[Dunan]

Wasn't especting to see this kind of article referenced on HN, and it hit me hard. I'm 41, partner is too, and would give absolutely anything to have a child of my own. She was never ready until just recently.

I can't even go an hour without thinking about it...

[noir_lord]

I hope it works out for you :).

OTH I'm 37, at 15 I said I didn't want kids and everyone said "you'll change your mind", 22 years later I still haven't changed my mind in the slightest.

My partner has a little boy though and he's great, it's just I personally don't want kids (parents had mental health issues, I had a rough upbringing and I wouldn't want that for someone I was responsible for creating).

[Dunan]

I had a rough upbringing too, and my parents (who would never admit to that) were a lot mellower with my sister, a decade younger than my brother and I am and born when my parents were almost 40, so when I was in my 20s I feared being like my own parents and wanted to have kids in my 30s. I didn't worry too much about it and had no idea that the panic and depression would sneak up on me like this.

In your case I certainly hope you don't suddenly change your mind!

[sitkack]

I don't know your physiology, but 41 is entirely doable for most folks. I did have a friend that went through menopause at 37, they needed to go for a donor egg.

That said, evolution has a power greater than the tallest dam. That desire you are feeling is how we all got here. Be ok with the desire or the choice not being rational. And it very well may change _after_ you have a child. Also be ok with that, just give a respectful nod to evolution.

[chaostheory]

I agree that it's possible but at a price. I could be wrong but I think it costs about 50k USD for 3 IVF attempts (marketed at buy 2 get 1 FREE) in the SF Bay Area. Monetary cost isnt the biggest issue either; it's not entirely safe. Anecdotal - I know someone who developed major thyroid issues after 3 IVF attempts.

[Dunan]

$50k is real money -- it's more than I earn in a year -- but I'd pay it (or double, or triple) without question if it meant having our own child.

The problem with IVF is that it's not guaranteed. Would I part with a year's salary for a 10% chance of having a child? How about 90%? These are scary calculations to make in your mind... and those percentages go down with each passing month.

[yodsanklai]

42, I don't want kids. People keep telling me that: I'd be happier if I had one, that they thought like me until they had one, that they wished they had them sooner, or more of them and so on...

I like my life as it is now and don't feel the appeal for kids. Should I take the risk because everybody says so?

[aidenn0]

Two words: Hell No.

I'm saying that despite having kids and being glad that I made that decision. I've seen way too many relationships destroyed because one or both of the couple were pressured into having kids that they didn't want. It's not pretty.

[jobu]

Agreed. Do not put a human life through the hell of not being wanted.

[dqpb]

Millions of years of evolution have led to you. Now you have the fascinating choice of whether or not to end this branch.

[Will_Parker]

The counter to this is, we're a uniquely complex species where culture is vastly more important than genetics. (If you doubt it, consider what in our genetics makes us different than cave painters 30,000 years ago).

I see humans who don't reproduce as analogous to cells in the human body that don't contribute to the germ line. Is the reproductive system the most important part of the body? Of course not. The brain is important too, even though none of those cells will have direct descendants that outlive you.

You might think evolution would weed out people with this attitude over time. But not necessarily so! It's quite possible to do things that help a population or a lineage, and the multiplier effect can have more impact on the frequency of your genes than directly reproducing would. (Because your culture impact can affect many people instead of just your offspring.)

[Banthum]

>consider what in our genetics makes us different than cave painters 30,000 years ago

A tremendous amount has changed in that time. Height, immune system changes, lactose tolerance, blue eyes, different hair colors, digestive system changes. There's strong evidence for significant changes in IQ, time preference, and other psychological traits. A cave painter from 30,000 years ago would probably act like an undisciplined, impulsive child because of genetic predisposition to high time preference and low intelligence.

It's a myth that evolution takes millions of years. With sufficient and realistic selection pressures, something like IQ or height can shift several percent every generation. This is how there's only a few thousand years between even the most different dog breeds. 30,000 years is more than enough time for massive shifts in a gene pool.

And this is even assuming your cave painter is human. If it's 30,000 years ago, he may not be!

[1] News article on genetic changes post agricultural revolution.

>I see humans who don't reproduce as analogous to cells in the human body that don't contribute to the germ line

One basic insight of the selfish gene is that a gene can be regarded as being in several places at once if it has copies in those places. It acts as the same gene, not separate copies.

Since all cells in the body have the same genes, if you have a biological child, they all contribute to the germ line since, in terms of outcomes, they are all the same unified entity. And if you don't, none of them do.

>It's quite possible to do things that help a population or a lineage, and the multiplier effect can have more impact on the frequency of your genes than directly reproducing would.

Definitely true! Hence the human predisposition towards ethnic nationalism and tribalism.

Here's a thought: Perhaps one reason for our rising identitarian tribalism isn't just increasing ethnic diversity, but is also the fact that increasing numbers of childless people are expressing their reproductive instincts through tribal aggression instead of direct childbearing.

[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/ancient-dna-suggests-agricultur...

[Will_Parker]

Disclaimer: I have no particular expertise on this topic.

> A tremendous amount has changed in that time. Height, immune system changes, lactose tolerance, blue eyes, different hair colors, digestive system changes.

None of those are tremendous changes. We're talking about a single mutation that disables a certain gene in most cases above, right? Also they aren't universally spread among humans, and it seems like many people from divergent genetic lines can adapt to a modern culture just fine.

I know Jared Diamond makes a strong claim that the human brain really isn't that different across humans, citing, e.g. friends from New Guinea tribes who could happily and easily learn to use computers when they were exposed to them.

> There's strong evidence for significant changes in IQ, time preference, and other psychological traits.

Any citation for that first claim in particular?

I know that (though the strong social norm is to avoid these topics at all cost), e.g. the population of Ashkenazi Jews has a higher average IQ than the mean. But individual variation is still far more important. And it's not clear how "significant" the difference is, if we're talking about the magnitude of changes that make culture and language possible vs impossible. E.g. if maybe 1% of the population could be math PhDs vs 0.2%, is that so significant?

> One basic insight of the selfish gene is that a gene can be regarded as being in several places at once if it has copies in those places. It acts as the same gene, not separate copies.

But this is true across populations too. So, it may not have been in the best interest of your genes to directly reproduce, vs spending the effort to help your family or tribe.

[ASalazarMX]

It's not that fascinating. Dying without reproducing happens all the time to many creatures. Missing one's genetic legacy is something the world most likely won't notice.

[dqpb]

How many creatures are able to reproduce but choose not to?

[everyone]

meh, all your genes are in loads of other people.

[bunfunton]

Way to pile on the guilt ;)

[jdietrich]

Would you say that to a lesbian?

[dqpb]

Even lesbians choose whether or not to reproduce.

[paulcole]

No! Why would you do something just because other people want you to do it, especially something that can't be undone like having a kid.

Misery loves company.

There's a discussion about the regret of having kids here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16132955

[jdietrich]

>Should I take the risk because everybody says so?

Do you trust the opinions or a bunch of random people more than your own judgement? Do you think that these people have some insight into your psyche that you don't?

[DoreenMichele]

People telling you that you should have kids to validate their life choices are assholes. I also tend to suspect they aren't really that happy with their lives.

Don't listen to such people.

FWIW:

I very much wanted kids. I wanted 3. I stopped at 2 for health reasons. I adore my sons. They are both adults and we are still close.

But I cannot imagine trying to tell someone else they should have kids because I liked it.

[dragonwriter]

No, if you don't want kids, you absolutely shouldn't have them because of some need to conform to others’ expectations.

[mlevental]

I don't mean to offend but what is the difference to you that the child is genetically yours? why not adopt?

[Dunan]

"I don't mean to offend but what is the difference to you that the child is genetically yours? why not adopt?"

This might be an unpopular answer, but it makes all the difference in the world. I want my family line to continue; I want my parents and grandparents to see physical features and behavior quirks in their (great-)grandchild that I haven't even noticed.

It's a primal urge and I can't explain it rationally except to say that I'm human and no exception to what we are hard-wired for.

[simonsarris]

Some try to take a fundamentally 'rational' approach to life, or view it through the lens of cost/benefit, especially fiscal cost benefit. In fact I have some friends who do not want children simply because they will cost too much money.

This brand of rationality is very alien to me. It makes all the difference in the world if the child is genetically one's own child. It is not a toy or a cat. It is an emotional extension of your own being that culminates in having its own identity. It is both you and not you. I fear that if you cannot intuitively grok the difference that it makes, there is no 'rational' way to convince you that it matters.

[jdtang13]

Very well articulated.

[dgabriel]

Adoption is expensive, difficult, and often heartbreaking. I hate it when people casually throw out adoption as a solution without understanding anything about the process.

[tathougies]

There are more parents willing to adopt than children available for adoption. While there are some children still awaiting immediate adoption right now, many of these children have very very specialized needs which (I'd guess) most people would not be able to handle because they do not have the right training.

[fjsolwmv]

There is a moral answer to that question and there is a primal answer to that question. Several, in fact.

[knicholes]

I wanted my kids to be my own genetically so I can better relate to them (and their genetic quirkiness. Tourettes runs HARD throughout my family) and give them some good insight to family diseases to be aware of.

[gumby]

I agree and am surprised by the number of “I want the same genetics”. Its good to hear an alternative perspective.

[patorjk]

You should consider adoption. You'll get to be a dad and you wont have to worry about the issues related to your wife having a child in her 40's.

[dogprez]

I saw my cousin and my aunt both go through fertility problems. My aunt was about your age when they adopted a little girl, it was a very happy story and the daughter just left home for college this year. My cousin and her husband fought hard to conceive, spending anguish and money to make it happen. Even the suggestion that they should adopt was hurtful to them. They were completely closed to the idea. After years of pain they finally reversed their opinion on adoption and adopted a little boy 3 years ago and it has meant the world to them.

I haven't personally had to go through this luckily and I know adoption isn't the easiest either but if being a parent is something someone wants, it's worth fighting to make sure no child is left without a good home. I'm not to say you should do one thing or the other, just something to consider, much love.

[soperj]

For what it's worth, my boss just had 2 kids at age 49 and 50.

[pstuart]

My wife and I struggled with fertility issues and ended up adopting embryos. We have twins now :-).

FYI, we have a couple of embryos left and are looking to donate them....

[magic_beans]

I am 26, in a very healthy relationship in which we both can't wait for children... It's just that we live in New York, and we can just barely afford rent on our apartment. By the time I'm financially stable enough to have children, I very well might be 40 and no longer able to conceive.

[52-6F-62]

I've had a few discussions on this subject with my present girlfriend. (We're downtown Toronto)

I think one of the glimmers of hope is the lengthening of healthy child-bearing years as of late (in wealthy, first-world countries, anyway).

That said, the changes in your life between 26 and 30 can very well be monumental. They were for me. It's probably best not to stress yourself out about it. However if it's a real ambition, I'm sure you'll find yourself and your partner assessing different options as you go along.

Some options and paths that seem distant and unimaginable now can end up closer and more realistic. Just don't expect things to suddenly get easier. They might not (and probably won't). It's just that the possible solutions might become more apparent, and the results of your actions pursuing those goals be more fulfilling.