Notch, if you're reading this, my deepest sympathy. I understand the devastation of losing a parent; I lost my mother about a year ago. I'm still not "back to normal" and don't know if I ever will be.
I used to do art, music, and comedy, and even practiced my religion, often just for her. I loved to make her laugh and it was so easy to make her proud. In the past year, I have done none of that stuff and don't know when or if I ever will.
Programming is one of the few things I've ever done that I never did just to say, "Hey Ma! Look what I did!" She never understood it. So in the past year, it's one of the few things I've been able to do. I've written a ton of code and taken great comfort it in.
I won't even attempt to give advice; none of the advice I've received from well-intentioned others in the past year has been helpful. I just hope you, me, and others like us find comfort in the wonderful memories of beloved parents and find a way to move on with our lives.
My mom passed away when I was 10, 14 years ago now (she was 37, brain aneurism, even if the docs had known nothing could have been done to prevent it), and I know that it affected me, and it has affected what I do. What is considered normal though? After 14 years I still miss her, I still think about her, and even-though I am not religious and logically I know she is no longer here, and can't feel or see the things I do, I do hope she is proud of me.
In all honesty there really is no "normal", you attempt to go on with your life, the reminders become less and less yet at times you will look at something and instantly have a flash back.
I wish you the best of luck, losing anyone close is terrible, so far I've been incredibly lucky that I still have my grandparents on both side of the family, and my dad, and my three younger siblings, and that we've all shared the same experience makes it easier to slowly attempt to move on.
As someone dealing with my parents' shift into their "older years" and wondering about the future, I found myself quite moved by this. Thank you for sharing it.
I for one, salute you for having the awareness to know that snippets of advice won't help and having such a thoughtful response. I often feel like the stock advice given in these situations just makes me feel worse.
I'm constantly impressed by people that have the ability to share their personal life with the world in an honest way that reveals the vulnerabilities we all share as humans. It is so much more refreshing than the opposite, where we pretend our lives are perfect and we never experience moments of doubt or melancholy.
It is rare to see someone make a post like this. This is precisely what makes it so refreshing and beautiful.
I agree with being impressed, but I am not sure the opposite of being able to share is pretending we are perfect. Maybe, it's just being unable to.
My dad passed away eleven months ago, no day goes by without thinking of him, and I may be able to get to the end of this without crying, but I can't manage a blog post.
My mother committed suicide when I was five years old. She was lost for seven months and I never really understood she was dead until several months had passed. It took years before I actually came to the point where I could cry. Believe me, it is better to embrace the sorrow now and deal with it rather than to keep it within you for the rest of your life.
I too lost my Father, but at a young age (12). Deal with your emotions as you can, and take time for yourself. That is the only advice that I found is portable across different people.
Its been 15 years for me, and it gets easier with time. But recently I hit the 15 year mark and just lost it. For some reason that number was bigger than any year previously. I suspect it had something to do with the fact that I have lived 55% of my life without my father around.
But let's not fall into the trap of "honest, open sharing" is better than pretending, that pretending is bad, or that either is better than not sharing at all. Lots of people make their lives better by pretending enough so that it becomes so. Lots of people also aren't interested in sharing at all. Lots of what appears to be open honest vulnerability sharing is also posturing and pretending, but it's hard for an outsider to know.
My aunt went through the same situation. She became clinically depressed for several years after going through the IVF process several times. She was on medication and had completely withdrawn from life. It wasn't until they decided instead to adopt a child from Korea that she changed, almost overnight.
After the successful adoption, my aunt completely changed. All she ever wanted was a family and to raise children. Adopting their son from Korea inspired her again. She got off medication and returned to her fun, outgoing self. It was an amazing transformation. They wee both in their mid forties when they decided to adopt.
I'm so sorry for your lose, but please, don't get discouraged and give up on having a family. Consider adoption. There are so many different kinds of adoption available these days and there are so many children in need of good loving families like yours.
If you need more information, DM me and I can go in more detail about their experience.
There are options available for people that want to have a family, and god knows there are far to many children out there that can really, really use a loving parent or two.
As a father of two I may come off as smug here, but I can tell you that the first year of a child's life is more going through the motions. The following years are really where you can make a difference, and where they certainly make a difference in you.
I seriously hope once they are over their grief period, that couple takes your advice. A child out there could have his life changed forever because of it.
Thanks for sharing. Reading other's stories like this helps me a bit - my fiance had a miscarriage in October and I'm still not 100% sure that I've dealt with it properly.
We are lucky as we have a 1 year old son but we really would love more. My sympathies are with you.
It may be refreshing, but people aren't drawn to it. It's the same idea as to why people are drawn to assholes, why people respect someone who speaks their mind more than someone who is a poeple pleaser etc. You speak like this for long enough around people, and they just wont want to be around you.
Every now and then, like you said, it's refreshing.
You and gxs haven't said different things. Being open allows connections to be made. That is what happened here.
After those connections are made, if a large percentage of future communication consisted of these types of messages, it becomes a large burden to the recipient. Obviously Notch's post doesn't come near this.
That isn't to say you can't open up to your friends/family. We need to do that. It is just important that you give as much as you get. My wife is an incredibly open and caring person, and I've seen her get dumped on by people who only give their burdens but are never willing to receive any. That is when sharing becomes selfish.
I am very happy that my parents are married to each other, and my alive grandparents too, and that they don't have issues like this (what my father "abuse" is coca-cola, he rarely drinks, and noone smokes).
And I am very sad to see that all other families are crumbling.
I am seeking a girlfriend that wants to be a mother, and I am not finding, most of them are self-centered, and come from divorced families, the only girl that ever became my girlfriend (and is still a good friend) was the only one that I found that still had married parents.
You must be quite young. To me, what defines a good relationship (in terms of having a partner) is not necessarily that what you have in common with the other is a strong desire for stability, family life & kids. I've seen people get married because of this desire, and the people I've observed doing that don't necessarily seem very happy. On the contrary, actually. After a while they just become jaded. Like people in a job that they don't enjoy but that they need to do to pay the mortgage. I think these situations are quite unhealthy, and ultimately unsatisfying.
What defines a good relationship, in my opinion, is two people that know what they want out of life, that chase their own goals and have their own dreams, and then decide to do that together. It's much harder though, because sometimes these goals clash, but I wouldn't want it any other way.
I am a Indian and have seen this line often repeated.
A relationship from my cultural perspective is also about committing to make it work. I am trying to bootstrap a startup with my best friend and there is lot in common between us but when going gets tough, it is important to be not an asshole.
I am married as well. My wife's and my own dreams are somewhat different, but if I decide somehow to let my dreams take precedence over hers, there will be trouble. It is same as a startup, when going gets tough - it is important to be responsible/respecting and more importantly not let outside world affect the relationship.
Coming from a culture when arranged marriages have been the norm for ages, I can't overemphasis simply willingness to stick. I don't know and it may sound strange - most people are essentially good (and well meaning in their own way) and as we Indians have come to terms with the fact that, Love can blossom in arranged marriage as well. Where you did not know your life partner beforehand.
Trying to find perfect partner with whom goals and ambitions match is unicorn and rainbows.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I wasn't contradicting you, because clearly we agree on certain points.
I am also very fond of the arranged marriage mindset if not the actual practice. I believe countless viable partners exist but a marriage to me me means not giving up or chasing a more perfect option. Especially since the later quickly turns to what I call kitten syndrome. Everyone loves a kitten and everyone lives a new relationship but eventually you gotta deal with the fact that a cat is a cat. Some people though rather drown a cat every spring.
Totally agree, my best friend is an Indian. His parents have been happily married for 30 years and still going strong. It was an arranged marraige, but there is a lot to learn from them.
Coming from a broken home impacts everyone differently, and particularly when you end up raising yourself (and your siblings). The idea that someone doesn't want to be a mother because they're self-centered is very far from the truth. They are more likely to be aware of their vulnerabilities and the fear that they will end up like their parents. Worse, they may have long-term damage (or mental health issues that plagued their parents as well) that they don't feel would make them strong parents. I consider that responsible, not self-centered.
It depends on the individual and her specific background, but for instance for girls of mothers that suffered from domestic violence there's a very high probability they'll end up with a violent husband, even though they keep telling themselves that they won't. Forgot how this syndrome was called, and this iPad is awful for doing Google searches.
Basically we are doomed to repeat many of same mistakes as our parents. You do have a certain control over your life, but eternal vigilance and self-awareness is required. I keep seeing this every day, as I'm now a father too. For example my father was a workaholic that didn't have much time for me. He was also very critical of other people's mistakes. I tend to repeat these same mistakes, even though I make an effort not to, but sometimes I just can't help myself.
It really depends on the individual though. I have at least one friend coming from a broken home and he's one of the most balanced individuals I know.
I think it's a nurture vs nature question. Maybe it makes you strong and hard person who makes it in life. Life is though if you have setbacks to deal with. If you are golden spooned maybe by the first setback you crumble...
Anyone can choose not to have kids for whatever reason they please (and it's never selfish to do so), I was just trying to explain why this may be the case for the segment of people he was referring to.
If you want to have kids and want a partner that is into that, that's fine. However, being self-centered and wanting to be a parent aren't mutually exclusive, as I have met adults whose parents were/are extremely self-centered and that factored in heavily into the abusive situations those adults lived in when they were children.
> And I am very sad to see that all other families are crumbling.
I'm not really sure what you are talking about, families have always had issues with abuse, divorce, etc., that is nothing new (even if people may have hidden those things more often in the past, but that really depends on when and where you grew up).
All this chart shows in an increase in the number of single mother households over time, particularly starting in the 1960s/1970s, in the United States. Whether or not you see that as sad depends on what you know of the living conditions women experienced in the time before that, conditions which gave rise the 2nd wave feminist movements. Suffice it to say the same underlying social and gender disparities existed prior to the increased occurrence of divorce and US society was not more stable or better off before that increase.
As far as I am aware, children living with both parents do much better in life in a variety of metrics (income, criminality, academics, child poverty, and etc.). While easier divorce may have led to an increase in equality for women, it has also had an immense negative impact on children.
Trade-offs exist, whether or not we choose to ignore them for ideological reasons. You are free to believe that the modern world is better off, despite the costs. But you should be aware of the costs.
> As far as I am aware, children living with both parents do much better in life in a variety of metrics (income, criminality, academics, child poverty, and etc.). While easier divorce may have led to an increase in equality for women, it has also had an immense negative impact on children.
This isn't the result of divorce being more accessible, this is the result of how difficult it is to be a single parent and how little support you have on a single income while providing all primary care for your kids. The fix for that is to address systemic issues regarding class, gender discrimination, reduced access to family planning, health care access. Even by the chart you provided, single father households have not grown dramatically since the 1960s/1970s since women end up being primary care given for children in a majority of cases, whether by desire or by cultural default.
I agree with you 100% about awareness of cost, but easier access to divorce and a lessening of the cultural expectation that women be married has simply made existing problems more apparent to society at large, which is a good thing in terms of identifying where we need to fix social inequalities.
My mother's father was alcoholic, my father was alcoholic. These issues had nothing to do with the availability of divorce. I highly doubt it would have assisted my mother or I if my grandmother and my mother were not allowed to divorce.
It is apples and oranges to compare today's society with the societies of past, and not so easy to arrive at solid conclusions regarding the impacts and costs of changes in social values.
I do not believe that was your point at all. Your post suggested quite the opposite. To me it read as though you think people are ignoring the impact easy divorce has on children because of ideological reasons.
The same could be said of people who think marriage means a happy and stable home life.
I'm speaking of averages. On average, a two parent home is much better for children. Of course there are exceptions. Pointing out exceptions to robust statistical data is the most common fallacious statistical argument.
Statistical data don't tell why. Divorce could be the effect of the real problem (alcoholism or mental disorder) and staying married could actually have made things worse.
The thing is, once you got to decide, statistics say nothing useful, it's your situation or, if you prefer, your exception, your anecdote, what really matters.
I see a chart that shows that single parents and their children aren't dying of poverty as much as they used to. I suppose you could say that this is a net negative for the children, since they might be unhappy rather than dead, but that's a value judgement of your choosing.
Your chart shows just that there are more single mothers. What the chart fails to indicate is that 40% of babies are born to unmarried couples these days, many of whom are a happy couple but just not married. It is a reflection of changing attitudes about marriage, and a failure of data collection. There has always been families of all sorts - single moms, blended families, happy and unhappy marriages, etc. (source: wife who is a sociology professor).
I am form Brazil, no-fault divorce was only allowed in the 70s (in comparison to US for example), and divorce rates rose very quickly.
Three years ago the divorce laws were made even more lax, and divorce rate tripled immediately (ie: one year after the law, the amount of divorce year-to-year was 3 times).
Most of my friends have divorced parents, I knew few people that actually have married parents, and frequently when people meet my family they say they are envious.
Also the marriage rates are plummeting too (and although the co-habitation rates are rising, it is not rising fast enough to compensate).
Is this really a bad thing? Is it better that people stay in marriages they do not want to be a part of rather than be free to separate? Staying in a failed marriage is not necessarily better for kids and may in fact be worse than getting a divorce.
Marriage rates are falling in some countries and places, but that really depends more on the specifics of where you are. In the US, there are a variety of reasons why people are getting married at slower rates these days, but it doesn't really matter how often people get married anyway.
> Also the marriage rates are plummeting too (and although the co-habitation rates are rising, it is not rising fast enough to compensate).
If you have kids, the commitments you've made are not just to your spouse/SO/whatever, but also to your kids. Those commitments are long-term and failing to keep those commitments is very damaging to kids. I think if more people took those commitments seriously, they would find ways to solve problems. As it is, why bother trying when it's easier to just say "screw it" and separate.
There are some marriages that should end. There are men and women both who have no business being attached to another human being. But I think more marriages end than need to, and it's a net-negative to everybody involved (which means all of society). Learning how to live happily with another person (and it is difficult, no questions; I'm going on 20 years and it stays just as hard every year) is one of the most satisfying things you can do and teaches you many important lessons that positively impact one's life in areas outside of the home.
Yes, often people are too quick to give up on their marriage if there are not legal complications on the way but, when that happens, it is more of a social or should I say cultural problem. IMO it's always wrong to apply pressure through law for those sort of problems.
Even if by using increased legal restrictions there appeared to be a net-positive in that specific context, I feel that there would be a net-negative in a larger scale, as it would violate individual freedom.
Of course, law should provide for things like both parents having to contribute to kids expenses, or both parents being able to spend some time with their kids, but not go beyond that and try to make it hard for them go separate ways when they want to -that's overstepping.
Besides that, I would much rather grow up in a family in which my parents decided to go different ways rather than in a family where my parents would be together but not seem happy with each other.
When you make a commitment to another person, you may get rough patches but eventually if you work through them then your relationship will mostly only get stronger.
Of course, this doesn't count when it comes to abusive relationships.
I know lots of self-centered people that are parents.
What I mean is that it is hard to find women that actually WANT to live a life of sacrifice, living for the family, instead of living to themselves.
I've met some women that when I ask if they want to be mother they say:
"Oh, sure!"
And then I ask:
"So, when you have your 4 months old kid, you will stay at home to take care of it if your husband is rich enough for that?"
And then most of them reply:
"Hell no, the kid can stay in the creche, or watching TV with the babysitter, I must work."
Funnily, I have a friend that insists that she will even have a kid using sperm bank, and she will take care of that kid alone, yet she hates her mother because she feels her mother did not gave attention enough to her (her mother is a divorced lawyer, and the girl was cared by the house cleaning lady that lived in the house, when she has problems she still talk to that lady instead of her mother).
Will you stay home with your 4 month old if your wife is rich enough?
By your definition, if you answer no, then you are "self-centered", to the point where you wouldn't consider yourself a good partner to have children with.
On the other hand if you answer yes, then you have solved your problem. Doesn't matter how "self-centered" your spouse is, you will take care of the kids either way.
So, assuming a rich wife (or rather a wife with high income) is easier to find than one that's willing to give up her career, if you want the greatest chance that your children will have a full time caregiver that's one of their parents, you should look for a rich "self-centered" woman, not a selfless one :)
My wife won't watch the kid or work (productively). She does online tutoring "work" for effectively ~$3/hour about 5 hours a day while daycare costs ~$7/hour.
I can think of very few choices more important in life than who you marry and bear offspring with. Sadly in my case, none of her habits became visible until well after we had married and had a child.
I'd echo the other people's suggestions here to go for family therapy. If the resentment is not yet too strong between the two of you, you can reach an agreement.
Not only that but if you get divorced, you are fucked alimony and child support wise. Or if you had a prenup, at least child support wise.
So it is in your best interest emotionally and financially to not let this sit for too much longer. Go to the family therapist yourself first to get a few ideas on where to go from there.
If you haven't already, seek couples counseling/therapy asap, as resent about parenting or living situations are big issues that hard to tackle without some outside perspective.
There are boatloads of research that shows that children younger than 1 year really need contact with the mother ( even if adoptive ), breastfeeding, and simple body contact ( among other things ) are part of various processes, mostly related to hormones.
It is great selfishness to hurt a child by not allowing it intense and almost constant contact with the mother ( not the father )
Working is not fun, I don't work for power, fun, or greed, but because I need to, I have to feed the family while the mother is busy being mother.
We have no technology yet that allows for women to not be mothers.
Body contact is indeed important, but you are mistaken that it must always be with the mother. Parents can share every childraising activity except breastfeeding -- and it's not necessary that children be strictly breastfed.
It seems you have grown up believing that family is about sacrifice. I think this is sad. Having a family takes work, certainly, but it should be a joy, not a burden.
I cry foul. Massive numbers of mothers can't breast feed. And frankly, if its hard, don't bother. Give the child formula, be a happier person and the child will be better off for that alone. The pressure to breast feed is huge and considering that there are far bigger problems - why bother?
My wife couldn't breast feed for long and felt terrible for it and was under pressure from almost all corners to carry on. But once she stopped the child, her and me were happier. Do what suits without fear.
> What I mean is that it is hard to find women that actually WANT to live a life of sacrifice, living for the family, instead of living to themselves.
Well, in most of the western world women had no choice in the past but to take on those roles, regardless if they wanted to or not. That we see women rejecting this kind of role because they have more choices is a good thing. I'm sure there's plenty of folks out there that still want that lifestyle, but there should be no default assumption of that being the suitable gender role for women.
> "Hell no, the kid can stay in the creche, or watching TV with the babysitter, I must work."
If someone wants to do this and has the means to do so, is there a problem? Sure it might not match what you want with your life, but that just means that person isn't the parental partner for you.
In terms of working while raising children, if you have the financial resources to make up for having one or both parents working then there is not much of an issue. A lot of folks don't have such resources, of course, and work out of necessity.
As for why folks have kids, the reasons are varied, but a significant percentage of those are not planned, they are either unwanted or mistimed. Jessica Valenti had a great piece in the Atlantic about this that was posted here a few weeks back - http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/not-wantin...
There are a lot of women out there who greatly desire to be a stay at home mom and in this way, help raise a family. They are out there, you just have to look :) I waited and found a lady who greatly desired this kind of lifestyle and it is working out fabulously for us.
Try to appreciate your family for as long as you can, since you'll never know when they're gone.
In 2004, when I was 23 years old, I lost both my parents and a sister in a car accident. We had a really nice family and great parents, never expected this to happen. It caused me a depression that lasted almost 7 years.
Personally I wouldn't want a girlfriend that wants to become a mother, the pain of losing someone very dear to you is intense and I wouldn't want another depression that lasts as long as my previous one.
You have to balance the risk of pain with the possibility of joy. It is certainly possible to live a life cut of from others where you never have to worry about losing anybody, but you lose the joy that comes from those same connections. While it's true that the closer the connection, the greater the chance of pain, it is also true that they are also greater sources of joy.
Having gone through more than one multi-year depression, I can appreciate you wanting to avoid that. Just don't avoid living and loving to do so.
While I'm sad that you cannot find this ideal girlfriend (which I am also looking for) it's not a bad thing that you are at least finding out that they are self-centered. You want to find someone like yourself who looks forward to having a stable family.
Can you imagine marrying someone who's self-centered and you finally have kids? That could be disasterous. There could be lots of regret that you can't undo and you end up going down the path of divorce or worse.
I would be interested in knowing whether or not one's likelihood to divorce is correlated with whether or not one's parents were divorced. Do you know what the data say?
edit: I found some data. It looks like a couple is twice as likely to divorce if one of them comes from a divorced family, and three times as likely if both do: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/26714.php
Considering that life expectancy, quality of life and opportunities for better life are all somewhat better than historically, I for one like the current way of the world. I say this comparing it to what was, not to what it could be. Far too many people (a majority?) have far too little.
I've just waved off my grandparents at the airport. My grandfather is the last living of his 14 siblings. 7 made it out of a childhood of abuse, poverty and neglect. Edinburgh in the 1940s sounds like a hell if you were poor.
Edit: autocorrect error.
Your response was incomprehensible to me until it was explained later down that the point is that sometimes the offending statement isn't true. However, his response was about the unnecessary generalization concerning divorced women and in that context the statement 'having a kid is easy' can be assumed to be true, without changing the point.
You can't insist on people considering all outliers when making a generic point. We'd have to hedge virtually every statement out of fear to offend someone. Therefore I think the severity of your response is uncalled for and suggests you haven't come to terms with the fact that you, or someone near you, is an outlier. It's perfectly fine to educate people about tacit assumptions when those are the relevant point of a discussion, but in the unconstructive way you phrased it, you are not likely to convince anyone.
Tl;dr: I'm not ignorant or insensitive for not considering outliers to a generic statement whose 'mostly true'-ness is the only thing that matters, given ghe context in which it was used.
I think he's correct. Being pregnant and giving birth is tremendously challenging (and rewarding, to many), but is a drop in the bucket compared to the entire rest of your life being about Not You. Not only do you face the constant lack of sleep, but you now have to worry about financial planning, raising the kid to be a good human, etc.
Having a kid is easy. Raising a kid (well) is hard.
Sorry, but you too are showing breath-taking ignorance and considerable lack of sensitivity and tact, even with the clues staring you in the face.
Let me be just a little more blunt - it's not only the case that for some people having children is not easy, but in addition, it's a big deal that they CAN'T HAVE CHILDREN.
It sounded to me like Colin was talking about something that has affected him or someone he cares about personally. In such cases, a technical or pedantic reply is at best beside the point, and at worst pours salt on a wound.
My sister- and brother-in-law tried for years to have a child. Finally they adopted an infant, only to have her die a couple of months after she was born. A person facing something like that does not care about "impoverishing the English language".
I wrote a long piece in reply, but I certainly don't write as well as Notch, and it's pretty clear it won't make my point as well as it should be made.
I'm going away for a while now. I'll be back, just not sure when. Need some time on my own.
Now I'm angry. You're not the least bit sorry for his personal difficulties (as telegraphed by your telltale use of the word "but"). If you were, you wouldn't respond to them with pointless pedestrian claptrap. All you've done is show your own incapacity for empathy.
Colin, please accept my apology on this guy's behalf.
My wife develops kidney stones when she is pregnant. During the second pregnancy, she had to pass them without pain medicine. There are many other conditions that women can develop when pregnant, but that go away after giving birth.
Pregnancies are anything but easy, even though they last a relatively short amount of time. Raising children is hard, but at least some portion of parenting skills come naturally. I don't think the same can be said for enduring months of intense pain/illness.
We looked after my partner's sister's 2 month old (and her 2 year old) last night. From all the stories people have told me I was actually expecting it to be worse than it was. We still got woken up a few times (a couple of times from him 'gurgling' from his cold - hearing a baby gurgle like that, then stop breathing for 10 seconds, is a bit nerve wracking!), and sure I'm tired today, but I think I could manage this :)
(For months on end, hmm, well, only one way to find out!)
Parental Anecdote: The first three months with a newborn are rather horrid. At age six months, get start to become cute and they begin to interact, so it becomes more rewarding. By the first year, they sleep through the night and they're a lot of fun.
After age two, kids are no longer a liability. They are tremendous asset to a family - they're fun-loving, curious, joyful, and keep you on your toes.
My uncle hanged himself after years being an alcoholic, the alcohol destroyed his family and pushed him away from everybody.
Near the end of it all he was acting delusional, lying to his bar friends about how good his life was, just stright up making stuff up, like having a huge barbecue in his non existant farm, or so I heard through my dad.
He killed himself between christmas and new year. His son spent christmas in my house, and I had the idea to go visit him, and days later he killed himself.
For the longest time I blamed myself, I kept thoughts like "maybe if I had gone...", I kept believing that maybe the wanting to go see him was God's way to stop the tragedy from happening. I no longer blame myself, though I do wonder if having gone there would have changed anything.
My father has substance abuse problems too (alcohol dependency for 20 years) and it has destroyed his relationship with my siblings and my mother, he's going to lose what little he has left very soon and I genuinely fear he's going to do something very similar to what is mentioned here. I am the only child that will talk to him without contempt and I have long since left home. He lost his own father very recently and that pushed him deeper.
What do I do? How do you deal with a situation like this?
I dated a woman from a family like this. Her dad was in Vietnam and his squad was ambushed and he managed to find a hiding place from which he was able to witness the entire rest of his squad murdered in cold blood. 3 days later he got the balls to leave his hiding spot and the alcoholism began when he got home after being discharged. Classic PTSD case.
Your dad needs to see a counselor to help treat the alcoholism and a therapist to try to eliminate any underlying psychological issues that might be feeding into the alcoholism if there are any.
My uncle died of essentially alcoholism.
You have the right to tell your dad, dead in the eye, that you fear for his life and that he does not have to continue this downward spiral. He will need to summon a will in order to beat it, though. It might help to also remove him from the environments that contribute to his problem, such as moving to a dry town.
It still amazes me that I used to drink more (was always moderate) but really tapered off lately for multiple reasons (most related to health) without much difficulty at all, yet some people get completely addicted to this thing. (I have nearly all German and Czech ancestry which might help.) Yet there is a game called WoW that I can't seem to tear myself completely away from, and there is a woman on this planet that is impossible for me to not have amazing sex with when alone (she shares the same vulnerability) who I unfortunately cannot be anywhere near anymore because we are not right for each other and must focus on other people...
AA's founder originally believed that LSD had potential to cure substance abuse, and although he later stepped away from that belief to make religion a bigger aspect of it, researchers believe that it is far more likely to help than even AA itself. There was additional information (along with personal experiences) in a recent Reddit TIL that may be of interest to you - http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/14mpow/til_bi...
If that's an option you think he'd try out, perhaps there's a facility nearby that could help.
Edit: If you're going to downvote, do so because something is legitimately wrong and prove otherwise, not because you don't agree with it. This topic is a big deal and my response is equally as serious.
I won't argue the science, since you're likely correct, but taking one substance to counter the effects of another doesn't do anything to address the root cause of the problem.
It's no use curing alcoholism only to have it replaced by gambling, drugs or sex.
The issue is that the addiction is used as a crutch to avoid dealing with the real problem. Until you deal with that real problem - and some of them are extremely difficult to "deal" with, so I'm not trying to downplay this - you will not really be "cured".
Part of why it is so effective is because the perspective changes it induces not only lessens the desire to divulge, but changes the outlook you have on life that is causing you to do it in the first place. It's not a "cure" rather than a means to get people to look at their life differently, which is what motivates them to go an opposite direction.
While they can provide a social outlet for support, I don't think that AA or religion can have such an immediately life-altering impact on someone as much as they, themselves, can.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with these types of experiences. The entire point is that it permanently changes your outlook (for the better) after only a few uses, give or take per person. Not to get all stereotypical answer, but Steve Jobs attributes a single trip to the vision he maintained for the rest of his life.
And even if that were the case, what's the difference between taking a dose of LSD every three months and taking an over-the-counter every single day for the rest of your life, particularly when -- as with the recent case with Wellbutrin XL -- the FDA is approving things that do more harm than good because they're literally not doing any research on them?
I'm in no way qualified to give you a professional answer, but from a human perspective, I'd start by talking to him and expressing the very fears you just described. Make him understand that it concerns you, and that you're there for him should he ever feel that inclination. Just being able to talk about things with other people can be a tremendous help when dealing with stressful situations. Make sure he understands that he's not completely alone.
That's a very good-spirited answer, but not a very realistic one, I am afraid. Most of the people who exhibit problems of that kind ARE talked to; their parents, children, friends etc are, on average, truly caring and do attempt to help. The sad truth is - a lot of people who gave up on 'life' have damn good reasons to have done so. A lot of them would laugh at you if you try to 'talk' to them, providing they have some laugh left in them --- because most of them actually did hear it all already, and it just wasn't enough.
Another sad truth is: substance abuse actually does solve a lot of problems, just not in a "socially acceptable way". But, well - a lot of people don't care about what's "socially acceptable".
Short answer is - you don't, really. There's very little one can do to help a grown-up person with a history of substance abuse. Unless you believe in God: but the efficacy of that approach is, clearly, impossible to scientifically verify.
If only the belief in God sincerely caused a difference in substance abuse, I'd be endorsing religiosity for its own sake!
Of course, I'm sure you're referencing the will of God, but considering how many sincere faithful have their struggles with physical addiction, the belief alone is not enough :(
There are some indicators that it does make a difference; too lazy to dig those up, but it should not be surprising that adhering to some religious doctrine that discourages activity X should have some effect on reducing the frequency of X abuse among the adherents (not just the reported numbers, but actual values too).
However, what I wanted to say is more like - if you don't have a crane, yet need to lift an X-wing fighter from the bottom of the swamp, you have to use the Force. Nothing else will suffice. Basically, both the damage caused by substance abuse, and, more importantly, the deeper reasons people stick to it, are so huge, you need to pray for a miracle (and people who believe in God often do).
On the other hand - when you strongly discourage something and decide to make doing it wrong/immoral, you also make it very taboo and stigmatized to talk about, which can be incredibly dangerous.
This is very obvious with illegal drug use and sex, problems related to them (drug addiction and unwanted pregnancies/STDs) are much higher in places where it is strongly discouraged, stigmatized and hard to talk about.
There are a lot of sad stories where people who knew they had a drug problem didn't dare seeking help/talking about it in fear of either the law or negative reactions from the people around them.
Wrong/lack of information about safety is also a huge issue due to making stuff immoral and taboo, millions of people in Africa have died and are currently suffering because of the way extramarital sex and condom use have been (and still are) handled and talked about.
Personally I think complete openness instead of moralization/stigmatization is a much better solution to deal with difficult issues. Granted, I'm a very socially liberal guy, but I think most evidence is pointing to the fact that information and sympathy is leading to more desirable social outcomes than repression and stigmatization.
For example, let's take something extremely controversial as pedophilia. The vast majority of society is of the understandable opinion that being a pedophile is immoral, often downright evil. People unfortunately don't realize how extremely important the different between simply being a pedophile (having sexual thoughts about children) and actually committing such acts are.
I think even something as pedophilia should be freely discussed and that pedophiles should be offered rational stigma-free ways to deal with their sexuality in ways that won't hurt children instead of being treated like scum by society. The way we deal with the issue today is hurting everyone involved - both the pedophiles and children.
A ton of people undoubtedly disagrees with me - and that's understandable from an emotion point of view. However - I've never seen any research or statistics actually indicating that punishing people for their problems (either directly through the law or through stigma) leads more significant positive societal outcomes than helping and sympathizing people with their problems does.
Oh, of course. Far too many people don't realize that religion (in general, and in the "Bible belt" case, Christianity in particular) should be completely orthogonal to such concerns as science and education, and truths revealed therein. There's no inherent conflict, of course; but people from both sides are guilty of acting as if there's conflict. Unfortunately for religious people, they have started it first in ages past, when religion was a standard, and so now they tend to have harder time learning the error of their ways.
"people from both sides are guilty of acting as if there's conflict."
Angsty atheists claiming there are no "true" Christians who believe in evolution or who are evolutionary biologists by trade are obnoxious, but more harmless than those who wedge religion into science classes.
Alcoholics Anonymous famously has "turning your life over to a higher power" as one of their 12 steps. They also provide a very open community. They seem to have some success.
AA is actually about exactly what I'm talking about, they're about talking openly about your problems and receiving sympathy from others who either have similar issues or have overcome them without fear of being judged or looked down upon from others.
That being said I think scientific evidence-based solutions are generally a better option than AA. Don't get me wrong - I'm not disputing that AA certainly has helped a lot of people - but the statistics aren't looking great either.
The efficacy of any approach for dealing with substance abuse can be investigated scientifically: try it, and compare with a control group, trying to control for as many variables as you can. If it creates a significant difference, then something is probably going on. If there's no significant difference, then it probably doesn't work. Absence of evidence is, of course, evidence of absence.
None of this changes when the approach in question involves hypothetical supernatural intervention.
Having been in a similar situation as Notch, also ending in a very similar way, all advice I can give is to make the best of the time you have and don't waste it on contempt and hate. I wish that I had been able to have a more understanding attitude than I did.
In order to help your addicted father you should consider first focusing on yourself. The stress and guilt of having an addicted loved one can affect your own mental health. Speak to an addiction specialist, they can help you formulate appropriate actions in dealing with your father, perhaps an intervention, perhaps something else. Al-Anon (http://al-anon.alateen.org/) is a good resource.
This is a very good point. At one point in time I went to a therapist to discuss my family member's alcoholism in an attempt to get them help. The therapist gave me some good advice for my family member but also recommended that I seek therapy of my own. I did so for over half a year and it helped me work through issues relating to my relationship with my family member but also some anxiety issues of my own. If you are uncomfortable with the group setting of al-anon (as I was), you should really look into one-on-one counseling.
1) Try and fix him. I know this is generally thought of as a bad idea, but I think it will be important for you to know that you did everything within your power for him in the event that something bad happens. When (adult) children lose a parent, the ones that mourn the loudest are typically the ones that were not taking care of the parent in their decline. The ones that support them in their declining years get to meet the sad day knowing they did everything they could for their loved one. I think this brings comfort by removing any guilt that someone might have.
2) If recovery is not an option, accept it. If you have run through all the reasonable things to be done to help your father from the outside, there is nothing left for you to do to fix him. Accept him for all his good characteristics and bad, and simply show him love.
3) Wait. Even if you were unable to fix him, he still might come around on his own, which is most likely what needs to happen anyways.
Someone with a substance abuse problem is the only person that can tackle that issue. Attending alchoholics anonymous or narcotics anonymous (or a similar 12-step style program) can be a start, and it is really helpful if said person attends therapy with a professional of some form outside of those kinds of programs (church staff don't count, this absolutely should be a trained therapist, psychologist, etc). Outside of that, there isn't anything you can do. It should be noted that not talking to someone with a substance abuse problems is a wholly legitimate thing to do, as you aren't required to put yourself in situations that are harmful to your own mental and physical well being.
Feel free to email me at jevinsweval@gmail.com if you (or anyone else) would like to chat. I grew up with an alcoholic family member who is thankfully sober for almost two years now after 20 years of drinking. There is no single answer but there is hope.
I was once in your exact same situation. If you want to talk privately let me know. The extent of the possibilities of your actions are merely going to be within the confines of guidance, nothing you do will be a magic bullet. It'll take time, it'll take effort, but it's possible to recover. Your father has to be the one to take actions to fix the situation.
Disclaimer: This is my own personal experience and opinion. I've dealt with substance abuse issues for many years and I've known several people for whom substance abuse exacted the ultimate toll.
The short of it: There are no reliable solutions. There are no good answers.
People with depression and substance abuse issues don't think the way non abusers do. They know what they're doing is wrong and that it could lead to death or going further down the spiral, but their ability to rationalize their behavior is all powerful. It has nothing to do with will power or motivation. There's something wired differently in the brain.
Medication, AA, NA, inpatient treatment, religion are all good things to try. Sometimes one of them sticks. I wish you the best of luck. The only advice I can give is this: If something bad happens with your father, it is not your fault. There is nothing you can do to change his behavior. All you can do is be supportive if he recognizes the need to make a change.
This is actually really good information. Above all else, no one can "make it right" except for the person with the substance abuse problem.
I've spent years trying to put my alcoholic mother into this program or that group. I've even gone so far as to give myself depression issues over the situation. But, at the end of the day, she's the only that can decide to make the situation better and do something about it. Today, the only thing I can do is make my life better, even if it means cutting ties with her as she becomes more unresponsive. It's an absolutely brutal hurdle to get over, but it's the absolute truth.
People with depression and substance abuse issues don't think the way non abusers do. They know what they're doing is wrong and that it could lead to death or going further down the spiral, but their ability to rationalize their behavior is all powerful. It has nothing to do with will power or motivation. There's something wired differently in the brain.
This. What helped me is to see the good person behind the illness and separate that him or her from the illness. During bad moment, it will affect you less (it's the illness, not that soul that is affected by it), during good moments it is easier to connect to that person.
Also, if someone has a severe mental illness that cannot be cured or properly medicated, and has young children, protect them if it is within your power. Every child has the right (and need) to grow up in a safe environment.
I've never met Markus Persson, but its obvious from reading his tweets and posts that he is a good person. If anyone deserves the success he's had, its him.
Indeed. Arrogant people get their requests fulfilled more often than humble people because they push for it, and many people who have the power to give that stuff are either arrogant and depise humble people or humble and intimidated.
I'm not so sure that he is entirely a good person or worth this level of praise. He spends a lot of time apologizing for Twitter drama that he invents, and it seems like he has the tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.
The Yogscast debacle comes to mind. For those that are unaware, Yogscast, one of the biggest promotional engines sending traffic to Minecraft, went to Minecon on their own dime and did an autograph panel. Notch responded by eviscerating them on Twitter for, among other things, wishing to be helped out financially for their appearance (which cost them quite a bit, and, let's be honest, Mojang is not broke; Mojang also sold the rights to broadcast Yogscast's own show without asking). This was all based upon drama invented in Notch's head, and he had to profusely apologize later.
It seems like Notch goes out of his way to find drama. However good of a person he is tends to be undone by his occasionally childish behavior.
This comment thread is about this blog post. Given what he has revealed about himself and his family, and the way he has revealed it, he absolutely deserves praise, if only for the courage of putting pen to paper to express it (figuratively speaking, of course). He has shared something that I'm sure he has kept very close to himself.
He went through what is most certainly the most painful thing one can possibly experience (the death of a loved one by their own hand). You are trivializing something that is both moving and a show of great courage on his part. Now is not the time for personal criticism. Please, allow him whatever therapeutic benefit he can get by writing his post, and save your trivial criticisms for another post; most likely, (admittedly, I don't know you) he has suffered more from this than you ever have about anything.
I'm pretty certain that was a misunderstanding, not in any way malevolent.
Do you really think he is trying to find drama? That makes no sense at all. He is inexperienced at being famous and communicating publicly. That's all.
People like you are extremely intolerant and grating to me. This is a non-issue, and you make it into a big deal.
You have not been trolled. I, too, laud him for the post, I just don't like Hacker News getting carried away and comparing him to Jesus incarnate. As for the appropriateness of the timing, I was responding to a comment that extrapolated from this blog post to reflect upon him as a person, so it's unfair to tell me "this isn't the time" but not the person I'm responding to.
It's also fairly condescending to assume based on my opinion that I've never experienced pain on Notch's level. Buddy, you have not experienced pain on my level.
This hit pretty close to home. My father just moved in with me after calling me last week and telling me he was going to kill himself. I managed to calm him down and convince him to move in with me for a while, so hopefully this is the beginning of the road to recovery.
Reading the comments helps to know there are others helping to carry the burdens of their own families. Thanks to everyone for sharing your stories.
A lot of readers will probably have some self-reflection after reading this. It might even push some to give their parents a call, or sort out some issues. Even someone with a perfect family will remember that nothing lasts forever. Enjoy your time friends.
I've had the misfortune of personally knowing at least 3 people who have killed themselves while mixing medication with alcohol. One of them was on antidepressants, but the other two weren't being treated for any sort of mental condition.
There seems to be an awful lot of people out there who think the warning labels on medication are to be taken about as seriously as the tags on a mattress. I promise you, the warnings are there for a reason. You can be an otherwise perfectly happy person and end up shooting yourself in the face if you have a bad reaction. If you are taking any sort of medication that prohibits alcohol, please follow the directions. Your friends and family members don't want to read your obituary.
This story hits close to my heart. I lost my mother a little over a year ago due to chronic alcoholism. She had been drinking for years, battled post-natal depression and one day we convinced her she was really sick and needed to go to the hospital. Her liver was in the process of shutting down, she was so dehydrated and malnourished her veins had shrunk making it difficult for doctors to take blood or put in drips. I remember the day that she went to hospital I forced her to go to the doctors and every test they ran came back red, her cardiogram yielded a weakened heart rhythm and it was at that point she realised she needed to go to the hospital, little did we know it was too late to help her.
The doctors were shocked at the state she was in. He offered to call an ambulance, but my mother wanted to be driven to the hospital instead. I knew she would try and talk her way out of it by refusing an ambulance, but finally convinced her there was no way she wasn't going. She was obviously scared and we all told her that going to hospital meant she'd get better and she probably wouldn't be in there very long, I didn't expect she would be dying in hospital two days later.
As soon as she was admitted she went straight into the emergency ward. She was under watch 24/7, hooked up to machines that monitored everything. She was still very much with it, just not as energetic. She could hold a conversation, she just looked aged but wasn't delirious or anything. We thought she was going to get better, she was in emergency for one day before being moved to a ward where she wasn't being monitored as carefully. I think it was a mistake moving her to a ward so soon.
She never told anyone she was scared or needed help. Apparently she would call my dads sister and cry to her when everyone was asleep saying she was afraid of dying. My dads sister tried to take her to the doctors repeatedly, but I think knowing something was wrong and being scared stopped her from wanting to go to the doctors until it was too late.
She was on 4 saline drips (one in each wrist and one in each knee) to try and hydrate her body. I still remember seeing her lying there with 4 drips, I didn't even know they could do that. She started showing signs of recovery, was more level-headed, but tired and lethargic. She actually seemed like she was getting better, her pulse was getting stronger and the hydration she was getting was helping her, and then at 3am one morning after being in the hospital for 2 days we all got a call that she went into cardiac arrest and they tried to resuscitate her for 1 hour before giving up.
I often wonder if she would have lived longer if she didn't go to hospital. Part of me thinks that her body couldn't handle four drips pumping saline into her body 2 days straight constantly, she had a weak pulse and the fact her veins had shrunken to me thinks she should have stayed in the emergency ward for a couple more days.
She left behind her son (me) and 5 daughters one of which only just turned 8 years old. It's made my dad incredibly strong, I've never seen him cry before. I still remember that day vividly, he's had his fair share of alcohol related problems and has been battling depression and a nervous disorder his entire life due to being abused as a child but I think he's stayed strong for us. I am worried that one day a switch might flip in his head and he'll have a breakdown, but I don't really want to think of that.
I know how you feel Notch, you never quite get over losing a parent. I partially blame myself for my mothers death. She had a drinking problem for years and I did nothing. She was obviously in decline and although everyone tried to get her to go to the doctors, she wouldn't. Did we try hard enough?
Thanks for sharing your story Notch, I think there are many who have lost a parent due to an alcohol incident like yourself. It's hard to tell people you lost a parent to alcohol, let alone talk about losing a parent in such a horrible way.
People say drugs like marijuana are bad, alcohol is the worse of them all.
Thanks for sharing your story, its very moving and wish the very best for you, and all your siblings.
>People say drugs like marijuana are bad, alcohol is the worse of them all
Totally agree. I have seen, my close friend (from college) totally disintegrate because of alcohol abuse. He did a lot of very nasty things to the persons he loved. Lost his job (several times). Got a job after a long time with difficulty and then lost it again. It became so bad, that he became delirious, and started hallucinating about some people being present when he was alone. And being the raw and powerful person he is, its very difficult for anybody to help him, unless he himself cooperates.
After seeing him at close quarters, and trying to be of help, I can say that alcohol abuse is the worst kind of evil. Now a days, in India, they show a lot of mandatory ugly-cigarette warnings before showing a movie. Every time I see those, I am reminded, that there can be none worse than alcohol abuse. Cigarette smoking is known to cause cancer, and is bad. But alcohol abuse is like cancer of the mind. Where the person himself/herself becomes a cancer for their close family.
Abuse of anything is bad, but I am with you on the alcohol versus marijuana debate. The destruction wrought by alcohol is more obvious to me year to year. Friends and colleagues caught up in its abuse and the damage it does is terrible to watch.
That was a touching story, and I'm sorry to hear about your father's death. My best friend's father was an alcoholic. I watched as my best friend struggled trying to build a relationship with him. I don't think he ever had any of the touching moments you described with his father, and I think it still affects him to this day.
It sounds like you have good memories about him, and knew that he loved you. And for the most part that's all we can ask from our fathers.
We have to stop pretending our professional lives are divorced from our personal - they grow out of one another, and in programming like other forms of writing the end result depends hugely on who we are as people - Hemmingway would never have written about a boy wizard.
Notch's work flows from who he is, and that flows a lot from who his father was.
While there are sympathetic ears, I thought I would share my own story, just so I can let it out.
I'm the son of immigrants who worked hard to get me the best education that they could afford. My family have been through hard times and good times, and back to hard times recently since the housing bust.
Money had always been a thorn for as long as I can remember.
Some time during college, while tasting such freedom (education afforded by grants and loans from my father), I began to experiment and grow more distance from my parents. My mother was having a hard time for various reasons, and she was very disappointed that I didn't call her every week as she had asked.
I stopped calling, and sometimes ignored the calls. The relationship began to sour, with hateful messages left in voicemail, admonishing me for something or another.
It wasn't always bad. I would go back for holidays and such, but they would always say, that I need to visit every Christmas and Thanksgiving, because that is the right thing to do. It was always like that: I need to do something because it is the thing to do. I can't be friends with someone at school because they had a quarrel with my friend's parents, and it is the right thing to support your parents. I have to break up with my girlfriend (way back in highschool) because I need to focus on my college education. I need to repay them when I become rich because they provided for me.
I haven't seen them in 3 years now. I'm afraid my father is forever doomed to be guilted into providing for my mother, who forever states how she hates my father being inadequate in so many ways. She says she can't leave him because she has no way of sustaining herself. He says he loves her, and that she is ill and doesn't mean what she says to me and him, but I can't tell if he's lying to himself because the alternative is too sad to contemplate, him having cut off his relationship with his own mother and family because she compelled him to do so a long time ago.
Anyways. There's too much to this story. I can go on but the details don't matter.
I wish I had a cool story about my dad saving a dog in the ice. I don't. But I did have a loving family once. It got ripped apart by money and lies and insecurities, and I've been left with estrangement and a sense of longing for over three years now. I could give them a call, as I've done before, but I've been there once and it didn't help -- I feel like I'm healthier this way.
I'm thankful for my dad who continues to say that he believes in me, through sparse email correspondences. I'm thankful for my mother who insisted that I be educated well. I wish we had it better, and I wish this guilt doesn't last forever.
As someone else whose story has some similarities, I can only encourage you to stand your ground. I'd recommend that, before you try again, build a support network of friends who are aware of the details of your story and at least mostly agree with you. The way to stay emotionally healthy when resuming contact is to have people to fall back on when things don't turn out well, to have people who'll support you whichever direction you jump.
One of the most honest, deep, meaningful and moving posts I've seen here in my short history in HN. I wish you'll never know sorrow again, my deepest condolences.
As humans we tend to place a lot of purely human ideals/ideas on the non-human world, but they're all actually things we've just made up.
Goodness/badness/fairness/unfairness aren't "real things" existing in nature; they’re just something humanity has created in our minds and societies. No things has an inherent goodness or badness, we as humans just think/decide it is.
Don't get me wrong, it's essential for human well being to have such things in place, but it's not something we can subject non-conscious things to.
Gravity doesn't care, and can't care or know in any way, whether the guy soon to die from a coconut hit to his head falling from a tree was a child rapist or a humble "saint" always bringing happiness to other people.
I think endeavoring to no longer be surprised when Bad things happen is a good response. I mean not just ignoring it in order to move past, but accepting the world for what it is and anticipating suffering.
Probably a stoic at heart I guess, but I'm not sure I see any other way.
This is of course obviously false. Morality is a part of human nature. It isn't gifted by the supernatural. Therefore concepts like justice, good, bad have as real an existence as you. If humans are part of the natural order so is natural law.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I'm as strong as a non-believer in the supernatural/religious you can possibly be. I'm certainly not arguing that a supernatual force is determining what is good or bad, I'm arguing for the exact opposite - that there is no such predetermined thing in nature and that it is a purely human construct/idea.
What I'm saying is simply that nothing is inherently good or bad, it's humans who assign the purely human concepts of fairness/justice/goodness/badness to things/actions/events.
Yes, I belive I understood you. I think apparently I haven't been clear. You are part of the natural order, the same as that tree growing outside my window. Part of what being human is, is to have a sense of what is just. As a result, that sense we all share of what is just is also part of the natural order not a fictional arbitrary construct. Determining that a mother that eats her infant out of spite is an evil act is indeed as fully natural as the growth of the tree towards the sun.
There are constructed, "positive" laws obviously. That it is wrong to jaywalk for example. That it is wrong to torture living creatures to cause pain (and for those creatures with temporal understanding, suffering) on the other hand is not. The latter flows from or is immanent in nature and is an example of natural law. It governs even the behavior of non-humans. Deviations from the natural order have consequences.
Some Eastern cultures raise this cause and effect relationship to the level of a force no less powerful or useful than gravitation for explaining the world (karma for example). In Western cultures, this recognition of the natural order forms the basis of many legal systems. The concept of natural right or natural law in fact is what the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are founded upon.
There is a long history of the subject if you want to learn more as I obviously have done a bad job of explaining. The work of contemporary jurists like John Finnis [0] at Oxford might be worthwhile.
[0]: Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, 1997)
Okay, I understand what you're saying now, but I strongly disagree.
To me it sounds a lot like just another human concept used to explain (what I consider) the human concept of morality. I think it is a philosophic/cultural/religious way of thinking about it, but certainly not a scientific one.
If morality was the constant of nature you believe it is I don't see any reason why our morality would have changed in the massive ways it has throughout human history and still varies so much around the world.
There are still hundreds of millions of humans around the world who hates homosexuals with every bit of their "soul"/mind, who don't have even a tiny bit of empathy for gays who are killed or tortured. The vast majority of humanity is still eating animal meat, most without much worry about the well being of the animals. Torture is still commonly used and justified around the globe, even by very intelligent Americans [1].
Considering how much what we consider moral/immoral varies/has varied through history around the world I don't see any reason to believe it is a constant of nature. It seems muuuuch more likely to me that it is determined by our cultures and societies than by nature, otherwise you would expect to see much greater similarities.
You are conflating ethics with morality and choice/action with effect.
The question posed was why do Bad things happen to good people? You noted that, from I assume a scientific perspective, bad things are just often random occurrences that people artifically label as "bad." My response is that Bad things are not random and result from a deviation from the natural order and that our sense of that wrongness from those deviations is not supernatural.
To put it in a more realistic scenario (I only used torture previously because even non-human species have been shown to avoid and punish torture). Let's say I begin to suffer from chronic dehabilitating headaches and these headaches force me to stop doing the charity work I have done all my life and I become depressed to the point of contemplating suicide. I have no family history, genetic disposition, history of drug abuse etc. What I did do was build a house in 2002 that used imported drywall from China containing volatile chemicals that have been emitting sulfurous gases, carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and hydrogen sulfide which have been absorbed into my body altering my chemical makeup ever since.
Is it by a random path that those molecules found their way into my body? Or is it a result of the actions of people disregarding their sense of wrongness? Yes. Am I also free from fault? No. Because I am part of and have benefitted directly from a culture that values paying the least at any cost and doesn't properly price environmental damage/costs into the marketplace. I could have built my house smaller for example paying a higher price for building materials.
I could speak to your other example of discrimination by sexual orientation in the context of natural law, but I would face immediate downvotes and this isn't really the place for that discussion.
We will just have to agree to disagree that human ethics hasn't really progressed that much in the last few thousand years. Natural law persists but what humans value obviously alters over time. That is, how strictly a culture decides to punish acts of torture of animals is a reflection of the culture, not evidence of its wrongness or the nature of the act. Personally, I believe that the slower rate of progress in removing Bad things from happening is largely that say unlike physics or chemistry, there is no way to improve the pedagogy of morality. With the introduction of mathematics and the creation of a universal language for scientific understanding progress at a remarkably faster rate was achieved in the last few hundred years because it is easily transmitted between generations. The only way moral education is imparted from generation to generation is by example. You can't educate morality beyond telling stories and parables and living by example so positive changes more in accord with natural order are limited in scope by time and geography.
I think if you surveyed those people who justify torture in our time if torturing their children was wrong, you would find overwhelmingly that that they would say it was, but that they believe they have a right or should be able to do it to "others" based on some circumstance (such as they did some other Bad act). Doesn't mean they know that the act of torture is any less contrary to the natural order or that it won't have consequences as a result, just that they are choosing to value something else greater (and, wrongly I might add). Similarly if you asked someone eating an omelette how it tasted before and after you gave them the experience of the conditions in a factory chicken farm, you would generally get a very different response. It has been shown actually to alter the perception of the taste of food in subjects and induces disgust, that is how tuned to the natural order humans are.
You contradict yourself by saying that bad things are a logical result of multiple events and then saying that you "could" have done something different. Our brains are just a bunch of chemicals that form organic materials called neurons that process and share information using electric-chemical reactions called synapses. Meaning that if you are a murderer you are as responsable for killing as the sun for shining (that doesn't mean we shouldn't lock murderers aways, please don't bring that argument).
Yes, human mind is genetically encoded to a) care for the weak, like children b) respect strong people who have power. But those are just survival skills that maximize chances of passing genes to next generations. There is no morality outside of human or higher animal mind. By the way, if we define morality as acting for minimization of suffering and pain, then the only real solution is end of the world. http://www.hedweb.com/negutil.htm
Humans are not predisposed to care for the weak, find me one science research that says such thing and I shall ask for the revocation of their title. Deformed kids get less empathy than normal kids; even when most of them are usually weaker. Cancer kids generate more empathy than normal kids, but is because non-deformed kids with their big eyes, little chubby hands, round faces and soft voices triggers an evolutionary empathy reaction specially when weak, very useful for keeping the horde alive.
Negative utilitarianism is so silly, happiness and suffering are absolutely subjective and multiple points of perception can't be outweigh because they are all independent and anyone reading this is just one more.
So everyone is suffering from this world except one man, the only reasonable thing is to end the world. Problem is that this conclusion would come from a suffering individual wish the only thing he haves to do to end the world is to kill himself; wish is completely unrelated with the faith of the world perceived by everyone else.
Not to mention the issue with current time, meaning an individual feeling severely depressed for 60 years that today somehow feels extremely happy will say that is not so bad, because emotions are blinding and are usually loosely attach with logic specially statistics.
The other thing is that there should be a way to end the world without provoking more suffering than it will get attempting it for negative utilitarianism to have real-life applications.
Haven't seen it mentionned a lot in comments, but it also happens that drugs are not the culprit. Your brain might be, or more largely your DNA. Drugs and alcohol are just ways (self destructive) to try and cope with the fact of simply being alive.
I had such an alcohool problem when i was 26 or so (some serious, drink alone thing). Only 10 years afterwards was i diagnosed with a problem in neuro-trnamitters, which another drug (medecine) just made disappear. I've been living 6 years in a world without fear and mental pain, since, something i've never experienced before. My brain was the main culprit.
I just wish we could advance our understanding of the brain so as not to serve people anymore of "god hate you" / "it's your fault" bullshit.
I'm gonna kick some creeper's asses tonight in memory of all the suffering ones (yeah, creeper's are good scapegoats, i know it's not their fault either;). Thx all of you for sharing, i've spent an interesting evenig reading the whole thing.
Thank you for sharing, it helps you and all of us that have lost a loved one. I lost my father to liver cancer this past January. He was my best friend. Almost every day I replay wonderful memories of conversations, funny moments, and life events we experienced together. I now seek for ways to connect to him and keep those memories alive. I am working on writing them down, so that I can somehow show my toddler some day the wonderful father I had. I collect the tools that we shared to work on electronic projects and cars. The thought of holding something that my dad held in his hands makes it easier.
Keep loving your dad, and each time you replay a memory in your mind, write it down... It'll keep you two connected.
What is interesting is that he did Ludum Dare competition just days after this. Maybe that was a good therapy for him as well, but in any case that's quite respectable to be able to focus after a tragedy like that.
"Weird Al" Yankovic's parents died while he was on tour. He continued with the tour, stating that if his music made millions of others laugh, it might just cheer him up too.
Sometimes doing what you love is just the right sort of pain reliever.
ksikis is talking about the Ludum Dare that took place shortly after the events detailed above. If you go to the "About page" in Minicraft, his contest entry, you'll see the dedication to his dad.
I'm sorry to hear this. I love my dad, who is still alive, and I think I should try to spend more good time with him, now that we live far away.
My sympathy to you, Notch.
Notch, I am sorry for your loss. Thank you for sharing. You are strong. Thank you for all your awesome contributions to the the gaming and programming communities.
My father was a alcoholic too. I hated him too and haven't seen him for years. Never wanted to have kids becaue I always think I'm not good enough.
Now I have a kid and even I'm doing better then my father I feel bad because I think I could do better. Because I want my own life and take care of him. Don't know if I balance it right....
Anyway your yought can make you strong or break you... You never know...
Even though I think drugs should be decriminalized or legalized, it's clear there needs to be a lot of effort put into helping people who have problems with them (including alcohol).
If you add up all the years of life destroyed by drug addiction, and all the external harms, spending all the money we currently spend on prohibition on treatment would be a bargain.
I understand when somebody writes an article in the format : "When I founded XXX, <some incredibly touching story>" or "I am <11-15> years old and this is my side project, check it out". But when You tell about someones death in your story to promote your product, if it is your close relative... I think it is disgraceful.
Notch, I'm so sorry. I know what it is like to lose a parent. It sucks and it doesn't seem to go away.
What a great post. Thanks for sharing your life with us. Please continue to make your dad proud, and be a path for the rest of us in similar circumstance.
Very moving. Now inverse the situation, where it's your child who dies. The pain would be at least 2x worse. And this is what happened in Connecticut today.
I used to do art, music, and comedy, and even practiced my religion, often just for her. I loved to make her laugh and it was so easy to make her proud. In the past year, I have done none of that stuff and don't know when or if I ever will.
Programming is one of the few things I've ever done that I never did just to say, "Hey Ma! Look what I did!" She never understood it. So in the past year, it's one of the few things I've been able to do. I've written a ton of code and taken great comfort it in.
I won't even attempt to give advice; none of the advice I've received from well-intentioned others in the past year has been helpful. I just hope you, me, and others like us find comfort in the wonderful memories of beloved parents and find a way to move on with our lives.
More about my mother here: http://edweissman.com/betty-weissman-1930-2011