Hacker News Reader

Comment by delichon | Hacker News Reader

A large part of the protectiveness of children is about the fertility trend. Parents with four children think about safety very differently than parents with probably ever only one. I saw this on my home street growing up. The girl next door was an only child who her parents hovered over relentlessly. When I was ten, with three brothers, and told mom I was going exploring, she made sure I had a quarter to phone home if my bike got a flat and told me to have fun.

We joke about having a main child and an emergency backup child, but deep down it's not a joke, it changes our behavior.

View on HN

I can't help but think that thee's some sort of tragedy of the commons type thing going on here. Probably the wrong metaphor. But: it seems like a lot of what the article is getting at is that we can all intuitively agree that the population of children in society being more independent is good for a healthy society (or not just intuitively I suppose, he backs it up with mental health data). Any given parent can know this. But even if you know it, can you knowingly accept doing something that causes a 1% chance of losing your child in exchange for a 99% chance that they'll grow up better off? It seems most parents can't.

then why did every previous generation of parents do it?

most parents can, its just illegal now.

I call bullshit. The parents that WANT to let their kids roam free are stymied by "helpful neighbors", aka busybodies who simply will not let kids be alone.

I've seen it too many times: CPS or COPS (!!) called on children "unattended" outside -- even when it's really obvious their parents are watching through a window. Let's ALSO not gloss over the fact that CPS & police are used by neighbors to harass each other.

Let's say the simple truth: *US Culture is a literal abomination and its getting worse not better*

The classic phrase is "the heir and the spare".[1] That's why Prince Harry's bio was titled "Spare".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_and_spare

I think parents just have more time and energy to devote to an only child. Consequently they pour all of it into that child. Three kids? If they don't die or end up in prison, you've succeeded. (that last part is a joke, but the overall idea holds I think).

I suspect there is some sense of the kids helping each other and looking out for each other. It may not seem like it at the time lol.

Yeah, as an only child it's a weird burden to be the guy who makes or breaks the whole bloodline. No pressure right ;)

But that pressure is on the parents too. There's this weird two-way feedback loop.

Single child household has made parenting culture neurotic. Because if you screw it up it ends your entire bloodline.

But the neurotic attitude makes child rearing feel like such a burden, people can hardly imagine doing it more than once...

I am told this attitude does not produce beneficial outcomes in the children either. Apparently people grow up healthier when their parents are relaxed.

This feels like assigning intent where economics is more correct: your priority is your children, but if you have three then by necessity you didn't multiply your attention or time in proportion.

Even going from one child to two.. suddenly you don't have numbers on your side in dealing with things.

people still think about bloodline when having kids or when caring about safety? I would think that would be the last thing to worry about with kids safety.

They are wired by biology to think like that, consciously or not

Well they tried to minimize the number of kids until they hit middle age and suddenly want to maximize the number of grandkids. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that ;)

I'm not sure if single child households have done this to parenting culture as much as neurotic culture/economic incentives have pushed single child households. When everyone is competing it makes sense to focus on one child as you don't want your child to be at a disadvantage vs those who can spend on tutors/extra curriculars/.... It's a problem in Italy and some eastern countries, a bad and anti-social evolution in my opinion but I doubt it's going to change.

People used to knock out children as a social security/insurance policy for old age, or to work the farm as they aged. The rise of the welfare state(s) in urban societies removed that need.

I have four kids, my neighbor has one, and I see this dynamic play out in real time. My neighbors are neurotic with their kid. Poor kid is hovered over. My kids play by themselves, walk to their grandmother's house (a block away), go to the park, and just kind of show up in our house from time to time. Of course the little ones are taken care of explicitly, but they too will age out of that. It's much better for everyone. My wife and I go on dates and stuff that our neighbors could never imagine doing. Having one kid is way harder honestly.

(We get a babysitter for our dates, but they're too scared to leave their kid -- no judgement... that's just how it is).

> walk to their grandmother's house (a block away)

Do your neighbors have parents nearby? I think this makes an enormous difference.

Yup! In fact he grew up in the neighborhood so he has parents and friends nearby.

But, Japanese, Germans and Polis are not that overprotective and dont have many children. If it was about fertility, you would see countries with low fertility all move toward overprotectiveness.

But, that overprotectiveness is very much an American phenomenon - exported a little but not that much yet.

Definitely some truth to this. I'm the oldest of five. Most of my friends when I was little seemed to have older siblings and they could do what they liked while my parents hovered over me a bit more. By the time my youngest sibling was born that completely changed. My little brother was allowed out with us pretty much as soon as he could walk!

Eh, I don't think that's it. I come from a two-child household, and our parents weren't particularly precious about our safety in the neighborhood in the 80s and 90s. I knew plenty of other two- and one-child families that were the same.

Which parts are not a joke? If someone asked you who your main child was you’d be able to answer?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com