[p0w3n3d]

The best age for having kids biologically, in terms of health is... Close to 18. I had my first child when I was 27 and I was already very tired in the nights, we agreed with wife that it would have been better to start earlier. Some people have kids when 35-40 and I cannot imagine it at all. I'm too tired right now. Much wiser, but my health would not allow me to stay up nights

[Aurornis]

> Close to 18. I had my first child when I was 27 and I was already very tired in the nights, we agreed with wife that it would have been better to start earlier

I have some extended family who had some unexpected kids around that 18 age and I firmly disagree that it’s better. We had so many more advantages by having kids when older, from better emotional regulation to better time management practices.

I had kids when older than you. Although some of the early years being up late weren’t easy, it also wasn’t devastatingly tiresome. My wife and I split duties and staggered our schedules.

The low sleep years were also over very quickly. It’s not like you’re up all night with kids until they’re 10 years old. Optimizing the entirety of raising kids based on being as young as possible to stay up late during the first year of life isn’t a good idea, IMO. You have to look at the big picture.

I’m sorry you’re struggling and I don’t mean to downplay your personal struggles, but at the same time I have to agree with other comments that are puzzled at someone in their 20s being so crushingly tired when parents in their 30s routinely handle child raising. If you have some unmentioned condition then I don’t mean to belittle that, but I don’t want others reading these comments to assume your description is typical.

[worik]

I think this depends on social conditions

For some families the women start having children at eighten, and it is the business of the extended family to provide the "better emotional regulation to better time management practices"

Other families have different arrangements and the women and men are far more on their own

There are advantages and disadvantages to both ways of doing things

[simonsquiff]

I had my first at 42, second at 45, and about to have my third at 48. Honestly it’s been fine - thinking that people might find this unimaginable is so far from my reality. It really feels like I’ve had the same experience as those in their 30s.

Part of this might be that 40s life is a bit more chill anyhow - I no longer go and get smashed every weekend, or even have the FOMO that I’m not doing that. And work life, whilst more junior, was ultimately more extreme in my 20s and 30s. So any physical drop is probably balanced by a slight drop in general burning the candle at both ends. But yeah, don’t think 40s parenting is a no go. Go for it!

[nightshift1]

My parents had me at 40. I wish they had me sooner. They were old and tired for all my life and at 40 my last parent is already near the end. I have only known one of my grandparents. My parents were the equivalent of other kids grandparents. You do you but i think it's selfish.

[prawn]

I think consider that simonsquiff may not have been in a position (stable relationship, reliable personal situation, partner's career, etc) until their 40s. If not now, they may not have had children at all, leaving no one to know any grandparents.

I think there are advantages either way. I have three kids, born when I was 35-41; when my wife was 31-37. The children met great-grandparents, get lots of experience with their grandparents, and I think time for us to get more established has made for a stronger and more interesting parenting environment. I might've regretted giving up chances to travel/etc before having kids. That said, I am conscious that I would be 80+ before my youngest hit 40.

It might be that consecutive generations of late-parenting are where the impact is felt. My parents had their three children at 24-29.

[somenameforme]

Fully agreed on this, the generational stuff is where having children late is just brutal. When I was young, I actually often hung out my grand grandmother's place, drinking real buttermilk and eating the tasty goodies it can produce. I took it all for granted, but it was a wonderful upbringing and undoubtedly took a major load of my parent. I'm not actually entirely sure why she decided to move to the city at which point that entire network disappeared and things became much more difficult for both of us. And I don't think I really want to ask why either.

On the other hand here I am today living half way around the world from where I was born, so maybe this urge to expand outward is some sort of genetic thing. Could explain a lot about humanity - Africa was pretty much a utopia especially relative to the damnable freezing wastelands the 'Northern Lands.' Gotta be something a bit wrong with some of us! Hey who's up for going to Mars? I am!

[somenameforme]

Like I'm sure you can see yourself already, a lot depends on the individuals in question. I'm approaching my mid 40s and am still a gym rat - and at my peak lifetime strength + endurance levels. On the other hand I also have peers that have already muddled their minds and broken their bodies, often through years of indulgence, sometimes well before their 40s.

This [1] is RFK Jr at friggin 71 years old, amongst other athletic feats you can find videos of. He's on testosterone replacement therapy, but on the other hand I don't think that's really some big asterisk. Testosterone is absolutely critical for men and it declines as we age. When I reach the point where my testosterone has meaningfully diminished, I'll also likely do the same. And TRT alone doesn't give you results like that - that's the result of endless dedication to maintaining your health and fitness.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpeGjCBF_z4

[paulryanrogers]

Having heard stories of his fatherhood journey, I would not hold up RFKJ as a model of anything except selfishness.

[somenameforme]

You mean his habit of nailing anything that moves? I can't judge him there. You never know what's happening (or not) in somebody's private life. And for a man with all the opportunity in the world - I can only say that I'd look with suspicion at whoever was to cast stones there.

He's an eccentric man in a hyper-polarized world yet has raised 6 children that, at least publicly, have remained neutral to supportive of him. He's gotta be doing a lot right there IMO. And having a 70 year old father that's still in phenomenal shape and health is something our GP would certainly have liked to have had.

[paulryanrogers]

Quite a generous interpretation of a guy who is actively destroying the public health system, and whose idea of a family vacation includes a bloody whale head on the roof of the car.

[njarboe]

If your parents did not have you at 40 you would not exist. Hope you are enjoying life.

[cjonas]

At 18, I had no business even being responsible for a kid for a day. I hope the stability (both mentally and financially) that I'm able to offer my kid in their development years far outweighs the fact I won't be around as long.

[somenameforme]

Might this not be a consequence of how "we" were raised? In the past there were 18 year olds who were successful and responsible leaders of nations. Marcus Aurelius became emperor at 16! My parent just wanted me to go to college and earn money so I grew up with a rather 1-dimensional and hedonistic perspective on life.

I'll be encouraging my children to have children as early as reasonably possible. In part it's because of greed - I want to see those grandkids, and maybe even remotely possibly great grandkids before I die, but it's also because it's what I wish I had done in hindsight. Having children has not only been the joy and pride of my life, but it also gave my life much more meaning and direction. In any case, I also think it's completely appropriate for grandparents to play a significant role in the raising of children.

[irjustin]

Biologically yes... Probably but maturity, stability wise closer to 30-35 seems to be pretty good. At least the going rate amongst my friends

[TeMPOraL]

That's an environmental factor, though, specifically a function of our modern life style.

We had our first child at ~30, so we track this trend, too. However, I sometimes think, what if we gave in to the biological trend and[0] had kids at 18-20? If that were the common trend, then... by the time i got 36, my kids would be on their way to starting their own families. I.e. my child-rearing day would've been over, right here, today. As it is, I'm about to turn 37, and am looking forward to some 15 more years of parenting.

No, I really am looking forward to this. But the point is, the life after parenting doesn't sound so appealing anymore, not when it starts at 50 instead of 36.

--

[0] - Subject to the typical rules about age of adulthood, to not overcomplicate this.

[close04]

> the life after parenting doesn't sound so appealing anymore, not when it starts at 50 instead of 36.

Even if you have kids at 18 you won’t be done with parenting at 36. Maybe they leave the home, maybe not, you will still have to do a lot of parenting for a while more. You’ll be well in your 40s before you can even think “I’m finally mostly done”.

At that age it depends on each person what they want to do with the life. A lot of my friends who had kids really early started focusing on career later in life. Exactly what they “missed”. Those who focused on career and travel when young, focused on kids later in life. I haven’t heard anyone really regretting the choice beyond “my back can’t really take it anymore”[0] because you can never know what you’re missing. You’ll never know how your life would have been otherwise and what you would have liked more or less.

[0] Me, after starting parenthood in my 40s and being lazy so my back isn’t what it could be.

[SoftTalker]

If you want to spend time with your kids as adults, and have any grandkids remember you, younger is better. I was 30 when I had my first child; my parents might have been a little older than that when they had me. My dad died 20 years ago, my oldest son barely remembers him. My younger children technically met him but hav no memories of him. My mother died over 10 years ago.

My wife's mother had her when she was 20. She's still around, got to see her grandchildren reach adulthood, and have a long relationship with her daughter as an adult.

[seper8]

Buddy if you're 27 and already describe your life as very tired, there's more going on than pure aging...

[p0w3n3d]

no I'm almost twice that. I'm saying that if I had children in 40s it would be impossible for me.

[dgacmu]

We had our first when I was 37 and our second when I was 43. It wasn't so bad - it's tiring but I'm also a lot more emotionally mature than I was in my 20s and early 30s. And I have an absolute ton more money and stability (which also helps pay for things like nannies and school).

The thing I'm a little sad about is that I'm unlikely to be there for too long when my kids have kids.

[bee_rider]

I dunno, medical science keeps advancing. Maybe you’ll live forever.

[siva7]

Have to agree on this one. That has nothing to do with aging at 27 but it's the easy explanation for some people to not dig deeper.

[MattRix]

I mean yeah, that’s literally what he’s saying: He’s saying he’s very tired because of his children, especially how they keep him up at night.