Thomas, I normally buy into most of your ideas, even if they feel hard to imagine or unconventional, but this one definitely feels dystopian to me.
My biggest pushback (said as a father of 3) is the Myth of Quality Time. You mentioned that things like school pickup or doing chores or rocking the baby to sleep are things we could give up to robots, but we can keep dinner time and vacations, etc. Many of the most profound moments for me as a father, and developmentally important moments for my children, happened during these "boring, everyday" situations. Driving the kids home from school lets you really understand the mood of your children that day -- what was exciting for them, what made them feel sad, etc. Outsourcing those moments as "inefficiencies" seems to really miss the important moments of human connection.
I hear you, but you are only valuing the positive of these moments, not the cost-benefit. My kids take the bus every morning and the bus stop is literally 1m away. I miss the ride you discuss, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. I have 4 children, and that bus stop allows me to have a sane life while still having 4. I would never want to sacrifice my 4th child for more boring time with my other children. I’m just pushing this idea to an extreme.
Notice that the most important thing to feel fulfilled is the life narratives we give ourselves. So it makes sense you’d think your current setup is optimal, and you should extremely reluctant to imagine that other setups could be better. Ponder that bias.
So many thoughts about this, but I would like to add one from some knowledge originating in personal experience. I am an early offspring of artificial insemination by anonymous sperm provider, and have an estimated 600 half-siblings from the same mysterious man. There are serious issues with respect to both the lying usually involved in anonymous gamete 'donation' (a misnomer, because most often gametes are sold), as well as, more subtly, the difference in the relationship of a parent who is a close genetic relative and one who is not. To dismiss these and many other issues is like dismissing some adoptees' desire to know their genetic parents; a need which for decades was broadly rejected with contempt. For too long, the reproductive and fertility industry has ignored the difficulties resulting from various innovations and interventions -- the goal being to produce a baby by whatever means, with little thought to the baby's becoming an adult. Thomas, I always admire your willingness to logically think through our challenges and to imagine more courageously than most. But I urge you to pay attention to both the risks of casting aside what humans have done for thousands of years, and what we already know about the difficulties faced by the products of reproductive technologies -- those of us born of science, not sex -- because I can assure you that there are dangers lurking in your brave new world.
It sounds to me like the issues you raise are valid and should be addressed:
- Children should be able to know their DNA parents
- There should be full transparency on who is a parent to how many children. 600 might be a bit over the top if it’s not clearly known who these children are, and if the mothers don’t know this guy has fathered so many children.
Population expansion I think is hugely problematic. But I want to read an earlier post of yours before commenting more than that. WRT 'donor' conception, thanks, you are right on both points. Yes, secrecy is poisonous, and to be able to know who you came from is important. Also, having hundreds of offspring increases risks of founder effect illness (which is real in our case -- nothing fatal, but difficulties with a common source). And of course consanguinity is bound to happen. (The US industry has some rule like 10 families per 800,000 population, but there is a smaller class who have the means to do these processes, and people who are similar tend to choose the same 'donor'. In my extended and expanding family (every Christmas a few people get DNA tests as presents and then have a big surprise) a number of my half-siblings knew each other before they knew they were related. They tended to gravitate to similar professions (media, journalism, science, arts) and so... So there are children born of half-siblings. Mind you, half-siblings having kids is not a death sentence, but it's kind of icky when they find out.
I shiver at this idea of a future as someone who is now spending years processing childhood trauma from neglect. My childhood looked normal and adequate from the outside: fed, clothed, sent to school, had my own room, lived with both parents, they paid for things like hobbies & after-school activities, etc.
Except they hardly interacted with me, including rarely co-regulating, and never really got to know me. If robots had been an option, my parents would’ve chosen that too, and I’d likely be even worse off. Human nervous systems need to co-regulate with other human nervous systems to learn how to self-regulate. Without learning self-regulation, the human doesn’t immediately die, but goes on to live under stressful, dysregulated conditions— with no understanding of what’s wrong or why things are hard (because neglect is an absence; you can’t point at it the way you can point at explicit abuse).
Parentified children raising each other is already documented as not being good for their development. Adding robots to the mix wouldn’t solve this and could make it worse.
I would prefer for future tech to boost parent-child time/connection, not replace it. If it’s possible to have more than 4 or 5 kids and spend adequate quality time with all of them, I’m unaware of it. In a world where you don’t need child labor on your farm and there isn’t a high chance of childhood mortality, why would anyone have more children than they can adequately parent?
Anyway. I still enjoyed this article, as it got my mind a-crankin’. I just happen to disagree / to hold a very different hope for the future of fertility.
Thank you for sharing. I deeply appreciate. That must have been hard.
It sounds like your parents did not want to hang out with their children. That's definitely not the ideal parenting style.
The article is more geared towards those who do want to connect with their children, but can't have as many as they want for lack of time or other limitations. You say "I would prefer for future tech to boost parent-child time/connection, not replace it.", and that's exactly what the tech described here could do.
My father was one of eight. He never received any emotional support from either parent, or his older siblings. As a result, though he is extremely well-adjusted in life, he still has a deep-seated need to be accepted and loved by others, and for others to pay attention to him.
It comes out as him being friendly, funny, compassionate, and engaging to everyone he meets; but underneath, it's a desire not to be ignored. Yes, he needs his "alone time", but when we're in a group, my Dad is usually at the center of attention.
Same with my mother, for the opposite reason. She was raised by one parent, plus relatives, and was mostly neglected.
And it had the same result too: Outwardly well-adjusted and healthy, but with a massive vacuum of emotional and social need which translates into unwittingly taking emotional control of a group and becoming the center of it. Most people don't notice it (they're having too much fun being around her), but seeing the pattern over and over all of our lives, my siblings and I do notice.
Again, they're caring, empathetic, compassionate people who believe in being loving and accepting to everyone. But the lack of close, emotional connection to their parents, scarred them emotionally and psychologically on a very deep level. One which they each partially acknowledge, but partially ignore. It's not detrimental to their lives, but it is noticeable.
Thanks for sharing. This is very interesting indeed, it raises lots of questions.
1. Are their lives worth being lived? I'd argue yes, they are, therefore it's better if people like them are born than not.
2. How much of these descriptions can be traced back to nature vs nurture? And within nurture, to parenting vs other factors? Very hard to tell I reckon. Maybe they would have ended up this way anyway?
3. Would they have been better off with more parents (in the case of your mother) or more presence of his parents (your father)? Maybe not.
4. Would your paternal grandparents have had more children if it had been easier? Doesn't sound like it.
I think my takeaway on this is that this type of problem exists and will always exist, and that it's up to the parents to decide how many kids they want. The more they love them, the more they will usually have, and the better off these children will be—better than not being born, that's for sure.
"1. Are their lives worth being lived? I'd argue yes, they are, therefore it's better if people like them are born than not."
1a. If we could genetically code for decency, kindness, honesty, and emotional maturity? Sure. But we can't simply have more people and hope that they turn out "good". In any random sample of humans, some will be good, some neutral, and some bad. My experience has shown a 30-40-30 split along those lines: 30% good (loving, compassionate, thougtful, productive), 40% neutral (not actively constuctive or destructive in life, just bumping around), and 30% bad (selfish, cruel, destructive).
"2. How much of these descriptions can be traced back to nature vs nurture? And within nurture, to parenting vs other factors? Very hard to tell I reckon. Maybe they would have ended up this way anyway?"
2a. They would still be happy, loving people, but with each of them raised by two loving parents in a stable family size, they would likely have been more successful, earlier in life (more confidence and support) and would've enjoyed healthier relationships as teens and young adults, including possibly their own failed marriage. In fact, my siblings and I took our parents' failures to heart, to help navigate "what not to do" in life, and it has kept us out of most of the trouble that other people get into.
"3. Would they have been better off with more parents (in the case of your mother) or more presence of his parents (your father)? Maybe not."
3a. Both of my parents have acknowledged that they would have likely enjoyed happier childhoods had they each been raised by a pair of loving parents. My father, by parents not overwhelmed with eight children and low income (and who responded by shutting down emotionally, as to not be overwhelmed), and my mother with parents who were both alive and present to give her the love and affection she was denied by being raised relatives who had no direct emotional interest in her.
"4. Would your paternal grandparents have had more children if it had been easier? Doesn't sound like it."
4a. They had eight children because of a lack of birth control, and the social stigma of contraception. My father's mother has openly said that though she loves all of her children, she still regretted having so many. It ruined both her body, and decades of her life, and having to deal with so many of them prevented her from bonding strongly with any of them. She has long been a supporter of birth control and women's right not to have children if they don't want to do so.
"I think my takeaway on this is that this type of problem exists and will always exist, and that it's up to the parents to decide how many kids they want. The more they love them, the more they will usually have, and the better off these children will be—better than not being born, that's for sure."
-- Even in my own, smaller family, we like to keep gatherings small, so that everyone has more time to spend with everyone else over the course of the visit (1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks). Too many relatives in once place at one time, and either we have to ignore folks to spend any significant time with anyone, or we each feel that we didn't spend enough time with anyone.
Scale that over to families. My parents had three, and there was enough time in life for each of them to focus on each of us as we needed. But simple math shows that families over three or four start to become too large for the parents to get in enough quality time with everyone during each day, and one or more children inevitably suffer from long-term neglect, either real or perceived.
Again, while neglect and emotional deprivation can occur in families of any size, every time I talk to people from large families, where children outnumber parents at least 2.5 to 1, they almost always describe their parents with terminology which shows a lack of attention or quality realtionship-building.
- "Mom was too busy."
- "Dad wasn't there."
- "I was raised by older siblings."
- "They never treated us as individuals."
- "We never had enough."
- "Time and money were always an issue."
Perhaps in a post-scarcity society, where work is optional, and robots do all the chores (?), it will be easier to spend time with each child. But there are still only 24 hours in a day, and only so much attention and energy for a parent to give during that time.
NOTE: This applies to managers as well. Smaller teams often perform better because the manager can focus on the needs of each employee, rather than delegating to "team leads", just as smaller families let Mom and Dad raise the kids directly, rather than relying on older children or a nanny to be "surrogate".
I think you have off the deep end now. Trying to create your own AI. Believing that human beings can be normal without other humans to raise and teach them. Wanting the human population to grow without limit. Thinking that technology will create utopia. I do like your maps, but I've seen fewer of those lately.
Tomas, I can't understand your concern about land constraints relative to having children. It true that, in general, we are not making more land, but the earth has adequate land available for as far down the time scale that matters. With AI, robotics and much higher longevity gives us the ability to create products, ideas, and to build housing at far less than we have in the past.
I don't see land as a limiting factor. I see abundance at scale coming for most of the world's population, along with supercharged productivity. Where we reside feels way down the list of concerns, if even a concern at all.
Land is a factor for family formation and family size. Prospective and current parents prefer to have a yard for their kids and the stability of home ownership.
And also there’s a big co founder in these studies generally, which is amount of space. Controlling for available space, apartments are not worse than homes I believe.
The second link is about how, controlling for available space, families who live in apartments and have/want children prefer more (smaller) bedrooms to fewer (larger) bedrooms. Due to government incentives and other inefficiencies, the US apartment-building market is not operating efficiently to meet demand, but instead skews toward fewer bedrooms. This makes current apartments even less suitable for families than they could otherwise be.
Land is an interesting one. It has been trending in the opposite direction for the past decades — down. Economy seems to favor having a few big cities over more smaller ones, so even if building is not a constraint the area we can practically occupy is shrinking. Even at our current population, a lot of people have less children than they want because they can't afford a suitable place to live. There is already a shortage, and crucially, our technology is no longer a limiting factor for the amount we do build. (At least not in the Anglo world)
I find it hideous to relinquish most of parental duties to robots. it remind me most that movie, The Nanny Diaries starring the wonderful Scarlett Johansson.
I wouldn't mind some help with the house chores (cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc.), but I would not let go on the day to day upbringing of my kids, even though they get on my nerves on a daily basis.
Muy interesante, sobre todo la parte “beckeriana” del coste-beneficio: tener hijos ha pasado de activo productivo a proyecto existencial… y claro, ahí la TIR se complica.
Dicho eso, quizá hay un pequeño salto de fe: reducir fricciones no siempre genera deseo. Si fuera así, desde la invención del lavavajillas trabajaríamos todos 14 horas al día.
La intuición tecnoutópica (úteros artificiales + IA niñera = baby boom) suena más a Un mundo feliz que a demografía aplicada. Porque el cuello de botella no parece logístico, sino emocional… y el número de Dunbar no se deja hackear tan fácilmente.
Igual el problema no es que tener hijos sea difícil, sino que —cuando puedes elegir— ya no apetece tanto. Y eso, de momento, no lo automatiza ni el mejor AR.
Creo que estás obviando el punto del coste. Cuando hablas con familias y les preguntas por qué no tienen hijos, el 90% no te dicen “bah, no me da más”, sino “son demasiado curro”
I think we're going through a love filter. In the past guys only needed sex drive and power to have kids, and women needed them for status. Love not required.
Now guys can have sex without kids, and women can have status without kids. And kids are bad deal for material wealth and career status. So only people that prioritise the joy of loving over those things will have descendance. Genes and values that don't, selected out of the gene and culture pool.
Filtering is brutal so within a couple generation, we'll only have people that prioritise a life filled with love over status and wealth. Fertility should stabilise then, perhaps increase again. Anyways will be safe by then to have tech for the easy-baby world you describe.
Not sure if true, but it has the merit of reversing the doom narrative, where people will feel like it's a duty to have kids to avoid collapse. As a personal sacrifice. Nope, in fact, the losers are those that don't have kids, selecting themselves out. This should be better incentive to have kids than the sacrifice thing.
"Nope, in fact, the losers are those that don't have kids, selecting themselves out."
I and my fellow childfree siblings each chose not to have children. We didn't want them, and we are glad that we don't have them.
We each have happy, fulfilled, vibrant lives filled with calm evenings, quiet weekends, zero debt, low-stress holiday gatherings, mutliple indoor and outdoor hobbies, restful nights of sleep, spontaneous meetings with friends, low bills, multiple international travels per year, satisfying, loving relationships with our partners, healthy friendships, and the ability to pursue the lives we want, fully able to give time and energy to our communities.
And if anything happens financially, employment-wise, family-wise, or so forth, we can quickly pivot to adjust and deal with the issue.
Most of our friends who have kids, however, are exhausted, depressed, in debt, scared for their children's futures. And while they indeed love their children (and that's a good thing!), several of them wonder what they could have done with their lives if they never had kids.
Will I or my siblings pass on our genes? Nope! And if all you're counting is genetics, then then yes, on that level, we "lose".
But unlike eugenic or fascist societies, the value of human life in a modern, democratic society is not based solely on whether you're a successful breeder, but on what value you bring to your society, regardless of whether or not you had children.
- Wealthy people (throughout time) with no emotional attachment to their children.
"Let robots do it" always sounds good (in theory), until you find that your children are devoid of empathy, social skills, compassion, and the inner core of right-and-wrong which strengthens a person's ethical (social) and moral (personal) compass. Plus, they have no bond with you, and treat you as if you're the cleaning service, rather than with any parent-child warmth.
A society (or generation) raised by robots becomes a society (or generation) of sociopaths or psychopaths, unable to form real human bonds, communities, or societies.
I've never read stories where people partially raised by nannies felt more loved than people fully raised by their own parents. But I have read many stories where people raised partially by nannies felt disconnected from their real parents.
Is there hard, quantifiable data here? No.
But (in a healthy upbringing) the small interactions between parent and child, whether it's feeding or playing with a baby, helping a child to read or giving them a bath, or discussing social complexities and identity issues with a teen, are part of the memories and bonding between parent and child.
And when a parent farms the caregiving to a nanny, they are often saying, "I can't be bothered to re-structure my life to look after this creature. I have more important things to worry about. You deal with it."
No, you made this wiggly little person, you raise it.
My parents wanted children, had children, and gave as much time to us as they could, outside of their jobs (sometimes even taking us with them). They didn't smother or "helicoptor" us (as we grew older, they gave us more and more space), but they were always there to ensure that our daily needs were met (even if we ourselves didn't want to meet them).
When my parents had kids, they accepted the responsibility of ensuring our physical, emotional, and spiritual growth into happy, successful, responsible, and compassionate adults. Not only did they never hire a third person (or in the future, robot) to perform any of the long-term work to raise us, they would've found that idea abhorent.
As they explained it to me once:
"You are our children. And we had you, to raise you. We built a relationship with each of you, created memories with you, and enjoyed the moment-to-moment joy of watching you grow into adults. There was pain, their was exhaustion, there was stress and worry, and there was boredom. But that was part of each of us being a parent. Nobody and nothing could replace that. And we wouldn't want them to."
NOTE 1: For a very short while, early on, my grandmother lived with us, as we were all extremely young, and my 23-year-old mother was overwhelmed. But my grandmother was family, and she had a personal, vested, emotional interest in our well-being. Her presence also helped us to bond with her. Family members helping to raise children is a world of difference from a hired nanny ("employee") or a robot ("appliance").
NOTE 2: For a very, very short time, my parents were required to leave us at a daycare center for two hours per day. They hated it, we hated it, and it's one of the worst set of memories we all "share". As soon as my mother could resume full-time care, she did. My memories of a day care center were the closest I had to imagining being in prison.
NOTE 3: For their own mental health, my parents had exactly one babysitter stay with us for 2 or 3 hours in the evening, once every two months, so they could go have a "date" and strengthen their own marital bond. Her name was Mary, her cooking was terrible, and we remember little of her except that she was pretty and kind, and watched TV. Again this lasted all of one year (six sittings) as we soon grew too old to need a babysitter anyway.
Ahhhh. So your point-of-view in the article, advocating for robotic assistance in raising children (or at least participating in the household) is predicated on the fact that your family could afford employed, non-family nannies (plural?), and that they were a normal function in your childhood.
I would recommend that you disclose that in the article (or in a follow-up article), so that people at least know where your bias toward assisted childrearing by non-family members originates.
Now that I know you had nannies in your childhood, more of your article's advocacy makes sense. I still don't agree with many of your points, but your arguing for them reads as less strange now.
To the point of "time", it's not overall time, but the amount of time a parent can spend with each child to bond with them, individually.
My mother's relatives didn't spend quality time with her due to a lack of intrinsic value they held in her. They saw her as an obligation, and while they provided the basics for her, they had their own children in whom they were more invested. She has cried remembering the neglect, and seeing it in comparison to how her friends were treated by their parents.
And my father's mother and father didn't spend time with him, because her raising eight kids at home, and him holding down two jobs to pay for eight hungry mouths, took all of their time and energy. It ruined their relationships with the kids, and their marriage. My father is still mildly bitter about it all, 50+ years later. Not angry, a the kind of "it could've been different" regret at missing out on emotional closeness that he too saw between his friends and their folks.
Luckily for me and my siblings, my parents' childhood tragedies informed them heavily on how they would raise us. And they wisely, actively avoided the same pitfalls as their own caretakers (parents or relatives).
They had only three, and always, actively made sure to spend focused time with each of us, one-on-one, throughout our childhoods, reminding us that focused time with one, doesn't mean ignoring the other two.
We three are infinitely grateful for the innumerable moments we had with our parents, one-on-one, and as a trio.
I think that's the key here, it's not all or nothing. Robots would be great for helping out and letting the parents do what they do best, interacting emotionally with the kiddos...it may really gives the parents more quality time not having to do some of the drudge work. I don't think the scenario is as dystopian as some make it, though having 100 children under one roof is getting there, lol! As I am getting into the golden years I also have to imagine, assuming reincarnation is a thing, how would I like to be raised in the next life and having a robot around sounds kind of fun. Also, having siblings is a wonderful thing usually: we have friends with just one child (part of the trend towards less children) and while they are the center of attention I think they secretly ache for having brothers or sisters.
Loving, supportive, and happy-to-see-you siblings are pure gold. My siblings are my best friends, and even during times in my childhood when I had no other kids to play with, I had them.
We also know that no matter what happens in life, there are multiple people out there in the world, other than our parents, who love and support us, nearly-unconditionally.
Friends of mine who were raised without siblings have overwhelmingly talked of a certain loneliness at home, even when they were loved by their parents. There still wasn't anyone at or near their own level of life experience, with whom to interact. Friends were great, but only when they were available and willing to hang out. Otherwise, most of them say that life at home was often boring.
There is a flawed premise in your thesis, that happiness scales almost linearly with more children but there’s quite a bit of research out there measuring parental satisfaction with different numbers of children and the sweet spot is 2. Anymore and hierarchies are created in children (middle children always getting the short stick etc) and parents just don’t have enough time to give to share the happy moments you mention equally. Parents of 2 children 1 boy 1 girl show highest satisfaction in parenthood by a wide margin. Do this theory that just because the cost benefit analysis works out for us to have more kids so we will doesn’t really pan out for me. More doesn’t equal better.
No no no, happiness is broken down by moment-to-moment happiness and fulfillment.
Moment-to-moment happiness (="pleasure") decreases with children (because of the workload) but fulfillment increases. That's how people end up landing in the 1-3 range.
My point is that the pleasure decrease that comes with children is about the change dramatically. The decrease will be minimal. But the increase in fulfillment will remain. On balance, that means more children.
Parents don't have time to give to children because, among other things, they have too many chores! Which will shrink! More time for children.
As a childfree person, I am glad that my parents had me, and my siblings.
Both of my parents always wanted kids, and they were excellent parents; devoted, patient, caring, kind, ethical, moral, honest, and respectful... They were amazing, and we had happy childhoods.
But that also meant that we grew up knowing how difficult and time/energy/money intense it was to raise a child (or children) well. As my parents have both told us, "You kids became our lives for 20 or so years, and even though you're all grown and living your own lives, your success is still at the center of our happiness."
And in a Twilight Zone twist, neither I, nor my siblings, have ever desired our own children. Hearing this, my parents told us, "OMG, then please, do not have them. We will be sad that we won't have grandchildren, but your happiness matters more to us."
Subsequently, I got a vasectomy, and my siblings are on birth control. And we're each living the life we want. We each have friends who have children, and we're glad that they love their kids.
But being childfree, we also enjoy our vacations, our saved income, and our low-stress family gatherings.
Pros: More saved income, cleaner home, lower stress, more free time, quieter free time, more flexibility in life to both adjust to challenges, and pursue interestes.
Cons: No children to pass on genetic material, or support you in your old age.
Con correction: Genetic continuation is not a personal goal, a child's loyalty or survival is not guaranteed, and retirement communities are often enjoyable and supportive.
Thank you for your response. Your parents feedback is especially thoughtful. One of my kids has elected to not have his own and neither my wife nor I find fault with that. Nor do we find fault with those who have children. My own view is that raising children is the most important thing we have done. And the job is never completed-but we don't tell them that as they are fully functioning adults. The parenting instinct just never dies, it would seem.
My parents are also quite open about parenting being the biggest, most important part of their lives. And they're also vocal about still "parenting" us, even though my siblings and I are all fully-functioning adults over 40, with our own careers, relationships, lives...
"No, we're not wiping butts, or reading bedtime stories, or even checking your homework. But we're still there to provide support and guidance when you ask, and sometimes just an ear, when you need it."
For us, our parents have always "been where we are now", and can provide experience and learned lessons to help us navigate unknown or difficult situations regarding work, romance, finances, and life itself.
They will likely offer their wisdom and experience to us until they're unable (death or poor health), and we are grateful for their wisdom and guidance.
So, yeah, I think it's okay (if you'd like) to tell your kids that you'll always parent them (as long as they're open to it), even if the "parenting" has evolved from being "caretakers" to being "advisors".
I'm baffled by the obsession with hyper-fertility among so many from, let's broadly call it, "the Tech world". The idea that children in families of 10 (or "20, 50, 100") would receive adequate quality time with their parents, or that those parents' lives would be meaningfully richer (even outsourcing a lot of the tiresome work, which, as other commenters have put it, are also often where the most meaning is derived) seems... highly suspect.
Many families would probably love to have affordable humanoid robot help with a more typical number of children, because it would let them enjoy more of other aspects of life. But this has diminishing returns as the number of children increased. (Again, assuming these parents actually value quality time and building relationships with each of their children.)
Usually your posts are quite interesting but this one... Your anti child bias is evident in the very first paragraphs where you make associations of children upbringing as “soul crashing”, “brutal”. I stopped there tbh. I will give a try later. I might misread.
Since you have four children, I won't tell you you know nothing about this topic. But this still reads more like engagement bait than like your personal wisdom.
As a mother of three children and hopefully four someday, I will tell you this essay comes from a more patrifocal than matrifocal perspective. And mothers rather than fathers are the bottleneck when it comes to fertility, so our perspective is especially important.
For mothers even more than fathers, parenthood is a visceral and hormonal bonding experience, not just a normal relationship like you'd have with a student, a friend, or even a spouse.
Yes, one can offspringmaxx by outsourcing most of the process. If I were forced to have 20 kids, I'd probably prefer/need to skip a lot of the experience. But absent such a dystopia, I can let myself - and my kids - enjoy it more.
Gestation is part of the bonding process. Birth is part of the bonding process. Breastfeeding is part of the bonding process. They're a feature, not a bug. Those female abilities are indeed expensive to use, but they also have the biggest payoffs. Not only the costs but also the benefits of motherhood are relevant when competing with the awesomeness of the childfree lifestyle.
In terms of what parents find fulfilling, most mothers find gestation, birth, and breastfeeding to be extremely meaningful parts of their experience of motherhood, and load-bearing in terms of bonding and the hormonal transition of matrescence.
Males can't do those things regardless, so they generally don't understand what is lost without them. I think females who choose to become mothers, and who listen to the wisdom of mothers who have made that transition before them, will want to continue to enjoy exercising their superpowers. It helps us enjoy the other parts of motherhood more too.
Thomas, I believe you might be interested in the sci-fi "The world inside" written by Robert Silverberg in 1971.
People live in arcologies with 1-2 million in each, Each family have 8-12 children each, as the guide says to the visitor in arcology Urbmon 116:
"Avoidance of frustration, you see, is the primary rule of a society such as ours, where even minor frictions could lead to uncontrollable oscillations of disharmony. And do you know of our custom of nightwalking? [...] Doors are not locked here in Urbmon 116. We have no personal property worth guarding, and we all are socially adjusted. At night it is quite proper to enter other homes. We exchange partners in this way all the time; usually wives stay home and husbands migrate, though not neccessarily. Each of us has access at any time to any other adult member of our community"
Their highest punishment "menance to harmony and stability" is to be thrown into a maintenance shaft and recycled (=the composition of their body is broken down into respective chemical element and reused for new purposes, of course the recycling process is done out of sight and out of mind of the inhabitants in the arcology). There is a sort of universal basic living standard but it is not a classless society, there are social stratification within each arcology (between professions, entertainers etc).
It was written around the time of "The population bomb" (Paul Ehrlich 1968) so there are also some discussions on the theme lives that would not be born if there are restrictions vs quality of life and what that quality looks like.
Thomas, I normally buy into most of your ideas, even if they feel hard to imagine or unconventional, but this one definitely feels dystopian to me.
My biggest pushback (said as a father of 3) is the Myth of Quality Time. You mentioned that things like school pickup or doing chores or rocking the baby to sleep are things we could give up to robots, but we can keep dinner time and vacations, etc. Many of the most profound moments for me as a father, and developmentally important moments for my children, happened during these "boring, everyday" situations. Driving the kids home from school lets you really understand the mood of your children that day -- what was exciting for them, what made them feel sad, etc. Outsourcing those moments as "inefficiencies" seems to really miss the important moments of human connection.
I hear you, but you are only valuing the positive of these moments, not the cost-benefit. My kids take the bus every morning and the bus stop is literally 1m away. I miss the ride you discuss, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. I have 4 children, and that bus stop allows me to have a sane life while still having 4. I would never want to sacrifice my 4th child for more boring time with my other children. I’m just pushing this idea to an extreme.
Notice that the most important thing to feel fulfilled is the life narratives we give ourselves. So it makes sense you’d think your current setup is optimal, and you should extremely reluctant to imagine that other setups could be better. Ponder that bias.
So many thoughts about this, but I would like to add one from some knowledge originating in personal experience. I am an early offspring of artificial insemination by anonymous sperm provider, and have an estimated 600 half-siblings from the same mysterious man. There are serious issues with respect to both the lying usually involved in anonymous gamete 'donation' (a misnomer, because most often gametes are sold), as well as, more subtly, the difference in the relationship of a parent who is a close genetic relative and one who is not. To dismiss these and many other issues is like dismissing some adoptees' desire to know their genetic parents; a need which for decades was broadly rejected with contempt. For too long, the reproductive and fertility industry has ignored the difficulties resulting from various innovations and interventions -- the goal being to produce a baby by whatever means, with little thought to the baby's becoming an adult. Thomas, I always admire your willingness to logically think through our challenges and to imagine more courageously than most. But I urge you to pay attention to both the risks of casting aside what humans have done for thousands of years, and what we already know about the difficulties faced by the products of reproductive technologies -- those of us born of science, not sex -- because I can assure you that there are dangers lurking in your brave new world.
So let’s think about them!
It sounds to me like the issues you raise are valid and should be addressed:
- Children should be able to know their DNA parents
- There should be full transparency on who is a parent to how many children. 600 might be a bit over the top if it’s not clearly known who these children are, and if the mothers don’t know this guy has fathered so many children.
What else?
Population expansion I think is hugely problematic. But I want to read an earlier post of yours before commenting more than that. WRT 'donor' conception, thanks, you are right on both points. Yes, secrecy is poisonous, and to be able to know who you came from is important. Also, having hundreds of offspring increases risks of founder effect illness (which is real in our case -- nothing fatal, but difficulties with a common source). And of course consanguinity is bound to happen. (The US industry has some rule like 10 families per 800,000 population, but there is a smaller class who have the means to do these processes, and people who are similar tend to choose the same 'donor'. In my extended and expanding family (every Christmas a few people get DNA tests as presents and then have a big surprise) a number of my half-siblings knew each other before they knew they were related. They tended to gravitate to similar professions (media, journalism, science, arts) and so... So there are children born of half-siblings. Mind you, half-siblings having kids is not a death sentence, but it's kind of icky when they find out.
Yeah that’s definitely bad!
In-vitro gametogenesis solves that!
I shiver at this idea of a future as someone who is now spending years processing childhood trauma from neglect. My childhood looked normal and adequate from the outside: fed, clothed, sent to school, had my own room, lived with both parents, they paid for things like hobbies & after-school activities, etc.
Except they hardly interacted with me, including rarely co-regulating, and never really got to know me. If robots had been an option, my parents would’ve chosen that too, and I’d likely be even worse off. Human nervous systems need to co-regulate with other human nervous systems to learn how to self-regulate. Without learning self-regulation, the human doesn’t immediately die, but goes on to live under stressful, dysregulated conditions— with no understanding of what’s wrong or why things are hard (because neglect is an absence; you can’t point at it the way you can point at explicit abuse).
Parentified children raising each other is already documented as not being good for their development. Adding robots to the mix wouldn’t solve this and could make it worse.
I would prefer for future tech to boost parent-child time/connection, not replace it. If it’s possible to have more than 4 or 5 kids and spend adequate quality time with all of them, I’m unaware of it. In a world where you don’t need child labor on your farm and there isn’t a high chance of childhood mortality, why would anyone have more children than they can adequately parent?
Anyway. I still enjoyed this article, as it got my mind a-crankin’. I just happen to disagree / to hold a very different hope for the future of fertility.
Thank you for sharing. I deeply appreciate. That must have been hard.
It sounds like your parents did not want to hang out with their children. That's definitely not the ideal parenting style.
The article is more geared towards those who do want to connect with their children, but can't have as many as they want for lack of time or other limitations. You say "I would prefer for future tech to boost parent-child time/connection, not replace it.", and that's exactly what the tech described here could do.
My father was one of eight. He never received any emotional support from either parent, or his older siblings. As a result, though he is extremely well-adjusted in life, he still has a deep-seated need to be accepted and loved by others, and for others to pay attention to him.
It comes out as him being friendly, funny, compassionate, and engaging to everyone he meets; but underneath, it's a desire not to be ignored. Yes, he needs his "alone time", but when we're in a group, my Dad is usually at the center of attention.
Same with my mother, for the opposite reason. She was raised by one parent, plus relatives, and was mostly neglected.
And it had the same result too: Outwardly well-adjusted and healthy, but with a massive vacuum of emotional and social need which translates into unwittingly taking emotional control of a group and becoming the center of it. Most people don't notice it (they're having too much fun being around her), but seeing the pattern over and over all of our lives, my siblings and I do notice.
Again, they're caring, empathetic, compassionate people who believe in being loving and accepting to everyone. But the lack of close, emotional connection to their parents, scarred them emotionally and psychologically on a very deep level. One which they each partially acknowledge, but partially ignore. It's not detrimental to their lives, but it is noticeable.
Thanks for sharing. This is very interesting indeed, it raises lots of questions.
1. Are their lives worth being lived? I'd argue yes, they are, therefore it's better if people like them are born than not.
2. How much of these descriptions can be traced back to nature vs nurture? And within nurture, to parenting vs other factors? Very hard to tell I reckon. Maybe they would have ended up this way anyway?
3. Would they have been better off with more parents (in the case of your mother) or more presence of his parents (your father)? Maybe not.
4. Would your paternal grandparents have had more children if it had been easier? Doesn't sound like it.
I think my takeaway on this is that this type of problem exists and will always exist, and that it's up to the parents to decide how many kids they want. The more they love them, the more they will usually have, and the better off these children will be—better than not being born, that's for sure.
"1. Are their lives worth being lived? I'd argue yes, they are, therefore it's better if people like them are born than not."
1a. If we could genetically code for decency, kindness, honesty, and emotional maturity? Sure. But we can't simply have more people and hope that they turn out "good". In any random sample of humans, some will be good, some neutral, and some bad. My experience has shown a 30-40-30 split along those lines: 30% good (loving, compassionate, thougtful, productive), 40% neutral (not actively constuctive or destructive in life, just bumping around), and 30% bad (selfish, cruel, destructive).
"2. How much of these descriptions can be traced back to nature vs nurture? And within nurture, to parenting vs other factors? Very hard to tell I reckon. Maybe they would have ended up this way anyway?"
2a. They would still be happy, loving people, but with each of them raised by two loving parents in a stable family size, they would likely have been more successful, earlier in life (more confidence and support) and would've enjoyed healthier relationships as teens and young adults, including possibly their own failed marriage. In fact, my siblings and I took our parents' failures to heart, to help navigate "what not to do" in life, and it has kept us out of most of the trouble that other people get into.
"3. Would they have been better off with more parents (in the case of your mother) or more presence of his parents (your father)? Maybe not."
3a. Both of my parents have acknowledged that they would have likely enjoyed happier childhoods had they each been raised by a pair of loving parents. My father, by parents not overwhelmed with eight children and low income (and who responded by shutting down emotionally, as to not be overwhelmed), and my mother with parents who were both alive and present to give her the love and affection she was denied by being raised relatives who had no direct emotional interest in her.
"4. Would your paternal grandparents have had more children if it had been easier? Doesn't sound like it."
4a. They had eight children because of a lack of birth control, and the social stigma of contraception. My father's mother has openly said that though she loves all of her children, she still regretted having so many. It ruined both her body, and decades of her life, and having to deal with so many of them prevented her from bonding strongly with any of them. She has long been a supporter of birth control and women's right not to have children if they don't want to do so.
"I think my takeaway on this is that this type of problem exists and will always exist, and that it's up to the parents to decide how many kids they want. The more they love them, the more they will usually have, and the better off these children will be—better than not being born, that's for sure."
-- Even in my own, smaller family, we like to keep gatherings small, so that everyone has more time to spend with everyone else over the course of the visit (1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks). Too many relatives in once place at one time, and either we have to ignore folks to spend any significant time with anyone, or we each feel that we didn't spend enough time with anyone.
Scale that over to families. My parents had three, and there was enough time in life for each of them to focus on each of us as we needed. But simple math shows that families over three or four start to become too large for the parents to get in enough quality time with everyone during each day, and one or more children inevitably suffer from long-term neglect, either real or perceived.
Again, while neglect and emotional deprivation can occur in families of any size, every time I talk to people from large families, where children outnumber parents at least 2.5 to 1, they almost always describe their parents with terminology which shows a lack of attention or quality realtionship-building.
- "Mom was too busy."
- "Dad wasn't there."
- "I was raised by older siblings."
- "They never treated us as individuals."
- "We never had enough."
- "Time and money were always an issue."
Perhaps in a post-scarcity society, where work is optional, and robots do all the chores (?), it will be easier to spend time with each child. But there are still only 24 hours in a day, and only so much attention and energy for a parent to give during that time.
NOTE: This applies to managers as well. Smaller teams often perform better because the manager can focus on the needs of each employee, rather than delegating to "team leads", just as smaller families let Mom and Dad raise the kids directly, rather than relying on older children or a nanny to be "surrogate".
I think you have off the deep end now. Trying to create your own AI. Believing that human beings can be normal without other humans to raise and teach them. Wanting the human population to grow without limit. Thinking that technology will create utopia. I do like your maps, but I've seen fewer of those lately.
Who is not out of their depth when projecting 40 years into the future? This should not prevent us from thinking through that.
My last article had maps!
Tomas, I can't understand your concern about land constraints relative to having children. It true that, in general, we are not making more land, but the earth has adequate land available for as far down the time scale that matters. With AI, robotics and much higher longevity gives us the ability to create products, ideas, and to build housing at far less than we have in the past.
I don't see land as a limiting factor. I see abundance at scale coming for most of the world's population, along with supercharged productivity. Where we reside feels way down the list of concerns, if even a concern at all.
Land is a factor for family formation and family size. Prospective and current parents prefer to have a yard for their kids and the stability of home ownership.
https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/homes-for-young-families-a-pro-family-housing-agenda
https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/homes-for-young-families-part-2
Yes. But there’s plenty of land even for yards.
And also there’s a big co founder in these studies generally, which is amount of space. Controlling for available space, apartments are not worse than homes I believe.
The second link is about how, controlling for available space, families who live in apartments and have/want children prefer more (smaller) bedrooms to fewer (larger) bedrooms. Due to government incentives and other inefficiencies, the US apartment-building market is not operating efficiently to meet demand, but instead skews toward fewer bedrooms. This makes current apartments even less suitable for families than they could otherwise be.
Land is an interesting one. It has been trending in the opposite direction for the past decades — down. Economy seems to favor having a few big cities over more smaller ones, so even if building is not a constraint the area we can practically occupy is shrinking. Even at our current population, a lot of people have less children than they want because they can't afford a suitable place to live. There is already a shortage, and crucially, our technology is no longer a limiting factor for the amount we do build. (At least not in the Anglo world)
I agree! I wrote articles on that topic, I think I linked the main one. I might not have been clear enough in this one!
I find it hideous to relinquish most of parental duties to robots. it remind me most that movie, The Nanny Diaries starring the wonderful Scarlett Johansson.
I wouldn't mind some help with the house chores (cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc.), but I would not let go on the day to day upbringing of my kids, even though they get on my nerves on a daily basis.
That’s great! Then you should do that, and that would allow you to have 4-5 kids!
Muy interesante, sobre todo la parte “beckeriana” del coste-beneficio: tener hijos ha pasado de activo productivo a proyecto existencial… y claro, ahí la TIR se complica.
Dicho eso, quizá hay un pequeño salto de fe: reducir fricciones no siempre genera deseo. Si fuera así, desde la invención del lavavajillas trabajaríamos todos 14 horas al día.
La intuición tecnoutópica (úteros artificiales + IA niñera = baby boom) suena más a Un mundo feliz que a demografía aplicada. Porque el cuello de botella no parece logístico, sino emocional… y el número de Dunbar no se deja hackear tan fácilmente.
Igual el problema no es que tener hijos sea difícil, sino que —cuando puedes elegir— ya no apetece tanto. Y eso, de momento, no lo automatiza ni el mejor AR.
Creo que estás obviando el punto del coste. Cuando hablas con familias y les preguntas por qué no tienen hijos, el 90% no te dicen “bah, no me da más”, sino “son demasiado curro”
I think we're going through a love filter. In the past guys only needed sex drive and power to have kids, and women needed them for status. Love not required.
Now guys can have sex without kids, and women can have status without kids. And kids are bad deal for material wealth and career status. So only people that prioritise the joy of loving over those things will have descendance. Genes and values that don't, selected out of the gene and culture pool.
Filtering is brutal so within a couple generation, we'll only have people that prioritise a life filled with love over status and wealth. Fertility should stabilise then, perhaps increase again. Anyways will be safe by then to have tech for the easy-baby world you describe.
Not sure if true, but it has the merit of reversing the doom narrative, where people will feel like it's a duty to have kids to avoid collapse. As a personal sacrifice. Nope, in fact, the losers are those that don't have kids, selecting themselves out. This should be better incentive to have kids than the sacrifice thing.
Agreed that female status is one factor. I bundle it into awesomeness.
Also agreed that the filtering is super brutal here. Both genetic and cultural.
"Nope, in fact, the losers are those that don't have kids, selecting themselves out."
I and my fellow childfree siblings each chose not to have children. We didn't want them, and we are glad that we don't have them.
We each have happy, fulfilled, vibrant lives filled with calm evenings, quiet weekends, zero debt, low-stress holiday gatherings, mutliple indoor and outdoor hobbies, restful nights of sleep, spontaneous meetings with friends, low bills, multiple international travels per year, satisfying, loving relationships with our partners, healthy friendships, and the ability to pursue the lives we want, fully able to give time and energy to our communities.
And if anything happens financially, employment-wise, family-wise, or so forth, we can quickly pivot to adjust and deal with the issue.
Most of our friends who have kids, however, are exhausted, depressed, in debt, scared for their children's futures. And while they indeed love their children (and that's a good thing!), several of them wonder what they could have done with their lives if they never had kids.
Will I or my siblings pass on our genes? Nope! And if all you're counting is genetics, then then yes, on that level, we "lose".
But unlike eugenic or fascist societies, the value of human life in a modern, democratic society is not based solely on whether you're a successful breeder, but on what value you bring to your society, regardless of whether or not you had children.
Let's see...
- "Brave New World" (book)
- "Logan's Run" (book)
- "Nell" (film)
- Wealthy people (throughout time) with no emotional attachment to their children.
"Let robots do it" always sounds good (in theory), until you find that your children are devoid of empathy, social skills, compassion, and the inner core of right-and-wrong which strengthens a person's ethical (social) and moral (personal) compass. Plus, they have no bond with you, and treat you as if you're the cleaning service, rather than with any parent-child warmth.
A society (or generation) raised by robots becomes a society (or generation) of sociopaths or psychopaths, unable to form real human bonds, communities, or societies.
That is a valid hypothesis, but with little data no?
Of course I’m not saying here that the children should be raised without parents. I’m saying they should be raised with parents! And robot help.
I've never read stories where people partially raised by nannies felt more loved than people fully raised by their own parents. But I have read many stories where people raised partially by nannies felt disconnected from their real parents.
Is there hard, quantifiable data here? No.
But (in a healthy upbringing) the small interactions between parent and child, whether it's feeding or playing with a baby, helping a child to read or giving them a bath, or discussing social complexities and identity issues with a teen, are part of the memories and bonding between parent and child.
And when a parent farms the caregiving to a nanny, they are often saying, "I can't be bothered to re-structure my life to look after this creature. I have more important things to worry about. You deal with it."
No, you made this wiggly little person, you raise it.
My parents wanted children, had children, and gave as much time to us as they could, outside of their jobs (sometimes even taking us with them). They didn't smother or "helicoptor" us (as we grew older, they gave us more and more space), but they were always there to ensure that our daily needs were met (even if we ourselves didn't want to meet them).
When my parents had kids, they accepted the responsibility of ensuring our physical, emotional, and spiritual growth into happy, successful, responsible, and compassionate adults. Not only did they never hire a third person (or in the future, robot) to perform any of the long-term work to raise us, they would've found that idea abhorent.
As they explained it to me once:
"You are our children. And we had you, to raise you. We built a relationship with each of you, created memories with you, and enjoyed the moment-to-moment joy of watching you grow into adults. There was pain, their was exhaustion, there was stress and worry, and there was boredom. But that was part of each of us being a parent. Nobody and nothing could replace that. And we wouldn't want them to."
NOTE 1: For a very short while, early on, my grandmother lived with us, as we were all extremely young, and my 23-year-old mother was overwhelmed. But my grandmother was family, and she had a personal, vested, emotional interest in our well-being. Her presence also helped us to bond with her. Family members helping to raise children is a world of difference from a hired nanny ("employee") or a robot ("appliance").
NOTE 2: For a very, very short time, my parents were required to leave us at a daycare center for two hours per day. They hated it, we hated it, and it's one of the worst set of memories we all "share". As soon as my mother could resume full-time care, she did. My memories of a day care center were the closest I had to imagining being in prison.
NOTE 3: For their own mental health, my parents had exactly one babysitter stay with us for 2 or 3 hours in the evening, once every two months, so they could go have a "date" and strengthen their own marital bond. Her name was Mary, her cooking was terrible, and we remember little of her except that she was pretty and kind, and watched TV. Again this lasted all of one year (six sittings) as we soon grew too old to need a babysitter anyway.
I went to daycare, I had nannies at home, and yet my parents were present and I love them.
I think neglect only gets worse when parents have little time, so giving them back time can only improve parent-child relationships.
Ahhhh. So your point-of-view in the article, advocating for robotic assistance in raising children (or at least participating in the household) is predicated on the fact that your family could afford employed, non-family nannies (plural?), and that they were a normal function in your childhood.
I would recommend that you disclose that in the article (or in a follow-up article), so that people at least know where your bias toward assisted childrearing by non-family members originates.
Now that I know you had nannies in your childhood, more of your article's advocacy makes sense. I still don't agree with many of your points, but your arguing for them reads as less strange now.
To the point of "time", it's not overall time, but the amount of time a parent can spend with each child to bond with them, individually.
My mother's relatives didn't spend quality time with her due to a lack of intrinsic value they held in her. They saw her as an obligation, and while they provided the basics for her, they had their own children in whom they were more invested. She has cried remembering the neglect, and seeing it in comparison to how her friends were treated by their parents.
And my father's mother and father didn't spend time with him, because her raising eight kids at home, and him holding down two jobs to pay for eight hungry mouths, took all of their time and energy. It ruined their relationships with the kids, and their marriage. My father is still mildly bitter about it all, 50+ years later. Not angry, a the kind of "it could've been different" regret at missing out on emotional closeness that he too saw between his friends and their folks.
Luckily for me and my siblings, my parents' childhood tragedies informed them heavily on how they would raise us. And they wisely, actively avoided the same pitfalls as their own caretakers (parents or relatives).
They had only three, and always, actively made sure to spend focused time with each of us, one-on-one, throughout our childhoods, reminding us that focused time with one, doesn't mean ignoring the other two.
We three are infinitely grateful for the innumerable moments we had with our parents, one-on-one, and as a trio.
I think that's the key here, it's not all or nothing. Robots would be great for helping out and letting the parents do what they do best, interacting emotionally with the kiddos...it may really gives the parents more quality time not having to do some of the drudge work. I don't think the scenario is as dystopian as some make it, though having 100 children under one roof is getting there, lol! As I am getting into the golden years I also have to imagine, assuming reincarnation is a thing, how would I like to be raised in the next life and having a robot around sounds kind of fun. Also, having siblings is a wonderful thing usually: we have friends with just one child (part of the trend towards less children) and while they are the center of attention I think they secretly ache for having brothers or sisters.
Loving, supportive, and happy-to-see-you siblings are pure gold. My siblings are my best friends, and even during times in my childhood when I had no other kids to play with, I had them.
We also know that no matter what happens in life, there are multiple people out there in the world, other than our parents, who love and support us, nearly-unconditionally.
Friends of mine who were raised without siblings have overwhelmingly talked of a certain loneliness at home, even when they were loved by their parents. There still wasn't anyone at or near their own level of life experience, with whom to interact. Friends were great, but only when they were available and willing to hang out. Otherwise, most of them say that life at home was often boring.
This is a disgusting and dystopic vision.
I expect that visceral reaction.
Then think about why you think that way, and try to argue against yourself, for the sake of challenging your preconceptions.
There is a flawed premise in your thesis, that happiness scales almost linearly with more children but there’s quite a bit of research out there measuring parental satisfaction with different numbers of children and the sweet spot is 2. Anymore and hierarchies are created in children (middle children always getting the short stick etc) and parents just don’t have enough time to give to share the happy moments you mention equally. Parents of 2 children 1 boy 1 girl show highest satisfaction in parenthood by a wide margin. Do this theory that just because the cost benefit analysis works out for us to have more kids so we will doesn’t really pan out for me. More doesn’t equal better.
No no no, happiness is broken down by moment-to-moment happiness and fulfillment.
Moment-to-moment happiness (="pleasure") decreases with children (because of the workload) but fulfillment increases. That's how people end up landing in the 1-3 range.
My point is that the pleasure decrease that comes with children is about the change dramatically. The decrease will be minimal. But the increase in fulfillment will remain. On balance, that means more children.
Parents don't have time to give to children because, among other things, they have too many chores! Which will shrink! More time for children.
I have always wondered about those who don't want children and are capable: are they sad or glad that their parents had children?
As a childfree person, I am glad that my parents had me, and my siblings.
Both of my parents always wanted kids, and they were excellent parents; devoted, patient, caring, kind, ethical, moral, honest, and respectful... They were amazing, and we had happy childhoods.
But that also meant that we grew up knowing how difficult and time/energy/money intense it was to raise a child (or children) well. As my parents have both told us, "You kids became our lives for 20 or so years, and even though you're all grown and living your own lives, your success is still at the center of our happiness."
And in a Twilight Zone twist, neither I, nor my siblings, have ever desired our own children. Hearing this, my parents told us, "OMG, then please, do not have them. We will be sad that we won't have grandchildren, but your happiness matters more to us."
Subsequently, I got a vasectomy, and my siblings are on birth control. And we're each living the life we want. We each have friends who have children, and we're glad that they love their kids.
But being childfree, we also enjoy our vacations, our saved income, and our low-stress family gatherings.
I respect people who decide not to have children! As long as they are fully aware of pros and cons.
The tax system is not structured for that though, but that might not matter soon.
Pros: More saved income, cleaner home, lower stress, more free time, quieter free time, more flexibility in life to both adjust to challenges, and pursue interestes.
Cons: No children to pass on genetic material, or support you in your old age.
Con correction: Genetic continuation is not a personal goal, a child's loyalty or survival is not guaranteed, and retirement communities are often enjoyable and supportive.
They might dislike children or find the current life awesome!
Or both! ;-)
Thank you for your response. Your parents feedback is especially thoughtful. One of my kids has elected to not have his own and neither my wife nor I find fault with that. Nor do we find fault with those who have children. My own view is that raising children is the most important thing we have done. And the job is never completed-but we don't tell them that as they are fully functioning adults. The parenting instinct just never dies, it would seem.
Happy to help!
My parents are also quite open about parenting being the biggest, most important part of their lives. And they're also vocal about still "parenting" us, even though my siblings and I are all fully-functioning adults over 40, with our own careers, relationships, lives...
"No, we're not wiping butts, or reading bedtime stories, or even checking your homework. But we're still there to provide support and guidance when you ask, and sometimes just an ear, when you need it."
For us, our parents have always "been where we are now", and can provide experience and learned lessons to help us navigate unknown or difficult situations regarding work, romance, finances, and life itself.
They will likely offer their wisdom and experience to us until they're unable (death or poor health), and we are grateful for their wisdom and guidance.
So, yeah, I think it's okay (if you'd like) to tell your kids that you'll always parent them (as long as they're open to it), even if the "parenting" has evolved from being "caretakers" to being "advisors".
I'm baffled by the obsession with hyper-fertility among so many from, let's broadly call it, "the Tech world". The idea that children in families of 10 (or "20, 50, 100") would receive adequate quality time with their parents, or that those parents' lives would be meaningfully richer (even outsourcing a lot of the tiresome work, which, as other commenters have put it, are also often where the most meaning is derived) seems... highly suspect.
Many families would probably love to have affordable humanoid robot help with a more typical number of children, because it would let them enjoy more of other aspects of life. But this has diminishing returns as the number of children increased. (Again, assuming these parents actually value quality time and building relationships with each of their children.)
Usually your posts are quite interesting but this one... Your anti child bias is evident in the very first paragraphs where you make associations of children upbringing as “soul crashing”, “brutal”. I stopped there tbh. I will give a try later. I might misread.
I have 4 children and I love them!
Since you have four children, I won't tell you you know nothing about this topic. But this still reads more like engagement bait than like your personal wisdom.
As a mother of three children and hopefully four someday, I will tell you this essay comes from a more patrifocal than matrifocal perspective. And mothers rather than fathers are the bottleneck when it comes to fertility, so our perspective is especially important.
For mothers even more than fathers, parenthood is a visceral and hormonal bonding experience, not just a normal relationship like you'd have with a student, a friend, or even a spouse.
Yes, one can offspringmaxx by outsourcing most of the process. If I were forced to have 20 kids, I'd probably prefer/need to skip a lot of the experience. But absent such a dystopia, I can let myself - and my kids - enjoy it more.
Gestation is part of the bonding process. Birth is part of the bonding process. Breastfeeding is part of the bonding process. They're a feature, not a bug. Those female abilities are indeed expensive to use, but they also have the biggest payoffs. Not only the costs but also the benefits of motherhood are relevant when competing with the awesomeness of the childfree lifestyle.
In terms of what parents find fulfilling, most mothers find gestation, birth, and breastfeeding to be extremely meaningful parts of their experience of motherhood, and load-bearing in terms of bonding and the hormonal transition of matrescence.
Males can't do those things regardless, so they generally don't understand what is lost without them. I think females who choose to become mothers, and who listen to the wisdom of mothers who have made that transition before them, will want to continue to enjoy exercising their superpowers. It helps us enjoy the other parts of motherhood more too.
Thomas, I believe you might be interested in the sci-fi "The world inside" written by Robert Silverberg in 1971.
People live in arcologies with 1-2 million in each, Each family have 8-12 children each, as the guide says to the visitor in arcology Urbmon 116:
"Avoidance of frustration, you see, is the primary rule of a society such as ours, where even minor frictions could lead to uncontrollable oscillations of disharmony. And do you know of our custom of nightwalking? [...] Doors are not locked here in Urbmon 116. We have no personal property worth guarding, and we all are socially adjusted. At night it is quite proper to enter other homes. We exchange partners in this way all the time; usually wives stay home and husbands migrate, though not neccessarily. Each of us has access at any time to any other adult member of our community"
Their highest punishment "menance to harmony and stability" is to be thrown into a maintenance shaft and recycled (=the composition of their body is broken down into respective chemical element and reused for new purposes, of course the recycling process is done out of sight and out of mind of the inhabitants in the arcology). There is a sort of universal basic living standard but it is not a classless society, there are social stratification within each arcology (between professions, entertainers etc).
It was written around the time of "The population bomb" (Paul Ehrlich 1968) so there are also some discussions on the theme lives that would not be born if there are restrictions vs quality of life and what that quality looks like.