6 ms·

Great. Another thing to worry about when trying to start a family...

by randlet 11y ago

arxpoetica 11y ago
I wanted to make the same pun.
pen2l 11y ago
Take a two month long vacation[1], and then do it somewhere toward the end. [1]: Yes yes, not everyone has the luxury to be able to do that. But frankly, I've found that with a healthy amount of planning it is possible. E.g. I'm planning to take a 2 month long vacation next summer... I know already my boss probably won't let me, but I don't care! I'll quit if I have to! Already have an eye out for new gigs! This is like what people say about exercising -- you don't have time? Make time for it. The POTUS can find time to exercise, probably you can too.
- dazmax 11y ago
  Pre-paternity leave
- s_kilk 11y ago
  I doubt this will work, given that it usually takes multiple attempts to concieve. The two month vacation would be nice, but there's nothing to guarantee that the child will be concieved at the 'correct' time.
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
  Most people can't afford to take a 2 month vacation unless they already have a high paying job. Sure, most people can reduce their living expenses a lot but only so much. That's not even considering the fact that planning a pregnancy like that isn't feasible, especially for older couples - who are the ones who had enough time to save up for a two month vacation. Pregnancy doesn't work like that, it can take months to years and that's not even considering 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. The idea pregnancy should be instant is harmful and leads to anxiety in itself.
  - pen2l 11y ago
    I don't have a very high-paying job. I'm able to take the vacation because of (a) specifically saving for it and (b) planning a lot; took care of airfare almost an year earlier (in fact the location I chose was because of airfare deals), arranged place to live, and so on forth. > That's not even considering the fact that planning a pregnancy like that isn't feasible, especially for older couples I'm getting off-topic here but I really want to say this: the biggest reason I see Valley as being evil is it forces everyone to delay having kids. Have kids early, there will be less problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#/media/File:Down_risk_by_maternal_age.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#/media/File:Down... There's a huge amount of research that suggests having kids earlier (e.g. at age 30 or earlier vs. age 40) is better for so many reasons.
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
      I'm sure you have a job that's higher than median income because most of us here do. So you are expected to have a life partner AND save up enough for a long vacation all before you are 30. That's a ton of pressure to put on young person. Delaying childbearing has quite a bit of disadvantages but also its advantages. Even young people can't snap their fingers and instantly have a healthy pregnancy. That's not how pregnancy works.
      - replicatorblog 11y ago
        As a person who started a family later in life (33), I agree with the OP that starting sooner would be good for more people. I wish I had. Yes it's hard to find a life mate, but many generations did it before us. The challenge is what policy levers are there to make it workable? My pet peeve is housing cost. In the Valley, NYC, and Boston, housing is so expensive that you need a career that can pay large salaries. Places like Austin, this is much less of a problem. Also, I think it would be smart for a more frank discussion about the challenges of delayed parenthood. It's great that Facebook is paying for egg-freezing, but IVF is still super risky, financially impactful, stressful in its own right, and very uncomfortable.
    - 11y ago
rezashirazian 11y ago
Look at it from the bright side. You can now blame your parents for your crippling anxiety and stress.
- qntmfred 11y ago
  and http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/09/28/what-parents-can-do-to-avoid-passing-anxiety-on-to-their-kids/ http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/09/28/what-parents-can-do...
- sjg007 11y ago
  It is also reinforced by their actions, so nature and nurture.
rayiner 11y ago
Starting a family isn't rocket science. Look at the world around you. It's amazing. And it was built by people whose parents didn't wear them around in a pouch until they were five, who fed them formula, who didn't eat a bunch of fish oil while pregnant, and who (gasp!) smoked or drank during pregnancy. Parenting science is like nutrition science. Lots of studies, little consensus. Just ignore it.
- shabda 11y ago
  They also had horrific infant mortality rate and ridiculous risk of death during childbirth, for both mother and child. There isn't as much clear cut answers about parenting as we would like, but there is much evidence backed science which tells us what to do. Your "Just ignore it." comment is pretty close to what the anti-vaxxers argue.
  - mod 11y ago
    "Horrific" enough to have our population approach the carrying capacity of the planet, though I guess that doesn't take the danger away on an individual level. That said, I think "just ignore it" is the proper thing to do in this case.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Anti-vaxxers argue against something that's proven all over and pretty much obvious if you had biology classes in high school[0]. OTOH, "nutrition science" is some small core of facts and good studies, covered by layers and layers of lies, bullshit, misperceptions, bad statistics and normal people acting like idiots. It's not worth the time. [0] - then again, many if not most anti-vaxxers are only showing their lack of trust in the medical establishment, for which I do not blame them in the least, because of all the shenanigans doctors, scientists, pharma corps and politicians keep doing. And yes, "nutrition science" is a big part of that, too. <insert my standard rant about people who lie being responsible for all the blood that will be shed when society dissolves and civilization collapses />
    - OrwellianChild 11y ago
rgrieselhuber 11y ago
Think about the conditions our ancestors dealt with. "Stress" meant a broken bone, a fever, or a predator (if you go back far enough) could all be the source of life-changing (or ending) events. We've evolved to adapt to harsh conditions and conditions have never been this good for a significant portion of the global population (especially for those of us reading Hacker News). Your kids will be fine.
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
  This raises an interesting thought in my mind. While the stresses of long-ago might have been more easily life ending, I wonder if people of long-ago laid in bed at night worrying about getting a broken bone. Lethal stresses have the added benefit of preventing further reproduction, so we probably don't need to consider them in this scope. While I agree conditions are pretty good for a lot of people, especially in countries like Australia where I live, people do seem to find a lot to worry about. The non-lethal stressors are the ones we have to worry about. Or shouldn't worry about, as the evidence may suggest.
- svachalek 11y ago
  If you read the article, there was nothing of the sort involved in this test. And it explicitly notes that the hormonal stress indicators in the mice are in fact quite common in modern men.

Great. Another thing to worry about when trying to start a family...

by randlet 11y ago

Great. Another thing to worry about when trying to start a family...

arxpoetica 11y ago

I wanted to make the same pun.

pen2l 11y ago

Take a two month long vacation[1], and then do it somewhere toward the end. [1]: Yes yes, not everyone has the luxury to be able to do that. But frankly, I've found that with a healthy amount of planning it is possible. E.g. I'm planning to take a 2 month long vacation next summer... I know already my boss probably won't let me, but I don't care! I'll quit if I have to! Already have an eye out for new gigs! This is like what people say about exercising -- you don't have time? Make time for it. The POTUS can find time to exercise, probably you can too.

dazmax 11y ago
Pre-paternity leave
s_kilk 11y ago
I doubt this will work, given that it usually takes multiple attempts to concieve. The two month vacation would be nice, but there's nothing to guarantee that the child will be concieved at the 'correct' time.
nommm-nommm 11y ago
Most people can't afford to take a 2 month vacation unless they already have a high paying job. Sure, most people can reduce their living expenses a lot but only so much. That's not even considering the fact that planning a pregnancy like that isn't feasible, especially for older couples - who are the ones who had enough time to save up for a two month vacation. Pregnancy doesn't work like that, it can take months to years and that's not even considering 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. The idea pregnancy should be instant is harmful and leads to anxiety in itself.
- pen2l 11y ago
  I don't have a very high-paying job. I'm able to take the vacation because of (a) specifically saving for it and (b) planning a lot; took care of airfare almost an year earlier (in fact the location I chose was because of airfare deals), arranged place to live, and so on forth. > That's not even considering the fact that planning a pregnancy like that isn't feasible, especially for older couples I'm getting off-topic here but I really want to say this: the biggest reason I see Valley as being evil is it forces everyone to delay having kids. Have kids early, there will be less problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#/media/File:Down_risk_by_maternal_age.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#/media/File:Down... There's a huge amount of research that suggests having kids earlier (e.g. at age 30 or earlier vs. age 40) is better for so many reasons.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    I'm sure you have a job that's higher than median income because most of us here do. So you are expected to have a life partner AND save up enough for a long vacation all before you are 30. That's a ton of pressure to put on young person. Delaying childbearing has quite a bit of disadvantages but also its advantages. Even young people can't snap their fingers and instantly have a healthy pregnancy. That's not how pregnancy works.
    - replicatorblog 11y ago
      As a person who started a family later in life (33), I agree with the OP that starting sooner would be good for more people. I wish I had. Yes it's hard to find a life mate, but many generations did it before us. The challenge is what policy levers are there to make it workable? My pet peeve is housing cost. In the Valley, NYC, and Boston, housing is so expensive that you need a career that can pay large salaries. Places like Austin, this is much less of a problem. Also, I think it would be smart for a more frank discussion about the challenges of delayed parenthood. It's great that Facebook is paying for egg-freezing, but IVF is still super risky, financially impactful, stressful in its own right, and very uncomfortable.
  - 11y ago

rezashirazian 11y ago

Look at it from the bright side. You can now blame your parents for your crippling anxiety and stress.

qntmfred 11y ago
and http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/09/28/what-parents-can-do-to-avoid-passing-anxiety-on-to-their-kids/ http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/09/28/what-parents-can-do...
sjg007 11y ago
It is also reinforced by their actions, so nature and nurture.

rayiner 11y ago

Starting a family isn't rocket science. Look at the world around you. It's amazing. And it was built by people whose parents didn't wear them around in a pouch until they were five, who fed them formula, who didn't eat a bunch of fish oil while pregnant, and who (gasp!) smoked or drank during pregnancy. Parenting science is like nutrition science. Lots of studies, little consensus. Just ignore it.

shabda 11y ago
They also had horrific infant mortality rate and ridiculous risk of death during childbirth, for both mother and child. There isn't as much clear cut answers about parenting as we would like, but there is much evidence backed science which tells us what to do. Your "Just ignore it." comment is pretty close to what the anti-vaxxers argue.
- mod 11y ago
  "Horrific" enough to have our population approach the carrying capacity of the planet, though I guess that doesn't take the danger away on an individual level. That said, I think "just ignore it" is the proper thing to do in this case.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Anti-vaxxers argue against something that's proven all over and pretty much obvious if you had biology classes in high school[0]. OTOH, "nutrition science" is some small core of facts and good studies, covered by layers and layers of lies, bullshit, misperceptions, bad statistics and normal people acting like idiots. It's not worth the time. [0] - then again, many if not most anti-vaxxers are only showing their lack of trust in the medical establishment, for which I do not blame them in the least, because of all the shenanigans doctors, scientists, pharma corps and politicians keep doing. And yes, "nutrition science" is a big part of that, too. <insert my standard rant about people who lie being responsible for all the blood that will be shed when society dissolves and civilization collapses />
  - OrwellianChild 11y ago

rgrieselhuber 11y ago

Think about the conditions our ancestors dealt with. "Stress" meant a broken bone, a fever, or a predator (if you go back far enough) could all be the source of life-changing (or ending) events. We've evolved to adapt to harsh conditions and conditions have never been this good for a significant portion of the global population (especially for those of us reading Hacker News). Your kids will be fine.

TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
This raises an interesting thought in my mind. While the stresses of long-ago might have been more easily life ending, I wonder if people of long-ago laid in bed at night worrying about getting a broken bone. Lethal stresses have the added benefit of preventing further reproduction, so we probably don't need to consider them in this scope. While I agree conditions are pretty good for a lot of people, especially in countries like Australia where I live, people do seem to find a lot to worry about. The non-lethal stressors are the ones we have to worry about. Or shouldn't worry about, as the evidence may suggest.
svachalek 11y ago
If you read the article, there was nothing of the sort involved in this test. And it explicitly notes that the hormonal stress indicators in the mice are in fact quite common in modern men.