As with his recent statement on Steve Jobs's death, I suspect he's adopting an extreme position in response to a normative position he opposes. I think that's kind of how he operates.
I don't like the societal expectation that children are inherently to be welcomed either. In some ways I wish I had the nerve to respond as forthrightly as RMS, although I'm also glad I have sufficient social self-preservation instinct not to.
I really don't want to be negative about Steve Jobs at the moment, especially somewhere like HN where it's conceivable people who knew him in real life might read it, but I am getting fairly tired of the endless hagiography, and especially of semi-informed people telling me how enormous and positive his influence on my life has supposedly been. While I don't think RMS's statement was very sensible, I think perhaps I can sympathise with his motivation.
Honestly I love the comment on reproduction. TBH single cells can reproduce, but having a child who is happy, healthy, and well educated is harder than any computer programming I have or ever will do. So in the end that person should take time to spend with his child.
However:
"It's like demanding that an atheist pray, lest he not "respect" the religious people he is surrounded by." in response to the outrage at Stallman's lack of caring for people announcing birthings. I think this is a great response. It also is true for Stalman's response to Jobs' death, he may shit on him all he wants, it is his rights, appearing to be a nut-case is a side-effect but that does not change a lot of his actually legitimately good beliefs. And Jobs definitely was in major conflict with OSS (see VLC trying to get on the iPhone, which concluded that Apple's app store is not compatible with OSS license requirements)
Parts are, parts are not. I know kids of wealthy individuals who are terribly unhappy, and kids of dead poor individuals who are the happiest kids I've ever met. Its about the time spend with your kids and the caring you put into your child's needs.
A lot of it is about random chance. Your kid could get kicked in the head by a mule and spend the rest of her life suffering from severe brain damage, and that's not your fault. Your kid could hang out with the wrong group of kids in high school and end up as a stockbroker or otherwise doing something worthless. You can't control who your kids hang out with in high school or even in elementary school, you can't control their genes (much), you can't control most of what happens to them.
Of course there are lots of kids who suffer because of things their parents did, and you can avoid some of that. But mostly your child's life is not in your control. And that's a good thing.
I don't think the issue here is that Stallman lacks empathy, although he does, but that he's attacking a cherished societal value: that reproducing is a good thing to do. You would get the same negative reaction to someone declaring that Christianity is just another false religion to a bunch of Christians, or that atheism is a dangerous and foolish belief system to a bunch of atheists.
However, given that this value is currently the gravest threat to human survival and human welfare, I wish more people would attack it.
Empathy and practicality, however, dictate that the time to attack natalism is when people are considering conceiving a child, not when they're struggling with postpartum sleep deprivation.
It doesn't even make logical sense, what he's saying. If you've had a kid, it is in everyone's categorical best interests for you to do the best possible job raising it. The guy didn't say he was putting Emacs on hold so he could conceive a child.
I don't think Stallman was trying to persuade someone to do something with that email; I think he was speaking his mind about the circumstances that already obtained. I agree that it doesn't propose any coherent plan of action to improve the situation.
My only problem with it all is that to me, there's just nothing better than seeing your child happy and knowing that you made that happen, you made some human being's life really good.
You're wrong. I saw this in my Twitter timeline and thought it was interresting post despite its age. I wasn't aware RMS had railed on Jobs. I'm no Jobs fanboy.
Attention, brilliant people: don't be a boor. How is that not relevant? (my wife gives me this advice frequently, it's a good one for hackers to internalize)
I don't like the societal expectation that children are inherently to be welcomed either. In some ways I wish I had the nerve to respond as forthrightly as RMS, although I'm also glad I have sufficient social self-preservation instinct not to.
I really don't want to be negative about Steve Jobs at the moment, especially somewhere like HN where it's conceivable people who knew him in real life might read it, but I am getting fairly tired of the endless hagiography, and especially of semi-informed people telling me how enormous and positive his influence on my life has supposedly been. While I don't think RMS's statement was very sensible, I think perhaps I can sympathise with his motivation.