Skip to main content

Free Software: Stallman and Births

Since I have four children, I found the following quote from Stallman to be very disturbing:
Hundreds of thousands of babies are born every day. While the whole phenomenon is menacing, one of them by itself is not newsworthy. Nor is it a difficult achievement—even some fish can do it.
When a fellow Emacs developer said that he had just become a father, Stallman replied, "I am sorry to hear it."

Perhaps he was just trolling. Well, Stallman's right. Even fish can reproduce. However, even a dog knows not to piss on his friend's leg.


tshirtman said…
I though a long time ago that the fact he had no childs was a bit sad, and that maybe he just did not took the time, I'm glad I did not ask him ^^, he his a great man but nobody's perfect, and it seems a lot of people don't especially want to breed, even if I find this curious...
Ian Bicking said…
I do think there's something weird about the idea that, since overpopulation is a general problem, individual children are also a problem, and that some environmentalists feel they are morally obligated not to have children. (Presumably this is Stallman's stance.)

But I would expect that a conscientious person's children will be a net benefit to the world, and along with that, a conscientious person should to impress this obligation on their children.

But of course, that's not the circumstances of a lot of births. And if every potential parent had access to the information and resources to use birth control as they choose, probably there wouldn't be a very rapid increase in population (at least I've heard of surveys that imply that). But of course the whole thing is confusing... there's a choice you can make early on, but once you have a child you have to put the very option of choice behind you and fully embrace the choice you've made -- which makes it hard to reflect on the choice in its then-historical context. And what was a choice becomes a person, who is able to make their own choices, all of which creates a feedback cycle making deductive reasoning hard and prone to misfires like Stallman's.
tshirtman said…
I agree that to "undo" a children is a generaly reprobed action, and thus cannot be achieved easily.

Maybe stallman just disaprove fork()?
Carl Trachte said…
It's too bad Stallman is such an a-hole. He's done so much, but he just can't keep from constantly pissing people off.
Anonymous said…
He's probably just jealous, because people with children have had sex.
Brandon L. Golm said…

remind me what I told you like 4 years ago please.
Sofia said…
Ian: I can't argue with your logic on the value of environmentally conscious people educating children, but one can do that without producing the children themselves. There are plenty of children who are in dire need of someone to care for them. In times like these, adoption and teaching are vital public services.

All that said, there's no reason for Stallman to be a jerk about it. One can state their opinion without being rude.
Unknown said…
Sigh. This was on a private mailing list about 15 years ago. Richard S. had gotten tired of a recent trend where the normally eclectic mailing list had been taken over by constant birth announcements, announcements of impending Kindergarten, etc. So he ranted back, as was the custom of that list.

Every few years, Richard T. (not Richard S.) would forge a repost to the list to stir up trouble. Again, the keeps with the custom of that list.
jjinux said…
Great comments, guys. Ian, that was very insightful.

Brandon wrote:
> remind me what I told you like 4 years ago please.

Probably something like, "Don't listen to Stallman."

I just don't think Stallman will every realize how harmful his statements are for the FSF. I will readily admit that Stallman is my hero. However, this is solid proof that I should take everything he says with a massive grain of salt.
jjinux said…
> Again, the keeps with the custom of that list.

I hope you're right. However, saying "I'm sorry to hear that" when someone gives birth is not acceptable. That's not a humorous rant.
Brandon L. Golm said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
I've had more interaction with Richard S. than I'd like. Most of JJ and Shannon are saying are reflections of his assumed persona. The truth is a bit more complicated. Yes, he is a great coder. Yes, he is smarter, in terms of raw horsepower, than you or I. Many of his suggestions appear to be, in order, 1) an explosive rant, 2) an acceptable alternative, 3) a deeply laid plan to make free software continuously more pervasive.

Neither underestimate him nor worship him. Your best single insight would be his original short story on DRM and academic papers. It's the dystopia he fights against.
jjinux said…
> I've had more interaction with Richard S. than I'd like.

I've read three of Stallman's books and I've hugged him in person. I've always liked him despite his rough edges. I was just taken aback by his devaluation of human life and his disrespect for his fellow programmers.

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p