I fear that the same people that exhibit this kind of anxiety or trauma that led to social isolation, will inevitably talk to sycophantic chatbots, rather than get the help they desperately need.
Though I certainly would not trust a model to "snitch" on a user's mental health to a psychiatric hotline...
Because it shows up in the baby's meconium...
That doesn't even get into the second order effects such as mothers then having trouble lactating/nursing.
And beyond that, we should probably question why, statistically, the mothers that have the most children don't use painkillers during childbirth.
> the mothers that have the most children don't use painkillers during childbirth
Maybe because those who have painful births are unlikely to want to go through it again?
That seems The obvious guess. It could definitely be wrong but unless research shows otherwise there doesn’t appear to be an a priori reason to avoid painkillers barring further research.
Why should we question that? The most obvious answer would be that women who have a hard time giving birth are more likely to get painkillers and less likely to want a second child.
So? Are you worried that baby is going to go out and try to score baby heroin? You have to point to some actual negative outcome beyond "the drugs we gave were present".
Why don't mothers with the most children use painkillers?
Having children fundamentally alters your body, making future births easier, generally. The people with the most children tend to be poorerto, and might not be able to afford painkillers. The people with the most children might be religious families who treat women as machines for producing children. Maybe about a million hypotheses.
But we should be studying it! You are right about that. Our health care system under studies the experiences of women.
oh ffs please stop treating every situation like its a binary situation.
EVERYONE has different experiences and issues. some need surgery, some have a 30 min labour and its almost like a luge.
The answer here is not "every one should just suck it up like they used to" its "every situation should be treated based on the data and facts of scientific theory, and adjusted to deal with the different environmental variables"
Yes its more complicated, but the world and the lived experience of it is not black and white.
I loved all of Seveneves, and hate Three Body Problem.
The biggest difference in theme being, optimism that humanity can overcome any obstacle and flourish.
If you want more in that vein, see:
Have you read other non-American/non-Western Scifi?
It's not a universal assumption that the future is good and technology will make us better. I love Soviet sci-fi for the completely different perspective.
I appreciate their sacrifice, though I'm afraid that in most cases it is dysgenic.
It's going to be intense for our descendents in a couple generations when the gene pool is only left with high fecundity actors. The real resource wars will start then.
1. The people that don't want kids, cannot accurately model what it is like having kids. Your brain and hormonal output changes after a birth.
2. Children aren't that expensive unless the parents are playing status games (e.g. acting rich), and statistically it's poorer people that end up having more kids.
On the topic of sacrifice: One of my kids is just starting to stand up, and is using my shirt to pull herself up while squealing in triumph and delight. It's hard to express the fulfillment and existential meaning provided from children.
If I was told I would have to give them all up, it would be a soul-crushing sacrifice. Irrecoverable.
You can model the experience before having kids. Babysit a few different ages. Hormones don't always (ever?) change enough to overcome the predictable and significant costs. Likely more than 250k per child to get them to adulthood, and unlikely to stop there.
It also matter with whom and how you parent. Are sleep training, daycare, diapers, Tylenol, and bottle feeding the devil? Must you potty train from birth, diaper free? Naturopath parenting or bust?
Prepare yourself for sleep deprivation, higher risk of depression, many trips to the ER, and the smell of shit and piss. If your doctor or therapist insists you'll need medication and/or change your parenting style, then how many second opinions will you seek out before trying something else?
There is a balance of course, no one should neglect kids. Yet finding that, especially with an opinionated partner and the parent industrial complex, may be a long journey.
In case anyone is using this to decide on having kids:
1. Babysitting is categorically different from taking care of your own kids. Ask any mother that babysat previously.
2. It doesn't take 250k to raise your child. That is referring to college costs, and between Junior College, summer internships, and some loans I paid off with my first job, it didn't cost my parents anything to put me through college. Your children should have agency.
3. Your parenting decisions don't matter as much as who you chose to make the children with. Don't waste time optimizing things that have little impact.
4. Sleep deprivation has not been an issue for us. People who have this issue probably are trying too hard to sleep train the baby.
5. I was depressed before having kids. Now I'm not. Take that with a grain of salt, but my hypothesis is that children provide existential meaning that keeps me from my previous depression.
6. I've gotten my kids' poop in my mouth. That would have horrified me before. Now it doesn't even register. None of the their smells illicit negative feelings.
7. Both parents should have strong opinions loosely held, since personalities of children differ even in the same family, you will have to collaboratively figure it out.
8. The parenting industrial complex is probably part of the reason birth rates are so low, and should be avoided in favor of more traditional parenting styles.
According to the USDA the average cost per child as of 2017 was 233K. That's not including college.
Take care to ask your partner what "traditional parenting" means to them. It may involve indoctrination in religion that teaches self hatred (born sinful), whipping the children with a switch, or intentionally infecting them with diseases that have vaccines.
When I say parenting industry, I'm talking about books, mommy blogs, and commenting areas like this where you'll often get all kinds of self reinforcement, feel good BS, and no/bad science. I've seen it lead to parents convinced that some ways are evil, usually well studied and common things that would make life easier (such as bottle feeding).
We're moderately frugal (eat organic food, paid activities for the kids, live in CA), and our kids are on track to cost us each about 80k before university. That's less than a year salary for most HN readers.
Our friends that try to act rich have much higher costs. I assume that is where your cited number got so inflated.
Re. Parenting Industry: there's an excellent book called Hunt, Gather, Parent - which examines how traditional cultures raised children. Parenting isn't complicated, but modern marketing has completely muddied the waters.
> You can model the experience before having kids. Babysit a few different ages. Hormones don't always (ever?) change enough to overcome the predictable and significant costs. Likely more than 250k per child to get them to adulthood, and unlikely to stop there.
Agreed. I knew I didn't want kids because I knew many (MANY) parents with them and knew for sure I did not want that life, even the good parts.
That's such a weird thing to say. If I said "you can model what its like to be in a happy marriage. Hang out with some randos wife for a bit" you'd think that is crazy.
Plenty of kids are little shits. I really really like my kid (and some others). Just like I wouldn't marry most people I meet...
It's an approximation of course. IME far better than just hoping you'll like it and adapt, having never done anything like it. Dating and living together before marriage is much the same idea.
Of course you may babysit a bad kid and have your own great kids. Babysitting first will still at least provide a frame of reference.
Still strong disagree with that, having kids involves a lot of rote activities that are infused with meaning and joy if they’re for your kids. If you have a strong enough reaction that babysitting will give useful information (because you omg love kids, or because the very sound of crying makes you vomit) then you probably know that already; otherwise the babysitting exercise is going to be completely misleading.
Not everyone will find the decades of chores suddenly "infused with meaning and joy". People should be cautioned because if they're like me then they'll find they hate it and regret many of the decisions.
I think what we parents are trying to communicate is that babysitting does not compare with parenting much at all. (I can't think of an effective analogy, unfortunately.)
It is true that parenting isn't for everyone. But you can find babysitting unpleasant and yet still find much joy and fulfillment in parenting. So I wouldn't suggest allowing your babysitting experiences to play a significant role in your decision about whether to have children.
(The inverse might be the case, though -- if you really enjoy babysitting then that could bode well for you liking parenting. I can't speak as well to that, but it seems plausible.)
And, as others have said, your coparent is a huge factor as well.
"we parents"? You certainly don't speak for me and I have several children.
I thought (and was told) my negative babysitting experiences were too narrow, unlike real parenting, and my hormones would change. IME none of that was true and I regret not giving the childcare experience more weight in whether to have (and how many) kids. And trust me, not everyone's hormones will change enough to overcome the costs, or otherwise find "special little moments".
By "we parents," I was referring to those who had already posted similar opinions on this subthread. I didn't intend to imply I was speaking for all parents. (E.g., you had not posted yet, so you were not among those "trying to communicate.") I apologize that I was insufficiently precise with my wording to prevent misinterpretation, or if I misrepresented the "we" that I did implicate.
I agree, of course, that not every parent will feel it was worth the costs. And I didn't even give my personal opinion on that. My statement, which I still stand by, is that negative experiences babysitting should not be given heavy weight in the decision. Babysitting and parenting are not comparable experiences. I accept and concede that for some people maybe they feel similar enough in that they dislike both; I do not think this invalidates my point. (I'm unfamiliar with the "hormones" argument and cannot speak to that.)
4. Have these women adjust their expectations. How many dozens or hundreds of men have they rejected that would have been perfectly acceptable fathers?
I am paying it forward. Many people will live better lives because of me. The fact that they share 99.99% of my genes rather than 99.999% is not my main concern.
I don’t understand. You should have as many kids as you possibly can (à la Monty Python) to provide the “gift” as widely as possible? Or you owe other people (mostly ppl you don’t know) the existence of a child for some reason?
I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from?
How did you come to that conclusion, was it something you came to one day after careful consideration or was it something you heard one day and just started saying because everyone else was saying it?
I don't mean that to be rude, I'm genuinely curious. Like what's so selfish about it?
If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish?
Is someone who has 10 kids in poverty less selfish than someone not poor who only has 1?
What's the ideal number of children to minimize selfishness?
> If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish?
Probably not (it's a bit judgemental), but if their parents decided to never have children and chilax on the beach instead, they would not have existed at all, and neither would any of their achievements.
Now say the same about (say) Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), etc., etc.: What would have happened if their parents had decided to just chilax on the beach and not have kids? That's right: Their "accomplishments" would never have been "shared" with the rest of us, either.
Yes, it's much harder to invest time, health, money and effort to properly raise kids who do wonders rather than to abuse and to raise fuckups. What is the point you are trying to make, that it's not worth trying?
> I've always been puzzled by the 'its so selfish to not have kids' idea. Like where does that come from?
Why is it so puzzling? You're part of a whole, and producing children is important work to sustain that whole. If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption).
> If Norman Borlaug or Frederick Banting never had children but they otherwise did the work that they did, would you consider them selfish?
Maybe people like that, with one-in-a-billion achievements, are the exceptions that prove the rule.... except they both also had children.
> If no one did it, the whole would die. Skipping that work voluntarily is a kind of freeloading (and also would typically involves redirecting the personal resources that would have gone to it towards increasing selfish consumption).
There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous.
> There is no amount of consumption a child free middle class person could do in their lifetime that equals that of introducing a whole other person. That’s ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is how much you completely misunderstood my comment. Personal "consumption" has nothing to do with the core idea I was talking about. The only way it factors in at all is like the "insult" in "add insult to injury" (i.e. an ancillary thing that just makes perception of an underlying issue worse).
I don't hold a firm stance on whether choosing not to have children is selfish, though I tend to believe it isn't.
Nonetheless, the most compelling arguments suggesting that it could be selfish include:
- ending the family lineage, despite your ancestors' efforts to preserve it;
- relying on society for support in old age;
- failing to contribute to the growth of a culture, society, nation, advancement or humanity;
- depriving yourself or your partner of the potential fulfilment found in raising children;
- and disobeying a religious divine command to procreate, possibly resulting in negative consequences for humanity prescribed by religious beliefs.
Since these arguments are circumstantial, hinging on factors like religion, culture, technology, and taxation, their strength varies among individuals. For instance, in cultures valuing social cohesion and unity through religion (e.g., Polish culture), these arguments may carry more weight than in cultures prioritizing free choice and individualism (e.g., Western culture and values).
In the West, some might argue that pressuring others to have children is selfish, as:
- there may be personal gain involved, such as parents wanting their children to have kids for their own enjoyment or to pass on their values;
- it disrespects personal autonomy and choice of would-be parents;
- it exacerbates future environmental and population issues for short-term personal happiness or fulfilment;
- it ignores a child's right to a good quality of life in cases where parents might struggle to provide it;
- it diverts resources from other families in need.
However, the strength of these arguments also varies among individuals. For example, someone who firmly believes that God prescribed procreation to humanity and that it will ultimately benefit everyone might not find the arguments against pressuring others to have children convincing.
There is also often a significant amount of hand-waving on both sides of these arguments. For instance, some individuals defend their stance by suggesting that society should adapt to accommodate their position (e.g., addressing societal and ecological issues related to procreation through means other than discouraging procreation).
Numerous related arguments inevitably also get invoked in these discussions, like whether and in what circumstances we should advise others on having children. For example, some argue that if prospective parents have a high likelihood of passing on a hereditary disease, they should refrain from procreating. This concept, known as eugenics, is controversial. Critics argue that it restricts bodily freedom and carries negative historical connotations, while proponents claim that it benefits society by easing resource scarcity and reducing the ecological strain on the planet.
There are so many different aspects and strong opinions involved in the question of whether it's selfish not to have kids that it's really difficult to come up with a definitive answer. I am not convinced that the position that not having children is selfish is indefensible or stupid, even if I personally do not agree with it.
I think this is an excellent summary of the perspectives.
I agree that it is difficult to come up with a definitive answer.
(That said, trying to persuade reluctant persons that they should have children seems like a really bad idea (not to imply that anyone here was doing this). And, while I chose to be a parent, it seems to me that those who choose to not have children are making a responsible decision for themselves.
(Edit to add: FWIW, while I try to approximate selflessness as much as I can, I consider my decision to have children to have been selfish on my part. (I'm not saying all/other parents are selfish for having kids, just that I feel selfish for having made the decision I did.))
> trying to persuade reluctant persons that they should have children seems like a really bad idea
Indeed, persuading hesitant individuals to have children could be detrimental, as it might interfere with their varied values and beliefs.
For example, convincing a financially insecure (and aware of it) person to have children would make them act against their principles. This situation may result in considerable practical difficulties, of course, but also significant moral suffering.
With that said, some cultures do not care about the beliefs and values of individuals as much as the collective. Religions have an element of this, too. In that case, is it right to persuade someone reluctant to have children? I am way out of my depth to even try and answer that.
I almost always take religious arguments out the question of 'should I have children'. Successful religions are almost to a tee going to have the two following properties. 1) Have children. 2) Teach those children your religion. The religion has transcended human desire and become a self reinforcing meme at that point, a system serving unto itself. Nations do the same thing to ensure their success, and especially in the case of ethnostates take it to extremes.
Going beyond human behavior, life itself is a very bad example to use to answer the question 'should I have children'. In the vast majority of animal populations if you have food, water, shelter/space until they point they affect the biosphere around them and collapse the population.
The systems we created in the past needed/wanted to maximize the number of people because we died in mass for varied reasons (quite often around childbirth itself), when we 'solved' this suddenly we had massive population growth that would become unsustainable, as they say, exponential growth cannot go on forever. Old systems will have to change to deal with the new reality, or experience dangerous collapses.
I didn’t ask for the gift and I don’t owe anyone anything for it. If you want to treat life as some kind of exchange, you at least need consent from the parties to it.
That’s assuming the human race naturally reducing or eventually dying out is considered selfish in the first place. We really place too much longevity of humans while extinguishing animals for sport.
That’s not necessarily true. The biggest resource constraint on the earth we can’t live without is food and we are extremely inefficient at producing it. Right now it takes large fields of biological crops, but the future might solve that problem.
That's a good point. The more I think about it the more what I said was a way of rationalizing not agreeing with the parent comment. Even if there were no ressource constrains it still doesn't feel selfish to me not to have children.
That would be assuming that we've not already overshot sustainable population. With every biodiversity marker pointing that we're in the middle of a mass extinction, it really does seem like that may be the case.
I have many smart, empathetic friends in tech who are not having kids. Meanwhile my redneck neighbor has 5.
It seems to me that all of the conscientious people who look out for the greater good and environment, are leaving the gene pool. This feels like a problem for the future.
The pretty reasonable copium is that the differences you're focusing on are traits which exist in the DNA of every person you see, including ones that don't exhibit those traits. They're just expressions of a random/environmentally-determined subset of the DNA within everyone.
As anecdata, wait until you meet a girl from a broken family of alcoholic rednecks who live in the woods and find out that she can code circles around you despite growing up without anything you can call broadband. ;p
Could you take the time to explain to me how labor movements have made meaningful progress throughout all of history?
Where I’m from, when the big city law-man came to foreclose/auction on poor widows homes, the entire town showed up with guns & stared until nobody bid over $1 on the home.
Do you view these people with disdain for doing so?
How do you feel about Peter Thiels “let’s put suicide collars on the security guards” schpiel? Is murder okay when the rich or right people say it is?
The author also has a long running web fiction about AI taking over the world. It is hilarious and provides a deep insight into modern religious cults.
If you ever want to stop wallowing in misanthropic nihilism, I recommend reading books like "More From Less" - Mcafee which shows that capitalism does in fact reduce/moderate consumption. Next look at "Speed and Scale" - Doerr, or "How to Solve a Climate Disaster" - Gates for a giant list of human innovations that will in fact decrease/reverse climate change.
Aside from the needless labeling, thank you for the references. I will take a look. However, count me initially skeptical of some of the claims. I simply have not seen any data that would corroborate what seems to be the thesis of More From Less. Even if "more from less" is true, doing so at scale is still more. But I will read more. I do note the following quote from a review of More From Less:
> In a positive note, the author is very clear that market fundamentalism - letting capitalism run amok - is emphatically NOT an answer to the environmental crises, and that we need a strong state to regulate and control the private interests, repair market failures and price the externalities. ... That said, I've already noticed that many proponents of this book haven't noticed these caveats, and instead claim that McAfee suggests unbridled capitalism is "the" answer.
And to be clear, I am not opposed to environmentalism and acting on climate change. In fact it's quite the opposite. I do what I can with composting, recycling, native plant restoration and conservation on my property, and my donations. However, I am indeed quite cynical when VCs suddenly want to ride the green wave, and I don't see much of a coherent plan in the post here aside from a shotgun approach to simply making money through investments of a "hot" area.
Theoretically, if we can drive the carbon footprint per captia down far enough such that the carbon footprint of 10 billion people is lower than the rate of carbon removal (natural and artifical), then we're fine.
Definitely a hard problem, but so is restructuring society into a non-capitalist, non-consumption based system.
So I think the "coherent plan" is to accelerate this decrease in carbon per captia. It's trending the right way but too slowly. But perhaps with the power of the market's exponential growth, if we incentivize it the right way, it will accelerate this in a way to avoid total collapse.
I'm guessing this is referring to US cities, where it feels too dangerous/stressful to raise kids. Cities in Europe, like Amsterdam, have a completely different experience.
