Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway2016a | Hacker News Reader

throwaway2016a

If given the choice I would choose to have my daughter again I would. But even so I can definitely empathize with many of the people in this article.

My wife and i have always been very open communicators. After having a kid when people would ask us if we are enjoying parenthood we've always answered honest.

"It's the most work we have ever done in our life" (and I build startups!)... "We got no sleep last night, she woke up at 2 AM and wouldn't go back to bed."

And it is amazing to me the backlash we got. People who plan to have children were telling us "all I ever here is the bad stuff!" and essentially saying we should lie and say everything is perfect.

The fact is, having a child is the biggest life commitment you will ever make and if you and your significant other are not prepared, you're in for a bad time.

But at the same time I think this whole "you're not allowed to say anything bad about parenthood" is unhealthy.

This article talks about people who are willing to speak their truth about parenthood and I think overall that is a good thing.

Edit: If more people talked honestly about he burden of parenthood we'd maybe have less unwanted kids. We as a species are well past the point where we have to have 10 kids just to ensure the bloodline continues. Be honest with people about how difficult being a parent is. Some people like my wife and I will choose to do it anyway knowing exactly what we are getting into and other's won't. And that's OK.

View on HN

I try to give both sides. It's easily the hardest thing I've ever done by a good margin. You pour work in and potentially don't see anything for it, or at least very little, for years. It's a huge lesson in selflessness and humility. It's required a lot of changes, and a lot of opportunities have come off the table, or had their overall "cost" adjusted (e.g. moving cross-country is still possible, but we'd think about it a lot more), because I want to make sure I invest appropriately in my family.

And simultaneously, it's just about the most rewarding thing I've ever done. Watching them grow, seeing some of the hard work finally paying off, having little conversations with my 4-year-old, glimpsing the kind of guy he might grow up to be. There's this amazing bond that is really hard to describe.

Whoever you are, you deserve to know the truth on both sides. Depending on your values, kids might be easily worth it (for us, they are), or you might want to wait, or you might decide that it's not the right choice for you.

> It's a huge lesson in selflessness and humility.

We can all use more of these lessons.

Fatherhood has made me keenly aware that there isn't just one sort of undifferentiated pile of warm emotion that we can call "happiness."

I can feel exhausted and wrung out when my daughter responds to my attempts to make her life better and more comfortable by screaming at me and throwing things. I can feel angry when she does things that she knows are naughty and ignores our rules. And at the same time I can feel proud of her and connected to her and love her and be in awe of her learning and feel incredible when she tells me she loves me.

And I don't think it makes sense to sort of try to treat those like they are just positive and negative numbers and say what does it sum up to, positive or negative? They coexist, they don't cancel each other out. No matter how much I feel great when she tells me she loves me, that doesn't make it less exhausting to worry about the absurd hoops that I have to jump through for an education for her. And no matter how upsetting it is to have someone kick you when you try to help her feel safe after a nightmare, that doesn't make me feel any less deep satisfaction that someone that I help create and teach will (hopefully) survive me and always be part of my life.

For a job this important, I find it remarkable that there is so little guidance on the matter unless you are a highly-motivated parent. We force kids to go to school but we don't force teens to learn the "Best Of" parenting facts. The closest thing I had in school was "Home Economics" and that wasn't even close.

> You pour work in and potentially don't see anything for it

I guess it depends on what you expect in return. I was so crazy amazed at the process of watching my daughter solving the 3D puzzle of putting the dummy back in her mouth. Plus just watching the process as a crying baby gives in to tiredness and falls asleep.

The first three months were a nightmare, but the payback was also there at the same time.

My dad missed out on this and I'm sure his life was poorer for it.

All in favor of being open about the ups and downs of parenthood. What I do resent is when parents try to make their struggles look like some sort of noble sacrifice they've performed for the greater good, when ultimately having children is just a personal choice they made. I can sympathize up to a point, but when parents complain that they hate their lifestyle (or lack of one) now that they have children, it's hard not to think "well, gee, maybe should've considered that before making such a momentous decision."

That’s a bit harsh. First, you really have no idea what you are getting into when you have a kid, no one can prepare you for it, all of what you think you know about having a baby is probably wrong (unless you’ve had one).

We are also biologically inclined to ignore thinking about what kind of pain we are in for and just be...excited. Otherwise, I doubt anyone would have kids and humanity would just go instinct. Likewise, once the kid has arrived, nature pulls more tricks to keep us parents motivated (evolved cuteness, for example).

You can definitely be prepared for what it is like to have a child before having one. Everything you know is not wrong. Yes, it may be a lot of work but it is not beyond the realm of comprehension for us mere mortals.

We went to all the classes and read all the books. And no, we weren’t prepared, had way too many misconceptions about baby behavior, and this is above all babies being different.

To strengthen your point. This is ultimately my problem with any statistically based thing. If parenthood was deterministic, then it would be easy.

So, is it possible that some folks are "fully prepared" for parenthood? Almost certainly. I'd expect that the numbers work out such that people like this do exist. Parents that were fully ready for the children they got.

However, this is like expecting someone can know exactly how to play poker, following the rules on when to bet and when not to, and then getting shocked to see that you still don't win every game. Statistically, you will lose games. Best you can do is have the game setup so that the losses are small and the wins are leveraged.

This is like saying you can learn to write a perfect program, without ever writing one. Sure, while maybe theoretically possible, I'll take someone with 10 years of experience over 10 years of study everyday. Because at some point, experience is a thing; having lived through the event and having the scars. And that experience is really an irreplaceable part of being human and the learning process.

TIL I'm the equivalent of a badly written "Hello world".

The variables with children are nearly impossible to prepare for. No amount of preparation will do handle:

1. Development/physical disabilities, or overall health issues

2. Reaction from others, will immediate/extended family help? It's one thing to ask, another for the reality to set in. Overall support base in general.

3. Employment realities. Will a lot of employers have explicitly stated policies, the day-to-day realities often differ (and can be very different between mum(s)/dad(s)).

4. Just general variations in children/growth. I have two, one eats but doesn't sleep well, the other doesn't eat well but sleeps soundly. One enjoys time to himself, but has a temper. The other is far more social (so much social) but is very even-tempered and empathic. No amount of preparation can provide enough knowledge/experience to deal with these qualities, not withstanding 1/2/3.

As others said, we read books, attended classes, looked after nieces/nephews, younger siblings, baby sat etc. We were still woefully unprepared for our own.

I disagree. I have three kids, and before them being born I was aware that being a parent means a lot of work. But I realize now that I was not really understanding what being a father really means. It's much more laborious, complex yet satisfying and marvellous than I could ever have imagined.

This is not practically true. Imagine if the same could be said for romantic relationships:

"You can definitely be prepared for what cohabitation/marriage is like before your first relationship. It may be a lot of work, but it is not beyond comprehension."

Yes, the brain is capable of comprehending life in cohabitation, as proven by the current mental state of all who are currently in the situation. Getting to that mental state without experiencing cohabitation is practically impossible.

Now swap out "romantic partner" with "small person completely dependent upon you for survival for the next 18+ years".

You're not wrong, but in most areas of life there's a reason we make a distinction between education and experience. Knowing that there will be sleepless nights with a crying baby is very, very different than surviving sleepless nights with a crying baby.

You don't need to be prepared for raising a child to know that it is difficult and that it will require major sacrifices.

> First, you really have no idea what you are getting into when you have a kid, no one can prepare you for it, all of what you think you know about having a baby is probably wrong (unless you’ve had one).

I guess this is the result of having so few children nowadays. But not so long ago, many people got a very real and practical first experience by helping in raising their siblings. And depending on how large the family was, I assure you it could prepare you very well.

I dunno...to me that's just a cop-out excuse to avoid simply admitting that you didn't do your research, or that you turned a blind eye to warning signs of what parenting is like. Do people go through life not knowing other people that have kids and not see what they go through?

I don't have kids. I had a vasectomy earlier this year to make sure I don't have kids. I watched my brother have them. To call them a handful is like calling Hurricane Harvey just some light rain and winds. They require constant supervision. Can't even spend 5 minutes taking a dump or they'll scribble on the walls with a Sharpie (Yes, that happened).

> (evolved cuteness, for example)

I don't think babies are cute in the slightest. To some people, that makes me a monster.

I like baby animals. Kittens, puppies, even baby elephants. But baby humans? Nah, I just see some creature that is probably about to decide to start screaming or shit itself.

Do you apply same restrictions on other livestyle complains? Should people never complain about job, because they picked it up voluntary? What about social club, Facebook that read voluntary and complain about constantly and so on and so forth.

What it us about parenthood that makes people think we should just present only happy side of it constantly and ever talk about side we don't like or cost us?

> What it us about parenthood that makes people think we should just present only happy side of it constantly and ever talk about side we don't like or cost us?

This seems like an unfair interpretation of the above. Absolutely talk about the parts you don't like, just acknowledge that you followed a path of your own choosing (whether the consequences were expected or not).

Kind of like smokers getting cancer, or needle-sharers getting HIV: the social context requires a little humility.

Complain about your job or management, but acknowledge each time that you have chosen it. Complain about Facebook, but acknowl edge each time you sign up voluntary ...

No one sane expect smokers sick with cancer to acknowledge they smoked each time they want talk about cancer. For christ sake, seriously.

And I don't even think that having children is like sharing needles. There we are getting into category where you imply that having children is somehow morally bad (or is it having children while not being 100% happy about every aspect of child raising? )

I feel like parents are humans too and some times just need to express their emotion. It doesn't mean they regret their decision necessarily. They might just be going through a difficult day or time. We could use a little more empathy.

Again, I think you're being uncharitable and attacking straw men.

One doesn't need to "acknowledge... each time they want to talk" (whether it's smokers, needle-sharers, parents, or whatever). Rather, it's just a matter of how one phrases things, e.g. avoiding a sense of entitlement or being condecending.

> And I don't even think that having children is like sharing needles.

I think it it, in precisely the sense that I mentioned it: that it's avoidable, and may have severe negative consequences. No more, no less.

> There we are getting into category where you imply that having children is somehow morally bad

Not at all. I wasn't passing moral judgement, I was giving examples of situations where someone complaining about problems they're suffering may have to choose their language carefully, to avoid being judged harshly in a social context. No more, no less.

> or is it having children while not being 100% happy about every aspect of child raising?

Again, that's a straw man.

What if it something that you thought you wanted, but it turned out to be much more than you bargained for? I agree than people shouldn't act like they're making noble sacrifice (because for all intents and purposes, it was your choice), but sometimes you can only prepare so much a priori.

My wife and I spent years talking (as a married couple) before having a kid, because as stated elsewhere in the comments, it's the biggest commitment you make in your life.

If you're a good person (sweeping generalization), having a kid is pretty much the only thing you can't walk away from in your life.

In America, at least, having children is most definitely a sacrifice. "Noble" is a subjective qualifier that's actually irrelevant. The fact is without kids the thing that fuels our economy, consumption, disappears. In many ways parents are subsidizing the childless. It isn't a bad thing to note that.

Also, nobody knows the extent of what one must give up to parent. No matter how prepared a person thinks he or she is, they aren't. Having kids is very abstract right up to the point that it's not. The concrete realization starts to happen earlier and more intimately for the mother because of the gestational period, but that realization sets in eventually for both parents.

As my old buddy John McGinty put it "I knew having kids would be a big job; I just didn't know it would be relentless!"

In many ways parents are subsidizing the childless

What complete nonsense. There are 7Bn+ people in the world. Making more people is not a problem the human race has. Far from subsidising the child-free, you are destroying the ecosystem with your selfishness.

Honestly, having children is one of the most selfish things you can do. I.e. thinking your genetic material is special and passing it on to another person in an overcrowded world. Any “sacrifice” in raising a child is not — they are half you and an extension of self.

Personally I believe that bringing a consciousness to this world without the subject's consent is morally corrupt.

I know you're probably pulling my leg, but how many times has a subject ever willfully consented to being brought to consciousness? Answer: {}

Correct. You have identified the problem.

The solution would need to happen in less than three generations.

Not so sure having kids AT ALL is an immoral choice in an overcrowded world. 1 kid, or 2 kids; is replacement level at worst.

I would have a bone to pick with folks who feel entitled (or "commanded by $deity") to have 6, 7, 8 or more kids. That's just absurd stupidity.

I, personally, found parenthood to be enormously rewarding. And that may not be something one comes to grips with when kids are 3. Or 10. Or even 18. Having kids with medical problems, or mental health problems, can be a challenge, and you can miss out on the immediate sense of accomplishment when it's overwhelmed with "just get through today". This is a big-picture thing.

I'm also not blinded by illusions of; having a legacy, having something that is a "permanent" accomplishment, or even just having someone else in this world who I can relate to. My feeling is that my kids turned out to be pretty good people, and the world as a whole is a better place with them in it. In Net. Considering even their resource consumption. They are part me. They are my intention and will. But they are their own beings as well, with their own hopes and dreams.

Hell: we're all worm food in the end. It's not pleasant facing or contemplating death. Maybe we all would have liked to have been asked permission before being brought into this world against our will. I think the main difference it made for me was that I participated in life. The process of life. The continuation of life. The strife for survival. I did not look at the world, and decide to simply persist until I perished. I lived. Even if I have another 30-50 years on this world. I gave it a shot.

Replacement rate is a smidge over two _on average_. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to have more than two children, any more than it means it's wrong to have fewer than two.

If you look at my wider family, you'll see some people with no children and some with five. But even on such a small scale, we average out at around replacement rate.

> I would have a bone to pick with folks who feel entitled (or "commanded by $deity") to have 6, 7, 8 or more kids. That's just absurd stupidity.

I have to laugh at this, because 3 years ago I was this person and I know exactly how the conversation would go. I had 3 kids and planned for 6-7 of them, then I left the Mormon religion.

But I would love to hear the conversation. I can't speak for everyone, but in Mormonism at least you literally believe that having children is commanded by deity and any environmental offsets are not an issue because the Second Coming is soon and the earth will be cleansed by fire at that time anyway. Besides, God created the earth, he would never let man destroy it.

There just is no real discussion to be had with somebody who believes those things. Fortunately, higher education and sex ed are highly correlated with lower birth rates, so I'd push for those if you're looking to reduce birth rates - even in Mormonism or other religions.

Odd. I wonder how many not so thoughtful people think your way and act upon it. To the extent there is a genetic component to "thoughtfulness," or even a trait that can be nurtured by other thoughtful people, is the extent that thoughtfulness will be selected against and disappear.

I have 4 and I really hope that makes you feel bad.

If everyone adopted your rationale, the human race would go extinct. We haven't gone so far that we are indifferent to the survival of our own species, have we?

I am a father myself and don’t think you are a “bad person” or anything like that. But seriously, we have no shortage of humans - you are not doing mankind a favor by having lots of kids.

And how are you determining the correct number of people and on what criteria? Or do we take your word for it?

Get in car. Drive to work. Wait in line on the freeway for opportunity to use freeway to get to work. While we're waiting in line; burning fossil fuels and contributing to carbon buildup in the atmosphere; which is essentially permanent. All - to spend a day earning imaginary money - whose value is arbitrarily and capriciously set by others.

Seems like a criteria for overcrowding to me.

That's not very specific. What about your scenario indicates overcrowding?

How is bearing children destroying the ecosystem?

Any idea how many dirty diapers a baby produces? We don't use cloth diapers with our daughter, so those go to the landfill.

She drinks milk. That comes from cows. Cows are bad for the environment. By having another person on the planet, we need that much more milk.

> We don't use cloth diapers with our daughter, so those go to the landfill.

Isn't that simply a consequence of how people today and in the past decided to solve these problems in general? This issue is not limited to diapers.

> Cows are bad for the environment.

Interesting, so cows are not part of the environment? What separates things from being part of the environment and not being part of it?

All things that are bad for the environment are part of the environment.

Because children are people and people by necessity must displace natural ecosystem fixtures to survive.

Does this mean the natural ecosystem fixtures are more valuable than people?

The problem is that our current pace of ecosystem destruction in order to satisfy people is not sustainable.

Does deciding not to bear children solve this problem?

Uh...yes?

Every child that's born is a child that will eventually need their own shelter. Will probably drive their own car. Will need food.

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is to not have children.

https://www.npr.org/2017/07/19/537954372/want-to-slow-global...

But doesn't that lead to the extinction of the human race? What good is it for mankind to save the environment if it sacrifices itself in the process?

If everyone stopped having children, well yeah. But you and I both know that that's not going to actually happen.

All I'm saying is that our current population growth is unsustainable and we're killing the environment. Until we adapt to only consume renewable resources, or at least sufficiently reduce our consumption of non-renewables, and stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the best thing to do is slow down reproduction.

Social Security is one example of the young subsidizing the old. Medicare is another. Old folks homes are another.

Seems to me there is ample evidence of the young supporting the old.

Consider what your aged life would be like if everyone suddenly elected to not reproduce. What would it be like to be 70, when the youngest person is 60?

Clearly, the young support the aged.

Clearly, the young support the aged.

The young, by definition live in a world built by their elders, benefiting from all the infrastructure and institutions they created. So it’s not nearly as one-way as you think. Any care of the elderly is merely a part payment on that debt the young owe them.

Cultures are going extinct due to lack of children. A good number of cultures in Europe and East Asia have close to 1 child per woman, meaning that the population is cut in half with every generation.

Those cultures will be gone forever.

In many ways parents are subsidizing the childless.

My tax bill sure indicates otherwise.

I decided at an early age not to have kids - at 12-13 I figured out that I was not suitable to be a father - one, I wanted the chain of crappy childhoods to stop with me, and two I have various conditions that I believe are largely genetic - I didn't want to pass those on.

No, your tax bill does not indicate otherwise. Credits for children are a tiny, tiny fraction of tax subsidies for people in lower income brackets, and property taxes are generally quite low and cover much more than schools.

Even if they were a huge fraction, you're considering one single axis. You're not considering population support or economic contributions by and on behalf of children, both of which are arguably much more significant than tax bill distribution.

> Credits for children are a tiny, tiny fraction of tax subsidies for people in lower income brackets

The tax-funded support for “people in lower income brackets” are themselves very much slanted toward support for parents with children, largely because the American public is broadly fine with blaming poor adults for their condition, but somewhat less so for children in poverty.

The tax code is geared up to help people who are married and have children - my married friends pay 20% less than I do, my married friends with kids pay even less then they do. I take umbrage with this.

You benefited when you were a child. You took those benefits. You might say it wasn't your choice, but your parents made that choice on your behalf.

Having benefited yourself, you shouldn't be bothered that others also benefit. It is only fair.

BTW, you can earn a 6-figure income and have negative taxes. The key is to have a double-digit family. This is what I do. Nothing is stopping you from doing likewise.

How exactly does one have a double-digit family?

2 parents and 8 kids?

Everybody now paying taxes once was a child. Without children no one would be paying taxes.

I don’t know about America, but it’s the childless that subsidise the parents in the UK. Having kids is a massive draw on the state - the vast majority of people go from being net contributors to net drains on the public purse when they have kids.

Given that parents need to buy diapers, kid clothes, and other stuff needed by babies, if UK still has VAT I do not believe that parents are «net drains».

Those things are specifically exempt from VAT

Really?! Then I should consider moving from Italy to the UK! (I am a father of three, and here there are no exemptions at all for diapers, baby food, bottles, and so on. VAT here is 22%.)

On the other hand, having children isn't exactly cost-free, and society needs the next generation around to support the previous in old age.

There are plenty of choices in life that are hard to assess until you're fully invested in them.

Choosing a life partner? Choosing a stock? Scoping a programming project??

Choices in the above can seem great at first - but maybe they turn out better over time, maybe worse, probably a roller-coaster mixture of elation, unknowns, and heartache.

But you'll never fully experience them until you've fully lived through them.

That’s a good point, but it worries me that with just a change of nouns we could be talking about taking a speedball, taking bloody revenge, or eating rocks.

You come from a very long line of parents that reproduced. It's a biological imperative to do so (i.e., we think we have a choice, but in fact have much less than we think we do).

To help you understand how absurd your position is, consider if even one of the hundreds of thousands of reproduction "decisions" that are in your line had not been made, you wouldn't be here to express your point of view that it's "just a personal choice."

> It's a biological imperative to do so (i.e., we think we have a choice, but in fact have much less than we think we do).

I chose to get a vasectomy. I'm 35 and have never in my life desired reproducing. I do not feel that supposed biological imperative.

I do feel the imperative to have sex, but having sex and producing babies are entirely different things. You can have one without the other.

> To help you understand how absurd your position is, consider if even one of the hundreds of thousands of reproduction "decisions" that are in your line had not been made, you wouldn't be here to express your point of view that it's "just a personal choice."

This is not a convincing argument.

Caring for and raising children is a sacrifice. It’s a difficult and unpaid 24/7 job that you’re locked into for 18 years.

You’re constantly putting the needs of a tiny human ahead of your own. If you do a good job then they benefit far more than you do. And they won’t realise the extent of your efforts until (or unless) they have children of their own.

Seeking praise is pointless. But it’s driven by the same themes the parents in the article talk about.

While I agree with you, it is a personal choice, I think that’s not the framing most people are in.

For instance my parents strongly believe that having kids is a duty, the more the better. They will brag about having 4 kids and they’ll tirelessly push married people to make them (the endless “is it on the way yet ?”). I also saw a lot of people of their age care a lot about the family lineage not disappearing. Some even atrocely cared about the name being carried on.

Even trying to have serious discussions about it just ends in “that’s how the thing have been, that how they should be” kind of rethorics.

I sympathize with couples that have their surroundings constantly repeat them they should have a baby, and wouldn’t fault them for thinking it was part of their duty to do so.

> What I do resent is when parents try to make their struggles look like some sort of noble sacrifice they've performed for the greater good, when ultimately having children is just a personal choice they made.

This really gets me.

We as a society do not need more children. Popping out a baby is not an accomplishment. Hell, most babies these days are accidents. It seems strange to me that someone would choose to do something that a lot of people do accidentally, and then expect some sort of recognition for their supposed sacrifice.

We as a society simply don't need more babies. The "sacrifice" is unnecessary at best, and possibly egotistical at worst.

If we don’t have more children, we have population decline which comes with huge negatives. The economy contracts. Social Security implodes, etc.

New generations innovate, and they take care of the aging.

Having kids is actually a huge sacrifice on the part of the parents that ultimate benefits society as a whole.

> What I do resent is when parents try to make their struggles look like some sort of noble sacrifice

In that respect maybe it is not that different than climbing a mountain, or achieving mastery in a fencing or long distance running. Would you tell those people "I resent your complaints, you brought this upon yourself, should've stayed home and bother bother with your marathon running" say when they the talk about how hard it is and how they got injured or weather was bad.

I live an puerto rican neighboorhood in chicago. People live here in combined family structure with many generations living in the same building. I've become acquaintances with many of them and i've noticed that parenthood is much less of a burden for them since they have extended family to support them. Not just a matter of practical convenience but the immense moral and pshyclogical support you get from living next to your parents, cousins is immeasurable. I always see kids playing outside and everyone keeps an eye on them, you are not dealing with your kids 24x7 nonstop.

I am convinced that if you are going to reproduce this is the way to do it. Even though I make significantly more money than them I am jealous of their lifestyle :D . These parents take vacations without their kids, which I know many of valley friends think is impossible.

> I am convinced that if you are going to reproduce this is the way to do it.

I think that sounds awesome. Realistically not everyone has those choices though, and unfortunately I don't see that changing any time soon.

My family for example, is spread out across 5 states. My nearest relative is 150 miles.

This is honestly one of the biggest factors that we did not fully appreciate.

Moving away from home and having kids away from your family is a much bigger task than having kids in your hometown where all of your family lives. I get that it's normal mode of operation for a lot of people to move all over the country for jobs, but IMO that is where the biggest struggle comes from.

You take for granted being able to call a grandparent to pick the kids up from school if you're working late, to come over for a bit when you need to do something during an evening, to drop the kids off if you need to run an errand or even keep them overnight if you have to go out of town for work. That's before even figuring in extra-curricular activities and trying to get each child where they need to be.

My in-laws moved closer to us last year and it has been life changing for my wife and I who both work.

I have extended family helping me. I'm beyond grateful for it. I'd die without them. But there is a something you don't see. There is a lot of inter-family politics going on. For some people, it's no big deal. For others, it is a real drag. Personally, I'm a no big deal person, but i empathize with people who don't like it. To some Americans, it's like a never ending thanksgiving dinner.

The prime example would be how you raise your kids. Alone, you the most influence, in a family, you have a little less. For some that is OK, for others it's red flags.

Just wanted to open your eyes to what you may not be seeing.

This comment reminds me of the “big fat greek wedding.” Is that accurate?

It is, that's why it was so popular, many people could relate.

I was raised like this (of Russian background) but I will not have the same benefit, there is no extended family from either side anywhere near me or my partner. And this applies to most of my social circle, all of whom have moved around for career and/or restlessness.

It's nice to finally understand that yes, for a couple (especially where both have careers), raising a child is harder than it should be and harder than it used to be, because of this lack of tribe, and no we are not just self-pitying moaners. I don't think this trend is going to reverse itself, which makes me hope in some vague way that some sort of communal tradition emerges, where the tribe is formed by some social grouping (close friends) other than the extended family.

This is a major factor. I have a 2-year old girl with another baby imminent. I have 6 households of my family all within a 20 minute drive. Like you say, aside from the practical benefits and savings on childcare, clothing etc., the psychological benefit of knowing we have that support is immeasurable.

Given the impending arrival of my second child, I find myself wondering about those with less support. What does a pregnant single mother of one do when she goes in to labor? Where does her child go? In to state care??

I have great respect for parents with less support than I have.

> What does a pregnant single mother of one do when she goes in to labor? Where does her child go? In to state care??

Crazy to think, isn't it? It is hard enough during those first few years for a couple with a stay-at-home parent. I can only imagine how hard it is for a single parent who has to not only pay the bills, but take care of somebody who needs an adult 24/7.

I don't think people can begin to fully appreciate this stuff until after they have kids.

I wonder if it is also the experience the kid get raising their younger siblings. As the oldest boy in my family when my parents were away I was taking care of my baby brothers and got to see the terrors they would get themselves into.

I was just thinking about this the other day. Large familial units have pretty much been the modus operandi of humanity since the beginning. It's not just adults taking care of kids, the kids take care of the kids also. Each generation has their own sense of responsibility for the generation before them because that's the established culture. After a couple generations, the responsibility loses its feeling of work and simply becomes an expected aspect of life.

Humbolt Park?

Dear god yes. We have no family nearby and even with my wife as a stay at home mom, it's brutal. We're super jealous of her sister who lives with the grandparents and can just leave the kids at home whenever or wake up at 10 or 11 on a weekend because they just go downstairs and hang out with the grandparents when they wake up. Every time we visit my parents we get a taste of that and it's absolutely glorious. We're at the point where we're considering a move and probably a major pay cut just to be within reasonable driving distance of them.

You have hit the nail on the head! African villages are pretty much the same. Kids play in age groups and whichever adult is around looks after the kids. This gives parents time to hang with other adults and the opportunity to actually miss their kids. In the city it is different spending 24 hours with a 5 year old can be taxing.

The first few times I casually mentioned I had never been interested in having kids, the reactions were unreasonably vitriolic: "Well, you aren't a good person and should stay away from them then!!" and "You look like the sort of person who doesn't want kids", etc. I eventually learned not to bring it up.

Thankfully I was never forced into it by marriage or otherwise. People who want children can have them and people who don't want them should not be shamed into it. Kids would be better off being genuinely wanted.

I personally was an accident kid, born before abortion was legalized and there was always a subtextual theme of being unwanted in my childhood. I decided early that I would not have a kid unless I really wanted one. And I never did have the desire. I'm glad I stuck to it and didn't give in to the immense peer pressure.

More people should feel free not to have kids. There's enough humans as it is. We don't need everyone reproducing. Only the people who really want to and can support their offspring properly should do it. It's dumb to have a social pressure to reproduce when there are 7.5 billion of us.

I would draw the line at "really want to". An argument could be made that only rich people should have children and that would be fascist in the other direction.

What's fascist is to forbid people from having children based on arbitrary criteria, which is just one obvious but wrong way to address an otherwise reasonable idea, that not everyone is fit for parenting. It doesn't mean the idea itself should be discarded. Here's another solution that doesn't trample on anyone's freedom: better informing people about the costs and benefits of parenthood. That would go a long way to prevent people from having children without the means to raise them.

You don't have to forbid anyone from having kids. Providing women with education and the pill is enough to drop in fertility below replacement level.

We basically do. If half the population chooses not to bear kids (pretty normal) and the other half has like on average 2.5 kids, then social safety nets are going to collapse without massive immigration. If the WHOLE WORLD does this (which will become possible some time this century due to everyone thankfully getting richer and more urbanized), then there's nowhere for the immigrants to come from, and our social safety nets for the elderly will collapse.

Japan has managed this fairly well, considering, but it's just going to get harder and harder for them, Western Europe, and soon the rest of the developed world, China, and even the US and on to what is currently the developing world.

People don't know it yet (although they should, since it's pretty clear where the demographics of urbanization and development are headed), but population decline is going to be the problem of the 21st century, much as the population explosion was a problem in the 20th.

Robots. Lots and lots of robots is the answer, like 10:1 robots to humans to work 24/7 fixing infrastructure and cleaning every home and street.

Yes, bring the robots. Especially the maid one. And then the gardener one.

> our social safety nets for the elderly will collapse.

Not everyone agrees social safety nets are a good thing. Some of us think properly preparing ourselves for retirement is more important.

> population decline is going to be the problem of the 21st century

We have too many people already. Population decline due to reduced birthrate sounds like a solution, not a problem.

> Not everyone agrees social safety nets are a good thing. Some of us think properly preparing ourselves for retirement is more important.

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the State or the Individual is paying for it. Ultimately, services and care provided during retirement is provided by the young and healthy. If there aren't any young people, then no one will be available to provide care no matter who is trying to pay for it.

Would you rather the problem be too many young people or too few? At least with too few, the environmental problems are lessoned. What's the point in having enough workers if we degrade the biosphere and change the climate too much to survive? That's the danger of an increasing population.

And we just can't rely on an increasing population indefinitely, even if we lived on Jupiter-sized planet. At some point, there are more people than the planet can support.

It's an unsustainable economic model.

We are extremely far (in the developing world) from there being too many young people. We're rich as a society, so we should be able to handle more than in the past when we had fewer productivity-enhancing innovations.

I'm just talking about maintaining a stable birth rate.

EDIT: If you have two nations, otherwise identical and self-sufficient and cut off outside contact, and give one too many young folk and the other too many elderly, then 100 years later, the one that starts with too many young folk will be richer than the one with too few. EVEN on a per-person basis due to returns to scale.

Will this argument apply in mid-century when we top off around 10 billion (hopefully), and the full effects of climate change, pollution, and degradation of the biosphere the past century start to really hit us?

Right now we're doing okay, but we haven't seen whether the planet can support us long term like this (or more accurately, whether 10 billion people can adapt successfully to a world we've changed).

Already, we're worried about the decline in pollinators, frogs, insect splatter, coral reef loss, and tropical forest deforestation. What do you think just that looks like in a few decades with 2-3 more billion people?

10 billion people with a broad mix of ages will be more capable of coping with those changes than 7 billion people without anyone younger than their 40s.

The human population is ultimately independent of the biosphere through technology. And, in fact, some of the worst impacts on the biosphere are when we lean strongly on the biosphere to provide for us (for instance, cutting down forests to provide fuel and to clear land for inefficient farming practices vs using solar/wind/nuclear to provide energy while using dense and hyper-efficient farming practices).

Technology has huge returns to scale, and technology is how we're already able to handle our current population. So I'd say we are indeed better off with more people than less, particularly if we reduce agricultural land usage (which we're already doing) and switch to non-burning energy sources (so no fossil fuels and no biomass). An effectively vegan diet (either truly vegan or using lab-grown meat and dairy and eggs) would, by itself, drastically reduce both our reliance and impact on the biosphere. Vat-grown staples (think specialized microalgae) substituting for field-grown staples like corn or wheat or soy would further drastically reduce our impact.

The Earth ought to be a garden, but not one empty of people! And a human society without children would be some kind of dystopia.

Your reductio-ad-absurdum assumption is that because some people don't want to have children - no one else will either. But the fact remains, there are people who genuinely want to and those who don't. It should be personal choice, not something forced upon them.

I don't think that at all. Please read my comment in its context.

It's a good thing for some people to choose to pursue other things and not have kids. There's plenty of room for both kinds of people. But choosing to have kids in today's society is a huge challenge, and society as a whole should help women (and their partners) who choose to have kids. We should, as a MINIMUM, make healthcare free for children and mothers (and really everyone). We should also make it easier for mothers and fathers to balance family and work. Women shouldn't have to choose between their career and the normal (and very important) decision to bear children.

Arguably, it is the young people in a society who are most concerned with these long-run environmental impacts. If there's going to be a political (and scientific and technological) mobilization to address them, it's going to require young people.

EDIT: And we can't get too far down this road before asking the question: Are humans fundamentally a bad thing or a good thing?

This is obviously subjective. But if we say some things have intrinsic value, such as the quantity and diversity of life, then we can make some progress: From Gaia's perspective, if humans evolved, wiped out a bunch of species, then disappeared, then humans are like an asteroid. Bad at first, but ultimately just changed the direction of evolution, not the actual presence or absence of life.

BUT, if humans are able to go beyond the Earth and establish niches for life beyond Earth, then from Gaia's perspective, humans are a net-good. Sure, there's a lot of terrible habitat destruction as humans become a technological species capable of interplanetary travel, but now humans are capable of seeding life far beyond what other species have been capable of. Humans could create diverse, rich niches for life on other planets and moons that otherwise would never experience life. Humans would then be a net-good.

That becomes impossible if we just view humanity's impact in a zero- or negative-sum way. The more humans, the worse it is for life. BUT 10 billion may be just about the minimum needed to support a large-scale interplanetary capability that's able to establish a foothold for life to flourish across the solar system and eventually the galaxy. Therefore: have children! And reduce your impact on the Earth by eating smart and using efficient energy and transportation options.

> ...then social safety nets are going to collapse without massive immigration.

Value doesn't come from humans. It comes from machines. Workers income tax is just historically convenient way to tax machine owners as long as machines need operators.

We just need to find a better way to tax machines.

>Only the people who really want to and can support their offspring properly should do it.

It shouldn't be possible to get a full time job and not be able to support kids. If it was possible in the 60s it should be possible now. GDP has gone up 400% since then and the dependency ratio only went up 15%.

Following on from a sibling comment: it's in society's interests to help parents to pay for their children. Not just because those children will be working to look after and provide for the older generation in retirement, but because the better educated they are, the more able they'll be at doing that.

Everyone should be happy to pay for schools because everyone benefits from being able to be paid a pension. And being able to spend the money they get from their pension on useful things, like food.

I totally agree with you. I have a 5 year old - I love her, she's great, and if I got to choose again I'd do it all over. But the first year is the hardest I ever worked. We knew it would be a lot of work, but nobody ever talks about just how much work it is with any kind of detail. Parenting has a lot of good, but the bad parts really do suck - lack of sleep, running to the doctor, the ER trips, etc.

The story I usually tell my friends who are just becoming parents is about this one night the first month, we were up constantly most nights. I don't remember on this particular night what I was up doing, it's not important, but what I do remember is being in the bathroom, sitting on the can, and looking down and seeing the floor move under my feet. Vividly. However, that memory sticks as a turning point for me - I didn't have a whole lot of self doubt about doing a good job as a dad after getting through sleep deprivation induced hallucinations!

Parents do talk about how hard it is – but if you do not have kids it’s hard to fully comprehend the message.

In my experience, they only repost pictures on Facebook about how motherly love is unconditional and infinite.

> but nobody ever talks about just how much work it is with any kind of detail.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard young parents talk about anything else. If I am to believe the stories, until the age of 3 it’s not blood running through a child’s veins, but pure high-grade Colombian roast.

To the point where I’m considering sardonically suggesting we suspend driver’s licenses for new parents.

It’s not a bad idea. Sleep deprivation combined with distraction is terrible. Try driving safely with them choking on something or screaming about something. It’s not good.

Also, any excuse to avoid dealing with car seats.

> People who plan to have children were telling us "all I ever here is the bad stuff"

That's how I felt. Now I see that parents either sugarcoat everything about parenting, or are eager to relay their current source of misery: "you think it's hard now? Just you wait until they are 2/3/5/10/12/16/18!" The truth is every stage of child development has its own unique joys and challenges, with previous challenges being replaced with new ones before you even get a chance to feel a sense of relief. But, if you aren't a parent, you don't really know this, and probably ask questions that bring out the sucky parts of parenting, and remember other people's negative experiences more.

Now that I think about it, it seems difficult to really convey the full emotional experience of being a parent. Only seeing parts of it makes it easy to get an overly optimistic/pessimistic view of things.

I have three boys, aged 6 months to 4 years. It is extremely hard work and a major life change, especially if you get started in your 30s (as I did) after having already established yourself financially and professionally (yes, the resources makes it easier, but you've also had the time and resources to habituate yourself to a comfortable and self-oriented life, and you're not quite as robust as you were in your 20s, when an all-nighter was not a big deal). It also puts strains on even strong marriages.

But it has lots of irreplaceable moments and provides a general sense of satisfaction for well-spent effort. I echo several comments on the joy of seeing my boys develop as people, learn, ask questions, and explore. Even the squabbles bring back fond memories of my own childhood tussles with my two brothers, and how those interactions are part of children learning how to relate to other people.

Aside from all that, once they are born (and beforehand for my wife and me), the profound sense of duty to care for them compels putting any thoughts of self aside. We alone chose to create them and we alone are responsible for raising them to be good adults. I'm not going to shirk such an important duty in life. Such a sense of duty is a cultural norm encouraged by community moral condemnation of those who fail to adhere. I reluctantly support such condemnation as essential for the successful continuation of our civilization. As such, I say that parents who shirk their duties are committing a moral wrong and should be criticized.

The article doesn't come out and say it, but it seems to suggest that this is widespread. I don't think that is true. Watching my parents' generation embrace grand-parenthood, and the explicit statements that many of them make about the importance of family, convinces me that the vast majority push through the tough parts and find the overall experience to be the most important thing they did in life.

Final point, and one that I am cautious to make for not wanting to offend anyone needlessly: I know plenty of singles and couples who are childless, and several that are childless by choice. Suffice it to say that my anecdotal view is that sadness, eccentricity, and empty hedonism seem to develop over time in these couples, especially in the women.

In my anecdotal evidence many of the childless couples I know seem to be composed of the happiest, healthiest, and high achieving individuals I know. I live in a large American city. It is probably different out in the boonies but I'm quite envious when I see couples in their 30's without little ones.

Those joke bumper stickers with the couple and the pile of money next to them instead of kids aren't wrong.

Sometime in the 40's and 50's, American marketing worked to convince everyone that parenthood (and especially Motherhood) are this beautiful, sanctified experience. They did everyone a disservice when they did this; such a belief was not prevalent before then. Before that, having kids was seen as a duty to continue the family line at worst, and at best a pretty intense effort that one willingly engaged, because well life is about duty and hard work.

Modern society is all about the individual, in very pervasive and insidious ways. And that's what your final point speaks about: Having kids gives us a reason to think beyond today, beyond money, beyond MY wants, MY needs, MY life, MY MY MY MY MY.

Having children is selfless, in ways that people without kids cannot comprehend. And it is not a glorious, noble sacrifice. It is painful, scary, hard work. And it's worth it, because of the person you become when you matter to someone more than just yourself.

Most of the comments I saw in the article I consider selfish, childish, and shortsighted. "I hated fatherhood and I don't like the people my kids became." Well gee, maybe those things are connected. "I resent my kids because I keep thinking about all the things I wanted to do." Speechless. Like a 4 year old screaming on the floor of WalMart because they want a piece of candy.

I was raised to think about others and about my place among them. In almost ALL the comments in the article, I see otherwise. I can't respect their position even if I understand it. They're just a bunch of adults who never learned what being adult means.

I try to always reply honestly when talking about having kids. And I'm lucky to only have friends who do the same. Usually I say something like "It's really hard, but it's so awesome at the same time that you forget how hard it is all the time. In the end, you feel like it's worth it." I confess I wasn't that positive when I was totally sleep deprived. I also have the impression that no two situations are the same... Some parents have it very tough while some others have quite an easy time with their kids. You gotta have some luck...

Even people that think they want children are sometimes unprepared. My son is now 17, but when he was in grade school he had a friend that was always in trouble and generally a very unhappy kid. I understood perfectly when I hung out with him and his friend at the park, when his mother was around. She was well meaning, but one of the worst parents I have ever witnessed. She constantly threatened him with punishment, but it was clear she never followed through with it, so the kid basically completely ignore her. At one point, she turned to me and commented how good my son was and how she really just didn't know what to do. I firmed bit my tongue and said nothing. Those conversations never go well.

As a parent, I was appalled how much bad advice there is out there. Some was from books and some from other parents or family. It seems to be that every human (at least here in the US) starts from scratch and uses their gut to guide them in parenting. Most people don't learn much from previous generations, and that seems crazy to me.

If I were to do it over again, I would definitely do better the 2nd time around, but I have no interest. Raising my son (with my wife) was the hardest thing I've ever done, and I'm enjoying life now that he's 17.

Worth noting that extreme difficulty of being new parents is in large thanks to the weird NA/EU habit of raising kids without extended family. I think that's a relatively novel "disruption" of how kids should grow - and a fairly failed one.

No one can ever be 100% prepared for children.

Excellent point. I removed the "100%"

With some reflection I don't think I was 100% ready. But I did at least make sure my finances were in order, I knew what it would do to our budget, and my wife and I had expectations set going in who would bear what responsibility. It sounds like the people in this article didn't think of that stuff. And I'm not sure I entirely blame them. We as a society make it a taboo to talk about anything but good stuff when it comes to parenting.

My little one makes me so deeply happy that none of the downsides are really that bad, but I tend to overplay them because I feel like doing otherwise would be gloating.

I noticed a similar pattern with other parents I talk with. They all have complaints, they got no sleep last night, child cried all morning, wouldn't eat dinner, etc. but behind all those words you can see a glimmer of something in their face that tells me they are downplaying as well.

>I tend to overplay them because I feel like doing otherwise would be gloating.

A lot of life events are the same way.

When someone asks how work's going, I don't want to be honest and talk about how goddamn happy I am seeing that fat number land in my Mint sidebar every two weeks since that promotion. So I say "It's hard work!" instead.

My brothers and I (we all have quite 3-4 kids) joke that kids ruin everything. It's hyperbole, but feels true a lot of the time.

They are also fun, goofy, beautiful, and potential life long friends. It's also hard to see that sometimes when you're kids are screaming at 2am and you're seeing a shitty day at work or caring for kids ahead of you.

Here this will make you feel okay about the kids ruining things.

This is the best song ever about parenting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LrZ01A6Q_M

> But at the same time I think this whole "you're not allowed to say anything bad about parenthood" is unhealthy.

I tend to agree, but I think the limits apply to voicing regret for having specific children, especially in front of said children.

I think about the most sickening thing that anyone has ever described to me is meeting somebody who, in front of his own (tween and teenage) children, referred to them as basically a regrettable burden foisted upon him by his wife. It's bad enough suspecting that your parents don't care for you, I'll bet it hurts more to know for certain.

Still, it is nuts to receive backlash for saying that it's incredibly hard work. Of course it's hard work!

When asked, I always give a honest and unbiased response. I tell my friends and family the truth: it's hard work, you won't get much sleep in the 6 months and the nonstop crying is a huge huge source of pain. but, I talk about the good stuff too. Kids says the cutest things. And, in my opinion, parenthood gets easier every year because the child's behavior improves every year.

When you're up to your neck in hard work, it's kind of hard to sugarcoat how damn tired you are. Anyone who "only here's the bad stuff" sounds like someone who isn't prepared to work harder than they've ever worked before.

We choose to to have a child not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

We choose not to have a child because they are not easy, but because they are hard.

This comment is a spot on example of the behavior stdbrouw was advocating against further up in the thread. The nobility of having a child should not be factored into the decision. There is no "greater good" agenda pushing people to reproduce. It is a personal decision that each and every one of us need to come to terms with.

How do you answer when someone asks if you're enjoying building a startup?

> "It's the most work we have ever done in our life" (and I build startups!)... "We got no sleep last night, she woke up at 2 AM and wouldn't go back to bed."

what do people expect when they have babies? that it will take care of itself? There's a thing called Postpartum Depression that is real and usually occurs right after having kids. Raising babies are hard but once they become toddlers it gets far easier. I don't have sympathy for anyone who complains about not getting enough sleep in the first 6 months.

I was watching The Walking Dead at 1am in the mornings because baby woke up and had to feed him till he slept again. Oh and then right to work at 8am for almost 2 months. He's 3 now and now attempting to wipe his own ass for a change.

You're a parent, deal with that responsibility.

I don't understand the "no sympathy" part. When a friend runs a marathon, yes, they expected to be totally out of breath and have jellified legs, but I still cheer them on and help them recover and celebrate. I don't think I'd be a very good friend if during the race I were saying (or even thinking) "I have no sympathy for you, what did you expect?" -- even if they're complaining.

To me, this seems related to the purpose of the article: being a parent requires a stiff upper lip according to our culture, unlike most everything else in life.

I think the difference in perception, as compared to running a marathon, is that parenting is more an equivalent of entering a marathon where you have no option to stop, regardless of circumstances, and your performance has a massive impact on the life of another person.

If that were the way marathons worked, I think the reaction of the audience to someone's struggle to finish the race would be different.

> If that were the way marathons worked, I think the reaction of the audience to someone's struggle to finish the race would be different.

Indeed, I would expect more support instead of less. "You should have known" may be accurate but it feels unhelpful.

> ...your performance has a massive impact on the life of another person.

Not really. There are bad people who had wonderful parents and great people who had bad parents or no parents at all.

Child is separate new fresh human being, getting to human level from the level of vegetable over 18+-3 years.

The fact that it got some half of your genes doesn't make you special and if you don't let it die or get malnourished and give it chance at some positive human interaction and variety of fairly safe objects to tamper with it'll be fine and won't be much better off even if you tried you hardest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com