I think the word "exceptionally" arises when comparing with other animals, the amount of effort a human child needs from its parents and family until an advanced age is unprecedented in other terrestrial companions.
Indeed, it always a source of surprise to me that human babies will cry regardless of the situation, whereas the offspring of other animals seem to have an instinct to remain quiet while the mother is not about, or there's a perceived danger.
Unlike kittens and superior animals, ape babies are not meant to be abandoned at any point, under no circumstances. They are meant to be carried around by their mothers or substitute relatives, clinging to them, so their sudden whimsical needs can be catered to immediately, or else you run the risk of developing an insecure attachment relationship.
Well not like ALL animals, since not all animals act the same way. I don't expect we are like fish, that (some?many?most?) are abandoned as eggs to make it on our own, or like sharks that have two wombs and the mama-shark keeps generating eggs to feed the two stronger babies (one in each womb).
I assume that those who "group" us based on similarities on the behavior and manner we raise our offspring must have use some logic to the process.
Yeah maybe that’s why women live longer in order to help with the exhausting process of raising their grandchildren [1].
We love to take care of babies, regardless of (or maybe because of) how clingy and dependent they are.
From an Evolutionary point of view, This relationship between needy babies and abnegated caregivers might have given rise to a complementary schimogenesis according to Gregory Bateson, in which babies might have evolved to be more and more dependent, because having more and more invested caregivers produces fitter offspring.
Parenthood is a self-inflicted sabotage and I cannot understand how come there are so many parents bearing children worldwide.
1. The Gardener and the Carpenter: Alison Gopnik, Erin Bennett: 9781536617832
> I cannot understand how come there are so many parents bearing children worldwide.
Because the best thing you can do for the world is to raise children well. If they raise theirs, etc. its a cycle of good over thousands of years, that will have more positive impact than anything you could do in your life as an individual.
Western societies are already down to around replacement levels with some going below it. It's pretty clear cut as societies evolve that population growth evens out. It's 3rd world countries driving the population growth. Over-population of humans being a danger to the earth has been proven false time and time again.
Overpopulation needs to be qualified with the context of the living standards. Ten billion vegetarians is probably feasible, but ten billion Americans (we don't currently have as many at such a standard) is a different story.
When some people stop procreating and educating the next generation, the world population does not simply go down. Instead it gets replaced by those who do continue multiplying.
There are no signs that intelligent people are not procreating. More affluent countries are not procreating, but that does not correlate with intelligence.
I'm all for having as many children as you can raise, and caring about old people, but interpret the following how you wish. It is a highly anomalous thing in the history that ordinary people receive real medical care when they are unable to do basic tasks themselves. You might have some basic care if your children care about you, but that's about it, and that might be our future and there's very little we can do about it except enabling policies that make having children viable option for those who want to have children.
Only 5% of people work in agriculture and 15% in industry. So we could reduce the workforce by 80% if only people would groom their own dogs themselves and just die when their time comes.
And if not healthcare is another 15%. But you probably can shave off a little from all those numbers if you exclude the time devoted to desperately trying to sell things to each other in the economy of abundance.
Given that we're quickly destroying the environment we need to survive and have enough nuclear weapons pointed at one another to annihilate civilization multiple times over, it seems that a lot of people thousands of years ago didn't raise their kids well enough.
Maybe instead of having more children as the OP notes, we can take care of the tens of millions of neglected ones we already have, or try to work towards providing a healthier environment for those who are already here. The idea that we need more, when we're currently screwing up the ones we have, is silly.
It’s in TFA but pretty self-evident: in traditional non-nuclear families, extended kin (especially grandparents) help with childcare, reducing the burden.
i'm living with two other families in a house (separate apartments). it lifts the hyper dependency of children on their parents and creates more room to attend to needs for both adults and children. it also makes it possible to stack many things, like grocery shopping or cooking (one person cooking for 12 people does not require three times as much time as cooking for four people). plus, there's usually always other adults at the house that you can hang out with plus many other kids for your kids to play with, so less stress with playdates etc.
I don't think the commenter is saying you can't be happy without children, but it's a kind of experience that you either have or you don't, and it's hard to understand if you never had children. I'll add some context below in case you're interested in hearing about my own perspective.
I was pretty darn happy as someone who got to go read a book each weekend at a coffee shop and workout 3x per week. I eventually had a kid and I no longer have hardly any time for the stuff I used to love to do. Kids need constant assistance and have their own growing pains. Despite all that, it's given me a richness and depth to my life that I can't put into words. I get to experience raising someone with all the ups and downs. This has given me a kind of wisdom I never knew I didn't have. I could go on and on for days.
"A lie parents tell themselves to justify their decision"? Not at all (at least for 99% of is I'd wager). It's terrifying, but I wouldn't change a thing. I wouldn't trade the feeling I get from getting a hug from my kid or that first time they read a book for a combined $50B dollars, immortality, super inhumane intelligence, and movie star good looks.
>but it's a kind of experience that you either have or you don't, and it's hard to understand if you never had children.
this kind of mention is only ever asymmetrical -- generally in the direction you mentioned -- but i'd like to mention that being a childless adult with a long term relationship (or not) is also a unique perspective that very young parents / couples will never experience.
I had plenty of friends in school that mothered/fathered children at the age of 14-17 -- they won't get to experience my life, either -- they were busy with trying to provide for a child.
Both experiences are equally valid and unique, but for some reason we only ever speak about the one side of the coin 'missing out', as if the parents can just sort of surmise what they missed out by having a child; I'm sure that's not the case, just am i'm sure I could never understand what having a child is like -- I just wish there was a bit more understanding from the other side of the aisle that any perspective unlike your own is unique in its' own right.
I should have further specified that I didn't have a child at 14 or 17, but at approximately 30. I essentially had about a decade to live the care free life with my wife who I'd been with since 18. So I understand that lifestyle choice and it's fine. I'm offering a counter explanation for the other comment suggesting we're all delusional for saying it is a unique experience. That doesn't mean the childless lifestyle can't be rewarding as well in a different manner (I already acknowledged that), but for myself, I consider myself better off and I believe most probably agree (although I'm sure there are plenty out there that may have a different opinion).
Meh I mean it's true for some not others.
I had a kid and never particularly found the richness and depth emotional feeling.
Of course if you express the opinion you find parenting to be basically another duty you must fulfill to the best of your ability despite finding little to no joy from the task, it will be taken poorly. So you internalize the lie, buy into it the best you can to pretend to yourself you don't have an opinion that makes everyone hate you, because apparently parenting is the one duty that is 'wrong' unless you find it satisfying.
Feels like a bunch of people got the 'dope' that makes parents feel emotional rewarded from the insane amount of labor it requires, others internalize the 'lie' so they have a way to respond to others in a socially appropriate way.
I feel in anything you do or have to do, you can find richness and depth. At least that’s somehow what I like to believe and trying to make my life experience be by practicing meditation.
The duty of being a parent however, just comes with so much expectations from society and therefore within yourself - It is super hard to find freedom within that duty, to then actually find your relationship to your child, the specific richness and depth it can be for the both of you.
So in that regard, saying „I don’t find that in there for me“ is just as good and right as any other point of experience.
actually, i believe this experience is more common for fathers at least than people want to admit. especially in western society fathers are generally expected to be more involved, and have a hard time when they come from a family where this wasn't the case (so they don't have a good role model) nor have a partner that encourages them to be involved, or worse a partner that actually discourages them.
i have been struggling with this too, especially because i had quite different expectations going in.
but the thing is that what gives you joy very much depends on your own expectations, and you can change those. i believe it's the same thing as with a job. there are people arguing that you should love your job, and if you don't you should not be doing it, while others claim that most people don't have a choice but to take a job that they don't enjoy.
I'm not sure if anyone suggested that directly. It does bring happiness sure, but maybe some mean a different kind of fulfillment you get through living for others. You'd likely get the same thing through adoption or working at shelters I'd imagine.
Just as you think it’s annoying to have someone project the statement onto you (though I don’t think that’s what GP was doing), I think it’s annoying you’re telling me it’s a lie that I’m telling myself. I can say with confidence I’m happier with kids than without. I’ve had it both ways, and I can speak to my own experience with honesty far better than you can guess about strangers you don’t know.
Don’t take GP’s statement as a projection onto you. Take it as one’s projection onto their own self. That said, this (GP’s statement) has been the general consensus of other parents I’ve talked to. So I wouldn’t discard it so flippantly.
That doesn’t mean literally everyone would be happier with children, of course.
However, what I'm arguing is not "having children makes me happy."
It's "having children is above every other kind of happiness."
Think about that for a second. What does that statement say to a person without children? To me, I hear that if you don't have children you're literally wasting your life. It's a denial of every other thing people find joy in.
Why would you say that? I can only think of two reasons:
- You're an asshole trying to feel superior to others
- You're unsure of your decision, so you have to put everyone else down
If you have any other reasons then let me know though!
Perhaps they are helpfully evangelizing a happiness that someone else may not have considered. Not everyone without children has taken a resolute stand on the matter. Some may be on the fence. Everything is anecdotal anyway so why be so offended?
Because of course it is impossible that they are genuinely describing their personal experience where raising children has brought them fulfillment and meaning beyond anything else they have ever done, right?
I think the main communication barrier between childless people and parents is that it's an experience far removed from anything else we do in our lives, so it is very difficult to grasp if you haven't been there.
Parents know that there will be times when raising your kids is the most meaningful thing you've ever done, and there are other times when it's a relentless slog that is grinding you down. It is both, and perhaps it is neither.
As a childless person you may read the above and think I'm stupid or deluded, but I bet most parents will nod in understanding, because they will have experienced something similar.
Other people have put it more eloquently and perhaps a bit more diplomatically, but you’re wrong.
I lived for 33 years before having a child and nothing - absolutely nothing - ever brought me more joy than something as simple as my daughter’s stupid grin when I’m on my back and she’s above me, ready to pounce.
While I’m sure not every parent feels the same way, I bet most do. I feel sorry for the people out there that would get the same feeling but will never experience it.
>I suspect it isn't the parents that are lying to themselves...
I suspect some of them are genuinely happy they had kids, some others are lying to themselves, and some others lie to others because they don't want to become pariahs when it's found out that they wish they hadn't had kids.
You can read the opinions of the last group on some anonymous discussion forums; they're real people.
What the relative ratios of these 3 groups are, I have no idea, and I doubt there's any way of finding out.
Once you experience the other side, outside of a psuedo-anonymous forum you're not really allowed to have the other opinion, and you'll quickly learn to shut up or 'lie' or become a hated pariah. It becomes a bit of an echo chamber.
> You don't get to say "oh I was wrong" after a couple years.
Parents leaving their partner and their child behind isn't unheard of. Even women sometimes do so. Sometimes, children end up at the grandparents, and the woman tries to start over. Your claim seems to come from an idealized world.
Western culture no longer seems to appreciate the commitment that is required to raise children. Personally I think people are too self-centered and are too eager to seek hedonism. Whether or not it will be OK long term is to be seen.
I have no doubt that if you were to ask the people without kids on their death bed if they wished they had had them, they would say yes.
In western culture raising kids by societal norms is a bigger commitment than it ever was. My grandma had 7 siblings and no shoes for most of her childhood. It wasn't nearly as big a commitment for my great grandparents to raise her.
> People in their deathbed also regret working so much but nobody's chomping at the bit to quit their job and become a bum
The Financially Independent Retired Early (FIRE) movement is very popular and it centers around focusing on the essentials so that you can quit working early. And that's just an example of one of the ways in which people escape the rat race.
Every parent was once a non-parent, and therefore can compare their own experience before and after. I'm sure parents are a little (intentionally) delusional at times, nobody wants to seem like a 'bad' or 'uncaring' parent. But to assume that the extreme majority of parents are lying about enjoying an experience that they've been evolutionarily primed for seems like flat-earth level reality-denial.
My issue is not with the fact that some parents are happy with their decision.
My issue is the implication that the joy of parenthood is above every other joy.
For comparison, you don't see programmers claiming the joy of programming is superior to all other jobs. Mountaineers don't claim that you haven't enjoyed life unless you climb mountains.
Why? Because those things are obviously joyful, but not accessible to everyone. Not everyone can climb, not everyone can program, but everyone can find their own joy.
So why do parents feel okay saying that? If you can come up with any other reason then please let me know because I'm still searching.
The same reason sex is pleasurable. We would not be here if it were not this way.
Put in different terms, there are many experiences which have an evolutionary origin. Disgust reactions to certain sights/smells are a near-universal experience, for example. Individuals that don't share these experiences (or who are attracted to them) are considered weird or degenerate precisely because they are so universal.
i didn't mean to generalize in what i said, but i see that the way i framed it makes it easy to understand that way.
i totally think that for some people having children would definitely not make them more happy, possibly many. it really depends on what gives you meaning, joy (obviously) and i think to a significant extent the setup within which you are having children. before i moved into this setup with the other families parenthood was significantly less joyful for me.
privilege is also a big factor. how much education and access to resources do you have so that you have the option to choose to work less than full-time for example?
> Yeah maybe that’s why women live longer in order to help with the exhausting process of raising their grandchildren.
Except that men become more important, especially for boys, but also as exemplars for girls, the older children get. Nurturing is more important earlier on, which is also the specialty of women. Men are generally terrible at it and generally hate it, while women tend to have a much greater affinity.
> We love to take care of babies, regardless of (or maybe because of) how clingy and dependent they are.
We must be careful with words like "love", because in our day and age, we have assumed a very reductive and immature understanding of it (as that which gives us pleasure or sensuous delight and "good feelings"). Love toward children is dominated by the hard work of charity. The aim is to guide a human being into adulthood for that other person's sake, for the sake of their true end, not for ourselves (hence the self-centeredness of thinking one is entitled to having children, resorting to all sorts of immoral technologies to have them). Disinterested charity, of course, has the effect of actualizing us as people, and nothing is as actualizing as parenthood, as that is our essential identity (one that can be exercised in surrogate ways, of course).
> babies might have evolved to be more and more dependent, because having more and more invested caregivers produces fitter offspring.
The major reason human beings require more investment is intelligence. Many species are born or hatched ready to go, and perhaps never meet their parents. Some require only a relatively short period of parental support. But human beings must go through a long period of formation. Intelligence is also the reason why we lack all sorts of anatomical features that other animals have. Why? Because intelligence allows us to pursue all sorts of ends, while other animals are quite limited in this regard. Thus, we lose the baggage and instead make technology, like clothing, that allows us to adapt to any environment. Fur or scales or whatever are far more limited.
> Parenthood is a self-inflicted sabotage and I cannot understand how come there are so many parents bearing children worldwide.
What a freakish statement. Sabotage of what, and how? If anything is being sabotaged, is it our nature to be parents by the culture of mindless, emtpy distractions of hedonistic and superficial consumerism. This antinatalism is an attack on the human person. It destroys the common good. Attack parenthood and you attack the raison d'etre almost all of the activity of humankind.
> hence the self-centeredness of thinking one is entitled to having children, resorting to all sorts of immoral technologies to have them
Huh? I'm confused how you reconcile this (seeming) attack on fertility treatment with the pro-natalist sentiment expressed later in your comment. Who or what principle is transgressed by what technologies?
In-vitro fertilization involves treatment of embryos that is regarded as illicit by some groups that are staunchly pro-natalist. The Roman Catholic Church is the biggest example, e.g. [0], but similar positions are held also by some other Christian denominations.