The decision to have kids is a lot like the decision to continue living. There is no logical basis for it. Or rather, any latticework of logic you erect to justify this choice is based on a foundation that has nothing to do with reason. It is an emotional and spiritual desire to live and love, and give more life and more love to the world.

That's why I when see people engage in complex rational calculations about the utility a child may or may not bring into their life, I feel like they are missing the point. Of course people ought to be thoughtful about the decision to have children. And there are very good reasons to abstain. But in a sense they are not grasping that having children is a profound act of hope.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21790570

For instance, that desire and that decision aren't a guarantee that you will end up having biological children, nor that having them will bring you happiness. Barring medical or financial conditions, there are so many other reasons why one ends up not having them, a lot of them being circumstantial and outside of an individual's control e.g. who gets to cross your path, who becomes your partner, a cultural context, events affecting your family and so on.

That deep emotional and spiritual desire to live and love as a foundational directive, also pushes you to reflect, shape and reshape your personal story and your identity as you move through life. It sparks existential questions to which insights only come through time and the compounding of experience. This is a most deeply individual aspect of living.

In a way, that same desire isn't binary. It's not one or the either. It includes doubt and leaning back and forth between stances depending on one's circumstances and experience. Like a bell curve, some will feel deeply bereft if they remain childless, many will consider that a scenario with a worthwhile alternative for parenthood is just as valid an option to them, and some have a deep sated desire to remain child free.

Reflecting and reconsidering doesn't stop when one has become a parent either. Many will vocally state that parenthood - or remaining without children - was the best thing they did in life, but there are also those that deeply regret their choice. As culture, past and present, tends to emphasis the importance of having children and espouses the merits of parenthood, this is only discussed in a most apprehensive manner, which leads to misguided generalisations and dismissive tropes. This renders an important part of our human condition moot: that personal responsibility is inevitably bounded by constraints which are necessarily outside the control of an individual.

There are many ways to self-actualize that emotional and spiritual desire to live and love, and having and raising biological children is one of many possible pathways. And so, the framework of values and beliefs you've developed which underpins and drives your own personal narrative, doesn't necessarily apply to the lives of anyone else.

But going further, the idea that death negates the benefits of life is absurd. If you read a book and are sad when it ends, that means it was a good book, and you are better off for having experienced it. The ending does not annihilate the story, it completes it. And if the story should have some bad writing in it, that may be undesireable, but all the good writing is still there to be enjoyed. No matter how bad life seems to get, the good moments still happened and they can never be taken away from you. Sure we'd all like to avoid unnecessary suffering and postpone death for as long as possible, but only because we would rather fill that time with the joys of life - if you had to choose between experiencing extreme pain periodically or spending the rest of your life in an inescapable coma, you'd certainly choose the former. Non-existance is not a pleasant alternative to life, it is a fate at least as bad as death, if there is any distinction at all.

Ten thousand generations of my ancestors were intelligent, give or take. If they had learned easy+effective contraception at any point, I wouldn't be here at all. This is infinitely more important point than all my ancestor's work, art, grand projects, ambitions, theories and whatnot. Leaving aside pondering about that bug of our genome, the immediate local decision is not to let my genome die with me and to give it yet another generation.

Maybe it's futile because the bug will be fatal in the end. Maybe. I don't know and I don't want to take risks.

I'm unlikely to contribute to AGI in any significant degree after all, which I would consider one of the alternative workaround to the bug.

This is a genuine problem, and one that maybe tech could actually partially solve by bring adults of different ages together in ways that build friendships rather than accepting the only way to not be lonely is to rely on your family.

I have a wife and 2 (small) children. There is nobody in the world I love more than my family - it used to be only my wife previously and now grew from 1 person to 3. This has such a profound effect on my happiness now (in my 30s) that even if I die suddenly at age 55 (long before becoming a lonely old man) it would still have been worth it.

Yes you should also have friends & if they are of various ages that's even better. You dont need tech to do that either, although it is probably difficult if you live somewhere far from other people (and some developments like fenced off suburbs with no city centers make that harder still). But that is independent of the argument if you should or should not also have kids.

You can have kids and friends!

I'm sure a lot of people don't have the kids with the purpose of not being alone in old age. But I also get that there's some kind of "soft expectation", for lack of a better term, that your "family" will kind of stick around, especially when you're alone because raising said family more or less led to a falling out with old friends. There's also the factor that when people get old, their own friends may have gotten old and died.

Where I live I don't see many "intergenerational friendships". Granted, I'm not a very social person so I don't really seek the society of others, but from what I see around me people tend to hang out with people of roughly the same age. There also seem to be a lot of loose friendships, in that people would get together more or less often, have a good time &c, but those are not relationships one would be able to depend on in case of a problem.

I think your point about fenced-off suburbs is quite important though. I figure that once people get older, it's much easier for them to try to hang out with other people if they all live more or less close-by. Such as joining some kind of club. Even if it won't become some very close friendship, at least they're less likely to feel as lonely as people in the suburbs.

I think that both of these are massively consequence of our own culture, not something that must be.

It is combination of long hours at work, the super high expectations on child raising that for many people excludes socialization with kids present and animosity of childless toward kids present near "adult places". And vice versa.

It is also a result of socialization being seen as slacking and not doing useful things. It is also result of sort stigmatising the behavior that leads to keeping long term friendships (at least I had to figure out this is issue for me).

On the balance I'm sure I'm more social now (corona notwithstanding) than I was 5 years ago.

    Even more so when people have to juggle kids and a career.

“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.” CS Lewis

If you give up a job to move somewhere to move to a city to meet your future partner, you didn't sacrifice your job for them, at least not in the sense that any nobility can be derived from that act. You gave something up, yes, but not for _a person_ because you don't even know them yet. You can make sacrifices for a person that you have personal love for, but you cannot have personal love for someone who doesn't exist yet.

Once the children exist you can make sacrifices for them of course. But at the moment of choosing to have kids, you are not making sacrifices in the same sense (unless you are having kids for the good of society etc.). So deciding to have kids, even if you have to give something up, is not some selfless or noble act, as parent said.

Sure, but assuming that you know the decision will lead to such sacrifices, it can hardly be called a selfish one either. Especially since the gratification of "wanting something for themselves" (which you claim it's all about) also doesn't actually manifest until later, actually after the sacrifices do.

Is anyone actually seriously suggesting that the decision itself is an act of sacrifice? Surely it's kind of super obvious that the sacrifices are in raising the children, not in deciding to have them?

Both of my parents grew up poor, both in America and elsewhere, and they were were working farms or shop jobs long before they were of legal age. It's just part of life.

The idea of just give give give to your children until they become 18 (or beyond) is a luxury/privilege.

They also grew up when "free range" parenting was still a thing. Kids just go out into town and entertain themselves, be home by supper sort of thing. So your time as parent was not spent hovering and taking them to after school programs and planning out their life to prepare them for college admissions.

Many famous people, for instance in sports or the sciences, have literally climbed mountains with great personal sacrifice all while pursuing personal happiness/life goals... in my mind, real heroes are those that don’t want to do something but do it anyway because they believe it’s the right thing to do...I’m not sure this applies to most fiancés or parents-to-be in the west. To think otherwise is childish teenage thinking...because that’s how were indoctrinated as kids in the west. I mean just watch Disney movies...

- Increases the labor potential of the family "for free"

- Now you have someone to take care of you when you're old

I don't necessarily agree with it in the majority of instances but it was eye-opening. The line between tradition/superstition is thin.

There is also a second nuance where those who follow similar health patterns of the former had immediate family that were “functionally absent” for a large portion of their life (primarily mental health or result of psychosocial trauma).

There is also survivorship bias here too, in that I treat patients because they are sick and I don’t get to see the “lonely” individuals who function well in the community.

My decade of experience as a registered nurse made me fear in spending my twilight years only to be “beloved by my nieces and nephews”.

It especially has life-long consequences for the children! I wouldn't want to put children in this world. I don't think the future world is a nice place to grow up in, even the current world isn't. IMO it's selfish to make kids just to feel fulfilled and not be lonely.

I have posted the following a few years ago:

> My ancestors thought it was okay to have kids during times in which many scholars where certain the apocalypse was due in the next 25 years, during periods in which the plague killed more than half of the population, during the 30 years war and in a time when there was a realistic chance of nuclear annihilation in the next 10 years. I am glad they did.

Today, as a father, I would add: as a potential parent, you are in no position to decide that your future children, grandchildren or great^x-grandchildren won't be glad to be alive. You don't know them, and most importantly you do not know and you cannot know about their world. In my opinion, this argument is nothing more but a convenient excuse to avoid the stress of bringing up kids. It is a valid reason to not want any kids because of the stress, but please don't rationalize yourself into peace of conscience by assuming that you can look into the future.

In my opinion, your ancestors had children largely because they had intercourse without accessing to birth control, not because they made a conscious decision to have children despite the circumstances.

The desire to make Descendants in hard times is a natural reaction. In more peaceful times you have more time to think about it logicality.

That's why I said "even the current world isn't".

Yes life continues to be harsh, brutal and tragic. It always has been and in some ways always will be. But if your kids are doomed to live in merely the 2nd best civilization humanity has ever produced, I don't think they have much to complain about relatively speaking.

The argument you put forth would have us end the species if everyone agreed to it. And I don't agree we should end human existence and squander all our potential in a fit of depressive nihilism anymore then you should sell all your stocks the moment the market goes down for a day.

It's more selfish IMO to make yourself the arbiter of your unborn childrens' future, denying them the chance at a good life just because you want to make it easier on yourself. Not saying you should have kids if you're not ready, but don't use the state of the world as an excuse. All your ancestors are laughing at how spoiled you are.

When we're talking about humans instead of rocks, being harmed is part of life. At the end of the day we're all harmed by something that ends up killing us. That doesn't make life worthless, and attempting to prevent harm at all costs is the definition of maladaptive behavior. If that's your argument then you're basically the ultimate helicopter parent. You're so worried that your child might get harmed you won't even let them be born.

Reward requires risk, and greater rewards require greater risks. That's true for every lifeform down to bacteria and viruses. Granted not all risk leads to reward, but the risk of parenting tends to reward those involved above a certain baseline of effort and capability.

As for your ancestors, you're descended from a line of beings stretching back millions of years that, whatever their flaws, managed to reproduce. If there is a point to life that we know about it's that life exists to propagate in harmony with nature (often brutally enforced by various aspects of nature). The point of society is that we all help each other in that endeavor and make it more meaningful. To fulfill our potential as a species. Even those who choose not to have children help in some way through jobs and taxes. This is part of the reason helping others makes us feel good.

There are many valid reasons to not have kids, but I don't understand how you can trust someone who says "I don't want to succeed at the basic function of life because the 2nd best civilization ever produced just isn't comfortable enough for me", and means it. Someone with that level of weakness is not going to be reliable in bad times, regardless of their intentions. Maybe you don't care if I trust you or not, but if you don't care if anyone trusts you... well then I hope your life is as comfortable as you clearly require, because you'll be getting by on charity if it's not.

Treating having children as a success and a reward in of itself is part of the problem. If someone doesn't want to have children because they feel like they'll have a bad life, that's their decision to make. Not yours to try and apply some strange value judgment where completely unborn children somehow have a say in the equation.

You're making the argument rather absurdly personal with your claims that they're a helicopter parent for not wanting to have children and claiming that they're weak/unreliable/untrustworthy. Stop it.

If for example you read about, say Global Warming and say that's the deciding reason you don't want to have kids, and it isn't just a self-serving lie/excuse and you actually understand the issue, then you are an extremely weak person and you should work on that. If everyone acknowledged global warming, or saw insert negative news story and decided not to have kids on that basis the species would end in a generation. That sounds like a pretty weak species to me, literally scared to death.

As for untrustworthy, in my experience weak people are inherently untrustworthy. Even if their motives are good they are unable to endure or contribute under stress. Someone who folds on the issue of having kids because of what they see on the news is someone who's likely to fold on other things under extremely mild pressure, and I don't want to have to depend on such people in a crisis; and everyone's life will have crises unless you're extremely lucky. This is hardly just my opinion.

As for the helicopter parent line, the poster argued that while hypothetical kids can't be harmed if they aren't born, having them does potentially cause them harm. Thus they are arguing that "harm" to the hypothetical kids is the deciding factor, and said "harm" should be avoided by shielding said kids from the world. That is the exact thought process of many helicopter parents, only taken to an extreme level of over-protection and perhaps with less overt narcissism.

And yes this gets a little personal, it's a philosophical argument and I'm calling out perceived weaknesses in another person's life philosophy, just as you are calling out weaknesses you perceive in me. I don't see a problem with any of that.

This is a pretty bizarre statement. If you had a pet dog, would you consider it immoral to not provide that dog with a mate, so they could flood the world with puppies?

It's extremely weak/arrogant to take a look at "the state of the world" (typically via news/blogs/etc) and then declare you absolutely know the future, and it sucks so hard that there's no way your children will have a decent life under any circumstances, regardless of your personal situation.

There are many valid reasons not to have kids, "the state of the world" isn't one of them unless you're living in the middle of one of those negative news stories, and then it's less "the state of the world" and more "the state of my immediate surroundings", which is far more reasonable.

You can paint pretty much any action as selfish by using this "just to make yourself feel good" angle. It's a meaningless non-argument.

It would be better to use some other kind of metric, like overall happiness vs suffering, perhaps like antinatalism attempts to do. For example, someone who enjoys working all the time, might see that as a boon for their children, and so decide that overall, it's better to have kids. While someone who doesn't like work might decide to empathize with their unborn children and decide it would be a blessing not to have them. Very subjective, but more well grounded arguments for each persons' decision.

So will conservative, successful people. It'll be fine.

If this argument really holds, why has the world become so much more progressive over the last two centuries?

It only became so progressive since the 1970's, the 50's were fine. The reason: drugs.

It’s incredible how relevant and hard to answer some of the early questions are. What are waves? How do objects maintain flight? It’s not just that, but the nature of the questions. They know what waves and wings are, but they want to know things about them. That’s kind of the pinnacle of human intelligence right there. The ability to care to, and then to ask, such interesting and important questions. There would be no progress without wondering about things that matter, or things with significant answers anyway.

I’d have a lot less grey hair if it weren’t for my kids but things like this are what made my life matter. I love this about kids, and I enjoyed your comment.

I simply look for a clearly wrong assumption they have (look up the 10 cognitive distortions [1]). See which one they have, propose a way to test the assumption and potential pitfalls (most of the time fear) and then tell them to test it.

The answer won't be a "no". In my experience the answer will be something like "but that's just clearly nonsense." I've noticed that they do this without any data, it's purely based on thoughts based from their teenage years and they simply don't realize it.

It's hard to be rational on all topics. As we haven't learned to be rational/logical on all topics and I do think that, to some extent, our knowledge doesn't easily spill over into other topics (Antonio's Damasio hypothesis that has a neurological basis is a pretty interesting example of that [2]).

[1] https://www.verywellmind.com/ten-cognitive-distortions-ident...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis

Having kids is probably the most emotionally-directed impulse we have, given its DNA-rooted origin.

I'd be happy with and without grandchildren, but it would be incredible to be able to give all of the love that I can when I am retired, when I have less going on in my life and the time to do so.

I find it unfair that the society often consider people being "too young; may change mind later" when they say they do not want children; but we don't apply the same standards to young people who want children.

Speaking of this - "tends to be factual, rational, and logical." - do you worry much about what the world will look like when your grandchildren are middle aged? I spent probably too much time concerned with rising authoritarianism, climate breakdown, shortages of food and water resulting from same, and their resulting wars, and it brings a tinge of panic to my thoughts on their future. I certainly stress out about this far, far more than before I was a parent.

I don't really know how best to address it, aside from trying to live in a way resilient to those things, and am curious how you think about this things given the obvious joy in your post (and again, thank you for sharing this; it brought joy to my own day).

So do most parents. Why? Misery loves company.

The entitlement of parents knows no bounds.

Have kids to make yourself happy. Have kids to experience true joy. Have kids to take care of you when you’re old. Have kids to know real love.

What follows isn't as much of a direct reply just some thoughts motivated by your post.

My wife and I met when we were in our 30s, neither of us having ever been in a serious relationship, and both of us having given up ever being married, not to mention having kids.

We're both fairly clear-eyed and long-term environmentalist types, and we know how big an impact every person brought into the western world has. We decided to have a single birth child, and then adopt a second.

We had our son, who turns 18 in a couple of months, though various circumstances caused us to not adopt.

Our wonderful son is on the autistic spectrum; he's nearly six feet, two inches tall, with a beautiful, kind spirit, but his emotional and intellectual development is several years behind.

We never made the mistake of piling up expectations on or toward him. We're fine with the strong possibility that he will likely never materially achieve in ways similar to his parents.

He is loved and he loves us. My wife and I have, on average, another 30 years in this life. If our son is living with us for the next 30 years, that's fine. It would be our honor.

He continues to grow and mature; there's at least a good chance that he could end up moving out and going his own way in some number of years.

That would also make us very happy.

To a fault, perhaps. Humour is frowned upon, while overly pedantic comments are upvoted. Far too many comments uphold the stereotypes about engineers. I wouldn't expect a standard conversation about children to be possible here, both for good and bad.

I am not a parent (yet?), but this sounds very true based on what my parents always told me.

By the way, thanks for your comment. It might not be "in line" with other comments, but I found it genuine and heartfelt. And it enriched me.

But, I've met plenty of people who absolutely detests their parents and visa versa, their parents detest them and they are mean and rotten to each other. So YMMV as far as the entire topic goes.

In comparable circumstances, it took me half that time to grow panic :-)

Keep in mind, most of the lonely old people you see have children. And I’m not sure it’s a good, caring thing to tell childless people that they will be lonely in old age, because it need not be true.

Having kids is very little fun. It is work. But helping new people to be the best people they can be is fulfilling, joyful work.

We're having one of our roughly weekly sleepovers tonight where we all spread out cots on the family room floor. (Everyone falls asleep before me, and so sometimes I make my way online). I like this time because we have a long talk about the world as they get sleepy and settled. Now I hear all these people I deeply love breathe and shift and sleep and feel contentment. Tomorrow there will be problems to solve. As they grow older, the problems become less frequent... and more complicated.

I sure hope they continue to be a big part of my life in their adulthood, but that's not exactly why one does it.

So anyway, children aren't the only path.

And I know that she sought community, at least in part, because she'd had no children.

I had to give up a number of hobbies and intelectual pursuits in order to be there for my kids. Building a caring, trust-based long term relationship is hard work - sharing the same blood and providing a roof and a meal is not enough, which sadly is many people’s definition of parenting.

I know I am giving up things. I know there is no sure-fire bet that I will get “returns”, but I love my kids and knowing you can love someone so much is a gift by itself, IMHO.

Also, worth remembering the alternative to such a "pointless cycle" is a pointless short existence and then human life would be over. Sure, you can argue that's a good thing for earth, but even life on earth is pointless in the grand scheme of things if you're going to use that line of reasoning.

Also I don't think I have become a less fun, interesting person since having kids. I may have become wiser (and more tired).

Not to say having kids is ever super easy but there are definitely people that live a pretty kid friendly lifestyle without them.

It's important to keep this in mind because we do tend to place weight on others deciding to do something. It's why companies like to slap their logo on everything. If my friends were jumping off a bridge I absolutely would consider following them. I like to think one would stop to briefly inform me of whatever horror they're running from but absent that yeah I'd be pretty tempted to follow suit.

So we see all of these people having kids and think "the sacrifice must be worth it" but so many of those people would have been working standards 9-5's and pairing up to go live in the same suburb for the rest of their life where they'll wear clothes in the house and barely even walk each other on leashes anyway. They didn't have to give up their hobbies and dreams. If you do, you're facing a different equation than they did.

There are definitely people who WANT kids, like another commenter in this chain describes. I don’t get the impression MOST people are like that though. Anyone who suspects they might have regrets or will be giving things up... I don’t know if they should go through with it.

That's where we're at. We're open to changing our minds depending on our situation, which is about as good as we could hope for (not rich but relatively secure and very happy). Since things are good and we feel fulfilled, it's hard to justify significant compromises. We're really clear that if either of us changes our mind, we'll talk about it, and we check in with each other from time to time just to make sure, but we already have more interests than we have time to properly nurture.

You shouldn't feel any guilt about existing, though.

Please note that effort that goes into raising children isn't just dumped somewhere that may return dividends someday. You develop a lot of skills and improve others a ton by being a parent.

My children (2 and 4) don't "prevent" me from hobbies any more than one hobby "prevents" me from pursuing other hobbies. I choose to spend time with them because it's rewarding to me to see them learn and grow. Don't get me wrong, they are excellent at making me feel like crap at times, but on the whole I enjoy and value my time with them, especially as they grow older.

If they decided to be world-class professionals in some are they would also have to give up other hobbies, dreams, and travel.

If they decided to know the inside-out of some hobby, they would also have to give up other hobbies, dreams, money, and travel.

Life is made of choices. They made one, what excluded a lot of others. It's a big choice, but it's not like the alternatives are completely free of constraints. Children also do not completely restrict those things, it's just one of the many restrictions that make their affordability limited, but not zero.

With children: ~100% chance because you'll be in your child's life.

I think that just means more children get less fulfilling lives.

At least that seems to be the case in countries where children are not subsidised.

On the contrary I'd bet that if both these services weren't subsidized so much, they'd be far cheaper. Nature will create the need either way.

How do you measure that statistically? All you have are personal experiences. Saying, "not statistics, isn't valid" is obtuse, it leaves you unable to understand anything that is difficult to measure at scale.

Somewhat off-tangent here, but this is a frequent misunderstanding of this particular quote. The actual quote is: “the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb” and it means the exact opposite of what we now use it for. The intended meaning is that relationships entered into as adults are much stronger and deeper than those we are forced into through accident of birth simply because they are intentional. While I hope my children will be there for me in old age, I know that I will be there for my wife and closest friends even though we are not bound by any particular genetic imperative.

I hadn't heard of that expression before, so I looked a little at the corresponding Wikipedia page [0] and the sources that talks about this quote [1 and 2]. I also looked at Quora question about the quote [3].

From what I understand, there is no way one with any certainty can say that: "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb” => "blood is thicker than water".

There doesn't seem to be a direct "the blood of the covenant . . ." quote either.

My own thought: I think it is possible that the meaning of both quotes can be true at the same time:

a) If you make a blood covenant with someone => Strong bond, and maybe stronger than with family members.

b) If something serious happens in your life, family bonds tend to be stronger than that of a friend, at least if you don't have some type of covenant (in a broad sense) with that friend.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water

[1] https://archive.org/details/shaggydogsblacks00jack/page/94/m...

[2] http://www.bac2torah.com/covenant-Print.htm#SectionII

[3] https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-phrase-The-blood-of-the-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water

straight up no true Scotsman. Literally, no true Scotsman.

Sometimes children are raised well and turn out to be little shits, but given that we're not drafting a scientific study in the comment section conversational generalities should be forgiven, unless you want every conversation to be so paralyzed by pedantry that no real content is discussed.

could you show us that data on that correlation to us from somewhere besides out your ass then?

Probably have friends that loyal, but they’ll all be the same age and you might just end up being the last one.

Hopefully your kids have a comfortable margin on you in your old age.

Our old friend Dunning-Kruger rather spoils this strategy. I know many people who have been abandoned by their children, but none who could proffer even the vaguest hint of why they might be to blame. Very few people intentionally set out to alienate their children, but plenty of people do it anyway.

Note that the entire perception of children has changed over the previous century, and the modern notion of emotionally as well as physically providing for children as a universal constant is a VERY new concept. We still haven't figured out how to do it en masse, although a decent chunk of the population seems to figure it out on their own.

Honestly, I appreciate the point counter point.

On the other hand, it's almost impossible to actually discuss certain socially-mandated topics objectively without someone playing the "emotionally stunted" card against anyone who takes the negative off the socially mandated position. And the poster in this case didn't call anyone names, and is also responding in a thread about worldwide birthrates. Far from being out of place and not reading the room, I think the second poster trying to effectively stigmatise his reply is the one in the wrong/ that can't read the room. If this is not the place for such a reply, it's hard to imagine where would be.

Being prudent about which battles to fight and which debates to pick up and what statements merit argument is part of understanding social norms.

I think the (inadvertent) tone-deafness can work both ways. The gp (gregfjohnson) in telling his personal account was also inadvertently tone-deaf to some potential readers.

If I can compress his comment into 2 parts:

- part 1: "I would like to contribute a bit of information. [...heartfelt story of the joys children and grandchildren...]" <-- can't criticize the part about personal joys

- part 2: "I highly recommend it." <-- this advice inadvertently rubs some readers the wrong way

Although some replies (from nostromo, drukenemo, etc) didn't agree with gregfjohnson, it was triggered by the "recommendation". A reader can dismiss part 2 (recommendation) without dismissing part 1 (personal joys) at all. There are 2 separate concepts there.

Likewise, someone else could write the opposite story, "I don't have the hassle of kids and can go vacations whenever I want. I highly recommend it." -- and a reader with happy children will dismiss the "recommendation" without invalidating the freedom of vacations.

tldr: just because you're relaying a wonderful personal story doesn't mean your "advice" will be accepted at face value because some readers don't see the positive personal anecdote as (logical) evidence for the advice.

It's not surprising that someone immediately jumped on it to argue the maths so to speak, but it is slightly disappointing even if predictable. IMHO it should be ok for someone to recommend something to you that you don't like without it being seen as an invitation to a fight.

They are not arguing over who is right or wrong, they are cooperating so that everyone is more informed.

So either way, there’s going to be work if you do not want to be alone.

The worst is when you put in the work and end up alone anyway. No one calls, no one cares, a life wasted on something that was ultimately meaningless. You could have done other things that brought you intrinsic joy.

How many of y'all are visiting elederly and helping them now? If you never help the elderly now, how can you expect anything else than lonliness when you are in their place?

One of the most tragic results of the "modern" American life is that we throw away are elderly as obsolete while any other sane societies treates them as the holders of wisdom.

Only a tiny minority of elders have any wisdom worth purveying in my experience. Most are as mediocre at 70 as they were at 25, and can't tell you anything except how to be as mediocre as they are. An even larger fraction actually are obsolete and haven't kept up to date with the latest cultural changes or technology.

I'll take advice from the 70+ year old who's still working and staying abreast of their field/maintaining good relationships with friends and family, or the 70+ year old who did something great once upon a time (and I'll limit the advice I take to said great thing and related subjects). The retiree who worked a mid-level factory job, begrudgingly learned how to check their email and largely lives alone/with their spouse in a rancher with Christian TV playing 24/7 who rants about whatever Sean Hannity said (a direct description of some of my relatives) probably less juice in the squeeze there from a wisdom perspective.

Most of everything is trash, there are no exceptions -- if we think there is an exception somewhere, it often comes from emotional bias.

Old or young, most people live a dull live of no practical value. People may be angry to hear that, but the fact they don't try to randomly make friends outside of their usual circles only shows a degree of hypocrisy.

That can be true. There is a difference, in my heart, between an "Elder" and an "old person".

I would advise you, if I may, to expand your experience.

By holding onto that narrow view (can we dare call it ageism?), you could be missing out on some truly amazing individuals whom might have something very important to convey to you and your generation.

This presents an opportunity where technology can make (and is making) a difference. It is also the reason why we want Longevity biotech to make our healthspan equal to our lifespans. We are already seeing the need of this during the COVID shutdowns

She's only got one life to live and she's stuck staying at home with him until he dies or at least that's seems to be how she feels.

Maybe to be put it another way she can't get herself to check him into an old folks home and effectively leave him so she can enjoy the last few years of her own life while she's still able to. She's healthy enough she could travel and do things that she want's but feels she has to stay put until he passes. That could be tomorrow or 5 years from now. 8 years ago they said he had 3 years to live.

That doesn't mean she doesn't love him but she does feel somewhat trapped.

I suppose my sister and I could help her and volunteer to watch over him for a week or two at a time though neither of us have jobs that would let us do that. But also, she married this man after we were both adults so while we like him as a person we feel no obligation like we might if he was our father or even the step father that raised us. Instead to us he's basically our mom's boyfriend.

It does make me think what I would do if I was him. Would I be self aware enough to check myself into an old folks home to let my wife or kids not have to take care of me? I believe I'd personally feel horrible by restricting the life of my loved ones. I'm sure I'd also feel horrible if they all abandoned me. I don't know which is worse. My currently healthy self wants to believe I'd value their freedom over my needs but my, future "old and needs constant care" self will probably feel different.