my household (my children are all adults now)--I would like to have had more children (like you, I come from a large family) but then I talk to people who were lucky to have one kid, or who struggled with infertility for years and never had any, and it makes me feel like an ungrateful whiner.
My main reaction to your post is "you don't owe a baby to the world!" You aren't overstating the magnitude of the risks--even today, though the risks of pregnancy and childbirth are much less than they were even a hundred years ago, they remain real. At the extremes, women still die in the process. Even the temporary stuff, like sciatica and morning sickness, is still genuine suffering.
But pro-natalism has arisen almost exclusively as a reaction to the rise of philosophical anti-natalism. And one of the central arguments in anti-natalism is an incongruency in ethics: there often seem to be morally compelling reasons to not have children (e.g. you know you are unable to care for a child, and know that no one else will), but (outside extreme cases of authoritarianism) essentially no one thinks anyone should be compelled to bear children (even pro-life people who think it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy don't believe it would be right to force a pregnancy on an unwilling woman). Anti-natalists inflate the arguments against childbearing toward an all-encompassing edict: humanity should voluntarily work toward its own orderly extinction.
Because I am not a utilitarian, I do not find such arguments compelling. When I say you don't owe a baby to the world, what I mean is this: it is morally permissible for you to have another child, if that is what you decide to do, despite the risks. Whether the risks are worthy to be undertaken is open to you to decide, but you are not under any utilitarian obligation to have another child even if that child would be of tremendous benefit to the world. Something that I think most ethical systems really miss is the range of permissibility; utiltiarians and deontologists frequently run into the assertion that there is always and only one truly right thing to do (the "best" thing) in any situation. It's very constraining! As a contractualist, I think that there is actually a wide range of things it is morally permissible to do, and that having children is often one of those things.
But if you do, you should do it because you want to, and because the risks are acceptable to you; or, you should not do it, because you don't want to, or on reflection you find the risks too great. Whatever you choose, it's not on you to make the world a better place. It's only on you to do what is reasonable. That's all it means, to live a life of choice and value. It's wonderful that you already have three children, and I wish you luck with that endeavor. Whether or not you continue to grow your family, I thank you for your existing contributions to the rest of the world, which we did not earn, were never owed, and can receive from you only as a welcome gift--never, ever as the fulfillment of a moral obligation.
I am still chewing on this and still not convinced I agree (but I'm also not certain I'm understanding you correctly).
Are you saying that to live a valuable life you need to only do what is "reasonable" as in the bare minimum of not harming others? Or "reasonable" as in "make the world a better place but you can spend moderate/reasonable costs and don't have to spend severe/unreasonable costs"?
More like the latter. Contractualism is the view that we should never violate a principle of action that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced, general agreement. In practice, we want to be able to justify our actions to others within our moral community. A principle like "always act to make the world a better place" seems reasonably rejectable; not only will I rarely have any idea which of my actions will "make the world a better place," even if I have a very good idea that it would actually make the world a better place to torture a certain innocent child, I have compelling reasons to not do that. In particular, innocent children have a weighty interest--a right--to not be tortured, and making the world a little or even a lot better for millions of people is not sufficient to overcome such interests.
Of course most choices are not so stark. There is often value in doing more than is strictly required of you, but even so it's very important to notice the difference between what is optimal and what is obligatory. If morality required us to always do the optimal thing, it would be impossibly demanding. Very likely no one would ever actually do the "right" thing, on such a view--there are simply too many unknowns. It is much more reasonable to expect people to act in ways they can justify to others. Deliberately making the world a worse place is not generally something we can justify to others. But it's not hard to justify to others, say, spending some time chatting about politics on the Internet, provided your other immediate obligations have been met and you find this sort of activity interesting or relaxing or fun. Is it the optimal way to spend your time? Perhaps not! But you are not actually under a moral obligation to spend your time optimally. So long as posting on Internet forums does not violate a principle of action that no one could reasonably reject, it's permissible.
More options
Context Copy link
My interpretation: Suppose my eldest discovers a talent for drumming, and wants to learn to be a really good drummer. Should I be angry that their pursuit of drumming as a hobby means they aren't studying programming as hard, which means they won't be positioned to contribute to AI safety efforts when they're older?
People imagine that there's some Golden Path, and then measure their their current circumstances and choices against some idealized "best possible alternative". But the Golden Path is imaginary, and in fact there is much value to simply doing what one can where one is. Life's value comes from human connections, not from peak performance indicators. We have responsibilities to others and arguably to the world as a whole, but those responsibilities are sharply limited, and ignoring those limits is unreasonable. So, the latter interpretation, I think. It's not your job to save the world. It's your job to build a good life such that your corner of the world doesn't need saving, and it's your job to help others do the same where you can.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link