Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Your story is probably very common. The social media narrative (Reddit, Twitter, HN, etc) around children is hilariously detached from reality at times. It’s bizarre as a parent to read 20-something childless people speak so confidently about what it’s like to have children.

I participated in a mentoring program where I worked with younger people entering tech careers. It was mind blowing to hear them talk about children as being impossibly expensive while we had just discussed negotiation of their six-figure offer letter a few days prior. It’s like the reality of having kids got distorted and twisted and exaggerated so much on sites like Reddit that they all lost touch with reality and instead cemented the idea that kids were impossible for them.

If you’ve “conditioned yourself to not want them” then that’s a really weird place to be. That implies that you did maybe want them at some point and overrode that via “conditioning” based on facts that turned out to be untrue (that you couldn’t afford them). If I was in your shoes, I’d be taking a long, hard look at what other life assumptions you’ve been “conditioned” out of from exposure to false narratives and internet exaggerations.

Maybe kids are not for you, but I’ve seen enough very happy parents into even their 40s who started out thinking they never wanted kids until they finally re-evaluated how they arrived at that conclusion and realized it was the result of bad inputs. If you know the key inputs were false, maybe re-run that whole decision process again with a clean slate and some accurate facts. You might be surprised.

I see this a lot too. There’s a huge misconception on what having kids is like.

Lots of tech folks live in low fertility areas where nobody has kids. So strange ideas just persist.

So, one is conditioned to “not have kid”, but having them is perfectly natural and there is absolutely no conditioning in wanting them?

When my partner in a childless relationship gets asked “but why?” when she says she doesn’t want children, her answer is this: “would you have asked the same question, had I said I want them?”

No, they would not have asked that question, because literally 100% of their ancestors for millions of generations had children (or otherwise reproduced). That’s the default option.

Which reinforces my point. Reddit, an irrelevant blip in history is a stronger conditioning than millennia of “default option”?

The default option worked not by conscious thought but by desire for sex. Now we have found a way to decouple that from procreation, so people have to actually think, and they often end up choosing a path that leads to dead end.

For millions of generations there were millions of generations that came to another conclusion and didn’t procreate. And also your assumption that all those millions of generations that you’ve mentioned procreated willingly is false.

> ...that came to another conclusion and didn’t procreate

and then they didn't survive for the next generation. If that is okay with a society, nature will simply replace that society with another one.

Not necessarily. Civilization is built on knowledge of people who procreated and who didn't.

Because the fatal flaw of a lot of advanced societies is elevating individualism. You are ultimately just a part of the human species and we evolved naturally to produce babies and raise them (i.e. desire for sex). We were also a lot more tribal and it was easier to raise kids with a village.

Combination of the latest trends of the past few decades (contraception, individualism, nuclear families) goes against the natural design for the sustenance of our species. Nature doesn't have morals and is pretty ruthless, so if a sub-species doesn't want to have kids, it will cease to exist and will be replaced by the one who values kids.

South Korea will be an interesting example to watch - whether they reverse their course and start valuing kids as a society, or they might get replaced by immigrants or are taken over by the neighboring countries. Nothing good or bad inherently with either option because life is meaningless anyway.

SK disappears in a poof of logic and NK just waltzes south.

This is certainly true on a global and evolutionary scale. Yet, we, as individuals don't work on a global and evolutionary scale, but an individual one, at least in our society. Therefore I'm perfectly fine not having kids, because I have absolutely no intention to accept and feel the societal burden on my unprivileged shoulders.

Your point about questioning our own assumptions (especially those we may have made early in life) is very fair and reasonable advice.

The way I look at it though, the desire to have children comes from societal and self conditioning too. For the majority of people, building a nuclear family is what they see all around them, and few ever really question whether or not their desire comes from the fact that it seems like the default and it would be too hard to go against the grain.

I don’t have the drive to have children. Maybe I would have if I saw it as more of a possibility earlier on in life, but I think we underestimate how much of that drive actually originates from outside forces for many people.

I never wanted kids and then in my late 30s (currently 51M) I really started feeling deeply that something was missing in my life. I had close friends, made good money, had a lot of freedom, and yet still suddenly felt a deep desire and almost a loneliness without them.

My father had me when he was 50 so I didn’t feel like I was too old. Ended up having 3 and wouldn’t trade them for anything. For all the hardship there is such an overwhelming joy that also comes with children that I’ve never found anywhere else.

Agreed. I wasn't sure if having kids was a right decision given all other entertainment we could have had and hobbies I could have continued to pursue. My partner was absolutely sure about having kids. Looking back now, kids are the best thing to have happened to me without any doubt.

These outside forces have been explored: https://iep.utm.edu/girard/

How much of "conditioned not to want them" is from overly effective anti-teen pregnancy campaigns? Scare the kids straight that children are a one-way trip to the poorhouse so they keep it in their pants at prom. A decade later, some of them who easily could afford a family choose not to raise one because the lesson stuck.

It’s incredibly effective. People leave that thinking most children cry non stop at completely random intervals, as if our millennia of evolution hasn’t informed us how to do this simple task.

I'm not the person you replied to, but I'm now in my mid-30s and I too have written off having children for a number of reasons:

* Having and raising children is expensive (both financially and otherwise) regardless any factor(s). Any parent will corroborate this.

* I do not find life worth foisting upon a new individual; life is nothing but challenges and hardships. I refuse to throw a newborn life into this hellscape.

* Related to the above, I refuse to make my children be witnesses to my inevitable death. I am in that phase of life where I must deal with the eventual passing of my parents, and that is fucking hell. I do not wish this experience upon anyone, and to that end I refuse to have children because to do so means I wish this hellish experience upon them.

* Children as a concept is hypocritical: On the one hand I am responsible for their well-being and that implies I can and will and should have a say in their life; on the other hand they are independent individuals whom I cannot violate, and I refuse to impose my will upon them anyway because that is not my place.

* I find the entire notion of a family far too bothersome for my life. I do not need nor want a spouse whom I won't ever understand anyway and whom I will grow to resent. I do not need nor want children whom I won't ever understand anyway and whom will grow to resent me. I do not need nor want familial relations which will all be concentrated bullshit. I do not need nor want any of that noise in my life, I desire peace and tranquility.

> I am in that phase of life where I must deal with the eventual passing of my parents, and that is fucking hell

The life has a way to handle this: children. Not saying you should but just saying that having children makes passing of the parents a bit less hellish. Will not make it easy but children forces us to be in the present and in the local now and contemplate less about about the extended family or past.

Just to clarify: it will be extremely immoral and unethical to have children just to alleviate this. And damaging in so many ways. I am just presenting a side effect here.

> Having and raising children is expensive (both financially and otherwise) regardless any factor(s). Any parent will corroborate this.

I’m a parent, I disagree. I might have thought in my 20s that having kids is expensive, but in my 30s I make so much money that is not an issue. Buying a house, that is expensive :)

> I do not find life worth foisting upon a new individual; life is nothing but challenges and hardships. I refuse to throw a newborn life into this hellscape.

Have you spoken to a therapist recently? You might be depressed. From my point of view, life is beautiful and challenges make it interesting.

> From my point of view, life is beautiful and challenges make it interesting

This is a very deep and philosophical question, I think its perfectly reasonable for people who are not depressed to still come to the conclusion that they don't want to create more life since life itself is too difficult. Even in a best case scenario of being born to a rich, loving family in some prosperous democracy you still have to deal with yours and everyone you loves mortality.

I think there's another interesting issue that may be going on - people postpone having kids more and more, many start seriously considering it in their late 30s. That's an age where most people also start feeling the squeeze of midlife - ill parents you need to take care of, sometimes your own health starting to decline a bit etc. It's not surprising some people give up on kids.

You are rich enough that raising a child is no longer a major expense for you, is this not the exception that proves the parent commenter's rule, then? Most are not so lucky as you.

There are a large number of people who make significantly less than SWE here that have and raise children.

Rural Appalachia is one example.

Appalachia is much cheaper than SF, so one can make less and still have a good time raising their kids. It's not about absolute income, it's about purchasing power parity between areas of a country or world.

Poor people have more children, just fyi

Implying that someone is depressed and need to see therapist because their life vision differs from your is extremely ignorant and offensive. Especially when original point isn’t controversial at all.

They didn’t suggest therapy because of the point about not wanting kids. They suggested therapy because of the point about life being nothing but challenge and hardship, misery, etc. I think it’s not controversial to point out that therapy might help with that.

It would be, but they didn't.

I assume this was the reference point for that comment:

> life is nothing but challenges and hardships. I refuse to throw a newborn life into this hellscape.

I've spoken to therapists nearly my entire life (another expense you may be on the hook for as a parent, like my parents were), and no therapy or drug has ever been able to allow me to find any meaning in life. It's not a struggle I have any interest in passing down to another.

Which gets at a question I often have for those in these threads - what would you do if you had a child who was so depressed that they're unable to live independently?

Maybe there is no meaning in it, at least in some people’s worldview.

Perhaps the optimal path for people who feel that way is to enjoy the good parts until it comes to an end?

Yes, it's quite apparent in peoples' art - from Voltaire's "Candide" to Rick and Morty, my favorite example would be when Morty says, "Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody's gonna die. Come watch TV".

When Douglas Adams said that the answer to life, the universe, and everything is "42", it was pretty obvious that he was saying that the entire question is just absurd.

Enjoying what time is left is indeed my goal, and perhaps what a stoic or existentialist would tell you as well. It has not been easy though.

I’m an outlier here probably, I’d support the child in doing almost whatever they wanted to do, including euthanasia.

Thank you for this response. Outlier though it may surely well be, I find it lovely in a way though I doubt any parent (and indeed most humans) would actually be able to follow through with the extreme example given.

Euthanasia for someone temporarily depressed is probably not something humanity can handle without abuse.

It’s like a ‘guns for all’ policy.

Yeah both are stupid.

Euthanasia should be allowed only after 18-36 months of therapy sessions.

Guns should be allowed for all that aren't criminals and/or mentally ill.

> hellscape

If you come from or live in a western country, you have no idea how good your life is.

And how you have to make up problems because real problems have been done away by your society.

Real poor people in Asia and Africa would give anything to be poor people where you live.

Ah, the classic "there are starving children in Africa so your feelings and perceptions are invalid."

Subjective wellbeing means that everyone thinks they need 10% more to be happy.

you replied to the wrong comment LOL

> I’m a parent, I disagree. I might have thought in my 20s that having kids is expensive, but in my 30s I make so much money that is not an issue. Buying a house, that is expensive :)

You're contradicting yourself. I'm a dad of two. Kids are extremely expensive and the largest expense is needing a large enough house in an area with good schools (UK here). That alone adds extra hundreds of thousands to your cost of living.

No, it’s orthogonal.

My 2 cousins grew up in a one-bedroom flat of 50m2.

On the other hand, I would have wanted a larger flat / house even if I remained childless and/or single.

Schooling in the UK is indeed a fuckup of epic proportions that I luckily don’t need to get involved with, but homeschooling is an option, right? The alternatives are getting better and better, with improved technology etc.

To sum up, you don't have kids because you want to save them from... life.

Uhh are you okay?

Don’t worry, some of us are burdened by this weird feeling called “empathy”. You don’t.

Perfectly fine and happy as I can be, thanks for the concern.

Your ability to think you understand exactly how bad the future will turn out is working against you and helping you have a depressing outlook.

I do not care about the future, I am talking about the here and now and I refuse to foist this upon a hypothetical child of mine.

My goal is to lead a peaceful, tranquil life and when the time comes for my passing to leave as little as possible behind in my wake. Ideally I hope to not suddenly die in a freak incident, so I can relinquish or otherwise destroy my personal possessions prior to my passing.

If nobody notices I ever existed after I pass, I am satisfied.

Having children is a horrible deal for women though. Given the effect on their careers, health, and social life, I can understand why fewer would willingly choose to have them. This explains why whenever civil protection and economic freedom gives them any semblance of a choice, the number of children they get goes way down.

no problem, immigration's gonna fix it

Women who've had kids live longer & have fewer diseases btw. Breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer. It's not such a bad deal actually.

> Having children is a horrible deal for women though

Women in every rich country have fewer children than they desire:

https://medium.com/migration-issues/how-big-is-the-fertility...

This is evidence in support of it being a bad deal.

If it was a good deal, women would have more children than they want because the economics were right

Yes and no. Maybe I should have quoted the following part of the parent's comment:

> whenever civil protection and economic freedom gives them any semblance of a choice, the number of children they get goes way down.

Which is clearly falsified by the link I posted.

I certainly agree with you that the economics of raising children is not right in western countries, but this still doesn't deter women from wanting more children than they're having, so I don't think it's at all fair to say that fewer are willingly choosing to have them.

I guess that depends on that womans interests. Many women (and men, but less) are simply not career driven. Many stay at home parents build wonderful social lives around other parents at playgroups, schools etc and see their friends more than their working comparatives. Your health is also in theory a lot easier to stay on top of without a job - not so much with small children, but definitely with double digits.

What’s so great about a career? I grew up loving programming. My career had disabused me of that long since. I am indeed very lucky and grateful that my income can support my entire family such that my wife could take a break from her career (in social services, a hell much worse than my own career) to raise our child full time. I would trade the frustrations of tech to be a stay at home dad in a heartbeat.

A career supporting yourself is also mostly just a way to increase profits for capital owners, what is fulfilling about that?

Effect on health? Social life? Career?

That doesn't make a lot of sense. The impact on health is transitory and most women recover just fine after birth. Social life can actually get better when it expands to other parents. Career? I guess if your goal is to grasp the golden ring that's true.

But my god, surely our lives have more meaning than living as long as possible, maintaining the social life we had in our 20's as long as possible, and dedicating our lives to our careers.

Yikes, I'm not sure how accomplished and how satisfied with my life I'd be if I got to my 90's and successfully fulfilled those goals. I'd feel rather empty to me honest.

But this opinion seems very common on social media. It's like there is no worthy goal in life beyond optimizing health, eating at trendy restaurants and becoming CEO.

Burdening someone with existence without their consent just to give my life meaning seems a bit selfish to me. Everyone's calculus of how likely their future kids' lives are likely to be comfortable, rich, and fulfilling is obviously different, but to me, it seems like an iffy time to assume that the world will continue getting better indefinitely.

Life is more than just being comfortable and rich.

The world has always “been ending”. Look back at any period in the last couple of centuries and you’ll find doomsayers. They were wrong.

But hey maybe the world will get worse overall, but it’s not like humans haven’t suffered through worse. And just because times are tough it doesn’t mean you can’t have a fulfilling life with human connections being a key part to that fulfillment.

Dont have kids if you don’t want to but I’m not going to put my life on hold because maybe the world will get crappy.

It's not my life though, is it? That's already a done deal, and I wasn't given a choice. The question is whether I should bring forth a new one.

Sure it's not your life, but just because you didn't find fulfillment, or riches, or happiness, doesn't mean your children won't.

Like I said, don't have kids if you don't want to. Nobody should.

But the idea the world is doomed and your offspring are destine for a life of misery isn't really based on reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com