9 ms·

Would it follow that having kids is good for our well-being too? Sometimes I wonder if the decline of the family/people choosing not to have kids is linked with

Would it follow that having kids is good for our well-being too? Sometimes I wonder if the decline of the family/people choosing not to have kids is linked with increasing rates of mental health problems

trevyn 7y ago
Maybe, maybe not, but one should also consider the well-being of the kids in this world.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dawhizkid 7y ago
I'm one of those people who has decided to purposefully not have kids because I do not believe they will have a better life than me due to climate change. I suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way.
- charliesharding 7y ago
  One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your children could help to radiate that message outwards and may even become scientists that help to reverse it! Of course there's no guarantee that they'll adopt your views but if you fundamentally believe the world is capable of saving then it's worth a shot :)
  - dawhizkid 7y ago
    Yes, though if I were to have kids I would adopt, then, and not create one.
  - mikestew 7y ago
    "Could", yes. The overwhelming odds, however, are that they'll grow up to be upper-middle class consumers who don't do anything outstanding other than hoover up huge amounts of resources and make the problem worse.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Unless you're assuming the socioeconomic class of the original poster to be upper-middle class and that that will extend to their offspring, then you are incorrect. Most people are not upper-middle class, so the odds are against any random person being an upper-middle class consumer.
      - homonculus1 7y ago
        Most people don't comment on HN. It is an assumption, but not an unwarranted one.
        malvosenior 7y ago
        There are many non upper-middle class people here so I would say it is an unwarranted assumption.
      - mikestew 7y ago
        I assumed nothing. I used the word "odds". Probabilities, what have you. And if one is posting on HN, "odds are" you and everyone in your household consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources. And if you'd like to drill further into an off-hand comment that might have taken a few liberties with the demographics of HN readers, then let's simplify it: your kid isn't going to cure cancer or fix global warming no matter who you are or your class status.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    The likelihood of a child becoming such a climate messiah is astronomically smaller than that of a mere additional exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint. You're better off trying to impress eco-friendly memes on the offspring of people who insist on breeding no matter what. The notion of having kids to fight climate change is silly at best.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      There are obviously many options between "climate messiah" and "exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint". People can create value in multiple dimensions. Even if you only look through the lens of offspring's ability to impact climate, then having children is essential unless you think changing the climate can be done in a single generation (the current one).
      - homonculus1 7y ago
        But you having children is not essential. It's a given that the masses are plowing ahead with their insistence on having several children regardless, so a shortage of future generations, scientists, activists, etc. will not be the problem--at least not until the climate becomes the limiting factor! Until then, the decision for fence-sitters is whether or not to shrink the window. Encouragement toward them should be in the direction of not to.
        malvosenior 7y ago
        People should not be making personal reproductive choices based on encouragement. It's no one's place to judge whether or not someone should have children.
        EForEndeavour 7y ago
        And there we have the problem: collectively, we know we'd be better off with a lower birthrate, but it's unthinkable to infringe on individuals' right to reproduce. Genes that predispose people toward selfless, bigger-picture thinking will snuff themselves out while genes that promote selfishness proliferate.
- downandout 7y ago
  I suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way. That is an extreme viewpoint. The number of people thinking this way may in fact be “increasing” because of the social media echo chambers that make almost any extreme viewpoint seem normal to those who have them. But I seriously doubt the number of people that actually refuse to have children based upon fear of climate change is high enough to make any waves in population numbers.
  - aphextim 7y ago
    I would agree with you on this as well. It may appear that this is a more popular way to think and it very well could be increasing more than it had in the past, in western first world technology bubbles. However I feel for every person coming to this conclusion there are 100 more people on this planet who are ignorant to this trend and will continue to keep having babies, whether intentional or just by the circumstance of where they live. Opinion/Personally I was on board with the whole, "I'll just adopt" rather than bring an additional carbon creature into this planet. However I went from being idealistic and 20, to rational and 30 and during this time met the love of my life whom if I had not met her I would never consider having a child of my own. I think that is a big factor, finding someone who you truly want to grow old with and start a family. The idea of a creature made up with some of her genes and mine is amazing. Also call me selfish but why should I deny myself the experience of having a child because of some unforeseen doomsday future event that even with me denying myself the experience will happen anyway. Sure I may slow it down by not having a child, but the chances of 1 less human on this planet impacting the future of the world is about as probable as me creating a child who will solve the worlds climate issues, again just my opinion on the matter.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      It's not selfish to reproduce, it's literally why every living organism exists. The "I'm not going to have kids to save the climate" is definitely a tiny, mostly social media based, echo chamber. Most people would think it's absurd to view having children as "selfish" since it definitely requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice and is generally viewed as building the future of your family, community and humanity. It's actually kind of sad that this anti-human trope is becoming so prevalent on message boards.
downandout 7y ago
Merely “having kids” is probably a little broad of a statement. There is little question that having a loving family, spouse, etc. at home while being financially and emotionally stable is going to head off some mental health problems, or at least manifestations of them. But someone that is financially and/or emotionally unstable, doesn’t have anyone to help with the kids but who must work, etc., will find that children dramatically increase their stress levels, which will exacerbate any existing mental health issues.
bberrry 7y ago
It's likely quite individual but personally I feel like I am less satisfied with life now that I have young children due to them dominating the agenda and life in general. I am however expecting kids to "pay off" in the happiness department in old age. I would imagine having no family at that stage in life would be quite bleak.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  The first few years are indeed fairly taxing and energy/happiness sapping overall. Once they can have a conversation and you can experience (and guide) them learning things, it gets way, way better!
- asark 7y ago
  I think one kid improved my life quite a bit. At three of them, it's hard to really enjoy time with any of 'em—not impossible, but much, much harder—yet the amount of time, effort, and money they take is way higher. Probably worse than no kids from a pure how-happy-am-I-on-average perspective. I'd think the relationships between the personal happiness and life-satisfaction at various states looks something like: three kids < no kids or two kids < one kid But they're all youngish, so we'll see how things change as they get older. Reckon there'll be a couple years in the middle where things are pretty good, then, odds are at least one or two of them will make life a living hell during their teenage years. But when they're grown up and I'm old probably that'll be OK. [EDIT] though we'll see how I feel at 55 when I make the mistake of running the numbers and realize I could have already retired if we'd had zero :-/
randlet 7y ago
No. In the early years, having children is probably two orders of magnitude more difficult than a typical pet both physically and mentally and therefore would be crazy to draw a conclusion from a study on pets.

trevyn 7y ago

Maybe, maybe not, but one should also consider the well-being of the kids in this world.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dawhizkid 7y ago

I'm one of those people who has decided to purposefully not have kids because I do not believe they will have a better life than me due to climate change. I suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way.

charliesharding 7y ago
One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your children could help to radiate that message outwards and may even become scientists that help to reverse it! Of course there's no guarantee that they'll adopt your views but if you fundamentally believe the world is capable of saving then it's worth a shot :)
- dawhizkid 7y ago
  Yes, though if I were to have kids I would adopt, then, and not create one.
- mikestew 7y ago
  "Could", yes. The overwhelming odds, however, are that they'll grow up to be upper-middle class consumers who don't do anything outstanding other than hoover up huge amounts of resources and make the problem worse.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Unless you're assuming the socioeconomic class of the original poster to be upper-middle class and that that will extend to their offspring, then you are incorrect. Most people are not upper-middle class, so the odds are against any random person being an upper-middle class consumer.
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      Most people don't comment on HN. It is an assumption, but not an unwarranted one.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        There are many non upper-middle class people here so I would say it is an unwarranted assumption.
    - mikestew 7y ago
      I assumed nothing. I used the word "odds". Probabilities, what have you. And if one is posting on HN, "odds are" you and everyone in your household consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources. And if you'd like to drill further into an off-hand comment that might have taken a few liberties with the demographics of HN readers, then let's simplify it: your kid isn't going to cure cancer or fix global warming no matter who you are or your class status.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  The likelihood of a child becoming such a climate messiah is astronomically smaller than that of a mere additional exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint. You're better off trying to impress eco-friendly memes on the offspring of people who insist on breeding no matter what. The notion of having kids to fight climate change is silly at best.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    There are obviously many options between "climate messiah" and "exponentially-reproducing, exponentially-consuming carbon footprint". People can create value in multiple dimensions. Even if you only look through the lens of offspring's ability to impact climate, then having children is essential unless you think changing the climate can be done in a single generation (the current one).
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      But you having children is not essential. It's a given that the masses are plowing ahead with their insistence on having several children regardless, so a shortage of future generations, scientists, activists, etc. will not be the problem--at least not until the climate becomes the limiting factor! Until then, the decision for fence-sitters is whether or not to shrink the window. Encouragement toward them should be in the direction of not to.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        People should not be making personal reproductive choices based on encouragement. It's no one's place to judge whether or not someone should have children.
        EForEndeavour 7y ago
        And there we have the problem: collectively, we know we'd be better off with a lower birthrate, but it's unthinkable to infringe on individuals' right to reproduce. Genes that predispose people toward selfless, bigger-picture thinking will snuff themselves out while genes that promote selfishness proliferate.
downandout 7y ago
I suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way. That is an extreme viewpoint. The number of people thinking this way may in fact be “increasing” because of the social media echo chambers that make almost any extreme viewpoint seem normal to those who have them. But I seriously doubt the number of people that actually refuse to have children based upon fear of climate change is high enough to make any waves in population numbers.
- aphextim 7y ago
  I would agree with you on this as well. It may appear that this is a more popular way to think and it very well could be increasing more than it had in the past, in western first world technology bubbles. However I feel for every person coming to this conclusion there are 100 more people on this planet who are ignorant to this trend and will continue to keep having babies, whether intentional or just by the circumstance of where they live. Opinion/Personally I was on board with the whole, "I'll just adopt" rather than bring an additional carbon creature into this planet. However I went from being idealistic and 20, to rational and 30 and during this time met the love of my life whom if I had not met her I would never consider having a child of my own. I think that is a big factor, finding someone who you truly want to grow old with and start a family. The idea of a creature made up with some of her genes and mine is amazing. Also call me selfish but why should I deny myself the experience of having a child because of some unforeseen doomsday future event that even with me denying myself the experience will happen anyway. Sure I may slow it down by not having a child, but the chances of 1 less human on this planet impacting the future of the world is about as probable as me creating a child who will solve the worlds climate issues, again just my opinion on the matter.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    It's not selfish to reproduce, it's literally why every living organism exists. The "I'm not going to have kids to save the climate" is definitely a tiny, mostly social media based, echo chamber. Most people would think it's absurd to view having children as "selfish" since it definitely requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice and is generally viewed as building the future of your family, community and humanity. It's actually kind of sad that this anti-human trope is becoming so prevalent on message boards.

downandout 7y ago

Merely “having kids” is probably a little broad of a statement. There is little question that having a loving family, spouse, etc. at home while being financially and emotionally stable is going to head off some mental health problems, or at least manifestations of them. But someone that is financially and/or emotionally unstable, doesn’t have anyone to help with the kids but who must work, etc., will find that children dramatically increase their stress levels, which will exacerbate any existing mental health issues.

bberrry 7y ago

It's likely quite individual but personally I feel like I am less satisfied with life now that I have young children due to them dominating the agenda and life in general. I am however expecting kids to "pay off" in the happiness department in old age. I would imagine having no family at that stage in life would be quite bleak.

sokoloff 7y ago
The first few years are indeed fairly taxing and energy/happiness sapping overall. Once they can have a conversation and you can experience (and guide) them learning things, it gets way, way better!
asark 7y ago
I think one kid improved my life quite a bit. At three of them, it's hard to really enjoy time with any of 'em—not impossible, but much, much harder—yet the amount of time, effort, and money they take is way higher. Probably worse than no kids from a pure how-happy-am-I-on-average perspective. I'd think the relationships between the personal happiness and life-satisfaction at various states looks something like: three kids < no kids or two kids < one kid But they're all youngish, so we'll see how things change as they get older. Reckon there'll be a couple years in the middle where things are pretty good, then, odds are at least one or two of them will make life a living hell during their teenage years. But when they're grown up and I'm old probably that'll be OK. [EDIT] though we'll see how I feel at 55 when I make the mistake of running the numbers and realize I could have already retired if we'd had zero :-/

randlet 7y ago

No. In the early years, having children is probably two orders of magnitude more difficult than a typical pet both physically and mentally and therefore would be crazy to draw a conclusion from a study on pets.