16 ms·

Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

334 points by mootothemax 15y ago

ojilles 15y ago
Beautifully written!
jgrahamc 15y ago
"choosing to become a parent is the hardest thing I have ever done" Actually, I'd imagine that that bit is pretty easy because the subsequent parts (as described in the article) cannot be imagined before they happen. Thus choosing to become a parent probably looks pretty easy.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  Well it is choosing to become a parent if you know what it is like to be a parent. So that makes sense only in in retrospect. Q: So why do people have more than one child? A: Because they are so sleep deprived they don't remember how difficult it was handling the child after they are born ;-)
- beza1e1 15y ago
  From personal experience, saying "Let's have a baby!" was at least as terrifying as "Will you marry me?".
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    I would say that having a kid to me seems like a lot bigger change than getting married. But of course I am married already, so maybe that in retrospect doesn't seem like such a big change...
gldalmaso 15y ago
I couldn't agree more with Jeff. I myself have said it on multiple ocasions, having a kid is an emotional roller coster. It's amazing just how much you fall in love with them and with life, but there also quite a few moments where you just wanna disappear, leave it all behind and just... rest... These times are a real challenge. You HAVE to deal with it, you just cannot give up, and most of the time there isn't really anyone else that can cover for you. It is, by far, the most difficult thing I've ever done.
- arethuza 15y ago
  "It's amazing just how much you fall in love with them" And how quickly - I can vividly remember being handed my son by the midwife and having the immediate reaction of "my overriding concern in life is now to protect and love this wee thing".
  - gbog 15y ago
    For me the main discovery is that of pure bidirectional unconditional love
    - michaelll 15y ago
      Sure, I loved him from the start, but he really wasn't very interactive in the beginning and definitely a lot of work. For me the true bond really came when the little guy started following me everywhere, crawling with great effort, just not to lose sight of me. Yes, it is a burden when I am trying to fix a cup of coffee and he's standing there holding my leg making it difficult to walk from the counter to the sink, but the joyous expression he gets when I instead bend down on my knees and tickle him or blow on his stomach is pure happiness worth all the work we've put in so far :)
      - deskamess 15y ago
        Thanks for writing that first paragraph. It was not an instant thing with me either... the first 2-3 months (maybe more) were spent helping taking care of and playing with my daughter and wondering now what... And then she started cracking open a smile every time I came back from work/groceries/etc. Every time. It was a simple acknowledgement, and I fell for it...
      - gbog 15y ago
        Sure, this is not bidi in the very beginning, and later it can get messy.
      - gldalmaso 15y ago
        Yes, the first three months come with very little reward, it's exhausting. During that time almost all I can remember is my daughter crying, she cried to take a bath, to change diapers, from gas. And maybe the worst was that she cried really, really loud, affording comments from doctors and other professionals (that are in frequent contact with different kids) that she had "good lungs" or "strong personality". Then at four months she teething started early and she couldn't even sooth herself by biting toys, so it was a real burden for everyone. It was only after that period that things really started to look better, with her interacting more and developing a more visible personality. I heard somewhere that babies should actually spend three more months in gestation, but can't since we started to walk upright and now have a narrower birth canal. I think it's a very elucidative theory, because in that period I really don't think that babies are ready to face the world.
wgx 15y ago
I whole heartedly agree. Our baby is 1 next week and it has been, without doubt, the most amazing, terrifying, tiring and joyous year. Can't wait to teach him to code.
- wanorris 15y ago
  Just remember: you don't get to pick what fascinates your children. He may love sitting by your side learning all about coding -- and he may get bored and restless and want you to go outside and throw a ball around with him.
  - wgx 15y ago
    He can code a physics engine and throw a ball in that. </sarcasm>
- Morcane 15y ago
  I'm going to try my best to keep my kids AWAY from the computer...(it's gonna be their choice in the end though).
chalst 15y ago
There's not an original thought in Jeff's post and it's wonderful. Yes, becoming a parent is exactly like that. The birth of my first baby was pretty difficult for my wife, because of injuries that happened because of incompetent midwives. My wife was very crippled for the first week, our daughter had a hard start to life outside the womb, and our family was almost completely useless so I had to do nearly everything (the new midwife was great, though); oh, and just to make it perfect, our dog sliced her paw deeply open on some glass four hours after we returned from the hospital who had kicked out my injured wife at 5am because they didn't have space. That week was the happiest of my life. If I ever am in need of cheering up, I just need to think back to changing my first blood-stained nappy. As Jeff sort of said, becoming a parent is weird.
bambax 15y ago
> 49% incredible pain in the ass, 51% most sublime joy you've ever felt; that one percent makes all the difference. Between 49 and 51 I count a difference of two percents? > Turns out, we're having two babies, due in mid-February 2012. Aha. Let's talk again in a year or two, see who you'd throw under a bus. I have three of those myself. I don't really subscribe to this whole "kids are wonderful" cliché. The first kid, it's wonderful, yes (but this has been said before, no?) The other kids? Let's say I would agree more with Louis CK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcnXpOygKGI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcnXpOygKGI Edit: downvoters should try to take care of my kids for a few days ;-)
- pestaa 15y ago
  If they misbehave, that's another story to discuss. But the manner in which you publicly talk about your own family is just disgusting. I have only higher words even about my dog even with the headaches she causes sometimes.
  - bambax 15y ago
    Thanks for commenting, because I can't understand the downvotes. I still don't see where I "publicly talk about my own family" in a "disgusting" way, but if that's how my comment comes across, it sure looks bad. For all it's worth, I love my kids. Of course. And I would throw myself under a bus for any of them. Of course. And I almost have, twice (under my motorbike, which is not a bus, but weights over 400 pounds). My point is: who doesn't love his kids??!? (And who cares?) - - - Edit: this may bring more downvotes, but it's worth it if it helps me understand myself. I profoundly disliked Jeff's post. I should have said so instead of trying to be funny about it, but then I would have had to explain. Well, I have to explain anyway. So there. If parenting should teach you anything, it's that your kids are not you. They are not part of you, either. They're them; they're persons. Jeff says so near the end, but I'm afraid he doesn't understand what it means. Contrary to what most people apparently believe, praising your own kids in public, or your love for them, isn't helping them. It's helping you. It's using them to project a better image of you. It objectifies them: in fact, it's a kind of abuse.
brc 15y ago
So true that you can't explain to people. You can try, but they will either get the horror, or the bliss, but they'll never understand the strange and gut-bustingly hard mix of the two, and how quickly it swings from one to the other. When they are defying you and just threw food over the kitchen, you'll get grey hairs trying to fight the urge to blow your top. You'll say things you promised yourself you would never say, because you're all out of ideas how to handle a tiny creature who is intent on riling you, just to see what it's like. Then they'll get sick and you'll need to carry them to a doctor and entrust them to medical staff you've never met, and you'll be so anxious you won't eat or sleep. Then the next day you'll have the most wonderful conversation where your little charge asks you about the universe and you try and explain it to them, not knowing where to start or how much understanding they really have. One thing though, you'll learn compassion, forgiveness and patience like you never thought possible.
- bhrgunatha 15y ago
  One thing that surprised me immensely was the unexpected new perspective and sense of respect for my own parents who had obviously been through it all themselves.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    And the funny thing is, I remember them telling me "one day, if you have kids, you'll understand how this feels". I didn't take them seriously because I thought I knew everything. Now sort of understand what they meant. Now friends with older children keep telling me "little kids -- little problems, big kids -- big problems". I hear the words, but it doesn't really mean anything to me now, just a nice saying. But something tells me though, one day I will say to them too "Yeah, I know what you meant..."
    - bad_user 15y ago
      My kid is a little sensitive. He was born prematurely and he also inherited a little allergic material from me. A month ago he had a very mild version of Lyell syndrome, most probably as an allergic reaction to an infection with staphylococcus aureus. He's over it, he's doing great in general, he looks his age both physically and mentally and to us he's the best kid in the world (and I'm sure we aren't exaggerating much), but ever since he was born we have been freaking out, being extra careful not to catch cold, doing all kinds of tests for hearing, eye-sight, immunity, allergic reactions, bacterial infections and so on and so forth. Imagine that in the case of this Lyell syndrome, the doctor warned us that he may lose all his skin, and that this is extremely dangerous because it will behave like being burned. Fortunately it didn't happen that way, but imagine the stress. Now, I don't know what kind of problems I'll have later down the road, but I'm pretty sure health-related problems, especially when the child is between 0 and 2 years, are the worst ;)
Tichy 15y ago
Nicely written, although I have to say I don't find having a baby quite as horrible as most other parents seem to find it. Exhausting at times, yes, but nothing that gets me angry. As for my old life - maybe I wasn't partying hard enough, because I don't really miss it that much. OK, it is terrifying, but not because the kid is a terrorist. It is terrifying because life suddenly has you by the guts. I guess I cared a little about my own survival before, but now I really want to survive to be able to be there for my kid, and I definitely want my kid to survive. Suddenly life has gained a whole new dimension.
- ra 15y ago
  I guess I cared a little about my own survival before, but now I really want to survive to be able to be there for my kid... Exactly how I feel. Nicely written, although I have to say I don't find having a baby quite as horrible as most other parents seem to find it. Exhausting at times, yes, but nothing that gets me angry. Wait, it'll come!
  - Tichy 15y ago
    "Wait, it'll come!" Granted, it will probably come. But I wonder if it will really make me angry. I fully expect that at some point my child will try to test my limits - it's basically his job. But knowing it is what he has to do, maybe it won't really make me angry. We'll see. On the other hand, I wonder if the time aspect won't become better over time. Right now we have to watch the baby all the time to make sure he doesn't hurt himself. But there will be the time when he can play by himself of with friends. Of course by then there are also a lot more things we could do with him, which might induce us to spend more time with him in turn.
    - Jem 15y ago
      I don't know how old your kid is, but my little girl is 2 in a few weeks and she sure as hell tests my limits. I am a VERY laid-back person. I don't believe that kids exist purely to manipulate us, and I do believe that a lot of what some people think is "misbehaving" is just a kid's learning journey (exploring emotions, boundaries etc) but even so... wow. I've found patience I never knew I had.
gbog 15y ago
It is nice to see some positive words about having kids. But still what is so hard? Spending less time online? I have the impression that raising kids is much harder in the US.
- CPlatypus 15y ago
  You have less free time, in smaller increments, and no longer under your control. Let's say you have no children, and work a standard forty-hour week. I know that's not common here, but bear with me. The thing is, that other 108 hours per week is yours, and you can arrange it as you like. You can choose to work longer hours at a startup, or spend time on strenuous hobbies. You can choose to stay up late and sleep in late. You can choose to work more one day to guarantee yourself a large block of free time another day. Whatever you do, it's a choice. Now you have a kid. That 108 hours just turned into 80 or less - much less in the early stages for just about any parent, still less for at least the next decade even if you're a selfish parent. What's left is no longer movable from earlier until later, or from one day or to the next, because your child's schedule is not as flexible as an adult's. You practically never get to sleep in past 8am. When you do it's because you owe your spouse a favor - and with everything else in the paragraph it's a big one. It's impossible to do anything requiring intense concentration, because your child is a high-priority interrupt and that interrupt triggers frequently. My daughter (seven) is far better than most at staying occupied by herself, and even she interrupts me all the time. You know that look you give your coworkers while they interrupt you just when you finally got into the coding groove? You can't do that to your kid, so you don't even start anything that intense. You code less, you read less, you exercise less, you game less, you get online less. Your only real opportunity to have a significant block of free time is after the kid's in bed. To take advantage of that you'll be dipping into that 56 hours per week of sleep time and using caffeine the next day to (sort of) make up for it. By the way, I hear all of these factors are compounded when you have more than one kid, and I just can't even imagine what it's like for single parents. I'm not complaining. There are other things that more than make up for the loss of time and control over time, but it's still draining. Still, I just have to laugh at the childless people who just assume all that time is available and flexible, who don't realize that being able to ride their bikes three hours a day or spontaneously head out for a three-day binge in Vegas is a luxury. Enjoy it while you can. Enjoy it your whole life if that's your choice. Just understand that every parent in the world is going to have a different perspective on free time than you do. Even though the result is worth it, losing two thirds of your usable free time is hard.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- crescentfresh 15y ago
  The melodrama comes out of a fear of losing them. Would you "throw yourself under a bus" to save them? When I think about why the answer is always yes, it does my head in. Puts my priorities in check.
bodegajed 15y ago
This is not Parenting Magazine. I am a parent, but I came here to read about startups, technology and etc.. What happened?
- fakelvis 15y ago
  No, it's not Parenting Magazine. It's also not bodegajed Magazine. Like many have said before—to others who stress a dislike over an article that made it to HN's front page—if you don't like an article then flag it, ignore it, and/or don't click on it and comment. Move on. I'm not a parent, but as soon as I saw this article in my feed reader I came to HN to see what other hackers had to say about parenting. I am not disappointed.
- beza1e1 15y ago
  Where do you go for parenting?
- artmageddon 15y ago
  There are people who want to have startups, deal with technology, AND be parents, too. There's no reason that they must be mutually exclusive. Besides, the number of articles regarding parenting on this site is a metaphorical drop in the ocean of tech articles.
  - mdda 15y ago
    I think it's wholly appropriate : To put up a warning flag around some of the major non-tech life events that the site's main demographic will be making decisions about.
- pullo 15y ago
  agree with bodegajed. I like jeff, but this article falls mostly outside core interest of HN.
mynameishere 15y ago
Little tip for any budding writers: Whenever you feel the urge to use the word "enormity", use enormousness or magnitude instead. Especially if you're talking about your children.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  This is particularly true if you're writing before the 18th century. Anyone writing in the 21st century however could just ignore the original meaning of the word and go with the meaning it's picked up over time - that is implying a sense of scale without the negative implications. This definition would be supported by a majority of modern dictionaries. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enormity http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enormity http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enormity http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enormity http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enormity http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enormity See also: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enormity http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enormity
- acheron 15y ago
  Yeah, that always bugs me too. It seems like a relatively recent thing, too; I feel like I always heard it with the negative connotation growing up and in early adulthood, but within the past 10 years or so I suddenly see people who write as if there were nothing negative about it. It would be like next year seeing people start using words like "terrible" or "PHP application" non-negatively.
jkeel 15y ago
This was a great post. My wife and I have 4 kids and even though we are technically "outnumbered" we try our best to get everyone in on the idea that we are a team in this adventure of life. It's hard but it's wonderful too! This was my favorite line: "Children give the first four years of your life back to you." It's true! They teach you in those 4 years so much about life and I think the true loving nature of humans before we all get shaped through our environments.
dgabriel 15y ago
Congrats to Jeff! My firstborn is also Henry, and I have two year old twin girls (Ada and Alice). The most interesting things about twins is how incredibly different they are from each other. They were nurtured in the same way, they share the same sets of genes, but they are wholly and fully their own people from day 1. It is completely fascinating stuff.
- kittxkat 15y ago
  Ada and Alice. Might I ask if the inspiration for those two names came from a computer background? (Ada for the first programmer, and Alice for the first Apple computer)
  - dgabriel 15y ago
    We are on Hacker News.... Indeed, Ada is named for Ada Lovelace, but Alice is named in honor of Lewis Carroll. We like math.
    - flomincucci 15y ago
      Loved the names
  - danellis 15y ago
    I bet when she gets to school Alice is going to be trying to pass secret notes to Bob.
    - warren_s 15y ago
      Just as long as they stay away from that Eve kid, I hear she just wants to know EVERYTHING!
  - hellweaver666 15y ago
    Wasn't the Apple computer called Lisa?
    - 15y ago
smoyer 15y ago
Congratulations Jeff! We were never concerned about being outnumbered as long as we had a hand for each of them, so we had three and adopted a fourth. Now that the oldest two are 20 and 18, I'm pretty convinced we've been outsmarted ... but that's a good thing ;)
tbourdon 15y ago
I just hope Jeff realizes that the amount of work per child is exponential not linear. So having twins will be about four times the work of just one child. Also, I'm sure Jeff has already done the math on this but at at roughly seven diapers per day, 40 diapers per week, 2000 diapers per year, your average child goes through about 5000 diapers. 5K down, 10K to go :)
- mjs00 15y ago
  Yes! And as tempting as it is to think child #2+ later might be 'easier', (because you've already ramped up the learning curve of caring for a baby with #1), you are confronted with the entirely different issue of logistics, especially when both are under 3 and demanding 100% attention when not sleeping. No longer 2 parents that can tag-team to rest, you now have two different schedules and sets of needs that will test parents ability to sleep/get rest/get anything done. The good news is that is is worth it, and it does get much better once they start independent play or playing with each other after 2/3 years.
- jccodez 15y ago
  Regarding the amount of work per child being exponential, is this from your personal experience? My experience is the opposite.
  - mjs00 15y ago
    His point on twins (triplets ..), where there are parallel simultaneous needs is perhaps different than multiple children, where at some point older ones 'help' with younger ones.
WayneDB 15y ago
I love children but I am looking forward to NEVER having them. My sister's got a couple now and my cousin's boys are carrying on the family name for the people in my family who care about that. I think it's incredibly selfish to bring new kids into the world when there are so many that nobody wants. I don't normally say that to people and I don't really hold it against anyone (I do understand the motivations for having your own children), but that's how I feel. If really want to do something useful and not just serve your own desires, why wouldn't you just adopt?
- maaku 15y ago
  Because it's not about "doing something useful". And that's okay.
- Goladus 15y ago
  > I think it's incredibly selfish to bring new kids into the world when there are so many that nobody wants. Having a child is a selfish thing to do regardless. That's not really much of an accusation.
  - gbog 15y ago
    > Having a child is a selfish thing to do regardless. Ridiculous. As stated elsewhere, having kids is giving a part of your self to create a new independent self. It will teach you the hard way compassion, love to the other, etc. It is exactly the opposite of selfishness. How the hell can you hold such a paradoxical statement? editadd: There is a very strong anti-child line of thought in the US, I felt it in many occasions (on Lifehacker, for instance), and I think it is very strange, and dangerous. Is it because of a fashionable thinking that humans are too many? Is it a consequence of utilitarian morals? Honest question here: I think it is a subject of tremendous importance. Hidden behind this apparently innocuous sentence and pushing its logic to its limits, one may find the death of humanism and the end of civilisation.
    - Goladus 15y ago
      > How the hell can you hold such a paradoxical statement? I think in this case, the paradox unravels if you realize that I precisely chose the words "having a child" instead of "raising a child." The decision to mate is usually selfish, and the decision to spawn offspring is also selfish (except where it's careless). People don't have sex because it's their duty. People don't try to conceive a child because they feel responsible to anyone but themselves. They decide they want the experience of raising a child, and so they do it for themselves. The experience itself is, obviously, a mixture of selflessness and selfishness. Also, the word "selfish" has slightly more negative connotations than I would prefer, but I can't think of any suitable words that wouldn't require a whole paragraph to qualify.
Kliment 15y ago
Interesting how the core elements of this are similar to what people say about psychedelics. The whole theme of "People told me about it but I never really understood. Then I tried." and "Feelings/emotions I'd never been able to imagine.", this is exactly the kind of language people use when trying to explain to me why I should try psychedelics. I haven't so far. I don't find it compelling. Wonder if the chemical effects are similar though.
pcote 15y ago
"As an adult, you may think you've roughly mapped the continent of love and relationships. You've loved your parents, a few of your friends, eventually a significant other. You have some tentative cartography to work with from your explorations. You form ideas about what love is, its borders and boundaries. Then you have a child, look up to the sky, and suddenly understand that those bright dots in the sky are whole other galaxies." So Jeff is implying that those who choose to never have children will never experience love, life, and the universe with the intensity and awe that parents do. Somehow I'm "missing out". Sorry, but no.
- pcote 15y ago
  A quick clarification in response to the downvoting. I have no disrespect for Jeff or anyone else's choice to have kids. I have brothers and sisters who went down that road and I'm happy for them. But Jeff threw around condescending terms like "roughly mapped" and "tentative cartography" to describe the worldview of people who don't have kids. That's where I begged to differ. All I'm saying is live your life and love it regardless of the path you go down. But please don't talk down to people who choose not to follow you there.
- sokoloff 15y ago
  I think he's pretty well stating it, and I think he's pretty well right. (I'd have also agreed with your point-of-view 3 years ago before my first was born.) It's not worth much arguing about, because as a non-parent you'll have other compensating "benefits", but it's hard for me to imagine how much my own world view and views on selfless love changed with the birth of my first (and to a lesser extent, my second). FTR, I didn't downvote.
- mikeash 15y ago
  I dislike that attitude as well. Having children is presented as some amazing thing that you can't possibly comprehend if you haven't. Then the child comes and, guess what, life is pretty much like before, except there's a new member of the family with interesting needs. I'm not somehow more complete than before, and people like you aren't missing out on anything fundamental besides the raw personal experience of parenting. We all make choices about what we want. I'm sure an avid skydiver could talk your ear off about how amazing that experience is and how you don't truly understand X until you've done it.
timjahn 15y ago
I can't believe how accurately this post reflects my own thoughts on parenthood. He just put into words so clearly exactly what I've been thinking and how I've been feeling.
micah63 15y ago
Beautiful. I'd give this 400 points if I could.
giardini 15y ago
"Having a child is a lot like running a marathon. An incredible challenge, but a worthwhile and transformative experience." Yes, except it never ends. My elderly father's last conversations were filled with concerns about my siblings. The more limited his mobility, the more exhausted he seemed, the more he worried about how they would get along. I tell people that there are switches in the brain - that when you first hold your child (or any child should you hold it long enough), those switches turn on. You have no control of the switches; they are genetically-controlled hardware passed down from your parents. They have lain dormant for the several decades of your life, awaiting this moment. Once they turn on, they will not turn off. The "switches" change your behavior radically: you will now react to the child's cry to sooth it, you will protect the child at all costs, you will grieve if it is harmed, etc. Here's an example. One friend, an animal lover, upon entering her home with her first newborn instinctively commanded "Get the animals outside, all of them, outside, NOW!!" and to the bewilderment of all present, four previously beloved and sheltered pets were cast out into the frozen dark backyard (we did improvise shelter). To this day she remains amazed at what she did. The pets were allowed indoors 18 months later. When I was young I didn't understand this. I was taught that we were tabulae rasae. Once I started to understand evolution, I saw that it only makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: what could be more important to a gene than producing another copy of related genes? What better way to do this than to program the organism to protect its young at all costs? But there's another level of understanding: standing there, holding a child as the switches turn on. The experience itself.
- run4yourlives 15y ago
  One of the beauties of the human experience is that we can overcome our genetic "switches" to derive a more positive experience. You're not a slave to your instincts unless you want to be.
  - giardini 15y ago
    "One of the beauties of the human experience is that we can overcome our genetic "switches" to derive a more positive experience. You're not a slave to your instincts unless you want to be." That's old tabula rasa thinking - it's false. Tell that to someone who has fallen in love (another example of this type of genetically-programmed behavior) or who has bonded normally with their child. They'll laugh you out of the room. They would, in a heartbeat, throw you and themselves under a bus to save their loved one(s). They are slaves to their instincts. Until the "switches" turn on, few (in modern society at least) realize/believe the switches are there! It isn't easy to counteract something internal that you have no belief in and have not experienced before. And it may be best (for the other, certainly) not to try. Some say, for example, that romantic love isn't real. But romantic love is automatic and non-participatory: that is, your conscious self doesn't do the decision-making. And when you fall in love, every conscious system in your brain will be suborned to justify your automatic genetically-programmed behavior. So much for "free will!" There are many instances where a parent does not bond with a child - they will not be protective or nurturing. In extreme instances they may kill the child. But none of this is normal or common.
jroseattle 15y ago
Way to go, Jeff! Congrats on twins! I had twins born just over 10 years ago, and can clearly remember the doctor pulling up the ultrasound and circling a little dot and calling it a baby. There was another dot just like it on the other side of the screen, and I thought "this guy has no idea what he's doing", because he was missing the other dot. Then he said, "here's another one". I said "another what?" He looked at me, and calmly replied, "there are two babies in here. You're having twins." At that point, everything changed. Nobody believes me, but I bet you do. And everyone else on this thread who has kids gets it, too. I had a boy and girl; the boy is named Henry. Small world, brother. Keeping with the hacker theme, my kids are easily the best products I have ever shipped. :-)
BlazingFrog 15y ago
Having kids will change you, no question. You would throw yourself under a bus to save your kids, absolutely. But let's not forget that you are still an individual with aspirations, ambitions, needs. Even after your child is born. Some people are better than others at repressing that side of their identity, instead evolving into a seemingly completely altruistic being. I couldn't. The first year with my first born was hard but still magical (plus my wife stayed home with him so it helped a lot). After that, time to be used for myself was coming back, restful nights... Piece of cake. Then I pushed for a second child (I always loathed the idea of raising an only child for some reason). My wife had resumed working by then and it was understood that she would go back after a couple of months of staying home with the baby. That's when it became insanely painful for me, trying to protect my newly returned freedom (after my first born became more independent) while carrying 50% of the child rearing load with a newborn and a toddler. I had to surrender (my self lost) for my own sanity and the well-being of my children. The lesson I think I've learnt is that to be as "successful" as possible at raising kids (whatever that means) you have to let go. A lot at times. And hope for the best.
EGreg 15y ago
I've always admired Jeff Attwood's courageous honesty and insight. Gives me hope for getting married :)
TamDenholm 15y ago
I'm not a parent and don't ever plan to be (not all plans go that way, so my feelings might change on the matter) but I dont really get the whole parenting/having kids thing. I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling and i honestly think i'd make an absolutely terrible father because i just dont think im wired that way. When Jeff talks about the 51% to the 49%, my personal opinion is why even bother devoting 18+ years of effort for a measly 2% payoff? Because, if it WAS worth it, wouldnt it be more than 2%? I know this is perhaps a controversial opinion but please keep in mind I dont advocate my own views for anyone else. I have friends who i wholeheartedly believe weren't complete until they had kids, they're great parents and its what makes them whole and i think thats brilliant. But kids are like bungee jumping or religion, great for other people, but certainly not for me.
- a5seo 15y ago
  Definitely think it's good to get yourself clear on this so you can be as upfront as possible with potential partners. Kids are one area where you do have to go all-in... The last thing the world needs is kids who are screwed up because their parents "sorta" wanted kids (the way I sorta want an rc helicopter) and discover their personal pain/gain is over 1.0, and check out and let the tv raise them.
- mcrittenden 15y ago
  > I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling Have you spent much time around them? I have a 16 month old, and before he was born, I felt exactly the same as you. In fact, I went out of my way to avoid having to interact with children of most any age. Once I spent some time around my son, I began to find other babies cute and fun and now I really enjoy hanging out with kids (well, most of them). Maybe it's an acquired taste?
- johnnyn 15y ago
  That's okay Tam. Like you said, parenthood is not for everyone and I agree with that. And yes, Jeff's chart would imply only a 2% difference. But that 2% doesn't include the child's happiness and well being. When you have a child, you are doing it for you, but more importantly, you are doing it for them. You are giving them the greatest gift -- life. Almost everyone -- children of flawed parents included -- is glad to be alive.
Yhippa 15y ago
This has been one of the more interesting posts I've seen on HN in a while. Imagine if you presented all this evidence to each parent before they decide to have kids. I wonder if most people would still go through with it? I'm glad my parents did! But the more I hear about parenting the more it seems that you lose your life. I hope that one day my DNA forces me to override my logic unit and find a nice lady to have kids with.
Cherian_Abraham 15y ago
Its funny that I was about to post this on Twitter here when I saw Jeff's post: Successes and Failures melt away in front of a two year old. Validations and affirmations happen by way of a smile. That being said, I cant wait to go home and wrap my hands around my two year old son.
tomxtobin 15y ago
As a childfree individual, I'm amused by the euphoric claims of parents regarding the improved quality of their lives after having children. All the science seems to point in the opposite direction: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyone-have-children/ http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyon... I have to confess: from the outside looking in, parents resemble nothing so much as cult victims gushing with conversion stories, complete with the requisite, "It'll be so much better once you join!" It's even creepier than that, though: cults may have leaders, but parents merely have genes flipping switches. It's like we all have a brainwashing trigger implanted at birth, waiting for the right circumstance to arise. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, though: if raising kids is extremely hard, something would have to get tweaked in the parents' minds to convince them to stick around. (Sometimes I wonder if some aspects of my genetic "kid trigger" were co-opted by my cat. She reduces me to a babbling puddle of mush, and I'm enormously protective of her. When she nearly died, I was reduced to tears, and I made large sacrifices in time and money to save her life — and I'd cheerfully sell a kidney if that's what it took to do so again. I plan on having her cryogenically preserved if the worst happens someday. But throw myself under a bus? No — although I'd throw someone else under a bus for her.) The hardest part of being childfree, I've found, is the realization that I don't even live on the same planet as people who are, or will be, parents. Each side looks crazy from the other. I've found it impossible to maintain a close friendship with someone once they've had kids; schedules and priorities diverge, and you become increasingly convinced that it's best to "stick to your own kind" in the first place.
- technomancy 15y ago
  > I'm amused by the euphoric claims of parents regarding the improved quality of their lives after having children. I would go the other way and claim that the main benefit of raising a child is that it's the most effective way to banish the seductive illusion that you yourself are the most important thing in the universe.
  - tomxtobin 15y ago
    I'd argue that "the most important thing in the universe" is always an utterly subjective feeling — an "illusion" — whether evoked by thoughts of oneself, one's child, or anything else. The interesting lesson is that the object of one's supreme devotion can change at all.
0ffworlder 15y ago
So we have a 51/49% ratio for happiness and crazy in relation to child rearing. And this is for a middle to upper class person who wanted kids in the first place. Kids are crazy, generally make the gf/wife look 15y older after they have had em, and allow said gf/wife to have ultimate control (child support and divorce) which essentially robs a man of his independance and ability to have fun. There is a damn good reason that there are family sections of restraunts... Also, consider bars/leaving bong & vape on the coffee table/leaving porn and condoms out/leaving booze out/leaving good food out (kids are less behaved than kitties in most ways)/leaving expensive tech out (kiddies going to puke on that MBP)....ad nauseum. There is really no point to having kids, although social convention aka parents in some cultures sometimes advocates them, but it is a matter of rational self interest to disagree with this notion. 99% chance your kids will put you in a rest home, rather than take care of you, thats how the cookie crumbles.
- shinratdr 15y ago
  Right, but people who don't hate women, children, and possibly themselves, don't really have that reaction right off the bat. You are right in the sense that you should not have children, less because this is a reasonable and healthy outlook on life and more because if you believe this bullshit and live your life by it, you aren't fit to raise kids period.
marcamillion 15y ago
OMG...I was just trying to explain to a friend why she should wait 3 - 5 years before having kids, but I found it so hard to put into words. That graph is SOOO true. Haven't even read the entire post yet, but after 2 kids (both under 4) that graph sums up the entire experience - from my perspective anyway - more true than any words can.
indianburger 15y ago
Jeff has done what women have tried for ages...made men open up emotionally PS: for the 1% female population reading this...nevermind I don't think it is even 1%...
rickdangerous1 15y ago
The angle that you almost never see mentioned in discussions like this is those 0.01 percent of scenarios where "both mother and baby are doing well" isn't true. There are all kinds of risks, complications and gut wrenching, soul searing, life destroying outcomes which you're up for when you play the game of life.
gclaramunt 15y ago
Having kids is the ultimate startup

334 points by mootothemax 15y ago

Beautifully written!

"choosing to become a parent is the hardest thing I have ever done" Actually, I'd imagine that that bit is pretty easy because the subsequent parts (as described in the article) cannot be imagined before they happen. Thus choosing to become a parent probably looks pretty easy.

rdtsc 15y ago
Well it is choosing to become a parent if you know what it is like to be a parent. So that makes sense only in in retrospect. Q: So why do people have more than one child? A: Because they are so sleep deprived they don't remember how difficult it was handling the child after they are born ;-)
beza1e1 15y ago
From personal experience, saying "Let's have a baby!" was at least as terrifying as "Will you marry me?".
- rdtsc 15y ago
  I would say that having a kid to me seems like a lot bigger change than getting married. But of course I am married already, so maybe that in retrospect doesn't seem like such a big change...

gldalmaso 15y ago

I couldn't agree more with Jeff. I myself have said it on multiple ocasions, having a kid is an emotional roller coster. It's amazing just how much you fall in love with them and with life, but there also quite a few moments where you just wanna disappear, leave it all behind and just... rest... These times are a real challenge. You HAVE to deal with it, you just cannot give up, and most of the time there isn't really anyone else that can cover for you. It is, by far, the most difficult thing I've ever done.

arethuza 15y ago
"It's amazing just how much you fall in love with them" And how quickly - I can vividly remember being handed my son by the midwife and having the immediate reaction of "my overriding concern in life is now to protect and love this wee thing".
- gbog 15y ago
  For me the main discovery is that of pure bidirectional unconditional love
  - michaelll 15y ago
    Sure, I loved him from the start, but he really wasn't very interactive in the beginning and definitely a lot of work. For me the true bond really came when the little guy started following me everywhere, crawling with great effort, just not to lose sight of me. Yes, it is a burden when I am trying to fix a cup of coffee and he's standing there holding my leg making it difficult to walk from the counter to the sink, but the joyous expression he gets when I instead bend down on my knees and tickle him or blow on his stomach is pure happiness worth all the work we've put in so far :)
    - deskamess 15y ago
      Thanks for writing that first paragraph. It was not an instant thing with me either... the first 2-3 months (maybe more) were spent helping taking care of and playing with my daughter and wondering now what... And then she started cracking open a smile every time I came back from work/groceries/etc. Every time. It was a simple acknowledgement, and I fell for it...
    - gbog 15y ago
      Sure, this is not bidi in the very beginning, and later it can get messy.
    - gldalmaso 15y ago
      Yes, the first three months come with very little reward, it's exhausting. During that time almost all I can remember is my daughter crying, she cried to take a bath, to change diapers, from gas. And maybe the worst was that she cried really, really loud, affording comments from doctors and other professionals (that are in frequent contact with different kids) that she had "good lungs" or "strong personality". Then at four months she teething started early and she couldn't even sooth herself by biting toys, so it was a real burden for everyone. It was only after that period that things really started to look better, with her interacting more and developing a more visible personality. I heard somewhere that babies should actually spend three more months in gestation, but can't since we started to walk upright and now have a narrower birth canal. I think it's a very elucidative theory, because in that period I really don't think that babies are ready to face the world.

wgx 15y ago

I whole heartedly agree. Our baby is 1 next week and it has been, without doubt, the most amazing, terrifying, tiring and joyous year. Can't wait to teach him to code.

wanorris 15y ago
Just remember: you don't get to pick what fascinates your children. He may love sitting by your side learning all about coding -- and he may get bored and restless and want you to go outside and throw a ball around with him.
- wgx 15y ago
  He can code a physics engine and throw a ball in that. </sarcasm>
Morcane 15y ago
I'm going to try my best to keep my kids AWAY from the computer...(it's gonna be their choice in the end though).

chalst 15y ago

There's not an original thought in Jeff's post and it's wonderful. Yes, becoming a parent is exactly like that. The birth of my first baby was pretty difficult for my wife, because of injuries that happened because of incompetent midwives. My wife was very crippled for the first week, our daughter had a hard start to life outside the womb, and our family was almost completely useless so I had to do nearly everything (the new midwife was great, though); oh, and just to make it perfect, our dog sliced her paw deeply open on some glass four hours after we returned from the hospital who had kicked out my injured wife at 5am because they didn't have space. That week was the happiest of my life. If I ever am in need of cheering up, I just need to think back to changing my first blood-stained nappy. As Jeff sort of said, becoming a parent is weird.

bambax 15y ago

> 49% incredible pain in the ass, 51% most sublime joy you've ever felt; that one percent makes all the difference. Between 49 and 51 I count a difference of two percents? > Turns out, we're having two babies, due in mid-February 2012. Aha. Let's talk again in a year or two, see who you'd throw under a bus. I have three of those myself. I don't really subscribe to this whole "kids are wonderful" cliché. The first kid, it's wonderful, yes (but this has been said before, no?) The other kids? Let's say I would agree more with Louis CK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcnXpOygKGI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcnXpOygKGI Edit: downvoters should try to take care of my kids for a few days ;-)

pestaa 15y ago
If they misbehave, that's another story to discuss. But the manner in which you publicly talk about your own family is just disgusting. I have only higher words even about my dog even with the headaches she causes sometimes.
- bambax 15y ago
  Thanks for commenting, because I can't understand the downvotes. I still don't see where I "publicly talk about my own family" in a "disgusting" way, but if that's how my comment comes across, it sure looks bad. For all it's worth, I love my kids. Of course. And I would throw myself under a bus for any of them. Of course. And I almost have, twice (under my motorbike, which is not a bus, but weights over 400 pounds). My point is: who doesn't love his kids??!? (And who cares?) - - - Edit: this may bring more downvotes, but it's worth it if it helps me understand myself. I profoundly disliked Jeff's post. I should have said so instead of trying to be funny about it, but then I would have had to explain. Well, I have to explain anyway. So there. If parenting should teach you anything, it's that your kids are not you. They are not part of you, either. They're them; they're persons. Jeff says so near the end, but I'm afraid he doesn't understand what it means. Contrary to what most people apparently believe, praising your own kids in public, or your love for them, isn't helping them. It's helping you. It's using them to project a better image of you. It objectifies them: in fact, it's a kind of abuse.

brc 15y ago

So true that you can't explain to people. You can try, but they will either get the horror, or the bliss, but they'll never understand the strange and gut-bustingly hard mix of the two, and how quickly it swings from one to the other. When they are defying you and just threw food over the kitchen, you'll get grey hairs trying to fight the urge to blow your top. You'll say things you promised yourself you would never say, because you're all out of ideas how to handle a tiny creature who is intent on riling you, just to see what it's like. Then they'll get sick and you'll need to carry them to a doctor and entrust them to medical staff you've never met, and you'll be so anxious you won't eat or sleep. Then the next day you'll have the most wonderful conversation where your little charge asks you about the universe and you try and explain it to them, not knowing where to start or how much understanding they really have. One thing though, you'll learn compassion, forgiveness and patience like you never thought possible.

bhrgunatha 15y ago
One thing that surprised me immensely was the unexpected new perspective and sense of respect for my own parents who had obviously been through it all themselves.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  And the funny thing is, I remember them telling me "one day, if you have kids, you'll understand how this feels". I didn't take them seriously because I thought I knew everything. Now sort of understand what they meant. Now friends with older children keep telling me "little kids -- little problems, big kids -- big problems". I hear the words, but it doesn't really mean anything to me now, just a nice saying. But something tells me though, one day I will say to them too "Yeah, I know what you meant..."
  - bad_user 15y ago
    My kid is a little sensitive. He was born prematurely and he also inherited a little allergic material from me. A month ago he had a very mild version of Lyell syndrome, most probably as an allergic reaction to an infection with staphylococcus aureus. He's over it, he's doing great in general, he looks his age both physically and mentally and to us he's the best kid in the world (and I'm sure we aren't exaggerating much), but ever since he was born we have been freaking out, being extra careful not to catch cold, doing all kinds of tests for hearing, eye-sight, immunity, allergic reactions, bacterial infections and so on and so forth. Imagine that in the case of this Lyell syndrome, the doctor warned us that he may lose all his skin, and that this is extremely dangerous because it will behave like being burned. Fortunately it didn't happen that way, but imagine the stress. Now, I don't know what kind of problems I'll have later down the road, but I'm pretty sure health-related problems, especially when the child is between 0 and 2 years, are the worst ;)

Tichy 15y ago

Nicely written, although I have to say I don't find having a baby quite as horrible as most other parents seem to find it. Exhausting at times, yes, but nothing that gets me angry. As for my old life - maybe I wasn't partying hard enough, because I don't really miss it that much. OK, it is terrifying, but not because the kid is a terrorist. It is terrifying because life suddenly has you by the guts. I guess I cared a little about my own survival before, but now I really want to survive to be able to be there for my kid, and I definitely want my kid to survive. Suddenly life has gained a whole new dimension.

ra 15y ago
I guess I cared a little about my own survival before, but now I really want to survive to be able to be there for my kid... Exactly how I feel. Nicely written, although I have to say I don't find having a baby quite as horrible as most other parents seem to find it. Exhausting at times, yes, but nothing that gets me angry. Wait, it'll come!
- Tichy 15y ago
  "Wait, it'll come!" Granted, it will probably come. But I wonder if it will really make me angry. I fully expect that at some point my child will try to test my limits - it's basically his job. But knowing it is what he has to do, maybe it won't really make me angry. We'll see. On the other hand, I wonder if the time aspect won't become better over time. Right now we have to watch the baby all the time to make sure he doesn't hurt himself. But there will be the time when he can play by himself of with friends. Of course by then there are also a lot more things we could do with him, which might induce us to spend more time with him in turn.
  - Jem 15y ago
    I don't know how old your kid is, but my little girl is 2 in a few weeks and she sure as hell tests my limits. I am a VERY laid-back person. I don't believe that kids exist purely to manipulate us, and I do believe that a lot of what some people think is "misbehaving" is just a kid's learning journey (exploring emotions, boundaries etc) but even so... wow. I've found patience I never knew I had.

gbog 15y ago

It is nice to see some positive words about having kids. But still what is so hard? Spending less time online? I have the impression that raising kids is much harder in the US.

CPlatypus 15y ago
You have less free time, in smaller increments, and no longer under your control. Let's say you have no children, and work a standard forty-hour week. I know that's not common here, but bear with me. The thing is, that other 108 hours per week is yours, and you can arrange it as you like. You can choose to work longer hours at a startup, or spend time on strenuous hobbies. You can choose to stay up late and sleep in late. You can choose to work more one day to guarantee yourself a large block of free time another day. Whatever you do, it's a choice. Now you have a kid. That 108 hours just turned into 80 or less - much less in the early stages for just about any parent, still less for at least the next decade even if you're a selfish parent. What's left is no longer movable from earlier until later, or from one day or to the next, because your child's schedule is not as flexible as an adult's. You practically never get to sleep in past 8am. When you do it's because you owe your spouse a favor - and with everything else in the paragraph it's a big one. It's impossible to do anything requiring intense concentration, because your child is a high-priority interrupt and that interrupt triggers frequently. My daughter (seven) is far better than most at staying occupied by herself, and even she interrupts me all the time. You know that look you give your coworkers while they interrupt you just when you finally got into the coding groove? You can't do that to your kid, so you don't even start anything that intense. You code less, you read less, you exercise less, you game less, you get online less. Your only real opportunity to have a significant block of free time is after the kid's in bed. To take advantage of that you'll be dipping into that 56 hours per week of sleep time and using caffeine the next day to (sort of) make up for it. By the way, I hear all of these factors are compounded when you have more than one kid, and I just can't even imagine what it's like for single parents. I'm not complaining. There are other things that more than make up for the loss of time and control over time, but it's still draining. Still, I just have to laugh at the childless people who just assume all that time is available and flexible, who don't realize that being able to ride their bikes three hours a day or spontaneously head out for a three-day binge in Vegas is a luxury. Enjoy it while you can. Enjoy it your whole life if that's your choice. Just understand that every parent in the world is going to have a different perspective on free time than you do. Even though the result is worth it, losing two thirds of your usable free time is hard.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

crescentfresh 15y ago
The melodrama comes out of a fear of losing them. Would you "throw yourself under a bus" to save them? When I think about why the answer is always yes, it does my head in. Puts my priorities in check.

bodegajed 15y ago

This is not Parenting Magazine. I am a parent, but I came here to read about startups, technology and etc.. What happened?

fakelvis 15y ago
No, it's not Parenting Magazine. It's also not bodegajed Magazine. Like many have said before—to others who stress a dislike over an article that made it to HN's front page—if you don't like an article then flag it, ignore it, and/or don't click on it and comment. Move on. I'm not a parent, but as soon as I saw this article in my feed reader I came to HN to see what other hackers had to say about parenting. I am not disappointed.
beza1e1 15y ago
Where do you go for parenting?
artmageddon 15y ago
There are people who want to have startups, deal with technology, AND be parents, too. There's no reason that they must be mutually exclusive. Besides, the number of articles regarding parenting on this site is a metaphorical drop in the ocean of tech articles.
- mdda 15y ago
  I think it's wholly appropriate : To put up a warning flag around some of the major non-tech life events that the site's main demographic will be making decisions about.
pullo 15y ago
agree with bodegajed. I like jeff, but this article falls mostly outside core interest of HN.

mynameishere 15y ago

Little tip for any budding writers: Whenever you feel the urge to use the word "enormity", use enormousness or magnitude instead. Especially if you're talking about your children.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
This is particularly true if you're writing before the 18th century. Anyone writing in the 21st century however could just ignore the original meaning of the word and go with the meaning it's picked up over time - that is implying a sense of scale without the negative implications. This definition would be supported by a majority of modern dictionaries. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enormity http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enormity http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enormity http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enormity http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enormity http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enormity See also: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enormity http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enormity
acheron 15y ago
Yeah, that always bugs me too. It seems like a relatively recent thing, too; I feel like I always heard it with the negative connotation growing up and in early adulthood, but within the past 10 years or so I suddenly see people who write as if there were nothing negative about it. It would be like next year seeing people start using words like "terrible" or "PHP application" non-negatively.

jkeel 15y ago

This was a great post. My wife and I have 4 kids and even though we are technically "outnumbered" we try our best to get everyone in on the idea that we are a team in this adventure of life. It's hard but it's wonderful too! This was my favorite line: "Children give the first four years of your life back to you." It's true! They teach you in those 4 years so much about life and I think the true loving nature of humans before we all get shaped through our environments.

dgabriel 15y ago

Congrats to Jeff! My firstborn is also Henry, and I have two year old twin girls (Ada and Alice). The most interesting things about twins is how incredibly different they are from each other. They were nurtured in the same way, they share the same sets of genes, but they are wholly and fully their own people from day 1. It is completely fascinating stuff.

kittxkat 15y ago
Ada and Alice. Might I ask if the inspiration for those two names came from a computer background? (Ada for the first programmer, and Alice for the first Apple computer)
- dgabriel 15y ago
  We are on Hacker News.... Indeed, Ada is named for Ada Lovelace, but Alice is named in honor of Lewis Carroll. We like math.
  - flomincucci 15y ago
    Loved the names
- danellis 15y ago
  I bet when she gets to school Alice is going to be trying to pass secret notes to Bob.
  - warren_s 15y ago
    Just as long as they stay away from that Eve kid, I hear she just wants to know EVERYTHING!
- hellweaver666 15y ago
  Wasn't the Apple computer called Lisa?
  - 15y ago

smoyer 15y ago

Congratulations Jeff! We were never concerned about being outnumbered as long as we had a hand for each of them, so we had three and adopted a fourth. Now that the oldest two are 20 and 18, I'm pretty convinced we've been outsmarted ... but that's a good thing ;)

tbourdon 15y ago

I just hope Jeff realizes that the amount of work per child is exponential not linear. So having twins will be about four times the work of just one child. Also, I'm sure Jeff has already done the math on this but at at roughly seven diapers per day, 40 diapers per week, 2000 diapers per year, your average child goes through about 5000 diapers. 5K down, 10K to go :)

mjs00 15y ago
Yes! And as tempting as it is to think child #2+ later might be 'easier', (because you've already ramped up the learning curve of caring for a baby with #1), you are confronted with the entirely different issue of logistics, especially when both are under 3 and demanding 100% attention when not sleeping. No longer 2 parents that can tag-team to rest, you now have two different schedules and sets of needs that will test parents ability to sleep/get rest/get anything done. The good news is that is is worth it, and it does get much better once they start independent play or playing with each other after 2/3 years.
jccodez 15y ago
Regarding the amount of work per child being exponential, is this from your personal experience? My experience is the opposite.
- mjs00 15y ago
  His point on twins (triplets ..), where there are parallel simultaneous needs is perhaps different than multiple children, where at some point older ones 'help' with younger ones.

WayneDB 15y ago

I love children but I am looking forward to NEVER having them. My sister's got a couple now and my cousin's boys are carrying on the family name for the people in my family who care about that. I think it's incredibly selfish to bring new kids into the world when there are so many that nobody wants. I don't normally say that to people and I don't really hold it against anyone (I do understand the motivations for having your own children), but that's how I feel. If really want to do something useful and not just serve your own desires, why wouldn't you just adopt?

maaku 15y ago
Because it's not about "doing something useful". And that's okay.
Goladus 15y ago
> I think it's incredibly selfish to bring new kids into the world when there are so many that nobody wants. Having a child is a selfish thing to do regardless. That's not really much of an accusation.
- gbog 15y ago
  > Having a child is a selfish thing to do regardless. Ridiculous. As stated elsewhere, having kids is giving a part of your self to create a new independent self. It will teach you the hard way compassion, love to the other, etc. It is exactly the opposite of selfishness. How the hell can you hold such a paradoxical statement? editadd: There is a very strong anti-child line of thought in the US, I felt it in many occasions (on Lifehacker, for instance), and I think it is very strange, and dangerous. Is it because of a fashionable thinking that humans are too many? Is it a consequence of utilitarian morals? Honest question here: I think it is a subject of tremendous importance. Hidden behind this apparently innocuous sentence and pushing its logic to its limits, one may find the death of humanism and the end of civilisation.
  - Goladus 15y ago
    > How the hell can you hold such a paradoxical statement? I think in this case, the paradox unravels if you realize that I precisely chose the words "having a child" instead of "raising a child." The decision to mate is usually selfish, and the decision to spawn offspring is also selfish (except where it's careless). People don't have sex because it's their duty. People don't try to conceive a child because they feel responsible to anyone but themselves. They decide they want the experience of raising a child, and so they do it for themselves. The experience itself is, obviously, a mixture of selflessness and selfishness. Also, the word "selfish" has slightly more negative connotations than I would prefer, but I can't think of any suitable words that wouldn't require a whole paragraph to qualify.

Kliment 15y ago

Interesting how the core elements of this are similar to what people say about psychedelics. The whole theme of "People told me about it but I never really understood. Then I tried." and "Feelings/emotions I'd never been able to imagine.", this is exactly the kind of language people use when trying to explain to me why I should try psychedelics. I haven't so far. I don't find it compelling. Wonder if the chemical effects are similar though.

pcote 15y ago

"As an adult, you may think you've roughly mapped the continent of love and relationships. You've loved your parents, a few of your friends, eventually a significant other. You have some tentative cartography to work with from your explorations. You form ideas about what love is, its borders and boundaries. Then you have a child, look up to the sky, and suddenly understand that those bright dots in the sky are whole other galaxies." So Jeff is implying that those who choose to never have children will never experience love, life, and the universe with the intensity and awe that parents do. Somehow I'm "missing out". Sorry, but no.

pcote 15y ago
A quick clarification in response to the downvoting. I have no disrespect for Jeff or anyone else's choice to have kids. I have brothers and sisters who went down that road and I'm happy for them. But Jeff threw around condescending terms like "roughly mapped" and "tentative cartography" to describe the worldview of people who don't have kids. That's where I begged to differ. All I'm saying is live your life and love it regardless of the path you go down. But please don't talk down to people who choose not to follow you there.
sokoloff 15y ago
I think he's pretty well stating it, and I think he's pretty well right. (I'd have also agreed with your point-of-view 3 years ago before my first was born.) It's not worth much arguing about, because as a non-parent you'll have other compensating "benefits", but it's hard for me to imagine how much my own world view and views on selfless love changed with the birth of my first (and to a lesser extent, my second). FTR, I didn't downvote.
mikeash 15y ago
I dislike that attitude as well. Having children is presented as some amazing thing that you can't possibly comprehend if you haven't. Then the child comes and, guess what, life is pretty much like before, except there's a new member of the family with interesting needs. I'm not somehow more complete than before, and people like you aren't missing out on anything fundamental besides the raw personal experience of parenting. We all make choices about what we want. I'm sure an avid skydiver could talk your ear off about how amazing that experience is and how you don't truly understand X until you've done it.

timjahn 15y ago

I can't believe how accurately this post reflects my own thoughts on parenthood. He just put into words so clearly exactly what I've been thinking and how I've been feeling.

micah63 15y ago

Beautiful. I'd give this 400 points if I could.

giardini 15y ago

"Having a child is a lot like running a marathon. An incredible challenge, but a worthwhile and transformative experience." Yes, except it never ends. My elderly father's last conversations were filled with concerns about my siblings. The more limited his mobility, the more exhausted he seemed, the more he worried about how they would get along. I tell people that there are switches in the brain - that when you first hold your child (or any child should you hold it long enough), those switches turn on. You have no control of the switches; they are genetically-controlled hardware passed down from your parents. They have lain dormant for the several decades of your life, awaiting this moment. Once they turn on, they will not turn off. The "switches" change your behavior radically: you will now react to the child's cry to sooth it, you will protect the child at all costs, you will grieve if it is harmed, etc. Here's an example. One friend, an animal lover, upon entering her home with her first newborn instinctively commanded "Get the animals outside, all of them, outside, NOW!!" and to the bewilderment of all present, four previously beloved and sheltered pets were cast out into the frozen dark backyard (we did improvise shelter). To this day she remains amazed at what she did. The pets were allowed indoors 18 months later. When I was young I didn't understand this. I was taught that we were tabulae rasae. Once I started to understand evolution, I saw that it only makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: what could be more important to a gene than producing another copy of related genes? What better way to do this than to program the organism to protect its young at all costs? But there's another level of understanding: standing there, holding a child as the switches turn on. The experience itself.

run4yourlives 15y ago
One of the beauties of the human experience is that we can overcome our genetic "switches" to derive a more positive experience. You're not a slave to your instincts unless you want to be.
- giardini 15y ago
  "One of the beauties of the human experience is that we can overcome our genetic "switches" to derive a more positive experience. You're not a slave to your instincts unless you want to be." That's old tabula rasa thinking - it's false. Tell that to someone who has fallen in love (another example of this type of genetically-programmed behavior) or who has bonded normally with their child. They'll laugh you out of the room. They would, in a heartbeat, throw you and themselves under a bus to save their loved one(s). They are slaves to their instincts. Until the "switches" turn on, few (in modern society at least) realize/believe the switches are there! It isn't easy to counteract something internal that you have no belief in and have not experienced before. And it may be best (for the other, certainly) not to try. Some say, for example, that romantic love isn't real. But romantic love is automatic and non-participatory: that is, your conscious self doesn't do the decision-making. And when you fall in love, every conscious system in your brain will be suborned to justify your automatic genetically-programmed behavior. So much for "free will!" There are many instances where a parent does not bond with a child - they will not be protective or nurturing. In extreme instances they may kill the child. But none of this is normal or common.

jroseattle 15y ago

Way to go, Jeff! Congrats on twins! I had twins born just over 10 years ago, and can clearly remember the doctor pulling up the ultrasound and circling a little dot and calling it a baby. There was another dot just like it on the other side of the screen, and I thought "this guy has no idea what he's doing", because he was missing the other dot. Then he said, "here's another one". I said "another what?" He looked at me, and calmly replied, "there are two babies in here. You're having twins." At that point, everything changed. Nobody believes me, but I bet you do. And everyone else on this thread who has kids gets it, too. I had a boy and girl; the boy is named Henry. Small world, brother. Keeping with the hacker theme, my kids are easily the best products I have ever shipped. :-)

BlazingFrog 15y ago

Having kids will change you, no question. You would throw yourself under a bus to save your kids, absolutely. But let's not forget that you are still an individual with aspirations, ambitions, needs. Even after your child is born. Some people are better than others at repressing that side of their identity, instead evolving into a seemingly completely altruistic being. I couldn't. The first year with my first born was hard but still magical (plus my wife stayed home with him so it helped a lot). After that, time to be used for myself was coming back, restful nights... Piece of cake. Then I pushed for a second child (I always loathed the idea of raising an only child for some reason). My wife had resumed working by then and it was understood that she would go back after a couple of months of staying home with the baby. That's when it became insanely painful for me, trying to protect my newly returned freedom (after my first born became more independent) while carrying 50% of the child rearing load with a newborn and a toddler. I had to surrender (my self lost) for my own sanity and the well-being of my children. The lesson I think I've learnt is that to be as "successful" as possible at raising kids (whatever that means) you have to let go. A lot at times. And hope for the best.

EGreg 15y ago

I've always admired Jeff Attwood's courageous honesty and insight. Gives me hope for getting married :)

TamDenholm 15y ago

I'm not a parent and don't ever plan to be (not all plans go that way, so my feelings might change on the matter) but I dont really get the whole parenting/having kids thing. I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling and i honestly think i'd make an absolutely terrible father because i just dont think im wired that way. When Jeff talks about the 51% to the 49%, my personal opinion is why even bother devoting 18+ years of effort for a measly 2% payoff? Because, if it WAS worth it, wouldnt it be more than 2%? I know this is perhaps a controversial opinion but please keep in mind I dont advocate my own views for anyone else. I have friends who i wholeheartedly believe weren't complete until they had kids, they're great parents and its what makes them whole and i think thats brilliant. But kids are like bungee jumping or religion, great for other people, but certainly not for me.

a5seo 15y ago
Definitely think it's good to get yourself clear on this so you can be as upfront as possible with potential partners. Kids are one area where you do have to go all-in... The last thing the world needs is kids who are screwed up because their parents "sorta" wanted kids (the way I sorta want an rc helicopter) and discover their personal pain/gain is over 1.0, and check out and let the tv raise them.
mcrittenden 15y ago
> I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling Have you spent much time around them? I have a 16 month old, and before he was born, I felt exactly the same as you. In fact, I went out of my way to avoid having to interact with children of most any age. Once I spent some time around my son, I began to find other babies cute and fun and now I really enjoy hanging out with kids (well, most of them). Maybe it's an acquired taste?
johnnyn 15y ago
That's okay Tam. Like you said, parenthood is not for everyone and I agree with that. And yes, Jeff's chart would imply only a 2% difference. But that 2% doesn't include the child's happiness and well being. When you have a child, you are doing it for you, but more importantly, you are doing it for them. You are giving them the greatest gift -- life. Almost everyone -- children of flawed parents included -- is glad to be alive.

Yhippa 15y ago

This has been one of the more interesting posts I've seen on HN in a while. Imagine if you presented all this evidence to each parent before they decide to have kids. I wonder if most people would still go through with it? I'm glad my parents did! But the more I hear about parenting the more it seems that you lose your life. I hope that one day my DNA forces me to override my logic unit and find a nice lady to have kids with.

Cherian_Abraham 15y ago

Its funny that I was about to post this on Twitter here when I saw Jeff's post: Successes and Failures melt away in front of a two year old. Validations and affirmations happen by way of a smile. That being said, I cant wait to go home and wrap my hands around my two year old son.

tomxtobin 15y ago

As a childfree individual, I'm amused by the euphoric claims of parents regarding the improved quality of their lives after having children. All the science seems to point in the opposite direction: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyone-have-children/ http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyon... I have to confess: from the outside looking in, parents resemble nothing so much as cult victims gushing with conversion stories, complete with the requisite, "It'll be so much better once you join!" It's even creepier than that, though: cults may have leaders, but parents merely have genes flipping switches. It's like we all have a brainwashing trigger implanted at birth, waiting for the right circumstance to arise. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, though: if raising kids is extremely hard, something would have to get tweaked in the parents' minds to convince them to stick around. (Sometimes I wonder if some aspects of my genetic "kid trigger" were co-opted by my cat. She reduces me to a babbling puddle of mush, and I'm enormously protective of her. When she nearly died, I was reduced to tears, and I made large sacrifices in time and money to save her life — and I'd cheerfully sell a kidney if that's what it took to do so again. I plan on having her cryogenically preserved if the worst happens someday. But throw myself under a bus? No — although I'd throw someone else under a bus for her.) The hardest part of being childfree, I've found, is the realization that I don't even live on the same planet as people who are, or will be, parents. Each side looks crazy from the other. I've found it impossible to maintain a close friendship with someone once they've had kids; schedules and priorities diverge, and you become increasingly convinced that it's best to "stick to your own kind" in the first place.

technomancy 15y ago
> I'm amused by the euphoric claims of parents regarding the improved quality of their lives after having children. I would go the other way and claim that the main benefit of raising a child is that it's the most effective way to banish the seductive illusion that you yourself are the most important thing in the universe.
- tomxtobin 15y ago
  I'd argue that "the most important thing in the universe" is always an utterly subjective feeling — an "illusion" — whether evoked by thoughts of oneself, one's child, or anything else. The interesting lesson is that the object of one's supreme devotion can change at all.

0ffworlder 15y ago

So we have a 51/49% ratio for happiness and crazy in relation to child rearing. And this is for a middle to upper class person who wanted kids in the first place. Kids are crazy, generally make the gf/wife look 15y older after they have had em, and allow said gf/wife to have ultimate control (child support and divorce) which essentially robs a man of his independance and ability to have fun. There is a damn good reason that there are family sections of restraunts... Also, consider bars/leaving bong & vape on the coffee table/leaving porn and condoms out/leaving booze out/leaving good food out (kids are less behaved than kitties in most ways)/leaving expensive tech out (kiddies going to puke on that MBP)....ad nauseum. There is really no point to having kids, although social convention aka parents in some cultures sometimes advocates them, but it is a matter of rational self interest to disagree with this notion. 99% chance your kids will put you in a rest home, rather than take care of you, thats how the cookie crumbles.

shinratdr 15y ago
Right, but people who don't hate women, children, and possibly themselves, don't really have that reaction right off the bat. You are right in the sense that you should not have children, less because this is a reasonable and healthy outlook on life and more because if you believe this bullshit and live your life by it, you aren't fit to raise kids period.

marcamillion 15y ago

OMG...I was just trying to explain to a friend why she should wait 3 - 5 years before having kids, but I found it so hard to put into words. That graph is SOOO true. Haven't even read the entire post yet, but after 2 kids (both under 4) that graph sums up the entire experience - from my perspective anyway - more true than any words can.

indianburger 15y ago

Jeff has done what women have tried for ages...made men open up emotionally PS: for the 1% female population reading this...nevermind I don't think it is even 1%...

rickdangerous1 15y ago

The angle that you almost never see mentioned in discussions like this is those 0.01 percent of scenarios where "both mother and baby are doing well" isn't true. There are all kinds of risks, complications and gut wrenching, soul searing, life destroying outcomes which you're up for when you play the game of life.

gclaramunt 15y ago

Having kids is the ultimate startup