Ask HN: What are the benefits to having children nowadays?

[sforza]

given that, in 2022:

    both parents will need to work to fund raising a child, so the mother necessarily has to do 1.5 or 2 full-time jobs

    grandparents most likely don't live in the same city so you're reliant on strangers to raise your children

    increased risk of autism / ADD / lack of focus because of the internet

    the world is already over-populated, and however hard it is for you to compete with your peers, it'll be even harder for your children

    etc etc etc (to name but a few)

I'm looking for new perspectives on why one should choose to procreate nowadays. I'm less interested in parents trying to rationalize what deep down they know was a bad decision, the perpetual "oh but I'd do it all over again" thing when clearly their life is a lot of worse and they're full of regret.

[nerbert]

OP asked for the benefits, no cost-benefit analysis. So here are a few items:

- Family time is enjoyable, certainly helps cut down social media addiction and replace it with something meaningful (unless your perspective is that you'll die anyway so nothign is meaningful, but then you have other issues).

- Having kids forces me to push myself to be better, control my emotions, be a role model that inspires my kids. Without kids, I would find it harder to have such a clear drive to consistently be the best of myself every day.

- Kids are not independent. A priority that tops everything else shifts your perspective from you being at the center of your world to something else. That something else is fragile, needs care. That helps bring focus, consistency and growth to everyday life.

- Helping someone discover new things brings me joy. I can do that almost every week with my kids and I love it.

Does that make it a good choice in terms of cost/benefits? Depends who you are and how you see your life I guess?

Edit: reading another comment - the list about is indeed a descriptions of the symptoms of what it takes to bring joy and happiness to a new counsciousness in this world. I like the perspective of that other comment and wanted to highlight it too.

[sforza]

I appreciate this answer because it does make me think twice about my own views.

[Someone1234]

This isn't a good faith question. You start with a bunch of unsupportable supposition and then ask us to defend it. If the assumptions this question are based on aren't accurate, then all you're really doing here is throwing stuff at the wall and asking other people to unstick it.

So that's my "answer": You created a baseless hypothetical. The hypothetical itself is the problem here, not the concept of kids. Nobody can name benefits that outweigh the "costs" here because the costs are complete fiction and designed to be insurmountable.

[silicon2401]

This sounds like a response from someone who takes for granted that kids are good. The OP just asked what the benefits are to having kids, with some reasons given for why he doesn't see the idea as positive. If you think this post is biased you should try going through life as someone who doesn't want kids, people really take it personally when you say you're not interested in the idea

[Someone1234]

This is a response from someone who has been in too many online discussions, and knows when the question/supposition is pinned in such a way to essentially make good faith discussion surrounding it impossible.

In this case the OP made a bunch of claims which they cannot support, and then wants people to defend those claims/find counter-benefits to offset them. They've essentially pinned the discussion so that it wastes a bunch of time, and so their preconceived notions cannot be undercut.

If people want to have a good faith discussion about the positive/negatives, then that is certainly possible, but OP poisoned the well, so it is unlikely to be possible here.

[silicon2401]

What an oddly paranoid take on the thread. OP literally just said he's looking for new perspectives, because X has led him to his current perspective. I disagree completely that he did anything in poor faith; I think that you're just disregarding the question of "What are the benefits to having kids" outright, rather than take it seriously, which is my response as someone who has been in many online and in-person discussions about the idea of not having kids.

[sforza]

Indeed. And why did the mods flag my thread?

[honkdaddy]

Flags aren't done by the mods, they're applied by other users who find that the post or your conduct go against the spirit of the site.

[polotics]

I dont known about the poster, but me personally I do remember having been a kid, meaning someone made a different calculation. Past performance is no indication of future returns I guess...

[LewisVerstappen]

It depends entirely on your perspective of the world.

Your perspectives seem incredibly negative and you seem to be super pessimistic about your future & the world's future, so it makes sense for you.

Other people have optimistic perspectives about their own future (making more than enough money in the future, building a social circle and "competing with their peers" ~ not sure what this means & how you're competing with your peers) so it makes sense for them to have children.

[sforza]

I mean, if you want the kind of job that can afford the house with the white picket fence and 2.5 children (and not putting yourself into dangerous levels of debt), the level of competition for such a job is fierce.

[LewisVerstappen]

That's not true in the slightest. In fact, it's far, far easier to make money now with the internet. You can build a tool and have millions of people use it instantly and there are far more ways to make $ than ever (creator economy).

Just look on twitter and you'll find loads of 20 year olds making 6 figures out of their college dorms with different kinds of internet products. I saw a thread yesterday from some 19 year old kid who makes $30k a month selling notion templates.

This all is totally possible to do if you're willing to spend 1-2 years learning how to do it. It's even easier to do if you're an engineer (you can rapidly iterate & develop new products)

You have an abundance of FAANG jobs that pay 6 figures and now many of these positions are being offered remotely. You just have to spend 3-4 months learning LeetCode stuff (yes, it's definitely a pain but it 100% beats wasting 2 years on an MBA or something).

Edit:

I'm not talking about everyone in the world. There are definitely billions of people in low-income countries in Africa/Asia who don't have these opportunities unfortunately.

This comment was meant more towards your average HN reader (technical background, living in a rich western nation, etc.) I thought that's who the OP was asking.

[silicon2401]

This comment is incredibly utopian lol. I wonder where you're coming from to think these claims are reasonable. The kids who make it big with startups or some really smart people who can get a job at faang in less than half a year are a tiny fraction of the population

[LewisVerstappen]

I run an email newsletter with 30k+ readers and currently do 6 figures annually in revenue with a very predictable path to 7 figures in revenue (just reinvest all the revenue into ads lol). I've seen firsthand what it takes to grow an audience having done so myself (first 25k subs were all organic).

I'm also really really dumb. It's honestly just write a lot of content, make each post 1% better than the last one, and figure out a solid distribution channel.

I've also watched a lot of content on how to grow on other social platforms. Colin and Samir's podcast is amazing for YouTube.

Everyone says the same thing lol. Building an audience online is far more deterministic than people think.

> really smart people who can get a job at faang in less than half a year

Yeah, I didn't mean go from 0 coding knowledge -> Facebook. I meant you're working as a software engineer at a smaller company and want to get a job at FB.

[silicon2401]

> I run an email newsletter with 30k+ readers and currently do 6 figures annually in revenue with a very predictable path to 7 figures in revenue (just reinvest all the revenue into ads lol). I've seen firsthand what it takes to grow an audience having done so myself (first 25k subs were all organic). > I'm also really really dumb. It's honestly just write a lot of content, make each post 1% better than the last one, and figure out a solid distribution channel.

People treat intelligence the same way they do wealth: nobody likes to admit how high they are on the ladder. You say you're dumb despite being obviously intelligent. I've met lots of very wealthy people (multiple houses, fancy vacations, etc) who claim they're not rich. If you're dumb, what do you call people who are significantly less intelligent than you? Is there even a word for such a level of profound lack in mental abilities? I'm glad your business is successful but you are definitely an outlier in terms of identifying and executing on ideas, not nearly the norm.

> Yeah, I didn't mean go from 0 coding knowledge -> Facebook. I meant you're working as a software engineer at a smaller company and want to get a job at FB.

That's also not trivial. Very intelligent people get rejected from FAANG companies all the time. If getting a FAANG job is anywhere near easy for you then that only emphasizes how out of touch you are with regular people, or how much you're intentionally downplaying your own intelligence. In a word, utopian, because the vast majority of people are not remotely capable of getting into a FAANG or starting a 7-figure business

[david422]

Is it? I expect those are only the top x%.

[LewisVerstappen]

100%. It's totally deterministic. You just have to put in the time (1-2 years) to learn how the algorithms work, monetization, etc.

I'm not really interested in getting into an argument about whether or not it's possible, since I don't think I'll change your mind and I don't think you'll change mind.

[falcolas]

It's worth remembering that only about 5% of the population† can even complete a task - like looking for a job - wholly online. It's not a skillset the general population has. And you need that skillset before you can even think about programming languages, mathematics, algorithms, etc.

†https://goingdigital.oecd.org/indicator/24

[sforza]

Exactly the point I was trying to make in the OP.

[replicatorblog]

My nine-year-old daughter has had cancer and been diagnosed with epilepsy and high-functioning autism. Despite these challenges...

+ Being a parent is fun. Kids are super funny. Teaching them stuff is a treat, and seeing their interests emerge is a wonderful feeling. Assuming you love your spouse, you get to see this chimera of the best parts of you and your partner walking around in the world.

+ Kids are also familial and social glue. Even if you live a ways from parents, it's an easy excuse to stay in touch, a place to plan trips. One of the crazy things that as your kids grow they look and sound like different relatives. It's a cool experience.

+ Selfishly, it's nice knowing you'll have some influence on the world, no matter how small, after you pass.

I'm know some childless billionaires and honestly I wouldn't trade the decade-long headstart I've had with my daughter and her brother for all their worldly fun. Everything people say about parenting being the best thing you'll ever do is right – and they're underselling it.

FWIW, I understand the cynicism. You seem like someone who has suffered through tough times. I hope you find peace.

[Balgair]

Sorry to hear about your daughter, I hope she gets better.

Fuck Cancer.

[replicatorblog]

Thanks! She'll be five years post-treatment in November, so we're blessed on that front!

[yesenadam]

A lot of people have children because they want to, they feel a desire to. Not because they "should" or have done a cost/benefit analysis.

I find that hard to fit into either of what I find your very unpleasant framings of the question:

> What are the benefits to having children nowadays?

> why one should choose to procreate nowadays

p.s. I'm 51. I don't have children - I've never felt the desire to, but figure I will have kids one day if I want to. I've always thought it would be better for kids if their parents felt like they wanted kids!

[silicon2401]

> I find that hard to fit into either of what I find your very unpleasant framings of the question:

Why do you find these questions unpleasant? Do you find it unpleasant to analyze the benefits of other life-changing, irrevocable decisions?

[frontman1988]

All reasons mentioned here seem pretty selfish. The thing about having a kid is that it's not just about you, but bringing into existence a complicated piece of consciousness who wouldn't have existed if you didn't procreate. Life is full of suffering. This is not something new, it's what the Buddha also observed 2500 years ago. And now with climate change and all it ain't gonna get any easier for the new generation. So it's a big decision to bring a life into this world. The pros and cons shouldn't just be about you but also the kid who you would bring into this world. Remember you have a lifetime of responsibility towards the kids, it's basically your fault that they even exist. You can't just throw them out at 18. Morally as a parent you are tied down to a lifetime of commitment towards the happiness of your progeny. Can you afford healthcare for your kid if they have some chronic lifelong disease? Can you get your kid married if they are not traditionally good looking? Basically can you afford to give your kid a good standard of living that makes life worth living? If yes please have kids, we need more of them.

[willcipriano]

> both parents will need to work to fund raising a child, so the mother necessarily has to do 1.5 or 2 full-time jobs

Doesn't need to be true. A woman can take a year off or so to breastfeed and recover from the birth, at that point you can send the kid to daycare and split the child care duties. In my house my wife prefers the child care stuff so I pitch in by doing most of the other household chores, but since my daughter was 1 I've changed as many diapers as she has. Really she doesn't have to work, but she didn't like staying home with the kid and the household budget we would have to meet for that to work out.

> grandparents most likely don't live in the same city so you're reliant on strangers to raise your children

This part sucks, I agree.

> increased risk of autism / ADD / lack of focus because of the internet

You choose what your children get to do in their free time. It's really easy to sit them down with a tablet and walk away, but nobody is forcing you to do it. There is an old saying, "You can be friends with your children when they are 14 or when they are 40, not both."

> the world is already over-populated, and however hard it is for you to compete with your peers, it'll be even harder for your children

It isn't overpopulated with people like your children will grow up to be. Children in the west benefit from public health measures and educational opportunities that will potentially enable them to be net contributors to solutions for overpopulation. The world can't be overpopulated with geniuses, with enough of them we can make new worlds.

[sforza]

> It isn't overpopulated with people like your children will grow up to be. Children in the west benefit from public health measures and educational opportunities that will potentially enable them to be net contributors to solutions for overpopulation. The world can't be overpopulated with geniuses, with enough of them we can make new worlds.

Yes but given that unintelligent people are multiplying themselves at a much faster rate than intelligent people, do you really think your one or two intelligent children will have much of an impact on the world? It's wishful thinking.

[RhysU]

> "You can be friends with your children when they are 14 or when they are 40, not both."

A friend recently taught me:

If you raise your children you can spoil your grandchildren. If you spoil your children you will raise your grandchildren.

[toomuchtodo]

They’re a luxury good. Decide if that’s the luxury you’re interested in, why, and if you’re willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for each one.

People who don’t have kids have low regret rates not having them. People who do have them either won’t share their regret having had them, or genuinely enjoy the experience. Do what you think is best for you, and own the decision once made.

[david422]

I think that, even though it's an odd question, it's a fair question. But I'll try to answer a different question:

Having kids means that your life is no longer yours - your kids become the primary focus. When you cannot complete a 20 minute task uninterrupted because your kids require your attention. Or the only free time you get is at 9pm and you're ready for bed. At least for the first few years.

So if you are asking what are the benefits - there are benefits as some other posters commented. But if you are asking the question, it's probably not the right choice for you.

For instance, asking others what the benefits are to getting a dog. Yes, there are benefits, but if you haven't reached the point of wanting a dog simply because you want a dog, then getting a dog probably isn't the right choice.

[silicon2401]

> Yes, there are benefits, but if you haven't reached the point of wanting a dog simply because you want a dog, then getting a dog probably isn't the right choice.

Do you make all major life decisions in this way, i.e. just wanting something because you want it? Would you encourage someone who's violent and abusive have kids just because they want them, too? It's a genuine question because it's shockingly unrelatable to me. Everything from my diet to my career to my friends and hobbies goes through a cost-benefit analysis. This sometimes surprises people, but I'm surprised how often people are stuck in situations like an abusive relationship precisely because they act on emotional impulse rather than analyzing whether or not they should want something.

[david422]

Wanting something is the prerequisite for then continuing further. Kids aren't something you can do a cost-benefit analysis for and then change your mind.

[silicon2401]

Is that true for you? I've changed my mind about major things in my life through cost-benefit analyses.

[falcolas]

> I'm looking for new perspectives on why one should choose to procreate nowadays.

When I look at it clinically, whether or not to have children feels pretty much like a selfish decision these days; everything is about the parent's fullfilment/needs, not the childs. Perhaps it always has been: free labor for the farm/factory/shop, carrying on the family name and/or genetic legacy, and free care in your dotage.

Since none of these applied to me or my wife, and I know I wouldn't have been a good parent (something indirectly validated by helping to raise nieces and nephews), we're not parents. No regrets so far.

[clownworldclown]

Every reason you've listed is either wrong or avoidable.

Deep down, you don't want children. If you figure out the reason why and cut through your social-programming, then you'll have them.

Otherwise, thanks for playing!

[dspillett]

> If you figure out the reason why and cut through your social-programming, then you'll have them.

This is as strongly biased as the original question, suggesting that not wanting kids is wrong and something that they should perhaps seek to correct.

I'm pretty definitely secure in the feeling that I don't want my own kids or to raise someone else's. I don't consider others wrong for wanting descendents for whatever reason they do¹, while they sometimes take issue with my lack of desire in the matter. And being male I have it easier: not wanting a family seems more acceptable for us, were some female friends of mine are regularly nagged about it and even sometimes called selfish⁴. The “selfish” insult has always bemused me: we aren't begrudging the taxes that go into services to help parents and educate children, so we are net creators of resource rather than selfishly taking that which someone else might need/want.

----

[1] Though I question some more specifically: those taking on the responsibility² when they are not really ready or well resourced for it³

[2] I'm only considering those who plan parenthood here, or those who knowingly take actions that might result in it, not those who find themselves in that situation because of circumstances beyond their control

[3] Particularly those that already have families they struggle to support and intentionally have more

[4] Amongst other insults.

[sforza]

Here again I ask - what are the reasons?!

[honkdaddy]

I don't think anyone's going to argue with you about the points you listed out. People who genuinely want children don't go through exercises like this; the fact you've made this post at all makes it abundantly clear that your decision has already been made.

[agent008t]

I disagree. For example, let us consider someone who has not considered getting a cat or thinks that there are no benefits to living with a cat. They asked people living with cats for advice, just like OP. A reasonable cat housemate would not say "people who genuinely want cats don't go through exercises like this; the fact you've made this post at all makes it abundantly clear that your decision has already been made". What would they say instead?

1. Spend some time with someone who lives with a cat and loves it. Watch them interacting with cats and have them teach you how to communicate with cats, play with them and understand them and be understood by them. Hopefully this will get rid of preconceived notions of what cats are like and teach you, vicariously, the joys of cat companionship.

2. Ask to look after a friend's cat that you are OK with for 2-3 weeks, while they go on holiday etc. Have the cat move in with you for that time period and try to make friends. You will probably have a decent idea then if living with a cat will make your life better or not.

Now, of course, they would also make you aware of the downsides. It is difficult to travel, especially during busy periods like Christmas, as you have to find someone to look after the cat. They make wake you up at night or scratch you at times. Looking after them and playing with them is an additional time commitment. Unfortunately, chances are you will outlive them. But they would also inform you of the benefits (that you would've experienced when living with a cat for 3 weeks) and let you decide if the benefits outweigh the costs for you: cats are funny, furry independent creatures; they warm the soul. Etc. etc.

So why does it not work the same way with children? "Look after a friends' children for 3 weeks while their parents go on holidays, and you will experience the joys and know if they outweigh the negatives" seems to never be mentioned.

[silicon2401]

The OP somewhat hinted at it in his question: lots of people's lives are made worse by having kids, but they wouldn't be able to live life if they accepted that reality. Society would shame them, their family would shame them, their children would be hurt, and they would have to live life knowing they made a mistake. It's easier to believe that it's 100% a good thing without any downsides and everybody should do it. The giveaway is not that they say everyone should try it (which also applies to cats, travel, etc), the giveaway is when they say nobody would be better without kids. That's a ridiculously improbable claim, but it's the basis for most people who say everyone should do it

[honkdaddy]

That's a good analogue, maybe the OP will find some wisdom in what you wrote. Personally though, after reading her responses, I think she's just here to argue. Maybe a cat would be a better option after all :)

[dspillett]

> makes it abundantly clear that your decision has already been made

That doesn't make it wrong to ask why others make a different decision. Should seeking empathy not be applauded?

Yes, the question does imply, almost aggressively so, a certain bias, but perhaps it would be better if you were not to discourage the desire to understand by unnecessarily responding in kind.

[FWIW: I also have no intention of procreating, but I understand at least some of the reasons that many take the opposing view]

[programmarchy]

Why should seeking empathy be applauded? The value of having children and the value of having empathy are grounded in the same traditional morality. In discarding that tradition whether in part or in whole, there’s no reason to value empathy — it’s just another subjective belief some people hold.

[dspillett]

> Why should seeking empathy be applauded?

Because "I don't agree so you point of view is objectively wrong and I don't care to try understand it" is a far worse attitude?

> The value of having children and the value of having empathy are grounded in the same traditional morality

I can't say I agree with that at all. Apart from the superficial (they are both traditional/old ideals) what do you think is their common source?

To say we can't keep one old ideal because we question another seems unhelpfuly dogmatic, unless I'm missing some subtlety, and demonstrably wrong: large parts of society have moved away from some traditional ideals without having to abandon all others.

[pmichaud]

The real answer about why people in general have children isn’t formatted like a “reason.” There’s a primal drive in most people, a kind of psychosomatic/biological imperative that drives them (to great lengths, when necessary) to have kids. That’s the real answer, and none of what you listed in the OP, including the maybe kind of true things, are a crux for that imperative.

[frontman1988]

The primal drive is only of sex. Most people throughout history wanted sex, not babies. But now with birth control people have the choice. It's the reason why the fertility rate is declining in most developed countries. I think if birth control existed in the time of Jesus, then also a large majority of people would have chosen to be childfree or have only 1-2 kids

[pmichaud]

I think sex is a tightly related primal drive, but no, I think literally children is something similar, mostly for slightly older people, mostly women, but with plenty of young people and men feeling it too. I know a lot of people like this, it seems to come in a wave at a certain life stage.

[dementiapatien]

>The primal drive is only of sex.

What about people who turn down sex when they know the other party can't have kids?

[agent008t]

Is there a primal drive in most people though? I do not think any of my friends in high school or in college had any great longing of becoming a father - did you? They had plenty of other drives, though. So if this primal drive you speak of exists, it must somehow appear out of seemingly nowhere - indeed out of aversion - after one's mid 20. And the mechanism for that eludes me. What sort of hormonal changes lead to it? Is it a gradual change, or do you wake up one morning and think 'God, you know what I'd really love? To be looking after a baby!'

[sforza]

Indeed. We all know that what really happens is the majority of women want children and their men simply go along with it.

[pmichaud]

I do think it's related to age, and appears "out of nowhere." A lot of people describe it as "waking up one morning, and..." I don't know the mechanism, but sure, it might be hormonal.

[clownworldclown]

You can't expect others to hand on a silver platter the reasons for you and your progeny's existence!

[pastaguy1]

The really good parts of having children are really difficult to convey, IMO, so viewing the decision as a pros/cons list (which is a highly objective, concrete thing), is usually a losing battle. There are always plenty of reasons not to do it, that's basically undeniable.

[humblefactory]

I'm not going to spend much time on your claims, but I agree with most of your critics here that they are not well formed.

I'm a dad who decided with my partner to have our first kid, and then they turned out to be triplets. Just for context.

All of the things listed by parent below resonated with me. Here are a couple additional ones I didn't see:

1)Kids are an amazing lens through which to see the world brand new. Even spending time with a kid (not even yours) will let you discover new things your jaded grown-up brain has missed.

2)Moreover, society needs young people for this reason. As we get older we get less flexible in our thinking, less effusive in our ability to love, less hallucinatory in our creativity (all of which are important for running companies, governments, societies, etc.) Kids and teenagers (who are like kids matured in a cheese cave so their flavors and smells get more complicated) bring radicality and imagination back to society. If you're thinking about using hallucinogens to change your perspective as an older person, consider that kids/young folks basically bring this energy to the party without the drugs.

Robin Wall Kimmerer writes in "Braiding sweet grass" about how many indigenous societies around the world recognize the separate "wisdom of toddlers" and "wisdom of teens" - I feel like we need to talk about this more.

[motohagiography]

Imo, your children are the beings you can share the most of your own experience of the world with, and that's a pretty good reason. Arguments about having kids being an expression of ego and conceits are both limited and misleading.

As a man still open to having kids, I've come to believe that the internet imbues us with contempt for one other via a kind of false familiarity, and it's also a source of literal mind viruses that make mutual trust and respect very difficult to maintain in the face of aligning to increasingly absurd narratives we think we need to support. It's a form of captivity, and almost nothing in nature breeds in it. I'm certainly guilty of it as well. Biologically, only a fraction of a given population reproduces anyway, and it's neither here nor there whether one does so or not, but evolutionarily selecting out over something we read on the internet seems like an avoidable fate.

I still believe kids are worth the challenges of sustaining an intact nuclear home for them, but I'd enter into it the way I have other things, which is that they will also cost almost everything, but it's a bet on ourselves and the hope of making and then being a part of a life. It's not a rational decision, which I think is the point. If it were, our species would have died out millenia ago.

[technothrasher]

> when clearly their life is a lot of worse and they're full of regret.

Well I can’t give you any reason why you should have children, but my life isn’t in any way worse for having a child, and while I certainly have regrets in life, my son isn’t one of them. Ymmv.

[Dudeman112]

You'll find that most decisions aren't made as a result of deliberate thought

As far as I have seen people mainly pop kids because they want to (the same way people who are hungry want food regardless of any knowledge about nutrition), because they want their kids to deal with their old age crap instead of dealing with it on their own, or because it's the usual path laid by the environment

If you don't wanna drink soda then just don't drink it

[treyfitty]

It’s one of the most rewarding aspects to my life right now. It’s a long term play and I hope I get to lay in my deathbed proud of my children. That’s really it…

[unrestifarian]

Sounds like you're a dude with sexist assumptions about parenthood: "the mother necessarily has to do 1.5 or 2 full-time jobs."

I'm a dad with two kids and it's fair to do that my wife AND i both have 2 full time jobs: yes, as a man, I do laundry, bathe the kids, put them to bed, drive them to activities, cook, do dishes - as much as she does (some more, some less but it evens out). Welcome to the 21st century - turns out parenthood can be 'man's work' just as much as it can be 'woman's work.'

Onward from that initial poor and sexist assumption. . .

If you want to read up on the empirical reasons for having kids based on 'happiness' as the criterion, check out 'Stumbling on Happiness.' In that book, it documents that, yes, parents are overall less happy than non-parents (moment-to-moment).

Despite this fact parents arguably can have deeper moments of happiness (however less infrequent).

As my mom once said wisely - "no one ever reasonably decides to have kids."

If you're using reason and rationality as deciders, most likely you won't have kids. . .and that's fine since our planet seems pretty full and humans consume way too much.

[sforza]

You're sexist if you assume I'm a dude. I'm a woman. I actually think that gives my OP more weight.

[silicon2401]

To even ask the question is to misunderstand what drives most people to have kids. The reason they do it is the same reason they do anything: because they feel the need to. I won't have kids because I look at the pros and cons and the idea simply doesn't outweigh the cons. Some people are attached to things like the idea of passing on their genes, having someone to care for, having someone to care for them in their old age, not being lonely, giving their life purpose. If you don't care about those things then having children loses a lot of value.

Unfortunately you're seeing in this thread a reflection of how the world reacts to people who don't want kids. People are incredibly shameless about how intolerant they are towards the idea and shameless in how they stigmatize not having kids: for example saying "you're not ready to be a parent", assuming that being a parent is something that should even be done in the first place, rather than sincerely discussing whether or not being a parent is best for a particular person

[mjdesa]

> the world is already over-populated, and however hard it is for you to compete with your peers, it'll be even harder for your children

I’m not sure this is true. Most modern economies in the world have a declining birth rate.

My perspective on children has changed recently. We need more people and in the world to solve the problems that we’ve created. We don’t know if life exists outside of the earth and I want living things to thrive, and for that to be the case, I think we need more people.

[igetspam]

Don't do it. I did. It didn't improve my life. It did make it harder. Have kids if you want them. Don't if you don't. Don't ask the internet to tell you why you should or shouldn't have kids. I'd do it again and I have my reasons, which are very personal.

For what it's worth:

* My wife is the primary caretaker and doesn't have a paid job. I split as much of the parental load with her as possible.

* My grandparents pretty much all sucked and so do my kids'. They're fine. We do the child rearing and occasionally have a date, so we hire a babysitter.

* What increase? We've expanded the scope of autism and are better at detection. This feels like a wild claim.

* Is it? Or are pockets overpopulated? I don't think saving the planet (or continuing to destroy it) is as much a matter of population control as it is behavior. Kids skew more liberal than their parents, on average. Maybe they can unscrew this.

But seriously, don't do it. It doesn't sound like you want to or you wouldn't be looking to have your mind changed. For some people it's everything and for some it's genuinely a mistake that can't be undone. If you think it might be a mistake, stop.

[pfortuny]

Well, because having a child, a descendant is so much more than “procreating”.

And, apart from that, your

“ I'm less interested in parents trying to rationalize what deep down they know was a bad decision, the perpetual "oh but I'd do it all over again" thing when clearly their life is a lot of worse and they're full of regret.”

is very judgmental.

One can be happy in the midst of hardship, difficulty and pain.

One does not have a child because “it is a benefit”. Unless one just sees life as a costly game.

[sforza]

But you're not answering the question. How does "one can be happy in the midst of hardship, difficulty and pain" encourage one to have children? One can also be happy when there is no hardship, difficulty and pain...

[eej71]

I get the sense that you have ingested a lot of information that reinforces your world view of upcoming doom and negativity. The internet is good for that!

What books, ideas, authors and thinkers would you tune into to challenge that? For example, would you even consider Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now to challenge some of those premises?

[agent008t]

I would note that the grandparent was not disputing the upcoming 'hardship, difficulty and pain' (i.e. 'doom and negativity') that come with procreation, so at least that bit does not seem to be out of place.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

I am a parent and I'm not a hypocrite so obviously the reality isn't rosy at all. If you want to look for bad things, you can always find plenty of them. As for benefits, there are also a few. The most important one depends on whether you have a kind of higher goal beyond this life. If not, personally I wouldn't have a kid. Because the reality for all humans is the same: we are young, we have a lot of expectations, then we have to work to sustain ourselves, then we become older and older, get more ill, and finally die. So from the perspective of human life the end is never bright. But if you have a wider perspective, things get more interesting. And at this point having a kid makes sense. The negative aspects don't disappear, but there is more to gain (not for you, for the kid).

That said, having a kid is always a gamble. It may turn out they have a very bad character, some grave illness or other serious problems. We all gamble hoping it will happen to someone else, but there is no any guarantee. And if it happens to us, we basically have to live with it until the end, and frankly it's a miserable life.

[mcphage]

Because kids are awesome. It's great to watch them grow, and learn, and discover joy in the world. And watching them experience things for the first time brings back the happiness you felt when you first experienced those same things.

Raising them can be challenging, but kids themselves are great. "What's in it for me" isn't really a great question, though, since it's not about you.

[agent008t]

It obviously is about 'you', given that the children in question do not exist yet.

[mcphage]

The original question was—"what are the benefits to having children"... specifically, "what are the benefits [to me] to having children". That's what I'm responding to. "What do I get out of it" isn't the best way to evaluate having kids. You get something out of it, sure, but... it kinda misses the forest for the trees.

[sforza]

LOL. Indeed choosing to having children is arguably the most selfish decision one can make in their life.

[AnimalMuppet]

> I'm less interested in parents trying to rationalize what deep down they know was a bad decision, the perpetual "oh but I'd do it all over again" thing when clearly their life is a lot of worse and they're full of regret.

Kids have grown me as a person. They have made me much less selfish and self-centered than I was. (Kind of by necessity...) I am a better human being for having kids.

But if you've got a selfish and self-centered mindset, and you want me to justify having kids within that selfish mindset, I can't do it. "It will help you grow into someone less self-centered" isn't a reason that a person thinking in a self-centered way will accept.

But, for the record: It wasn't a bad decision. My life is not a lot worse, and I'm not full of regret. And don't presume that I'm rationalizing - that's you trying to rationalize my life to make it fit in your existing view.

[programmarchy]

I'd suggest reading The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis for a short but succinct alternative viewpoint. It's not specifically about whether or not to have children, but it talks about what connects the visceral aspect of man with the rational aspect, which is something you seem to be having difficulty reconciling.

But, let's set that aside for a moment. Assuming you believe in evolution and natural selection, you know that every environment has stressors and great filters. With life existing on Earth for 4.5 billion years, do you really want to be the evolutionary dead end of all the ancestors who came before you? In the great dance of life, are you the dodo bird?

[sforza]

There's plenty of others who'll do it for me!

[jjgreen]

Because the world is going to hell in a hand-basket, and no-one else is going to look after you when you get old? (i.e., the original reason for having kids).

It it worth noting, I don't have kids (don't like them, they have no conversation)

[nsxwolf]

I would like to point out that you absolutely can have conversations with your children.

[jjgreen]

Arguable, "why are lions?" does not constitute a conversation to me.

[bit of an obscure reference there, see "The Safari Park" episode of "The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin" http://www.leonardrossiter.com/reginaldperrin/Scripts1.html#... ]

[sforza]

But arguably if you remain childfree you'll be able to throw money at the problem - you can afford a luxury nursing home.

[Balgair]

I've had a few extended family members who tried the 'money will take care of me' route. So, small sample size warning.

It doesn't work out well.

The people in the nursing homes/hospice still are only their to be paid. They don't care about you deep down.

So, things like bedsores are allowed to fester, cancer diagnoses come a bit later than you'd like, loneliness sets it (especially during covid), your diapers aren't changed all that much, you get sent out to the ER even for little things, etc. Your care is, essentially, being chosen by a lawyer and then enacted by a low paid employee who would like a real career where they don't treat old crazy people like babies.

Sure, you can choose a super luxe home to the tune of ~$50k/mo. I had an extended relative that was on a great series of pensions (guaranteed income) and was in a home that was costing ~$25k/mo. They were there for ~15 years. It still didn't go all that well and the family was called in at least twice a week to help out with things. Other people there without family nearby, let alone any at all, didn't fair nearly was well, typically 2-3 years. Then covid hit, and all hell broke loose for everyone.

If you don't have someone watching out for you that really does care for you, you're going to be treated poorly. Especially if you develop any mental problems in your old age.

You don't have to have kiddos, but you do have to have someone out there nearby who really will get out of bed at 3am for the third time this month to come help you when you're blind and demented to physically lift you up and wipe your incontinence off.

[silicon2401]

> If you don't have someone watching out for you that really does care for you, you're going to be treated poorly. Especially if you develop any mental problems in your old age.

Kids won't always do this. In fact it's possible for kids to be the ones treating you poorly in your old age, and it happens more often than people like to admit.

> You don't have to have kiddos, but you do have to have someone out there nearby who really will get out of bed at 3am for the third time this month to come help you when you're blind and demented to physically lift you up and wipe your incontinence off.

Again, you're making a huge assumption that if you have kids, they will be caring. Maybe you've never seen people whose kids are nasty or simply uncaring, but anybody who has kids is making that gamble.

[Balgair]

Oh sure, of course.

But if you're the one raising them, you've got a hell of a way to bias that coin flip. Or, to extend the metaphor, mint new coins.

[silicon2401]

That's a mighty risk to take when there are countless other things to do with one's life. Lots of people would be happier taking a coin flip where the stakes aren't so high.

[agent008t]

When blind and demented, the only help one would probably need is to cease to be.

[Balgair]

You'd think that when healthy and of able mind.

But as life slides towards that state, it's amazing how people still find very good reasons to stick around. It's strange to us, but even blind and demented, life is still worth living.

In my little bit on experience, the only thing that makes life not worth living seems to be pain. When we're in a lot of pain, then people tend to opt out of living. But until there is pain, there's still something in life that makes it all worthwhile.

[stocknoob]

And it’s cruel to bring someone into existence to be your caretaker. And then they’re forced to have kids to take care of them? It’s a Ponzi scheme.

[sforza]

Not sure why this is being downvoted. People who have children just so they have someone to take care of them need to be downvoted into oblivion.

[uberman]

How long do you imagine $300k (the average cost to raise a kid) will last you in a luxury nursing home?

[sforza]

We all know that $300k is nowhere near how much it takes to raise a child.

[hotpotamus]

What's funny is that I can't tell whether you think $300K is high or low, and to me the number sounds about right.

That said, I'll throw in my two cents here because it's as good a place as any. Though I have internal conflict on the whole issue of having children, I have to say that treating them as a means of investment for old age care has two issues - one, it seems kind of like a dick move to them, and two, it's far from guaranteed; they could have their own ideas.

[agent008t]

300K would barely cover the cost of an extra bedroom per child. Let alone the fact that some places around the world require one to send their child to private school, fund university costs etc.

[uberman]

That or something close to it is what comes up if you search average cost to raise a child. So clearly some popular opinion holds this to be true. If you would like to offer some other number you feel you can defend, I'll be happy to talk about it some more. Let's say you come up with a number like 500k. That will not last you a year at a luxury assisted living facility.

Forgoing children is no guarantee of a luxury lifestyle nor grant you a luxury stay during your twilight years.

[kova12]

You are a result of countless generations of people, each one took their time to procreate, and this is how you ended up with your life. That's the gift you got for free to use and enjoy, and arguably to procreate is the only thing those generations are asking of you. You think you got it bad now? People were raising children without access to most basic necessities. You got it all these days, and looking for an excuse to not have to continue the lineage is pathetic

[anon2020dot00]

Simple answer is that a lot of people enjoy having kids around. Most people would rather be living with a loving wife and kids especially in their fifties or above instead of living alone or with just a husband/wife; I say most since of course there are exceptions.

For a person in twenties or thirties, kids are often a far off idea since happy to just focus on work and gain independence and having money but source of satisfaction change I would think for most as they get older.

[agent008t]

But yet, if you do have children, you would do it precisely in your 20s and 30s. So by the time you are 50 you will still be living alone or with just a husband/wife.

[anon2020dot00]

Some people grew-up in happy families and so have happy family memories. As kids, they enjoyed spending time with their parents and as adults they envision enjoying time with their kids and so they conceive them.

People are social animals and that's the reason we spend time in Hacker News. No person no matter how introverted enjoys being alone all of the time; some people get their most enjoyable social interaction with their own family.

[groffee]

If you need to ask you're not ready to be a parent.

[sforza]

Nonsense answer. Implies that wanting to have children is the correct choice.

[bdbz]

Not everything in life can be quantified. Having children causes a major change in one’s value system.

One could argue that it doesn’t make any sense to have children. It is more work, costs more money, and can cause more stress at times.

But people still do it. People still say it is worth it.

I for one never thought I would have children, but I cannot imagine my life without them.

[nurettin]

>> looking for new perspectives on why one should choose to procreate nowadays

Your partner may want it, your parents may want it, no circumstances change the biological need to procreate.

Also, people do it during war, during draught, during ice age and on falling planes. You doomers aren't living in the end times. This isn't even close.

[mcphage]

> and on falling planes

I'd like to hear more about this one.

[nonameiguess]

Honestly, the biggest thing as far as I'm concerned is basic categorical imperative/collective action stuff. Unless you think expediting human extinction is a good thing, someone has to have children. Not doing it isn't a universalizable behavior. It doesn't mean every single adult in existence has to procreate, but the baseline expectation if we want humanity to survive is that most do. Thinking of it in terms of personal benefit is the wrong way to look at it.

For what it's worth, I'm in my 40s and don't have children and likely never will, though I do hope to adopt. In my case, I'm a man, can't have children because of that, and my wife didn't want to for various reasons. It's ultimately up to her, and I'd rather adopt than divorce her. Is that a good enough reason? I don't know. But I don't personally see anything about the world and it's future making it bad enough that future human existence isn't worth it. I plan to continue existing as long as I can, and if I could exist long into the future, I would. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for new humans, too.

Also, my wife has ADHD, and as far as I can tell, her existence is still worthwhile. Not bringing people into the world because you fear they'll develop ADHD doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me. If you expect to pass on some congenital condition likely to result in a short life of nonstop suffering, sure, forego that. But I don't feel like the common diseases of affluence, i.e. anxiety, attention span disorders, obesity, make life not worth living. Humanity has some work to do in order to figure out how to reconcile our evolutionary history and learned behaviors and mental proclivities with a dramatically changed modern world, but we should actually do that work, not give up and end the human experiment.

[the_third_wave]

It sounds like you don't want to have children and are trying to justify that choice. While I can unequivocally state that I never had any regret having - as in fathering and raising - children I will not try to convince you of the error in your ways. If you don't want to have children, don't have them - it will give you the opportunity to dedicate your life to yourself and it will spare your not-to-be-born children a parent who regrets their appearance in their lives.

...or maybe... there is something beyond a life of self-indulgence after all? Maybe the sacrifice in time - which is the largest sacrifice, all that money-talk is secondary in my opinion - is worth the gains? You might have to skip a few festivals and you might not always have the latest iGadget but you will not miss these because you have far more interesting and challenging prospects, namely the raising of the next generation.

[silicon2401]

Have you ever imagined that someone who's infertile or lacks reproductive organs could be capable of equalling your worth as a human being? Or do you assume that in the absence of children, human beings are only capable of a life of hedonism and self-indulgence? Your comment is a great example of the unabashed stigmatization and intolerance towards people who don't have kids by many of those who do, who at the same time elevate themselves into something like saints just because they raised kids

[the_third_wave]

Put that straw man in the garden, it might scare off some birds. If the poster was infertile s/he'd have posed a different question - leaving it to the rest of the world to insinuate what motivation lies behind a question and to treat any other interpretation as "insensitive" or "stigmatisation" or what-have-you-not is just a way of putting up tripwires for people to stumble over. This happens all too often and should not be encouraged.

Honesty goes the furthest, whether in asking or in answering questions.

[nunez]

You focused so much on the strawman (infertility) that you forgot to answer the very real question right behind it (stigmatization of people who voluntarily choose to be child-free).

[the_third_wave]

The question which was not related to the one brought up here and only was used to initiate some blame-gaming? No, since it bears no relevance to the actual question I see no need to answer it. I'll stick to the subject at hand which was what are the benefits to having children.

[silicon2401]

I'm not convinced by your claims. The OP submitted a genuine question and it's obvious from the comments in this thread that people would rather react emotionally and bash somebody who has a non-conventional worldview than engage in a discussion.

[agent008t]

False dichotomy. Not procreating does not imply a life of self-indulgence. Just like choosing to not sleep 5 hours a night and getting a 2nd job during the freed up hours to donate the proceeds to charity or imposing any other needless hardship on yourself imply a life of self-indulgence.

[nunez]

"Error in your ways?" Are you serious?

It is totally possible to have a fulfilling life without children. My wife and I (both in our mid-30s) do it! Volunteering, exploring the world, good times with friends, tinkering, planting, side projects...

[aklemm]

Well, I didn’t fully mature until I had to care for a child; it’s a responsibility like no other. Then the next level beyond caring for them is fulfilling as well as you try to pass on the human experience a degree better than you had it.

[dragonwriter]

> both parents will need to work to fund raising a child, so the mother necessarily has to do 1.5 or 2 full-time jobs

Not necessarily true; previous income, lifestyle preferences, and assets all matter here.

> grandparents most likely don't live in the same city so you're reliant on strangers to raise your children

Not all people are “grandparents” or “strangers”. And the people involved in carrying for your children can very quickly stop being strangers even if they start out that way.

> increased risk of autism / ADD / lack of focus because of the internet

The internet doesn't cause Autism or AD(H)D.

> the world is already over-populated, and however hard it is for you to compete with your peers, it'll be even harder for your children

The world isn't overpopulated. Competition in capitalist economies may generally be exacerbated by various factors that concentrate rewards more over time, but there are enough other social forces at play that it's pretty hard to make any concrete prediction about prospects for any particular person's offspring a few decades down the road.

> I'm looking for new perspectives on why one should choose to procreate nowadays.

Why? This is so heavily dependent on your personal preferences and priorities that there isn't a whole lot of useful information directly on the question that anyone else can give you.

To the extent that there are beliefs on matters of fact underlying your existing position or questions of fact that would help resolve that position, that's probably a more valuable place to seek outside information than arguments directly for having children which necessarily presume a particular value framework which may or may not be yours.

[speedgoose]

It gives a meaning to your life, if work or saving the world is not doing it.

[sforza]

So then you choose to procreate to create meaning, and your child grows up, finds meaning lacking, and therefore chooses to procreate...

[klyrs]

You're mocking everybody who has responded in good faith to your question here. If this behavior is at all typical for you, don't have kids. Leave that to people who are gentle, selfless and kind.

[dspillett]

The other circle of life!

Society needs a new influx of kids all the time to replace those leaving or those looking after those soon to be leaving, so we have a biological drive to procreate like any other animal. Our use of technology and other knowledge to improve our survival rates has led to an over-population/resource-overuse issue, but that is a different discussion.

Our mental development means that we have other drives which can override the biological signals that tell us to procreate (or lead us to enjoy practise sessions and accidentally do the real thing!), or reduce the risk of unintended procreation, so unlike pretty much all the other life forms on the planet we don't have to.

If you don't want to, don't. Though if you have a partner who wants to, then things get more complicated, perhaps you are (no longer) well suited as partners?

[speedgoose]

Maybe they will prefer to focus on deploying kubernetes clusters or writing rust software over having a family.

[shahbaby]

Kids are a bad idea. This should be obvious but unfortunately it goes against our biological imperative.

The rich can afford to make bad choices. Everyone else needs to carefully weigh the pros and cons for themselves.

[brodouevencode]

> I'm less interested in parents trying to rationalize what deep down they know was a bad decision

You lost me here. You're not genuinely interested.

[hunglee2]

its quite possible there were never any rationalised benefits for having kids - we are motivated to have sex, and kids just happened as an outcome. Sexual revolution and the widespread use / availability of effective contraception is a very modern innovation in evolutionary terms - we might just be witnessing the revealed preference of humanity to have sex and not have kids

[jacknews]

I would say one benefit of having children is that you learn that life is not just a transaction.

[nsxwolf]

It's not supposed to benefit you - it's supposed to benefit them.

[lobocinza]

You get to live on after death.

[recursivedoubts]

if you are a darwinist, this question will quickly resolve itself at the species level

[yoav]

I don’t have kids and don’t want them. Like you I’ve also wondered about the question because I’ve never met someone who could directly answer your very basic question.

But I have been deciding if I want a dog recently and after reading through other replies I find the reasoning the same.

A dog is like a child that’s permanently stuck at 5.

They need to be fed and cleaned, they need to be walked multiple times a day and engaged with.

My cat who’s old has started meowing while standing next to the thing he wants recently. Food, hallway, balcony, fresh water, etc. he does this on a fairly predictable schedule.

I’m a person who’s schedule is rarely predictable (except for when I was younger and single and live a rolling 30 hour day).

I like having the cat, we’re best friends. But the part of having the cat be so needy is a nightmare for me. I haven’t had a good night’s sleep in months.

The meow he does now triggers some kind of paternal instinct in me that makes it impossible for me to just quickly finish my thought at work or whatever before getting up to serve him.

A dog would be even more needy because living in a big apartment they can’t get their exercise or bathroom needs met without me dropping everything to help them.

A child is even more needy, your sleep for several years is utterly destroyed, etc. and they tend to outlive you so the commitment is the longest of the three.

Your OP also doesn’t mention any of the horrific details of childbirth.

I’d never have kids for lots of reasons, the idea of putting my best friend through that horror makes it a nonstarter.

The real answer that people have kids are one or more of: 1. a mistake 2. their partner wants them so they go along with it 3. they’re convinced by social norms that they should 4. They have a basic drive to have children

Some of the people in the first 3 who didn’t have 4 may still have that drive kick in after they have kids. It didn’t happen for my parents but they’re malignant narcissists so it’s a different story.

Distilling what many other replies seem to be trying to express, in order to be a good parent you need stamina because so much of it is unpleasant.

The unpleasant parts can be rewarding or lead to personal growth so unpleasant may not be bad in of itself.

I’ve met people who join startups from FAANG and they’re overwhelmed with the demand and pace and they leave. And I’ve met people from all over who join startups and because the mission of what the startup is trying to achieve resonates with them as something bigger than themselves that will make the world a better place they embrace the pace and the need to go above and beyond.

I’ve been at startups where I didn’t sleep a lot because I was inspired or there was a critical deadline and needed to push something over the hill with the team to survive. Now later in my career I find it harder to get the same drive and satisfaction from that same sleep deprivation regardless of the reason.

People are blinded by the ambition, romance, comradely, accomplishing something difficult, etc. basically on an emotional level to overcome the turbulence of it.

If you’re looking to decide if you want to have kids or not, then not having some kind of drive makes it a gamble of whether you develop the drive after the fact or not. Without it there’s no set of clinical reasons that will make you choose to go through with it.

The idea that you have this choice is a privilege, many people have kids without it being a considered choice.

[platz]

re: addressing some of your assumptions/claims

Sabine Hossenfelder: Is Elon Musk right in saying that we are too few people? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1AaZ9OkH8

[_dain_]

>the world is already over-populated, and however hard it is for you to compete with your peers, it'll be even harder for your children

unhinged degrowth ideology

[andrewclunn]

Because the people who don't consider the long term ramifications of having children are still breeding, so the trajectory of humanity (compounded even more by social safety nets) is now toward R style reproduction (aka "spray and pray"). So if you are concerned about the future of humanity, having at least one child that you raise well (assuming you have no genetic diseases) is a large portion of your contribution to it.

[dragonwriter]

> Because the people who don't consider the long term ramifications of having children are still breeding, so the trajectory of humanity (compound even more by social safety nets) is now toward R style reproduction (aka "spray and pray").

Except that it's factually the opposite: numbers of children per family are declining, and that's especially the case in places with strong social safety nets because descendants are no longer the best form of old age insurance.

Humanity is becoming even more consistently k-strategist.

[andrewclunn]

Nope, that's just apologist rhetoric for the "all people are equal" religion that underlies our modern disfunction. Look who is and who is not having children in those societies. It is not evenly distributed. Of course admitting that publicly violates so many BS sacred cows that I have no doubt that you were the person who downvoted my comment prior to "refuting" it.

[throw93232]

Raising kids with remote work is easy and relatively affordable. If raised correctly, kids do not give much troubles.

Kids are handicap, but people tend to fill void with other handicaps (alcohol, chasing skirt...).

But it is big decision and very long run. You should not make any compromises on partner (even before you start). Marrying woman over 24, with debt or mental issues should be deal breaker.