[cedws]

>just like teenagers who think life is practically over by 40

Sorry but... it kind of is, no? You've probably got a family weighing you down so you can't travel anymore. You don't have the freedom to start new exciting ventures. You can't quit your sucky job because it supports your family. You go to parties that end at 9pm and your social gatherings consist of talking about traffic and grocery prices. You're probably married to someone you love and respect, but the flame isn't the same as what you once had.

Just my perspective as a 22 year old.

[bregma]

I'm in my 60s. The only downsides I see are a bit of stiffness in the morning and putting up with know-it-all 22-year-olds.

[c7DJTLrn]

Sorry for how my comment may have come off. I genuinely don't know what happy 40 year olds live like because I had a dysfunctional household. My impressions are based on what I hear from people around me like colleagues as well as social media. And it's usually miserable stuff.

[laratied]

You will get a ton of denial about this but you aren't wrong.

On the other hand it is really easy to not get married and not have kids. Then the equation is quite different. 40s and 50s isn't all that different than 22. I would even say better in most ways.

Your vision of marriage is even kind of romantic still. The married guys I know it is more like depression because of separation and knowing the wife is fucking a Tinder guy while your kid is sleeping in the next room. They even know her date outfit because she posts the picture on social media.

I have two friends right now that this is their exact life. One of them I thought was the absolute perfect couple at 30. Women know their value and aren't going to waste their life with the flame having gone out.

[colineartheta]

This reads comically incel-ish. “Women know their value”, like a self-respecting man doesn’t? Why aren’t your male friends doing the same thing, then? Life doesn’t end at 40, for either sex. With/without a family, married/divorced, the choice to develop and grow as a human is always your own.

[Der_Einzige]

The average man on HN has had far less sex than the average man. This is simply the fate of nerdy computer touchers and is why we get "incel content" here. In coding, you trade your sexual market value for actual money. It's a sad dynamic, and I think a little bit of "life imitating art" given that the "nerd jock" dynamics seem to be uniquely an American thing.

[inconceivable]

i'm 40 and i live like a rich 16 year old with no adult supervision. peter pan syndrome is always an option.

anyway, here's your real problem. you might want to figure out which older people in your life are poisoning your mind with their bullshit. having a family, or not, can be great and is always your choice. miserable people end up that way because they're living someone else's dream, not their own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection is a defence mechanism of alterity concerning "inside" content mistaken to be coming from the "outside"

[JohnBooty]

Of the many, many sibling comments: this is by far my favorite.

[argiopetech]

If you've done it right, by 40 you have children. If you've raised them right, they're fun to be with. Even if you haven't, they require enough out of you that you want to go to bed by 9. Social gatherings are about spending time with other families and letting your children play. Your partner is a collaborative team member in a complex dance, and while the passion for that person is not as fiery as the lust-fueled early days before you realized they were a real person with flaws, it's no less significant in magnitude.

Travel with a family takes more planning, but millions take significant road/flight/cruise trips every year. Budgeting (of money and, if applicable, vacation time) is key.

Changing jobs or starting ventures is similar. It's easier to get a job if you already have one, it's easier to survive a job change if you have savings. Planning remains key. It's not as low-risk as it would be for a bachelor(ette), but you have the time, stability, and mindset to start slow and minimize that risk as you go.

As your kids grow you have more time to pursue your interests. Eventually, if all goes well, you get the joy of grandchildren (all the fun of having children, but you can give them back). Retirement, if you've planned well and have your health, is a return to childhood (less money, more fun, most of your playmates are children [at least relative to your age]).

There are another 40 years after 40. Plan accordingly.

[sgjohnson]

> If you've done it right, by 40 you have children.

It’s also perfectly okay to not have children.

[argiopetech]

It's a valid life choice, of course, and you're free to make it. I'd not call it "perfect", though (and neither is choosing to have kids). It's all a matter of which trade-offs you prefer.

I like children, desire to pass my genes to the future, value the ability to raise my children to have an impact on the world somewhat in line with my perception of it (commensurate on their natural predilection to agree with me and act on that agreement), and want somebody to look after me and my affairs in my old age. I'm willing to accept the cost (in time, money, stress, reduced flexibility...) and responsibility in return. If you make the decision not to have kids, I hope you can say the same for your trade-offs.

[rrgok]

I'm sorry, maybe other people said the same thing. I didn't read the whole thread yet. I'm gonna pick you and the line "desire to pass my genes to the future". I'm gonna ask you some genuine questions about it, so please if you can I would appreciate your point of view.

What is this desire, how does it feel? I've never felt it.

Is it a thought process or do you feel it in your body? (like hunger, sexual attraction...).

Do you feel pain in your body (chest pain, knot in the throat..) if you think you cannot fulfill that desire?

How do you feel if you think about the fact that when you are dead, it just doesn't matter if you passed your gene or not? Isn't that desire just a rationalization/mental process vanishing in oblivion?

Where does that desire goes if you scale-up the total human species life-span? Would you feel happy that you will have grand-grand-grand children that you will never meet?

I've never felt the desire to pass my genes to anybody. I have sexual desire, does that mean I want to pass my genes? But I feel like, sexual desire is like taking a piss: I just release some build-up in my body. I cannot rationalize my peeing in: I have to pee, because that ensure my survival hence the succession of me gene. I feel the same of orgasm. It feels that thought process is forced and conditioned by society.

[JohnBooty]

We made the choice not to have children, but I do feel that desire to pass on my genes. What's it like?

   sexual desire is like taking a piss

I would say it's less of a basic biological desire like peeing or sneezing, and more like... esoteric/abstract concepts like "the desire to do good" or "the desire to achieve."

I realize it's not really a logical desire, and even though I do feel it, it's far from my highest priority and I've also chosen not to have kids for a variety of other reasons.

[rrgok]

I see, thank you for your point of view. There are times I feel lonely, even though I like to be alone most of the time, and when that happens I wonder if having a child would've changed anything.

It really must be an "abstract" feeling, because I cannot get to that feeling in any way.

[argiopetech]

No apology needed! I've not previously considered this in the depth needed to answer your question. I've tried my best to think seriously about your question and represent my true opinion faithfully, which has been a valuable exercise. I regret I haven't made it shorter, but 4 hours is about all I can afford to spend.

> What is this desire, how does it feel? I've never felt it.

> Is it a thought process or do you feel it in your body? (like hunger, sexual attraction...).

I know I can't live forever (and I wouldn't want to - mortality gives us purpose), but I feel I (along with everyone else) am an important part of solving a set of problems (meaning of life, best state of humanity, etc.) that may take infinite (or all we have) time. My impact on the world can be extended (perhaps indefinitely, certainly for as long as I will be aware of it) through my offspring.

I'm not a religious man, but it's what I would consider a religious feeling. It's a feeling clearer to me, having had children, than it was before them. I'm not sure I would have appreciated it in my early 20's, but a had an inkling of it by my late 20's.

I am (half of) the link between my and my wife's ancestors and our descendants. I'm the only one who can fill that role. Acknowledging this gives me a place in a grand narrative and drives my responsibility to my children to prepare them to take their place in the chain (even if that place is a dead end), with all that entails. Ignoring it prunes my branch of the tree.

I do think sexual desire is a base-level, noisy (in the same way that not all stomach pangs are hunger), subconscious drive to reproduce. We (like all living organisms) are a tool DNA uses to reproduce, and it's good at getting us to do stuff. I'd like to think my rationalization based on ancestry isn't a post-hoc result of that drive, but I can't be sure.

> Do you feel pain in your body (chest pain, knot in the throat..) if you think you cannot fulfill that desire?

I'm usually a fairly unemotional guy, so I tend not to feel (or, at least, not to notice) such things. Considering the death of my children can evoke a physical response, but that's more concrete. I do feel joy that I have the opportunity to fulfill my desire, so it may also be my optimistic nature masking the potential of tragedy. Ultimately, if my children fail to carry on the line (due to death or lack of desire), I will have done my part as a link in the chain to the best of my ability. I can be happy with that.

> How do you feel if you think about the fact that when you are dead, it just doesn't matter if you passed your gene or not? Isn't that desire just a rationalization/mental process vanishing in oblivion?

My father died when I was a teen, leaving 4 children. It may not matter to him now, but to us and the lives we touch daily it matters a great deal that he passed his genes first.

Ultimately, I'm not passing my genes on for my benefit. I'm doing it for my progeny's benefit and for the benefit of the impact they can have on the world in my stead.

> Where does that desire goes if you scale-up the total human species life-span? Would you feel happy that you will have grand-grand-grand children that you will never meet?

Of course! I know who my great-great grandparents were, roughly what their lives were like and some of the hardships they had to overcome, and I'm glad they lived and procreated so I could too. I'm the product of an unbroken line of millions (billions, if you want to consider the full history of DNA) of years of ancestors. It's a privilege to be a link in that chain for my descendants as well, even if I never meet the vast majority of them.

> I've never felt the desire to pass my genes to anybody. I have sexual desire, does that mean I want to pass my genes? But I feel like, sexual desire is like taking a piss: I just release some build-up in my body. I cannot rationalize my peeing in: I have to pee, because that ensure my survival hence the succession of me gene. I feel the same of orgasm. It feels that thought process is forced and conditioned by society.

I've observed (and experienced) that many men need till their late 20's to be ready for a committed relationship, and that a stable relationship makes them ready for kids. YMMV. Not everyone wants kids, and that's fine. Not everyone that wants kids gets the opportunity. That's less fine, but life's a bitch sometimes.

There is undoubtedly a societal bias, but which way it pushes differs based on who you ask. I don't feel I was strongly affected either way, nor pressured by family, friends, or spouse; so I'm fairly sure I've avoided that bias in this response.

[rrgok]

Thank you very much for taking the time. You've done more than enough. I will take my time to think about the things you wrote. There are a lot of interesting bits you wrote.

Thank you again!

[s_c_r]

I’m 37, married with two kids. Flying to Scotland for a week next Monday.

Life is what you make it. I’m happier than I was at 22, no question.

[rockbruno]

This sounds exactly what a 13 year old would say about life being over at 20. Or a 22 saying life is over a 40. Or a 40 saying life is over at 50. Or a 50 saying life is over at 60. See a pattern?

[tmtvl]

> Sorry but... it kind of is, no?

No.

> You've probably got a family weighing you down so you can't travel anymore.

Well...

1: Having a family is a choice people make, not everyone over the age of 40 has a family.

2: Just because someone can't travel doesn't mean per life is over.

3: It is (in many cases) entirely possible for someone over 40 to travel with per family.

4: People making the choice to have a family probably wouldn't call it "weighing down".

> You don't have the freedom to start new exciting ventures.

Define "exciting ventures" and explain why it isn't possible. There are many things that can be done as a person over the age of 40, even WITH a family.

> You can't quit your sucky job because it supports your family.

Not everyone over the age of 40 has a "sucky" job and if one has a job which is unpleasant there may very well still be the possibility of changing careers.

> You go to parties that end at 9pm and your social gatherings consist of talking about traffic and grocery prices.

Speaking from experience? It's entirely possible to engage the services of a babysitter and go spend time with friends until the night is well past the point of being young. Also "traffic and grocery prices"? Where do you even get that? People over the age of 40 can be (and usually are) interested in other things like, say, sports, cinema, even the dreaded "celebrity gossip".

> You're probably married to someone you love and respect, but the flame isn't the same as what you once had.

If a couple can't quite manage to Take Hold of the Flame, there is always the possibility of ending the marriage, which may once again open the door to those "new exciting ventures" you mentioned. And regardless even if the relationship isn't what it once was that doesn't mean life is over.

Just my perspective as a 33 year old.

[mk67]

Nobody forces you to live like that. I'm 39 and not one point hits the mark for me. :D

While true that it's harder to get social connections it's far from impossible; in the end you just need to go out and meet new people doing things alone sometimes. On the other hand I have much more money, thus can actually travel when/how I want, compared to my 20s, and could probably quit my job in the next decade, if I want to.

Overall it's different to some degree, but in sum I'd say I enjoy life much more than in my 20s nowadays. Doubt that changes until I start to get sick(er) in my 50s/60s.

[JohnBooty]

I'm in my 40s and felt the same way as you (more or less) at 22.

Many people do wind up as you describe. On the other hand you write as if it is inevitable rather than a specific choice.

    You've probably got a family weighing you down so 
    you can't travel anymore. You don't have the freedom 
    to start new exciting ventures.

Yes, you probably do have to choose between "family" and the other stuff unless you have some unusually favorable circumstances. Either lots of money, or extended family members (grandparents) with whom you can leave the kids while you travel, etc.

Depends on your definition of "travel" though. Flying to another country on a whim? Probably not. Packing the kids and tents up and going camping? Heck yes.

    You go to parties that end at 9pm and your social gatherings 
    consist of talking about traffic and grocery prices.

Oh hell no. I'm over 40 and still making great friends. Friends with whom I share interests, not just banal conversations. It's different than when you're young, it takes a little more work. You're not just dumped into a school with hundreds of people your age. But it's better. You can choose your social circles and meet other enthusiasts relevant to your interests.

    You're probably married to someone you love and respect, 
    but the flame isn't the same as what you once had.

It's certainly true: those giddy early months of a relationship change into something else eventually. Can be better or worse depending on your perspective.

Again, you can just not get married! Or do some kind of poly/open/whatever relationship if that's your thing. Or be asexual. Or be so undesirable that nobody wants to nestle down with you and saddle you with a family. Or just find some sort of ethical way of getting what you need from sex workers. (That last one may be tricky)

[Delk]

> Again, you can just not get married! Or do some kind of poly/open/whatever relationship if that's your thing. Or be asexual. Or be so undesirable that nobody wants to nestle down with you and saddle you with a family. Or just find some sort of ethical way of getting what you need from sex workers. (That last one may be tricky)

IMO any of those can be tricky. Relationships in general are, at any part of the spectrum, including a lack of them.

Poly/open/casual/whatever isn't easy unless your partner (or potential partners) also wants to be in one of those. Leaving an existing relationship for one of those probably isn't easy (unless it's meaningless), and can be anything but if one is already married with kids. Non-exclusive relationships may also need to deal with potential feelings of jealousy etc. in a different way than exclusive ones, and again, it's not down to just oneself.

One probably doesn't really choose to be asexual either, and I'd wager that trying to make such a choice is generally unhealthy. And if you actually are asexual but want an otherwise romantic relationship, finding one (where both are satisfied) is probably harder than it would be more conventionally.

Most people (or all of us?) have mutually conflicting desires and needs for their relationships. That makes relationships tricky in general. It's probably even more so for someone who's less comfortable socially or with themselves than you would seem to be.

I don't think it's always even possible, psychologically or emotionally, for everyone to solve those conflicting needs and desires in a satisfying way.

It sounds quite cynical to see marriage or long-term relationships largely as a burden, and seeing the possibilities can be an antidote for that for some people. But trying to make it out as everything being possible and choices that you can just make feels a bit like it can trivialize the difficulty of actually doing it.

[JohnBooty]

    But trying to make it out as everything being  
    possible and choices that you can just make 
    feels a bit like it can trivialize the difficulty 
    of actually doing it.

Well, you're certainly right: no relationship options are easy.

When I listed those options I was specifically referring to the parent poster, who equated middle age with automatically being in a stifling marriage.... as if marriage is just some inevitable thing that happens to you, rather than something you choose.

Which was certainly not to imply that the alternatives to marriage are easy. I mean yeah, relationships can be hard. And the lack of one can be hard too.

[dbrueck]

Hehe, for fun you should bookmark your comment and refer back to it every 5 years.

If you're open to it, here are a few ideas to noodle on:

- A lot of what you find fun/interesting changes over time. The partying of the 20s was fun, in its way, but now seems mostly pretty silly, superficial, and (sorry for saying this) childish and dumb. I'm not saying it is, just that your notion of fun changes, and if now I had the power to do absolutely anything I wanted, "partying" would not be even in my top 100 list because there are so many things that are more fun and fulfilling. Ask a 3 year old how they'd love to spend their time.

- Many details of life are outside your control, but you still have a huge influence on things. If you end up in your 40s in a marriage where the flame has gone out, that's mostly on you and your partner - it definitely doesn't need to be that way. Just because it seems common for people to get married and stop courting/dating each other doesn't mean you have to. Ditto for things like a job. In both cases, there's an element of settling in and coasting that's easy to do but doesn't necessarily produce the long term results you really want. Gotta begin with the end in mind and course correct over time, but also have to avoid obsessing over the imperfections and less-than-ideals of life, because there will always be plenty of those.

- The number of kids you have is a pretty private choice, but if approach it with either cynicism or idealism then you'll likely be disappointed. It's a roller coaster, it's hard, kids will absolutely drive you crazy sometimes. But it can also be a source of joy and purpose to a degree that might be incomprehensible to you right now. I'm trying to be careful here because it is a sensitive topic, but compared to being single, it's hard to really explain how much depth and substance having a family has added to my life. In retrospect it feels like life didn't really begin until then. Lots of cool stuff and adventures before then, of course, but... yeah.

- Your kids eventually go away. I mean, it's obvious, right, and yet I didn't really appreciate it until it happened. That stage of life where kids are at home is actually relatively short. It's so temporary. You'll always be a parent, but suddenly you find yourself on the other side of it with a whole lot more time for hobbies and travel and whatever else and yet you don't really feel all that old yet.

[martindbp]

Believe it or not, traveling and partying gets old. Most of us have an evolutionary desire to have kids. You may not, but it can take time to manifest. Look out for feelings of hollowness, boredom or depression. Parenting may be hard, but I've never felt hollow or bored or that life has no meaning.

[stocknoob]

You probably didn’t mean it this way, but that reasoning emphasizes bringing beings into this world to avoid your own bad emotions, and not so they can experience their own good ones.

[martindbp]

Giving kids a happy childhood and setting them up for happiness and contentment is of course implied. Either way, I think the vast majority of people who are alive want to remain alive, so I never understood the sentiment that it's selfish to bring someone into the world. It's only selfish if you benefit while someone else suffers. Bringing kids into the world is a win-win, at least in the developed world where birthrates are plummeting way below replacement rate. In this case it's a win-win-win (third being society).

What might be considered selfish is to not have kids when we are way below replacement rate, while expecting to be taken care of by other's kids in old age. Unless we reach AGI and humanoid robots soon, the food, housing, services and healthcare has to be provided by younger people.

[badpun]

> Either way, I think the vast majority of people who are alive want to remain alive, so I never understood the sentiment that it's selfish to bring someone into the world.

It's not "remaining". If you had decided to not have kids, the kids wouldn't be there in the first place, so they wouldn't (couldn't) feel any regret about.

[BizarreByte]

> I think the vast majority of people who are alive want to remain alive

I don't want to die because it's scary and likely painful, but I definitely would have preferred I wasn't here to begin with.

[fzeroracer]

This is possibly one of the worst sentiments to look for if you intend on having kids. I've seen families before where they had children solely to fill in that feeling of boredom or hollowness and when children don't fix it, they abandon them or become nasty parents.

[dionidium]

Your implied list of priorities -- travel, interesting parties, etc -- are about as interesting to me now that I'm in my early 40s with a family as an afternoon at a toddler's daycare center probably would be to you. What you're failing to appreciate is that, just as you no longer have toddler interests, I no longer have 22-year-old interests. I am as different from you as you are from that toddler.

And it works the other direction, too. My life probably sounds boring to you in the same way that a day in your life would be boring to a toddler. Now that you're 22, you aren't just a taller version of that toddler with all the same interests. You have new interests. (That will keep happening.)

[cshimmin]

This hilariously proves OPs point. If satire, bravo, if not, well, we were all teenagers (or 22yos, in this case) once.

In any case: most new startup founders are over the age of forty. Assuming that's what a 22yo on hn considers an "exciting new venture".

[badosu]

'family weighing you down' if that's how you'd see family at 40 sure

[martindbp]

That's what I keep telling my boy when he wants to cuddle up and read a bedtime story: "stop weighing me down, daddy has more important things to do, like vapid parties and brunch"...

[agensaequivocum]

No raise children in your early 20s. When you're forty they'll be adults.

[BeFlatXIII]

Sounds like the problem is that you went and tied yourself down with a spouse and children when they weren't at the top of your life goals.

[omgmajk]

You sound like you're 13, not 22. I'm 38 and nothing what you said is true for me nor any of my friends.

[JoelSanchez]

my mom is 48 years old, she loves her job, no one depends on her, has a different boyfriend every month, goes to the same parties I go to (which end at 6am) and we even share some friends (im 29). definitely not over

[anonymouskimmer]

> You can't quit your sucky job because it supports your family.

My jobs have gotten less suckier as I've gotten older. And with experience (and, rarely, more savings) I have more options. Yes, I could quit if I want.

[hummingly]

That is a depressing view on aging. At some point kids becomes adults and can support themselves and if they were taught any form of responsibility, they will support their parents. These days my parents hang out with their friends or go once in a while on vacation which they pay or my sibling and I. To me it sounds like someone enduring a life style they dislike but accepted because they believe this is how life should be.

Maybe it is a culturally thing but as a kid I had to complain to my parents to get home and by then it was 1 am.

[tomtheelder]

I think your perspectives on things and your priorities can change as you get older in ways that are very difficult to imagine as a young person. I might once have agreed with this comment, but now I live a lot of that life and it’s fantastic and I’m happier than I’ve ever been.

Also parties that end at 9 are incredible. I fought this one hard for a _long_ time, but life is honestly just better when you go to bed earlier and wake up earlier. More daylight is a great thing.

[harimau777]

I see it almost the exact opposite. I'm in my early 30s without a wife or kids and I feel like my life is basically over because of it.

[chalcolithic]

find a spouse that dreads the problems you've listed and you'll be amazed by how easily they can be solved

[zajio1am]

Note that most of these issues are related to 'have a family', not to 'be over 40'.

[sambapa]

*as a depressed 22 year old

[wahnfrieden]

closer to 40 than 30 now and the fix is to not work.

[teolandon]

Don't have kids, keep meeting new people.

[giraffe_lady]

lmao