Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonlotito | Hacker News Reader

As a father with a son with severe autism (not to suggest it's equivalent to Bertrand's condition), there is an important lesson here that might not be apparent at first read.

Before you have children, understand that it's for the rest of your life. Really understand the impact. Your concerns are second, beyond anything you've ever understood. Marriage is about compromise. Children, however, afford no such privilege.

Make no mistake, it's worth it. Looking into those eyes, seeing that smile. Getting your first smile, laugh, hug, or kiss. Nothing compares.

View on HN

Marriage is about compromise. Children, however, afford no such privilege.

No, marriage is having one heck of a good time living your life with your spouse.

Being a single parent is better than a bad marriage. And marriage can only be good if the parents know and acknowledge that they together go first, kids come second. Period.

Your spouse is the person you spend rest of your life (or at least decades, if you're lucky) and if you give up too much of that for the kids, you won't necessarily have a relationship once the kids move out in twenty years or so.

It's not my intention to lure you into thinking that parents should do whatever they need to do and mostly ignore the kids. (A whole lot of good people have been raised that way over the centuries, though.) However, nobody promised the kids a rose garden and neither did anyone promise the same to you.

It's just those times in life when there's too much everything and good times are sparse. That is when you need to take care of yourself first, because that's a prerequisite for a relationship. Then you need to take care of your relationship because that's a prerequisite for a working family of two parents and one or more kids. When the relationship is all right, then you can truly take care of the kids too, not just mechanically play a role for a decade while getting more and more bitter every year.

Most of the time you do all three—yourself, your relationship, your kids—but you must know which comes first in the tight spot. It's like oxygen masks on the plane.

After all, your kids will first try to learn how to live and be happy by mimicking how you live your own life.

You don't ever own your kids' lives and you won't even have much control over theirs for more than the 10-15 early years.

So be sure you take care of yourself and your marriage because that's what makes you happy for a long time, in your own life.

> And marriage can only be good if the parents know and acknowledge that they together go first, kids come second. Period.

Eye-opener for me. This is very true, and a harsh truth at that.

You made me finally understand what broke my parents' relationship. One of them focused on children, with "at all costs" mindset. And the cost was great indeed.

> and you won't even have much control over theirs for more than the 10-15 early years.

That much just as well.

That's a false dichotomy - putting your children first doesn't have to mean 'at all costs'. Strike a balance between the two.

Parents' first responsibility should be to their children, who didn't choose to be born (that was the parents' choice) and haven't yet learned the important lessons in life - such as how to care for others. It's not about controlling so much as guiding.

Selfish behaviour begets selfish children.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think your comment illustrates the attitude prevalent in countries with 50% marriage failure rates. Your ideal is simply unsustainable and impossible.

First: Are you married now (or have you been) and do you have kids? I'll assume you are married/committed but I'm not sure you are a parent, given your views. This is a tremendously important point to help frame this discussion. I fear you probably won't understand my points at all with out first hand experience.

What you are saying isn't technically wrong, but it requires precise compromise in order to be successful. That's exactly what jasonlotito is saying: You can't get what you want all the time, especially with your partner, most certainly with your children.

You and your partner need to understand, respect, and tolerate each other, first and foremost. Some people are simply incapable of doing this, period. Some people conflate this with making their life completely about the other person. Both of these people will be miserable regardless. For the rest of us though, simply understanding that statement means the marriage is a compromise - sometimes you get your way and your partner tolerates, sometimes you tolerate and your partner gets to do their thing, most often you are both getting your ways, as they are the same, but sometimes both of you are tolerating, for the good of the family/marriage.

Of course, with children, that last point becomes a vast majority of your life. Kids are the centre of their worlds and don't really understand how to be anything else. It takes literally years to impact the knowledge that life is better when they look outwards towards others into their little heads. Until then, you and your partner will do a lot of tolerating in your lives. How well you can do this (and when not to) will pretty much define how successful a parent you will be. It's an approach governed by the exact opposite thoughts that you are presenting however: Child first, couple second, self last.

Be clear than I'm not suggesting your entire life should be one of self-sacrifice, That doesn't work either. But it must be the last of your concerns 90% of the time if you are to make raising kids and marriage - especially marriage - work. Ensure the kids are alright (not necessarily that they get their way all the time), ensure your spouse is alright (happy wife, happy life after all) and ensure you are alright in that order, and you have a winning formula.

Looking out for yourself first is a guaranteed path to conflict. It's very rare that you can do this and remain in sync with other people, even best friends and spouses aren't going to want to do the same things all the time. Your children will never want to do the same things as you in any consistent fashion, which is way most happy family spend time in parks during the day as opposed to bars late at night.

I have no problem when someone says 0-4 year old kids should be the center of your world. However, having a parent that can actively demonstrate a healthy relationship becomes increasingly important as a child ages. I have heard this transition described in terms of Marriage, Child, Self, then Spouse. Or environment before impulse.

PS: Describing Marriage as a Nash Equilibrium is probably a better description for HN.

A 50% divorce rate is not a 'failure' rate. People change and move on - in some cases a divorce is an overall win-win situation, not a failure. Slavishly staying together because of obligation is a failure.

Divorce in itself is not failure, however in a culture with a 50% divorce rate I think this is a symptom of a much bigger problem: such a high divorce rate means that many people are not committed to their marriage or to the concept of family.

If you take a look at modern societies, such as the US, you'll notice that people are more and more disconnected from their families and their place of birth and their culture. Good friends and big families are increasingly rare occurrences. Incidentally this is why people give birth to fewer and fewer children: because they've got no family to rely on.

And really, life is hard and hollow that way.

Putting yourself first does not necessarily make you happier, while compromises done for the good of your family can make you happier in the long term ... not much different than how abstaining from sweets and soda will make you healthier and thinner. Really, don't be a self-centered jerk, as you'll regret it in the end.

Times have changed. Marriage used to be about survival, and that requires a forever committal. These days everyone can survive by himself but marriage is a vehicle for learning and growing in your life through intimately living with someone. Some marriages still last but many break down because either one of the spouses has learned something and moves on in his or her life. The other one doesn't so they don't sing the same song anymore, and there's nothing they can serve really by staying together anymore.

First: Are you married now (or have you been) and do you have kids? I'll assume you are married/committed but I'm not sure you are a parent, given your views.

Fair enough. I'm married, second time now. I have two kids. They're around 9-10 years old now so obviously I don't know everything yet, there's another decade to be seen.

This is a tremendously important point to help frame this discussion. I fear you probably won't understand my points at all with out first hand experience.

I tried to guard my post against extreme interpretations but nothing works out perfectly. I did follow up to the original poster, though, for some clarifications. You might want to read that.

I don't fully agree with what you wrote, though. For example, "Ensure the kids are alright (not necessarily that they get their way all the time), ensure your spouse is alright (happy wife, happy life after all) and ensure you are alright in that order, and you have a winning formula." is correct but in my view it goes in the exactly opposite order.

It might be just me but I see awfully many people who put everything else first and theirselves last. And they're bitter, resentful, exhausted, tired, and generally just giving the impression of asking the world go fuck themselves. They might momentarily glow in selfish proudness for doing so much for others but that doesn't last long when they figure out they're left with nothing much to themselves. Then they become martyrs and start fishing for attention, care, and attendance that they could've just provided themselves originally.

Maybe there are people who can just give and give, and think for other people first and genuinely be happy and energetic. I don't know. I've seen many who seem like that but a closer discussion with them reveals some leaks in their identity. Things that aren't working and things that they're not willing to face themselves.

I have a surprisingly good marriage; I'm not always so sure what I've done to deserve one but I can certainly attribute part of it to myself taking care of myself. There are times I have to ignore my wife's needs so that I can attend to them most of the other time. I first ensure I'm well-rested and happy myself before I do things with my kids because only then I can be relaxed and happy spending time with them, too. Otherwise I'll just be frustrated and unhappy and it always shows, and I don't want to give my kids the impression I have to force myself being with them. And there are times we want to do things together with my wife and tell the kids to just find something to do themselves, even if it wasn't exactly the best time to do that. Or if my wife needs me more badly than my kids (who, categorically, always need me if I only give them), then I'll just tell them that I'll be with my wife now as she needs me, and we will listen to the kids too again, but only later.

Only when we feel we're together again with my wife we can actually give something to the kids. And only when I'm whole I can actually give something to her, too.

You're really reading a lot more into that than was intended. Indeed, you completely miss the point, which is clear with this:

> you won't necessarily have a relationship once the kids move out in twenty years or so.

Right here is the problem. You assume a healthy child, one that is capable of living on their own. But you have a responsibility to that child if they can't.

This doesn't mean you give up your dreams. This doesn't mean an end to your life. But it means taking care of your children. It's your responsibility.

I can't just ignore my child's care and go on a long vacation with the wife. Oh, I mean, I could, but that would be tantamount to child abuse. I need to make sure he's cared for, appropriately, or adjust my vacation to accomodate his needs.

> You don't ever own your kids' lives and you won't even have much control over theirs for more than the 10-15 early years.

This is why you can't just quote a part of the comment, and take it out of context. I'm faced with the very real possibility that I'll be responsible for my son's life for much longer than that. You can't just make assumptions like you are.

So no, you are wrong. Wrong, because you make some obviously wrong assumptions that simply don't hold up to any amount of scrutiny. I think your intent is honest, but frankly, you're trying to argue a point that is, frankly, pointless.

Edit: I do want to point out though, that neglecting your marriage isn't good either. So, please dont' think I'm suggesting that by putting children first, you aren't leaving room for your spouse.

Please don't think I was specifically arguing a point or arguing against one of your points, or reading into what you wrote specifically. I was merely sharing because what you wrote touched me. (It might not have come out that way in my writing, though, I admit.) And that all was mostly triggered by the line that I quoted in my earlier post.

Now, your situation is exceptional and something like that can't be assumed when speaking generally. It's similar to your spouse getting seriously ill. From being a husband or a parent it turns a relationship or a parenthood partly into a special case of taking full-time care of a very ill person. So in that case we're not strictly talking about only parenthood anymore. It's partly patient care, not just parenthood.

However, I think I still carry the same opinion: taking care of yourself first is especially important in a situation like yours where you might have to take care of someone into his adulthood.

A person can only give as much as he's been able to receive himself. If you don't put yourself first ever then eventually you imperatively have no chance of giving anything to your son or anyone else in the long run. (You might be able to trick it for years in the beginning, though.) It's like you have to stop to fill up the gas tank while driving a long distance. Otherwise you just can't do it at all.

I also want to point out that I was not advocating taking a long vacation with your wife just like that: putting yourself or your relationship first doesn't mean leaving your kids in abandon. (Or maybe, naively, for some people, it means just that but it wasn't what I was thinking.) I did write that parents can't just do whatever they feel they need to do and ignore the kids. I'll try to reiterate my viewpoint.

What I mean by putting yourself or your marriage first is that in the worst cases, you do just that, but only in the worst case. If it's not the worst case you will have some energy left for others, too.

For example, if you're truly out of the game, you must be able to say to your wife "Honey, now I just can not do this anymore. I need a weekend alone at the cottage or with my friends or I'll just simply go mad somehow and I don't have anything left for myself or our marriage. I'm sorry I can't be more flexible now and you'll have to take care of all things but I'm so out of everything now that I just can't. I'll be back—but not today."

Or if you're exhausted with your kids, you're going to have to be able to say: "Listen guys, we're so worn out of everything that we're going to have to postpone the beach trip we planned with you and instead send you off to your grandparents for the weekend. You see, we need some adult time alone with your mother so that we'll have time to enjoy ourselves too instead of always working and taking care of others. If we didn't do that, we'd become quite uptight and just plain angry at everything, and you wouldn't like that either. So, we're going to have to take you out to the beach sometime later and you're going to go visit your grandparents for the weekend."

Of course you have the responsibility for your kids and you can't drop that. But kids can survive a night without a proper meal. They will live even if they don't have clean clothes for few days. And they can't always enjoy the privilege of your full presence. Doing such things repeatedly would be detrimental to their childhood but in the worst case it's better for them to suffer little than see their parents gradually losing their grasp on life.

I do agree with you that people flame out because their lives evolve around kids and they lose touch with each other. It can't really be underestimated the amount of energy required to stop that from happening. You always see on TV that marriage takes work but I doubt many people understand what that actually means until they're in it. Little things can creep up on you. Your spouse may feel neglected and you won't even know it until it's gotten to be a serious problem. You might think you're being the perfect parents because you dote on your kids and meanwhile your spouse is lonely and unhappy. You might not even be aware that you're being selfish. Children tend to consume every ounce of energy that the parents have, especially in the early years. That doesn't leave a lot of time or energy left for each other. It really takes a constant effort and work to keep the marriage healthy.

> "And marriage can only be good if the parents know and acknowledge that they together go first, kids come second. Period."

That's a terribly sad outlook. Your children are extensions of yourself. They should come first forever. They're not pets that you just take in and look after. They're your babies...

I don't know if you have kids or not, maybe you don't have very strong parental feelings :/

I think the GP means things like it's ok to leave a 4 year old throwing a temper tantrum with a baby sitter while heading out for date night. Doing such a thing won't hurt the kid at all, but will do wonders for maintaining a healthy happy marriage.

Having parents who are burnt out, resentful martyrs does not help a kid.

NOTE: This does not mean it is ok to abandon a child to the wolves, and it's not meant to justify mistreatment of special needs children. If a child has special needs, it will obviously place a much higher burden on the parents.

> I think the GP means things like it's ok to leave a 4 year old throwing a temper tantrum with a baby sitter while heading out for date night.

There isn't anything about that that I disagree with, nor is there anything about that that suggests you are putting your children second.

Indeed, quite the opposite, in fact.

> "Having parents who are burnt out, resentful martyrs does not help a kid."

Completely agree. But that as you say is not putting the kids first.

Putting the kids first means that you will leave them to throw tantrums when you need to, or leave them with someone else so they develop in that way.

Giving kids what they want != putting them first.

This important lesson can only be detected by parents. People with no children won't ever understand this no matter how hard they try/re-read the articles many times.

Once the infant is out of the womb, everything change instantly without any interference by anyone, anybody, or anything else. The child will change your brain, your mind, your heart, your lifestyle, and your future at that moment of birth. The child IS that BIG.

I cannot say how much I respect parents, even more for those who have children with special needs.

Life is really beautiful isn't it? (^_^).

>People with no children won't ever understand this no matter how hard they try/re-read the articles many times.

Halfway through the article I started re-evaluating whether I still want kids. Not sure I could carry that burden. [] Though that is probably more on a logical level than feeling the raw emotion that a parent would - which is probably what you were getting at.

More accurately I know I could out of necessity carry that burden. Its everything else in life which would be more difficult. Kinda like a warrior without family at home has the luxury of adopting a devil-may-care attitude to combat - once others depend on him that isn't possible anymore.

What I found was that once you have kids, it doesn't matter what you feel any more: you will somehow have extra strength to carry the burden no matter what.

Life will change, and everything will never be the same any more. Just like moving from childhood to teenager to adulthood. Whatever you think you can't do before, you will do it eventually.

Whatever you think was great, isn't any more. If you think building a successful billion dollars company was cool, is not any more but instead running a mISV building specific desktop Windows application or Nokia S40 mobile app.

Suddenly, your priorities change without even a slight of internal struggle (no more "NO, I insist I want to become X"). It just... happened.

Matt is a CS prof that blog and still have time to explore various technology despite the challenges he is currently facing.

Life... is what you make it.

One way I like to explain this to non-parents:

when you get married, it changes the way you relate to your spouse, to their relatives, and to others who used to be "dating prospects" -- so, maybe 1/10 of the people you come in contact with. That's a pretty big deal.

when you have a child, it changes the way you relate to almost everybody, even people you've known your entire life. Your parents become "grandma" and "grandpa"; your siblings become "aunt" and "uncle". Even you become "daddy" or "mommy". Your friends are no longer just people you hang out with, they're people who influence your child. Every decision you make now gets framed in terms of "how does this affect my kid?" It's an order of magnitude bigger than marriage.

Nobody is ever really ready for it, but most of us figure it out. And I think it's totally worth all the struggle. (My mildly autistic 2 year old just drew a letter F with sidewalk chalk, on purpose, and it made my day!)

> Before you have children, understand that it's for the rest of your life. Really understand the impact. Your concerns are second, beyond anything you've ever understood. Marriage is about compromise. Children, however, afford no such privilege.

Related to that, understand that marriage is (generally) with someone who had a choice in the matter. If your spouse is not happy with some aspect of you that was reasonably discoverable before they married you, they can request that you change but have no right to expect you to.

For instance, if they know going into the marriage that you a workaholic who places the success of your business above doing "people" things, and they are going to have a problem being married to someone who only will have time for "couple" things maybe one night a month, then they should have declined to enter into the marriage.

Kids, on the other hand, have no choice. You made them, they are your responsibility, and if that means you have to limit your work to around 40 hours a week and do that on a regular schedule so you can be there to tend to them, play with them, entertain them, teach them, go to their school plays, and so on, that's what you have to do. As jasonlotito notes, your concerns now come second.

As a father of 3, I think the question of "is it worth it" is not as cut-and-dry as you suggest.

As I am an extreme introvert, in the near-term, having kids definitely makes me less happy in many measurable ways.

That being said, taking care of children is something I have always been drawn to, and is the way I have chosen to leave my mark on the world, as it were.

We fostered our first two kids for 18 months before we were offered the opportunity to adopt them, so I was in the situation of being able to choose to go back to having no kids in a socially acceptable manner, which is not an opportunity most people get.

I'm going to make the obvious comparison here to starting a company (which I haven't done but am inferring from the numerous articles I've read on it). It's not for everyone, it's a lot of work, and at times you will think you were crazy for ever attempting it. However, for a certain type of person, it's extremely rewarding.

Just like not everyone would be happier if they quit their job and started a company, not everyone would be happier if they became a parent, but if it's something you are drawn to, then by all means, do it!

> As a father of 3, I think the question of "is it worth it" is not as cut-and-dry as you suggest.

I never meant to imply anything was so cut and dry. Apologies for making it seem so. I just wanted to point out something people should learn from this post. No one should have children because they feel as if they are expected to. They really need to understand what kind of commitment it entails.

Sorry, not worth it at all. Years 1-10 - you will loose all your time - cleaning diapers, making the child eat, making it study, teaching it values - waking up at night - and doing a lot of things for it. Yes you'll see it learn, smile, grow up and you're genetically conditioned to like it. But you will not be able to play your games, go to your parties - read book or contemplate on life, or code without expecting interruptions.

Years 11-20 - manage the child's other needs - worry about getting into a good school/college, making sure there is no bad company, and making sure no bad mistakes are made which can be made very difficult due to teenage defiance to old values etc.

Years 21+ - child will leave and stay separately - you should more or less start becoming free once again. That is if you do not have a second child!

Wow your kids must suck.

Is that what your parents told you ? :)

Balls to this. As your sibling commenter says, you simply don't get to pass judgement on this if you haven't had a child of your own.

Sure, we're programmed to behave with an otherwise inexcusable amount of irrationality with our kids, but that's not by accident. If anything, it demonstrates the level of evolutionary importance in keeping our offspring healthy and ensuring their success: it's such an important directive in fact, that evolution has deemed it more important than the needs of the parents to 'play [their] games, go to [their] parties -- read book[s]...or code'.

I'm not going to tell you you're objectively wrong on this, but I will tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Life is a squishy, inconvenient, and occasionally beautiful endeavour. Realize that.

"As your sibling commenter says, you simply don't get to pass judgement on this if you haven't had a child of your own."

You aren't gay, so you can't pass judgement on gay rights.

You don't smoke weed, so you have no say in the laws

The thing is. You can still have an opinion (and pass judgement)..even if you haven't experienced it yourself.

You'll notice that later on my comment I said 'I'm not going to say you're objectively wrong on this'. I'm not begrudging the OP his/her opinion, I'm simply saying that without the mental reset that is parenthood, the OP simply does not have enough information to make any factual statement on the matter.

I'm not saying that the OP is wrong or unentitled, I'm simply saying that they're exhibiting a potent mix of naivety and arrogance that they may want to be more aware of. Or, as my sibling poster said in a better way: "Don't presume in your arrogance that you know quite a bit about something you have zero experience with."

We're not talking about laws here, we're describing experiences. Nobody is suggesting that all people should be parents.

Your corrected analogies are as follows:

You aren't gay, so you can't pass judgement on what it means to be gay.

You don't smoke weed, so you have no idea what it's like to be high.

Both of these statements are perfectly valid, and having a bunch of straight people talk about what it is like to be gay or a bunch of prudes talk about how out of sorts you are when you are high is pretty ridiculous.

A non-parent could similarly argue that you don't get to pass judgement since you are under the influence of cognitive dissonance.

Regardless, I have met parents who feel that way, and it can often turn out poorly for the child, though it really depends. One person I know who feels this way is a DBA who earns more than enough for his wife to raise the kids. She works part-time more to escape cabin-fever than to earn money and seems happy with the arrangement. His long work hours means he doesn't have to deal with the kids any more than he wants to.

"A non-parent could similarly argue that you don't get to pass judgement since you are under the influence of cognitive dissonance."

The difference is that someone who is a parent has also been a non-parent.

Someone who is a non-parent has never been a parent.

That doesn't really make sense. Cognitive dissonance may cause a smoker to rationalize their habit even though they have also been a non-smoker. In fact you could argue that cognitive dissonance is more likely to affect a parent than a smoker, as parents don't have the alternative option of quitting.

You could argue that non-parents may also be under the influence, but having formerly been a non-parent doesn't necessarily mean you're not rationalizing your choice to make you feel better about it.

I don't even pretend to understand what you're getting at with your second paragraph, and since this is HN and not reddit, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean no harm. That being said, I might caution you to choose your words wisely and delicately when it comes to commenting on other people's parenting methods. There are few minefields more fraught with peril than those surrounding parenting. Someone less accommodating than I may well take offense to statements like that, so tread lightly.

To clarify, I was saying that when parents see their kids primarily as a negative effect on their lives, it often turns out poorly for the kid. Specific examples of what I mean by poorly:

Child commits Suicide

Child forcibly removed from parents by the government

Child classified as juvenile delinquent

On the other hand I have seen it work out okay in exactly one case, so there is a clear counterexample. Mentioning the details of that was likely a mistake, as you point out.

This is already a busy topic, and this is as good of a chance as I'll have to get something off my chest, so here goes...

There's an obsession verging on dogma in much of the hacker world that rationality is the only path to correct action; that by virtue of being hackers we are all somehow divested of otherwise human frailties like emotion, love, and irrational behaviour. As one of the commenters on this thread so wonderfully said:

> No, you're not some amazing savant that has popped up out of the mass of mediocrity that is humanity.

We are, every single one of us, a fallible creature full of fault, vanity, and ego. To argue that I am under the 'influence of cognitive dissonance' because I am falling prey to one of life's most unstoppable impulses is perhaps the strongest example I've yet seen of the absurdity of rational behaviour as the highest truth.

There is a time to be rational and to appeal to such sensibilities, and as hackers we live in those times more than most people. Crafting, debugging, and similar work pleads for rationality; indeed it is a necessary ingredient for much of the work a hacker does. But its applicability has definite limits, and as with any tool it's critical to know where those limits lie.

The core act of deceit comes when, drunk on the power and clarity of thought that rationality brings, the hacker mind tries to apply this tool to matters of the heart or soul. To pretend that the behaviour of a parent towards their child has its basis in rational thought is to presume rationality is a more human trait than love, or than the desire to express one's will on the world.

When parents say things like 'I love my kid so much that it makes my heart hurt', they aren't being flowery; that's actually what it feels like. A feeling so grounded in the core of our existence as a species that it's inseparable from physical pain; to try and apply rationality to that is the height of naivety. Likewise, when people say things like 'you can't understand unless you've had a child yourself', they aren't being dismissive. Parenthood isn't just another mouth to feed or diapers to change. It is a rewiring of your mind and your soul so complete and severe that it can turn love into physical pain. It is perhaps the most human event that has ever occurred in my life, and I suspect most other parents would say the same.

I have weeped openly for days in both happiness and fear for my daughter's well being. I have walked away from a life that took me a decade to build in order to ensure her health, and I never once questioned the correctness of that decision. Many of my decisions as a parent have been made in the face of rationality, made on a balance of many factors of which the rational course of action was just one. Walking that razor edge between the rational way and the biological imperative is an essential skill of any parent. It is a path impossible to describe yet clear as day if you just know where to look.

The only objective truth is that there are no objective truths. I won't pretend to say that my perspective is any more or less correct than anyone else's, but I will say this: rationality is a double edged sword. It is a potent weapon against bugs, suits, and dogma, but it is also capable of separating you from that which makes you human. Like any tool, it's up to you to decide how to wield rationality. Please just know the consequences before you start swinging it.

This is a fucking awesome comment, perhaps the best one on HN today, and most certainly in this thread.

Even removed from the "kids aren't so great" angle you are saying something I think a lot of people - especially on HN - need to hear, and you are saying it well. Cheers.

All true, but consider that parenthood is not the only path to deeply emotional experiences. You might not have experience with other ways, like extended fasting, extreme adventure, religious revelation, etc.

Calling it "cognitive dissonance" may be condescending, but consider that telling people without kids, "you simply don't get to pass judgement on this" can also come across as condescending. It also doesn't help to start the comment with "balls to this."

I don't think the issue here is rationality vs. non-rationality, but rather allowing a diversity of opinion. If your perspective is not more or less correct than anyone else's, then what was the problem with altrego99's comment? Who are you to tell him what he can and cannot think?

You're entire rant against rationality is misplaced. "The only objective truth is that there are no objective truths." Please. You may argue that your feelings of love and devotion as a parent are irrational in nature, or even that they're somehow outside of the realm of time and space, but that is neither here nor there when talking about whether parenthood is so consistently fulfilling, irrational or not, to the point where we should recommend it for everyone.

There is no dichotomy between rational decision making and having kids, or any other thing that you might want to do for yourself or others.

Thinking decisions through and being honest with yourself is a GOOD thing, particularly in the case where it will affect the rest of your life and the welfare of one or more children. Rationality is a value.

Nobody has claimed to be an amazing savant. People do have different priorities and not everyone is the same as you. If I like salt and you do not like salt, then each of us can be rational while doing a completely different thing.

If you mean to show that reason has limits and that it has terrible consequences then unfortunately you must use reason to show that, and I cannot see that you have done that.

You either don't have kids or you're a psychopath. I'm leaning toward the former. Don't presume in your arrogance that you know quite a bit about something you have zero experience with.

All your accomplishments are pointless without your child next to you.

> Yes you'll see it learn, smile, grow up

It? Nice.

> But you will not be able to play your games, go to your parties - read book or contemplate on life, or code without expecting interruptions.

Sophistry. You don't even understand why you do all of those things. You simply enjoy them and that's an end in itself.

No, you're not some amazing savant that has popped up out of the mass of mediocrity that is humanity.

You enjoy all of those things to gain the capacity to enrich the life of your child. No child? All the stuff you enjoy loses its meaning.

All your accomplishments are pointless without your child next to you.

You enjoy all of those things to gain the capacity to enrich the life of your child.

I'm unconvinced. There are many worthy things in life; children among them. Doesn't mean your life is worthless if you don't have them.

Agreed. Saying children are not worth it is an extreme position, but saying that life is pointless without children is perhaps even more extreme. It's like saying life is pointless without a wife, or without God.

The point of all life is to reproduce. It's one of the qualifications to be considered alive. So yeah, without children, life literally loses its meaning =)

Many people are sterile and cannot have kids. They are still alive by any definition. Many people decide not to have kids but are good Aunts or Uncles or adopted parents. Many decide not to have kids but take care of them, teach them, mentor them. There are even, god help us, productive people who don't have anything specific to do with children. That doesn't mean their existence is meaningless.

On the other hand, a man who spreads his genes by rape may be having lots of kids, but he is not doing a good thing, and is probably not leading a deeply fulfilling life.

The case of adoption and the case of rape say pretty clearly to me that love is more morally fundamental than differential fecundity.

The moral purpose of your life is not given by population genetics in any case. It is an error to conflate purpose in the adaptationist sense with purpose in the sense of your life's fulfillment or your moral values.

Different people are suited to different ways of living, and find different forms of fulfillment; it is part of what makes life varied and interesting.

Your position is aggressive and invalid.

I personally have never leaned towards having children, I have friends and family with young children and I see the benefit and joy they get, but for me its never been a personal goal or desire. Maybe one day it will be and my viewpoint will change.

I consider the fact that I travel the world and experience amazing things, have tried a startup and am socially active most evenings a pretty good testament to having 'lived' as you would call it.

The point of life is not to reproduce. Life simply is, it has no point. What exactly constitutes life is a vague human concept to begin with. You can choose to make your point in life to reproduce, but that does not make other choices of point in life any less valid or real.

BTW, that's a quite smug attitude, no doubt shared by many people, but I personally do not consider reproduction a worthy goal in life or indeed an accomplishment at all. Raising a child well, yes. Getting your sperm in an egg or getting sperm in your eggs, no. To further elevate the life goal of reproduction to the only worthy life goal for humankind to the point of considering people who do not reproduce to be lifeless borders on the ridiculous (not to mention disrespectful to people who can't have children, or for whom its hard (gay people, for example), or people who simply choose not to have children).

1. The definition of life is fuzzy at best. Most of these definitions operate on populations, not individuals.

2. Population fitness can be optimized by many activities: food gathering, art, research, supporting peers, etc.

3. Meaning is a mental construct. Arguing over the absolute "point" of life is pointless, because the epiphenomena of "value" is a chemical cascade in our brains and can be coupled to almost anything. At best we deal in probabilistic generalizations, like "most people find having children rewarding". It's equally valid for someone to find deeply rewarding value in rebuilding engines, and many do.

More directly: I'm gay. I can't reproduce naturally. If you think that makes me less human, let alone less alive, kindly go fuck yourself.

By maratd's logic anything you have ever done or ever will do is completely pointless. You might as well kill yourself.

I find it easier to live knowing my life is pointless. Takes the pressure off :)

"... considered alive"?

So me, being a gay man, married to a gay man, with a dog, but no children - I am not really alive?

Not to mention, considering we have close (maybe more) to 7 billion on the planet, I think a little selective parenting is in order.

Some selective parenting may not be a bad idea. Unfortunately, there exists people who contribute to the growing population by reproducing in order to either leave a mark on the world or because it is believed that the purpose of life is to reproduce.

The point of all life is to exhibit localized temporary reductions in entropy. Everything beyond that is some stuff you made up.

I have kids and your viewpoint is really, really extreme, and I don't agree at all.

That's the prime example of the naturalist fallacy. The way something is implies nothing about the way things ought to be. That we are around because our ancestors reproduced does not mean we must also reproduce. What naturally happens is not necessarily morally acceptable. Otherwise it would also be morally acceptable for me to kill your children and impregnate your wife, as happens with so many animal species.

I recall explaining this to you before. I will value your comments much lower in the future, since I will always have to watch for you being equally irrational about other subjects.

It is not necessary or helpful to be uncivil about this.

altrego99 is expressing a considered personal view with which you disagree, not insulting you or the mass of humanity. You are entitled to your personal view as well. But you could recognize consideration of the issue as a good thing and the disagreement as normal and healthy. Instead, you are calling people terrible names and picking on grammar, without provocation. Please don't continue in that vein.

I think for most people, you are right that having a kid is a fulfilling thing. I am personally glad that someone is having kids (particularly if they are doing a good and thoughtful job of caring for them). But the implication that no one with kids could ever disagree with you is not correct - though it is unlikely that they will bother to do so in public. I have talked to several people who do regret having kids (particularly in a certain time or situation) but they are not so likely to say it - both because of the kind of aggressive reply you have given but maybe also because they are likely to be wrongly taken as saying that they do not love their children, or that they wish the child did not exist. A person can believe that having kids is not necessarily altruistic, or that there is no moral or practical imperative to have kids, without being an awful arrogant psychopath.

Before you have a child, there is no child to wish the nonexistence of. And since it is an irreversible long-term decision, you should definitely think about the pros and cons in a rational way. Many people do come to parenthood by a reasonable, conscious choice and that is a blessing. Other people decide not to. If that is in their best interests then good for them. Perhaps there will be a future time where it does make sense to have kids. Leave them be. It's a personal decision, not a moral necessity.

Not everyone has to get married, either; not getting married doesn't make you a psychopath or a pathetic unfulfilled person, even if it's a nice thing and a great life work for many people.

> But the implication that no one with kids could ever disagree with you is not correct

It is impossible to speak about any subject intelligently unless you have experience with it.

That's just how reality works.

If that offends your sensibilities, may I suggest you're a tad too sensitive?

So you can't have experience of having kids unless you have kids. This is almost along the lines of saying you don't know that getting hit by a car is bad, until you have been. I have plenty of experience with kids, my brothers and sisters have plenty. Not as much experience as a parent, clearly, but enough to know what I want.

Not the same. Getting hit by a car is physical and having a child is very much psychological and emotional.

Someone who's never loved can't say that love is overrated.

Edit: fixed typo

I really hate that argument, because if you're here to have an actual conversation then the whole "you'll never understand until you x" statement is just you shutting the conversation down.

How about this: living without children at this time in your life where you currently have children is awesome and amazing, and you'll never understand how great it is because you have children. Yes you lived without children before but you were younger then, it's totally different now.

It's impossible for you to disagree with me, because you have no experience in this situation. It's just how reality works. Something something sensibilities.

It's impossible for anyone to speak intelligently about living on the moon, because no one has ever lived on the moon?

It's impossible to speak intelligently about parachuting when you've never parachuted?

It's impossible to speak intelligently about being deaf when you're not deaf?

Hence my downvote.

You're falling for the same fallacy that altrego99 is: your opinions and experiences are not the same as others.

For some people, having children is not worth it. For others, having children is.

"No, you're not some amazing savant that has popped up out of the mass of mediocrity that is humanity."

Every person that has ever entered into the "mass of mediocrity that is humanity" was born at some point and, as the mass of mediocrity is by definition what most people will end up being (by your own words) a part of then why add to it when one does not desire to do so?

I have kids. Shall we skip the lame ad hominem circumstantial now and move straight on to the no-true-scotsman?

The comment you're responding to raises perfectly valid points. Sorry, but in my experience having children does not change your life into a love-fest revolving around them. You miss out on a lot of perfectly fulfilling hobbies and a lot of time. There are upsides, but it may or may not be worth it to you. I think deciding against it may be a better and happier option for many people. You can't just count on the experience of those such as you who are apparently so happy to be a parent that it makes you angry at those who suggest it might be otherwise.

Now what, are you going to call me a psychopath?

Ha. Can't wait for your [future] kids to discover your post on HN, 15 years from now, and give you a hard time about it.

Whow, are you arrogant. Can you even contemplate somebody who doesn't want to have children?

"Whow, are you arrogant. Can you even contemplate somebody who doesn't want to have children?"

Can you contemplate that if you are having heterosexual/breeder sex, you may have children even if you never planned to?

Breeder sex? Who talks like this?

A gay friend had a house warming party years ago and my wife and I turned up. We were the only straight people there out of probably 50 guests and I heard someone say "breeders" as we arrived. It took a second to get it and It didn't feel good. I felt more alien than the numerous times we have been overseas and not been able to speak the local language. And when I consider that the people there would all have had comments made against them at some point I had a slight inkling what life could have been like.

Pretty sure that unplanned pregnancies need not result in a child being born.

I think his (somewhat mangled) point is that pretty much everyone in their early 20's doesn't want to have kids, yet most people in their 30's are at least open to the idea.

He's basically playing the odds, but like I said, mangled his comment.

I posted a longer post as a sibling to this before I read your comment. In a lot of ways this is true, and I encourage anyone who agrees with you to not become a parent, rather than being a poor parent.

> Yes you'll see it learn, smile, grow up and you're genetically conditioned to like it. But you will not be able to play your games, go to your parties - read book or contemplate on life, or code without expecting interruptions.

Enjoying parties, games, books, and coding has its roots in genetic conditioning, too.

And that's fine that you feel that way. It's good that you've thought this through. I'd much rather someone act this way than pretend like having children is what they want.

This thing that can only cry learns to: talk, walk, read, express themselves, formulate opinions, ride a bike, conquer fears, grow etc. They do this all the while looking at you as a hero with nothing but complete and selfless love for you. All your minor faults are irrelevant to them. You are their everything.

Yes, it's genetic conditioning, but I have been on this planet 37 years and have never experienced emotion on any scale anywhere approaching what fatherhood has given me. Here's another secret - it's completely different the second time around too!

I'm struggling here to find an argument that would help illustrate this to a non-parent and I am failing. I'll leave it at this:

I would give up everything I'll ever do from now until death - my entire existence - in exchange for my children's without more than a 30 second thought. That is what parenthood does to you.

It's fucking great.

As a father of two amazing girls, I feel exactly the same way. Granted I have less/no time to play video games and go to parties, but nothing has ever come even remotely close to motivating me to create things and become a better person than my children.

"That is what parenthood does to you."

No, that is what parenthood has done to you. And I'm glad for you but you don't have to look far to find people for whom the effect was less than positive and if I relate more to those people than to you then I would do well to heed their warnings than your espousing of supposed absolute truth.

Seriously why is it that parents want to convince others who don't buy into the whole pronatalist view so much that having kids is always, every time, and in every way, the most positive, ultimate experience any human can have?

Virgins probably also don't see what the big deal about having sex is. They've probably heard horror stories about it.

Being a father/mother is simply the best thing you can do with your life (Unless you hate kids, or are too "grown up").

Plenty of people decide to choose lives of celibacy both as virgins and non-virgins and have no regrets.

Like I said, there are plenty of parents who would say it is not. Why should I take what you say as truth over them?

You shouldn't. If you don't feel the overwhelming need to have children, you probably shouldn't.

I wanted to have children from when I was about 10. I knew that it would be the most important thing I was to do with my life, and that's how it's turned out.

FWIW I don't know a single parent who would say that it's not absolutely awesome to be a parent. Maybe I don't know many bad parents...

There are a few people that regret being parents. The funny thing is that if you talk to them you'll find that they've become parents because they though it's something the should do, and not something they wanted to do.

Yes, exactly - and where did this idea that they should have kids come from? What I'm saying is that people need a balanced perspective when deciding and all too often it is the "everyone should have kids" voice that is only heard and anyone that states anything to the contrary is summarily dismissed or berated. That is changing, albeit slowly but I will also be the first to say that at the end of the day if decide you want kids then go for it.

I'm not sure where you are hearing the "everyone should have kids" refrain in 2012. Perhaps this is from your parents or friends?

I'd submit too that perhaps a lot of it is self imposed, as witnessed by your comments in this thread that immediately assumed more than one person was of the opinion that we are somehow insinuating you are a lesser person from not having kids.

Outside of your own family, there's not a heck of a lot of pressure to have kids these days. Your family though is - respectfully - your problem. :-)

I'm not talking about me,I'm asking where the people you know that regret having kids got the idea that they should have kids. It's the default stance in most societies - yes even in 2012. I have heard it from a lot of people and strangely enough I hear it on HN every time someone says they don't want kids or think they aren't worth having. Inevitably when someone says that there are those who clamor in and have to say that having kids is the best thing in the world. My question to you is why did you feel such a strong need to respond? You didn't have to respond but you did - why?

It actually feels good to me to see you talk about the idea of society pushing you to have kids with such incredulity. You clearly haven't experienced the religious culture that I have, which pushed my wife and I to have children ASAP, and continually preaches that if you don't find parenthood (particularly motherhood) extremely fulfilling then there is something wrong with you. I assure you that this culture is still very alive and well in 2012.

Yes, but you are clearly aware that you are part of a religious subset of society, one that doesn't compare to typical NA culture as it stands overall.

I thought it was self evident what perspective I was coming from, but just in case it isn't, let me clarify that I'm not speaking about strict orthodox Jewish cultures, east Indian patriarchal cultures, or what happens in the Tibetan foothills, but of the mainstream, celebrity worshiping, I want pleasure now North American public.

The culture I grew up in is mainstream enough to produce a serious presidential candidate. I don't think you realize just how entrenched this kind of culture actually is in this country. Favorite past-times? Decrying the hedonistic, worldly, evil, "mainstream, celebrity worshiping, I want pleasure now" society while simultaneously taking great pleasure in it.

Religious subset? I don't know about Canada, but the US is still a majority Christian country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_Stat...) and very much has the attitude that sofal was stating. And I would suspect the majority of athesists would have the same view. That said, actions speak louder than words and the fact that fertility rates in most industrialized countries hover just around replacement or lower shows that while people say they want one thing they obviously don't always practice what they preach - they just want everyone else to.

I can confirm that this is the mainstream view any place I've lived in the US as well.

I don't know what it's like in San Francisco.

Thank you! You see for a minute there I thought you were in the "everyone should have kids" camp. So really we are not so far apart in opinion because if you wanted to have kids since you were 10 and, not really knowing anything else about you but assuming you are a good, responsible person, I would be the first to say you should have kids.

Having had an experience and not desiring to repeat it has nothing to do with whether or not you were good or bad at it. Plenty of bad parents out there who for some reason keep having kids and will probably tell you it's the most awesome thing and most of the good parents I know take a measured approach to their own procreation. Some have honestly said they probably would not do it again - of course who knows as they can't go back.

FWIW I think every parent does indeed say "never again". Then in a couple of years they forget they ever felt that.

>than your espousing of supposed absolute truth.

Sorry but it sounds as if you have some personal issues. I'm telling you that being a father is awesome because it is. If I told you that skydiving is awesome, would you comment how I was talking about how skydiving is awesome as if it was some sort of absolute truth? Of course it's my experience. All my opinions are my experiences.

If you are already a parent and hate being a parent, wishing for a life without kids (I too, know people like this), then I concede your feelings are valid, and feel sorry that you haven't been able to take the same things I have from this experience.

If you are not a parent, you are essentially arguing from a position of ignorance. Because of that, your opinion, while valid, comes with a huge caveat. It would be the same as me as a man trying to provide an opinion about how wonderful pregnancy is.

I have had a lot of wonderful experiences in this life. Falling in love, jumping out of a plane, personal achievements of all sorts. None of these experiences compare to fatherhood in any way that I could even being to relate them. Sorry, but that's not something I'm going to keep to myself.

I'm not telling you to have kids. I'm not a pusher, and to be quite frank I personally don't give a fuck about how you choose to live your life. I'm telling you that having a child has been the most positive, ultimate human experience I've had. Why should I deny this because you've got your ovaries in a knot?

I do have a personal issue with people saying kids are absolutely the best thing one can do with one's life or the best experience one can have in one's life and therefore also implying that everyone should have them. So if I mistook your statement as one of unqualified pro-natalism then I apologize. Ovaries in a knot? Lol. I'm a man so society readily accepts, even applauds in some cases, my desire to not have kids though your statement is telling of the vitriol women in our society face who have decided not to have kids.

So the logic is: you wouldn't understand because you're not a parent, but if you are a parent then you're not a good one (i.e "you haven't been able to take the same things I have from this experience").

... "pronatalist"? Really? Sheesh.

It's true, it's kind of a strange word that I've mainly only seen used in the child-free communities, but is there a better word for the viewpoint that everyone should have kids? "Breeder mentality" just seems too harsh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism

> a better word for the viewpoint that everyone should have kids

I have a good one: "opinion".

I have another great one for when someone won't leave you alone and insists that you hold their opinion or there's something wrong with you: "fanatic". See also: "jerk", "creep", "weirdo", "person I avoid".

I really don't get these quasi-political categorizations. If someone's being a jerk about their opinion, they're a jerk. Words like "pronatalist" just strike me as unbelievably effete. Like "pronatalists" are this powerful lobby group from whom we all need protection.

If someone won't shut up about their opinion and keep trying to push it on you, they're just a jerk, and probably kind of stupid too.

That's like saying we shouldn't call sexism sexism because its just the opinion of a few men that women are inferior and if they are being jerks about their opinion then they are just being jerks. No, having the word pronatalism calls out the fact that it is just a viewpoint. And it is one shared and promoted by many - often to the detriment of those who think otherwise. Having names for things helps in clarifying what it is we are talking about.

I guess what I really want to say is that the world is so divided and polarized, can't we just this one time drop the anti- and pro-whatever and just say that someone disagrees with us and move on?

The thing is that I think the term came into use as somewhat of a backlash by those who are tired of having to explain over and over to the vast majority of people questioning them why someone might choose not to have kids and then being dismissed as anti-kid, abnormal or worse. I think once society gets to the point where the majority of people finally get that it is just a choice, and I believe we will get there eventually, it won't be as much an issue.

If you're complaining about namecalling, why would you resort to much coarser namecalling?

I'm not complaining about namecalling, I'm complaining about quasi-political categorizations like "pronatalist" which sets up "pronatalists" in one camp and "antinatalists" in another. I object to the needless polarization.

Sometimes people are jerks, that's not polarization.

> They do this all the while looking at you as a hero

Not all people make great parents. I've hated my parents for as long as I can remember. They didn't appear to enjoy being parents either. The daily beatings were really annoying. I'm glad you're happy, but the world isn't a Disney movie.

The world is what you make it. I'm sorry for your experiences and I agree that some people in general are just assholes, and some of those assholes are parents.

I can guarantee that you as a child you did view them in awe and they were your heroes until you learned that they weren't very nice people. It's difficult to love someone and not have that love returned, but I'm making the assumption that the person receiving this love from their child is open to it.

I'm sorry if I offended you, and hope that maybe one day you can break the cycle of hate with a family of your own if you so choose. The world (well, North America at least) needs more good people having kids.

I think a lot of people start out this way including myself. As you hit your late 30's I think is when even some hard-core no-kids people start to re-evaluate their thinking.

I still don't have kids but I'm not anti-kids anymore so if one day it happens I'll be ok with it. What changes is that you go around year after year and you start to see things become a bit repetitive. Holidays with the family, celebrations. Your family starts getting smaller. You start to see how much fresh new energy kids bring to life in general. You start to chill out about the crying and hassles that babies bring and not see them as so much of a burden. All of the things that you've done a million times are suddenly new and exciting because you have somebody to share them with and pass off all of your knowledge, show them all the tricks you've learned in life. I didn't really feel any of that until I had nieces, but I really love hanging around with them.

In my 40s, and I'm just happy people have stopped questioning my no-child choices.

Kids are a lot of work, but you don't have to make it unnecessarily hard on yourself by raising them American-style.

As long as your child is healthy, it's perfectly possible to wean them early, send them to child care, get them to sleep through the night by not rushing to their side every three seconds, train them to play quietly by themselves, teach them not interrupt their parents when they're busy, get babysitters whenever you have a social occasion, and put your relationship with your spouse first and foremost. Your kids will be just fine.

Thank you for this. Hoverparenting is not the only way to parent.

> Sorry, not worth it at all.

Does your comment assume that the hypothetical subject (i.e., ``you'') has a stay-at-home spouse?

"Sorry, not worth it at all."

Beware - selfishness feels great but is short lived. Traveling, working, partying, loafing around in your free time. These things get old and eventually you feel empty and Unfulfilled...

How can you predict what brings fulfillment to others anyway? Others may say to you that you will likely spend your latter years and die a miserable lonely recluse in a filthy nursing home. While they are cared for and having a happy existence with their children and grandchildren.

> Before you have children, understand that it's for the rest of your life. Really understand the impact.

As a father with a son with severe autism, and remembering the time before you were a father, do you think that anybody can imagine what it's like?

I have a healthy daughter (16 months old), and that alone changed my live beyond anything I could have imagined before.

I don't want to belittle anybody's imagination, but in my experience imagination only works well for envisioning things happening to you in short time scales.

> do you think that anybody can imagine what it's like?

Oh, no. Of course not. But they should consider the possibility. You cannot assume that it's going to be 18-20 years and they are on their own. That it's diapers for only a couple years and then you don't have to change them.

No, there is no way they can fully grasp what it means. But they can't just assume everything will be fine. My wife and I did this, and we waited, and prepared, and we had kids once we were ready. Really ready, and I'd like to think it shows in our children, in our marriage, and in our lives. No, we weren't ready for autism, but we did understand that things could go wrong.

So yes, you are right. But it still can't hurt to think about it. Really think about it. More than what some people do.

It is only 'worth it' because your genes needs you to protect the next generation.

Rationally there is no point in having children at all.

And speaking statistically, research shows that parents are no more happy than are those who are not parents.

So what you're saying is you were a complete waste of time and your parents would have been better off without you?

Seriously - I'm not trolling or trying to be abusive. It seems to me that's literally what you're saying.

Life isn't rational. Pleasure isn't rational. In the grand scheme of things, no achievements are significant or meaningful. But that's no way to live a life, IMHO. I know I'm far happier with my children than at any other time in my life, and I only had them when I was in my mid 30s, so I have plenty of perspective on life with them and without.

Yes it was hard work, but so are most things worth doing in this world. I may not really believe that which does not kill you makes you stronger, but I some of the hardest things I've done in life (armed service, relationships, children) have enriched me the most as a person.

I can't say the same is true for everyone. We all have different hopes and needs, desires and goals. I'm happy with mine, and sincerely hope yours work out as well for you.

Yeah, that is what I am saying -- but then my parents have never been that rational.

> In the grand scheme of things, no achievements are significant or meaningful

I'd scale that back a bit and say "it's entirely possible none of your achievements (or your children's) will be seen as 'significant or meaningful' to others". But the achievements of people like Norman Borlaug or Alexander Fleming have had a profound impact on the entire world, so when I see "no achievements matter" it gives me pause.

I'll get back to you on that in 50 million years.

I think that maybe tomjen3 is reacting to the (oft-repeated) idea that anyone who says that they don't want kids simply hasn't realised that they're wrong.

I don't doubt that the majority of people want kids. I imagine that at some point hormones will kick in that make me want to, but it hasn't happened. So, the idea of having children is awful, as far as I'm concerned. Yet I am told again and again that "one you look into their eyes...". What if you're wrong, though? Having a child is a one-way street, I'd hate to have one and then realise I don't have the same satisfaction about it that others do.

Fair enough. I've always known I wanted children eventually. I don't want to just live in a house, I want to live in a home. I want grandchildren. I want people who love me around me when I'm old and grey. Sure that comes at a price, but in the context of a whole life, not an enormous one. For me.

While my parents would probably not agree, I could make a pretty good case they would have been personally better off without me. The stress of parenting was a major factor in their divorce, with the result that they each experienced years of deep pain, unhappiness, and loneliness. And they are each much less financially secure as they approach retirement than they would have been otherwise. In addition there is a huge range of experiences that they have missed because they needed to be my parent.

Opportunity cost cuts both ways. Parents would say that nonparents don't know what they are missing, but the opposite is true as well. I know couples who decided against kids, who have had amazing experiences together that they could not have otherwise managed or afforded. You might believe that those experiences can't compare to being a parent, but without experiencing them yourself, how can you really know?

Rationally there's no point in living at all.

I've found it's a good idea to avoid thinking too hard at the level you're taking.

I think what you're missing is the emotion, the meaning, and the beauty of having children. And sure, if you leave all that out by willfully ignoring it, then your point makes sense. One could argue that, by the same token, living is just to protect and create the next generation and rationally has no point.

it kind of doesn't have a point. your only option is to believe it does and convince yourself that you have a reason to exist. yeah, it's a glum perspective - you're either depressed or irrational.

expecting a child in 2 months. i'll see how that will affect my view on the world ^_^

Rationally, there is no point in a lot of things (up to and including just sitting idle as a respiring organism). Do you get your sustenance from an IV bag of the basic chemicals your body needs to survive, or do you eat food that you enjoy the taste of? Do you cover yourself with a burlap sap, or do you wear clothing of a design you prefer? Do you get to work on your own locomotive power (walk, ride bicycle) or use a vehicle?

Variety is the spice of life. We do things that we find intellectually and emotionally stimulating.

Apparently it's all been downhill since we were algae.

I don't know about that, but I'm beginning to suspect the whole central nervous system idea may have been misguided.

  Rationally there is no point in having children at all.

Rationally there is no point doing a startup.

"And speaking statistically, research shows that parents are no more happy than are those who are not parents."

"Contrary to recent scholarship and popular belief, parents experience greater levels of happiness and meaning in life than people without children, according to researchers from the University of California, Riverside, the University of British Columbia and Stanford University. Parents also are happier during the day when they are caring for their children than during their other daily activities, the researchers found in a series of studies conducted in the United States and Canada. [...] The findings are among a new wave of research that suggests that parenthood comes with relatively more positives, despite the added responsibilities. [...] The consistency of their findings across all three studies 'provides strong evidence challenging the widely held perception that children are associated with reduced well-being.'" [1]

These findings are from this paper, entitled In Defense of Parenthood: Children Are Associated With More Joy Than Misery [2], to be published in Psychological Science. [3]

From the abstract, "The results indicate that, contrary to previous reports, parents (and especially fathers) report relatively higher levels of happiness, positive emotion, and meaning in life."

[1] http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/...

[2] (Note: PDF) http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~sonja/papers/NKEDLinpress.pdf

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Science_%28journ...

It also depends on age and marital status. Young couples tend to be less happy with children, according to this study. I'd bet it also depends simply on how strongly the individuals want children. If you don't feel like you want kids, then it's probably a bad idea to have them.

> Rationally there is no point in having children at all

Nonsense. When used as service animals, children have several advantages over the alternatives. They can be trained to do much more than dogs, for example, have a longer service life, and when they get too big to keep safely they yield more meat after first training their successors for you.

And speaking statistically, research shows that parents are no more happy than are those who are not parents.

[citation needed]

Also, since we're being rational and all, define happiness. Contrast it with "fulfillment".

This is answered here: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4038777

Short version: Basically, the evidence is to the contrary. Parents are "more happy."

Actually, it's not so cut and dried. I don't have a formal reference to hand, but this is discussed in the last chapter of Stumbling on Happiness - I can dig up the reference if required. Basically, what seems to happen is that having kids leads to many really extreme experiences - first steps, first words, as well as the sort of terrible experiences talked about in this article. We tend to remember these extreme experiences, particularly the good ones, much more than washing nappies every day, and that leads people to report a level of happiness that isn't borne out if you get them to record how happy they are at random times on random days where they're much more likely to be washing nappies.

None of which really matters, of course. If you want kids you'll probably love having them, and if you don't you'll probably be happier without them.

> Actually, it's not so cut and dried.

Nothing ever is, but the GP asked for a citation, and I provided one, and a short version for those in a rush.

"Rationally there is no point in having children at all"

What does that even mean?

Is it "rational" to stay alive? (isn't it only "worth it" because your genes order you not to kill yourself?)

> Marriage is about compromise.

...

> Children, however, afford no such privilege.

Well, at least you're 50% there. Don't compromise with your wife, either.

Lead your wife and children to a better place. Lead them to a place where all of you are happy and yes, it is possible. It's very easy to "compromise" ... just divide by two, right? Much harder to use your noggin and figure out a position where everybody is genuinely happy. You can compromise with your business partners or whoever else is largely irrelevant. With your family, spend the few extra calories, burn the oil, and figure out a path toward making everyone optimally happy.

Lead them there.

I believe the intended meaning of compromise with regards to marriage is about not always getting "your way."

And my point was that you should always get your way. She should get her way too. So should the kids.

You should lead them there.

You misunderstand the word compromise in this context. It's not a negative. Compromise is:

> a position where everybody is genuinely happy.

It's not about splitting 50/50. People equate meeting someone half way with splitting things 50/50. That's far from it.

So, what you say is true. It's what I was saying, just with more words. =)

Now, please don't come back and be one of those people that argue semantics. I meant what I said, I said what I meant, and there was just some confusion. Hopefully, it's clearer now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com