[deltaonefour]

The real test is if you'd say the same thing given knowledge that you would be unhappy before you had your daughter, and which answer would be more valid? The answer now or the answer you would give before you had your daughter?

[getoj]

- If I were offered the choice to wind back the clock and have her not exist, I wouldn't choose it, even if it would make me happier on the whole.

- If I were to travel back in time and convey that information to my past self, it would make him want a child more, not less.

- If you were to travel back in time and tell my past self "I talked to your future self, he said he'd probably be happier without a kid," and he believed you, then he might choose the opposite path. But that's because you didn't give him all the information.

In other words, given full and accurate knowledge of this future, I would not choose the other future. Once you're a parent you can never not be a parent again, not even in a hypothetical multiple-worlds time-travel scenario.

[deltaonefour]

>Once you're a parent you can never not be a parent again, not even in a hypothetical multiple-worlds time-travel scenario.

This is not true at all. It's not a logical answer. Based of what you just said above, I believe you are being honest but I believe your biases are creeping into the answer and therefore cannot trust it. I'm sorry.

The reason is because if you erased your memory of being a parent with time travel, you actually CAN not be a parent. This is a very legitimate possibility for anyone. You are letting your emotions interfere with logic.

That being said, I am interested in this:

>If I were to travel back in time and convey that information to my past self, it would make him want a child more, not less.

You would tell your past self that you would be less happy, but you would be able to convince him to have a kid regardless as if he could understand your reasoning through you simply communicating vocally to him. My question to you is why didn't you try communicating this knowledge to me? Why do say vague things like "Once you're a parent you can never not be a parent again" without clearly elucidating the logic behind it? I am very much interested in this logic and would like to hear it despite the fact that I think you're answer has the possibility of being biased.

If your logic is convincing then of course you're not biased and I am wrong. But honestly right now because of what you said, it just appears you're biased, but I would very much like to be proven wrong.

[mrelectric]

> "Once you're a parent you can never not be a parent again" without clearly elucidating the logic behind it?

It's a simple sentence. Your comments feel tiresome and pushy.

Once you're a parent you can never not be a parent again because that kid is simultaneously a part of you, potential manifestation of all your dreams and hopes that you can't or won't accomplish, they're your friend, companion, confidant. They're here to stay. You understand them and they understand you like no one else does. You're same blood. It's powerful, deeply ingrained set of thoughts and feelings that you can get a hint of sometimes but can never experience fully until you make your own kid.

All previous statements have varying degrees of truth for most people, hence the fear of having family and children, esp. coming from non ideal backgrounds.

[v-erne]

>> potential manifestation of all your dreams and hopes that you can't or won't accomplish

And this is how You get tiger moms ladies and gentlemen (only half joking - Your child is first and foremost independent human and not extension of yourself).

>> You understand them and they understand you like no one else does.

I think I have never seen this in my life - where do You think generational conflicts comes from?

[uwagar]

i'm with u bro. these dads seem to live in some cuckooland. wait till the kid asks them to fuck off and let them live their life their way.

[deltaonefour]

Probably is pushy. Don't worry about it. You can just not answer. Up to you.

Either way, Thanks for the answer but your words would not convince me to have a kid if the result of everything you said meant that I would be significantly unhappier.

This is really what I'm driving at: What is it can you actually say to convince someone who's not a parent to become one despite the fact that it will make you significantly unhappier.

I mean you explained why you can't stop being a parent, you've explained the benefits of being a parent but you haven't explained why you should start being one despite knowledge of NET unhappiness in the future.

[getoj]

>If you erased your memory of being a parent with time travel, you actually CAN not be a parent.

We're talking about memory erasure plus accurate knowledge of the future. The combination is different from memory erasure by itself. Not knowing what parenthood is like, I would choose to become a parent - I know this because that's what actually happened. Accurate knowledge of the future would not change that decision, for the reasons I gave.

>You would tell your past self that you would be less happy, but you would be able to convince him to have a kid regardless as if he could understand your reasoning through you simply communicating vocally to him. My question to you is why didn't you try communicating this knowledge to me?

- I'm not convincing him, I'm merely conveying information. I have nothing to gain or lose, and I already know what he's going to do absent the information.

- He could understand my reasoning because he's me, I know everything about him, and he trusts me implicitly because I have nothing to gain by deceiving him.

- I can't trust you to convey my thinking accurately because you are biased by your own worldview, as am I. He can't trust you either. Therefore any information you give him would be imperfect, tainted by the impossibility of communication between different people. My point is that only that kind of imperfect information might change his behaviour.

>your words would not convince me to have a kid if the result of everything you said meant that I would be significantly unhappier.

Who said anything about convincing you? Past me is already inclined to have a child, whereas you appear to be quite against it. Moreover, it would be very irresponsible of me to convince you to act against your own self-interest. But I will attempt it...

Some axioms:

1. A quiet, uneventful, comfortable life with amiable companionship is the epitome of happiness.

2. Happiness is not the only measure on which the quality of a life can be judged.

3. It is possible for two equally logical processes with different sets of priorities to arrive at contrary conclusions.

Say that tonight, Mephistopheles appears in your room and offers you the chance to travel throughout space and time and learn all the secrets of the universe. Being all-knowing, he also tells you with undeniable authority that saying yes will make you somewhat less happy than saying no. What would you say? I would say yes without question. My curiosity is more important than my happiness.

Say that tonight, Beelzebub appears in your room and offers to take 50 points off your IQ in exchange for serene ignorance of all that goes on around you. You will live out the remainder of your life in physical comfort and absolute, beatific bliss in a centre for the severely disabled. What would you say? I would say no, without question. My ability to perceive the world is more important than my happiness.

I use the metaphors of knowledge and curiosity because I expect they will appeal to your sensibilities. The set of priorities that led me to becoming a parent is unique to me, and I doubt you would find it convincing, so I will not spend time typing it out. But perhaps the metaphor will open your mind to the idea that happy is not always the best thing you can be.

[deltaonefour]

Your metaphor has not convinced me because I would choose no. I'd rather be happy then smart. But I get what your saying.

But here's the thing. I cannot be happy knowing that I made that choice. I have to be completely unaware that I chose to be stupid. Total ignorance is bliss.

Anyway. What you chose not to type out is literally what I'm trying to understand. It's fine though, I think it's likely hard for you to pinpoint what it is in words. We can leave it at that unless you think up another way to say it. Thank you again for the metaphor.