How can existentialist philosophy help with the anxiety and dread of fatherhood? | Hacker News Reader

How can existentialist philosophy help with the anxiety and dread of fatherhood?

aeon.co

90 pointsPetiver105 comments

The best I can do, after raising two children, is that fatherhood needs to be less about keeping your children alive (by avoiding risk in any form) and more about teaching them to 1) survive on their own in the world, and once they're in a good place, 2) incrementally building the life they desire. In the most general sense, that means: How to size up a situation, analyze it for both opportunities and risk, asses the resources available and then resolve it. You can't really teach your kids to size up situations without, at some point, exposing them to said situations. Moreover, there is much more of an edge to that process when a child knows they are on their own in solving the problem.

So it's a real balancing act as a father to present age & maturity-appropriate situations that challenge your child without presenting more danger than they can reasonably handle. Anxiety, yes, that's the fuel to keep fathers focused on maintaining that balance. Dread? Yes, but you'll get over it once your kids start surprising you with insights and behaviors you didn't know you'd taught them.

I'm currently struggling to learn this by myself (not fatherhood but surviving on my own) in my mid twenties. It is incredibly difficult only because I am in such a state of comfort that forcing myself to face difficult situations to learn and grow from, is hard.

> It is incredibly difficult only because I am in such a state of comfort

Simply recognizing this as a problem is a huge step in the right direction. The antidote is to travel on a very limited budget, particularly in third-world countries, and most especially somewhere you can get a work visa so you can get a job (and I'm not talking about a job as a developer, I'm talking about washing dishes). Keep enough money in reserve so that you can bail if you really need to, but try to limit yourself to using that escape hatch only in the direst of circumstances, like a real medical emergency. Spend a year doing that and you will learn more about life than from any college degree.

the solution is easy. just get rid of your state of comfort.

most people can't, because the real problem is something else.

>the real problem is something else

Would you like to elaborate or give examples of that something else?

fear.

Can you take the gnomicism down a notch?

That doesn't help. "Fear" of what, in your expert opinion?

Just because something is simple doesn't mean that it's easy.

Schopenhauer is also famous for having an anti-natalist stance.

“If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?”

It's brushed off in first few paragraphs, but for those who are not yet a parent: you don't have to be. You can have a fulfilling, arguably happier [1], life without children. In fact, a lot of people argue against having children these days [2,3,4]. I'm fairly lucky to have a supporting and progressive family who, mostly, supported my decision for not having children. But a quick gloss over /r/childfree indicates that there is a lot of stigmatism still going on. I think it's time to do away with that.

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/111/4/1328.full.pdf

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/sep/10/david-a...

[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/people-who-dont-have-chi...

[4] https://www.wired.com/2015/04/biggest-threat-earth-many-kids...

I think short term you are happier without kids, no question. However long term kids can[not] add significantly more meaning, purpose and joy to your life. What they do, in my experience, is expand the range of emotions you are capable of experiencing. That means they can make your life the worst hell, give you the worst emotional pain available (death of child, bad actions of child, financial, medical, etc). But the inverse is also true.

That being said I did not want to be a father, I did everything I could to try and stop it ( including recommending an abortion) I was immature and loved my life the way it was, and was totally happy keeping things the same.

The first year was really hard and a huge adjustment. As it is coming up on my daughter's birthday (coincidencly a day after mine) all I can say is that she is the love of my life and brings me more happiness than I every thought possible. She is the best antidepressant, cheerful, beautiful and everything I never knew I needed. I wouldn't trade all the pain and heartache she brought for anything.

You can be happy with or without kids. But you have the possibility of much different type of happyness with kids

Very well said. As the father of two young children, I can confidently say that becoming a parent has brought me some of the worst pains of my life, yet also some the highest, most incomparable joys. Until you have children, this contradiction is difficult, maybe impossible, to understand. My kids have taught me more about being human than I could have ever imagined, but raising them has been difficult, fraught with pain and anxiety every step of the way (though I want to point out that my experience is not representative of all parents, as my story includes challenges most will, thankfully, never have to endure). In a way, it's like being reborn. I have watched as everything I THOUGHT was "me" fall away -- friends, hobbies, interests, even my opinions and beliefs about myself and the world -- only to be replaced with a completely different set of priorities and concerns. Honestly, having kids has shown me just how shallow, naive, and self-absorbed I once was, and the person I have become is far more mature, compassionate, and open. The problem is that no one can know how having children will affect them and I empathize with those who choose not to have kids. If one chooses to avoid the lowest of lows, while understanding that this choice could close off an entire range of life experience, I would completely understand. In my low moments I sometimes pine for my days of naïveté, chasing after absurd goals motivated purely by self-aggrandizement, but then I take one look at my children and know that I would have it no other way. For better or worse, I never understood love or purpose until I had children, and my experience as a father is far more rewarding than anything other future I could have imagined for myself. Of course, it isn't this way for all parents, and the decision is highly personal so I fully support those who have chosen another path in life.

Parenthood is not required though to make the same transformations you have, "shallow, naive, and self-absorbed" to "far more mature, compassionate, and open". It's not required for learning "more about being human than I could have ever imagined".

Procreating has to be about the most normal thing a thing can do. Surely it feels Right, and the rightness of it demands your attention. All of this has become possible through offspring. All over the planet, every one's doing it, or trying to do it on some level.

Feeling higher and lower simply (ha) requires an advanced, growing ability to feel and to think. There are immeasurable life forms on this Earth, and we're all fighting for survival, the opportunity to live. Family is just waiting to come into being, if we support it.

The places our minds are able to go are only as limited as our imaginations, it's a capacity of the brain. There are many mental paths of growth, of life. Offspring takes many forms.

It's great to hear of having kids as a very positive, very negative experience, like it has been for you and your children (and probably spouse). It's not hard to see though that many families don't have your same experience, and it amounts to a net increase in (relative) lows, decrease in highs.

Maybe the world would be a different place if taking care of everyone that's already here, first, was more important than having kids? Maybe we could achieve higher highs without needing suffer so many of the lowest lows.

As a colleague of mine once said "you'll have regrets either way" (probably paraphrasing Kierkegaard)

I'd argue that there's a third option: adoption.

There are children who have already been born, and are subject to the burden of existence.

Instead of creating new humans with the potential to suffer, help support and nurture those who already exist.

As the father of an adopted child, I hesitate to encourage it. Adopting a child includes a number of additional challenges that having a child by birth does not. It is not for everyone, especially people that are already hesitant to have children.

Conversely, don't do it because you want to "save a child", either. The child will never feel "saved" and you will just become resentful. Adoption is a mutual process of attaching to and being attached to by a child that most likely has already had a fair amount of trauma in their life. It is ultimately worth it, but it is different (and also similar) in many ways to traditional parenting.

Whenever the pros and cons of parenthood are raised, someone always mentions adoption. Adoption or fostering is definitely an option for some, but I don't just want random kids, I want my own kids.

My reasoning is that if I'm going to pour a large proportion of my energy into a small human for a couple of decades, I want to give that small human every chance to succeed. Assuming that all 'nurture' factors would remain equal, the only other thing I can give them is my and my partner's genes. If I believe that we both have higher genetic potential than a randomly selected human then it makes sense to ensure that our children have those genes.

> I want my own kids.

> If I believe that we both have higher genetic potential than a randomly selected human then it makes sense to ensure that our children have those genes.

Do you believe that? Isn't it kind of like everyone believing they're above average?

Based on my own performance (professional and otherwise) and generally robust good health, yes, I do believe it. The fact that (nearly) everyone else believes they're above average doesn't affect the veracity of my belief.

Neither does the fact that you believe it.

And the fact that everyone else believes it means that such belief should be viewed as not automatically correct.

I agree, it's not for all. I think the preference comes down to the weightings individuals assign to: the importance of propagating their values vs their genes; and the value of existing humans vs potential humans.

People only want non-damaged goods kids, and I don't think there are many of those available for adoption are there?

Unfortunately, you're probably right. I was mainly trying to point out that it's not a binary choice.

It likely depends on their age; people do give up babies for adoption.

There's one thing that nobody ever told me before I became a father, so I'll post it here: I was (and remain) shocked by how much fun it is.

Seriously. My wife and I were married for 8 years before we even decided to have kids, and didn't do so lightly. What convinced me was a fairly abstract idea that it was, like birth and death, something more or less fundamental to the experience of being a living, biological creature, and though I likely would be happy either way, it seemed like I should go for it given that this was my only chance. "Buy the ticket, take the ride."

I saw a lot of data purporting to show how bad parenthood is for self-reported happiness, especially for dads. And I heard from my friends who had kids (when I could talk to them, which was rarely, since they basically dropped off the map once the kids came) how rough the sleep deprivation was, how they never had time to work out, see their friends (or, half the time, spouses), do fun things, etc. And I figured I was in for something that would basically suck in the near term but had a high chance of being, long-term "rewarding" in a vague, hard-to-define-but-nevertheless-really-important kind of way.

This was completely wrong.

Of course it sucks to never get enough sleep, of course it's a bummer to lose time for all the things we have always enjoyed in life etc ... but the sheer fun of it has outweighed that for me at every turn. Just hearing that kid's little voice makes me smile, and I've never had so many reasons to laugh as I have since he's been born.

This isn't a pitch. I am pro-humans and pro-more-humans and I think the HN crowd is above the median so on average I'd be happy to have everyone here have a bunch of kids, thus raising the intelligence waterline and producing a better future etc. But I don't claim to have any idea whether it's right for you in particular, and wouldn't have any idea where to start in figuring that out.

But on the scale of "things they don't tell you", the biggest surprise in my life was just how enjoyable the first few years of my son's life have been. YMMV but I figured this was worth posting since nobody told me, and I might have been happier going in if someone had.

I agree. Though I might not be quite so uniformly positive about it. My kids have brought me great quantities of annoyance, but they also bring me great joy. Something about the laugh, the cry, the learning, watching them turn into a sentient being right before my very eyes -- it flips a bunch of switches in the right way.

I agree that it's definitely not for everyone. I don't judge. I waited until I was 35 to have kids, so I've been solidly on both sides of the divide. I didn't like being asked 'where are my grandkids' and I won't ever ask anyone else a similar kind of question. Do it, or not, all I recommend is that you do it on purpose because there are no give-backs; only do it when you think you can give it your best.

Child free groups are like mens rights groups, nobody is getting in your way, you can cry and act judged all you want but you're fine.

Well, there is stigma attached to not having children, especially in certain families.

But yeah, r/childfree seems to be mostly about people complaining about how hard they have it by not having kids, how disgusting other people's kids are, etc. It's a big ol' echo chamber. They're welcome to it, but it's not exactly a support group so much as a shared bitching session.

For one example, let's look at one of the top posts right now, featuring two siblings who go to their mom's house and jump down each others' throat; the child-free sibling didn't like booger-talk at the dinner table, so retaliated by rubbing the fact that the childful (is that a term?) sibling can't go on an upcoming cruise: https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/5mr7nw/rant_my_s...

If someone doesn't want to have children, they shouldn't catch any additional shit for it, but they're not exactly some elevated saint either.

Yeah, the vibe I get from that sub is mainly one of people who want to have the freedom to spend all their money on themselves and not have to give a shit about others (oh, why do I get taxed so much and people with children get to have all my money for education etc.)

I'm cool with people not having children but that sub/movement seems mainly full of selfish materialistic people.

See, I'm okay with that, too - if you want to spend your life spending money on yourself, fuck it - it's your money. Just don't whine about how awful it is taking a first class flight from Paris to have Thanksgiving with your family in Virginia and having to put up with ten minutes of grandma inquiring if you've met anyone special yet.

But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. You should not be judged by not having children. In fact the default "you should have children to be happy/successful/not-be-frowned upon" is arguably the wrong one.

Of course. But please be aware, now that I've crossed from one side to the other, parents are getting an increasing amount of flack from the child-free folks. More than once I've been told how irresponsible and selfish I am for having children.

So it goes both ways. Like with many movements, it probably started out with pure intentions and a legitimate grievance, but then it became tribal like every other facet of human society.

People will frown at you regardless of the choices you make in life.

Maybe we should just stop doing that so much in general?

Or stop caring so much that someone frowned at us.

> In fact the default "you should have children to be happy/successful/not-be-frowned upon" is arguably the wrong one.

As biological organisms, our sole purpose is to reproduce. Our minds are designed around a lifecycle that includes having children and grandchildren. Betting that forgoing these will make for a happier life seems like a terrible wager.

Having your children taken away from you by the state and giving the mother of your children unearned wealth under threat of force is 'fine'?

I've heard enough "I pay exorbitant amounts of child support but can't see my kids" horror stories to ensure that I will never have children in a western country.

That's not remotely related to what the comment you replied to was talking about. They're talking about groups of people that neither have nor want their own children.

child support/custody rights is a fairly large topic in the more sensible "mens rights" groups that the post replied to also dismissed. (If that's a reason to not have children is a different question, and probably does depend a lot on the people involved)

I guess you are talking about having young children. That can be a rough experience, but it only lasts for a relatively short period. The kids grow up eventually. Deciding not to have kids seems like it focuses on the short term disadvantages, and ignores completely the significance of having children once the parents are over 50 or 60 years old.

My wife and I are childless by choice and have never for an instant doubted that this was the right decision for us.

I'd be much more concerned for the future of the species when folks that can make the no children choice actually make it. It's not going to help with overpopulation. It's just going to shift the demographics to something unsustainable.

It's really interesting on that front to see what is happening in Japan:

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21713868-there-arent-many...

Japan has developed world birth rates and very low immigration.

Japan's population has decreased by 1M already. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/26...

Globally as poor countries get richer and emigrate less this is what is likely to happen in many places.

In response to your [1], studies looking also at other countries than the US, like this one [5], have found that the "parents are less happy than others" result is entirely explained by the lack of social policies in the US that most other first-world countries have.

For the record, I'm not saying it's wrong of anyone to choose not to have children. As with all things in life, people are different. "Most people" want kids, but that's necessitated by the anthropic principle: if it were not so, the human race would be extinct.

https://contemporaryfamilies.org/brief-parenting-happiness/

"Schopenhauer settled permanently in Frankfurt in 1833, where he remained for the next twenty-seven years, living alone except for a succession of pet poodles named Atman and Butz."

If you want to end up like Schopenhauer, by all means be an anti-natalist. Also ask yourself if you would prefer never to have been born, even given whatever hardships you may have had to have endured. Not everyone was or is as miserable as Schopenhauer seems to have been.

I think not having children is incredibly selfish.

Life is an incredible gift. It is, after all, the substrate upon which all of our hopes and dreams are built.

And we were given this gift. Many people made many sacrifices so that we could be here, alive, enjoying life. To decide, then, to not share this gift with your own children, well... I can't conceive of anything more selfish.

I always find this an offensive stance.

Naturally, I'm in that category. I'm female. I've never wanted children. I hid that for some time, as people acted like I just lied to them or something was wrong with me. I've been called selfish and childish. Some people think that is confirmation of not really being straight enough, somehow. But no one cares why I don't want children or anything like that before they say these things.

It is confusing. I'm not questioning why people want kids nor thinking folks are selfish for doing so, even though it could be argued. I care that the schools are good, that families have more time off from work than I, and so on because society depends on it. I married a like-minded man, so that this decision isn't negatively affecting someone else's happy life dream.

There are lots of reasons for me not to have children, including thinking I'd be a bad parent and actually being afraid of being pregnant, especially for mental health reasons (I have trouble with birth control and pms hormones..). Found out a few years back that it really isn't recommended by the doctor either (Relief for me).

But most importantly of all this: I simply don't want children. At all. No drive, no biological clock. I don't feel a duty to have children since we aren't in danger of dying out: In that case, I'd happily do what was best for humanity, despite my personal urges. But as it stands, there are other ways to contribute to humanity and humanity's future.

A couple of things:

1. It's your life, live it in a way that you will be satisfied with on your death bed.

I brought up this POV, because I see lots of people making the decision to have (or not have) children based on how it affects them. To my mind, though, the more important consideration is the fact that not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less.

I understand that this is a stark way to view things, by it's also, you know, the truth. And I think people should walk into major life decisions with both eyes wide open.

2. My point is not really about survival of the species. It's more about the moral issue of denying life to other humans.

"not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less".

I fail to see how this is true in any sense without having some sort of moral fabric, religion, or something to base this off of. I can't possibly see how not having children is denying life to anyone. I can't deny life to something that doesn't exist, after all.

Could you explain how you come to the conclusion that a person not having children denies life to other humans - both your own children (who don't exist!) and folks that aren't?

My reasoning is simple (and I am open to it being wrong): there are two possible futures. One in which you have children and one in which you don't. The future in which you have children has people in it that do not (and can not) exist in the other future. Which of these two futures happens is solely at your discretion. Thus, my thinking goes, if you choose not to have children, you are denying them the life they would otherwise have.

This is not a legal argument. Unborn people do not have rights. Nor do I think choosing not to have children is equivalent to murder or anything like that. Nonetheless, this is a moral issue I think is worth considering.

Furthermore, though my view may seem outlandish, I think most reasonable people engage in similar reasoning about the wellbeing of unborn people. For instance: Do you think it's important to leave the Earth a decent place for future generations of humans? If so, why? After all, those future humans don't exist yet.

Thanks muchly for the reply - it was exactly the sort I was looking for, thank you. Always (Usually?) fun to understand other points of view.

> not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less.

Who don't exist. You can't take rights away from those who don't exist.

And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child?

> Who don't exist. You can't take rights away from those who don't exist.

See my reply to Broken_Hippo's sibling comment.

> And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child?

Yeah, I know. Like all matters related to raising children, you simply do your best.

> See my reply to Broken_Hippo's sibling comment.

The fork one? They still don't exist.

> Like all matters related to raising children, you simply do your best.

That doesn't address my problem with your argument at all. Are you trying your best? Are you pregnant right now? If not, why not? If you're a male, why are you not in a polyamorous relationship? Etc., etc.

> The fork one? They still don't exist.

I am hardly the first person to make decisions about my actions based on the welfare of people who do not yet exist. Many reasonable people agree that we owe it to future humans (people who do not exist), to leave the Earth more or less habitable for them.

> Are you trying your best? Are you pregnant right now?

I am literally typing this reply while holding my 8 day old son. He is my third child. I'm sure some could quibble with the level of my effort, but we plan to have more and, well, 3 is greater than 0.

By the way, this N+1 argument is not a refutation of my argument. If there are a bunch of people drowning after a boat capsizes, do you choose not to rescue any of them just because you cannot rescue all of them?

No, you get in there and rescue as many as you can. Afterwards, you agonize about whether or not you could have saved more if you had done this or that differently. Eventually, you come to terms with how things worked out and your inadequacy as a human being.

> If you're a male, why are you not in a polyamorous relationship?

It generally takes two people to make a baby. The female's willingness to make a baby is usually inversely correlated with her belief that the male has relationships with other females.

So either the guy really lucks out, or (more commonly) polygamy involves a level of coercion or deception that conflicts with basic decency.

I don't think you can be selfish by not sharing something...with someone who doesn't exist. Not everyone "enjoys life" the same way as you do. There's no selfishness in here, just decisions that I chose to respect. And why do you call it a gift? Given? By whom?

There is a fork in the road. Along one fork, there are additional humans (your children!) who exist. Along the other fork, they do not exist. Deciding which fork Existence takes as it unfolds is entirely up to you.

But, sure, believe there are no moral consequences to this decision if that makes you feel better.

This is no "Schrödinger's cat" which is both alive and dead. There is no fork if one decides to not have children. Decision was made so your fork is a straight line. Let's not dive into parallel universes spawned each time we make a decision.

Isn't the whole reason we punish people for murder based on the idea that if the murderer had chosen not to murder (in other words, if they had taken the other route at the fork in the road) then the victim would still be alive?

Obviously, murdering an already alive person is not the same thing as not having children, but is not the reasoning the same? Am I missing something?

Nope, the punishment is a reaction to an action (the murder). First there's the virus then comes the anti-virus. Without the action there is no punishment. You can twist this idea for as long as you wish, your point is still wrong as it's based on parallel universes and "what ifs" all the time. You remind me of the late Christopher Hitchens debates (go watch that man on youtube, also Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss) where the religious arguments are always based on the premise of "prove me that God doesn't exist" while nobody can actually prove it exists neither.

I know a gypsy family in my country (it's been aired on TV 2 weeks ago - there are many such examples) which has 12 kids, all of them sent in Paris and Berlin to beg on the streets for money. Back home they have a palace and 4-5 cars each above 30-40k euros from everything they raised over the years. Most of those kids bring zero value to the society (it's not their fault - it's how they were raised), even worst, "it takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch" meaning that I see a trend in the youth to go for the "easy money" which brings us to the top of the list when it comes to fraud, identity theft, credit card theft, hacking and so on. This is just an example (and there's plenty more I can think of) but I want to ask you...are they a gift? To whom? To their parents maybe...in which case, isn't it selfish in some cases to make more kids than none at all? Aren't you just subjective by using yourself as an example to all arguments?

As a father myself, I don't see a goal in "preserving my bloodline" at all. The bloodline doesn't matter. I always go for quality over quantity. I don't need to pay tribute to anybody (ancestors). I didn't ask anybody to bring me into this world. A gift is something that you're offered, never imposed.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. We don't excuse murder by saying that as soon as the murderer decides to kill the victim the "fork becomes a straight line". Murder is a crime because other possible outcomes exist (the other possible outcome being that the murderer decides not to kill the victim).

And the nature of those other possible outcomes changes whether or not we consider one person killing another to be murder. Imagine that somebody puts a gun to your head and threatens to kill you unless you kill somebody else. If you decide to kill that other person, it is not considered murder because of the other possible outcome (the person putting the gun to your head kills you).

So what I am saying is that it is perfectly valid to consider forks in the road (or alternate outcomes or whatever you want to call them) when making moral arguments. We do it all the time.

(I am not saying, btw, that choosing not to have children is equivalent to murder. Murder is just a useful example for thinking through the validity of considering alternate outcomes.)

We punish people for crime (including murder) to deter them from doing it, because such behavior is detrimental to society. I think you're reading far too much into the life part, and you are particularly far out there on the idea that not having children is akin to murdering them.

> you are particularly far out there on the idea that not having children is akin to murdering them

I specifically pointed out that the two are not the same thing.

The same can be said: it is incredibly selfish to produce offspring for the various reasons you think it will make you happier/improve your life/entertain you.

That's...not what toasterlovin said.

Some people just aren't equiped to be parents and others recognize the significant burden and sacrifice to have them. Others have concerns about the world and choose not to. Some choose not to because of health concerns or because of past unsuccessful pregnancies.

I don't think it's selfish at all to choose not to bring a child into the world when there are still 6+ billion of us to carry the species forward.

I love my kids immensely but also respect my friends who choose not to have them.

> I don't think it's selfish at all to choose not to bring a child into the world when there are still 6+ billion of us to carry the species forward.

But my argument is not about survival or wellbeing of the species. It's about denying life to your children.

I don't think you can make a value judgement on the character of people who decide not to have kids. Remember that they still contribute to society in a myriad of ways, including playing inportant roles in the lives of children that belong to friends or family. On the other hand, there are many selfish people who do have kids but make poor parents.

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I am only making the argument that the decision not to have kids is selfish. I am not making a larger statement about the people who make this decision.

It an alien idea to me, but I don't think its selfishness... more an anxiety or fear that can be controlled.

We live in a strange transitional era, and are still coming to grips with the notion that women have careers and that we don't really need to work as much as we do.

As half of a couple who struggled to have a family (because we waited too long to meet goals that ultimately didn't matter too much), I think a lot of the child free rhetoric is just that. Sometimes when you discover that getting and staying pregnant at 40 isn't a sure thing, it's easier to move on and make the best of things.

So how many children do you have? Why not more? You're not sharing gifts with as many children as you can conceive. You are selfish in that regard according to your own basis.

Believe me, after I convince everybody to have children, I'm gonna work on convincing them to have lots of children :P

That's certainly my own plan. Just welcomed number three into the world last week. Definitely have plans for more, but, you know, babies generally come one at a time.

Luckily the process scales horizontally quite well. Also see e.g. Genghis Khan.

Well, it does for half the species. In theory. The other half kind of acts as a damper on things, especially if you value things like women's rights, etc.

Who is more selfish: the person who has children, can't take care of them, and lets them die a horrible death by malnutrition or the person who decides not to have kids? Or perhaps the person who tries to dictate others' actions so that they conform to his or her own values? I'd say it's this last one.

A couple of things:

1. Most people in the developed world who decide not to have children are not doing so to prevent their children from experiencing a life of suffering followed shortly by death. They are choosing not to have children because there are other ways they would rather spend their lives.

2. I'm not dictating anybody's actions. I'm making a moral argument on the internet.

it might be selfish in the sense that by refusing to procreate you remove yourself from the gene pool your ancestors worked so hard to keep a presence in.

on the other hand you have siblings and they did procreate, problem solved.

You do make an excellent point about kinda owing kids to your ancestors, but I think having your own children is the better strategy. After all, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush...

I struggle to relate to the premise of this article: while anxiety is something I have always struggled with, fatherhood is not one of the things that makes me anxious. My son is three, turning four in a few months, and while his behaviour and moods can at times be difficult to deal with, I'd describe the resulting emotions as more exasperation or weariness than anxiety. Now, maybe as he gets older – maybe when he is a teenager he will cause me anxiety – but certainly not yet.

It's difficult for me to relate to this. For me, fatherhood has been a source of great joy.

This is really only an issue for neurotic over-educated upper-middle class Westerners. Everyone else just gets on with their lives and ignores this nonsense about anxiety and dread.

It's still an issue to be overcome.

Because in the long term everything you see will be destroyed and humanity itself wont even be a thought, so don't worry.

I can't wait, generally, to have kids.

I'll drop the name only because I am tired: Viktor Frankl. Everything from own is great.

I might point out that men are not totally fine. Men are imprisoned at a much higher rate than women, enter and complete college at a lower rate than women, and have a higher rate of successful suicide. Men also bear the vast majority of the tax burden and have few rights in family court. Men also live shorter lives than women.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13351730 and marked it off-topic. The guidelines ask us not to introduce classic flamewars like this.

The rates of entering and completing college and of successful suicide are real problems. Definitely give you those.

The others, I'm not sure I can. Some of this is biological. The rate of sociopathy is much higher in men than women, and young men have hormonal drives to physical violence that are much stronger than women. I would be astonished at a society where incarceration rates are equal. Similarly, men living shorter lives appears to be biological, as it is ubiquitous across cultures.

As for tax burden, if you factor in systemic lower rates of pay for women than men, lower employment opportunities for the three quarters of single parent households that have only a mother rather than only a father, and split the burden across couples where one does not work, is it still so?

> Some of this is biological

It wasn't a long time ago that most gender inequality for women was labeled "biological". Estrogen was blamed for everything between unsuitability for voting, then it was specific professions, and then higher hospital rates. All which research in the last 100 years has found to be either completely false or highly overrated as a factor. Culture it seems, plays a order of magnitude bigger factor in everything we used to blame sex hormones.

> young men have hormonal drives to physical violence

So lets say we had a study that looked at hormonal levels in young men, and tried to correlate that to tendencies to commit physical violence. We should expect that those individuals with higher tendency of violence should have a statistical higher levels.

And researchers did such studies and found that there was no correlation between hormonal levels and risk of committing violence. There was a correlation between abnormal levels of several times higher than can naturally occur, and violence. Within the natural range however, testosterone has no regulative effect on violence.

> men living shorter lives appears to be biological, as it is ubiquitous across cultures

Higher income for men is also ubiquitous across cultures, so is that biological? At best it is a half truth, since success statistics from dating site do give a strong correlation for women that focus on personal health. Men in turn has success being correlated to wealth and ability to support a family, and less so to personal health. This translate to a strong cultural difference in incentives, possible caused by biology, but surely thats not one that gender equality can't over come.

"systemic lower rates of pay for women than men"

Do you have a reference for that, specifically a recent one concerning the US?

Last I heard there is a pay gap (in the US) if you don't consider job titles, but close to none if corrected for industry and title.

I'm under the impression it's more of a gap in job position distribution, which may partially be explained by males better average negotiation skills/outcomes and the majority share males have of physically taxing and dangerous (i.e. military) jobs.

The points about incarceration and suicide are true however these are gendered expectations enforced by the patriarchy (men must not have emotions, men can "take" punishment) and also issues that a lot of feminists are concerned about. The shorter lives point has a number of causes one of which seems to be testosterone which is of course unfortunate.

As for the tax burden and family court rights though those are less objective and I suspect the tax burden is correlated with income which would suggest that men have higher incomes on average than women if what you say is true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com