Hacker News Reader

Comment by smoldesu | Hacker News Reader

And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline. Our nation-wide workaholism is making family life an increasingly distant fantasy. I've had this discussion with my S/O before, and we've always come to the same conclusion: it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working. That's a difficult place to be in, considering we're both quite passionate about our jobs. It makes me quite depressed to watch my chance at parenthood slowly pass me by, perhaps for good this time.

View on HN

> it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working.

You are falling into the classic nerd trap which is doing an absolute evaluation when you should be making a relative comparison.

The question is not, "Can I raise this adopted child in the optimal way?" The question is, "Will I raise this child at least as good as the other parents they are likely to end up with instead?"

It's not like if you don't adopt them they get whisked away to a magical realm populated full of only perfect parents. Also, your parents weren't perfect but you probably turned out OK.

I have learned that making relative comparisons is useless if you are not at the average.

If you are more capable than the average person, sure you can settle for an around average outcome, but that is very unsatisfying.

The way I perceive things is that I'm going to do something, I'll do it really well or not at all.

Holding ourselves to impossibly high standards leads to dissatisfaction.

Accepting that we will sometimes be mediocre at what we do and knowing that we will do better over time is a healthier alternative.

This is especially true when it comes to raising kids. Children have their own personalities. Some will be introverts and others will be party animals. Some will be quiet and others will make trouble. If a person goes into the job of parenthood with perfect preparation and explicit expectations, then failure is guaranteed.

The best approach requires some level of improvisation; we learn each child’s tendencies, accept them for who they are, and try to mold them into the best versions of themselves. I don’t see a way to prepare for this.

I have no expectations of parenthood, but I want to be able to give my children (Assuming I have any) a large portion of my attention to try and nurture them as best as I can.

That is what I mean by "doing it well" in terms of parenthood.

This is partly driven by me viewing the education system as failing children, and also me wanting to try and impart more knowledge upon my children.

"Impossibly high standards" are different for every person.

I fully expect to be mediocre at something when I start doing it, but I also expect to progress past being mediocre otherwise I see little point in doing that thing.

I generally agree with your sentiment. However, I would say that this type of consideration is only useful when deciding to birth a child, not if you are considering adoption. In the latter case, the child is assumed to already exist in below-average circumstances.

> sure you can settle for an around average outcome,

Evaluating only a single outcome and deciding whether or not it is "average" is still doing an absolute evaluation and falling into the same trap.

The actionable question is not, "How good of an outcome will I get if I do X?" It's "How will the outcome of doing X compare to the outcome of doing Y or Z instead?"

I am in absolute terms a well below average medical practitioner. I haven't even taken a first aid class since I was a Boy Scout. Imagine I'm at the scene of a car crash and someone is bleeding out. Should I help? According to the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do it at all", I should keep my hands clean.

But if I'm the only person on the scene and they're about to die, trying a little direct pressure is better than nothing. My well-below-average in absolute terms medical care is the best choice because all of the other options are terrible.

Maybe because we tend to be perfectionists, but I often see here on HN people completely underestimating how bad the alternative outcomes can be. Like they say about self-driving cars: the robot doesn't have to be perfect, just better than a human.

You don't have to have the best solution, just the least bad one.

> According to the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do it at all", I should keep my hands clean

This is not what I meant.

What I mean is if I am going to put effort into something I'm not going to accept being mediocre.

There are plenty of things I suck at, and I'm fine with that because I put minimal effort into them.

But I won't put 10% effort into 10 things because I know I'll never get good at any of them like that. I'd rather put all my energy into 2-3 things.

If I'm to be a parent I want to be able to dedicate a lot of my energy towards it, not just the bare minimum (Which I understand is still a lot).

Although I won't have children myself, I'm very glad that I live in a country (Sweden) where we have 480 days of parental leave (and each parent has an exclusive right to 90 of those days).

Yes, you don't get paid as much during those days (~80%), but it allows parents (not just mothers) to stay home for longer periods of time to raise their children. It can ofc cause some disturbances in your career (especially if you're working at a startup), but it allows for a much better work-life balance than parents can get in the states.

Not sure how this solves the issue of “I want to commit to a start up for 10 years and now my fertility sucks”

> it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working.

Why have you convinced yourself of this? You do realize that the vast majority of families have both parents working. Is it irresponsible for all of us to have done so?

I too struggled with the fear before having children. Fear that it would ruin my personal life, my fun, my recreation; fear that lack of sleep would kill me; fear that I wouldn't be any good at it. All of it unfounded, as the instincts we are all born with kicked in and gave me the strength I needed to adapt.

You can do both. In fact, if your work is already taking over your life to the extent where you can't imagine having the time for children, there's a strong chance your quality of life will improve because the children will force you (and give you an emininently socially acceptable excuse to) step back and change how your time is allocated.

Specifically, as far as adoption is concerned, you're also faced with knowing that you could provide an excellent home for someone who may very well end up in a much worse situation otherwise. The horror stories of people who adopt children just to get a cheque... you personally can make a difference on this front.

All of this wealth flows to us working in tech, more than most of our ancestors ever had... to not use our security to raise good children is at once both a waste of ten thousand years of sacrifice, and also a shirking of our own personal responsibility to society. I know that social contract feels like it's breaking down, but it is only through our actions that we can mend it, and raising good children who still believe in civil society is probably one of the best ways of doing that.

Your chance is not over unless you choose for it to be.

There are 2 young married couples (mid 20's) in my immediate family who cannot get pregnant naturally, and they really want to and have been trying for multiple years. The issue is bigger than who is doing what job. Something external, likely environmental, is messing with our biology as it's happening all over the world, not just here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/15/world-population-falling-fer...

> And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline

We’re at 7.8 billion humans on this planet and rising. I don’t think we have to worry about the birth rate declining. If anything, we should do everything in our power to lower it as much as we can.

While that's fundamentally true, it's not like humanity would fare particularly well 50 years in the future if everyone stopped having children for 20 years right now.

Most of Africa would do a whole lot better if their birth rates declined rapidly. They still have huge child mortality rates despite the advances in the west and all the aid that comes from that. These things take time to make their way to all corners of the remote world.

If we lower the birth rate below replacement (roughly 2 children per couple), humanity will die out. This is not a desirable outcome.

If the answer is, "well, the birth rate will never lower that far, because some people are going to keep having children" -- who will those people be? (Do you presume to be able to choose who gets to have children and who does not?)

Aren't those some people then doing a great service, keeping humanity alive? Shouldn't we value their efforts, and give them support?

Also, drastically lowering birth rates has negative effects on demographics and economies (e.g. a population pyramid heavily weighted toward the elderly, without enough young people to do the work of taking care of them, or the productive work of maintaining and improving society generally).

I don't see how well educated, career oriented people having fewer children will meaningfully reduce the birth rate.

The data I've seen shows that poorer countries and families tend to have a higher birth rate than wealthier countries and families. To abstain from having children as a well educated, well off individual because you want the global population to drop is like not drinking a glass of water when you're thirsty because there's a drought, while farmers consume thousands of acre feet of water. It's not rational.

Then why are we continually sending aid to Africa which just powers their insane child boom?

Sounds like you are selling your best years for a certain amount of money and lifestyle.

Isn't that the gist of all jobs?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com