victor809 wrote:Tail... you are incorrect on this one. First off, the concept of "maximizing happiness" is an economic concept. Don't think that I'm interjecting my own personal beliefs regarding love and happiness here. This is simple economics, not psychology. Second, assuming that you have a problem with "love and happiness" being equated with money, you forget that there is no trade off here. The parents are still the same people who have treated their children whatever way they've treated them their whole life. The only decision being made at the moment is "Do I give my children a percentage of this money now, so that they can receive 100% of it, or do I keep the money for myself and when my children get it, they will only receive 75% of it (or whatever the tax rate is)?" They are still going to hug their kids just as much as before. But they are making a decision as to whether their kids will have a maximal amount of money now, or a smaller amount later (and using it themselves in the meantime). Most people apparently choose to use it themselves and give their kids less at a later time.
Secondly, you're assuming that there is some sort of "mortgaging of the future" for a "potentially infinitesimal effect". You do know what another word for "potentially infinitesimal effect" is, right? "Potentially enormous effect". seriously, that's like the most meaningless statement. you're claiming that this unknown fix to an environmental problem is 1, going to mortgage the future (... without even seeing it you know this) and 2, may have the potential chance to have a small effect, or may have the potential chance to have a medium effect, or may have the potential chance of having a huge effect.
Your answer smacks of a lack of caring for your kids. I mean, if I had kids... and if I liked them (lets not get too hasty... they'd likely be sh#theads) my answer would be something like "huh, well, we should probably find a way to fix that... and if it's going to be really expensive, perhaps we should find a way to cut costs elsewhere... maybe we should involve other nations in resolving the issue. Hey, I wonder if there's a way I could make money off this so I could increase the amount of money I can leave to my kids too." Or something to that extent, I don't know... I'm sure 98.2% of kids are sticky little sh@ts, so I really don't blame parents for not liking them that much. I just find the hypocrisy amusing. :)
Again, you are being too simplistic.
Loving your children does not equate to giving them all your money. It means balancing work and play. Being a happy person allows you to be a happy parent.
Some of the best parents in the world don't leave 1 cent to their kids. Some didn't pay one semester of their kids college. And yet they love them and you can't comprehend that.
Further, it's not a stretch to say that many who DO leave a bundle and pay for 100% of college don't give one rats azz about their kids.
It's no wonder you don't want kids. You are unable to see the big picture. Raising a child is not a study on "economic concepts versus maximizing happiness". Everybody has a different balance. Many get the balance wrong, but that doesn't mean they should resort to charts and graphs and an independent study.
As for the lasting effect being small or enormous? That's not the point. Of course it could be devastating.
But if you take a hike in the mountains, each step you make could dislodge a pebble that falls into a rock that rolls onto a boulder that plummets down the mountain and through a dam that bursts and wipes out the town.
Do you want to live in a world that bans hiking because of this?