(no title)
DashRattlesnake | 8 years ago
It's kinda violating a social contract. Everyone's the product of thousands of people over thousands of generations who chose to have kids. By choosing not to have kids you also choose to not contribute the the labor force that will likely take care of you in your old age. You can say all you want about contributing money or inventions, but money is just a claim on future labor and few people's inventions are really that valuable.
adventured|8 years ago
The problem is, now you're stepping into quantifying the context on heavily subjective terms. Here's how that goes then:
How valuable have most of the last 15 billion people been on average? How about the bottom 50% of those people in terms of productivity and what they contributed to the betterment (subjective) of humanity or the earth? How valuable, in similar terms, have the bottom 10% of those people been?
And that's why - among dozens of other good reasons - it's entirely unreasonable to judge a person's life in such a manner.
brango|8 years ago
Chaebixi|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
thriftwy|8 years ago
It's not actually so clear cut. In all times there was a huge sways of people who won't have kids. Handmaids, sailors, mercenaries, servants, slaves, etc, etc. Some of them could have children but it was never guaranteed.
This was offset by other people who'll have more children. Sometimes it wasn't. At all times a lot of lines will wither. Some vast tribes will be reduced to a few dozen families.
Social contract is XX century construct and obviously unsustainable at that. Once children stopped being source of labor but labor sinks, it tried to also became unconscionable contract. As in, everybody tries to slack off their duty while praising it to other people. It's like with conscription.
JoeAltmaier|8 years ago