3 ms·

I have a good friend who has a special needs kid and we've discussed his struggles at length - suffice it to say that it takes an order of magnitude more time a

by xp84 2mo ago

I have a good friend who has a special needs kid and we've discussed his struggles at length - suffice it to say that it takes an order of magnitude more time and attention than what's described here. The thing is, you of course don't get tipped off that you've been selected for that particular curse (and yes, I'd say it's a curse. It's not some inspiring after-school special thing, it's unfair as f*k to all involved). The point of this is, I suppose, it's okay to choose not to have kids if you don't feel like gambling, because it turns out, you are. And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries.

funnygiraffe 2mo ago
For that particular issue you can improve your "gambling" odds by having kids at a younger age, rather than waiting until you've optimized your career and environment.
- Apocryphon 2mo ago
  Easy to prescribe, hard to implement for the last two generations or so
  - xp84 2mo ago
    It's not like people had an established career when they had kids at 19 in the 1940s. They just didn't view "being halfway to a comfortable retirement" as the prerequisite to having kids, the way my generation thinks it is.
    - Aeolun 2mo ago
      I think the best advice to having kids young is to lower your expectations. The only reason people ‘cannot’ have children young is because they want a specific kind of life for themselves and their kids that is incompatible with that.
    - Apocryphon 2mo ago
      The difference likely there is in the ‘40s you were seeing improvement after the Great Depression and employment during WWII, followed by the postwar boom. Whereas the past two generations have seen precarity increase while living standards falter if not drop compared to their parents’ generation. So they are striving to recreate what they once experienced in their childhood, yet may never return. Also the entirety of society including their families emphasizing the importance of higher education, good careers, etc. even as the latter is harder to achieve and the former becomes increasingly devalued, yet pricy.
      - xp84 2mo ago
        People had kids even in the 30s, too. During tough times, we have to work harder and endure more adversity. Our great grandparents understood this just fine. In western countries, current generations (including my own) are incredibly soft, and expect that because they know boom times existed before, we are simply owed an equally easy time automatically — but in reality, there are often external factors that just don’t allow that to happen. Contrast China, for example. 1950-1990 was not a 40-year prosperity party like it was in America and Western Europe. Therefore, they are at least twice as willing as we are to grind, and as a result multiplied their economy an astounding amount over the past 35 years. You can see the same thing in many development countries today. They take nothing for granted.
        Apocryphon 2mo ago
        But people are working harder- they’re simply working harder at their jobs. It should also be noted that the birth rates in China are not increasing, either, despite the end of the One Child Policy. Partly it is also because the younger generation feels immiseration from higher costs of living and fewer opportunities- see the concept of involution. Finally, during the Great Depression, fertility rates in the U.S. dropped to all-time lows. Not unlike the Great Recession, which has triggered a nonstop decline. We all live in the shadow of 2008.
    - dalyons 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - sneak 2mo ago
      It is absolutely a prerequisite to having kids responsibly. Education and health care are fantastically expensive now, as well as inflation chipping away at purchasing power, each year more than the last due to compounding effects. To have children without being financially secure is one of the most foolish, selfish, and irresponsible things anyone can choose to do.
- roarcher 2mo ago
  Perhaps, but that often means selecting a partner more quickly, which is another gamble with potentially terrible consequences.
  - Tade0 2mo ago
    Life is full of such gambles and it's inevitable. Anyone who drives risks their life more than they risk having a special needs child at reasonably non-late age. We just brush off most such gambles because: 1. People have a terrible intuition for probabilities. 2. If it were better, they would go insane.
    - roarcher 2mo ago
      I agree. I'm saying that "just have kids younger" isn't a good solution to the risks of developmental defects, because it's usually merely a trade of that risk for a different one.
      - Tade0 2mo ago
        My intuition is that taking too long to select a partner carries the same risk.
    - Apocryphon 2mo ago
      Technology becomes a way to hedge bets. Maybe the demand for egg freezing, IVF, surrogacy will rise, and associated costs will drop.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  I wonder how much of that is because people who are autistic (for example) find love later, and then pass down their autism.
  - Jtarii 2mo ago
    Almost everyone are having children later.
zer00eyz 2mo ago
My parents were both teachers, who, before moving into admin rolls (when I was somewhat older) worked in special ed. My mother later ended up back in a classroom for a period of time with severely handicapped children. Bound to beds and wheelchairs, non verbal, never going to have independence. For years after she left her admin job she would go back and spend an evening or two every year watching the kids, so the parents could have some sense of "normalcy". Her lament was what would the outcome be for these children. Because every one thinks they are doing the best for them by keeping them at home, and close. But the reality is (in so many cases) that the plans for "family to take care of them" almost never works out. Years later my neighbor was an older woman, with an adult special needs child. She died, suddenly, from breast cancer. The brother, who was to take care of him, shipped him off to a group home (because he had kids of his own and lacked the time to care for him properly). That poor mans trauma was doubled when his living situation and life and loss of mother all happened in such a short period. My own family, I have a severely handicapped cousin (who, became that after a high fever). He too is wheelchair bound and non verbal. However his mother, heeded my mother's advice and transitioned him into a group home early. It worked out well for him as he had a more fulfilling life, and the family (sister, aunts) weren't under pressure for his care, rather just rounding out his life. He still gets out a few times a week with them, and is always around for the holidays. It's a tough thing for parents to understand that what's best for your special needs kid is sometimes going to be harder on them than all the hard work they doing. And I remain grateful that is isn't a choice I ever had to make myself.
- CalRobert 2mo ago
  It's very frustrating that behind every "you should be eternally grateful for every child no matter what" warm fuzzy message is an implicit "and if you ever express regret for having a kid who wound up non-verbal and violent and destroyed your marriage and your relationship with your other kids you're a horrible person". Not referring to your cousin specifically but my mom's life's work is with severely autistic children (the "can't talk and hits people" sort, not "I'm a bit awkward and love math and doing anything to help autistic kids is abject cruelty!" sort), and the experience for parents mostly seems to be abject misery.
ColdStream 2mo ago
> And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries. Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse and not due to resource/environmental blow back. It would be the smoothest path down. In the same way that inflation is a smoother way to grow a pool of poverty.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Demographic collapse is happening due to resource/environmental blowback, but many of the resources in question are artificial ones like money and jobs.
  - Jtarii 2mo ago
    Demographic collapse is happening because women finally have the choice to have fewer or no children and can have them later in life due to career options.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      Their wanting to do that is due to resource/environmental blowback.
      - Jtarii 2mo ago
        Wealthy people are also having less children than they used to. Unless you are arguing that people are having less children due to potential societal issues around global warming.
        inigyou 2mo ago
        Elon has about 13 children or what is it now?
- xienze 2mo ago
  > Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse The problem is, there isn't _going_ to be a population collapse in developed countries. The path these governments have chosen is to import anyone and everyone in order to keep the numbers growing. Why? Because all those wonderful social programs collapse without people at the bottom of the pyramid to keep things going. The main problem is there's only so many net contributors that can be imported, so we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for people to bring in and oh yeah, they're eligible for social programs from day one. It's going to be a disaster long term, but it's the future we chose -- "I don't want kids, but I don't want the systems that are in place to collapse either, so sure, bring in the entire world, I'm sure we'll be fine."
Aeolun 2mo ago
The gamble is basically only a gamble if you wait longer. The graph for pre-35 parents is practically nonexistent. I could live with the 2% chance at 42, but not with the 15% at 45. Where the chance is of random abnormalities. Who knows what exciting variant you get.
- jdkoeck 2mo ago
  15% at 45? You better have a source for that number.
  - brikym 2mo ago
    It's widely known that maternal age causes more genetic defects and it's especially significant later on. The term "hitting the wall" came from the charts. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.05.21254264v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.05.21254264v...
  - Aeolun 2mo ago
    I’m basing this on the vibe from a chart someone showed me when I was in the hospital 8 years ago after my son was born. The point is the chances increase exponentially. Found the list now: Age 20: About 1 in 500 (0.2%) Age 30: About 1 in 270 (0.37%) Age 35: About 1 in 80 (1.25%) Age 40: About 1 in 60 (1.66%) Age 45: About 1 in 20 (5.0%) Which actually kinda refutes me because 1 in 500 is still a lot.
- __turbobrew__ 2mo ago
  Most chromosome defects (trisomy) can be screened for now. NIPT is effective at 9 weeks pregnant and the technology is only going to get better.
Der_Einzige 2mo ago
In some cases you CAN be tipped off about this, and even abort as a result depending on where you are! Many people act like this is some sick thing to do. It's mercy.
- xp84 2mo ago
  You're right about this, for some conditions, and of course depending on laws may have options. But I want people to be fully aware: There isn't a test for a lot of disabilities, including what my friend's kid has, so, the gamble must be factored into your decision because there's no way to guarantee you won't face this kind of thing.

by xp84 2mo ago

funnygiraffe 2mo ago

For that particular issue you can improve your "gambling" odds by having kids at a younger age, rather than waiting until you've optimized your career and environment.

Apocryphon 2mo ago
Easy to prescribe, hard to implement for the last two generations or so
- xp84 2mo ago
  It's not like people had an established career when they had kids at 19 in the 1940s. They just didn't view "being halfway to a comfortable retirement" as the prerequisite to having kids, the way my generation thinks it is.
  - Aeolun 2mo ago
    I think the best advice to having kids young is to lower your expectations. The only reason people ‘cannot’ have children young is because they want a specific kind of life for themselves and their kids that is incompatible with that.
  - Apocryphon 2mo ago
    The difference likely there is in the ‘40s you were seeing improvement after the Great Depression and employment during WWII, followed by the postwar boom. Whereas the past two generations have seen precarity increase while living standards falter if not drop compared to their parents’ generation. So they are striving to recreate what they once experienced in their childhood, yet may never return. Also the entirety of society including their families emphasizing the importance of higher education, good careers, etc. even as the latter is harder to achieve and the former becomes increasingly devalued, yet pricy.
    - xp84 2mo ago
      People had kids even in the 30s, too. During tough times, we have to work harder and endure more adversity. Our great grandparents understood this just fine. In western countries, current generations (including my own) are incredibly soft, and expect that because they know boom times existed before, we are simply owed an equally easy time automatically — but in reality, there are often external factors that just don’t allow that to happen. Contrast China, for example. 1950-1990 was not a 40-year prosperity party like it was in America and Western Europe. Therefore, they are at least twice as willing as we are to grind, and as a result multiplied their economy an astounding amount over the past 35 years. You can see the same thing in many development countries today. They take nothing for granted.
      - Apocryphon 2mo ago
        But people are working harder- they’re simply working harder at their jobs. It should also be noted that the birth rates in China are not increasing, either, despite the end of the One Child Policy. Partly it is also because the younger generation feels immiseration from higher costs of living and fewer opportunities- see the concept of involution. Finally, during the Great Depression, fertility rates in the U.S. dropped to all-time lows. Not unlike the Great Recession, which has triggered a nonstop decline. We all live in the shadow of 2008.
  - dalyons 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - sneak 2mo ago
    It is absolutely a prerequisite to having kids responsibly. Education and health care are fantastically expensive now, as well as inflation chipping away at purchasing power, each year more than the last due to compounding effects. To have children without being financially secure is one of the most foolish, selfish, and irresponsible things anyone can choose to do.
roarcher 2mo ago
Perhaps, but that often means selecting a partner more quickly, which is another gamble with potentially terrible consequences.
- Tade0 2mo ago
  Life is full of such gambles and it's inevitable. Anyone who drives risks their life more than they risk having a special needs child at reasonably non-late age. We just brush off most such gambles because: 1. People have a terrible intuition for probabilities. 2. If it were better, they would go insane.
  - roarcher 2mo ago
    I agree. I'm saying that "just have kids younger" isn't a good solution to the risks of developmental defects, because it's usually merely a trade of that risk for a different one.
    - Tade0 2mo ago
      My intuition is that taking too long to select a partner carries the same risk.
  - Apocryphon 2mo ago
    Technology becomes a way to hedge bets. Maybe the demand for egg freezing, IVF, surrogacy will rise, and associated costs will drop.
inigyou 2mo ago
I wonder how much of that is because people who are autistic (for example) find love later, and then pass down their autism.
- Jtarii 2mo ago
  Almost everyone are having children later.

zer00eyz 2mo ago

My parents were both teachers, who, before moving into admin rolls (when I was somewhat older) worked in special ed. My mother later ended up back in a classroom for a period of time with severely handicapped children. Bound to beds and wheelchairs, non verbal, never going to have independence. For years after she left her admin job she would go back and spend an evening or two every year watching the kids, so the parents could have some sense of "normalcy". Her lament was what would the outcome be for these children. Because every one thinks they are doing the best for them by keeping them at home, and close. But the reality is (in so many cases) that the plans for "family to take care of them" almost never works out. Years later my neighbor was an older woman, with an adult special needs child. She died, suddenly, from breast cancer. The brother, who was to take care of him, shipped him off to a group home (because he had kids of his own and lacked the time to care for him properly). That poor mans trauma was doubled when his living situation and life and loss of mother all happened in such a short period. My own family, I have a severely handicapped cousin (who, became that after a high fever). He too is wheelchair bound and non verbal. However his mother, heeded my mother's advice and transitioned him into a group home early. It worked out well for him as he had a more fulfilling life, and the family (sister, aunts) weren't under pressure for his care, rather just rounding out his life. He still gets out a few times a week with them, and is always around for the holidays. It's a tough thing for parents to understand that what's best for your special needs kid is sometimes going to be harder on them than all the hard work they doing. And I remain grateful that is isn't a choice I ever had to make myself.

CalRobert 2mo ago
It's very frustrating that behind every "you should be eternally grateful for every child no matter what" warm fuzzy message is an implicit "and if you ever express regret for having a kid who wound up non-verbal and violent and destroyed your marriage and your relationship with your other kids you're a horrible person". Not referring to your cousin specifically but my mom's life's work is with severely autistic children (the "can't talk and hits people" sort, not "I'm a bit awkward and love math and doing anything to help autistic kids is abject cruelty!" sort), and the experience for parents mostly seems to be abject misery.

ColdStream 2mo ago

> And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries. Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse and not due to resource/environmental blow back. It would be the smoothest path down. In the same way that inflation is a smoother way to grow a pool of poverty.

inigyou 2mo ago
Demographic collapse is happening due to resource/environmental blowback, but many of the resources in question are artificial ones like money and jobs.
- Jtarii 2mo ago
  Demographic collapse is happening because women finally have the choice to have fewer or no children and can have them later in life due to career options.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Their wanting to do that is due to resource/environmental blowback.
    - Jtarii 2mo ago
      Wealthy people are also having less children than they used to. Unless you are arguing that people are having less children due to potential societal issues around global warming.
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        Elon has about 13 children or what is it now?
xienze 2mo ago
> Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse The problem is, there isn't _going_ to be a population collapse in developed countries. The path these governments have chosen is to import anyone and everyone in order to keep the numbers growing. Why? Because all those wonderful social programs collapse without people at the bottom of the pyramid to keep things going. The main problem is there's only so many net contributors that can be imported, so we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for people to bring in and oh yeah, they're eligible for social programs from day one. It's going to be a disaster long term, but it's the future we chose -- "I don't want kids, but I don't want the systems that are in place to collapse either, so sure, bring in the entire world, I'm sure we'll be fine."

Aeolun 2mo ago

The gamble is basically only a gamble if you wait longer. The graph for pre-35 parents is practically nonexistent. I could live with the 2% chance at 42, but not with the 15% at 45. Where the chance is of random abnormalities. Who knows what exciting variant you get.

jdkoeck 2mo ago
15% at 45? You better have a source for that number.
- brikym 2mo ago
  It's widely known that maternal age causes more genetic defects and it's especially significant later on. The term "hitting the wall" came from the charts. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.05.21254264v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.05.21254264v...
- Aeolun 2mo ago
  I’m basing this on the vibe from a chart someone showed me when I was in the hospital 8 years ago after my son was born. The point is the chances increase exponentially. Found the list now: Age 20: About 1 in 500 (0.2%) Age 30: About 1 in 270 (0.37%) Age 35: About 1 in 80 (1.25%) Age 40: About 1 in 60 (1.66%) Age 45: About 1 in 20 (5.0%) Which actually kinda refutes me because 1 in 500 is still a lot.
__turbobrew__ 2mo ago
Most chromosome defects (trisomy) can be screened for now. NIPT is effective at 9 weeks pregnant and the technology is only going to get better.

Der_Einzige 2mo ago

In some cases you CAN be tipped off about this, and even abort as a result depending on where you are! Many people act like this is some sick thing to do. It's mercy.

xp84 2mo ago
You're right about this, for some conditions, and of course depending on laws may have options. But I want people to be fully aware: There isn't a test for a lot of disabilities, including what my friend's kid has, so, the gamble must be factored into your decision because there's no way to guarantee you won't face this kind of thing.