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 -
I'm going to take a general sentiment in a previous thread somewhat further.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that having kids is the biggest and most successful disinformation campaign society has pulled on itself in all of history. Having kids is one of the worst things you can do to your short term happiness, up there with getting addicted to heroin or getting in a motorcycle accident. Whatever things you might have enjoyed in life before them is completely gone, for the rest of your life. Every waking moment of your life outside of work will be completely occupied by taking care of monstrous creatures that make every single bodily function besides breathing as difficult as humanly possible. Eating, sleeping, farting, shitting, drinking, etc. will each be a torturous ordeal that you will have to deal with multiple times per day. It's backbreaking, thankless, and absolutely positively unfulfilling. After having kids you will finally understand the men who work 18 hour days every day despite having kids. They're actually doing it because of the kids. Because work obligations are the only excuse they can give themselves to let them spend less time dealing with kids and instead doing something relaxing like writing TPS reports or updating excel spreadsheets. Getting into the office and getting a stack of work from your boss is sweet relief compared to the torture of taking care of the kids.
I'm pretty sure the lie around it has persisted for so long because of the corresponding hard social stigma against saying you absolutely fucking hate taking care of the kids. Anyone who even hints at that idea is going to get completely crucified in the comments section. It's like the Havel's greengrocer, where if he doesn't put up the sign with the approved message, he's going to get hauled off to the gulag. Except for parents the punishment will be worse.
Anyways I find it likely that the cratering of birthrates across the entire world is a mass viral sensation where the lie is breaking down. Likely fuelled by social media as well as other factors, people are finally realizing en masse (though not openly admitting it yet) that it seriously just sucks. Even the welfare queens and third world brown hordes realize that this is true for them too. And they're understandably picking the hedonism option.
And no I don't hate or dislike kids. Kids are great, as long as they're someone else's, and their parents are around to jump in and take care of it as soon as something goes wrong.
I believe that for a many values of "short" in "short term happiness", heroin would help.
I invert your argument: my contention is that children are the opposite of heroin, you're trading short term comfort for long-term satisfaction.
Your analysis fails because it assumes that the purpose of a human life is to remain in a state of homeostatic bliss until you flatline. It assumes that "happiness" is defined solely by the absence of friction. If the goal of life were simply to minimize suffering and maximize relaxation we should all just hook ourselves up to morphine drips and gently pass away in a warm bath.
This is the philosophy of the last man. It is the worldview of a creature that has mistaken the safety of the zoo for the purpose of existence.
I have many reasons for wanting children. But the one that's the most stark, and relatively recent, is watching the elderly die.
It's rarely fun, dying. Especially of old age and the baggage train it brings with it. But the ones who die least painfully are those with children and grandchildren to mourn them, and remember them long after they're gone. I've seen many people die bitter and unloved, looked after by attendants paid minimum wage and providing minimal care. It's not like having children guarantees comfort in your last days, god knows that quite a few people have few qualms about sending granny to rot in a care home, and many more do have qualms but are forced by circumstance.
Still, I know which option I'd prefer. I have the fortune to not be a hypocrite: my grandfather isn't quite on his death bed, but in his late 90s, the difference is marginal. It's probably the bed he's going to die on, assuming we don't need to change the wheels after our dog gnawed on it. He's not going for a jog or getting the mattress changed. But he's at home, surrounded by family, and loved. All endings are sad endings, but I expect his will be less sad than most. Good luck getting any of that without a family in the first place.
The childless elderly don't just face worse deaths. They face worse lives in the decades leading up to death. Your 70s and 80s, if you're lucky enough to be healthy, are not years of adventure and self-actualization. They are years of watching your friends die, your body deteriorate, and your cultural relevance evaporate. The things that gave your life meaning when you were 30 or 40 or even 60 have largely evaporated. Your career is over. Your relationship with your spouse, if you still have one, has likely settled into comfortable routine or quiet resentment. Your hobbies persist but with diminished intensity.
What doesn't evaporate is family. Your children are still there. Your grandchildren are growing up. You have people who need you, not in the desperate dependency of infancy, but in the gentler ways that adult children need their parents. Advice, support, connection to the past, a sense of continuity. You have a reason to get up in the morning that isn't just "I haven't died yet."
You seem to think that the choice is between a life of relaxation and fulfillment versus a life of drudgery and misery. But this badly misunderstands the actual choice on offer. The choice is between a life arc that resembles an inverted parabola versus one that resembles a cliff.
With children: your 20s and 30s are hard. You're building a career, raising kids, sleeping four hours a night, and wondering if you'll ever feel like a human being again. Your 40s get easier as the kids become more independent. Your 50s and 60s are potentially quite good. You have grandchildren but without the grinding responsibility of primary care. You have adult children who are friends and companions. You have purpose and connection. Your 70s and 80s, while inevitably diminished by age, are softened by family.
Without children: your 20s and 30s are great. You have freedom, money, time. You can travel, pursue hobbies, sleep in on weekends. Your 40s and 50s continue this trend, perhaps with even more money and stability. And then somewhere in your 60s or 70s, you drive off a cliff. Everyone you know starts dying or moving away or becoming too old to do things with. You have no natural support system. You have no one whose life you're intrinsically woven into. You have resources but nothing to use them for. You have time but no one to spend it with.
Yes, parents complain about parenting. They make jokes about needing wine. They talk about how hard it is. But they also, when you actually ask them, report that their children are the most important and meaningful parts of their lives. They have more children. They encourage their own children to have children. They don't act like people who made a terrible mistake and are trying to trap others into the same fate.
The simpler explanation is that parenting is both genuinely hard and genuinely meaningful. That it involves real sacrifices and real rewards. That the rewards are not the same kind as a good night's sleep or an uninterrupted brunch, but they're rewards nonetheless.
An interesting argument. I wonder if I've been overly influenced by propaganda about the resentment millennials feel towards their boomer parents. Of course I know it's likely not true in the general case but there's definitely a narrative of millennials feeling like they're the victims.
But also, I don't think having children as an investment in a future support structure during is truly a compelling argument. Firstly, most of human society throughout history has existed where the truly elderly would not survive. Of course average lifespans tell a misleading story due to infant mortality, but if someone was truly bedridden they would not survive long. Modern society finds people in their 60s fit to continue working, and it's likely that the ancients felt the same, until the elderly rapidly dropped dead.
But the other wrinkle is of course that rationally, sinking so much into a dubious investment that will only pay off in 50+ years in the best case, where the state of the world after that time could be completely different, does not make much sense.
Of course this is the real reason. But the question is whether or not it's truly true, versus a deception.
Speaking only for myself, I am very concerned that the social safety nets we have for the elderly now (which I do not view as an adequate replacement for friends and family, in terms of happiness, but are decent enough at prolonging life) will be in much worse shape in 40 years. From my perspective, having kids is the most sure way to ensure some decent and adequate standard of care in my twilight years.
Might want to ask King Lear about that one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link