[Blarg]

That's one way to look at it. But there seems to me at least as much going for taking my outlook as rock solid reasonable, which is that when having kids, thinking about what you're going to be able to do for the kid comes first, not what the kid is going to be able to do for you. It bothers me a great deal that when people talk about having kids, it very often comes across as though they are talking about accessories to their own lives, as if sprucing up an outfit, rather than taking the kid's point of view and putting much thought into the ramifications for the child of creating a life.

It seems backwards and selfish to me to just have kids and only then think about your responsibilities to them. To me, the least a parent owes a kid is an excellent chance at the same living standard as his parents. That doesn't doesn't seem in the least overly cautious to me; more like, "Hey, fair is fair." It seems to me a minimal standard to strive for, not an outlandish one.

I think that very clearly reflects the "kid first" outlook, and that's the one that I think is healthy and responsible. The "me first" outlook seems fine when you're a kid yourself and being self-centered is fine, or at least minimally damaging for getting through life. But when you become a parent, I think you have to step up your game dramatically, and if you're not prepared to do that, you are not ready for parenthood, no matter how much you want children.

It even seems to me kind of sad and odd that our standards may have slipped so badly that being able to give your kid a better life, that progressing through the generations, has become just another option and not a compelling one. That the moral flabbiness of our society may have extended so deeply even into such matters so dear to us as raising our children strikes me as an enormous moral and ego failure of society and individuals.

It certainly would indicate that downward mobility will only increase and that the unsuccessful family could be moving much closer to the norm.