'Ambitious' often means doing optional things that take time.
A single person who cuts back on time spent doom scrolling / tv watching / beer drinking to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices is ambitious.
A new parent who cuts back on time with their kids to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices is unhinged.
I didn’t like what the market was offering, and I didn’t like depending on other people not firing me, so I made one for myself where I can work on what I like the way I like (started a small software business).
You can, too. It’s the simplest and cheapest business to start in the entire history of humankind, and you literally just sit with your laptop at home all day pressing buttons
Did you forget what the post we're commenting on is about?
I watch a toddler all day so my wife can do her best to not get let go too along with household work that other people pay people to do. I'm not building a business that can pay my mortgage with 2 hours of free time at night.
I’m far less ambitious, but not less driven. It’s just that what I’m driving for is to maximize time doing things I and my family enjoy. In fact it’s a lens through which I analyze jobs and career opportunities.
Earnestly: LLM hosting companies allow easy exchange of money for relatively nuanced language processing. Great power for filtering text anywhere you have the need.
"Be ambitious enough to be an ambitious dad." - agreed! Being an ambitious dad IS exhausting. And the successful people telling you that you can't be a present, ambitious dad and be successful -- that you have to trade successful fatherhood for professional success -- are weak. They are not heroes.
The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now. That's what I aspire to be...
I would also add that, at least in my experience, those who are professionally ambitious and maximizing professional success, while being highly confident they are also succeeding at home, often have an inaccurate view of their home life. It's not until the kids are grown and openly fighting their demons that they realize the bargain that they made.
It's that old adage of, anyone who thinks they're a great parent, probably isn't. And almost all kids would be happier with a less wealthy (or even poorer) upbringing, and a tighter family.
The number of wives who have complained to me privately about the lack of family commitment of rock star husbands whom everyone admires (often precisely for their apparent family commitment) was a real eye-opener.
I'm not convinced that stratospheric success in business is very often compatible with high levels of parental and spousal involvement. It is sometimes, but those are anomalies we shouldn't build our fairy tales around. I know very few old-timers who wish they'd spent less time with their families when they could have made the difference of a lifetime.
There’s a pretty interesting self-help book that is designed to help couples share domestic and family work equally; I thought it was an interesting read. It makes exactly the same point about rockstar husbands that contribute less than their spouses.
The central idea is a set of 100 cards representing various tasks that are necessary for running a household, that you split up between the two partners. Supposedly women tend to hold ~80 of the cards in most relationships.
The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments) but I do think that it’s a good starting point if you want to genuinely try to contribute equally.
> The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments)
Yeah, no wonder given that it starts with an unrealistic view that the average man is a lazy slob that sits around playing video games while his wife has to handle everything with children and the household. You keep waiting for her to mention that anything else might be possible throughout the book, but that never happens. I think gay couples were mentioned maybe once.
Yeah... I do have some issues with the book. I think that the cards tend to be weighted towards things that women care more about, which naturally means that women end up being responsible for more of them. And different cards require different amounts of time to handle.
The way that I’ve tried to handle this is to focus on equalizing “total time per week spent on managing cards”, which requires time-tracking but is more fair, and also negotiating a modified set of cards.
The book kinda suggests both of those but I think that in practice most people don’t implement them.
And, as you said, the tone of the book can be off-putting at times. I still feel like it’s the best available resource for this problem.
My wife and I have a very simple rule, which is that both of us do tasks at the same time. No need to track time, no need to assign cards, and no resentment about one of us doing more or less than the other.
I haven't read into them much, (so maybe I shouldn't be repeating it here;) but there are studies about how even when women are the higher earners in relationships, they end up taking on a greater share of household management and maintenance work. (The rhetorical context is usually around why young women aren't as interested in dating.... But again, that's something I'm throwing out there w/o due diligence)
But the idea of having physical cards that you split up and assign does sound really helpful. I might look into that. I would say in my experience breaking out household chores even amongst roommates, some tasks that seem even aren't remotely so once you get into it (I have been the advantaged and disadvantaged party in different apartments) and some are simply different such that some are trivial for one person and not so for another person. But that's a part of dealing the cards, even when splitting evenly. (now I'm wondering if I can see where people are getting into arguments.... ^_^')
This is a conversation that ambitious women have been having for decades. To the point where it's a cliche. Having it about men and women is valuable, having it be about them separately I think masks some of the structural problems- e.g. better childcare, more and better laid out parental leave(1), etc.
Two things I've heard from different ambitious women: "To really achieve, you need a wife" is something I've heard a lot- that it takes one parent sacrificing some of their career priority; traditionally that was the woman but it in theory could be the man (2), it just rarely is.
The other thing an ambitious woman told me once is that her mom told her "husband, career, kids, pick two." Basically, there is just only enough energy for a given person per day to invest in two of them. I've seen some women who managed, from the outside, to at least look successful at all three, but it's rare indeed.
1: When my kid was born the software company I worked for (I'm an American at an American company, but this was an area of competition for software devs at the time) offered a 14 week paid parental leave, even for men. Most men took a four week ("secondary caregiver" leave) and overlapped it with their wives 12 week unpaid FMLA. I took mine (14 week "primary caregiver") after my wife's leave expired, such that our kid had one of us caring for him every moment of his first six months. I remain convinced that was absolutely vital as the basis for both my relationship with my son and with my wife- she had to rely on me, trust me to care for the kid, and I couldn't hand him off, it was all on me every day. And so we both developed the parental muscles, could trust that the other one understood the reality of the situation, in a way that many father's don't get a chance. And that experience convinced me that the US needs maternal leave, obviously, but it also needs paternity leave- and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
2: In a recent survey of American households https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-gr... about 55% of American heterosexual marriages the man makes 60% or more of the household income, about 30% both halves of the couple were between 40-60%, and just 16% saw the woman make more than 60% of the household income. In the majority of the 16% the woman still spent more time on unpaid household chores and carework than the man they were out-earning. Only in the 6% of heterosexual marriages where the woman earned 100% of the income did the number of hours per week in unpaid labor of men even equal that of their female partner.
I think the point that my friend's mom was making to her was that for a woman (with significantly higher social expectations for the amount of care work and housework) you can only be good at two of the three, because you are a human being with a finite amount of time and energy.
For a man who can outsource lots of unpaid tasks to his wife, the choices are a lot less limiting.
Yeah I can accept that point of view. I think this is highlighting a certain relationship expectation delta between men (or at least myself) and women (or some women). If my wife is doing well in her career and we are doing well with the kids, I could easily see this being considered ‘good’, but my wife may view the relationship as being neglected. I see the core functions working and consider the relationship doing well.
This situation is in development for me so we will see. 0 and 3 year old
Yeah, this is also what I see as the main threat to my relationship with my wife: my complacency, taking it and her for granted. We both work hard on our parenting our 9 year old, and our careers, but then you need to spend the time with each other, lest you become roommates who run an unpaid childcare service on the side.
And I do wonder if this is about the engineer mindset ('I've reduced this to a previously solved problem, I just let the subroutine handle it') or about the way that men are socialized in my culture (take her out to dinner twice a year- Mother's Day and Valentine's- and remember her birthday and you're meeting social expectations) or what. But it's the biggest threat to my (and I'd hazard a guess most other) marriages.
> and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
Not sure how to apply a legal framework, but in my area this is often enforced by the lack of daycare options for <2yos (the threshold might be lower, but about that much).
Very rare to see parents around me take their parental leave at the same time bc they'd be risking still being on a waitlist when they're done.
A good example is the crushing stories of Frank Zappa's kids. Here is the guy touring the world making millions of dollars, releasing albums non-stop. His kids, barely saw him. For instance, his daughter Moonunit said the most time ever spent with him was recording lines for the song Valley Girl, beyond that he was fairly absent.
I have heard similar stories from many you wouldn't know, they say the same thing about their partner or parents. The desire to have it all ends up trading one thing over the other.
I don't know what the right answer is but I do kind of feel this desire for equal effort might be misguided. My sister wanted to spend her time raising kids. Her husband less so. That is decision they made together. It's no different than any other difference. He like working on cars. She likes knitting. She doesn't require him to spend equal time on knitting and he doesn't require her to spend equal time on cars. Why are children any different?
Further, many cultures, past in particular, seem to be very different in terms of parent involvement. To take an example from fiction, Harry Potter goes to Hogwarts at 11 years old. Yes, that's fiction but it's based on current and past cultures. It's still a thing in the UK for "elite" kids as young as 7 or 8 to go to boarding school, away from their parents. Kids in places too far for a public school are often sent to other cities, to boarding schools. East Asia & India also have famous boarding schools.
The point being, this idea that parents must be with their kids many hours a day until they kids move out of the house at 18 or 21 is not a fact of life, it's a cultural choice.
Those boarding schools make for some quality upbringing!
"Winston Churchill would recall the floggings, done until pupils “bled freely” and screamed loudly. In “Such, Such Were The Joys”, George Orwell writes of being beaten so violently that his headmaster broke his riding crop and “reduced me to tears”."
> The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now.
so pedagogy and psychology researchers? giving that having biological children is the worst ecological offense someone can do in an ever increasing worldwide population? [0] how about adopting and getting into voluntary programs or even do pro-social things with your money?
giving birth on the current societal status-quo not only screws with the future of our own specie but also a bunch of others which may go extinct because of our greed
Things are considered important in the context of humanity. Environmental concerns only exist because of its impacts on humanity. The planet does not care.
Calling having children an ecological offence is like saying that best way to reduce emissions is for all people to die.
Yeah, sometimes I think people lose track of why they support environmental movements. I've had people question my choice to have kids along these lines before. I just don't understand it - surely we only care about all this stuff because it is observed by humans? For humanity to continue, someone has to have children.
I can sympathise more with the idea that humans are destroying everything and life won't be worth living for my descendants. But that feels like giving up on the possibility of humans. I don't want to do that.
In any case, it turns out that global fertility rates are in freefall and we're facing population decline faster than anyone predicted.
you can perfectly justify whatever you want based on whatever else... will take myself for example: i just slave workers on my IT firm because there are sweatshops elsewhere /j
like there isn't a correlation on more resources being used or explored in a bigger population?
I've started peering behind the curtains when I get the chance, and I've not yet found someone wildly successful who is also a model parent. Time after time, their spouse is quietly shouldering an enormous load, or their children spin their wheels and wind up rudderless, etc.
You can certainly be successful and be a good parent, but one of the first steps is recognizing and picking out the false prophets. You can't hold yourself to a superhuman standard, which is what a parent maximizing career while letting family malinger will present. They will say, Look at me, a captain of industry with vaults of gold, who has the physique of a twenty-five year old and is also an all-star parent. And you have to figure out that it's a lie.
Unfortunately, I think that this is possible, but it requires a superhuman well of energy, sleep deficit tolerance, and benevolence that very very few people possess. :/
Seriously, aside from the folks with the “2hrs of sleep is enough” gene, it’s not. It’s an actively harmful myth that is sold hard. Start gathering your own evidence, with a critical fact-finding eye. Don’t just accept the narrative. It’s one of those legitimizing stories that serves the teller.
Try watching The Dawn Wall or Free Solo, keep notes, and fill in the blanks on how long they were gone from family. It’s a canned example of how it gets glossed over.
The same attitude as towards gear in weightlifting is appropriate. They tell you it’s natty all day long, but you know delts don’t get that round without gear.
It shouldn't be hard though. For me personally, I'm mostly friends with other dads with kids and I do my hobbies (music, rock climbing, skiing) with my kids. It's not that difficult.
This. Involve your kids in your hobbies. If they aren't interested, that's okay too -- you can be involved in theirs. Some hobbies have a finite life anyway. You aren't going to be a gymnast forever, for example, and that's okay.
Why not having a hobby that includes friends? Playing in a band, singing in a choir, hiking, learning a language in evening school, going to the pub, just to name some of the possibilities. There are a lot more.
Maybe ambitious is not the right word. It's more like, at some point you have to go home.
Before my kids, I started at sunrise, and coming home was optional. Then I got married and divided my attention. Then I got twins, so I divided it even more. But it doesn't make me any less ambitious, in fact, I have more fire behind me to ensure I give them a bright future. It's just that, I come home on time now.
Edit: and thank you for writing this post. It's rarely something we mention in our personal blogs, but it's always nice to know how diverse this culture is.
Exactly. If he means successful instead, then we can have different definitions of successful. That being said, I don't think most startup founders have the same definition of successful as that meets: dad that wants to be there for their children.
I too have to disagree with pg on that line `> having kids may make one less ambitious`. The fact is that the world is very very multi-modal, i.e. the brains of people and how they think are wildly different. I think having kids makes me more ambitious and more focused, and more selective re the problems I work on, partly because I am also setting an example.
A somewhat unpopular opinion, but personally I don't mind being kind of absent in my kids' lives relative to others' expectations. I think there's been some expectation creep around parental involvement for high-achieving couples without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of. There's also something to be said for leaning on grandparents and other support structures more heavily than a lot of people currently do.
One "superpower" from being married with kids is that your life becomes a lot more predictable. Like, having sex regularly and spending quality family time is probably a healthy part of a balanced, productive lifestyle, and is a good counterbalance to the stresses of a demanding career - it's nice not to always be thinking about how you're going to get laid, or in the event that you do become successful, whether or not your partner is just gold digging you or something. Although a lot of that depends on who you marry and making sure you're both doing good maintenance.
I think the difference between your opinion and others is that for many being a dad is the intention and not an expectation. They want the experience of being an active and present parent. If it were purely about obligation, in this day and age they probably just wouldn't have children.
> without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of.
Not to pick on others’ life choices, but I don’t think that this particular assertion is true. Depends on your evidentiary bar, I suppose, but just from googling it:
* Mass General’s Fatherhood Project (https://thefatherhoodproject.org/schools/the-research/): “Findings from the rapidly growing science of early childhood and brain development show that a father’s active participation and emotional engagement with his children leads to improved social, emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes.”
"outcomes" are also missing the point as the long-term outcome is death! The important thing is how you live your life not how it turns out. You want to spend enough time with your kids A) for you to enjoy and really know them and B) for them to know you and really learn what you have to teach (which requires exchanging many words). If you want them simply to be fed and have good "outcomes" there was no need to engender them personally - endow a scholarship
For what it's worth, I had a "high-achieving" dad. The big house, going on vacation and all that jazz was nice, sure. My grandparents and the support system were cool too. I consider the grandma who raised us while he worked like my second mother. I definitely would have preferred to get to spend a lot more time with him before he got old. Cause he is now, that wheel ain't turning back, and I barely got to know him. He was present as much as he could with the career he chose.
Yeah, on paper, the "outcome" was fine, we turned out okay, no major problems with any of us, decent careers, whatever. My siblings have voiced the same regret. I genuinely think he does too. The expectation of being more present than he was is one I give myself, not "expectation creep".
Just because you don't see the many small moments when your children need you doesn't mean they don't exist; trust me bro, they do. Your partner or support network is probably doing too much to cover for your absence, to you and your kids' detriment. Unless you're a horrible bastard, they'd probably rather have you around more.
I grew up having a "kind of absent" father who focused on his high-paying career more than spending time with his kids. He no doubt rationalized it to no end, but the net result was that he wasn't there when I needed him the most. Growing up I often wished we were poorer so he could be around more.
I agree in the strongest terms with the article's rejection of "quality time" as a substitute for quantity, and the rejection of delegating away one's parenting.
I agree so strongly that I walked away from a promising postgraduate degree and millions of dollars of future compensation in my relatively secure MAANG position to be a full-time father to my young children.
I know not everyone can do this and don't know what the future will hold, but at least we'll be together.
Bryan Cantrill (inventor of DTrace and cofounder of Oxide Computer) comes to mind as someone who seems to do both. It’s hard to know somebody’s parenting quality from the outside, but he talks about his kids a lot.
In his case, I think he didn’t start his company until his kids were older. I’m not sure what the early childhood years were like for him.
Wow, thanks for that shout out! When we started Oxide in 2019[0], my kids were 15, 12, and 7, so out of those time-consuming younger years. But when we started Fishworks[1] inside of Sun in 2006, that 15-year-old (now nearly 22) was not yet 3 -- and his brother and sister were still in the future. Point being: I worked plenty hard with young kids.
More generally, I have always believed that the choice between work and parenting is broadly a false dichotomy (especially in our domain and age, which affords quite a bit of flexibility). In my role as a parent, I served on the board of the kids preschool (hello, SOMACC!); I was the president of the elementary school PTA (originally called the Mothers' Club!); I led the kids' Cub Scout Den (hardest parenting job no question); I coached baseball several times over; and I have been (and still am!) the scoutmaster of the kids' Scout troop.
These experiences were all time consuming (and truthfully, there were moments with each of them when I wondered what I had signed up for!) -- but they also made my life richer, and that very much includes my professional life. There are many dimensions of this, but to take one very concrete example: anyone who is familiar with scouting will see an echo in Oxide's values[2] -- but a subtler influence can be found in our hiring materials[3], the open-ended questions of which coming from an adult training that I did in 2017.
I won't profess to the quality of my parenting (it's... really hard), but it's something that I've certainly spent a lot of time on -- and it has paid surprising dividends to my professional life.
I don't know if I'm ambitious. I've worked my way to a high-paying tech job I enjoy. I'm not looking to found a startup or job-hop my way to a fancy title, and plan to stay here until I retire if I can. On the other hand, I put a lot of effort into my work, not because I'm angling for a promotion but because I like what I do and I want to do the best I can for the users.
Does that count as ambition? Doesn't really matter. The basic tension described here is strong, in any case, between work and family.
thank you for this, very well written, and rings true.
I will say for me this is the root contradiction:
> I do not believe the quality time theory. I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them; there are no diminishing returns for them on that front.
If you believe that to be the most true statement, then it leads to the conclusion that you should work as little as possible to spend as most time with them, up to and including not working at all. The ambition to be kidmaxxing, if you will. This is incompatible with career ambition obviously.
I guess i'm just sharing the same frustration but with a stronger conclusion - it seems fundamentally contradictory to be ambitious in both, at least at young ages. Seems like we're fooling ourselves if we think you can, we're compromising on one aspect at least.
Ultimately any two ambitions will compete with each other for finite time and energy. (Assuming each ambition benefits from more time and energy being spent on it, which is usually the case.)
You can be reasonably successful in multiple areas, but you can't max them all, you have to compromise somehow.
I read the post as the author acknowledging the compromise, expressing frustration about it, and determining to live on the pareto frontier with his strategy of focus and discipline and so on. Sacrificing other things in order to achieve both ambitions at a high level (though not maximizing either one).
"Maximising time within reason" is probably a better construction. As usual if you follow these arguments to their absolute meaning they become ridiculous
But what’s “within reason”? Right now I have an unlimited list of ambitions of things to do with my kids. Traveling, sports, skiing, mountain biking, surfing, camping, building, electronics, etc etc… there are not enough hours in a year to do just those with zero paid work. Is that ridiculous, assuming I can afford to do so?
"Define nuance" I dunno, it depends on all of the factors that go into your life. There might be a lower level construction of the logical argument but it eludes me and begins to feel arbitrary
In college, I burned out on normal coursework and dropped out to teach myself how to code instead. To support myself, I worked in restaurants. I found that working as a dishwasher was quite complementary to learning to code. It was tiring physically, but I ended each day in need of mental stimulation, so went home and coded all night.
Now, I'm a father of three young kids and have found there's a similar complementarity in some ways but not others. There's a huge physical component to parenting, and this is perfectly complementary. There's also an emotional aspect (sometimes 2 or even 3 cry at once). This can be complementary or not depending on how much emotional labor work required (usually very little).
The one area where both work and kids is exhausting is attention. A toddler demands a huge amount of attention, and performing at work does too.
> setting clear rules on time with kids (weekday dinners, weekends prioritize family) and
Are these examples or an exhaustive list? Eating dinner during the week is.. not a lot. So I assume it's about setting time limits for these activities?
The author seems self-aware and I think there's a lot of good observations in this post.
At the same time, I think ambition needs to be paired with humility and acceptance of you can't have it all.
There's no perfect life. You can't optimize everything such that you achieve a hypothesized balance between all the things that are competing for your time and energy. In the final analysis, most people, if given the chance to reflect before they die, would choose more time with the people they care about than more time working, even if, in the moment, they felt they were doing a good job balancing the two.
Being in the exact same position as the author, I'm inclined to agree with him. But I can also see the part that isn't mentioned: ambition is relative.
If we assume some objective version of ambitious ("I must be the next Zuckerberg/Bezos/Musk") then, yeah, you're correct. However, I don't think that's a very reasonable take - everyone wants different things out of their own ambition.
The version of "ambitious" I read and identify with is simply: do I have my foot on the gas pedal or not?
To be a great parent and show up at home, the easiest thing is to simply take your foot off the gas at work. Many people do that and are great, present parents as a result. But I think the author's point is that he's planning to keep his foot on the gas in his career and also make time for his children.
For me, my ambitions are lower than single, childless me, but they still exist and require a substantial level of effort on my part. Whether I can ultimately deliver is TBD.
Kids are also not always a joy. I love my kids, and there were certainly moments of joy, mostly when they were young. As they grow up, they turn out to be their own people. They may ignore your advice and learn life lessons the hard way. They may not live up to the hopes you had for them. Be prepared for some disappointment. Doesn't mean that you don't love them, but they can be frustrating.
To be fair, I'm sure I disappointed my parents in some ways or times also.
Work is also not always a joy. Success is not always a joy.
But there's more than enough evidence to show that, when people look back on their lives, most of them most highly value their relationships and have the most regrets around how they managed those relationships.
Having a child doesn't guarantee happiness. Raising a child is not always going to be rainbows and I suppose learning to accept that the life you create doesn't mean you get to dictate what that life becomes is a form a wisdom. But none of this takes anything away from the experience if you accept it for what it really is.
I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
So while PG may believe that people may have their "act already together" pre-kids, I sort of look at the amount of time people without kids waste and think "if only I had that much free time..."
Yes. Before I became a dad, I didn't realize how physically and financially constrained people are with regards to number of kids that they have. For me and my wife, our first child took all our time, resources and energy.
This was a shock to me because my parents had 4 children and never seemed to struggle. Also, they were much better off than me financially and could afford to hire help.
My biggest achievement as a dad is the fact that my son speaks 3 languages. In spite of the fact that I was working full time, he still learned to speak my language fluently from me... And I still did house chores too... And still worked on weekend side projects.
But yes, I had no life at all for 5 years straight. No life at all.
The problem is that my parents were relatively well-off and I was used to a particular upper-middle-class lifestyle thinking for my entire life that this was "normal"; not "good," just "normal" - So then when I left home, with nothing and not getting help from anyone, I've been feeling very poor. I work non-stop, a difficult job, with side-hustles and yet struggle to save anything and feel gate-kept at every turn. My life as it is, is unacceptable. I exist only in the hope for a brighter future and for my son. I think even if things got better for me now, my brain is cooked from the overwork and running on the hamster wheel at full speed for 15 years.
When someone says "Oh just don't worry about it, focus on other things"; they don't understand the deprivation of opportunities. Poverty affects every aspect of one's life.
It's hard to explain it and I don't mean to get conspiratorial, but hypothetically, imagine that there was some super-intelligence was sabotaging everything you ever did in your entire life and creating new problems for you constantly; that's what it feels like to be poor.
The old "I won't raise my kids like my parents raised me" problem, which inevitably seems to lead to raising kids with a different set of grievances and unresolved issues.
I realised it was a lost cause when I realised that literally everyone I knew had some sort of "my parents are imperfect and it's broken me somehow" story. I think it might just be part of the human condition to grow up and realise your parents were flawed humans who made mistakes raising you.
Yeah, most people are just trying to make it day to day doing their best. We are flawed but that is what make it fun.
There is also just a matter of randomness.
Marcus Aurelius was considered one of the great emperors of Rome with a fairly level head considering his position. It seems like he would have been an idea parent, so when his son Commodus came a long as almost the total opposite. It says something about human nature, it cannot be contained at times.
> I literally can't afford to raise him with the same values as I was raised with...
If it's any consolation he would have to figure out that himself anyway, because the world is currently changing faster than ever.
I was on vacation a while ago, where I had to explain to my kids the concept of not being able to pause a TV broadcast.
They live in a world of entertainment on demand and LLMs. My values were coined way before all that.
As for myself I'm wearing the skin of that young man I was 10 years ago and don't understand what was the big deal with some of those things he cared so much for.
>Because he would grow up into someone like me and that would be my greatest fear
If you didn't want someone to be like you, then you probably shouldn't have given them 50% of your DNA. If it's any consolation, a child's eventual personality has very little to do with their upbringing.
At every point in my life after age 25 or so, I could look back 10 years and be appalled at how much time I wasted back then. 50-year-old me is angry at 40-year-old me for wasting my 40s, as 25-year-old me was angry at 15-year-old me for wasting my high school time. What a waste my youth always seems!
For me to feel like it is wasted is to put on a definition of the time period that wasn't there. It is internal personal fan fiction at that point.
I don't feel like I missed out on anything.
There is also the added point of whatever position you take, it is always a trade off with something else.
To be awfully reductionist. The fat people envy the skinny because their health is in check, the skinny envy the fat because they have a sense of care free freedom.
Not sure this is fully accurate. Managing kids can use up one's will power or self control resources considerably. There can also be sleep deprivation with young children and other energy drain. I'm not really sure but my focus / ability to avoid distractions at work may actually have gotten worse since having kids.
> I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
I'm shocked by the sanctimonious tone of those with kids; it's likely professional bias from having someone that needs schooling at home.
Then, I will always be amazed by how those with offspring feel the need to constantly validate and justify themselves for their choice, while those without barely touch the argument.
I'm not saying I'm better than me without kids; I'm just saying the level of freedom (high) and time management required without kids (low) is shocking and I believe it can only be fully realized in the normcore world by having kids.
I think to be honest its a good indicator of who I might consider a good boss; if its an uninvolved parent who hires out help to manage their kid and doesn't participate, that's a scary person to work for. They will expect the same of you.
Similarly, those without offspring don't fully understand that free dinner at work isn't a perk. You have a small life form that needs you at home to be present.
Things like kids rolling in to work at 11, eating free lunch, then working a few hours and eating free dinner is no longer fun; it becomes an annoying perception of non-productivity. Partly jealousy, because you used to be able to do that. And now you are regimented around a school and activity schedule.
> I work at home, and if I wanted to, I could have a computer right by my bed, and I’d never have to leave it. But I use a typewriter, and afterward I mark up the pages with a pencil. Then I call up this woman named Carol out in Woodstock and say, “Are you still doing typing?” Sure she is, and her husband is trying to track bluebirds out there and not having much luck, and so we chitchat back and forth, and I say, “Okay, I’ll send you the pages.”
> Then I go down the steps and my wife calls, “Where are you going?” “Well,” I say, “I’m going to buy an envelope.” And she says, “You’re not a poor man. Why don’t you buy a thousand envelopes? They’ll deliver them, and you can put them in the closet.” And I say, “Hush.”
> So I go to this newsstand across the street where they sell magazines and lottery tickets and stationery. I have to get in line because there are people buying candy and all that sort of thing, and I talk to them. The woman behind the counter has a jewel between her eyes, and when it’s my turn, I ask her if there have been any big winners lately.
> I get my envelope and seal it up and go to the postal convenience center down the block at the corner of Forty-seventh Street and Second Avenue, where I’m secretly in love with the woman behind the counter. I keep absolutely poker-faced; I never let her know how I feel about her. One time I had my pocket picked in there and got to meet a cop and tell him about it.
> Anyway, I address the envelope to Carol in Woodstock. I stamp the envelope and mail it in a mailbox in front of the post office, and I go home.
> And I’ve had a hell of a good time. I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you any different.
Well said. I hope some day to make it and start parent.capital a place where parents can get funding. I believe there are thousands of people out there with great ideas and immense talent who are unable to leave their salary and benefits behind to pursue them.
Weekday dinners? Pff.. I'm 100x better parent, and probably 100x less productive. But my employer is happy with me, I'm happy too, and my wife and kids too. So happy, I do not need to write articles about it.
The passionate hunger to do something significant and meaningful with my life was a major reason I took care never to have any children. Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear from a young age, and I knew that I was going to need every scrap of energy I could spare for the work I wanted to do.
Years later, after I had to accept the failure of my ambitions, there was an opportunity to become the dad of a kid who needed one. So here I am being a dad after all, and it's been a good experience. Difficult, of course, and often frustrating, but worthwhile; I have no regrets - neither about this choice, nor the one I made when I was young.
> Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear
Similar experience here growing up Mennonite (they’re sorta like the Amish but more moderate).
I’m one of the only remaining men in my family without kids, but those that do have kids (and there’s a lot of them) are super busy. This is at least partially offset by their wives who are more on the traditional side.
I got sort of lucky early in my career because I had a talent that was discovered in a national network. Which meant I found myself writing national strategies for IT in our public sector (Denmark) at my late 20ies. It felt great for a year, or maybe two. When it stopped being fun though, it sort of hit me hard. I did enjoy writing and working on the strategies with other people. All the "glamour" around it, advicing politicians, going to conferences, networking with all sorts of "important" people. That got to me on one of the many train rides I had to take. I know a 3 hour commute might not be a lot to Americans or people in larger countries in general, but here it's a life time. Eventually I didn't know why I was going on them, so I quit and went back to being a nerd in a basement. Having my first child was the kick I needed to push me to where I was already heading though. I would've likely ridden the career ladder for a lot longer if I hadn't become a dad.
I rarely speak about it but something about reading you accepting the failure of your ambitions made me want to do it. Are you sure it's a failure? For me family life turned out to be what I wanted and work is just a fun place which makes me money, but I totally get why people want to do it the opposite way. In some ways you could say that I did something significant, but it made me misserable. So I failed just as much as you, if not more.
I don't regret any of it either though. It's what made me who I am.
I'd also agree with this. Children don't make you give up your ambitions in the least. However they will almost certainly make you rethink what is important in life. It's not even conscious like an 'ok I give this up, in order to get that' but rather they just make you feel very differently, in a way that you can't really explain. But it's good, very good.
100% agree with this. But its not uniform for everybody, mothers generally change and throw away previous life after having kids in ways that most men don't. Some fathers are similar (and few mothers are similar to average guy) but difference is pretty big when you dig deeper.
That's mostly due to social pressures and expectations - women are expected/demanded/forced to perform most of the child care duties. Which is why when a man does child care (in the US at least), he is seen as "helping out", even if he is the full-time caretaker/househusband.
I don't find these sort of critical theory takes to make much practical sense. Most/all mammalian species are similar in this regard, and there are very practical reasons. For instance most don't seem to understand that early on breastfeeding is literally a 24 hour job. That forms a special bond between a mother and child that a father could never match.
Even the most involved father's role there is basically to give the mother some downtime and this will, in turn, shape how the child responds to parents. We often joke that daddy's for fun, mommy's for comfort - but it's not really a joke. Your children's earliest months will have food literally coming out of mommy while daddy is just there to keep you happy when mama's trying to get some elusive sleep. And that carries forward even as the child ages.
There are also other instinctual issues in play. For instance most mothers experience vivid and highly unpleasant nightmares involving just about every possible awful thing happening to their children. It's quite horrific, but likely an instinctual thing to help the mother be wary, form a deeper bond, and so on. I'm not sure the rate for fathers, but I never had anything like that - and so the bond formed is again, just very different than for a mother.
Finally, there's also the realistic timelines involved. Having a child takes about a year, and you want around a year between each child. For a sustainable society every single woman needs to have a bit more than 2 children. So that's like 5-6 years, at the minimum, solely dedicated to having your children. And then of course the show is just beginning at that point. The reality is that advancing a career in this context is simply not realistic, and trying to build societies that reject this isn't going to do anything but ensure those societies are unsustainable, which is exactly what has happened.
I think one of the reasons that a lot of successful founders are in their mid-40s is because they combine 20ish years of experience with an empty nest after kids are out on their own.
Your comment assumes the only way to parent is to manipulate, patronize, etc. That’s just one perspective though.
There are other ways to parent that are actually fantastic management training - figuring out how to think from another human’s POV, acknowledge their frustrations, help them build the skills to handle their feelings, etc.
It turns out great parenting is to a first degree about great relationship skills.
You can achieve that trivially with such young kids by simply leading by example, not having snacks and junkfood at home and so on. We eat a lot of healthy stuff, so our kids do. You are still their world and define many patterns they will follow later subconsciously.
That doesn't translate that much into say teens but it lays a solid foundation.
I don’t respect any of this. If you can’t find time to create a genetic legacy what is the point of creating something significant in the world. Couple that with taking care of someone else’s kid and all of that seems supremely unpalatable. Whatever downvote and flag me but someone needs to say it.
It's a biological drive, at least until you're past the age of fertility. Whether you consciously think about carrying on your genetic line, it's baked into the hardware.
I always find it funny the genetics argument or the "I'm a dopamine addict!" just how they are framed with fairly modern scientific language.
Personally, legacy is but another grasping of the ego. It is meaningless and is most used as a justification to be selfish. I think kids are beyond that, it isn't something that is rationalized, it is just a means of life. And that is cool. I'm not pro or anti natalism, it all just seems to be a case of some people clinging to concepts and ideas just a little too strongly. But ultimately it has the same amount of meaning as a single ant that died a million years ago.
Meaning, when applied to broad concepts like that is rather meaningless. In “what is the meaning of life?” the word meaning in that sentence is completely nonsensical. That being said, most people would prefer the world to be shaped in a particular way and a large part of how the world is shaped comes down to normalized cultural and societal expectations. If you don’t voice your opinions on how you want the world to be shaped or agree to be silenced, then the world will probably not be shaped the way you want it to. I want the world to be shaped a particular way and every interaction I have including this minor comment thread is one step in that direction just like everyone else.
I feel like when young people think they want to do significant and meaningful things, they think about things that will make them famous in one way or another. Most of such things are neither significant nor meaningful.
I used to think this way, and then I realised that I actually want to be famous and respected. After some time, I realised that I just wanted the approval of people. And finally I realised all I wanted was to feel loved and cared for.
That's unnecessarily pessimistic. I think it's much more common for drive people to want to make a significant positive impact on the world, rather than becoming famous.
Doesn't matter either way, though, once you realize you're just a blip like the other 8,000,000,000 people on this earth.
Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible. Movies and TV shows portrayed only the bad. Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world. A wide range of celebrities spend their days posting about how amazing it is to be without children.
I accept that there are some parents out there who regret their decision, but research shows them to be a vanishingly small minority. The VAST majority of parents report greater meaning, more love, personal growth, enjoyment, fulfillment, etc. Something has become quite sick in modern society when we provide such an imbalanced and untrue message to young people.
Interesting perspective. Your first paragraph also describes my experience, perfectly.
However, even though I also think nothing comes even close to parenthood for me, my perspective is that society strongly encourages —I'd even say strongly pressures— people to have kids, to feel that if you don't, it's almost like something is wrong with you. Maybe we're just different generations? :-)
I think it's social pressure in some cultures, but even in those (sub)cultures which don't have the explicit pressure to have kids, people have a drive to procreate. I cannot tell you how many couples I know who decided they would not have kids, or would only have one, and at a certain point one partner (usually a woman in their late 30s or early 40s if I am being honest) decided this was the most important thing and no amount of money or career setbacks or relationship turmoil wouldn stand in the way.
I never felt that pressure to have kids. In fact, even though I waited until I was in my mid 30's, I was the first in my social circle to have kids (I guess I hung around with younger people?).
I knew since I was a kid myself that I wanted to someday be a father. If society pushed me, it would have been when I was still in elementary school.
After I had kids though… It was strange to scroll through coworkers social media feeds and see the same photos of groups of 30-somethings holding up wine glasses while the waiter (I assume) takes their photo at some fancy restaurant in the Bay Area. It all seemed so… hedonistic? Or maybe just kind of empty.
Becoming a father gave me purpose that was (finally) not about me any longer.
And now, the nest empty, I still am unable to go back to that person I was before. (Whoever that was.)
I live in a neighborhood of older retired folks and I get this vibe from them as well when walking my younger kids. Their faces light up with joy. Just another season in life I suppose. Let's enjoy it while we can.
Different generations, different places, exactly where you are in your society, religious influences, your immediate social circle, how much time you spend on social media....
Certainly in the UK there is a group of people who have become very negative about having kids, partly because they are scared of the expense, and partly because society makes it look so hard, and partly because they genuinely have less support.
Pregnancy is also a really scary prospect for a lot of people (myself included), and there doesn't seem to be much work done in trying to make it, well, less shitty of an experience. "It's just how it is," but... is it really? Does it really need to be so bad?
Not to mention that "it takes a village", but in many places the village has been basically stolen from us.
Pregnancy is never going to be easy (and its one part of parenting I am glad I did not have to do!) but it can definitely be made easier and more pleasant. it varies a lot though.
However, why is pregnancy scarier than it used to be when it is safer than it has ever been? It seems to be more scary in developed countries than in poor ones too.
I wonder whether the loss of the "village" might be part of the reason for this. it certainly is for a lot of other things around having kids.
I wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that birth control offers us a choice in the matter. Pregnancy used to be something You Just Did, because, well, most people enjoy having sex, and pregnancy is the intended consequence of unprotected sex. It's scary, it's stressful, it's risky, and it's sometimes even fatal... but it's "part of life". It's how we ended up here, after all.
Now we have a choice. Which is GREAT, amazing, even. Absolutely necessary. I'll never argue that anyone's right to choose if they want to be a parent is a bad thing.
I wonder if social media is also contributing, with its polarizing nature. It's rare you see any opinions or even anecdotes about pregnancy being "fine" or "whatever". It's always a big deal, and it's always a big deal (horrible) or a big deal (wonderful). There's not a lot of in between. The negative end of the spectrum scares people, while the positive end of the spectrum is met with skepticism since it's too-often (for me at least) correlated with right-wing religious people trying to push women to be what're effectively baby factories, so the "it's the most wonderful experience ever!" just comes off as disingenuous and manipulative.
Combined with the fact that women's healthcare is rife with challenges, and women's pain is often dismissed (not looking to start any "gender wars" arguments; just stating things that can be backed up https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10937548/), the prospect of becoming pregnant is a scary one, when you have the option to not do that.
"What if it's nine months of constant nausea, being bedbound, gaining weight I'll never be able to lose? My body will change, in many ways irreversibly. Will my partner still find me attractive? Will they support me during? Will they support me after? Will I feel supported? Will I feel resentment that they'll be able to enjoy things like alcohol while I'll have to stay completely sober for a very long time? Will I feel resentment if the majority of childcare falls on me, which is statistically actually quite likely? What about my career? Will I regret it? What if my child is born with a disability? What if I'm bad at being a mom? What if I hate it? What if I'm trapped in a life I don't want? What if there's no way out?"
Of course, the above thought process could also be one with thoughts like "what if it's wonderful?" but it's a lot easier to worry about the negative, and put weight on the negative, than it is to fantasize and put weight on the positive what-ifs.
This is just my perspective, though. Some people love being pregnant and find parenthood really wonderful (or so they tell me about those things), and I love that for them. Truly. I'm just not sure if I have it in me to ever find out what it would be like for me, and I know I'm not alone. Fun Auntie is a better role for me I think. But maybe I would feel differently if pregnancy were easier and a less destructive process on the female body, and there was more social support for parents.
Birth control has been around for a long time now. The oral contraceptive pill was invented 70 years ago. Fear of pregnancy to the level of putting people off having kids is much newer.
I think its very likely that social media plays apart.
I think people glossing pregnancy over as wonderful are optimistic. I think a more honest take is "its hard but worth it".
> What if it's nine months of constant nausea, being bedbound, gaining weight I'll never be able to lose?
Its not nine months of nausea or being bedbound though. Most women I know lived normal lives for most of their pregnancies.
> Will my partner still find me attractive? Will they support me during? Will they support me after? Will I feel supported
Absolutely do not have kids with a partner whose support you cannot rely on!
None of us are going to keep our looks all our lives anyway.
> Will I feel resentment that they'll be able to enjoy things like alcohol while I'll have to stay completely sober for a very long time?
When i had my kids the NHS advice was to drink in moderation. Changes since then have been politically driven (and by increased American influence on attitudes) rather than being the rest of any new science. My ex went off alcohol before she knew she was pregnant (which is the most critical time) and then drank moderately thereafter.
> Will I feel resentment if the majority of childcare falls on me, which is statistically actually quite likely?
That is understandable. Again it partly comes down to having the right partner. Some men do end up doing the majority of childcare - I am one, and I have come across a few others. This is something that is improving too (I hope!).
> What about my career? Will I regret it? What if my child is born with a disability?
Careers get into perspective when you have kids. Very few people regret having their kids, whatever goes wrong. They are so much more important than having a career. I have a lot less money than I would have had without kids, but there is no way I would want to have the money instead.
> What if I'm bad at being a mom? What if I hate it? What if I'm trapped in a life I don't want?
IMO it is extremely rare for the sort of person who worries about being a good parent to be a bad parent. The problem is that people want to be perfect parents, and society encourages anxiety instead of reassuring them that it is OK not to be perfect.
> Fun Auntie is a better role for me I think
Its not a bad role to have! I would point out that being a fun auntie requires someone to have kids!
> and there was more social support for parents.
I think this is critical. I am not sure to what extent pregnancy can be made easier in a direct physical sense, but many women could be better supported through it.
All valid responses/pushback to the anxiety! It's still a lot of unknowns and what-ifs; I was more trying to make the point that for some people, it's overwhelming, and some may conclude it's not worth the risk in finding out. Which brings me to another important point, which is that parenthood isn't for everybody. Some people really shouldn't be parents, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. (Not saying I'm necessarily one of those people; just speaking more generally.)
Unfortunately - and this is kinda related to your comment about it being rare for the kind of person who worries about being a good parent to be a really bad parent - we often see opposite patterns play out... people that would probably make good parents seem less likely to reproduce, and vice versa. I know "Idiocracy" is a bit of a meme these days and is arguably classist, but I can't help but think about it. It's probably a far larger socioeconomic issue than can be feasibly hashed out in an internet forum, and I certainly can't solve it.
Ultimately, I think where I'm at these days, is that we need the village back, and I would love to be a part of it. How? Well, currently, it's that "Fun Auntie" role, as I've no kids of my own, nor do I plan to change that. I've long "wanted to want" bio-children, but so far, I don't. I'm mid-30s now, so there is still time, especially thanks to fertility technology continuing to improve. I'm probably not gonna change my mind, but I'm far too autistic to speak in absolutes, so I cant 100% rule anything out.
Regardless: the village is a beautiful thing. It's an honor to be a part of it in the ways that I am and have been throughout my life. More people should be a part of it. We should all (within reason) be a part of it. It should be celebrated and supported each and every day, to the point where parenthood isn't so much of a burden on the individual family unit, and is instead a shared responsibility of the local community. How do we best go about doing that? Obviously governmental and institutional support is critical, but we also need societal/cultural support, and that will be a lengthier project... we owe it to ourselves to try, though.
I appreciate the conversation and insights in this conversation; thanks for the well-thought out responses in these threads.
I really appreciate how well you have explained a perspective very different from my own. Not only am I a man who has had children, my younger daughter turned 18 today, and will be off to university in less than two months so my children are no longer children and worries about parenting etc. are behind me.
Its interesting how much we agree about the social and political problems and the loss of the village.
Yeah, speaking as a female-bodied person here - undoubtedly a minority on this site - I absolutely feel the pressure to have children in society, pretty much every day.
Look at the "birth rate" discourse that's been going on. There's tremendous pressure on women to have more babies. There's also a lot of pendulum-swinging in the opposite direction with your edgy "antinatalists", in some sort of weird "overcorrection" or some such, but ultimately those voices are much louder online than in real life.
Fewer people are reproducing, but that doesn't mean the pressures to do so aren't still there. "It's complicated."
Does the birth rate discourse put pressure on you as an individual? I had expected that to also be more of an online than real life push.
There is more pressure on women to have kids than on men. That is not new. What is new is a more negative attitude to children and parenting in society in general. Do you feel there are conflicting pressures now?
>Does the birth rate discourse put pressure on you as an individual?
Implicitly, I think, yes. It builds on all of the other social pressures, big and small. I'm sure an entire humanities thesis could be written about how it all adds up over time.
I wrote another comment elsewhere in the thread talking about polarized opinions broadcasted on social media and how that also adds to the stress of it all. Nobody ever wants to talk about the "it was/is... fine, actually. kind of whatever. not great, but not horrible." possibility of pregnancy (and parenthood). It's always either the most wonderful, miraculous thing ever and you're insane for not wanting it, or it's the most horrible, irreversibly damaging thing ever and you're insane for wanting it.
And the thing is... it COULD be any of those outcomes! It could ruin your life. It could also make your life so much more fulfilling. There's simply no way to know for sure what it will be like for you without doing it. It is an enormous gamble, especially when you are the person who has to endure the pregnancy, and it is a gamble that you can't really walk away from. (Of course, you can give a child up for adoption, but there's a lot of social shame involved in that, especially if it is a wanted child that you're quite literally giving up on rearing.)
I think the other comment was in answer to me too.
I think you are right about the polarised opinions. I think in real life (at least for people I know) pregnancy is generally fine, with maybe a few horrible bits (i.e. if there are any medical problems/something goes wrong). It has lots of positives but its difficult.
Parenthood is usually wonderful. I am afraid men have it easier as we get the parenthood without the pregnancy!
This onslaught of birth rate articles laying the blame at women's feet drives me up a wall. Many of my female peers have frozen their eggs to preserve their ability to have children to the best of their abilities or have undergone fertility evaluations proactively, other female friends in their 30s/40s have pursued the single-mom-by-choice route once they had the financial security to do so. I do not see my male peers pursuing sperm testing / freezing or pursuing single-fatherhood-by-choice. Of my married friends with kids, if there is a second kid it has been because the wife advocated for it. All that said, I don't blame men either the husbands that were talked into the second kid were all concerned about their ability to pay for school / daycare and/or to afford another bedroom even with the help of their working wives / breadwinner wives. For men talked into their first kid, their hesitation was that after undergraduate and masters they felt they'd barely had time to financially establish themselves or live their own lives.
Not to mention the evidence coming out about advanced paternal age and adverse outcomes on offspring. The pressures are definitely lopsided. If anything, the pressures should be on society and institutions to provide more support for parents, people who want to become parents, and people who just want to be part of "the village". So... support for people, I suppose. A rising tide lifts all boats. Something like that. I dunno. There's a lot of factors at play here; I'm just spitballing.
It also depends on your social and professional background. If you are an orthodox jew, you will likely have the maximum pressure.
On the other hand, my wife, who was a lawyer, was fired from from a Big4 when they suspected that she was pregnant.
As a father in the tech/startup industry, it's sometimes quite hard to get people to understand what having children implies for instance, my ex-boss couldn't understand that I wasn't available at 21:30 everyday to answer his questions, as I was bedding the kids.
I mean, humans are made to comply to social pressure, so if they stop collectively having children, it more likely means that the social and economic pressure is overall rather against having them.
> Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
I completely agree with you. But I can't say around me, people, movies, society ever sent the message that parenthood is terrible. The way I interpret the message was always "this was hard, this was grueling, but I wouldn't change it for the world".
I think the people who miss almost all of these "tickboxes" and can somehow link it to the kids become unhappy with parenthood. If they ever feel their personal time, romance, career, success suffered because of the focus on the children, they will end up in the "disappointment" camp.
I never personally met anyone who was willing to admit regret of having children but I did meet people who were disappointed and put a veiled blame for their failure on the children.
I feel a lot of regret having had children. Not 100%, but it's always going to be more than 0%. I adore my kids but it's too much for my brain and it makes me miserable a lot of the time. I don't bring it up except to counsellors (or anonymous internet bros, apparently) because (a) it's not actionable - there is no going back (b) it's a bummer and no one has anything to say about it.
How old are they? I honestly felt like that sometimes for the first few years but no longer now that they are somewhat capable of not dying without constant supervision and are becoming their own new persons
This is one of the things I think about when considering kids++, when does the regret start (if at all)? Or as posted in other comments, will the health lottery have me regret having +1? Time will tell.
You'd never hear me say it in person, but I'll admit it here. I'm sure it's great for most people, but it's not for me.
I agree with your assessment of society at large. The prevailing attitude is, having children is the best thing you'll ever do, that you ever could do. The most you'll get is, it's the hardest job in the world but also the best, and totally worth it. I have no idea what the other person is talking about when they say everything conveyed the message that parenthood is terrible. This sort of thing almost makes me wonder if the internet actually connects parallel universes and we just haven't realized it, because that's not how it is in mine.
I was on the fence, but had no support for it. All the media said do it. Everybody around me said do it. There was literally not a single dissenting voice in my life saying, "don't do it if you're not sure." Or even just "if you feel that way then maybe it's worth considering not having kids as an option, or at least waiting until you become more certain."
As much as I sometimes wonder what life would have been like as DINKs, the feeling of my 7 year old girl sneaking up behind me to give me a cuddle outweighs all of the fast cars and long walks on the beach I personally could ever have.
I've thought about this and while I agree with you completely, I think the reason why is not just society at large. Externally what most people see is the time suck, money suck, and frustration with teaching behavior, fixing bad behavior etc.
What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
There‘s a lot of ancient biology at play in raising kids. You won’t get exactly this kind of feeling elsewhere. Doesn’t mean it has to be your kids though. You just need to be an important part of their life.
This is a very snarky, flippant, uninformed take that serves no purpose other than to tear others down in an effort to validate your decision.
Have kids or don’t, live your life the way you want. But taking unsolicited dumps on other people’s decisions is a pretty lame way to live.
And yes, you do have to have kids in order to understand what it feels like to have kids. You do not know what it’s like, as evidenced by your thinking having kids entitles a parent to their love. Let me tell you clearly and unequivocally: it does not. Love is earned. A family is a big lesson in that.
To use a less charged example: I can’t claim to know what strawberries taste like if I never try a strawberry.
TL;DR: I understand anti-natalism is in vogue right now, but some of y’all are really shitty about it.
Other people’s choices have externalities that harm society. I don’t need validation for not doing something that benefits no one and harms everyone. It’s already obvious that abstaining from this selfish and self-indulgent activity is the only intelligent choice.
Furthermore I don’t need to shoot heroin to know that shooting heroin feels extremely good and that the people
that do it really enjoy the feeling. I also don’t need to shoot heroin to see the harms it causes to the people that do it, and those around them.
You are trying to make a logical argument for the observed preferences of an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA. It’s a shame that so many people are blinded to that by instinct and emotion.
If I were developing nanotech grey goo in my basement, everyone would rightly point out that it’s a risk to society. Yet, humans doing the exact same thing (just more slowly) are praised.
People get unreasonably defensive when confronted with these facts, as you have demonstrated.
Can you name one thing that benefits from people creating more selfish and self-replicating creatures other than the emotional state of people who share some of their DNA?
PS: No mother “earns” the love of a one or two year old. It’s automatic and meritless. To assert otherwise to bolster your argument is obviously silly and should clue you in to how shaky the logical foundation for your claims is.
Forgeties79 is talking about understanding parenthood at the experiential level. You can read as much as you want about how heroin makes people feel extremely good, you will never understand at the experiential level how it actually feels until you use it yourself. Not that I recommend...
Also you seem to be saying that not having children is the "only intelligent choice". Intelligent for what? Then you state that we are "an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA." while in the same breath excluding yourself from being said system, calling yourself logical and calling your preference superior to others.
And "harms everyone" assumes the damages of the life you create outweigh the goods. That's your value judgment, not a measurement, and plenty of the people actually created have thought it through and disagree...
As for one benefit? Existing people benefit, including you. Everything keeping you alive was built by people who had to be born.
I think it could be possible to replicate this without children, but it is extremely uncommon. Ask any parent if they could accomplish the same before they had kids. I have never met a parent yet who thinks it's possible.
Remember that once you have kids you are stuck in that situation forever. There is a lot of coping and trying to persuade yourself that this is the best thing in the world. It might as well be as there is no escape anyways!
I can honestly say, I think there was a chemical change in my brain or a biological equivalent when my kids were born. That is to say, something more primal than the "love" you can get from a spouse/SO; you feel it in your bones, deep down, always on and changed forever.
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Peak HN comment.
Technically you don't "need" anything in life besides food and shelter. You don't need to have children, or loved ones, or friends, or ambitions, or projects, or goals... but life is very sad if you miss all of them.
You actually do. Getting a dog or having nephews isn't close to the same thing.
It's kind of like balance. You can read all about balance in a book and watch YouTube videos but until you get on a bicycle and experience it you'll never really "get" balance.
You can't imagine until you experience it. It's as simple as that.
Agree 100%. I often tell expecting parents "All the hard stuff they tell you about; the sleep loss, the stress, the cost... All that stuff is true. But there's also all this amazing stuff they don't tell you about, which is also true."
I think that people probably tried to tell me about the amazing stuff, but I couldn't take it in. This created a very pleasant surprise for me when I found out about the good feels after the dread of just expecting everything I know to be upended with no reward.
how do i explain that my child running into my arms after his first day of daycare is a high ill be chasing for the rest of my life?
or the irrational pride when you see your kid flip over for the first time?
it's so many mundane moments that punch 100000x above their weight when its your kid having them.
the good parts of parenting sound like fake news (unless youre talking to other parents)
I think they were trying to scare us into not having sex. Or at least having protected sex. Either way, they made all the kids watch videos about teen pregnancy and how it would ruin our lives. They also repeated it frequently in sex education. They focused on how terrible it was to have children. The struggles, etc. I suppose it is difficult for teens to understand nuance, but it certainly left a fairly grim impression of parenthood on all of us. Was it different for you?
In my experince we got that, but it was all focused on having a kid while being a teenager will ruin your life not that having a kid at all will ruin your life. Which is fair, a teenager having a child is in a lot of ways ending their lifes or making at a minimum way more difficult( if they family support that is, otherwise good luck )
Oh this is when you were a student? I thought this was as a parent with kids in school.
Getting pregnant (especially in the wrong state) in the US as a high schooler can absolutely ruin your life. In some states it can even get you killed due to the legal chaos still happening in hospitals.
> Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible. Movies and TV shows portrayed only the bad. Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world. A wide range of celebrities spend their days posting about how amazing it is to be without children.
Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but this isn't at all what I remember. I frankly can't think of a single movie or TV show that paints parenting as bad, let alone the worst thing in the world. I can think of only one celebrity who I can recall extolled his child-free life. That was within the past year-- and I think the guy is a total dipshit man-child.
And I have no idea where you grew up, or whether that's actually a factor, but my teachers, when they had kids, seemed like loving parents. When they didn't have kids, I don't think they ever spoke badly or parenting.
I agree parenthood is underappreciated and undersold. Nothing in life beats seeing kids grow up from helpless infants to well-adjusted, passionate young adults.
Lately I frequently find myself wondering if every philosopher who pondered the meaning of life was childless, because it feels to me like the answer must be pretty obvious to any parent.
>> Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible
Uh? I feel it's the opposite. Society constantly judges people that don't have kids. Having kids has always been the norm. It projects you as a grown up mature adult. In fact I think a ton of people have kids simply because they want to give that image of being a well established mature person.
It's difficult to explain children to people who don't yet have children, because becoming a parent is an intensely personal experience. Every child is different. Every parent is different. Every culture has their own way of doing things. The experience is fundamentally different for every new parent in the world, yet children are the one universally shared thing that binds our giant collective chain letter of human beings together, regardless of nationality and language.
How do you explain the unexplainable ...
When I am holding Henry and I tickle him, I can feel him laughing all the way to his toes. And I realize, my God, I had forgotten, I had completely forgotten how unbelievably, inexplicably wonderful it is that any of us exist at all.
Here I am with this tiny, warm body so close to me, breathing so fast he can barely catch up, sharing his newfound joy of simply being alive with me. The sublime joy of this moment, and all the other milestones – the first smile, the first laugh, the first 'dada' or 'mama', the first kiss, the first time you hold hands. The highs are so incredibly high that you'll get vertigo and wonder if you can ever reach that feeling again. But you peak ever higher and higher, with dizzying regularity. Being a new parent is both terrifying and exhilarating, a constant rollercoaster of extreme highs and lows.
Except... a million reasons where they will either not understand, or they should have not become a parent.
The problem with the "The Most Infuriating Answer" is that it entirely neglects facts, and only those say it who do have a good experience with it.
Happy for you, internet stranger. Just like I am happy for all of those around me: you all are the ones who do good parenting.
In case you also want to become a better person in general, I recommend to stop being condescending, and not to say this ever again to anyone. You hurt more than you think you are wise.
I don't see OP's comment as condescending but I'm also not in these "should have not become a parent" shoes to tell, for sure. Insensitive? Perhaps. On a discussion board, it is hard to know who you're talking to. OP likely assumed some "persona" (different to those that might find it hurtful) before they wrote the comment.
> You hurt more than you think you are wise
We are all fighting some demon or the other. I appreciate you for bringing forth the kind most of us are (fortunate enough to be) oblivious to. Ignorance is bliss.
The irony of this fact should be front and center to everyone and thus people saying it should have this forced to be capitalized with exclamation points.
Similar, all invocations of "calm down" should be in all caps with exclamation points. Never in history has telling someone whose upset to "calm down" actually led to them calming down.
I mean, ok, they might understand or they might just hate their children with a fiery passion and never miss and opportunity to vocalize it and ruin innocent lives like my parents did?
I'd modify that to once you have kids, you might understand. It's for sure not a given and there are a lot of really terrible people out there who probably shouldn't have the kids they do.
I'd like to object to this hopefully unintentional suggestion that failing to understand it means you're a terrible person.
I don't think I'm a terrible person. My kids are healthy, mostly happy, seem to be well adjusted. I support their physical needs, do my best to support their emotional needs. I read to them, changed their diapers, taught them how to ride a bicycle, help them with their homework, kiss them goodnight. But I still don't understand. I know most parents have this whatever it is, but I'm still wondering.
Also as a parent, I still don't understand. I have two kids and regret it. They suck all the time and energy from my life. I give my all to be a great parent to them, and I would never let them know that I regret having kids, but if I could wind the clock back I almost certainly would. I feel like I'm throwing the most valuable years of my life in a wood chipper.
Agree with the sibling comment. As a new father, nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - can describe the love, adoration and reverence that parents feel for their children. To be understood, it must be experienced. There is simply no other way.
+1. I also felt this huge gap between knowing (intellectually) what parenting is and actually experiencing it. It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently. I think I can perceive fairly accurately whether someone my age is a parent after just a few minutes of general conversation (obviously, without having to visit adjacent topics).
I experienced this so strongly I spent some time actually writing a poem (in Spanish) about it: https://alejo.ch/39l
> It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently.
As a childless person, the inverse is equally true. I have wildly different levels of obligation and constraint - and that difference typically becomes obvious very very quickly. I don't say that as a better/worse, just different.
Thanks for the answer. And I understand that. But for me, that answer is potentially a very biased answer. Is it a feeling that comes naturally or is it forced in the sense that you realise you are everything for the kid and the kid is everything for you and both you the kid have no other choice.
Talking to a lot of people (bit you) i felt it was more the latter.
Let me paraphrase a scene from “Lessons in Chemistry”.
The main character confesses that twice she has wanted to give up her child for adoption. Another mom laughs... "Twenty times would still make you an amateur."
It didn't come naturally for me. Babies aren't much fun. There were plenty of times I wondered why everybody else finds being a parent fulfilling and here I am trying not to swear at a crying six month old at 1 am.
Toddlers though... toddlers are fun. Not always, but a lot of the time. Once both of my kids cleared the baby stage I finally would describe myself as a proud parent, mostly happy.
Now we are empty nesters and both of my kids live far away and are doing great. With the space that leaves I've spent some time thinking about myself as a dad and boy do I have a lot of regrets. I don't think I was very good at it.
I understand now why so many people who weren't the greatest parents get very excited about grandchildren. I know if that happens for me, I'm going to be a much better grandparent than I ever was parent.
Babies have no guile or instinct to deceive; they literally can't even conceive of doing so because their worldview just isn't developed enough. So when your baby cries, you can have absolute faith that it's because there's some problem that needs solving or need that is unmet, and then you can go and solve the problem, fill the need, and the baby is happy. And when the baby's happy, you have absolute faith that it's because you were there doing the thing. There's no pretense to the relationship at all, and it's a sort of unusual honesty that can be really hard to find in relationships where both parties understand basic facts like "there is a world of people outside myself" and "people don't have special insight into my interior being and I can give them information that doesn't fully reflect the state of the world".
So that kind of honest exchange does a lot to foster love and adoration from you to the child, and the fact that you're there providing food, shelter, comfort et all to the baby fosters love and adoration from them to you.
My kid is just under 18 months old now. He's old enough to have distinct ideas about what he wants to do, and when he wants to do it, and he's old enough to understand that not getting to do the thing that he wants is really upsetting, so he cries. That's hard sometimes. But if I'm relaxing on the couch and he brings a book over to me, I can know with absolute faith that it's because right now, what he wants more than anything in the world is to sit in my lap and have me read a book to him, and that feels amazing. When he goes and hides behind the kitchen island and then jumps out, it's because the thing he wants to do more than anything else is play peekaboo with me, and that feels amazing too.
You can ask that question about a lot of things whether it's one entrepeneurial baby or their nature conservation effort which reveals it to be somewhat meaningless question.
Because any fault of theirs feels like a fault of yours, but you learn that you cannot fix faults of theirs like you can (try to) fix faults of yours. You learn to become a parent, a teacher, a guider, a kind of friend, in the most deeply connected relationship you’ll ever have. A relationship that exposes you to every fault of yourself, while you feel the deepest love and connection with your children. A connection that’s not even always reciprocated. Parenting is the true Aristotelian politea.
It is kinda weird, because you feel so much more tired all the time. Yet at the same time you have so much more motivation to do _everything_. It is like I feel 50% more tired, yet 200% more engaged with everything I do. It really makes your life a lot more meaningful.
Before I would waste so much time engaging on video games / internet-browsing / TV-youtube / etc and just not enjoying the time I spent. It felt very meaningless, like why even bother working? I have (had) savings to go take several years of sabbatical if I wanted.
When I actually boot up a video game today I actually enjoy it. And that is all on top of normal stuff you hear about having kids.
Ever built something and felt proud of it? Like 'that was cool' or 'that was neat'. It's like a never ending source of that feeling. Most things you do in life just don't last that long, but raising kids lasts a really long time.
Yes. I keep getting that feeling everyday with my work as of now. And I also got a PhD after fighting a lot of hardship including huge opposition from my parents to the effect of having lost contact with them. But what you said does ring a bell in that, I need to be constantly doing my work in getting that feeling. (apart from my PhD which every once in a while makes me go wheeeee).
I guess with kids, its like my PhD but a constant source instead of static fading in time?
Once you have kids you quickly discover that you get forced into it. You have to engage. If you don't, they scream. They get in trouble at school. They are unhappy and it breaks your heart. Once you have no choice but to do something, you will find it's better to find meaning in it. Meaning is ultimately something you create for yourself.
>Why? Noy disputing you but I am childless yet primarily I cannot think why bringing up a kid would be significant or meaningful.
Its because they are more important than anything else to a parent. You are invested in their outcome more than anything else. I don’t see how this isn’t obvious.
Someone without children asks an apparent good faith question about why parenting is more significant and meaningful [than other pursuits]
An answer is provided, but with an "isn't it obvious?" at the end
On the one hand, one could argue that the question wouldn't have been asked if it were obvious (which would be an equally unnecessary riposte), but it might be worth reflecting on what that part adds to the conversation or whether it's a habit, especially in the context of parenting
I’m surprised this hasn’t come up yet: Because by being a parent, you become responsible for someone else’s life besides your own, permanently and beyond the transactional or contractual sense of a job or a passion project. It is a life experience unmatched by anything else (though I think that being a teacher or the caretaker of children in an orphanage come close). You get free reign over the shaping of a person who will touch the lives of others, and the good or the bad that becomes of it is the consequence of your own values and way of existence.
Not disputing you either—I once said I will never have children, too—but indeed and as with other life decisions, you should stay childless while you find the meaning of it incomprehensible. It’s not for people who are not ready to stop thinking about themselves.
> I cannot think why bringing up a kid would be significant or meaningful.
I don't think it's something to think or reason about. You feel it (or don't, in some cases). As an atheist, I suppose this is how truly religious people feel about their religion: it brings them joy and meaning. (And much like in some religions, you sometimes feel you're beholden to a demanding, whimsical god!).
It's said by lots of people every time this subject comes up, it's obviously true, but IMO it's also a little tautological. I read it as essentially: "I created a massive problem to solve, and here I am successfully solving it." Of course it's meaningful. Of course it's significant.
Would that be true if your child turned out to be a new Hitler or a burden on society?
Personally, I'm with the OP. Raising children, and to do a good job at it, is waaaay too much of a burden for me, and would seriously negatively affect most areas of my life.
I find it much more meaningful to focus on creating jobs, companies, products and services people need, than to raise a child with unknown outcome. I see way too many parents who try and appear as if they are happy and say they don't regret the decision, but deep down it is clear they do.
That is why, many of them, once the children are somewhat grown up, split up from their partner, and then try to re-live their lives and all that they missed.
I love my kids and would do anything for them. But at the same time, I really don't feel it is a big deal. Humans and animals been having kids for millions of years. It is just basic animal instinct to procreate and raise your offspring.
It is like basic human instinct is to consume and store calories. And there is nothing wrong with it. But to become athlete and win a gold medal, that requires going against these basic instincts. That means eating healthier and working out instead of preserving calories.
Having kids is great but to achieve something great in life, does require going against your basic instincts and not procreate. Or if you do have kids, then not be a good parent.
I had my startup dreams but after having kids, biology kicked in and startup dreams got deprioritized. But I made peace with it and I enjoy my quiet basic life with my kids. I just know I will not do anything significant and that is totally okay.
When I hear people say this with all the morale high ground that comes with it I’m always wondering if it’s partially because of some hormonal changes. It has been proven recently that the human brain changes after having kids.
I know you didn’t intend it that way but there are so many people that are extremely judgmental about having kids (or rather judging people that don’t have kids).
I also understand that it’s such a hard task that there must be some level of self convincing needed to make it work.
All that to say, i tend to dismiss those opinions.
I feel that physical change the moment I saw my son first time. Something snapped/connected in my brain. I will do anything for that little thing. The feeling is visceral. It is very hard not to preach your best experience to others
That actually created some of the intensity behind my motivation to avoid parenthood: so many people describe having their brains hijacked like this that I could not be sure I would be immune. Best steer far clear, I thought, and preserve my capacity for the things I actually want to do.
I mean the obvious retort to this is that until you become a parent all of your behaviour is probably driven by some deep evolutionary desire to demonstrate your suitability as a mate.
So we can dismiss opinions of non-parents as well.
Ideally we should discuss all those behaviour (becoming parents, becoming successful) logically without the hormones and feelings that makes you think they are the most important thing in the world.
Essentially discussing facts versus emotions.
Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.
I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways.
Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children.
In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
It is perfectly possible to study the world around us without our emotions and feelings.
There is in fact a ton of philosophy that has been written on this topic. Please read this:
And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children:
- Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty. One way to measure difficulty is that fewer people are able to achieve it. Everyone (literally almost everyone) can have kids. But only a select few can win a gold.
- By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids. You will be in a lot of history books, and a ton of people will look after you. You will inspire the next generations. By having kids, you will also change the next generation but I would argue by way less than by winning gold in the olympics.
See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.
> See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.
No, they're not logical arguments, they're based on a whole suite of assumptions about value systems that I would argue reflects more about how you feel about the world than any sort of rational/objective assessment of what constitutes a "grand achievement".
> Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty.
Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident. Can you make an argument for this that isn't an appeal to emotion?
> By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids.
Same exact response from me. Why is a bigger legacy grander or more of an achievement? Can you make a logical argument in favour of a bigger legacy that's not an appeal to emotion?
I see no logic in your arguments, I see you restating your values as if they are logical.
> How can you disagree with this logically?
I don't disagree with what the words mean, I'm saying that you think special/unique/difficult = grand accomplishment for feelings-based reasons, not logical reasons.
This is going to be my last reply because we are talking past each other.
I think it is perfectly fine and logical for you to reply to my logical arguments with other counter-logical arguments such as:
>> Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident
You could say to you a "grand achievement" is keeping your bloodline as this is what evolution wants us to be. That has some logic. I actually would agree with some of those arguments, and we could go back and forth. Sure, it represents some of our values but you are making at least some logical sense.
What I reject is reasoning such as: "Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life." and when asked clarifications around why that would be the cause, the replies are "feelings, and you will know when you have them".
Is it really? How much of that is a "feeling" that evolution made you feel in order to protect your kid from issues?
having kids is the baseline normal for millions of years. As much as you "feel" that this is the most important thing you ever did, it is worth taking a step back and think rationally about this. Is it really? What about it makes it SO important? Because we for sure are not going extinct at all. Having a lot of kids has always been the default. If you don't have kids the world will be absolutely fine, in fact nothing will change at all.
So you should ask yourself. Why is it the most meaningful thing you ever did? Because it is YOUR DNA? Isn't that then a completely self-centered pursuit?
They should absolutely all be discussed. I just don't see a lot of rationale that supports that having kids is the "biggest accomplishment of a lifetime" though.
There is inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about it. It has always been the normal things that happen to most humans and animals since the dawns of time.
If you respond to this, please use rationale and not feelings to describe why having kids is the "biggest achievement from your lifetime".
and yet most nobel prize laureates seem to be family people. I found that adult responsibilities have a way of making me very very intentional about how i spend my time.
May I ask you what significant and meaningful thing you tried to do, and why you think you failed at it?
I've spent my 30s doing something similar and it's still unclear whether it will work out or not. And I've foregone essentially all else, including family.
This is something that makes me really sad, because as an extremely ambitious man, I've found it difficult to make friends with men who are similarly ambitious. It seems that everyone gives up once they have a kid and becomes a helicopter parent. I like to think I'm a good dad (have four kids; work from home; regularly do sports, music, etc with them; cook regularly) and also pretty ambitious (work in a MAANA company, have side businesses and gigs, have a good marriage, hobbies, exercise, etc), but it's difficult to find other dads into this. Or at least that's my perception here in Portland, OR. I've met a few, but most ambitious people seem uninterested in kids, and the ones interested in kids seem thoroughly unambitious in my opinion.
Many years before becoming a Dad, I recall watching a video recorded by the Penny Arcade web cartoon folks while working where they reflected on both becoming fathers and asked themselves if it had been a net drain on their productivity and creativity.
They both concluded (not quickly, they discussed it) no, because it forced both of them to level up their time management game, quit whining and learn to get on with it, to the point where they generally got more done a couple of years in.
I have found this to be true. Our little one is turning 3 in November, and while the first two years were a bit slower (I took half a year of work while my wife finished up her Master's, etc.), in 2026 I've so far had a fantastic year and find myself much more capable of juggling more balls at the same time, finally learned the skill of grabbing sleep where I can, etc.
Got a whole lot of Open Source work done, wrote HMI and firmware for a robot used in the Great Pyramid of Egypt for a scientific mission, taught myself GPRs and built a new radar control system, spent a week rolling around in the dust of millenia inside Khufu's Pyramid, etc., all next to the day job.
The most unexpected growth and fun I've had in a decade, and it's all so much more meaningful when I get to share it with the little one.
I agree with this. Especially as you gain experience and your work becomes less day to day grunt work and more high level strategic thinking, having constraints on time actually has been beneficial for me.
Taking work problems into other spheres of my life, especially parenting, gives me distance and a new lens to view them through.
I would only add that if increasing general family cohesion is one of your goals, I think having lots of kids accomplishes that. Having a large family and multiple automatic life long best friends brings me so much joy.
First definition of ambition in merriam webster is "an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power." Ambition is basically definitionally antisocial.
A desire to accumulate power is tantamount to a desire to accumulate wealth. Most ways to wealth these days involve finding ways to consume more of the world's resources or siphon resources to yourself.
Consider refining word choice. (Though if your notion of ambition corresponds to building a sillycon valley startup, then 'ambition' is probably the right word.) I don't mean that nothing good ever comes of technology; I mean that VC-funded startup tech is mostly done in the pursuit of money, damn any social consequences.
Money can solve most of these problems? Send your kid to daycare, hire a nanny or two and then the world will believe you can be a great father and ambitious and successful in your career. They do not see the village taking care of your kid while you are busy with work
Having extreme career success (like the kind referred to in the article) is basically a lottery ticket. I spend a lot of time with my kids, because I figure even if I halve my chances of winning the lottery, well, the odds haven’t changed that much, all considered.
Exactly this! When I had my first two kids only a year apart and at the start of my career, I thought I'm giving something up because I could no longer invest as much time and effort into my projects and research ideas as before. But in retrospect, looking how the field has evolved since, those ideas had only a small chance for some grand success anyway.
The way I think of it is: my family comes first and work and whatever is second, third and so on.
I have no ambitions of running a company (the horror) or even being in charge of anything - it takes a special type of person to do that, and I am 100% not that guy.
My goal is to always be employable - so I can always provide a middle class existence for my family. Anything beyond that is of no interest to me.
Having a successful career used to be a thing to aspire to, but since I hit 40 I stopped caring about that. I used to learn a lot, but with AI I see little value in adding knowledge to my repertoaire - I would rather read a good book or fool around with my kids or go for a walk with my wife.
Work isn't going anywhere, but family time is definitely a finite resource that's slipping away every second.
I will leave the world-changing to someone else who is willing to lay it all on the line for an imaginary medal.
665 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 632 ms ] threadCan't say this resonates with me. Though being a dad has wildly changed what I'm ambitious about.
A single person who cuts back on time spent doom scrolling / tv watching / beer drinking to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices is ambitious.
A new parent who cuts back on time with their kids to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices is unhinged.
You got any of those job things to spare btw?
You can, too. It’s the simplest and cheapest business to start in the entire history of humankind, and you literally just sit with your laptop at home all day pressing buttons
I watch a toddler all day so my wife can do her best to not get let go too along with household work that other people pay people to do. I'm not building a business that can pay my mortgage with 2 hours of free time at night.
The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now. That's what I aspire to be...
It's that old adage of, anyone who thinks they're a great parent, probably isn't. And almost all kids would be happier with a less wealthy (or even poorer) upbringing, and a tighter family.
The number of wives who have complained to me privately about the lack of family commitment of rock star husbands whom everyone admires (often precisely for their apparent family commitment) was a real eye-opener.
I'm not convinced that stratospheric success in business is very often compatible with high levels of parental and spousal involvement. It is sometimes, but those are anomalies we shouldn't build our fairy tales around. I know very few old-timers who wish they'd spent less time with their families when they could have made the difference of a lifetime.
https://www.fairplaylife.com/the-book
The central idea is a set of 100 cards representing various tasks that are necessary for running a household, that you split up between the two partners. Supposedly women tend to hold ~80 of the cards in most relationships.
The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments) but I do think that it’s a good starting point if you want to genuinely try to contribute equally.
Yeah, no wonder given that it starts with an unrealistic view that the average man is a lazy slob that sits around playing video games while his wife has to handle everything with children and the household. You keep waiting for her to mention that anything else might be possible throughout the book, but that never happens. I think gay couples were mentioned maybe once.
The way that I’ve tried to handle this is to focus on equalizing “total time per week spent on managing cards”, which requires time-tracking but is more fair, and also negotiating a modified set of cards.
The book kinda suggests both of those but I think that in practice most people don’t implement them.
And, as you said, the tone of the book can be off-putting at times. I still feel like it’s the best available resource for this problem.
But the idea of having physical cards that you split up and assign does sound really helpful. I might look into that. I would say in my experience breaking out household chores even amongst roommates, some tasks that seem even aren't remotely so once you get into it (I have been the advantaged and disadvantaged party in different apartments) and some are simply different such that some are trivial for one person and not so for another person. But that's a part of dealing the cards, even when splitting evenly. (now I'm wondering if I can see where people are getting into arguments.... ^_^')
Two things I've heard from different ambitious women: "To really achieve, you need a wife" is something I've heard a lot- that it takes one parent sacrificing some of their career priority; traditionally that was the woman but it in theory could be the man (2), it just rarely is.
The other thing an ambitious woman told me once is that her mom told her "husband, career, kids, pick two." Basically, there is just only enough energy for a given person per day to invest in two of them. I've seen some women who managed, from the outside, to at least look successful at all three, but it's rare indeed.
1: When my kid was born the software company I worked for (I'm an American at an American company, but this was an area of competition for software devs at the time) offered a 14 week paid parental leave, even for men. Most men took a four week ("secondary caregiver" leave) and overlapped it with their wives 12 week unpaid FMLA. I took mine (14 week "primary caregiver") after my wife's leave expired, such that our kid had one of us caring for him every moment of his first six months. I remain convinced that was absolutely vital as the basis for both my relationship with my son and with my wife- she had to rely on me, trust me to care for the kid, and I couldn't hand him off, it was all on me every day. And so we both developed the parental muscles, could trust that the other one understood the reality of the situation, in a way that many father's don't get a chance. And that experience convinced me that the US needs maternal leave, obviously, but it also needs paternity leave- and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
2: In a recent survey of American households https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-gr... about 55% of American heterosexual marriages the man makes 60% or more of the household income, about 30% both halves of the couple were between 40-60%, and just 16% saw the woman make more than 60% of the household income. In the majority of the 16% the woman still spent more time on unpaid household chores and carework than the man they were out-earning. Only in the 6% of heterosexual marriages where the woman earned 100% of the income did the number of hours per week in unpaid labor of men even equal that of their female partner.
For a man who can outsource lots of unpaid tasks to his wife, the choices are a lot less limiting.
This situation is in development for me so we will see. 0 and 3 year old
And I do wonder if this is about the engineer mindset ('I've reduced this to a previously solved problem, I just let the subroutine handle it') or about the way that men are socialized in my culture (take her out to dinner twice a year- Mother's Day and Valentine's- and remember her birthday and you're meeting social expectations) or what. But it's the biggest threat to my (and I'd hazard a guess most other) marriages.
Does that solve the problem? Now you're trying to prioritise kids and career while also being a single parent for half the week.
Not sure how to apply a legal framework, but in my area this is often enforced by the lack of daycare options for <2yos (the threshold might be lower, but about that much).
Very rare to see parents around me take their parental leave at the same time bc they'd be risking still being on a waitlist when they're done.
I have heard similar stories from many you wouldn't know, they say the same thing about their partner or parents. The desire to have it all ends up trading one thing over the other.
Further, many cultures, past in particular, seem to be very different in terms of parent involvement. To take an example from fiction, Harry Potter goes to Hogwarts at 11 years old. Yes, that's fiction but it's based on current and past cultures. It's still a thing in the UK for "elite" kids as young as 7 or 8 to go to boarding school, away from their parents. Kids in places too far for a public school are often sent to other cities, to boarding schools. East Asia & India also have famous boarding schools.
The point being, this idea that parents must be with their kids many hours a day until they kids move out of the house at 18 or 21 is not a fact of life, it's a cultural choice.
"Winston Churchill would recall the floggings, done until pupils “bled freely” and screamed loudly. In “Such, Such Were The Joys”, George Orwell writes of being beaten so violently that his headmaster broke his riding crop and “reduced me to tears”."
Sad little boys: the backlash against Britain’s boarding schools https://economist.com/britain/2023/05/28/sad-little-boys-the... from The Economist
so pedagogy and psychology researchers? giving that having biological children is the worst ecological offense someone can do in an ever increasing worldwide population? [0] how about adopting and getting into voluntary programs or even do pro-social things with your money?
giving birth on the current societal status-quo not only screws with the future of our own specie but also a bunch of others which may go extinct because of our greed
[0] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/...
Calling having children an ecological offence is like saying that best way to reduce emissions is for all people to die.
I can sympathise more with the idea that humans are destroying everything and life won't be worth living for my descendants. But that feels like giving up on the possibility of humans. I don't want to do that.
In any case, it turns out that global fertility rates are in freefall and we're facing population decline faster than anyone predicted.
Have you ever heard of fracking? Or mining Gold using mercury?
like there isn't a correlation on more resources being used or explored in a bigger population?
That's the real problem. People need to stay in their damn lane.
You can certainly be successful and be a good parent, but one of the first steps is recognizing and picking out the false prophets. You can't hold yourself to a superhuman standard, which is what a parent maximizing career while letting family malinger will present. They will say, Look at me, a captain of industry with vaults of gold, who has the physique of a twenty-five year old and is also an all-star parent. And you have to figure out that it's a lie.
Try watching The Dawn Wall or Free Solo, keep notes, and fill in the blanks on how long they were gone from family. It’s a canned example of how it gets glossed over.
The same attitude as towards gear in weightlifting is appropriate. They tell you it’s natty all day long, but you know delts don’t get that round without gear.
Zero for me too, but boy are people quiet about it. Almost taboo to let on that that is the arrangement
-Random manager ca. 2018 when I explained I couldn’t join an 8 AM meeting because I had to take my kid to daycare.
Someone on X, don't recall who, but it resonated.
Before my kids, I started at sunrise, and coming home was optional. Then I got married and divided my attention. Then I got twins, so I divided it even more. But it doesn't make me any less ambitious, in fact, I have more fire behind me to ensure I give them a bright future. It's just that, I come home on time now.
Edit: and thank you for writing this post. It's rarely something we mention in our personal blogs, but it's always nice to know how diverse this culture is.
One "superpower" from being married with kids is that your life becomes a lot more predictable. Like, having sex regularly and spending quality family time is probably a healthy part of a balanced, productive lifestyle, and is a good counterbalance to the stresses of a demanding career - it's nice not to always be thinking about how you're going to get laid, or in the event that you do become successful, whether or not your partner is just gold digging you or something. Although a lot of that depends on who you marry and making sure you're both doing good maintenance.
Not to pick on others’ life choices, but I don’t think that this particular assertion is true. Depends on your evidentiary bar, I suppose, but just from googling it:
* Mass General’s Fatherhood Project (https://thefatherhoodproject.org/schools/the-research/): “Findings from the rapidly growing science of early childhood and brain development show that a father’s active participation and emotional engagement with his children leads to improved social, emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes.”
* NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/health/fathers-child-heal...): “Research Finds Interaction With Father, Not Mother, Affects Child Health”
* https://firstfivenebraska.org/blog/6-ways-children-benefit-f... provides a catalog of evidence and reported benefits
Yeah, on paper, the "outcome" was fine, we turned out okay, no major problems with any of us, decent careers, whatever. My siblings have voiced the same regret. I genuinely think he does too. The expectation of being more present than he was is one I give myself, not "expectation creep".
I grew up having a "kind of absent" father who focused on his high-paying career more than spending time with his kids. He no doubt rationalized it to no end, but the net result was that he wasn't there when I needed him the most. Growing up I often wished we were poorer so he could be around more.
I agree in the strongest terms with the article's rejection of "quality time" as a substitute for quantity, and the rejection of delegating away one's parenting.
I agree so strongly that I walked away from a promising postgraduate degree and millions of dollars of future compensation in my relatively secure MAANG position to be a full-time father to my young children.
I know not everyone can do this and don't know what the future will hold, but at least we'll be together.
Bryan Cantrill (inventor of DTrace and cofounder of Oxide Computer) comes to mind as someone who seems to do both. It’s hard to know somebody’s parenting quality from the outside, but he talks about his kids a lot.
In his case, I think he didn’t start his company until his kids were older. I’m not sure what the early childhood years were like for him.
More generally, I have always believed that the choice between work and parenting is broadly a false dichotomy (especially in our domain and age, which affords quite a bit of flexibility). In my role as a parent, I served on the board of the kids preschool (hello, SOMACC!); I was the president of the elementary school PTA (originally called the Mothers' Club!); I led the kids' Cub Scout Den (hardest parenting job no question); I coached baseball several times over; and I have been (and still am!) the scoutmaster of the kids' Scout troop.
These experiences were all time consuming (and truthfully, there were moments with each of them when I wondered what I had signed up for!) -- but they also made my life richer, and that very much includes my professional life. There are many dimensions of this, but to take one very concrete example: anyone who is familiar with scouting will see an echo in Oxide's values[2] -- but a subtler influence can be found in our hiring materials[3], the open-ended questions of which coming from an adult training that I did in 2017.
I won't profess to the quality of my parenting (it's... really hard), but it's something that I've certainly spent a lot of time on -- and it has paid surprising dividends to my professional life.
[0] https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2019/12/02/the-soul-of-a-new-co...
[1] https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2008/11/10/fishworks-now-it-can...
[2] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0002
[3] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003
Does that count as ambition? Doesn't really matter. The basic tension described here is strong, in any case, between work and family.
I will say for me this is the root contradiction:
> I do not believe the quality time theory. I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them; there are no diminishing returns for them on that front.
If you believe that to be the most true statement, then it leads to the conclusion that you should work as little as possible to spend as most time with them, up to and including not working at all. The ambition to be kidmaxxing, if you will. This is incompatible with career ambition obviously.
I guess i'm just sharing the same frustration but with a stronger conclusion - it seems fundamentally contradictory to be ambitious in both, at least at young ages. Seems like we're fooling ourselves if we think you can, we're compromising on one aspect at least.
You can be reasonably successful in multiple areas, but you can't max them all, you have to compromise somehow.
Now, I'm a father of three young kids and have found there's a similar complementarity in some ways but not others. There's a huge physical component to parenting, and this is perfectly complementary. There's also an emotional aspect (sometimes 2 or even 3 cry at once). This can be complementary or not depending on how much emotional labor work required (usually very little).
The one area where both work and kids is exhausting is attention. A toddler demands a huge amount of attention, and performing at work does too.
Are these examples or an exhaustive list? Eating dinner during the week is.. not a lot. So I assume it's about setting time limits for these activities?
At the same time, I think ambition needs to be paired with humility and acceptance of you can't have it all.
There's no perfect life. You can't optimize everything such that you achieve a hypothesized balance between all the things that are competing for your time and energy. In the final analysis, most people, if given the chance to reflect before they die, would choose more time with the people they care about than more time working, even if, in the moment, they felt they were doing a good job balancing the two.
If we assume some objective version of ambitious ("I must be the next Zuckerberg/Bezos/Musk") then, yeah, you're correct. However, I don't think that's a very reasonable take - everyone wants different things out of their own ambition.
The version of "ambitious" I read and identify with is simply: do I have my foot on the gas pedal or not?
To be a great parent and show up at home, the easiest thing is to simply take your foot off the gas at work. Many people do that and are great, present parents as a result. But I think the author's point is that he's planning to keep his foot on the gas in his career and also make time for his children.
For me, my ambitions are lower than single, childless me, but they still exist and require a substantial level of effort on my part. Whether I can ultimately deliver is TBD.
To be fair, I'm sure I disappointed my parents in some ways or times also.
Work is also not always a joy. Success is not always a joy.
But there's more than enough evidence to show that, when people look back on their lives, most of them most highly value their relationships and have the most regrets around how they managed those relationships.
Having a child doesn't guarantee happiness. Raising a child is not always going to be rainbows and I suppose learning to accept that the life you create doesn't mean you get to dictate what that life becomes is a form a wisdom. But none of this takes anything away from the experience if you accept it for what it really is.
So while PG may believe that people may have their "act already together" pre-kids, I sort of look at the amount of time people without kids waste and think "if only I had that much free time..."
I love my kids but they take a lot of time. Wouldn't change it for the world though.
This was a shock to me because my parents had 4 children and never seemed to struggle. Also, they were much better off than me financially and could afford to hire help.
My biggest achievement as a dad is the fact that my son speaks 3 languages. In spite of the fact that I was working full time, he still learned to speak my language fluently from me... And I still did house chores too... And still worked on weekend side projects.
But yes, I had no life at all for 5 years straight. No life at all.
People have been trying to straighten things out for millennia and we are still in this predicament.
That isn't to say, don't try. It is to say, don't cling to an out come.
When someone says "Oh just don't worry about it, focus on other things"; they don't understand the deprivation of opportunities. Poverty affects every aspect of one's life.
It's hard to explain it and I don't mean to get conspiratorial, but hypothetically, imagine that there was some super-intelligence was sabotaging everything you ever did in your entire life and creating new problems for you constantly; that's what it feels like to be poor.
I realised it was a lost cause when I realised that literally everyone I knew had some sort of "my parents are imperfect and it's broken me somehow" story. I think it might just be part of the human condition to grow up and realise your parents were flawed humans who made mistakes raising you.
There is also just a matter of randomness.
Marcus Aurelius was considered one of the great emperors of Rome with a fairly level head considering his position. It seems like he would have been an idea parent, so when his son Commodus came a long as almost the total opposite. It says something about human nature, it cannot be contained at times.
If it's any consolation he would have to figure out that himself anyway, because the world is currently changing faster than ever.
I was on vacation a while ago, where I had to explain to my kids the concept of not being able to pause a TV broadcast.
They live in a world of entertainment on demand and LLMs. My values were coined way before all that.
As for myself I'm wearing the skin of that young man I was 10 years ago and don't understand what was the big deal with some of those things he cared so much for.
If you didn't want someone to be like you, then you probably shouldn't have given them 50% of your DNA. If it's any consolation, a child's eventual personality has very little to do with their upbringing.
For me to feel like it is wasted is to put on a definition of the time period that wasn't there. It is internal personal fan fiction at that point.
I don't feel like I missed out on anything.
There is also the added point of whatever position you take, it is always a trade off with something else.
To be awfully reductionist. The fat people envy the skinny because their health is in check, the skinny envy the fat because they have a sense of care free freedom.
My passion for tech remains, and now work is the time I spend on it, but not on my assigned priorities, sadly.
I'm shocked by the sanctimonious tone of those with kids; it's likely professional bias from having someone that needs schooling at home.
Then, I will always be amazed by how those with offspring feel the need to constantly validate and justify themselves for their choice, while those without barely touch the argument.
I think to be honest its a good indicator of who I might consider a good boss; if its an uninvolved parent who hires out help to manage their kid and doesn't participate, that's a scary person to work for. They will expect the same of you.
Similarly, those without offspring don't fully understand that free dinner at work isn't a perk. You have a small life form that needs you at home to be present.
Things like kids rolling in to work at 11, eating free lunch, then working a few hours and eating free dinner is no longer fun; it becomes an annoying perception of non-productivity. Partly jealousy, because you used to be able to do that. And now you are regimented around a school and activity schedule.
> I work at home, and if I wanted to, I could have a computer right by my bed, and I’d never have to leave it. But I use a typewriter, and afterward I mark up the pages with a pencil. Then I call up this woman named Carol out in Woodstock and say, “Are you still doing typing?” Sure she is, and her husband is trying to track bluebirds out there and not having much luck, and so we chitchat back and forth, and I say, “Okay, I’ll send you the pages.”
> Then I go down the steps and my wife calls, “Where are you going?” “Well,” I say, “I’m going to buy an envelope.” And she says, “You’re not a poor man. Why don’t you buy a thousand envelopes? They’ll deliver them, and you can put them in the closet.” And I say, “Hush.”
> So I go to this newsstand across the street where they sell magazines and lottery tickets and stationery. I have to get in line because there are people buying candy and all that sort of thing, and I talk to them. The woman behind the counter has a jewel between her eyes, and when it’s my turn, I ask her if there have been any big winners lately.
> I get my envelope and seal it up and go to the postal convenience center down the block at the corner of Forty-seventh Street and Second Avenue, where I’m secretly in love with the woman behind the counter. I keep absolutely poker-faced; I never let her know how I feel about her. One time I had my pocket picked in there and got to meet a cop and tell him about it.
> Anyway, I address the envelope to Carol in Woodstock. I stamp the envelope and mail it in a mailbox in front of the post office, and I go home.
> And I’ve had a hell of a good time. I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you any different.
Beat that
Years later, after I had to accept the failure of my ambitions, there was an opportunity to become the dad of a kid who needed one. So here I am being a dad after all, and it's been a good experience. Difficult, of course, and often frustrating, but worthwhile; I have no regrets - neither about this choice, nor the one I made when I was young.
Similar experience here growing up Mennonite (they’re sorta like the Amish but more moderate).
I’m one of the only remaining men in my family without kids, but those that do have kids (and there’s a lot of them) are super busy. This is at least partially offset by their wives who are more on the traditional side.
They all do seem very fulfilled however :)
I rarely speak about it but something about reading you accepting the failure of your ambitions made me want to do it. Are you sure it's a failure? For me family life turned out to be what I wanted and work is just a fun place which makes me money, but I totally get why people want to do it the opposite way. In some ways you could say that I did something significant, but it made me misserable. So I failed just as much as you, if not more.
I don't regret any of it either though. It's what made me who I am.
Even the most involved father's role there is basically to give the mother some downtime and this will, in turn, shape how the child responds to parents. We often joke that daddy's for fun, mommy's for comfort - but it's not really a joke. Your children's earliest months will have food literally coming out of mommy while daddy is just there to keep you happy when mama's trying to get some elusive sleep. And that carries forward even as the child ages.
There are also other instinctual issues in play. For instance most mothers experience vivid and highly unpleasant nightmares involving just about every possible awful thing happening to their children. It's quite horrific, but likely an instinctual thing to help the mother be wary, form a deeper bond, and so on. I'm not sure the rate for fathers, but I never had anything like that - and so the bond formed is again, just very different than for a mother.
Finally, there's also the realistic timelines involved. Having a child takes about a year, and you want around a year between each child. For a sustainable society every single woman needs to have a bit more than 2 children. So that's like 5-6 years, at the minimum, solely dedicated to having your children. And then of course the show is just beginning at that point. The reality is that advancing a career in this context is simply not realistic, and trying to build societies that reject this isn't going to do anything but ensure those societies are unsustainable, which is exactly what has happened.
Nothing to back it up, but it makes sense to me.
There are other ways to parent that are actually fantastic management training - figuring out how to think from another human’s POV, acknowledge their frustrations, help them build the skills to handle their feelings, etc.
It turns out great parenting is to a first degree about great relationship skills.
That doesn't translate that much into say teens but it lays a solid foundation.
Personally, legacy is but another grasping of the ego. It is meaningless and is most used as a justification to be selfish. I think kids are beyond that, it isn't something that is rationalized, it is just a means of life. And that is cool. I'm not pro or anti natalism, it all just seems to be a case of some people clinging to concepts and ideas just a little too strongly. But ultimately it has the same amount of meaning as a single ant that died a million years ago.
Also what if you cannot create genetic legacy?
Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
I used to think this way, and then I realised that I actually want to be famous and respected. After some time, I realised that I just wanted the approval of people. And finally I realised all I wanted was to feel loved and cared for.
Doesn't matter either way, though, once you realize you're just a blip like the other 8,000,000,000 people on this earth.
Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible. Movies and TV shows portrayed only the bad. Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world. A wide range of celebrities spend their days posting about how amazing it is to be without children.
I accept that there are some parents out there who regret their decision, but research shows them to be a vanishingly small minority. The VAST majority of parents report greater meaning, more love, personal growth, enjoyment, fulfillment, etc. Something has become quite sick in modern society when we provide such an imbalanced and untrue message to young people.
However, even though I also think nothing comes even close to parenthood for me, my perspective is that society strongly encourages —I'd even say strongly pressures— people to have kids, to feel that if you don't, it's almost like something is wrong with you. Maybe we're just different generations? :-)
I knew since I was a kid myself that I wanted to someday be a father. If society pushed me, it would have been when I was still in elementary school.
After I had kids though… It was strange to scroll through coworkers social media feeds and see the same photos of groups of 30-somethings holding up wine glasses while the waiter (I assume) takes their photo at some fancy restaurant in the Bay Area. It all seemed so… hedonistic? Or maybe just kind of empty.
Becoming a father gave me purpose that was (finally) not about me any longer.
And now, the nest empty, I still am unable to go back to that person I was before. (Whoever that was.)
Certainly in the UK there is a group of people who have become very negative about having kids, partly because they are scared of the expense, and partly because society makes it look so hard, and partly because they genuinely have less support.
Not to mention that "it takes a village", but in many places the village has been basically stolen from us.
However, why is pregnancy scarier than it used to be when it is safer than it has ever been? It seems to be more scary in developed countries than in poor ones too.
I wonder whether the loss of the "village" might be part of the reason for this. it certainly is for a lot of other things around having kids.
Now we have a choice. Which is GREAT, amazing, even. Absolutely necessary. I'll never argue that anyone's right to choose if they want to be a parent is a bad thing.
I wonder if social media is also contributing, with its polarizing nature. It's rare you see any opinions or even anecdotes about pregnancy being "fine" or "whatever". It's always a big deal, and it's always a big deal (horrible) or a big deal (wonderful). There's not a lot of in between. The negative end of the spectrum scares people, while the positive end of the spectrum is met with skepticism since it's too-often (for me at least) correlated with right-wing religious people trying to push women to be what're effectively baby factories, so the "it's the most wonderful experience ever!" just comes off as disingenuous and manipulative.
Combined with the fact that women's healthcare is rife with challenges, and women's pain is often dismissed (not looking to start any "gender wars" arguments; just stating things that can be backed up https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10937548/), the prospect of becoming pregnant is a scary one, when you have the option to not do that.
"What if it's nine months of constant nausea, being bedbound, gaining weight I'll never be able to lose? My body will change, in many ways irreversibly. Will my partner still find me attractive? Will they support me during? Will they support me after? Will I feel supported? Will I feel resentment that they'll be able to enjoy things like alcohol while I'll have to stay completely sober for a very long time? Will I feel resentment if the majority of childcare falls on me, which is statistically actually quite likely? What about my career? Will I regret it? What if my child is born with a disability? What if I'm bad at being a mom? What if I hate it? What if I'm trapped in a life I don't want? What if there's no way out?"
Of course, the above thought process could also be one with thoughts like "what if it's wonderful?" but it's a lot easier to worry about the negative, and put weight on the negative, than it is to fantasize and put weight on the positive what-ifs.
This is just my perspective, though. Some people love being pregnant and find parenthood really wonderful (or so they tell me about those things), and I love that for them. Truly. I'm just not sure if I have it in me to ever find out what it would be like for me, and I know I'm not alone. Fun Auntie is a better role for me I think. But maybe I would feel differently if pregnancy were easier and a less destructive process on the female body, and there was more social support for parents.
I think its very likely that social media plays apart.
I think people glossing pregnancy over as wonderful are optimistic. I think a more honest take is "its hard but worth it".
> What if it's nine months of constant nausea, being bedbound, gaining weight I'll never be able to lose?
Its not nine months of nausea or being bedbound though. Most women I know lived normal lives for most of their pregnancies.
> Will my partner still find me attractive? Will they support me during? Will they support me after? Will I feel supported
Absolutely do not have kids with a partner whose support you cannot rely on!
None of us are going to keep our looks all our lives anyway.
> Will I feel resentment that they'll be able to enjoy things like alcohol while I'll have to stay completely sober for a very long time?
When i had my kids the NHS advice was to drink in moderation. Changes since then have been politically driven (and by increased American influence on attitudes) rather than being the rest of any new science. My ex went off alcohol before she knew she was pregnant (which is the most critical time) and then drank moderately thereafter.
> Will I feel resentment if the majority of childcare falls on me, which is statistically actually quite likely?
That is understandable. Again it partly comes down to having the right partner. Some men do end up doing the majority of childcare - I am one, and I have come across a few others. This is something that is improving too (I hope!).
> What about my career? Will I regret it? What if my child is born with a disability?
Careers get into perspective when you have kids. Very few people regret having their kids, whatever goes wrong. They are so much more important than having a career. I have a lot less money than I would have had without kids, but there is no way I would want to have the money instead.
> What if I'm bad at being a mom? What if I hate it? What if I'm trapped in a life I don't want?
IMO it is extremely rare for the sort of person who worries about being a good parent to be a bad parent. The problem is that people want to be perfect parents, and society encourages anxiety instead of reassuring them that it is OK not to be perfect.
> Fun Auntie is a better role for me I think
Its not a bad role to have! I would point out that being a fun auntie requires someone to have kids!
> and there was more social support for parents.
I think this is critical. I am not sure to what extent pregnancy can be made easier in a direct physical sense, but many women could be better supported through it.
Unfortunately - and this is kinda related to your comment about it being rare for the kind of person who worries about being a good parent to be a really bad parent - we often see opposite patterns play out... people that would probably make good parents seem less likely to reproduce, and vice versa. I know "Idiocracy" is a bit of a meme these days and is arguably classist, but I can't help but think about it. It's probably a far larger socioeconomic issue than can be feasibly hashed out in an internet forum, and I certainly can't solve it.
Ultimately, I think where I'm at these days, is that we need the village back, and I would love to be a part of it. How? Well, currently, it's that "Fun Auntie" role, as I've no kids of my own, nor do I plan to change that. I've long "wanted to want" bio-children, but so far, I don't. I'm mid-30s now, so there is still time, especially thanks to fertility technology continuing to improve. I'm probably not gonna change my mind, but I'm far too autistic to speak in absolutes, so I cant 100% rule anything out.
Regardless: the village is a beautiful thing. It's an honor to be a part of it in the ways that I am and have been throughout my life. More people should be a part of it. We should all (within reason) be a part of it. It should be celebrated and supported each and every day, to the point where parenthood isn't so much of a burden on the individual family unit, and is instead a shared responsibility of the local community. How do we best go about doing that? Obviously governmental and institutional support is critical, but we also need societal/cultural support, and that will be a lengthier project... we owe it to ourselves to try, though.
I appreciate the conversation and insights in this conversation; thanks for the well-thought out responses in these threads.
I really appreciate how well you have explained a perspective very different from my own. Not only am I a man who has had children, my younger daughter turned 18 today, and will be off to university in less than two months so my children are no longer children and worries about parenting etc. are behind me.
Its interesting how much we agree about the social and political problems and the loss of the village.
Look at the "birth rate" discourse that's been going on. There's tremendous pressure on women to have more babies. There's also a lot of pendulum-swinging in the opposite direction with your edgy "antinatalists", in some sort of weird "overcorrection" or some such, but ultimately those voices are much louder online than in real life.
Fewer people are reproducing, but that doesn't mean the pressures to do so aren't still there. "It's complicated."
There is more pressure on women to have kids than on men. That is not new. What is new is a more negative attitude to children and parenting in society in general. Do you feel there are conflicting pressures now?
Implicitly, I think, yes. It builds on all of the other social pressures, big and small. I'm sure an entire humanities thesis could be written about how it all adds up over time.
I wrote another comment elsewhere in the thread talking about polarized opinions broadcasted on social media and how that also adds to the stress of it all. Nobody ever wants to talk about the "it was/is... fine, actually. kind of whatever. not great, but not horrible." possibility of pregnancy (and parenthood). It's always either the most wonderful, miraculous thing ever and you're insane for not wanting it, or it's the most horrible, irreversibly damaging thing ever and you're insane for wanting it.
And the thing is... it COULD be any of those outcomes! It could ruin your life. It could also make your life so much more fulfilling. There's simply no way to know for sure what it will be like for you without doing it. It is an enormous gamble, especially when you are the person who has to endure the pregnancy, and it is a gamble that you can't really walk away from. (Of course, you can give a child up for adoption, but there's a lot of social shame involved in that, especially if it is a wanted child that you're quite literally giving up on rearing.)
I think you are right about the polarised opinions. I think in real life (at least for people I know) pregnancy is generally fine, with maybe a few horrible bits (i.e. if there are any medical problems/something goes wrong). It has lots of positives but its difficult.
Parenthood is usually wonderful. I am afraid men have it easier as we get the parenthood without the pregnancy!
Ain't that the truth! I've long joked that I'd make a great Dad. :)
On the other hand, my wife, who was a lawyer, was fired from from a Big4 when they suspected that she was pregnant.
As a father in the tech/startup industry, it's sometimes quite hard to get people to understand what having children implies for instance, my ex-boss couldn't understand that I wasn't available at 21:30 everyday to answer his questions, as I was bedding the kids.
I mean, humans are made to comply to social pressure, so if they stop collectively having children, it more likely means that the social and economic pressure is overall rather against having them.
I completely agree with you. But I can't say around me, people, movies, society ever sent the message that parenthood is terrible. The way I interpret the message was always "this was hard, this was grueling, but I wouldn't change it for the world".
I think the people who miss almost all of these "tickboxes" and can somehow link it to the kids become unhappy with parenthood. If they ever feel their personal time, romance, career, success suffered because of the focus on the children, they will end up in the "disappointment" camp.
I never personally met anyone who was willing to admit regret of having children but I did meet people who were disappointed and put a veiled blame for their failure on the children.
I think a lot of people could have something to say about this but they're afraid of being branded bad parent or bad people.
> it's not actionable - there is no going back
Going back isn't the only way to take action. If you can't change the trigger you can try to control to a degree how you feel about it.
I agree with your assessment of society at large. The prevailing attitude is, having children is the best thing you'll ever do, that you ever could do. The most you'll get is, it's the hardest job in the world but also the best, and totally worth it. I have no idea what the other person is talking about when they say everything conveyed the message that parenthood is terrible. This sort of thing almost makes me wonder if the internet actually connects parallel universes and we just haven't realized it, because that's not how it is in mine.
I was on the fence, but had no support for it. All the media said do it. Everybody around me said do it. There was literally not a single dissenting voice in my life saying, "don't do it if you're not sure." Or even just "if you feel that way then maybe it's worth considering not having kids as an option, or at least waiting until you become more certain."
What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
Have kids or don’t, live your life the way you want. But taking unsolicited dumps on other people’s decisions is a pretty lame way to live.
And yes, you do have to have kids in order to understand what it feels like to have kids. You do not know what it’s like, as evidenced by your thinking having kids entitles a parent to their love. Let me tell you clearly and unequivocally: it does not. Love is earned. A family is a big lesson in that.
To use a less charged example: I can’t claim to know what strawberries taste like if I never try a strawberry.
TL;DR: I understand anti-natalism is in vogue right now, but some of y’all are really shitty about it.
Furthermore I don’t need to shoot heroin to know that shooting heroin feels extremely good and that the people that do it really enjoy the feeling. I also don’t need to shoot heroin to see the harms it causes to the people that do it, and those around them.
You are trying to make a logical argument for the observed preferences of an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA. It’s a shame that so many people are blinded to that by instinct and emotion.
If I were developing nanotech grey goo in my basement, everyone would rightly point out that it’s a risk to society. Yet, humans doing the exact same thing (just more slowly) are praised.
People get unreasonably defensive when confronted with these facts, as you have demonstrated.
Can you name one thing that benefits from people creating more selfish and self-replicating creatures other than the emotional state of people who share some of their DNA?
PS: No mother “earns” the love of a one or two year old. It’s automatic and meritless. To assert otherwise to bolster your argument is obviously silly and should clue you in to how shaky the logical foundation for your claims is.
Also you seem to be saying that not having children is the "only intelligent choice". Intelligent for what? Then you state that we are "an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA." while in the same breath excluding yourself from being said system, calling yourself logical and calling your preference superior to others.
And "harms everyone" assumes the damages of the life you create outweigh the goods. That's your value judgment, not a measurement, and plenty of the people actually created have thought it through and disagree... As for one benefit? Existing people benefit, including you. Everything keeping you alive was built by people who had to be born.
Remember that once you have kids you are stuck in that situation forever. There is a lot of coping and trying to persuade yourself that this is the best thing in the world. It might as well be as there is no escape anyways!
I understand that kids carry a long responsibility above just memories though.
Peak HN comment.
Technically you don't "need" anything in life besides food and shelter. You don't need to have children, or loved ones, or friends, or ambitions, or projects, or goals... but life is very sad if you miss all of them.
It's kind of like balance. You can read all about balance in a book and watch YouTube videos but until you get on a bicycle and experience it you'll never really "get" balance.
You can't imagine until you experience it. It's as simple as that.
how do i explain that my child running into my arms after his first day of daycare is a high ill be chasing for the rest of my life? or the irrational pride when you see your kid flip over for the first time?
it's so many mundane moments that punch 100000x above their weight when its your kid having them. the good parts of parenting sound like fake news (unless youre talking to other parents)
That’s…unhealthy and unusual.
Getting pregnant (especially in the wrong state) in the US as a high schooler can absolutely ruin your life. In some states it can even get you killed due to the legal chaos still happening in hospitals.
Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but this isn't at all what I remember. I frankly can't think of a single movie or TV show that paints parenting as bad, let alone the worst thing in the world. I can think of only one celebrity who I can recall extolled his child-free life. That was within the past year-- and I think the guy is a total dipshit man-child.
And I have no idea where you grew up, or whether that's actually a factor, but my teachers, when they had kids, seemed like loving parents. When they didn't have kids, I don't think they ever spoke badly or parenting.
Lately I frequently find myself wondering if every philosopher who pondered the meaning of life was childless, because it feels to me like the answer must be pretty obvious to any parent.
Uh? I feel it's the opposite. Society constantly judges people that don't have kids. Having kids has always been the norm. It projects you as a grown up mature adult. In fact I think a ton of people have kids simply because they want to give that image of being a well established mature person.
Like once I have a kid, then that kid has to be the most significant part of my life. But before that, why?
The problem with the "The Most Infuriating Answer" is that it entirely neglects facts, and only those say it who do have a good experience with it.
Happy for you, internet stranger. Just like I am happy for all of those around me: you all are the ones who do good parenting.
In case you also want to become a better person in general, I recommend to stop being condescending, and not to say this ever again to anyone. You hurt more than you think you are wise.
> You hurt more than you think you are wise
We are all fighting some demon or the other. I appreciate you for bringing forth the kind most of us are (fortunate enough to be) oblivious to. Ignorance is bliss.
Said in perhaps, the most condescending way possible
Similar, all invocations of "calm down" should be in all caps with exclamation points. Never in history has telling someone whose upset to "calm down" actually led to them calming down.
One of the two I guess.
I don't think I'm a terrible person. My kids are healthy, mostly happy, seem to be well adjusted. I support their physical needs, do my best to support their emotional needs. I read to them, changed their diapers, taught them how to ride a bicycle, help them with their homework, kiss them goodnight. But I still don't understand. I know most parents have this whatever it is, but I'm still wondering.
I experienced this so strongly I spent some time actually writing a poem (in Spanish) about it: https://alejo.ch/39l
As a childless person, the inverse is equally true. I have wildly different levels of obligation and constraint - and that difference typically becomes obvious very very quickly. I don't say that as a better/worse, just different.
Talking to a lot of people (bit you) i felt it was more the latter.
The main character confesses that twice she has wanted to give up her child for adoption. Another mom laughs... "Twenty times would still make you an amateur."
The point is: it’s not all love and adoration.
Toddlers though... toddlers are fun. Not always, but a lot of the time. Once both of my kids cleared the baby stage I finally would describe myself as a proud parent, mostly happy.
Now we are empty nesters and both of my kids live far away and are doing great. With the space that leaves I've spent some time thinking about myself as a dad and boy do I have a lot of regrets. I don't think I was very good at it.
I understand now why so many people who weren't the greatest parents get very excited about grandchildren. I know if that happens for me, I'm going to be a much better grandparent than I ever was parent.
Babies have no guile or instinct to deceive; they literally can't even conceive of doing so because their worldview just isn't developed enough. So when your baby cries, you can have absolute faith that it's because there's some problem that needs solving or need that is unmet, and then you can go and solve the problem, fill the need, and the baby is happy. And when the baby's happy, you have absolute faith that it's because you were there doing the thing. There's no pretense to the relationship at all, and it's a sort of unusual honesty that can be really hard to find in relationships where both parties understand basic facts like "there is a world of people outside myself" and "people don't have special insight into my interior being and I can give them information that doesn't fully reflect the state of the world".
So that kind of honest exchange does a lot to foster love and adoration from you to the child, and the fact that you're there providing food, shelter, comfort et all to the baby fosters love and adoration from them to you.
My kid is just under 18 months old now. He's old enough to have distinct ideas about what he wants to do, and when he wants to do it, and he's old enough to understand that not getting to do the thing that he wants is really upsetting, so he cries. That's hard sometimes. But if I'm relaxing on the couch and he brings a book over to me, I can know with absolute faith that it's because right now, what he wants more than anything in the world is to sit in my lap and have me read a book to him, and that feels amazing. When he goes and hides behind the kitchen island and then jumps out, it's because the thing he wants to do more than anything else is play peekaboo with me, and that feels amazing too.
Although there is an evolutionary reason why our brain would make our offspring significant to us.
You can ask that question about a lot of things whether it's one entrepeneurial baby or their nature conservation effort which reveals it to be somewhat meaningless question.
(I’m halfway through our main parental fase.)
Before I would waste so much time engaging on video games / internet-browsing / TV-youtube / etc and just not enjoying the time I spent. It felt very meaningless, like why even bother working? I have (had) savings to go take several years of sabbatical if I wanted.
When I actually boot up a video game today I actually enjoy it. And that is all on top of normal stuff you hear about having kids.
I guess with kids, its like my PhD but a constant source instead of static fading in time?
Its because they are more important than anything else to a parent. You are invested in their outcome more than anything else. I don’t see how this isn’t obvious.
What contribution does this add to your point? It comes off as a put-down
An answer is provided, but with an "isn't it obvious?" at the end
On the one hand, one could argue that the question wouldn't have been asked if it were obvious (which would be an equally unnecessary riposte), but it might be worth reflecting on what that part adds to the conversation or whether it's a habit, especially in the context of parenting
Not disputing you either—I once said I will never have children, too—but indeed and as with other life decisions, you should stay childless while you find the meaning of it incomprehensible. It’s not for people who are not ready to stop thinking about themselves.
I don't think it's something to think or reason about. You feel it (or don't, in some cases). As an atheist, I suppose this is how truly religious people feel about their religion: it brings them joy and meaning. (And much like in some religions, you sometimes feel you're beholden to a demanding, whimsical god!).
That might say more about what you haven't done than what you have.
"First-time fathers show longitudinal gray matter cortical volume reductions: evidence from two international samples"
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/33/7/4156/6691667
In reality, simply adding more children to the pool doesn’t accomplish anything real.
Personally, I'm with the OP. Raising children, and to do a good job at it, is waaaay too much of a burden for me, and would seriously negatively affect most areas of my life.
I find it much more meaningful to focus on creating jobs, companies, products and services people need, than to raise a child with unknown outcome. I see way too many parents who try and appear as if they are happy and say they don't regret the decision, but deep down it is clear they do.
That is why, many of them, once the children are somewhat grown up, split up from their partner, and then try to re-live their lives and all that they missed.
It is like basic human instinct is to consume and store calories. And there is nothing wrong with it. But to become athlete and win a gold medal, that requires going against these basic instincts. That means eating healthier and working out instead of preserving calories.
Having kids is great but to achieve something great in life, does require going against your basic instincts and not procreate. Or if you do have kids, then not be a good parent.
I had my startup dreams but after having kids, biology kicked in and startup dreams got deprioritized. But I made peace with it and I enjoy my quiet basic life with my kids. I just know I will not do anything significant and that is totally okay.
I know you didn’t intend it that way but there are so many people that are extremely judgmental about having kids (or rather judging people that don’t have kids). I also understand that it’s such a hard task that there must be some level of self convincing needed to make it work.
All that to say, i tend to dismiss those opinions.
So we can dismiss opinions of non-parents as well.
Essentially discussing facts versus emotions.
Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.
I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways.
Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children.
In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/#RatiEmot
And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children:
- Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty. One way to measure difficulty is that fewer people are able to achieve it. Everyone (literally almost everyone) can have kids. But only a select few can win a gold.
- By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids. You will be in a lot of history books, and a ton of people will look after you. You will inspire the next generations. By having kids, you will also change the next generation but I would argue by way less than by winning gold in the olympics.
See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.
No, they're not logical arguments, they're based on a whole suite of assumptions about value systems that I would argue reflects more about how you feel about the world than any sort of rational/objective assessment of what constitutes a "grand achievement".
> Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty.
Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident. Can you make an argument for this that isn't an appeal to emotion?
> By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids.
Same exact response from me. Why is a bigger legacy grander or more of an achievement? Can you make a logical argument in favour of a bigger legacy that's not an appeal to emotion?
I see no logic in your arguments, I see you restating your values as if they are logical.
> How can you disagree with this logically?
I don't disagree with what the words mean, I'm saying that you think special/unique/difficult = grand accomplishment for feelings-based reasons, not logical reasons.
I think it is perfectly fine and logical for you to reply to my logical arguments with other counter-logical arguments such as:
>> Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident
You could say to you a "grand achievement" is keeping your bloodline as this is what evolution wants us to be. That has some logic. I actually would agree with some of those arguments, and we could go back and forth. Sure, it represents some of our values but you are making at least some logical sense.
What I reject is reasoning such as: "Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life." and when asked clarifications around why that would be the cause, the replies are "feelings, and you will know when you have them".
having kids is the baseline normal for millions of years. As much as you "feel" that this is the most important thing you ever did, it is worth taking a step back and think rationally about this. Is it really? What about it makes it SO important? Because we for sure are not going extinct at all. Having a lot of kids has always been the default. If you don't have kids the world will be absolutely fine, in fact nothing will change at all.
So you should ask yourself. Why is it the most meaningful thing you ever did? Because it is YOUR DNA? Isn't that then a completely self-centered pursuit?
Why is this nihilist lens applied selectively to one pursuit and not others?
There is inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about it. It has always been the normal things that happen to most humans and animals since the dawns of time.
If you respond to this, please use rationale and not feelings to describe why having kids is the "biggest achievement from your lifetime".
My ambition is to become a dad. I have other ambitions too whcih require a lot of time but if need be i'll make my choices.
I've spent my 30s doing something similar and it's still unclear whether it will work out or not. And I've foregone essentially all else, including family.
They both concluded (not quickly, they discussed it) no, because it forced both of them to level up their time management game, quit whining and learn to get on with it, to the point where they generally got more done a couple of years in.
I have found this to be true. Our little one is turning 3 in November, and while the first two years were a bit slower (I took half a year of work while my wife finished up her Master's, etc.), in 2026 I've so far had a fantastic year and find myself much more capable of juggling more balls at the same time, finally learned the skill of grabbing sleep where I can, etc.
Got a whole lot of Open Source work done, wrote HMI and firmware for a robot used in the Great Pyramid of Egypt for a scientific mission, taught myself GPRs and built a new radar control system, spent a week rolling around in the dust of millenia inside Khufu's Pyramid, etc., all next to the day job.
The most unexpected growth and fun I've had in a decade, and it's all so much more meaningful when I get to share it with the little one.
Taking work problems into other spheres of my life, especially parenting, gives me distance and a new lens to view them through.
I would only add that if increasing general family cohesion is one of your goals, I think having lots of kids accomplishes that. Having a large family and multiple automatic life long best friends brings me so much joy.
A desire to accumulate power is tantamount to a desire to accumulate wealth. Most ways to wealth these days involve finding ways to consume more of the world's resources or siphon resources to yourself.
Consider refining word choice. (Though if your notion of ambition corresponds to building a sillycon valley startup, then 'ambition' is probably the right word.) I don't mean that nothing good ever comes of technology; I mean that VC-funded startup tech is mostly done in the pursuit of money, damn any social consequences.
Sort of like how a narcissistic person ultimately needs others to validate them.
You aren't wrong, it just can be read two ways.
I will leave the world-changing to someone else who is willing to lay it all on the line for an imaginary medal.