Calling children 'life choices' (something that happens far too often here on HN) is... interesting, to say the least. That you believe that other people's 'life choices' (in this case, children) are 'holding them back' is also interesting.
I suggest you have some prejudices that you need to resolve.
There are many ways to refer to children. I've noticed on HN children frequently get referred to as a 'life choice', and grouped with things such as student debt and mortgages.
The post I objected to then referred to people being 'held back' by such life choices. That's a judgement call right there by the poster, and it's a poor one. In my opinion, it's misanthropic.
Yes, having children is technically a life-choice in the West. However, I've noticed a disturbing pattern where people classify children with things when discussing them. The humanity of the child is de-emphasized and the classification as a thing is the focus.
It's one of the acceptable prejudices in Silicon Valley, and like ageism in the Valley, it's so normalized that many people don't even notice it.
ryandrake is the one who brought childcare expenses into the thread, suggesting that that was one factor that limited people's freedom. uhtred is the one who responded with the reference to "[holding] back". I'm not sure which of the two (or both) you're objecting to.
It is literally true. I have two kids (100% by choice and I'm thrilled with that choice). However, they absolutely hold me back from doing things that I might do if we were still DINKs or if I were single. Being married (another choice that makes me extremely happy) holds me back from doing some other things that I'd do if I were single. None of the statements in this paragraph should be construed as meaning that I dislike my wife or kids.
I don't see the misanthropism in making a factual statement that some people feel that they can't drop their job and travel the world for a year because they have kids (or a mortgage, or student loans, or any other reason that ryan listed).
Devils Advocate: The desire for kids is wired into us at a very low level. It's not quite a basic survival need but, but it's near that level psychologically.
> Devils Advocate: The desire for kids is wired into us at a very low level. It's not quite a basic survival need but, but it's near that level psychologically.
There are other things like solving problems by violence that are similarly wired. This does not mean that in the modern society this is acceptable. In the same way having children should be considered as an expensive life choice.
How is it not a basic survival need? Most societies don't have social security, pension funds etc. So, kids are the only way to survive beyond the state of being young & healthy.
> How is it not a basic survival need? Most societies don't have social security, pension funds etc. So, kids are the only way to survive beyond the state of being young & healthy.
But this does not hold in the first world. So in the first world it is a (IMHO rather expensive) life choice.
I suggest you have some prejudices that you need to resolve.