I disagree with his fundamental premise that people with children can see the interests of society better.
I don’t have children, but I have heard from every possible source that once you have children they become your world.
How is a person expected to reason clearly about the interest of millions of people when they are running an ancient biological program focused on the interests of a tiny family unit?
edit: I once saw the argument that having family doens’t make you a better person. Having family makes you a ruthless user and taker on behalf of your family. Most of the stories you hear of people giving in to corruption, happen because those people can’t afford to lose their jobs, because they have mouths to feed. Once you have kids, you must choose whether you value your kids over your civic responsibility, or vice-versa.
I disagree with his fundamental premise that people with children can see the interests of society better.
I don’t have children, but I have heard from every possible source that once you have children they become your world.
How is a person expected to reason clearly about the interest of millions of people when they are running an ancient biological program focused on the interests of a tiny family unit?
edit: I once saw the argument that having family doens’t make you a better person. Having family makes you a ruthless user and taker on behalf of your family. Most of the stories you hear of people giving in to corruption, happen because those people can’t afford to lose their jobs, because they have mouths to feed. Once you have kids, you must choose whether you value your kids over your civic responsibility, or vice-versa.
People with children won’t have the time to research issues too deeply, and they will be sleep deprived for several years.
They make better sheep.
There are plenty of people with children who vote against their children’s best interests.
Edit: misread your disagree as agree