Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[flagged]
brandonlc on Sept 8, 2019 | hide | past | favorite



> it is argued that having children is irresponsible because newborn babies constitute a threat to the environment

What a sad and depressing way to look at children. Treating them not as your own child to nurture and care for but as a carbon producing entity. I often wonder if the people that have this outlook on kids suddenly changes them drastically when they do actually have kids. It’s a mentality I’ve seen increasingly appearing on this site - I’m not gonna have kids cause the environment. Stop believing the hysteria that the world is gonna end in 2030 and live your life!

The other sad thing in the article is the Facebook group for women who regret having children. Imagine having your children find out about the group and the damage it does to their psyche.


If they really don't want to have children purely for that reason, they can always adopt.


>'Until recently, babies were seen as a blessing. Now, far too many people argue that not having a baby is a blessing. Ultimately, the reason for this loss of faith in the human spirit is neither economic nor environmental. Rather, the main driver of this anti-natal movement is the difficulty that sections of society have in giving meaning to life today. Recovering our confidence in the human spirit and in age-old human virtues is the best antidote to the turn against giving birth.'

There is seemingly a sizable section of the population who mark all social change as having an origin point sometime in the 1950's, regarding any human culture before then to be essentially a variant of the 1950's, just with more horses. This article being a great example.


Things like this bothered me for a while, and then I realized that if a group wants to not have kids, they are basically ceding a rather significant form of influence on the future.

If someone wants to prune their line out of the tree of life, good for them I suppose.


> Is motherhood natural?

Millions of years, says Yes. And that's just considering humans.


fwiw, spiked's editor has a shitty agenda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_O%27Neill_(columnist)

doesn't seem like he or frank, the piece's author, are reporting on women's choices with objectivity or real research (or empathy).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: