This is only partially true. We depressingly agreed to get my daughter a phone for her 8th birthday.
She's the last person in her class to have one. That means when we drop her off at a birthday, she's the one playing with a fake phone while all the other kids have real ones. She's the one at the end of the school day begging to use her friend's phone.
Social pressure matters and making your kid the odd one out sucks.
Obviously we will put strict limits on it but I honestly felt like I was stuck with two awful choices.
That is a real problem, but at least you were able to keep her off one until eight and I think that helps a lot - younger is far worse.
My kids are older (so the pressure was less a few years ago), and home education helped a bit (less school pressure, lots of parents with different rules to each other) but eventually I had to allow usage of of some things I was not happy with because that was where her friends were and how they arranged to meet up etc.
There are practical advantages to being able to communicate, especially when out alone and needing to be picked up or something. A dumb phone will do that perfectly well, of course.
Schools in the UK are banning (and state schools have to) the use of phones during school hours. The problem is that there is increasing need to use phones out of school. My daughter (when she went to sixth form college for A levels) needed a mobile app to use monthly bus tickets which were much cheaper, for example, and this sort of thing is getting worse.
Wow that's insane. I assumed kids get phones well after 10 and even then it's crazy. IMO good guideline is when they start to roam a bit on themselves, i.e. going to clubs, mates, I guess around 12?
My kids are begging me for phones and they are 8 and 10, I'm trying to hold out a few more years if i can, but once I get one for the older brother it's pretty much over. I think a smart watch is reasonable at first at least to get a gps tracker going, and they can still use it to text home if needed.
Mine begged for them at that age. We did burner flip phone in 6th grade and, towards end of 8th when they had shown they didn't lose them and didn't treat them as status icons, we would get something more reasonable and open. We never did lifetracker nor GPS tracking for a mix of practical (battery drain) and teaching (teach resilience) reasons.
Out kids are spread out in ages. They protested at first but we also remind them that older kids also have more chores and they will get their chance. Working so far.
Yea my kids span from 1 to 7, so it's too slippery slope. Even smart watch probably is too. And we living in tightly knit community so there isn't even a reason for them to be monitored so closely.
I've thought about this and while I agree with you completely, I think the reason why is not just society at large. Externally what most people see is the time suck, money suck, and frustration with teaching behavior, fixing bad behavior etc.
What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
how do i explain that my child running into my arms after his first day of daycare is a high ill be chasing for the rest of my life?
or the irrational pride when you see your kid flip over for the first time?
it's so many mundane moments that punch 100000x above their weight when its your kid having them.
the good parts of parenting sound like fake news (unless youre talking to other parents)
Agree 100%. I often tell expecting parents "All the hard stuff they tell you about; the sleep loss, the stress, the cost... All that stuff is true. But there's also all this amazing stuff they don't tell you about, which is also true."
I think that people probably tried to tell me about the amazing stuff, but I couldn't take it in. This created a very pleasant surprise for me when I found out about the good feels after the dread of just expecting everything I know to be upended with no reward.
You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
There‘s a lot of ancient biology at play in raising kids. You won’t get exactly this kind of feeling elsewhere. Doesn’t mean it has to be your kids though. You just need to be an important part of their life.
This is a fallacy. You don't need to live a situation to be able to comment about it.
Especially if we try to rationalize the choice. If you talk about "feelings", then fine. But be aware that "feelings" could simply be your hormone levels changing after having kids.
You don’t need to be a parent to be allowed to comment on or speculate about being a parent, but this is definitely one of those things you can’t guess at or estimate.
Until it is your kid in front of you you can’t know what you’ll feel as a parent. Maybe it’s all hormones and monkey brain, but that doesn’t make it any different.
Many people do not have that Hollywood Magic moment where “everything changed.” Some of my friends experienced this, some of them did not. None of us experienced what we thought we would.
Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion.
We are talking past each other because some/most parents in those discussion cannot get out of their self-centered view of the worlds based on "feelings". But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world, you should be able to substantiate that claim without going back to "feelings" that only you can feel.
> Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion.
Yes, they should. We are, after all, replying to the initial assertion that (and I quote) "you don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings [love, being needed, needing someone]".
> But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world
That wasn't a claim anybody made in this thread, and specifically everyone was talking from a personal perspective about parenthood, not making universal claims. Certainly not the person who wrote this (and to whom you indirectly replied):
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
If you don't like talking about feelings, fine. But this discussion was about feelings, not about some universal "most important thing in the world".
Sure. But if you want a rationale discussion about what matters in life as this blog post and parent commenter suggest you probably don't want to get influenced by feelings.
There is a ton of philosophy written around this. Feelings are a very self-centric view of the world. The goal of rationalization is to take a wider systemic view without being self-centered.
Because if you push feelings and chemistry to the max you could also make an argument that taking meth and heroin is the most important thing in the world, as the feelings coming out of it are very real.
This discussion is many level deeps based on a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life. And other grand similar statements.
>>> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
I don't think so. You specifically replied to a comment by calling it a "fallacy", when it was discussing feelings of parenthood. That's very specific and cannot be excused as arguing it was addressing the broader context of TFA. And the whole sub-thread was about feelings.
Also, nobody here -- the people you're debating with, I mean -- is arguing that having kids is universally the most meaningful thing anyone can do with their life; they are instead offering their personal perspectives. For example, in the sentence you quote:
> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life
The operating words are "I have done with my life"; it's not telling you what you should do with yours.
In fact, the whole debate in this sub-thread was sparked by a very aggressive comment (not yours), but which you chose to implicitly defend:
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Well, whether the person saying the above has or doesn't have children is entirely relevant. It's not a "fallacy". We're discussing feelings, even the above comment acknowledges it; and in relation to parenthood the fact remains: these feelings must be experienced, you cannot truly comment on them otherwise. I mean, you can, but your opinion wouldn't be of much value.
Read again the comment that prompted the above comment:
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
Really, it's all about subjective feelings. Which, essentially, is all that matters in the context of this conversation. If you don't have children, you won't have felt like this. You simply cannot. So it's not a fallacy to ask if you have them.
edit:
> a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life
Remember that once you have kids you are stuck in that situation forever. There is a lot of coping and trying to persuade yourself that this is the best thing in the world. It might as well be as there is no escape anyways!
You actually do. Getting a dog or having nephews isn't close to the same thing.
It's kind of like balance. You can read all about balance in a book and watch YouTube videos but until you get on a bicycle and experience it you'll never really "get" balance.
You can't imagine until you experience it. It's as simple as that.
I can honestly say, I think there was a chemical change in my brain or a biological equivalent when my kids were born. That is to say, something more primal than the "love" you can get from a spouse/SO; you feel it in your bones, deep down, always on and changed forever.
I think it could be possible to replicate this without children, but it is extremely uncommon. Ask any parent if they could accomplish the same before they had kids. I have never met a parent yet who thinks it's possible.
This is a very snarky, flippant, uninformed take that serves no purpose other than to tear others down in an effort to validate your decision.
Have kids or don’t, live your life the way you want. But taking unsolicited dumps on other people’s decisions is a pretty lame way to live.
And yes, you do have to have kids in order to understand what it feels like to have kids. You do not know what it’s like, as evidenced by your thinking having kids entitles a parent to their love. Let me tell you clearly and unequivocally: it does not. Love is earned. A family is a big lesson in that.
To use a less charged example: I can’t claim to know what strawberries taste like if I never try a strawberry.
TL;DR: I understand anti-natalism is in vogue right now, but some of y’all are really shitty about it.
Other people’s choices have externalities that harm society. I don’t need validation for not doing something that benefits no one and harms everyone. It’s already obvious that abstaining from this selfish and self-indulgent activity is the only intelligent choice.
Furthermore I don’t need to shoot heroin to know that shooting heroin feels extremely good and that the people
that do it really enjoy the feeling. I also don’t need to shoot heroin to see the harms it causes to the people that do it, and those around them.
You are trying to make a logical argument for the observed preferences of an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA. It’s a shame that so many people are blinded to that by instinct and emotion.
If I were developing nanotech grey goo in my basement, everyone would rightly point out that it’s a risk to society. Yet, humans doing the exact same thing (just more slowly) are praised.
People get unreasonably defensive when confronted with these facts, as you have demonstrated.
Can you name one thing that benefits from people creating more selfish and self-replicating creatures other than the emotional state of people who share some of their DNA?
PS: No mother “earns” the love of a one or two year old. It’s automatic and meritless. To assert otherwise to bolster your argument is obviously silly and should clue you in to how shaky the logical foundation for your claims is.
Forgeties79 is talking about understanding parenthood at the experiential level. You can read as much as you want about how heroin makes people feel extremely good, you will never understand at the experiential level how it actually feels until you use it yourself. Not that I recommend...
Also you seem to be saying that not having children is the "only intelligent choice". Intelligent for what? Then you state that we are "an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA." while in the same breath excluding yourself from being said system, calling yourself logical and calling your preference superior to others.
And "harms everyone" assumes the damages of the life you create outweigh the goods. That's your value judgment, not a measurement, and plenty of the people actually created have thought it through and disagree...
As for one benefit? Existing people benefit, including you. Everything keeping you alive was built by people who had to be born.
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Peak HN comment.
Technically you don't "need" anything in life besides food and shelter. You don't need to have children, or loved ones, or friends, or ambitions, or projects, or goals... but life is very sad if you miss all of them.
We have one annually for my company. It's at a casino, with a few scheduled meals and some activities (video game room, trivia done by a professional company).
It's voluntary and employees are allowed to bring their spouse. I think it helps a lot with communication, especially since we are a distributed team and most peoplr don't see each other.
But it's hard for me to know for sure, no one tells the owners the truth. It is voluntary and almost everyone attends. I think most people think of it as a free vacation.
> I like to spend the company budget on blow and hookers, therefore it makes sense for me to invite all the employees to a strip club as it is a little more restrained.
I would guess that the casino is a relatively cheap space that can do entertainment and conferences and food, and it's not being chosen for the gambling aspects
I wouldn't call it team building. I just think of it as a reminder that we are all friends that we all have families and struggles. We're all human and doing our best.
It's at a casino because it's near our facility, has conference rooms, event spaces, entertainment, and the weather doesn't matter.
Sometimes some people sit at a table and play while hanging out and that's fine. But it's not really about drinking or gambling. Just having a little fun together and getting to know each other and our +1s on a more personal level.
Not as shocking when you realize you are wasting your downtime with work colleagues. I’d rather have control over my downtime regardless of who is paying.
Yes and I'll become another space industry. Cleanup. Sort of like how (coal/ocean/etc) pollution is both a problem and multi billion dollar a year industry.
Hardly, and not by a factor of ten - at best it allows for digital mapping and (unreliably) replaces an ePirb.
What it does do, for sure, is encourage people with no proper grounding in multi day off road adventuring to have a go and die through lack of prior experience and skills.
Can you source a citation referring to people that had "no proper grounding in multi day off road adventuring", and were thus "encouraged" to " go and die through lack of prior experience and skills" via Starlink?
Whether you like it or not, Starlink being an easily-accesible internet service has likely saved dozens of noobs from certain death by offering emergency eSIM services, GPS navigation, or communciation systems that they wouldn't otherwise have. Can I prove it objectively? Likely not (outside of forum anecdotes), but I wasn't the first to make a claim with the burden to do so.
> Can you source a citation referring to people that had "no proper grounding in multi day off road adventuring"
Sure - West Australian newspaper pretty much any week of the year - tourists come from all over the globe to visit the vast untamed outback, rent a 4x4, head out, and get into life threatening (sometimes life ending) trouble despite having a phone connection via either mobile towers or starlink. You know, no charge, no backup, no paper maps, no experience, etc.
Whether you like it or not, ePiRBs being an easily accesible service has actually saved dozens of noobs and experienced personal from certain death by offering emergency service alerting - Fact! (and no internet required)
No, I don't like it. Because it relies on someone getting a specialized piece of hardware in advance of an emergency. That's a silly notion.
You could do that, or you could do the 21st century thing, and put up enough satellites to have emergency-grade LTE coverage across the entire country. Compatible with any smartphone.
> it relies on someone getting a specialized piece of hardware in advance of an emergency.
Like Starlink? Glad we agree.
> to have emergency-grade LTE coverage across the entire country.
Literally does not stop people dying and is not a substitute for knowing what you're doing in remote areas.
The claim was:
For all its minuses the internet makes these long trips 10x easier.
which is false - at best it's a 5% improvement on what was required as prep for long remote trips before Starlink.
A big issue with yelling help! from a remote location rather than having the skill set to self rescue is that now third parties (rescuers) are putting themselves at risk and using their time and resources which may or may not be reimbursed.
In a perfect world, everyone is perfectly knowledgeable and prepared for any eventuality and nothing bad and unexpected ever happens at all.
May I remind you what world are we living in?
Denying emergency comms to people who didn't buy specialized hardware because "they should have prepared better" sounds like social darwinism to me.
Especially in an age when everyone has in their pocket a smartphone that's crammed full of advanced RF tech. Starlink has Direct to Cell on new sats, iPhones can use GEO satcom - what's your excuse?
So, you want to save people, but you also want people who were not "prepared for remote areas" to just die somewhere, out of contact and out of your sight, and you also want to bitch about how stupid and unprepared they were?
Similar things happen in hiking, people who shouldn't be there get encouraged by by how accessible information is to do things whereas before (most) people got info from someone knowledgeable.
That's great, they still are bound by physics to spend ~70% of their time over the ocean. I would guess ~80%+ of their time is spent where there are effectively no people.
Right now we do not even have the antenna technology in current high end smartphones for 'easy to use, normal speed' mobile to satelite communication.
And funny enough, the more local mobile phones you would have, which want to send data to a satelite, the harder the problem gets due to interference.
With 5g we do already a lot of beam forming etc. Try beamforming into 500km space with uncoordinated random amount of mobile devices with very very little sending power and one satelite 'beamforming' its a few hundred square miles.
Even if you control for age and wealth, the people who used iPhones in 2008, i.e. tech hipsters, are obviously different in tangible ways from the people who didn't use iPhones in 2008. It's not possible to prove causality from that.
Are the tech hipsters disproportionately in the areas already covered by AT&T? It seems plausible, if Apple and AT&T were targeting similar demographics that Apple would choose AT&T as its first partner. But it's on the edge of weird correlations where the burden of proof starts to fall on the person disputing that the study is unbiased, rather than on the researchers to rule out every possible correlation.
Alternatively, maybe you are arguing that even if iPhones caused a decline in birth rate among tech hipsters, that doesn't transfer to the population at large. This is both less believable and less valuable as a criticism of the study: even if the result only holds in one demographic group it's still an interesting finding.
Aren't iPhones the first sexy enough phone for more than tech hipsters? I still remember BlackBerry (aka CrackBerries), which was what business types used. And then iPhone came along, and pinch-to-zoom was such a sexier UX.
Sheesh, when the addictive scrolling was scrolling through your emails and BB Messenger messages...
Or, the kind of people who bought iPhones in 2008 were a different subset of the population than those who didn’t and as such they have different opinions and preferences when it comes to family and kids?
With that said, I can also see that infinite entertainment and infinite information makes you deprioritize having children.
But it’s far from proof, this study. It’s more like “I found some numbers that support my already existing opinion, so let’s run with that”.
She's the last person in her class to have one. That means when we drop her off at a birthday, she's the one playing with a fake phone while all the other kids have real ones. She's the one at the end of the school day begging to use her friend's phone.
Social pressure matters and making your kid the odd one out sucks.
Obviously we will put strict limits on it but I honestly felt like I was stuck with two awful choices.