[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.