It's not zero, because of their later life. But it's certainly not infinite, because of their early dependence.
I suspect on average we're pretty good at arriving at the (ever-changeable) optimum, or close to it, naturally. Maybe it's just as simple as 'as many as you can afford the childhood of'. But then, what's 'afford'.
"In some countries, most notably Norway and Hungary, parents are actually happier than non-parents."
The fact that having children makes people unhappy only tells a truth about societies being wrongly structured, rather than anything about the happiness of having children.
IMO: Two if you aren't into kids and have just a boy and a girl. After that, it's all about you and your spouse's personal preference.
If you want more kids, start young.
If course this is a evolutionary perspective, if you're talking about what is strictly rational for maximizing happiness, you should go with zero kids: https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-...
I wonder what kind of equilibrium this system would come to. For now I'll assume that females have no preference for Mx over My or vise-versa.
For reductio-ad-absurdum, let's imagine what would happen with p=1 and h=1. Then Mx fathers have only daughters, and after one generation, the population is entirely My and F. After two generations, it's only My, and there is no third generation.
Next let's see what would happen with p=1 and h=0. Again, Mx fathers have only daughters; My fathers now have 50% My sons and 50% Mx sons. Starting from a population that is 50% F, 25% Mx, and 25% My, the second generation is again 50% F, 25% Mx, and 25% My, and with all parents having an equal number of offspring. So at a glance that looks like a stable population, but we'd need to look deeper to see whether any initial small unbalance between F, My, Mx returns to that equilibrium or diverges, and also whether there's any advantage to a higher "h" or a lower "p" that could gradually cause those traits to spread. For example if some kids with a "p=0.5" gene have an advantage over p=1, then over time the Mx and My distinction will get wiped out and we'd just end up with M and F.
I'm too lazy to analyze it but it would be an interesting system to simulate!
I’d also be curious to see this broken out by economic situation. I’d wager parents who don’t feel financially burdened by children score far happier than those that are stressed financially.
it's just: here's a graph, here's a significance test, here's a narrative. no attempts or tests to try and evaluate while controlling for any other things e.g. income.
don't let this analysis influence your thinking too much.
But then, that still varies according to poor a childhood you're willing to let them have (and to live yourself for the duration).