Comments on: Reasons to Have Zero Kids

By: DarbinBlake

DarbinBlake — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:56:54 +0000

This story and the comments attributed to it are plenty of reasons not to have kids!!! Especially for us guys!!!

http://www.wcpo.com/content/news/fresh/story/3-...

By: DarbinBlake

DarbinBlake — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:56:54 +0000

This story and the comments attributed to it are plenty of reasons not to have kids!!! Especially for us guys!!!

http://www.wcpo.com/content/news/fresh/story/3-...

By: P.M. Jaworski

P.M. Jaworski — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:26:22 +0000

This is all you need to know: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u2ZsoYWwJA

By: uknowbetter

uknowbetter — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:08:13 +0000

Regardless, I suggest Will and Kerry talk to people about 32-45 that are still married, not fat, and with kids. They might learn a thing or two. Stop always going to cocktail parties with other singles and young couples and go to a few family bbq's. There is something about having the wild young ones underfoot that can keep the juices flowing after the hormones start to wane.

By: uknowbetter

uknowbetter — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:00:04 +0000

There is always something amazing about bringing another life into this world, whatever the circumstances.

Just really think about your birth and your parents. Aren't you thankful? I've met all sorts of people in my short span on this rock and I've maybe met one out of thousands that isn't thankful his parents gave life to him. That goes for scientists, panhandlers, office workers, murderers, etc.

Sure, things may be tough for parents, but balance that with the utter potentiality of a new life. In some ways it is a no brainer, it's a genetic non-decision. Hope is life is breeding is future is genetics is more, more, more with a rebel yell!

By: Matt Frost

Matt Frost — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:12:35 +0000

Will,

I'm most curious about the dose effect, and how much the marginal child's impact varies with parity ((number of previous children). That first step really is a doozy.

Think of the N.B. at the end of your post: you don't state that you want "a kid" or even "a kid or kids." The implicit normative standard regards an only child as anomalous, even deviant. Whatever the merits of that standard in its own right (I'm one of four, but we were spaced strangely and I was a de facto only child), it's culturally pervasive enough to show up in the data in weird and interesting ways. So I'm curious about what the results would look like if you disaggregated the one-child families.

By: Usyless

Usyless — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:40:51 +0000

I think that moral reasons arise from our need to cooperate with others for mutual benefit, and not from a compulsion to choose 'the best world' according to some consequential analysis. My reasons have to do with metaethical concerns beyond the scope of this discussion. But yes, it is very counterintuitive, and I can see how it could look like a reductio ad absurdum to those who take ordinary ethical intuitions very seriously in choosing moral theories. I don't think ethics should be done that way, but again, that's outside the current issue.

And I agree that the right thing to do is push the button, and in virtue of this I would say that they have a right to my pushing the button (although this would be an odd way to put it). I don't mean to treat “rights” as narrowly as you seem to be reading, but rather broadly to refer to any moral claim people have on one another. The key is that moral demands arise from these claims that PERSONS have on each other and not on certain aggregative properties of states of the world as a whole.

By: Christopher M

Christopher M — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:17:48 +0000

This is crazy talk. When you reach the point where you're saying that there's no moral reason for you, given the choice, to choose a world where everyone born from now on is basically happy and lives fulfilling lives, versus a world where everyone born from now on is miserable, and in immense, constant pain — well, I consider that a reductio ad absurdum of whatever premises are leading you to that conclusion.

Specifically, I think you're making a mistake by focusing on “rights.” There is more to morality than rights. Let's say I had the opportunity to press a magic button that would instantly cure everyone suffering from intensely painful, but nonlethal, medical conditions. With one push of the button, I'd eliminate a great deal of pain, at essentially no cost to myself. There's no reason to think that those sick people have a “right” to my pushing the button — I don't have any obligation TO THEM. But surely the right thing to do would be to push the button.

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:35:24 +0000

I second that vote.

By: GilM

GilM — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:52:08 +0000

Maybe the first child putting stress on the marriage is a feature, not a bug.

What was Taleb's first principle?:

1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small.

If you're afraid of the child ruining the marriage, maybe the marriage isn't strong enough to be worth investing more time and energy in.

Either way, it seems like a good thing to find out early how strong the marriage is .