> You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that
Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / could not have them ourselves.
Most people will agree that there's a collective obligation to safeguard children. Not so much for a collective obligation to go out of our way to make parenting more convenient for those who can afford to raise kids AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them. Particularly when, IME, the people most fervent about the well-being of their own children tend to care little about other's. I assume you're, say, an ardent supporter of equalizing school funding across your state, such that your kids would receive the same quality of education as those of poorer parents, yes? No? Telling.
I'm not sure why you presume that. While I'm on a flight, I do everything possible to prevent my baby from disrupting others flight.
However, some stuff flight companies do are incredibly helpful (e. G. Allow us to board first) and make everyone 's experience better.
Unfortunately it's either that, or have no kids, or never fly (for some people this means: never meet your family again). All things that are limiting for a human being that should get a decent quality of life (culture and such)
I would support equalization of funding subject to purchasing power parity.
That's a bit of a red herring to the conversation, and I'm a bit confused why that is the filter you choose to engage rather than policy for ensuring proper nutrition, UBI, or any other economic impact, or why my non-response intra-sentence to your comment online is a purity test for said support.
But taking a step back, even if parents are individually genetically biased towards their brood, that doesn't impact that part of a society's very essence and existence is to ensure children grow to adulthood. Eusociality and all that.
I don't think it's a red herring. It gets right to the heart of the very personal entitlement parents have, to the exclusion and detriment of people around them. I asked (rhetorically, admittedly) your stance on school funding equity because it's an issue where there can be no question that the status quo is something along the lines of, "Fuck you, getting mine, and also let me have some of yours," which is roughly analogous to what you've held is appropriate for the issue at hand.
We could make things better, and it would require maybe not having your kids in particular at the front of the line. That doesn't mean society is absolutely thwarting your endeavor to be a good parent; it's a recognition that while children are important, they are not the only, nor the altogether and at all times, primary concern of civilization. I mean, if you want to define human nature solely by the effort to advance one's progeny... I mean, even then, you have to admit that the well-being and conceens of the adults who support that effort are also important. Evolution is the process of surviving the day, serially.
Most people who choose to have children don't do so to enable society structures to persist though. I could argue that by not having kids I'm saving the planet from the effects of over population?
You could! And it is important to note that limited antinatalism is not unreasonable, so long as it is remembered that replacement rate!=overpopulation unless already above carrying capacity.
Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / could not have them ourselves.