I posted this story few weeks ago. Story + comments will shed some light on why people in the U.S. (and other developed countries) are not having kids.
Although I appreciate the author's sentiment, and would probably appreciate the encouragement on those bases if I was in a more stable circumstance or considering having a kid at all, it's hard to escape the sense that in many cases we're not being passed a torch—from broader society or our own relatives—but rather a flickering ember that we're to attempt to re-ignite at 11pm while camping in the Pacific Northwest. If you're feeling squeezed, it's hard to rationalize squeezing one out. If you didn't grow up with a stable family life and don't see a reliable income on the horizon, I don't know how adding a child would compute. But... that's not everyone, not by a mile, and maybe people who are on the fence could use the reflections of a new parent like this.
Well, the people who don't have kids won't pass their values on to their kids.
Much of the value system of the liberal west and the westernized world (i.e. what we call the modern world these days) is, if not explicitly anti-natalist, implicitly anti-natal. That is it values other things, like personal achievement and self-actualization over having children and all that entails (e.g. self sacrifice). This is the value system I grew up in, and I see the result. My dad had 35 first cousins, and the seven total cousins (including my siblings and me), have produced only seven offspring.
I really think we're in an interesting situation with current falling fertility worldwide and the prospect of declining world population. In a world with a shrinking, graying population, tight-knit subcultures with pro-natal value systems will be in a very strong position. They will grow rapidly as a share of population.
Furthermore, they will be youthful and vibrant when the rest of the world is old and getting older, which should afford better protection against youth attrition than they have today. In 2124, a young person leaving their, Mormon, or Traditionalist Catholic, or Ultra-orthodox Jewish community for the secular world may feel less like a small town kid moving to the city and more like a kid leaving the city to live in a an economically depressed small town.
In democratic societies these communities will also have growing political power. We see this today in Israel, where secular women's total fertility rate is 1.9, while Haredi (ultra-orthodox) women's TFR is around 6. The Haredim was a microscopic minority at the founding of Israel and now they are a voting bloc big enough to topple governments.
My original comment in that thread highlighted this.
> People keep pointing to how "expensive" it is to have kids, however I see rich, well off people having fewer and fewer kids.
I really think deep down the reasons are social and societal. The decline of the family system, religion, and traditional values have all led to this.
Look around. People just don't want kids (no matter the money). They don't like to admit this but they find it burdensome. They want "freedom". At least this is my observation.
I find this to be more common in America than in other western countries.
As one American friend put it: "Americans love their granite counter tops more than they love their children".
It's partially because you just can't let kids "be", nowadays they always have to be taught, mentored, entertained and generally watched at all times. Parents are driving themselves crazy spending all their time tend to and planning for the future success of their children but that leaves little time for themselves. I'm pretty it hasn't always been like that - or maybe it's just the Bay Area.
I really think this article could be framed (and titled) better.
It's clearly an expression of love for the author's child, but it's wrapped in a selfish sentiment in our modern world.
Most people that are not trying to have children have chosen so either because they know they cannot afford to give a child a good life, or because they loathe to bring a new life into the quickly deteriorating world around them.
Yes, I've never really felt like I found a place in the world - I might be doing ok these days, but I feel I didn't so much climb the ladder as much as I held on for dear life as it was pulled up. I can't imagine being a child these days and trying to find my way.
> Most people that are not trying to have children have chosen so either because they know they cannot afford to give a child a good life, or because they loathe to bring a new life into the quickly deteriorating world around them.
Or, maybe it's because raising children is hard, and expensive on top of that, both in revenue costs (which eats into your hobbies and indulgences) and opportunity costs (that time could be spent on your career, that money could be invested into your business or credentials, etc.)
I'm not trying to imply that people who don't want kids are selfish, because those are legitimate reasons. I just don't think everyone who's abstaining from having children is doing so purely because they think it's because the kid would be better off never having been born.
Can recommend. Though not for everyone, it's one of those things I didn't know I was missing and was sure I wasn't ready for. It's amazing to me how my thought processes seemed to rewire themselves. Everything from how I care about people, tolerate children, and predicting the outcome of risky situations changed.
But- if you're sure the answer is no, it's no - no judgment.
Fertility drop is a self correcting problem. The people who are not having kids will be less represented in the future gene pool. Those who are having 3 or 4+ kids, and whatever the associated genes are, will make up the majority within a few generations.
And also, humans probably overshot on reproduction in the 20th century. It was 5-10x growth. Cutting back and focusing on quality for a century or two seems like a good idea.
Trying to proselytize or raise a crisis about fertility is pointless.
Sadly, i am pretty close with a population geneticist (Dr Mallard, worked for the CNRS and INRAE before retiring ~20 years ago, we had regular, very informative dinners for years), and while i cannot judge "A farewell to Alms (which seems great), i can tell you that we talked "A Troublesome Inheritance". It was not good.
The context was about the lack of science popularization, and he took the example of this book and his author, which he copiously insulted, and said it was exactly the reason why scientists do not trust journalists and avoid them, because while being ignorantly misquoted and misunderstood isn't a good feeling, being approached with bad intentions and being misread and misquoted on purpose in order to push political agenda is worse. I would have to research more on why this book in particular was on his mind, but i would bet that most geneticists think this book is hogwash.
Nice social dominance/purity display, bro, but irrelevant.
I said "read the citations and go from there", meaning: you'll find the names of researchers, the names of journals, and keywords to search for; and looking up citation indices will help further.
My main issue is the state of the science in 2019 was that epigenetic had a way stronger influence on genetics than previously thought, so i thought you had a new twin study showing that behavior was so overwhelmingly decided by genetics that epigenetic influence did not matter. I did not find any relevant twin study in your book citations, also, they are all old and not up to date (i'm not either, my last meaningfull dive into that subject was pre-covid).
To be honest, I mostly asked because i thought i had missed a new study between 2019 and today, so giving me pre-2015 books wasn't helpfull :/
How about looking internatinally for equivalence? Since China lifted the one-child policy and now even encourage more children, birthrates have gone down.
Or historical equivalence when David Ricardo, in response to Malthusian population doom disaster predictions pointed out that increasing rents causes smaller families.
I feel this time it's different isn't reason itself.
> Cutting back and focusing on quality for a century or two seems like a good idea.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but a half century without a growing population seems like it'll cause some changes/consequences for investment and retirement.
Will the overall stock market grow faster than inflation when there aren't more customers to buy stuff? Can you actually save for retirement when your investments don't grow?
I have no idea how things will change, but it's not obvious that quality of life will improve.
There's 2 problems with your line of thought:
1. The portion of the problem that is due to chemical exposure decreasing fertility and/or effective birth control/abortion is not a self correcting problem without identifying and stopping the chemical exposure and/or changing the economics of having kids to turn the very recent invention of having kids being mostly a choice, rather than a likely consequence of sex, into a choice people want to make sooner and more often.
2. The way this problem has been self correcting in history was through the destruction of the society through calamity or conquest and someone new moving in either with actual new people or with a new ruling regime. Neither of those sound like any fun to me, I'd rather people change the prevailing custom through discourse, as this article is attempting to do.
>But my daughter is turning two and I have a new answer for you: there is nothing in the world that feels like this. I am so proud of her for no reason at all.
#1 reason not to have a kid: the apparently universal and irresistible urge to constantly tell other people about the latest unremarkable thing your unremarkable kid did and how proud it made you
The public display of affection is amusing. The standard framed photograph on the office desk, the customary banner on social media landing page announcing the magnitude of love for one's family, etc, etc.
I feel like having a kid is one of the final milestone in adult maturity. That isn’t to say that you can’t be a mature adult without kids, but the act of having them sort of fast tracks you - and you either rise to the occasion or you don’t.
This feeling is interesting, and very new. During the Baby Boom, people married young (women at 22 or 23) and had kids young, not as a "capstone" to a developed life.
Do you have any insight into why you feel that way?
Not the OP you're replying to, but a parent nonetheless.
From basically the very moment you realize you're having a kid you essentially become the #2 person in your own life. Its more so for the mother, but even the father likely needs to do some maturing in preparation to being a good dad.
If you're hoping to be a good parent you need to start weighing every decision on a basis of where it leads to. There's simple things like affordability: deciding to make smarter financial decisions because you're going to be supporting another human for the next couple decades at least. There's more complex things like suddenly seeing your own health as a liability and needing to straighten yourself out if you want to set a good example. Things get way easier if your life has structure honestly. Having good habits about food prep, cleaning, chores makes things way easier and bad habits really make life more difficult than it needs to be.
You also need to adapt quickly. You realize that you don't define your schedule any longer. Whether you sleep at night is up to the kid. As they grow from baby to toddler you start to see how the fundamental things like routine have impacted your child and you can begin to make connections to how you did things 6 months ago impacts how things are going now. Self reflection is huge, knowing how your emotions, your reactions, your behavior is a template this person learns from humbles you.
I think that's the new value system that leads to having children being such a burden. There are sooo many expectations of parents that they spend all their time fulfilling those without questioning any of them.
So that sounds like: in the past there were well defined templates for how to live your life, and people followed them; but now you have to make up your own, continuously figuring things out for yourself, and that is harder to do and needs more maturity.
I always knew my dad was a good dad but only once I had a kid did I really understand how much he had quietly and willing given up because he loved me. More and more each day I understand him better and continue gaining an appreciation for all that he has done for me. All of this thanks to my daughter making me / giving me the chance to see life from the other side.
This tracks with what my mom says - that she didn't feel like a full-fledged adult until she had kids, whereas her life before had just been a continuation of her adolescence and young adulthood.
My experience with my friends who had kids isn't like that at all.
To a person, they spent many years trying to be "responsible adults" and then they feel they've given something up, they've missed something. They suddenly (sometimes when the kids leave the house and sometimes before) want to act like kids themselves and have adventures of self-discovery! 50 is not 20. It's a bit unseemly.
I wonder if mid-life crises happen because of parenthood.
I really enjoyed the write up. As father to a 2y/o as well I relate so hard to much of it.
This line sticks out to me:
you see life as a collection of experiences to be sampled
...because I feel like that was my hardest adjustment to becoming a parent while the vast majority of my friend circles are either single or DINKs. You very quickly become a sideline to many people. You get invitations to join the pint after work, to go hit up the trails each weekend, to travel, to do frivolous things on a whim but you just...can't anymore. I think I struggled with that transition for a long time. Partially worried I would lose my friends and become isolated, partially the FOMO of no longer being able to partake on all the things that were most enjoyable to me.
But thinking about it at this point? I've lost a few friends (not in a breakup sort of way, they just slowly faded out) but the ones who stick around were always those I was closest to. I do miss out on a lot more of the hobbies I once loved but at the same time I've traded those for experiences that are new, different, and fulfilling in their own ways. I've truly been a believer that the best reward always comes after a period of suffering or struggle. In the same way that cold glass of water feels like heaven after a strenuous workout that immense feeling of reward when your kid takes first steps, first words, first sentence just crush all other emotions and swell you with joy and love. Is 2 years of hard work worth that immense wash of emotion? Arguably yes. And I hope to keep getting hit with those experiences.
I've never been shy to say it isn't something for everyone. You sacrifice a lot to have kids. Financially, physically, emotionally, mentally, it all takes a toll, but the rewards are also so much deeper than anything else.
tbf it works both ways. My wife and I are child-free by choice. We haven't lost friends, but they definitely became generally unavailable after the kids arrived. They also made new friends, as kids are an incredibly common thing to relate to. They'll "come back" in 15 years or so, but still.
...if you want one. Like, really want one. Can't take it back once it's done.
If you're unsure, spend time with parents. See the work they put in. Determine if you can live with that.
Everything the OP said isn't necessarily wrong (I don't have kids but have heard similar sentiments), but they are glossing over the ABSOLUTE INSANE FUCKTON of work that he/she/they've put in up to this point.
Yes, I don’t think the whole “it’s a life changing, all-consuming experience” people are selling it as well as they think they are. Not all of us want drastic life changes, and if you look at time studies, it seems that people are spending more time on child rearing than ever and that’s in addition to more time at work. I assume sleep and social time are non existent.
If it was something like, “kids are pretty good but we still get to hang out with friends and do some sports and dancing like we always did”, I think it would be a better pitch.
The atomization of families and living far from parents has something to do with this. Was easier when you could dump 'em on grandma for a few hours on friday.
> Everything the OP said isn't necessarily wrong (I don't have kids but have heard similar sentiments), but they are glossing over the ABSOLUTE INSANE FUCKTON of work that he/she/they've put in up to this point.
I do have kids, so consider me a single data point that what OP describes is not universal. I certainly haven't experienced anything even remotely describable as a "mystical oneness of all things" despite having 4 children.
If you prefer data, 20% of fathers are classified as "absent" by the US census SIPP.
A commonality between myself and friends who are also childless by choice is the experience of effectively raising our siblings. These most recent years of adulthood has been the time in my life where I didn’t feel responsible for watching over someone else. Why would I want to sign up for more of that?
I strongly recommend family and community connections for everyone.
Readers of this site are strongly technical people. Family and community are crucial components in the operating system of society.
The benefits to your technical tasks at hand will be indirect, but they will obtain.
Even if children of your own are undesirable for the spectrum of reasons, adoption is worthy, and even supporting other parents second-hand is beneficial.
55 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 98.9 ms ] threadI posted this story few weeks ago. Story + comments will shed some light on why people in the U.S. (and other developed countries) are not having kids.
Much of the value system of the liberal west and the westernized world (i.e. what we call the modern world these days) is, if not explicitly anti-natalist, implicitly anti-natal. That is it values other things, like personal achievement and self-actualization over having children and all that entails (e.g. self sacrifice). This is the value system I grew up in, and I see the result. My dad had 35 first cousins, and the seven total cousins (including my siblings and me), have produced only seven offspring.
I really think we're in an interesting situation with current falling fertility worldwide and the prospect of declining world population. In a world with a shrinking, graying population, tight-knit subcultures with pro-natal value systems will be in a very strong position. They will grow rapidly as a share of population.
Furthermore, they will be youthful and vibrant when the rest of the world is old and getting older, which should afford better protection against youth attrition than they have today. In 2124, a young person leaving their, Mormon, or Traditionalist Catholic, or Ultra-orthodox Jewish community for the secular world may feel less like a small town kid moving to the city and more like a kid leaving the city to live in a an economically depressed small town.
In democratic societies these communities will also have growing political power. We see this today in Israel, where secular women's total fertility rate is 1.9, while Haredi (ultra-orthodox) women's TFR is around 6. The Haredim was a microscopic minority at the founding of Israel and now they are a voting bloc big enough to topple governments.
My original comment in that thread highlighted this.
> People keep pointing to how "expensive" it is to have kids, however I see rich, well off people having fewer and fewer kids. I really think deep down the reasons are social and societal. The decline of the family system, religion, and traditional values have all led to this.
Look around. People just don't want kids (no matter the money). They don't like to admit this but they find it burdensome. They want "freedom". At least this is my observation.
I find this to be more common in America than in other western countries.
As one American friend put it: "Americans love their granite counter tops more than they love their children".
It's clearly an expression of love for the author's child, but it's wrapped in a selfish sentiment in our modern world.
Most people that are not trying to have children have chosen so either because they know they cannot afford to give a child a good life, or because they loathe to bring a new life into the quickly deteriorating world around them.
Or, maybe it's because raising children is hard, and expensive on top of that, both in revenue costs (which eats into your hobbies and indulgences) and opportunity costs (that time could be spent on your career, that money could be invested into your business or credentials, etc.)
I'm not trying to imply that people who don't want kids are selfish, because those are legitimate reasons. I just don't think everyone who's abstaining from having children is doing so purely because they think it's because the kid would be better off never having been born.
But- if you're sure the answer is no, it's no - no judgment.
And also, humans probably overshot on reproduction in the 20th century. It was 5-10x growth. Cutting back and focusing on quality for a century or two seems like a good idea.
Trying to proselytize or raise a crisis about fertility is pointless.
"A Troublesome Inheritance" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro...
"A Farewell to Alms" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro...
"Human Diversity" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro...
Read the citations and go from there.
The context was about the lack of science popularization, and he took the example of this book and his author, which he copiously insulted, and said it was exactly the reason why scientists do not trust journalists and avoid them, because while being ignorantly misquoted and misunderstood isn't a good feeling, being approached with bad intentions and being misread and misquoted on purpose in order to push political agenda is worse. I would have to research more on why this book in particular was on his mind, but i would bet that most geneticists think this book is hogwash.
I said "read the citations and go from there", meaning: you'll find the names of researchers, the names of journals, and keywords to search for; and looking up citation indices will help further.
To be honest, I mostly asked because i thought i had missed a new study between 2019 and today, so giving me pre-2015 books wasn't helpfull :/
Or historical equivalence when David Ricardo, in response to Malthusian population doom disaster predictions pointed out that increasing rents causes smaller families.
I feel this time it's different isn't reason itself.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but a half century without a growing population seems like it'll cause some changes/consequences for investment and retirement.
Will the overall stock market grow faster than inflation when there aren't more customers to buy stuff? Can you actually save for retirement when your investments don't grow?
I have no idea how things will change, but it's not obvious that quality of life will improve.
If it was, it would have been corrected already.
2. The way this problem has been self correcting in history was through the destruction of the society through calamity or conquest and someone new moving in either with actual new people or with a new ruling regime. Neither of those sound like any fun to me, I'd rather people change the prevailing custom through discourse, as this article is attempting to do.
#1 reason not to have a kid: the apparently universal and irresistible urge to constantly tell other people about the latest unremarkable thing your unremarkable kid did and how proud it made you
Notice how many desks will have pictures of and/or drawings/things from kids but their partners are absent or minimally featured.
I don’t really have a point, just reflecting.
Do you have any insight into why you feel that way?
From basically the very moment you realize you're having a kid you essentially become the #2 person in your own life. Its more so for the mother, but even the father likely needs to do some maturing in preparation to being a good dad.
If you're hoping to be a good parent you need to start weighing every decision on a basis of where it leads to. There's simple things like affordability: deciding to make smarter financial decisions because you're going to be supporting another human for the next couple decades at least. There's more complex things like suddenly seeing your own health as a liability and needing to straighten yourself out if you want to set a good example. Things get way easier if your life has structure honestly. Having good habits about food prep, cleaning, chores makes things way easier and bad habits really make life more difficult than it needs to be.
You also need to adapt quickly. You realize that you don't define your schedule any longer. Whether you sleep at night is up to the kid. As they grow from baby to toddler you start to see how the fundamental things like routine have impacted your child and you can begin to make connections to how you did things 6 months ago impacts how things are going now. Self reflection is huge, knowing how your emotions, your reactions, your behavior is a template this person learns from humbles you.
That makes a lot of sense.
Hats off to those keeping it together full-time.
However we encourage single mothers in a positive way is worthwhile.
To a person, they spent many years trying to be "responsible adults" and then they feel they've given something up, they've missed something. They suddenly (sometimes when the kids leave the house and sometimes before) want to act like kids themselves and have adventures of self-discovery! 50 is not 20. It's a bit unseemly.
I wonder if mid-life crises happen because of parenthood.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxgfCH83XZI
This line sticks out to me:
...because I feel like that was my hardest adjustment to becoming a parent while the vast majority of my friend circles are either single or DINKs. You very quickly become a sideline to many people. You get invitations to join the pint after work, to go hit up the trails each weekend, to travel, to do frivolous things on a whim but you just...can't anymore. I think I struggled with that transition for a long time. Partially worried I would lose my friends and become isolated, partially the FOMO of no longer being able to partake on all the things that were most enjoyable to me.But thinking about it at this point? I've lost a few friends (not in a breakup sort of way, they just slowly faded out) but the ones who stick around were always those I was closest to. I do miss out on a lot more of the hobbies I once loved but at the same time I've traded those for experiences that are new, different, and fulfilling in their own ways. I've truly been a believer that the best reward always comes after a period of suffering or struggle. In the same way that cold glass of water feels like heaven after a strenuous workout that immense feeling of reward when your kid takes first steps, first words, first sentence just crush all other emotions and swell you with joy and love. Is 2 years of hard work worth that immense wash of emotion? Arguably yes. And I hope to keep getting hit with those experiences.
I've never been shy to say it isn't something for everyone. You sacrifice a lot to have kids. Financially, physically, emotionally, mentally, it all takes a toll, but the rewards are also so much deeper than anything else.
If you're unsure, spend time with parents. See the work they put in. Determine if you can live with that.
Everything the OP said isn't necessarily wrong (I don't have kids but have heard similar sentiments), but they are glossing over the ABSOLUTE INSANE FUCKTON of work that he/she/they've put in up to this point.
If it was something like, “kids are pretty good but we still get to hang out with friends and do some sports and dancing like we always did”, I think it would be a better pitch.
I do have kids, so consider me a single data point that what OP describes is not universal. I certainly haven't experienced anything even remotely describable as a "mystical oneness of all things" despite having 4 children.
If you prefer data, 20% of fathers are classified as "absent" by the US census SIPP.
Readers of this site are strongly technical people. Family and community are crucial components in the operating system of society.
The benefits to your technical tasks at hand will be indirect, but they will obtain.
Even if children of your own are undesirable for the spectrum of reasons, adoption is worthy, and even supporting other parents second-hand is beneficial.
Grow the soul.