Hacker News Reader

As a single and childless person, I don't like the implication that those are marks of a less fulfilling life. I know some people married with kids who seem very happy and fulfilled, and some profoundly miserable and trapped. I may be missing out on some good things, but I'm also avoiding some extreme misery, and generally do feel content and fulfilled.

Part of being smart is being able to diagnose certain ideas as dogmatic, which is far more than can be expected from most.

"Most people would die sooner than think—in fact, they do so" — Bertrand Russell

Thanks for sharing that. Obviously respect your choices on the individual level.

The contrast you provided between those who are happy with family and those two seem miserable is in line with what I am saying: it's both 'be smart about what you persue' and 'be smart about how you persue it.' So likely the first group was 'smarter' about who they chose as a spouse and how they set up the life with them than the second group.

So maybe we can score the miserable group as a -1, the happy group as a +1 and your avoidance strategy as in-between: 0.

So you can look at your strategy as good because it avoids the extreme misery but it also denies a shot at extreme happiness. And then if one were to go that potentially high risk/high reward path, their actual outcome (are they happy or miserable) is a function of how smartly they persue that endeavor.

Many people, including myself, just know that we don't want to have children. Our outcomes won't have the same distribution as those of people who always wanted to have children, no matter how "smart" we are about it.

Another factor is that when you have children and regret it you can suffer a lot more than just "-1" of misery - I'd say the scale is more like -10 to +1 (centered around 0). Furthermore if you end up regretting it you will also inflict some part of that misery onto your children.

I've never met anyone who was sorry they had children, but I've met a lot of people who missed the opportunity (to be fair, I've never met the parents of a violent criminal).

Kids can be hard, especially if you're not a natural, and especially when they're young, but-- it's impossible to describe the fulsome love I have for my kids. I'm not a sentimental person, and probably wouldn't have had them without my wife (which is a funny thing to say). Even when they're a pain and a disappointment, even with the ever present guilt, my kids give me some baseline purpose for free. And the wins are great--"all joy and no fun" as I heard once. The conversations as they become real people. It's impossible to describe and totally worth it.

I don't really expect anyone to casually admit that they regret having children to anyone but their closest confidants, perhaps not even themselves, the social stigma and shame would be unbearable.

I don't know how much research there is on this but anecdotally there are many emotionally absent and neglectful parents out there. They might be able to cope with the way their life is but that doesn't mean that they're good parents (or that they wouldn't do things differently if they got to start over again).

There's also a chance that your child is born with disabilities that demand intensive life-long support. I know that I couldn't cope with that, so even if my general outlook on having children changed some day I could never get past this, for my own good and out of responsibility for my hypothetical child.

Of course there are bad parents. I'm unlikely to encounter them, and even if I did I would probably not associate with them. But I suspect that you and anyone else on this thread offering thoughtful responses, are not the kind of person who would fall into that category.

I only offer my own experience, because I had the same fears as you. One datapoint, but parenting changed me in so many good ways, and the hardships fade from memory.

"I've never met anyone who was sorry they had children" I've met my parents for 18 years before I moved away.

I'm sorry for you. Genuinely. I've only read of cases like yours (I think Neko Case has a hard story).

Strongly agreed, and it's also worth it for those who think too narrowly along those lines that those aren't even the same axis. I used to be single and childless, and my happiness fluctuated a lot, but now I'm married and much more consistently happier. Neither my wife or I want kids, so if we had them, suddenly we'd be back to being less happy again. There are also plenty of single parents, and I'm sure many of them are happy and fulfilled without needing a partner.

Plus, kids who grow up with parents who are unhappy and would prefer to be childless are probably a lot more likely to grow up into unhappy adults.

Important to define what is happy and what were problems to begin with. I'm 39, no kids, and my parents weren't happy with me, but were happy otherwise. How does this factor how I'm unhappy?

Happiness should be the end goal. Contentment is part of it. Compromise. Quality over quantity and the quality doesn't have to always be great, just no regrets according to modern death bed speeches. Being happy can mean chasing one thing and not the other, which would lead to some unspoken regret, loud enough in our head.

I said "more likely", not "guaranteed". I feel like the whole point I'm trying to make by building onto the parent comment is that there's not a one-size-fits-all template to being happy and fulfilled, and that not everyone will fit expected trends. At no point did I try to prescribe anything to someone as the way to avoid being unhappy, nor did I attempt to categorize the world into buckets of who would be happy or unhappy. That's literally the opposite of what I was trying to say, which is that trying to force expectations of what one person thinks would make someone happy onto someone else is not a good thing.

Your second paragraph seems to be mostly quibbling of my use of the term that already was being used throughout this thread (and in the article itself). I don't understand why you chose my comment in particular to litigate the definition when it's not something I've introduced to the discussion.

Username checks out.

The thing about having children is that you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually have them. And then, of course, it's too late.

I'm convinced that I would have been happy without children. I would have lived a wonderful life, maybe with a spouse, maybe alone, traveling the world, working on my interests, and generally doing whatever I wanted to do. You don't miss what you never had.

But now that I have two kids, that life seems so hollow. Kids make you feel things that you've never felt before. It's like suddenly discovering a new rainbow of colors, or like listening to a piece of music that makes you simultaneously giddy with joy and wistfully sad and you can't explain why.

You can't compare the joy of having kids with any other pleasure you've experienced. It's like trying to compare having sex with having a great meal. It's not even the same scale.

Of course, everyone's different. Some people absolutely regret having kids (and that's sad for everyone). But if you have even a slight feeling like maybe you want to have kids, I would absolutely do it. My only regret is that I waited so long.

> you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually have them

While it's less common now, I don't think anyone who grew up in a bigger family under one roof could agree with that. Nothing divine is gatekeeping this experience. It's the socioeconomic climate we've created doing that.

It makes perfect sense that you value your family so deeply, but you might want to reconsider where you anchor your pride. It's a lot of responsibility. Unexpected things can happen.

I'm extremely grateful to have examined all stages of life on a daily basis before even going to college, but I think having kids is a heavy choice. It's perhaps the heaviest choice of all. Since there's no mystery in it for me, I'm still enjoying being unchained.

> you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually have them

> […] I don't think anyone who grew up in a bigger family under one roof could agree with that.

I do. I grew up with 5 siblings, and having brothers and sisters is very, very different from having your own children. My relation with and my emotions towards my children is very different from my relation with and my emotions towards my siblings, both now and when I was still living with them in the same house.

Off-topic: I have absolutely no idea why my comment got downvoted. I shared a personal anecdote that's directly relevant to the discussion at hand and which counters the claim of the comment I replied to. Does someone think I'm lying? Was my comment too controversial? I don't get it. What is wrong with this site?

For what it's worth, I think that happens to everyone now because of all the bots and toxic astroturfing.

Since comments are sorted by points, it's more of an indication how touchy or dogmatic a subject is. I expect to lose points when I'm not the only reply. I've seen discussions where hours later a brigade of green accounts skyrocket to the top out of nowhere simply because they reinforce a more convenient idea. All of the original more interesting comments get downvoted.

With this one though, I don't know since all your replies are basically the same and you've all been here a while.

I actually expected my comment to get more downvotes since I was describing a tougher upbringing in a multi-generational household, but it got buried in noise. HN generally doesn't know how to handle more down-to-earth topics and defaults to thinking in stereotypes.

If there is a difference between the replies, the top one was made after yours and elaborates on being "tough" while still disagreeing, so maybe that's more convincing to some people?

I grew up in a large family of 5 kids and I think it’d be very ignorant to suggest that experience is at all comparable to having children of my own.

I promise you that you do not know what having children is like and that the mystery remains alive, should you ever choose to take that journey. One is reminded of Plato’s cave.

My wife is one of seven. Her five older brothers nearly scared her off of ever wanting a son. Our kids are not like her siblings' nor their kids.

You might have an idea that there is no mystery. You've only seen a glimpse yet, even if you were changing your siblings' diapers. There is much more of that mystery iceberg.

> you absolutely cannot know what it's like until you actually

Is probably true for all life changing event. Extreme poverty, wealth, loss of a parent, etc. There's nothing special in that regard about having children.

> if you have even a slight feeling like maybe you want to have kids, I would absolutely do it

Nah, that's just being egocentric. Have children if you're pretty sure you can raise them in the best conditions possible for them to end up being happy, if not, better keep on hesitating.

It was nice reading this, thanks for sharing

10/10, no notes.

I think you are reaching for the word "wisdom" (I heard about smart vs. wise a bunch of times) and are tending to define it in a... narrow way. I'd damn prefer to live the live of Plato, Roger Bacon or Isaac Newton: experience the universe in novel, rich ways, contribute a lot to humanity, give up offspring, than be "below average" smart (whatever it would mean) with 7 children.

Of course, by statistics no one of us is Plato or Roger Bacon. I'd agree that a problem with the modern world is an ideology of (objectively) crappy career or climbing some fake institutional hierarchy being a worthy substitute for family. I myself do believe that a family is one of relatively easiest (but still hard and demanding) ways to being happy [1].

I also see a lot of people here overcorrecting and arriving at some strange worldviews.

Some people are childless because of objective circumstances: what are they, damned by God via predestination to unhappiness? In the Catholic world, they have been, esp. in the olden days, a lot of childless priests, monks, nuns. If you want to at the same time value tradition and not reinventing (quoting parent) and "evolutionary DNA survival", you either have to somehow condemn Catholicism and Orthodoxy [2], or start adding some epicycles to your philosophy.

Oh, and on topic: I believe being happy requires working for it. Maybe for "smarter" people their allotted amount of work is higher. Don't know if it's nice to hear, but sounds true to me.

[1] Maybe one lure of career is that people are culturally accepting of life at work being terrible in many ways, while a poorly constructed family (one or more immature people etc.) scares people off pretty fast. Maybe because it's a more total institution and harder to escape.

[2] Which would be the OG Protestant way.

Right, there is a problem with even defining "smart", a decent number of mathematicians I have known would not call themselves smart, but persistent. I have known a lot of physicists too, some of whom forget simple integrals all the time, but publish like a monster, and some very smart physicists who know almost any fact you could want off the top of their head who don't publish almost at all. One group is more successful than the other.

> they were more able to follow family patterns and advice while the "brilliant" person tries to figure out everything from scratch, not able to benefit from the "well trodden paths" that are available

You know, sometimes the well-trodden paths are chains worth breaking man. Most families aren't exactly The Brady Bunch.

I think we agree that it takes all kinds of people, but you are mischaracterizing what it means to spend a little more time alone before committing to a family. That time will pay dividends when/if they go for it.

I gotta invoke Hanlon's Razor on this one and refrain from elaborating on what I think your comment sounds like. It's a sign of the times we live in that even this can become a hot political issue.

I am genuinely curious as to what you think my comment "sounds like"

But I don't disagree with your first paragraph. Some well troden paths maybe bad - the trick is to know which ones. Because if you make that fall wrong you end up in a bad state which is what I was talking about.

Almost every reply to your comment points out your example "being smart" with a tired one of family vs work. What people in many other comments here point out that for many familie is just one of many areas in life and can have nothing to do with smarts or happiness.

Is the man abandoning his wife and child to find a better life happier for it, he can be. Has nothing to do with if he used his smarts to arrive at that solution to his unhappiness or resolution.

How many people choose their family based on some calculation where there is a right or wrong answer?

Like an comic said, most people choose their life partner while drunk in a bar (obv local example) but no way you would ever choose which toaster to buy while drunk! The toast have to be just right, doesn't it?

The issue here is that if the smart brilliant man decides that he will prioritize his family and friends, creating happy community around him ... you will just say he was not brilliant. Because he earns less money.

As in, your example assumes that if you are brilliant you will neglect family, if you care about family you are not brilliant.

You do indeed need to change the definition of "smart" to not be just "earns a lot of money".

I think you missed the point of my post. It's not either or but the totality of persuit and outcome.

Neglecting family for work is not smart. Neglecting work for family is also not smart (hurts the family)

Striking the right balance and achieving enough of each is the smart thing that's hard to pull off but is the prize.

A lot of culture is basically accumulated trial and error

not that wage is any indicator of inherent goodness but yea electrical engineers get paid average wage in my country while miners earn many multiples of said wage, who's the dumb one now ???

Presumably miners get a high wage to offset the negatives of the job and attract people. So to an extent you have a choice which way to go and you try to make a smart one.

Personally I wouldn't have a highly hazardous job if it paid any multiple of what I make now and that feels smart to my situation. But for someone else that might be a different calculus.

> Presumably miners get a high wage to offset the negatives of the job and attract people.

A common thread I see when these types of topics come up too is that the high pay in many of these jobs (trades, policing, nursing, etc.) is dependent on working large amounts of overtime.

You reduce massively this complex topic into having kids = more happiness. Divorce rates, marriage counseling intensity and just looking around paints a very different and much more realistic picture. Most marriages either fail or keep it up in semi-miserable fashion (for kids, money, insecurity and so on but never due to actual strength of the bond or any love remaining).

That comes from married father of two - the idea that having kids somehow magically makes life better and everybody happier is what got society into pushing everybody into marriages for decades long after pressure from religions waned. Suffice to say it didn't work very well. Works great for some, is a proper mistake for others.

In fact, the data points into the opposite direction: Children and money problems are by far the most destructive things for a happy marriage.

Marriages where the couple had children together are considerably less likely to end than marriages without children. A recent Canadian poll showed an effect size of ~60%. [1] Table 1 covers this nicely.

I’d be curious what data you’re citing to suggest children are by far the most destructive thing for a happy marriage. It seems like the kind of redditism most popular with people for whom it doesn’t apply :)

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2024001...

Chiming in late to say destruction of a happy marriage does not necessarily lead to divorce. Plenty of couples in essentially dead marriages “stay together for the kids” to provide some semblance of a normal family, regardless of whether it’s actually a better outcome. OTOH unhappy marriages with no children have relatively few obstacles standing in the way of divorce.

We are having a conversation about smart outcomes here.

The divorce rate is not a random thing. My odds of being happily married or miserable are heavily influenced by how I have worked on myself and who I chose to marry.

So part of being "smart" is navigating that situation to achieve the right outcome. The outcome itself is not guaranteed but to cite the rate without acknowledging the factors that are in your control misses the point here. Someone's terrible marriage is of no relevance to your situation.