[detaro]

His opinions(!) provide an useful reference point, especially since I can trust that they are on one extreme end of the spectrum. I certainly don't agree with all of them, but they make me think about where I make concessions and where I maybe missed that. I rather read an opinion and decide "no, I won't go that far/that is ok for me" instead of being told "all is fine".

[gbog]

Some of RMS opinions are extreme, because they take to an unbearable point some consequence of some ideology. For example refusing to have kids is extreme, most people cannot afford psychologically to not have kids.

But RMS opinions about Facebook are not extreme, he doesn't propose to refuse to have friends who are using Facebook, for example. He says just don't use it, it's common sense, just like don't eat fast food is common sense. Common sense is sometimes very uncommon, kudos to those who keep their mind clear in our messy times.

[forgotpasswd3x]

> most people cannot afford psychologically to not have kids.

Wait, really?

[gbog]

Yes. Having kids is the simplest and most natural way to get this sentiment of usefulness and achievement that is much harder to get from a daily job. RMS and other creators get this from their creations, but it is not given to everyone to have enough talent and dedication to make something useful to the others. So when they die they leave something behind. Another option is to believe in God and afterlife, which is just denying that we are mortals, but it requires a very strong self-persuasion skill, which is also not given to everyone. For me, I will just leave my kids behind, and it is enough.

(By the way, leaving a new new Javascript framework does not count, sadly.)

[icebraining]

Huge numbers of couples in Europe, Japan, Korea, etc have decided to not have kids, so clearly they can "afford" to not have them. Unless you can show a link between not having kids and having psychological problems (and I don't mind just a simple correlation on the whole society, I mean per couple), I'd say that's just like, your opinion, man.

[tomp]

> Huge numbers of couples in Europe, Japan, Korea, etc have decided to not have kids, so clearly they can "afford" to not have them.

Do you have any proof of this? IMO, the declining birth rate is more of a consequence of a huge number of couples deciding to only have one child (so one child per 2 people -> eventual extinction).

[icebraining]

Among women born in 1960, 17% in the U.S. were childless at approximately age 40, compared with 22% in the United Kingdom, 19% in Finland and the Netherlands, and 17% in Italy and Ireland. Rates ranged from 12% to 14% for Spain, Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Sweden, and from 7% to 11% for several Eastern European countries and Iceland.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-a...

The population of childless aged couples, especially women, is expected to grow rapidly. In Italy and the US, for example, the population of childless women aged 65 or older is expected to nearly quadruple over the next four decades.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/childless-choice

Statistics in the UK for women by age (e.g. 20% for age 50):

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc211/i...

[detaro]

"Don't use Facebook" is currently not common sense. Many people are on Facebook and have thought about all these arguments and decided it is worth it to them.

(In the meantime, fewer people seem to consider it common sense to be on Facebook, at least it seems to me less and less people are surprised if someone doesn't use it)

[gbog]

Well, I'm reading the Histoire de la Revolution Francaise (Michelet) right now, and something very stunning is that everyone, even the most faithful revolutionnaries, was still "royalist" in 1790. They all had "thought about all these arguments and decided it is worth it to them", because of perceived "common sense". Being a republican was considered extreme even in the left wing of the nascent Assemblee Nationale. And a few month later, it became obvious that monarchy needed to be definitely removed from the Nation, and "common sense" changed to the opposite. So the real common sense (i.e. the "right way to think about it") was to be republican.

Another example is abolition of death penalty in France by Mitterand: right now we French/Europeans believe it is very barbarian to still have Justice use this gothic expedient, and rightly so if you ask me. But just before its abolition polls showed most people opposed the abolition. A new, better "common sense" replaced an old habit falsy believed to follow "common sense".

So back to Facebook: right now most people do not know it, but it is not unlikely that the retrospective "common sense" of the future will be to avoid Facebook today. And I think a much saner regulation on what can be advertised and sold as food to human being in the US will also be retrospective common sense. And not driving cars is also common sense. The list is quite long...

[edited typos and grammar]

[detaro]

Ok, yes, I agree in so far that what counts as common sense is temporary. Added a "current" to my post above.

[amirmc]

> "... and have thought about all these arguments and decided it is worth it to them."

I suspect 'most people' aren't even remotely aware of such arguments. Nor of the effects that choices now will have on their future selves.