I negatively judge those who don't want to have children. I still like you, but it is a choice that I do not respect. First, I see it as a rejection of adulthood and of an essential part of the human experience, thus I view it as a childish decision, or perhaps more accurately, a decision to retain a more childlike life. A childlike life is great fun, but to me it is a small life, an immature life.
Second, I view the decision as saying, in the most profound way, via actions not words, "I wish there to be less people like me in the world. I wish the next generation to be less like me than this generation. My type of person should be removed from the world." That is, after all, the effect of the choice, and when you make a choice, you are choosing its effects. This is the inexorable logic of evolution and the hereditibility of personality traits.
The thing is, I like you, dear readers. Many of you I admire, respect, and approve of. I want to be in a world with more people like you, not a world full of people who aren't the type to be my friends, readers, commenters and lurkers. And I am deeply saddened when you don't seem to feel the same way - when you choose to concede the world to people not like you.
I'm sure you see things a different way, and I'm sure you have all kinds of reasons. You may be scared, prefer your independence and fun, have had bad experiences with your parents, not want the responsibility, don't see it as your fight, don't like the world of the future, etc. There are lots of reasons, some selfish, some noble, some good, some bad. That's fine, it is your life, and I'm glad you are choosing how to live it.
But I view myself, in the role of a parent, as fighting a crucial battle for a better future, and I view non-parents who are unusual people I like as deserters from that battle. (Ironically, this negative judgement is a mark of respect. since I only care whether you have kids if I like and respect you.) Maybe this is perspective is illogical self-glorification of the sacrifices I am making as a parent. Maybe it is hubris to be judging others rather than accepting them. But it is my perspective.
There is a "public good problem" aspect to this, where the gains from more great people accrue to a wide number of others, so they are underprovided. One can argue that potential parents shouldn't be expected to undergo the hardships of parenting to help the world, that is calling for altruism. While that is true, let us not forget that humans have mechanisms to enforce public good creation based on status and respect. Writing free software is a public good, so we give props to people who do it. Maybe we also dis those who can and don't. Do I have any right to tell people whether to have kids? Of course not. But my respect is a currency, and it is my currency, and it is up to me to parcel it out to those who are providing public goods that I benefit from. That's how humans handled public goods before the state, and I like it.
Yay for Bryan Caplan for writing a book encouraging smart people to have more kids!
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
patrissimo- Patri Friedman
- Patri's World
Page Summary
- glaciation : (no subject) [+10]
- zzzing : (no subject) [+0]
- whipartist : (no subject) [+3]
- krustad : (no subject) [+5]
- selenite : (no subject) [+1]
- istar : (no subject) [+2]
- davidjacob : (no subject) [+1]
- candid : you, of all people, should understand the principle of comparative advantage [+8]
- puellavulnerata : (no subject) [+6]
- dclayh : (no subject) [+1]
- street_person : (no subject) [+24]
- ricevermicelli : (no subject) [+7]
- darknote : (no subject) [+0]
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/openid-profile.gif)
dagon.net : (no subject) [+5] - dannyman : (no subject) [+0]
- jhogan : (no subject) [+1]
- jhogan : (no subject) [+9]
- rickthefightguy : (no subject) [+7]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+2]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+11]
- jacqueline1776 : (no subject) [+6]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
- whipartist : (no subject) [+7]
- sconzey : (no subject) [+5]
Comments
I attended an SCA event by myself this weekend for the first time in nineteen years, and was discussing participating in the SCA with children. A person I was talking to said, "Most of the people here don't want children, don't want to be around children, and don't want to see children. At best they'll tolerate your children until you take them away."
I spent a lot of yesterday thinking about that attitude, and how (as a parent) to enjoy a game where that is the norm. Your phrase, "a decision to retain a more childlike life," seems to capture the essence -- having real children around disrupts the chance to play.
There are two assumptions in your argument that I question, however. The first is that I have an obligation to fight for a better world. I don't necessarily think that's true.
The bigger one, though, is that the optimal way to improve the world is to reproduce. Who would you have more respect for-- someone who had kids and did a bad job of parenting, or someone who didn't and who dedicated his life to teaching kids to think independently?
There is also a sweeping generalization about people in his argument that excludes the idea that, perhaps, some people do more for society by choosing a life that does not include parenting.
"I think of it as "the world already does not appreciate my brilliance, why would I want my progeny to suffer the same fate?""
This is where you go astray. You seem to be assuming that being a parent is the best way (or even an effective way) to participate in this "battle." It may be for some people, but for many others it (quite obviously) isn't.
Furthermore, do you pass the same judgment on people who have fewer kids than they can? Why not? Aren't they "guilty" of the same public-good-underproduction as non-parents?
Yeah, this is true. But there is sort of a conflict with this logic too, if you believe in strong heritability. Specifically, the better someone is at doing other stuff besides parenting, the more useful their kids will be and the more important it is for them to pass those genes on. If someone is only good at parenting, do we really want those genes to be passed on?
The people who have a comparative advantage at doing other things, and choose not to have kids, are ensuring that the next generation is worse at doing those other things. I don't want a next generation consisting only of only the children of people who are so lame and boring that they have nothing better to do than be parents. I want a next generation full of the children of exciting, awesome people who worked parenthood into their exciting, awesome lives.
RE: under-production. It is not all relative. 2 kids is breakeven. More is increasing people like you. Less is decreasing. I respect 2 or more.
Edited at 2009-06-15 10:35 pm (UTC)
Second, I view the decision as saying, in the most profound way, via actions not words, "I wish there to be less people like me in the world. I wish the next generation to be less like me than this generation. My type of person should be removed from the world." That is, after all, the effect of the choice, and when you make a choice, you are choosing its effects. This is the inexorable logic of evolution and the hereditibility of personality traits.
Broad personality traits seem quite heritable, but specific ideas are probably less so. Speaking as one of those non-reproducing people you judge (not biologically capable of it given present technology, very uncomfortable around children, and in a long-term high-commitment relationship with someone who feels much the same way), I am my memes far more than I am my genes, and raising children is only one method out of many for reproducing ideas. I am curious, though, what you think of people who adopt but never have biological children, since they spread only their memes but not their genes.
As someone who grew up arguing libertarian ideas before I had ever heard the word "libertarian", or knew any of my family's political views, and then found out that my views were 95% like my dad's...I believe that ideas are pretty darn heritable. This may be incorrect, and it may be an uncommon view. IQ and libertarianism both seem to have significant genetic links, and I care about them a lot.
Spreading good memes is another way of providing public goods, sure. I have more confidence that a world with the kinds of people I like will be like I want than that a world with the kinds of memes I like will be like I want.
(1) Anything that increases your responsibility makes you less child-like in the sense that you seem to be referring to. Looks like you are comparing a person with a child to a person without a child who uses his free time for hedonistic pleasure seeking. What if the childless person instead took on some other form of responsibility?
I believe Peter Thiel is childless. He seems to have much more responsibility than you, and hence live a more "adult" life. Raising a child probably takes significantly less responsibility and child-like qualities than being a successful CEO or entrepreneur.
(2) If you want to shape the world in a positive way, having a child may be inefficient if you have other good ways of spending your time. The expected value of Seasteading to the world of the future is probably much higher than the expected value of your kid. Your decision to have a kid seems a bit selfish in that context: Patri gets to enjoy some fuzzy feelings and tell himself he's enjoying some "essential" aspect of life, meanwhile the probability of Seasteading succeeding goes down and we can all expect worse lives in the future.
(3) The singularity will probably happen before we die anyway, in which case we can make an arbitrary amount of people like us. All this time and effort you spent on Tovar will then be kind of a waste.
I have a number of friends whose parents are (and in some cases I am seriously understating this) disasters. I like my friends. I'm glad they're here. But for every good and lovely person who somehow fought free of disastrous parents, there are at least three people who turned out to be disasters themselves. That's a lousy ratio. Wouldn't it be better for the world if those people - the disasters - weren't reproducing themselves so efficiently?
A job that you aren't equipped for, or sufficiently interested in to do well is not a job you should take on. There may be circumstances that force you to it, but those circumstances can't make you good at it or happy in it.
I like being a parent, but I don't look down on those who choose not to be (provided they do me the same favor). It's hard and ceaseless work (say I, with 50 hours a week of daycare at my disposal). There are public goods besides healthy children (and unhealthy ones are a serious public bad).
Short version: Dude. Get over yourself.
The point that parent!=child is in my opinion a pretty solid argument against the idea being put forward here.
food for thought.
But I view myself, in the role of a parent, as fighting a crucial battle for a better future, and I view non-parents who are unusual people I like as deserters from that battle
As for me, I'm fairly willing to avoid fights. Bummer if that makes you mad. Try to get over it.
I deeply hope you're happy being a parent, and that Tovar (and all the others, as I presume you feel you owe the future as many children as possible) is happy as well. I hope this even though you're not particularly genetically close to me.
I also choose not to write as much free software as I am capable of. I appreciate those who write some, but I also appreciate those who spend their productive ability in ways they prefer.
But my respect is a currency, and it is my currency, and it is up to me to parcel it out to those who are providing public goods that I benefit from.
Respect isn't a currency. It's not fungible or transferrable. Even if it were, you're delusional if you think you want to "spend" it only or even primarily on other people's parenting choices.
Thank you.
Those who wish to remain in childhood and not spread their genes or ideas are doing the rest of us a favor by self-selecting out of the gene pool.
For people who I don't want more of in the world, or who are likely to abuse or neglect their children, then I want them to have zero kids. But that is not who I am talking about - I am specifically talking about people I like and respect.
I don't feel my life is nearly as well-ordered as I'd like it to be. I feel like bringing another life into the world is something I'd want to do once I have a really stable foundation to build on, and for me, such a foundation includes things like marriage, and having a good sense that I understand how the world works, how I want to fit into it, and a strong sense of purpose in my life.
I'm responding here primarily to your impression that a lack of interest in childhood is a desire to remain child-like, but I don't know that's always the case. I'm actively trying to grow up, and feel like I have a ways to go.
Another thought that comes to mind is that I do not want to have a kid if I'm not really emotionally excited about it; I think I'd emotionally resent being a parent, and not really give the kid the love or quality of upbringing they deserve. That outweighs any sense of duty I have to join in the battle you speak of :-)
Incidentally, I don't take particular offense at your post, just sharing thoughts.
On the other hand, if I had a strong expectation of living at least a few centuries, then suddenly a couple decades dedicated to raising children is a much lower cost, and the risk of lasting resentment much lower if there's always time later for other things. I definitely agree with you that people shouldn't have kids unless they genuinely want to, and that especially it's very undesirable for people to have children and then regret it and resent them, regardless of any sense of duty.
Sounds a bit Goofy.
As far as I know, Michelangelo had no children. His contribution to the betterment of mankind is not, as far as I know, in question.
Shakespeare did have children. Their contribution to the betterment of mankind, as far as I know, was unremarkable.
For me, I have no interest particular interest in your contributions to society via Tovar. The opposite is true of your contributions via seasteading. If Tovar is taking resources from seasteading that result in its failure to change the world, he will have to do something remarkable to make up for it.
Do you disrespect homosexuals for the same reason?
- I'm 21. While it's not unheard of for women my age to be having kids, I feel like I have a lot more living to do before sacrificing the rest of my life to the raising of another person.
- The idea of being pregnant, giving birth, and its after-effects grosses me out. The hormonal fluctuations, the vomiting, the weight gain, stretch marks, swollen ankles and feet, fatigue, vericose veins, all kinds of digestive problems. Giving birth: hours of horrible pain, you shit yourself, if you don't get sliced open via C-section you get to push the baby out the old fashioned way which often results in tearing from the V to the A, afterbirth. Afterwards there's still the weight to lose which can be done, but stretch marks, vericose veins, loose skin, and breasts reduced to sagging skin and nipple aren't gonna go away on their own. Maybe if this society placed significantly less emphasis on the appearance of women I might not be so vain about my body, but even that doesn't eliminate the huge ick factor of the whole experience for me. I also don't feel that a man can have a real appreciation of what pregnancy puts a woman's body through. In this sense, I AM taking into account the effects of my decision. Obviously in a more personal, short-term way.
- I won't even consider having kids until I'm financially stable. Raising children is a significant expense that will never go away once the decision to have a child is followed through on. When you're childless, you can afford to be poor. A child doesn't have a choice in how he or she lives, and I find it incredibly unfair to bring a kid into the world without being able to adequately provide for it. Poor planning is probably one of the reasons so many families find themselves relying on government money; I'm basing this on observation, as I know many young women who have had children unexpectedly and find themselves on welfare out of necessity.
- I could totally see myself adopting. If I were to consider children, it would be my first choice. Many people do not even consider this as an option--they want their own biological children and would rather spend thousands of dollars on fertility treatments than adopt. There's definitely something to be said for nature, but I'm a big believer that environment is extremely relevant in how a person turns out. "Nurture" seems more flexible.
- I was born with cataracts. Don't want those swimming around in the gene pool...
So yeah, by your logic, I'm basically agreeing with your assertion that I'm selfish. =)
-ev
It's like the difference between voting and a boycott. If I vote for a libertarian, he still loses, every time. If I boycott a company I don't like, they probably won't change any decisions, but I know for sure that they have a few bucks less in profit. Some effect vs. no effect. Very different.
In a way, I would argue that I am one of your dad's "kids", because my whole outlook on society was heavily influenced by The Machinery of Freedom. The ability to comprehend a rational argument is does not require rare genes, so maybe my ancap rants will influence others. :-P
If I believed this, I would like ideas more and reproduction less as a way to change the world. But I don't. Few people seem to be capable of "getting" anarchist arguments.
My view on this matter is summarised by this quote from some yank sitcom I watched once: "I'm gunna have lots of kids in hope that one of them figures out how to solve the overpopulation problem"
You say children are under-supplied. Are kids a positive externality? Should an optimal society tax the childless to subsidise the fecund?
Assuming that children expand the tax-base it would seem sensible to fund pro-natal measures out of the public purse to start off with...
Indeed, I've heard the success of the Roman Empire credited to it's pro-natal policies.
I would support subsidizing fecundity among the educated/intelligence in my seastead society. Maybe. Have to worry about creating class issues, whether there are better alternate mechanisms, stuff like that. But worth considering.