Hacker News Reader

Comment by randlet | Hacker News Reader

Great. Another thing to worry about when trying to start a family...

Starting a family isn't rocket science. Look at the world around you. It's amazing. And it was built by people whose parents didn't wear them around in a pouch until they were five, who fed them formula, who didn't eat a bunch of fish oil while pregnant, and who (gasp!) smoked or drank during pregnancy.

Parenting science is like nutrition science. Lots of studies, little consensus. Just ignore it.

They also had horrific infant mortality rate and ridiculous risk of death during childbirth, for both mother and child.

There isn't as much clear cut answers about parenting as we would like, but there is much evidence backed science which tells us what to do.

Your "Just ignore it." comment is pretty close to what the anti-vaxxers argue.

"Horrific" enough to have our population approach the carrying capacity of the planet, though I guess that doesn't take the danger away on an individual level.

That said, I think "just ignore it" is the proper thing to do in this case.

Anti-vaxxers argue against something that's proven all over and pretty much obvious if you had biology classes in high school[0]. OTOH, "nutrition science" is some small core of facts and good studies, covered by layers and layers of lies, bullshit, misperceptions, bad statistics and normal people acting like idiots. It's not worth the time.

[0] - then again, many if not most anti-vaxxers are only showing their lack of trust in the medical establishment, for which I do not blame them in the least, because of all the shenanigans doctors, scientists, pharma corps and politicians keep doing. And yes, "nutrition science" is a big part of that, too. <insert my standard rant about people who lie being responsible for all the blood that will be shed when society dissolves and civilization collapses />

You're going to like the NYT article[1,2] about the state of nutritional research... It speaks directly to your point _and_ rayiner's, in that the definitive research is limited, and the mass-media interpretation of said research is overblown.

[1] NYT Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/upshot/surprising-honey-st... [2] HN Submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453401

I'm pretty sure all of that drop in infant and maternal mortality rate was due to "real science" (antibiotics, surgical techniques, heroic efforts to save pre-term babies), and not the "pop science" that bombards parents-to-be. There is little scientific evidence that stuff leads to materially (not just measurably) better outcomes.

That means the advice reduces to "Pay attention to the real science, and ignore the pop science". Unfortunately that asks too much of a general audience (presupposes the ability to differentiate, which we know even PhDs occasionally have trouble with).

The real science is the stuff the powers that be will take care of for you. Just say "yes" when the doctor asks to vaccinate your kid or rush her to the NICU.

That's IMO the core of the anti-vaxx issue. The real reason is not rejection of the real science (even if it manifests this way) - it's the lack of trust in the way "powers that be will take care of (...) you" will be good for you. Politicians, pharma companies and all those scientists publishing bullshit for career/grant money fucked that up.

It's really hard to argue with the track-record of those politicians, pharma companies, and bought scientists. Infant mortality rate is one-third of what it was even in 1970. And that didn't happen from "empowered parents" making decisions based on advice they read on the internet. It was the medical industrial complex--including those companies selling NICU equipment for a few hundred grand per bed--saved all those lives.

I'm not denying that. Science, industry and politics did a hell of a great job. My point is, there were so many bad apples in those fields that society is rapidly losing its collective trust in authority - and this breeds all that anti-vaxx nonsense. I believe this rampant lying to be an actual existential threat to civilization - and I don't mean it as a hyperbole.

How about we stop jailing people for cannabis possession and instead start putting behind the bars journalists, politicians and "scientists" that push the most obvious bullshit for money?

"there were so many bad apples in those fields that society is rapidly losing its collective trust in authority"

Assumes facts not in evidence. I think it's fair to say that some of the tribalism currently evident in social and political argument is expressed as a broad based distrust and disregard for science, but that doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis or actual knowledge, but more on internally propagated mythology.

Assumes facts visible to naked eye if you just go out and talk to normal people.

> I think it's fair to say that some of the tribalism currently evident in social and political argument is expressed as a broad based distrust and disregard for science, but that doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis or actual knowledge, but more on internally propagated mythology.

You know that, I know that. People who are not really into science/tech don't know that. Most people know only what they hear on the news. And what they hear is that every single thing causes cancer - on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, because that same thing cures cancer on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. What they hear is that their government panicks about some flu, buys shots, those shots are not used and then questions are asked, politicians lose seats, etc.

Add to that that almost every single company is out there to fuck you over (mom&pop are the worst, actually), there's shit ton of FUD in media about everything related to biology (GMOs, vaccines, drugs, etc.), and are you really going to tell me there is no loss of general trust in scientific establishment? Go ask your non-tech family members and friends.

But yeah, it's easier to just assume instead that all "those people" must be just stupid.

>>And what they hear is that every single thing causes cancer

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/processed-meat-causes-c...

...you're so right it's painful. =/

There's a point I keep beating into people whenever someone utters the word "cancer" within my earshot. Actually, two related points:

- Just ignore the news; if Commonly Used Thing X was Actually Dangerous, you'd see people around you dying from cancer clearly tied to it.

- If you really have to go into it, demand to know actual values - not that something "causes cancer", but how it adjusts the probability, and then factor in the base probability. Something increasing cancer risk 100x may sound dangerous until you realize we're talking about increase from 0.00005% to 0.0005%, at which point you can, once again, just completely ignore it.

   Assumes fact visible to the naked eye if you just go out and took to normal people.

Well, no, which was the point. Some normal people, absolutely. Others, not at all. To characterize this as "society" is inept. One of the problems with making sense of society as a concept is that these sort of generalizations tend to have little value as they occlude more than they illuminate.

> It's really hard to argue with the track-record of those politicians, pharma companies, and bought scientists.

As a lawyer, you should know it's pretty easy:

"Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

It's simpler than that. Past performance is something you get used to, and if you grow up around something working, you sort of assume it's always been like that. Part of the reason why every new generation wants to dismantle the systems set up by their grandparents.

FWIW I (GP) have two kids and totally agree with this:

"Parenting science is like nutrition science. Lots of studies, little consensus. Just ignore it".

I'm just too weak to resist such low hanging joke opportunities.

Sure, throw enough bodies at something and they'll get it done. But I don't think most parents are looking to play the odds so brashly, nor most modern organizers of any activity or goal.

Survivorship Bias [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Look at it from the bright side. You can now blame your parents for your crippling anxiety and stress.

and http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/09/28/what-parents-can-do...

It is also reinforced by their actions, so nature and nurture.

Think about the conditions our ancestors dealt with.

"Stress" meant a broken bone, a fever, or a predator (if you go back far enough) could all be the source of life-changing (or ending) events.

We've evolved to adapt to harsh conditions and conditions have never been this good for a significant portion of the global population (especially for those of us reading Hacker News).

Your kids will be fine.

This raises an interesting thought in my mind. While the stresses of long-ago might have been more easily life ending, I wonder if people of long-ago laid in bed at night worrying about getting a broken bone.

Lethal stresses have the added benefit of preventing further reproduction, so we probably don't need to consider them in this scope.

While I agree conditions are pretty good for a lot of people, especially in countries like Australia where I live, people do seem to find a lot to worry about.

The non-lethal stressors are the ones we have to worry about. Or shouldn't worry about, as the evidence may suggest.

If you read the article, there was nothing of the sort involved in this test. And it explicitly notes that the hormonal stress indicators in the mice are in fact quite common in modern men.

Take a two month long vacation[1], and then do it somewhere toward the end.

[1]: Yes yes, not everyone has the luxury to be able to do that. But frankly, I've found that with a healthy amount of planning it is possible. E.g. I'm planning to take a 2 month long vacation next summer... I know already my boss probably won't let me, but I don't care! I'll quit if I have to! Already have an eye out for new gigs! This is like what people say about exercising -- you don't have time? Make time for it. The POTUS can find time to exercise, probably you can too.

Pre-paternity leave

I doubt this will work, given that it usually takes multiple attempts to concieve.

The two month vacation would be nice, but there's nothing to guarantee that the child will be concieved at the 'correct' time.

Most people can't afford to take a 2 month vacation unless they already have a high paying job. Sure, most people can reduce their living expenses a lot but only so much.

That's not even considering the fact that planning a pregnancy like that isn't feasible, especially for older couples - who are the ones who had enough time to save up for a two month vacation. Pregnancy doesn't work like that, it can take months to years and that's not even considering 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage.

The idea pregnancy should be instant is harmful and leads to anxiety in itself.

I don't have a very high-paying job. I'm able to take the vacation because of (a) specifically saving for it and (b) planning a lot; took care of airfare almost an year earlier (in fact the location I chose was because of airfare deals), arranged place to live, and so on forth.

> That's not even considering the fact that planning a pregnancy like that isn't feasible, especially for older couples

I'm getting off-topic here but I really want to say this: the biggest reason I see Valley as being evil is it forces everyone to delay having kids. Have kids early, there will be less problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#/media/File:Down... There's a huge amount of research that suggests having kids earlier (e.g. at age 30 or earlier vs. age 40) is better for so many reasons.

I'm sure you have a job that's higher than median income because most of us here do.

So you are expected to have a life partner AND save up enough for a long vacation all before you are 30. That's a ton of pressure to put on young person.

Delaying childbearing has quite a bit of disadvantages but also its advantages. Even young people can't snap their fingers and instantly have a healthy pregnancy. That's not how pregnancy works.

As a person who started a family later in life (33), I agree with the OP that starting sooner would be good for more people. I wish I had.

Yes it's hard to find a life mate, but many generations did it before us.

The challenge is what policy levers are there to make it workable? My pet peeve is housing cost. In the Valley, NYC, and Boston, housing is so expensive that you need a career that can pay large salaries. Places like Austin, this is much less of a problem.

Also, I think it would be smart for a more frank discussion about the challenges of delayed parenthood. It's great that Facebook is paying for egg-freezing, but IVF is still super risky, financially impactful, stressful in its own right, and very uncomfortable.

Well, b) is what's hard for most people. You can only plan so many things before life overwhelms you. I personally know I can't plan shit.

But many in Europe can take at least 1 month.

I wanted to make the same pun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com