The passionate hunger to do something significant and meaningful with my life was a major reason I took care never to have any children. Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear from a young age, and I knew that I was going to need every scrap of energy I could spare for the work I wanted to do.
Years later, after I had to accept the failure of my ambitions, there was an opportunity to become the dad of a kid who needed one. So here I am being a dad after all, and it's been a good experience. Difficult, of course, and often frustrating, but worthwhile; I have no regrets - neither about this choice, nor the one I made when I was young.
Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible. Movies and TV shows portrayed only the bad. Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world. A wide range of celebrities spend their days posting about how amazing it is to be without children.
I accept that there are some parents out there who regret their decision, but research shows them to be a vanishingly small minority. The VAST majority of parents report greater meaning, more love, personal growth, enjoyment, fulfillment, etc. Something has become quite sick in modern society when we provide such an imbalanced and untrue message to young people.
> Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
I completely agree with you. But I can't say around me, people, movies, society ever sent the message that parenthood is terrible. The way I interpret the message was always "this was hard, this was grueling, but I wouldn't change it for the world". I didn't get this apparent contradiction until it was my turn.
I think the people who miss almost all of these "tickboxes" and can somehow link it to the kids become unhappy with parenthood. If they ever feel their personal time, romance, career, success suffered because of the focus on the children, they will end up in the "disappointment" camp.
I never personally met anyone who was willing to admit regret of having children but I did meet people who were disappointed and put a veiled blame for their failure on the children.
You'd never hear me say it in person, but I'll admit it here. I'm sure it's great for most people, but it's not for me.
I agree with your assessment of society at large. The prevailing attitude is, having children is the best thing you'll ever do, that you ever could do. The most you'll get is, it's the hardest job in the world but also the best, and totally worth it. I have no idea what the other person is talking about when they say everything conveyed the message that parenthood is terrible. This sort of thing almost makes me wonder if the internet actually connects parallel universes and we just haven't realized it, because that's not how it is in mine.
I was on the fence, but had no support for it. All the media said do it. Everybody around me said do it. There was literally not a single dissenting voice in my life saying, "don't do it if you're not sure." Or even just "if you feel that way then maybe it's worth considering not having kids as an option, or at least waiting until you become more certain."
I feel a lot of regret having had children. Not 100%, but it's always going to be more than 0%. I adore my kids but it's too much for my brain and it makes me miserable a lot of the time. I don't bring it up except to counsellors (or anonymous internet bros, apparently) because (a) it's not actionable - there is no going back (b) it's a bummer and no one has anything to say about it.
This is one of the things I think about when considering kids++, when does the regret start (if at all)? Or as posted in other comments, will the health lottery have me regret having +1? Time will tell.
How old are they? I honestly felt like that sometimes for the first few years but no longer now that they are somewhat capable of not dying without constant supervision and are becoming their own new persons
This is arguably the toughest it will ever get. It's very normal to feel all kinds of tough emotions right now. If this were climbing Mount Everest, you'd be near the top.
You are probably right! But you might be assuming I wanted kids before I realized it wasn't all I'd hoped. I never really wanted them but said ok to my partner. I figured that most of the nicer and more fulfilled older people I knew had kids. Then again now I wonder if that's because there are plenty of older fulfilled people without kids off doing their thing and not interacting with the likes of me.
85% of women eventually have at least one child. So there are older folks out there without kids, but it's a relatively small group.
I'm sorry to hear you never wanted kids. I guess it's more complicated if you were sure beforehand that it's not for you. I hope you're able to balance the love with the effort.
I've thought about this and while I agree with you completely, I think the reason why is not just society at large. Externally what most people see is the time suck, money suck, and frustration with teaching behavior, fixing bad behavior etc.
What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
how do i explain that my child running into my arms after his first day of daycare is a high ill be chasing for the rest of my life?
or the irrational pride when you see your kid flip over for the first time?
it's so many mundane moments that punch 100000x above their weight when its your kid having them.
the good parts of parenting sound like fake news (unless youre talking to other parents)
Agree 100%. I often tell expecting parents "All the hard stuff they tell you about; the sleep loss, the stress, the cost... All that stuff is true. But there's also all this amazing stuff they don't tell you about, which is also true."
I think that people probably tried to tell me about the amazing stuff, but I couldn't take it in. This created a very pleasant surprise for me when I found out about the good feels after the dread of just expecting everything I know to be upended with no reward.
You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
There‘s a lot of ancient biology at play in raising kids. You won’t get exactly this kind of feeling elsewhere. Doesn’t mean it has to be your kids though. You just need to be an important part of their life.
This is a fallacy. You don't need to live a situation to be able to comment about it.
Especially if we try to rationalize the choice. If you talk about "feelings", then fine. But be aware that "feelings" could simply be your hormone levels changing after having kids.
You don’t need to be a parent to be allowed to comment on or speculate about being a parent, but this is definitely one of those things you can’t guess at or estimate.
Until it is your kid in front of you you can’t know what you’ll feel as a parent. Maybe it’s all hormones and monkey brain, but that doesn’t make it any different.
Many people do not have that Hollywood Magic moment where “everything changed.” Some of my friends experienced this, some of them did not. None of us experienced what we thought we would.
Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion.
We are talking past each other because some/most parents in those discussion cannot get out of their self-centered view of the worlds based on "feelings". But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world, you should be able to substantiate that claim without going back to "feelings" that only you can feel.
> Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion.
Yes, they should. We are, after all, replying to the initial assertion that (and I quote) "you don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings [love, being needed, needing someone]".
> But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world
That wasn't a claim anybody made in this thread, and specifically everyone was talking from a personal perspective about parenthood, not making universal claims. Certainly not the person who wrote this (and to whom you indirectly replied):
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
If you don't like talking about feelings, fine. But this discussion was about feelings, not about some universal "most important thing in the world".
Sure. But if you want a rationale discussion about what matters in life as this blog post and parent commenter suggest you probably don't want to get influenced by feelings.
There is a ton of philosophy written around this. Feelings are a very self-centric view of the world. The goal of rationalization is to take a wider systemic view without being self-centered.
Because if you push feelings and chemistry to the max you could also make an argument that taking meth and heroin is the most important thing in the world, as the feelings coming out of it are very real.
This discussion is many level deeps based on a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life. And other grand similar statements.
>>> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
I don't think so. You specifically replied to a comment by calling it a "fallacy", when it was discussing feelings of parenthood. That's very specific and cannot be excused as arguing it was addressing the broader context of TFA. And the whole sub-thread was about feelings.
Also, nobody here -- the people you're debating with, I mean -- is arguing that having kids is universally the most meaningful thing anyone can do with their life; they are instead offering their personal perspectives. For example, in the sentence you quote:
> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life
The operating words are "I have done with my life"; it's not telling you what you should do with yours.
In fact, the whole debate in this sub-thread was sparked by a very aggressive comment (not yours), but which you chose to implicitly defend:
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Well, whether the person saying the above has or doesn't have children is entirely relevant. It's not a "fallacy". We're discussing feelings, even the above comment acknowledges it; and in relation to parenthood the fact remains: these feelings must be experienced, you cannot truly comment on them otherwise. I mean, you can, but your opinion wouldn't be of much value.
Read again the comment that prompted the above comment:
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
Really, it's all about subjective feelings. Which, essentially, is all that matters in the context of this conversation. If you don't have children, you won't have felt like this. You simply cannot. So it's not a fallacy to ask if you have them.
edit:
> a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life
Remember that once you have kids you are stuck in that situation forever. There is a lot of coping and trying to persuade yourself that this is the best thing in the world. It might as well be as there is no escape anyways!
I can honestly say, I think there was a chemical change in my brain or a biological equivalent when my kids were born. That is to say, something more primal than the "love" you can get from a spouse/SO; you feel it in your bones, deep down, always on and changed forever.
I think it could be possible to replicate this without children, but it is extremely uncommon. Ask any parent if they could accomplish the same before they had kids. I have never met a parent yet who thinks it's possible.
This is a very snarky, flippant, uninformed take that serves no purpose other than to tear others down in an effort to validate your decision.
Have kids or don’t, live your life the way you want. But taking unsolicited dumps on other people’s decisions is a pretty lame way to live.
And yes, you do have to have kids in order to understand what it feels like to have kids. You do not know what it’s like, as evidenced by your thinking having kids entitles a parent to their love. Let me tell you clearly and unequivocally: it does not. Love is earned. A family is a big lesson in that.
To use a less charged example: I can’t claim to know what strawberries taste like if I never try a strawberry.
TL;DR: I understand anti-natalism is in vogue right now, but some of y’all are really shitty about it.
Other people’s choices have externalities that harm society. I don’t need validation for not doing something that benefits no one and harms everyone. It’s already obvious that abstaining from this selfish and self-indulgent activity is the only intelligent choice.
Furthermore I don’t need to shoot heroin to know that shooting heroin feels extremely good and that the people
that do it really enjoy the feeling. I also don’t need to shoot heroin to see the harms it causes to the people that do it, and those around them.
You are trying to make a logical argument for the observed preferences of an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA. It’s a shame that so many people are blinded to that by instinct and emotion.
If I were developing nanotech grey goo in my basement, everyone would rightly point out that it’s a risk to society. Yet, humans doing the exact same thing (just more slowly) are praised.
People get unreasonably defensive when confronted with these facts, as you have demonstrated.
Can you name one thing that benefits from people creating more selfish and self-replicating creatures other than the emotional state of people who share some of their DNA?
PS: No mother “earns” the love of a one or two year old. It’s automatic and meritless. To assert otherwise to bolster your argument is obviously silly and should clue you in to how shaky the logical foundation for your claims is.
Forgeties79 is talking about understanding parenthood at the experiential level. You can read as much as you want about how heroin makes people feel extremely good, you will never understand at the experiential level how it actually feels until you use it yourself. Not that I recommend...
Also you seem to be saying that not having children is the "only intelligent choice". Intelligent for what? Then you state that we are "an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA." while in the same breath excluding yourself from being said system, calling yourself logical and calling your preference superior to others.
And "harms everyone" assumes the damages of the life you create outweigh the goods. That's your value judgment, not a measurement, and plenty of the people actually created have thought it through and disagree...
As for one benefit? Existing people benefit, including you. Everything keeping you alive was built by people who had to be born.
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Peak HN comment.
Technically you don't "need" anything in life besides food and shelter. You don't need to have children, or loved ones, or friends, or ambitions, or projects, or goals... but life is very sad if you miss all of them.
As much as I sometimes wonder what life would have been like as DINKs, the feeling of my 7 year old girl sneaking up behind me to give me a cuddle outweighs all of the fast cars and long walks on the beach I personally could ever have.
Interesting perspective. Your first paragraph also describes my experience, perfectly.
However, even though I also think nothing comes even close to parenthood for me, my perspective is that society strongly encourages —I'd even say strongly pressures— people to have kids, to feel that if you don't, it's almost like something is wrong with you. Maybe we're just different generations? :-)
I never felt that pressure to have kids. In fact, even though I waited until I was in my mid 30's, I was the first in my social circle to have kids (I guess I hung around with younger people?).
I knew since I was a kid myself that I wanted to someday be a father. If society pushed me, it would have been when I was still in elementary school.
After I had kids though… It was strange to scroll through coworkers social media feeds and see the same photos of groups of 30-somethings holding up wine glasses while the waiter (I assume) takes their photo at some fancy restaurant in the Bay Area. It all seemed so… hedonistic? Or maybe just kind of empty.
Becoming a father gave me purpose that was (finally) not about me any longer.
And now, the nest empty, I still am unable to go back to that person I was before. (Whoever that was.)
I live in a neighborhood of older retired folks and I get this vibe from them as well when walking my younger kids. Their faces light up with joy. Just another season in life I suppose. Let's enjoy it while we can.
Yeah, speaking as a female-bodied person here - undoubtedly a minority on this site - I absolutely feel the pressure to have children in society, pretty much every day.
Look at the "birth rate" discourse that's been going on. There's tremendous pressure on women to have more babies. There's also a lot of pendulum-swinging in the opposite direction with your edgy "antinatalists", in some sort of weird "overcorrection" or some such, but ultimately those voices are much louder online than in real life.
Fewer people are reproducing, but that doesn't mean the pressures to do so aren't still there. "It's complicated."
This onslaught of birth rate articles laying the blame at women's feet drives me up a wall. Many of my female peers have frozen their eggs to preserve their ability to have children to the best of their abilities or have undergone fertility evaluations proactively, other female friends in their 30s/40s have pursued the single-mom-by-choice route once they had the financial security to do so. I do not see my male peers pursuing sperm testing / freezing or pursuing single-fatherhood-by-choice. Of my married friends with kids, if there is a second kid it has been because the wife advocated for it. All that said, I don't blame men either the husbands that were talked into the second kid were all concerned about their ability to pay for school / daycare and/or to afford another bedroom even with the help of their working wives / breadwinner wives. For men talked into their first kid, their hesitation was that after undergraduate and masters they felt they'd barely had time to financially establish themselves or live their own lives.
Not to mention the evidence coming out about advanced paternal age and adverse outcomes on offspring. The pressures are definitely lopsided. If anything, the pressures should be on society and institutions to provide more support for parents, people who want to become parents, and people who just want to be part of "the village". So... support for people, I suppose. A rising tide lifts all boats. Something like that. I dunno. There's a lot of factors at play here; I'm just spitballing.
Does the birth rate discourse put pressure on you as an individual? I had expected that to also be more of an online than real life push.
There is more pressure on women to have kids than on men. That is not new. What is new is a more negative attitude to children and parenting in society in general. Do you feel there are conflicting pressures now?
>Does the birth rate discourse put pressure on you as an individual?
Implicitly, I think, yes. It builds on all of the other social pressures, big and small. I'm sure an entire humanities thesis could be written about how it all adds up over time.
I wrote another comment elsewhere in the thread talking about polarized opinions broadcasted on social media and how that also adds to the stress of it all. Nobody ever wants to talk about the "it was/is... fine, actually. kind of whatever. not great, but not horrible." possibility of pregnancy (and parenthood). It's always either the most wonderful, miraculous thing ever and you're insane for not wanting it, or it's the most horrible, irreversibly damaging thing ever and you're insane for wanting it.
And the thing is... it COULD be any of those outcomes! It could ruin your life. It could also make your life so much more fulfilling. There's simply no way to know for sure what it will be like for you without doing it. It is an enormous gamble, especially when you are the person who has to endure the pregnancy, and it is a gamble that you can't really walk away from. (Of course, you can give a child up for adoption, but there's a lot of social shame involved in that, especially if it is a wanted child that you're quite literally giving up on rearing.)
I think the other comment was in answer to me too.
I think you are right about the polarised opinions. I think in real life (at least for people I know) pregnancy is generally fine, with maybe a few horrible bits (i.e. if there are any medical problems/something goes wrong). It has lots of positives but its difficult.
Parenthood is usually wonderful. I am afraid men have it easier as we get the parenthood without the pregnancy!
It also depends on your social and professional background. If you are an orthodox jew, you will likely have the maximum pressure.
On the other hand, my wife, who was a lawyer, was fired from from a Big4 when they suspected that she was pregnant.
As a father in the tech/startup industry, it's sometimes quite hard to get people to understand what having children implies for instance, my ex-boss couldn't understand that I wasn't available at 21:30 everyday to answer his questions, as I was bedding the kids.
I mean, humans are made to comply to social pressure, so if they stop collectively having children, it more likely means that the social and economic pressure is overall rather against having them.
I think it's social pressure in some cultures, but even in those (sub)cultures which don't have the explicit pressure to have kids, people have a drive to procreate. I cannot tell you how many couples I know who decided they would not have kids, or would only have one, and at a certain point one partner (usually a woman in their late 30s or early 40s if I am being honest) decided this was the most important thing and no amount of money or career setbacks or relationship turmoil wouldn stand in the way.
Different generations, different places, exactly where you are in your society, religious influences, your immediate social circle, how much time you spend on social media....
Certainly in the UK there is a group of people who have become very negative about having kids, partly because they are scared of the expense, and partly because society makes it look so hard, and partly because they genuinely have less support.
Pregnancy is also a really scary prospect for a lot of people (myself included), and there doesn't seem to be much work done in trying to make it, well, less shitty of an experience. "It's just how it is," but... is it really? Does it really need to be so bad?
Not to mention that "it takes a village", but in many places the village has been basically stolen from us.
Pregnancy is never going to be easy (and its one part of parenting I am glad I did not have to do!) but it can definitely be made easier and more pleasant. it varies a lot though. We were quite lucky in many ways.
However, why is pregnancy scarier than it used to be when it is safer than it has ever been? It seems to be more scary in developed countries than in poor ones too.
I wonder whether the loss of the "village" might be part of the reason for this. it certainly is for a lot of other things around having kids.
I wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that birth control offers us a choice in the matter. Pregnancy used to be something You Just Did, because, well, most people enjoy having sex, and pregnancy is the intended consequence of unprotected sex. It's scary, it's stressful, it's risky, and it's sometimes even fatal... but it's "part of life". It's how we ended up here, after all.
Now we have a choice. Which is GREAT, amazing, even. Absolutely necessary. I'll never argue that anyone's right to choose if they want to be a parent is a bad thing.
I wonder if social media is also contributing, with its polarizing nature. It's rare you see any opinions or even anecdotes about pregnancy being "fine" or "whatever". It's always a big deal, and it's always a big deal (horrible) or a big deal (wonderful). There's not a lot of in between. The negative end of the spectrum scares people, while the positive end of the spectrum is met with skepticism since it's too-often (for me at least) correlated with right-wing religious people trying to push women to be what're effectively baby factories, so the "it's the most wonderful experience ever!" just comes off as disingenuous and manipulative.
Combined with the fact that women's healthcare is rife with challenges, and women's pain is often dismissed (not looking to start any "gender wars" arguments; just stating things that can be backed up https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10937548/), the prospect of becoming pregnant is a scary one, when you have the option to not do that.
"What if it's nine months of constant nausea, being bedbound, gaining weight I'll never be able to lose? My body will change, in many ways irreversibly. Will my partner still find me attractive? Will they support me during? Will they support me after? Will I feel supported? Will I feel resentment that they'll be able to enjoy things like alcohol while I'll have to stay completely sober for a very long time? Will I feel resentment if the majority of childcare falls on me, which is statistically actually quite likely? What about my career? Will I regret it? What if my child is born with a disability? What if I'm bad at being a mom? What if I hate it? What if I'm trapped in a life I don't want? What if there's no way out?"
Of course, the above thought process could also be one with thoughts like "what if it's wonderful?" but it's a lot easier to worry about the negative, and put weight on the negative, than it is to fantasize and put weight on the positive what-ifs.
This is just my perspective, though. Some people love being pregnant and find parenthood really wonderful (or so they tell me about those things), and I love that for them. Truly. I'm just not sure if I have it in me to ever find out what it would be like for me, and I know I'm not alone. Fun Auntie is a better role for me I think. But maybe I would feel differently if pregnancy were easier and a less destructive process on the female body, and there was more social support for parents.
Birth control has been around for a long time now. The oral contraceptive pill was invented 70 years ago. Fear of pregnancy to the level of putting people off having kids is much newer.
I think its very likely that social media plays apart.
I think people glossing pregnancy over as wonderful are optimistic. I think a more honest take is "its hard but worth it".
> What if it's nine months of constant nausea, being bedbound, gaining weight I'll never be able to lose?
Its not nine months of nausea or being bedbound though. Most women I know lived normal lives for most of their pregnancies.
> Will my partner still find me attractive? Will they support me during? Will they support me after? Will I feel supported
Absolutely do not have kids with a partner whose support you cannot rely on!
None of us are going to keep our looks all our lives anyway.
> Will I feel resentment that they'll be able to enjoy things like alcohol while I'll have to stay completely sober for a very long time?
When i had my kids the NHS advice was to drink in moderation. Changes since then have been politically driven (and by increased American influence on attitudes) rather than being the rest of any new science. My ex went off alcohol before she knew she was pregnant (which is the most critical time) and then drank moderately thereafter.
> Will I feel resentment if the majority of childcare falls on me, which is statistically actually quite likely?
That is understandable. Again it partly comes down to having the right partner. Some men do end up doing the majority of childcare - I am one, and I have come across a few others. This is something that is improving too (I hope!).
> What about my career? Will I regret it? What if my child is born with a disability?
Careers get into perspective when you have kids. Very few people regret having their kids, whatever goes wrong. They are so much more important than having a career. I have a lot less money than I would have had without kids, but there is no way I would want to have the money instead.
> What if I'm bad at being a mom? What if I hate it? What if I'm trapped in a life I don't want?
IMO it is extremely rare for the sort of person who worries about being a good parent to be a bad parent. The problem is that people want to be perfect parents, and society encourages anxiety instead of reassuring them that it is OK not to be perfect.
> Fun Auntie is a better role for me I think
Its not a bad role to have! I would point out that being a fun auntie requires someone to have kids!
> and there was more social support for parents.
I think this is critical. I am not sure to what extent pregnancy can be made easier in a direct physical sense, but many women could be better supported through it.
All valid responses/pushback to the anxiety! It's still a lot of unknowns and what-ifs; I was more trying to make the point that for some people, it's overwhelming, and some may conclude it's not worth the risk in finding out. Which brings me to another important point, which is that parenthood isn't for everybody. Some people really shouldn't be parents, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. (Not saying I'm necessarily one of those people; just speaking more generally.)
Unfortunately - and this is kinda related to your comment about it being rare for the kind of person who worries about being a good parent to be a really bad parent - we often see opposite patterns play out... people that would probably make good parents seem less likely to reproduce, and vice versa. I know "Idiocracy" is a bit of a meme these days and is arguably classist, but I can't help but think about it. It's probably a far larger socioeconomic issue than can be feasibly hashed out in an internet forum, and I certainly can't solve it.
Ultimately, I think where I'm at these days, is that we need the village back, and I would love to be a part of it. How? Well, currently, it's that "Fun Auntie" role, as I've no kids of my own, nor do I plan to change that. I've long "wanted to want" bio-children, but so far, I don't. I'm mid-30s now, so there is still time, especially thanks to fertility technology continuing to improve. I'm probably not gonna change my mind, but I'm far too autistic to speak in absolutes, so I cant 100% rule anything out.
Regardless: the village is a beautiful thing. It's an honor to be a part of it in the ways that I am and have been throughout my life. More people should be a part of it. We should all (within reason) be a part of it. It should be celebrated and supported each and every day, to the point where parenthood isn't so much of a burden on the individual family unit, and is instead a shared responsibility of the local community. How do we best go about doing that? Obviously governmental and institutional support is critical, but we also need societal/cultural support, and that will be a lengthier project... we owe it to ourselves to try, though.
I appreciate the conversation and insights in this conversation; thanks for the well-thought out responses in these threads.
I really appreciate how well you have explained a perspective very different from my own. Not only am I a man who has had children, my younger daughter turned 18 today, and will be off to university in less than two months so my children are no longer children and worries about parenting etc. are behind me.
Its interesting how much we agree about the social and political problems and the loss of the village.
I agree parenthood is underappreciated and undersold. Nothing in life beats seeing kids grow up from helpless infants to well-adjusted, passionate young adults.
Lately I frequently find myself wondering if every philosopher who pondered the meaning of life was childless, because it feels to me like the answer must be pretty obvious to any parent.
I think they were trying to scare us into not having sex. Or at least having protected sex. Either way, they made all the kids watch videos about teen pregnancy and how it would ruin our lives. They also repeated it frequently in sex education. They focused on how terrible it was to have children. The struggles, etc. I suppose it is difficult for teens to understand nuance, but it certainly left a fairly grim impression of parenthood on all of us. Was it different for you?
Oh this is when you were a student? I thought this was as a parent with kids in school.
Getting pregnant (especially in the wrong state) in the US as a high schooler can absolutely ruin your life. In some states it can even get you killed due to the legal chaos still happening in hospitals.
In my experince we got that, but it was all focused on having a kid while being a teenager will ruin your life not that having a kid at all will ruin your life. Which is fair, a teenager having a child is in a lot of ways ending their lifes or making at a minimum way more difficult( if they family support that is, otherwise good luck )
>> Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible
Uh? I feel it's the opposite. Society constantly judges people that don't have kids. Having kids has always been the norm. It projects you as a grown up mature adult. In fact I think a ton of people have kids simply because they want to give that image of being a well established mature person.
> Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible. Movies and TV shows portrayed only the bad. Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world. A wide range of celebrities spend their days posting about how amazing it is to be without children.
Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but this isn't at all what I remember. I frankly can't think of a single movie or TV show that paints parenting as bad, let alone the worst thing in the world. I can think of only one celebrity who I can recall extolled his child-free life. That was within the past year-- and I think the guy is a total dipshit man-child.
And I have no idea where you grew up, or whether that's actually a factor, but my teachers, when they had kids, seemed like loving parents. When they didn't have kids, I don't think they ever spoke badly or parenting.
I love my kids and would do anything for them. But at the same time, I really don't feel it is a big deal. Humans and animals been having kids for millions of years. It is just basic animal instinct to procreate and raise your offspring.
It is like basic human instinct is to consume and store calories. And there is nothing wrong with it. But to become athlete and win a gold medal, that requires going against these basic instincts. That means eating healthier and working out instead of preserving calories.
Having kids is great but to achieve something great in life, does require going against your basic instincts and not procreate. Or if you do have kids, then not be a good parent.
I had my startup dreams but after having kids, biology kicked in and startup dreams got deprioritized. But I made peace with it and I enjoy my quiet basic life with my kids. I just know I will not do anything significant and that is totally okay.
I feel like when young people think they want to do significant and meaningful things, they think about things that will make them famous in one way or another. Most of such things are neither significant nor meaningful.
I used to think this way, and then I realised that I actually want to be famous and respected. After some time, I realised that I just wanted the approval of people. And finally I realised all I wanted was to feel loved and cared for.
That's unnecessarily pessimistic. I think it's much more common for drive people to want to make a significant positive impact on the world, rather than becoming famous.
Doesn't matter either way, though, once you realize you're just a blip like the other 8,000,000,000 people on this earth.
Is it really? How much of that is a "feeling" that evolution made you feel in order to protect your kid from issues?
having kids is the baseline normal for millions of years. As much as you "feel" that this is the most important thing you ever did, it is worth taking a step back and think rationally about this. Is it really? What about it makes it SO important? Because we for sure are not going extinct at all. Having a lot of kids has always been the default. If you don't have kids the world will be absolutely fine, in fact nothing will change at all.
So you should ask yourself. Why is it the most meaningful thing you ever did? Because it is YOUR DNA? Isn't that then a completely self-centered pursuit?
They should absolutely all be discussed. I just don't see a lot of rationale that supports that having kids is the "biggest accomplishment of a lifetime" though.
There is inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about it. It has always been the normal things that happen to most humans and animals since the dawns of time.
If you respond to this, please use rationale and not feelings to describe why having kids is the "biggest achievement from your lifetime".
Because any fault of theirs feels like a fault of yours, but you learn that you cannot fix faults of theirs like you can (try to) fix faults of yours. You learn to become a parent, a teacher, a guide, a kind of friend, in the most deeply connected relationship you’ll ever have. A relationship that exposes you to every fault of yourself, while you feel the deepest love for and connection with your children. A connection that’s not even always reciprocated. Parenting is the true Aristotelian politeia.
It is kinda weird, because you feel so much more tired all the time. Yet at the same time you have so much more motivation to do _everything_. It is like I feel 50% more tired, yet 200% more engaged with everything I do. It really makes your life a lot more meaningful.
Before I would waste so much time engaging on video games / internet-browsing / TV-youtube / etc and just not enjoying the time I spent. It felt very meaningless, like why even bother working? I have (had) savings to go take several years of sabbatical if I wanted.
When I actually boot up a video game today I actually enjoy it. And that is all on top of normal stuff you hear about having kids.
I’m surprised this hasn’t come up yet: Because by being a parent, you become responsible for someone else’s life besides your own, permanently and beyond the transactional or contractual sense of a job or a passion project. It is a life experience unmatched by anything else (though I think that being a teacher or the caretaker of children in an orphanage come close). You get free reign over the shaping of a person who will touch the lives of others, and the good or the bad that becomes of it is the consequence of your own values and way of existence.
Not disputing you either—I once said I will never have children, too—but indeed and as with other life decisions, you should stay childless while you find the meaning of it incomprehensible. It’s not for people who are not ready to stop thinking about themselves.
Because it's evolutionarily favourable - the same reason sex feels good. One is instantaneous pleasure, and the other is sustained doses of feelings of satisfaction, because they optimise for different things; but ultimately you can understand them easily if you think about how core they are to what evolution favours.
Ever built something and felt proud of it? Like 'that was cool' or 'that was neat'. It's like a never ending source of that feeling. Most things you do in life just don't last that long, but raising kids lasts a really long time.
Yes. I keep getting that feeling everyday with my work as of now. And I also got a PhD after fighting a lot of hardship including huge opposition from my parents to the effect of having lost contact with them. But what you said does ring a bell in that, I need to be constantly doing my work in getting that feeling. (apart from my PhD which every once in a while makes me go wheeeee).
I guess with kids, its like my PhD but a constant source instead of static fading in time?
Agree with the sibling comment. As a new father, nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - can describe the love, adoration and reverence that parents feel for their children. To be understood, it must be experienced. There is simply no other way.
Thanks for the answer. And I understand that. But for me, that answer is potentially a very biased answer. Is it a feeling that comes naturally or is it forced in the sense that you realise you are everything for the kid and the kid is everything for you and both you the kid have no other choice.
Talking to a lot of people (bit you) i felt it was more the latter.
Babies have no guile or instinct to deceive; they literally can't even conceive of doing so because their worldview just isn't developed enough. So when your baby cries, you can have absolute faith that it's because there's some problem that needs solving or need that is unmet, and then you can go and solve the problem, fill the need, and the baby is happy. And when the baby's happy, you have absolute faith that it's because you were there doing the thing. There's no pretense to the relationship at all, and it's a sort of unusual honesty that can be really hard to find in relationships where both parties understand basic facts like "there is a world of people outside myself" and "people don't have special insight into my interior being and I can give them information that doesn't fully reflect the state of the world".
So that kind of honest exchange does a lot to foster love and adoration from you to the child, and the fact that you're there providing food, shelter, comfort et all to the baby fosters love and adoration from them to you.
My kid is just under 18 months old now. He's old enough to have distinct ideas about what he wants to do, and when he wants to do it, and he's old enough to understand that not getting to do the thing that he wants is really upsetting, so he cries. That's hard sometimes. But if I'm relaxing on the couch and he brings a book over to me, I can know with absolute faith that it's because right now, what he wants more than anything in the world is to sit in my lap and have me read a book to him, and that feels amazing. When he goes and hides behind the kitchen island and then jumps out, it's because the thing he wants to do more than anything else is play peekaboo with me, and that feels amazing too.
Let me paraphrase a scene from “Lessons in Chemistry”.
The main character confesses that twice she has wanted to give up her child for adoption. Another mom laughs... "Twenty times would still make you an amateur."
It didn't come naturally for me. Babies aren't much fun. There were plenty of times I wondered why everybody else finds being a parent fulfilling and here I am trying not to swear at a crying six month old at 1 am.
Toddlers though... toddlers are fun. Not always, but a lot of the time. Once both of my kids cleared the baby stage I finally would describe myself as a proud parent, mostly happy.
Now we are empty nesters and both of my kids live far away and are doing great. With the space that leaves I've spent some time thinking about myself as a dad and boy do I have a lot of regrets. I don't think I was very good at it.
I understand now why so many people who weren't the greatest parents get very excited about grandchildren. I know if that happens for me, I'm going to be a much better grandparent than I ever was parent.
+1. I also felt this huge gap between knowing (intellectually) what parenting is and actually experiencing it. It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently. I think I can perceive fairly accurately whether someone my age is a parent after just a few minutes of general conversation (obviously, without having to visit adjacent topics).
I experienced this so strongly I spent some time actually writing a poem (in Spanish) about it: https://alejo.ch/39l
> It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently.
As a childless person, the inverse is equally true. I have wildly different levels of obligation and constraint - and that difference typically becomes obvious very very quickly. I don't say that as a better/worse, just different.
Once you have kids you quickly discover that you get forced into it. You have to engage. If you don't, they scream. They get in trouble at school. They are unhappy and it breaks your heart. Once you have no choice but to do something, you will find it's better to find meaning in it. Meaning is ultimately something you create for yourself.
> I cannot think why bringing up a kid would be significant or meaningful.
I don't think it's something to think or reason about. You feel it (or don't, in some cases). As an atheist, I suppose this is how truly religious people feel about their religion: it brings them joy and meaning. (And much like in some religions, you sometimes feel you're beholden to a demanding, whimsical god!).
You can ask that question about a lot of things whether it's one entrepeneurial baby or their nature conservation effort which reveals it to be somewhat meaningless question.
Also as a parent, I still don't understand. I have two kids and regret it. They suck all the time and energy from my life. I give my all to be a great parent to them, and I would never let them know that I regret having kids, but if I could wind the clock back I almost certainly would. I feel like I'm throwing the most valuable years of my life in a wood chipper.
It's difficult to explain ... an intensely personal experience. Every child is different. Every parent is different. Every culture has their own way of doing things ... yet children are the one universally shared thing that binds our giant collective together ...
When I am holding Henry and I tickle him, I can feel him laughing all the way to his toes. And I realize, my God, I had forgotten ... how unbelievably wonderful it is that any of us exist at all.
Here I am with this tiny, warm body so close to me, breathing so fast he can barely catch up, sharing his newfound joy of simply being alive with me. The sublime joy of this moment, and all the other milestones – the first smile, the first laugh, the first 'dada' or 'mama' ... The highs are so incredibly high that you'll get vertigo and wonder if you can ever reach that feeling again. But you peak ever higher and higher, with dizzying regularity ... a constant rollercoaster of extreme highs and lows.
I'd modify that to once you have kids, you might understand. It's for sure not a given and there are a lot of really terrible people out there who probably shouldn't have the kids they do.
I'd like to object to this hopefully unintentional suggestion that failing to understand it means you're a terrible person.
I don't think I'm a terrible person. My kids are healthy, mostly happy, seem to be well adjusted. I support their physical needs, do my best to support their emotional needs. I read to them, changed their diapers, taught them how to ride a bicycle, help them with their homework, kiss them goodnight. But I still don't understand. I know most parents have this whatever it is, but I'm still wondering.
Except... a million reasons where they will either not understand, or they should have not become a parent.
The problem with the "The Most Infuriating Answer" is that it entirely neglects facts, and only those say it who do have a good experience with it.
Happy for you, internet stranger. Just like I am happy for all of those around me: you all are the ones who do good parenting.
In case you also want to become a better person in general, I recommend to stop being condescending, and not to say this ever again to anyone. You hurt more than you think you are wise.
I don't see OP's comment as condescending but I'm also not in these "should have not become a parent" shoes to tell, for sure. Insensitive? Perhaps. On a discussion board, it is hard to know who you're talking to. OP likely assumed some "persona" (different to those that might find it hurtful) before they wrote the comment.
> You hurt more than you think you are wise
We are all fighting some demon or the other. I appreciate you for bringing forth the kind most of us are (fortunate enough to be) oblivious to. Ignorance is bliss.
The irony of this fact should be front and center to everyone and thus people saying it should have this forced to be capitalized with exclamation points.
Similar, all invocations of "calm down" should be in all caps with exclamation points. Never in history has telling someone whose upset to "calm down" actually led to them calming down.
I mean, ok, they might just understand or they might hate their children with a fiery passion and never miss and opportunity to vocalize it and ruin innocent lives like my parents did?
>Why? Noy disputing you but I am childless yet primarily I cannot think why bringing up a kid would be significant or meaningful.
Its because they are more important than anything else to a parent. You are invested in their outcome more than anything else. I don’t see how this isn’t obvious.
It's said by lots of people every time this subject comes up, it's obviously true, but IMO it's also a little tautological. I read it as essentially: "I created a massive problem to solve, and here I am successfully solving it." Of course it's meaningful. Of course it's significant.
When I hear people say this with all the morale high ground that comes with it I’m always wondering if it’s partially because of some hormonal changes. It has been proven recently that the human brain changes after having kids.
I know you didn’t intend it that way but there are so many people that are extremely judgmental about having kids (or rather judging people that don’t have kids).
I also understand that it’s such a hard task that there must be some level of self convincing needed to make it work.
All that to say, i tend to dismiss those opinions.
I feel that physical change the moment I saw my son first time. Something snapped/connected in my brain. I will do anything for that little thing. The feeling is visceral. It is very hard not to preach your best experience to others
That added some intensity behind my motivation to avoid parenthood: so many people describe having their brains hijacked in this way that I could not be sure I would be immune. Best steer far clear, I thought.
I mean the obvious retort to this is that until you become a parent all of your behaviour is probably driven by some deep evolutionary desire to demonstrate your suitability as a mate.
So we can dismiss opinions of non-parents as well.
Ideally we should discuss all those behaviour (becoming parents, becoming successful) logically without the hormones and feelings that makes you think they are the most important thing in the world.
Essentially discussing facts versus emotions.
Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.
I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways.
Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children.
In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
It is perfectly possible to study the world around us without our emotions and feelings.
There is in fact a ton of philosophy that has been written on this topic. Please read about rationalism:
And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children:
- Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty. One way to measure difficulty is that fewer people are able to achieve it. Everyone (literally almost everyone) can have kids. But only a select few can win a gold.
- By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids. You will be in a lot of history books, and a ton of people will look after you. You will inspire the next generations. By having kids, you will also change the next generation but I would argue by way less than by winning gold in the olympics.
See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.
>>> In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
No, again: those words have measurable meaning: Having children is neither special/unique (as it is literally the normal outcome for most people), neither difficult (at least to HAVE children is not difficult, raising them well has probably some level of measurable difficulty). How can you disagree with this logically?
> See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.
No, they're not logical arguments, they're based on a whole suite of assumptions about value systems that I would argue reflects more about how you feel about the world than any sort of rational/objective assessment of what constitutes a "grand achievement".
> Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty.
Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident. Can you make an argument for this that isn't an appeal to emotion?
> By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids.
Same exact response from me. Why is a bigger legacy grander or more of an achievement? Can you make a logical argument in favour of a bigger legacy that's not an appeal to emotion?
I see no logic in your arguments, I see you restating your values as if they are logical.
> How can you disagree with this logically?
I don't disagree with what the words mean, I'm saying that you think special/unique/difficult = grand accomplishment for feelings-based reasons, not logical reasons.
This is going to be my last reply because we are talking past each other.
I think it is perfectly fine and logical for you to reply to my logical arguments with other counter-logical arguments such as:
>> Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident
You could say to you a "grand achievement" is keeping your bloodline as this is what evolution wants us to be. That has some logic. I actually would agree with some of those arguments, and we could go back and forth. Sure, it represents some of our values but you are making at least some logical sense.
What I reject is reasoning such as: "Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life." and when asked clarifications around why that would be the cause, the replies are "feelings, and you will know when you have them".
Would that be true if your child turned out to be a new Hitler or a burden on society?
Personally, I'm with the OP. Raising children, and to do a good job at it, is waaaay too much of a burden for me, and would seriously negatively affect most areas of my life.
I find it much more meaningful to focus on creating jobs, companies, products and services people need, than to raise a child with unknown outcome. I see way too many parents who try and appear as if they are happy and say they don't regret the decision, but deep down it is clear they do.
That is why, many of them, once the children are somewhat grown up, split up from their partner, and then try to re-live their lives and all that they missed.
Thanks for sharing! I remember thinking pre-kids mostly about how much work they would be but not really considering the joy they bring too. Like I knew they would, but vastly underestimated what effect that would have on my life.
I don't particularly regret any of my choices either, but knowing what I do now, would have chosen to have kids earlier in my life.
I find it funny that I spent my 20s and 30s doing everything in my power to avoid having kids and at this stage in my life I’m doing everything to have kids.
I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around.
There’s never a right time to have kids. But having them older has its perks. You are much more calmed, patient, you are wiser and likely financially stable. Throwing money at problems definitely makes life 10X easier when you have kids, something most people can’t do in their 20s or even 30s.
I disagree. As a father of nine children, I submit that the best time to have children is when you’re young. The next best time is now.
Sure, you’ll be poor, and you’ll make lots of mistakes. But how do you know you’ll be able to have children later? And what’s so important now that makes it worth putting off children?
I don't know if you are joking, but being poor is something big for most people. Specially people who don't make as much as SWEs did in USA in the last decade
Yes. Had one kid mid thirties. And now I realize I want nine of them too. Or four maybe. We started too late and I doubt we will make it. Biggest mistake of my life. In my environment I see people delaying kids because they think 33, 34 is still alright to start. And it is. If you want to have 1 or 2...
We will go for the third one next year and that would be it for us. I come from a family of 8 children and my wife is a single child. I don’t think I had a better childhood, just different. She has a lot of good memories of traveling with her parents and does not regret not having siblings. I saw my dad a few days a week for a good portion of my early childhood and regret that a bit. My wife and I are equally social, I’m actually more of an introvert in some circumstances. We are both considered of others, and like to share. I would say the one skill I developed that she lacks is the ability to focus and concentrate in public spaces with noise. Because that’s how I did homework and studied all the way from elementary school to college, always around a bunch of loud people, no place in the house where I could close a door and be alone.
In my experience having room in the house, not having to cook dinner, not having to go grocery shopping, never have to clean the house, travel comfortably and have a full time nanny, makes a lot of a difference. You save a lot of time that you can then invest in yourself, your partner and your kids.
Not to discount that it’s great when you play with your kids, but it’s different when your kids play together, and in particular when you can’t play that they have someone to interact with.
Yeah, the group dynamics of, say, a family with two children:
1. Kid A plays with Kid B
2. Kid A plays alone and Kid B plays alone
As compared to a three-child household:
1. Kids A, B and C play together
2. Kid A plays with Kid B, Kid C plays alone
3. Kid A plays with Kid C, Kid B plays alone
4. Kid B plays with Kid C, Kid A plays alone
5. Kid A, Kid B and Kid C all play alone
So, in a bigger family, many more communication patterns between children can arise, which, among other things, might develop the child's empathy etc.
Adding mom and dad as "players" would give us many more possible scenarios here (Kid A playing with mom, Kid B alone or with dad, etc).
I'm a father of two with a low income, and I would like to have a third child for precisely the above described reason. As a sociologist in my country put it -- somewhat harsh words maybe, but probably largely true: a single child might get spoiled, two children may start competing too heavily, but three children and above is company.
I disagree, when looking at 3-kids setup out there in the world. Ie my wife comes from such, she is the oldest and all 3 follow the typical 3 kids pattern - oldest was pushed into most responsibility to the point of trauma, middle one feels unappreciated and has inferiority complex as middle ones often do, and youngest is by huge margin the most spoiled one. This is the default for 3 kids that many parents end up with, unless fighting hard against this natural direction.
And yes a lot of interaction, but it doesn't guarantee anything further down the line - when long time adults youngest is still spoiled and selfish and not really a pleasant person to be around with for anybody, including siblings and their own mom. Middle one is scared to have kids, a decision that she may end up regretting later easily. And my wife is also carrying her part of the burden, won't bother you with details.
The grass is always greener behind the fence and all that.
There are so many stereotypes involved in this that it may be hard to believe but at least I know I have caught myself repeating the stereotype almost to a T (especially with regard to the oldest being worked so hard or, as I would put it, constantly on the hardest jobs).
That said it does help that it’s a stereotype/generalization/trope that I’m aware of because I get to take that as part of my feedback loop to make the attempt to iterate around the negative aspects you’ve pointed out.
I think I’m doing better - I’ll know if my kids still talk to me after they move out.
Insightful comment, got me thinking, thanks for sharing. I suppose, in the end, there isn't all that much logic in human relations, or there are always far too many "unknown unknowns".
There's very few humans that have enough time, energy, skills, wherewithal, and money to devote to 3+ kids to make these sorts of positive "three's company" interactions happen in the modern world. I am not saying that it's impossible, just that it's difficult and doesn't happen naturally like you're implying.
On a personal note, I never had much positive interactions with either of my siblings, certainly not as children as not now that we're in our 40s either. Lots of fighting, absolutely zero closeness or positive feelings.
I think you have a really different experience from me. In my experience it doesn’t cost any time, effort or money to make those interactions happen. You can just stick three kids in the same room for about 10 minutes and it will.
Not only do they play but they also learn to care for each other. Parental effort doesn't increase uniformly with each child – if you're lucky and have done a good job parenting them, children create a society and help with raising each other.
This is the take I pursue in my home, everyone is doing a see one, do one, teach one. There are still struggles around it but consistency makes the conversations shorter and more effective.
I'd offer a contrasting view, as a father of many fewer. If I'd had children young it would have been an utter disaster. It's difficult enough when you're financially and romantically stable and have more emotional maturity. To ask a contrasting question, what's so important about having children that you need to rush into it on the off chance you'll be unable to later?
im in the "wish i had em earlier" camp assuming the same partner.
i was not prepared for how much a kid would change me - so i spent more of my time and effort on priorities i would one day drop.
another thing i think about is grandparents. having kids earlier would mean longer time with grandparents! (heck, maybe one day my time with potential grandkids)
off topic - i understand my parents so much more now that im a parent. i think being a parent has helped heal my relationship with them. grandparents are awesome and i wish i had more time with mine.
100% on this. In my life I have 0 regrets except not having kids younger. I was never especially fond of kids, but it turns I out love my own more than I imagined possible, and have more fun with them I ever thought I would! I only wish we could have many more but given when we started, the odds of having more than 2 are very low. The amount of joy and life they bring to you and to your house is something you can't really appreciate until you've had them. To say nothing of the sort of fulfillment and life satisfaction they bring.
My parent's goal was to get me to go to college. My goal for my kids is to teach them the importance of having kids early. The fact it might help in having a grandkid or two before I kick the bucket is just a wee bit of icing on that cake. I think the ideal time to start is probably in your 20s. This also maximizes the amount of time you'll get to spend with your kids. I'm quite 'jealous' (sans the negative connotations) of those who will get to see their kids live til retirement, but hey - they made wiser decisions, so hopefully I can help encourage my children to do the same.
I for a change am happy I had my kids in late 30s / 40. I am certainly wiser, way more experienced with world, humans, got to be successful and in much better financial position which also helped my parents to have better retirement.
I wasn't a full adult in my 20s, too naive, too trusting, undefined for the lack of better words, not experienced with various types of women (laugh all you want, this was probably the most important experience from all for me, it afterwards formed my choice of wife which is often the most important choice in one's life).
Plus I've managed in a decade before having kids to travel the world backpacking, various experiences that changed me for the better and basically reinvented myself, on my own. I don't come from competitive or nurturing environment, nobody expected anything from me. I've found my passions in various mountain/extreme sports. None of that would happen if I had kids earlier, thats very clear when looking at peers who took the other trajectory.
If my kids will have their kids young or older is completely up to them, I find it selfish to push any expectations on them, they (will) live vastly different life compared to me, I can just respect their choices and love them regardless.
I think your example of e.g. being able to provide a better retirement harken back to what times were like in the past. My parents and theirs on back had children quite young. It gave me a life where I was able to know my great grandparents. I didn't really appreciate it, or anything, at the time - but I hold those memories dearly now, in hindsight. And it also created an environment where social security, so to speak, was never any concern - you have about 20 relatives who are mostly all working together to make a better life for themselves, and always there for each other. Everybody was dirt poor, but you would never know it from what we were able to have.
If people start having children in their 40s then statistically grandparents will simply no longer be a thing, let alone great grandparents. And people's family sizes will substantially decline. I think that's quite sad from all perspectives, and also significantly detrimental. For instance there is so much I want to pass onto my children about having children (and I'm sure much I've yet to learn myself) but none of it will really 'stick' until they themselves have children. If they wait until their 40s then I'll most likely be dead by then.
And what we do we get in exchange in this sort of world? Slightly greater liberty to pursue self indulgence? And I think "slightly" is correct because you're right that self indulgences do become more difficult with children, but far from impossible, and even less difficult with large families. Want to head off to the mountains on the weekend? Sure, that's what grandparents are for!
> I was never especially fond of kids, but it turns I out love my own more than I imagined possible, and have more fun with them I ever thought I would!
This. I’m an old dad. I realized two years ago that to keep up with my pre-teens I had to change my lifestyle. For me that meant cutting out alcohol, not eating processed foods, avoiding sugar, reduced caffeine, way more protein and doing calisthenics. I sleep well and I have energy. I just have to keep this up for 10 more years when my youngest will be 21, then I can die. ;-)
Same here in almost all ways, except the caffeine. What was the benefit there? My hot pots keep me going. Once my wife hits menopause I might also consider TRT. I'm almost certainly not low by the standards of the average American, let alone for my age, but it's gonna keep falling as I age and wouldn't mind that extra oomph.
Previously, when my head touched the pillow I was asleep. Two years ago I noticed that wasn’t happening and I would wake frequently through the night. I cut back my caffeine intake and my restored my sleep. Without knowing the physiological reason I assume my metabolism is slowing down and I had to alter my lifestyle to fit to it, hence my strict diet now. The calisthenics has been awesome for me. I love the progression moves to unlock skills and levelling up. Pushing weights just to stack more plates wasn’t motivation for me - cali is. It replaces my caffeine.
As for menopause, or more accurately, perimenopause, my wife has been in that for years. (She’s an old mom) She started HRT about 6 months ago and it has been amazing. She no longer wants to murder me or anyone else that irritates her.
Yip peri is also where we're at right now. Still trying and hoping for another kiddo. Glad to hear it can last for years at least there's a bit more chance.
My dad was 42 when I was born, and he was keeping up with me on hikes in my early 20s (his mid 60s). I haven't done much hiking with him lately, but he's going on 50 mile bike rides at 70.
I think having kids late can help people stay young longer, if you let it.
> I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around.
Can confirm that starting at 30 makes it relatively easy to keep up. Still not early enough though. Wish I’d started at 25.
It’s mostly a matter of effort though. You’ll become very good at it out of sheer need if you genuinely want to keep up. In far better shape now than I was at 30, mentally and physically.
> Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear
Similar experience here growing up Mennonite (they’re sorta like the Amish but more moderate).
I’m one of the only remaining men in my family without kids, but those that do have kids (and there’s a lot of them) are super busy. This is at least partially offset by their wives who are more on the traditional side.
I got sort of lucky early in my career because I had a talent that was discovered in a national network. Which meant I found myself writing national strategies for IT in our public sector (Denmark) at my late 20ies. It felt great for a year, or maybe two. When it stopped being fun though, it sort of hit me hard. I did enjoy writing and working on the strategies with other people. All the "glamour" around it, advicing politicians, going to conferences, networking with all sorts of "important" people. That got to me on one of the many train rides I had to take. I know a 3 hour commute might not be a lot to Americans or people in larger countries in general, but here it's a life time. Eventually I didn't know why I was going on them, so I quit and went back to being a nerd in a basement. Having my first child was the kick I needed to push me to where I was already heading though. I would've likely ridden the career ladder for a lot longer if I hadn't become a dad.
I rarely speak about it but something about reading you accepting the failure of your ambitions made me want to do it. Are you sure it's a failure? For me family life turned out to be what I wanted and work is just a fun place which makes me money, but I totally get why people want to do it the opposite way. In some ways you could say that I did something significant, but it made me misserable. So I failed just as much as you, if not more.
I don't regret any of it either though. It's what made me who I am.
I'd also agree with this. Children don't make you give up your ambitions in the least. However they will almost certainly make you rethink what is important in life. It's not even conscious like an 'ok I give this up, in order to get that' but rather they just make you feel very differently, in a way that you can't really explain. But it's good, very good.
100% agree with this. But its not uniform for everybody, mothers generally change and throw away previous life after having kids in ways that most men don't. Some fathers are similar (and few mothers are similar to average guy) but difference is pretty big when you dig deeper.
That's mostly due to social pressures and expectations - women are expected/demanded/forced to perform most of the child care duties. Which is why when a man does child care (in the US at least), he is seen as "helping out", even if he is the full-time caretaker/househusband.
I don't find these sort of critical theory takes to make much practical sense. Most/all mammalian species are similar in this regard, and there are very practical reasons. For instance most don't seem to understand that early on breastfeeding is literally a 24 hour job. That forms a special bond between a mother and child that a father could never match.
Even the most involved father's role there is basically to give the mother some downtime and this will, in turn, shape how the child responds to parents. We often joke that daddy's for fun, mommy's for comfort - but it's not really a joke. Your children's earliest months will have food literally coming out of mommy while daddy is just there to keep you happy when mama's trying to get some elusive sleep. And that carries forward even as the child ages.
There are also other instinctual issues in play. For instance most mothers experience vivid and highly unpleasant nightmares involving just about every possible awful thing happening to their children. It's quite horrific, but likely an instinctual thing to help the mother be wary, form a deeper bond, and so on. I'm not sure the rate for fathers, but I never had anything like that - and so the bond formed is again, just very different than for a mother.
Finally, there's also the realistic timelines involved. Having a child takes about a year, and you want around a year between each child. For a sustainable society every single woman needs to have a bit more than 2 children. So that's like 5-6 years, at the minimum, solely dedicated to having your children. And then of course the show is just beginning at that point. The reality is that advancing a career in this context is simply not realistic, and trying to build societies that reject this isn't going to do anything but ensure those societies are unsustainable, which is exactly what has happened.
I think one of the reasons that a lot of successful founders are in their mid-40s is because they combine 20ish years of experience with an empty nest after kids are out on their own.
That just tells us the person wasn’t a good parent either. Your comment assumes the only way to parent is to manipulate, patronize, etc. That’s just one perspective though.
There are other ways to parent that are actually fantastic management training - figuring out how to think from another human’s POV, acknowledge their frustrations, help them build the skills to handle their feelings, etc.
It turns out great parenting is to a first degree about great relationship skills.
You can achieve that trivially with such young kids by simply leading by example, not having snacks and junkfood at home and so on. We eat a lot of healthy stuff, so our kids do. You are still their world and define many patterns they will follow later subconsciously.
That doesn't translate that much into say teens but it lays a solid foundation.
May I ask you what significant and meaningful thing you tried to do, and why you think you failed at it?
I've spent my 30s doing something similar and it's still unclear whether it will work out or not. And I've foregone essentially all else, including family.
and yet most nobel prize laureates seem to be family people. I found that adult responsibilities have a way of making me very very intentional about how i spend my time.
I always find it funny the genetics argument or the "I'm a dopamine addict!" just how they are framed with fairly modern scientific language.
Personally, legacy is but another grasping of the ego. It is meaningless and is most used as a justification to be selfish. I think kids are beyond that, it isn't something that is rationalized, it is just a means of life. And that is cool. I'm not pro or anti natalism, it all just seems to be a case of some people clinging to concepts and ideas just a little too strongly. But ultimately it has the same amount of meaning as a single ant that died a million years ago.
Meaning, when applied broadly like that is rather… meaningless. In “what is the meaning of life?” the word meaning in that sentence is completely nonsensical. That being said, most people would prefer the world to be shaped in a particular way and a large part of how the world is shaped comes down to normalized cultural and societal expectations. If you don’t voice your opinions on how you want the world to be shaped or agree to be silenced, then the world will probably not be shaped the way you want it to. I want the world to be shaped a particular way and every interaction I have including this minor comment thread is one step in that direction just like everyone else.
Within my world view, if you cannot create a genetic legacy, you have failed at a key aspect of life.
It's a biological drive, at least until you're past the age of fertility. Whether you consciously think about carrying on your genetic line, it's baked into the hardware.
It was interesting of you to make the remark considering it’d clearly be unpopular, but agree with others, don’t really care about my genetic legacy. Am going to be dead so it’s meaningless to me.
And actually, a non-genetic child might be nice, especially if you get one at the right age. You don’t have the intense burden of raising a baby or when they’re a young child, but still get to the joy of raising a child (as long as they like you, which is of course the biggest downside. Probably less of a tendency for them to attach strongly to you).
International adoption is actually extremely controversial and full of abuse. Many countries have straight up banned it and basically declared that the folks who want to adopt outside of their borders are by-in-large "creepy weirdos"
It’s funny. Normally saying that something is wrong because it got downvoted and flagged would be a fallacy. You’ve managed to make it a valid argument.
The older I get the more I realize ambition and "being ambitious" is a completely misplaced way to orient your life.
The chance of validation from others is not a good reason for making one choice or another and a life made of choices of that kind will eventually leave you spiritually bankrupt.
Make decisions based on what you're passionate about, based on what will bring and keep meaningful relationships into your life, based on what will leave you with habits that take you outside, into the sun, moving your body and eating healthy, and, sure, that will afford you the ability to pay for those things.
Focus on the process, not the outcome.
Making decisions based on what will make you more "successful" will make you a slave to others approval. And those others will use you up and waste your life to achieve their own objectives.
Also, if you pick the right partner, having kids does all the good things in life at once. It is the most efficient way to get yourself into the good life possible.
I can +1 who you're replying to in the context of founders and achieving a large dream (building a massive company.)
I was in the Summer 2016 batch. Ten years out feels like long enough for some reflections on lives well-lived. There were people in my batch who were ambitious, not in climbing someone else's corporate ladder but in building their own massive/successful/wealthy company.
For those who separated it from what they were passionate about—and here I mean the impact, not "passionate about building a big business”—there have been more than a few crash outs. Existential crises, Extremely Online Syndrome, pulled into a world where what VCs say or competition with press releases on Tech Crunch define their self-worth.
These people are generally not happy. Some are! But many are not.
The founders who worked on things that they care about—with technology or company-building as a _means_ to achieving some greater end—are doing much better. They might or might not still be at their start-ups. Many have gone on to work at other impactful companies or organizations. They seem much more content with life and their contributions to the world.
That's the type of ambition that is healthy _and_ meaningful _and_ lasting. It's not that these people aren't ambitious—they very much are! But it's not "big company good". It's "big positive impact good."
In my experience, this is the kind of thing that one should explore when choosing co-founders. Misalignment here, at least the kind where you're not fully (100%!) okay with, and you're up for a painful journey. Maybe not at the beginning, but most likely at some point in time. The kind of thing that can ruin a lot, including causing an identity and life crisis.
I know a couple of O’Reilly authors. I don’t think any of them expected a best-seller or awards from their work, just “I get a high-four or barely-five figure payment for a competent treatment of a technical topic.”
Maybe you could argue that’s a lightweight version of “approval of others”
Focusing on your passion for writing is more likely to produce the book than focusing on your desire to be able to say you were someone who finished a book.
And who is being able to say you were someone who finished a book for? You? Or is it for someone else?
While I agree with everything you say... I'd sure like to earn more money. It would make my life better and my kid's lives better. The surest path to achieving that is to be ambitious in the workplace. It's something I find myself constantly conflicted on.
I’m not convinced it’s a binary thing like that. At the extreme end you have the father that steals bread to feed his starving family. At the other end you have the father that spends more time at work in pursuit of a promotion. I’m not sure that makes anyone morally piss-poor.
Taking a job at Palantir in order to make an extra few hundred K… yeah, maybe that’s morally piss poor.
Aladdin makes me sympathize with stealing to feed your family, though The Protomen helped me place a balance between sacrificing for your family and working for personal ambitions
Being ambitious doesn't necessarily mean you're aiming for validation. It means you're aiming for a goal that's challenging. What drives that ambition is what matters.
Many are driven by a desire to create real change, a desire to build, to solve a problem, and/or help people. Many do it simply because it's fun, but it doesn't make them any less ambitious.
> The older I get the more I realize ambition and "being ambitious" is a completely misplaced way to orient your life.
The older you get, the closer you get to being a corpse. That's not something to be proud of :)
I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your comment in spirit, but you are conflating "ambition" with "seeking validation from others". The most passionate and driven people I know are intrinsically motivated and have ideals that go beyond social validation.
> The older I get the more I realize ambition and "being ambitious" is a completely misplaced way to orient your life.
> Make decisions based on what you're passionate about, based on what will bring and keep meaningful relationships into your life, based on what will leave you with habits that take you outside, into the sun, moving your body and eating healthy, and, sure, that will afford you the ability to pay for those things.
Most people are ambitious about one or more of those things.
> Making decisions based on what will make you more "successful" will make you a slave to others approval
Again, many of the things you listed above will make people more "successful".
> Also, if you pick the right partner, having kids does all the good things in life at once. It is the most efficient way to get yourself into the good life possible.
This is a broad generalization that does not apply to everyone.
I kinda agree with you but Could you please elaborate on “ having kids does all the good things in life at once” as I dont see how is that so straightforward. I’m actually currently really conflicted on the idea whether I want or dont want kids.
Looking back, I found most Internet comment section advice about having kids to be unhelpful. There’s a cliche that gets rephrased 1000 different ways to say a variation of “It’s a lot of work and my kids drive me crazy but I wouldn’t trade it for the world”. Now that I am a parent that advice feels like it oversells the negatives and fails to explain why people like their kids.
Truthfully, it is hard to relate to non-parents why you enjoy your own kids. It’s completely different than babysitting someone else’s kids. It’s your family and you like being with them. After work I’d rather hang out with my kids and go for a bike ride or build legos with them instead of relax and watch TV. I’m kind of dreading the day that they don’t want to spend so much time with me because we have so much fun. It’s a little extra motivation to get my work done early and start my day early so I can have more time with them, which is something I never thought I’d say as a nights and evenings person.
The extra work is more work than if I didn’t have kids and just relaxed after work and on weekends, but it’s not the world-ending grind like some people talk about. The early part where they’re waking up through the night and need constant feedings and changes goes by quickly and then you’re into a routine and teaching them ever more self sufficiency. I wouldn’t dwell on it, or at least don’t let it be an obstacle to imagining the rest of your years with a family. It’s a year or two of altered sleep schedules for 40 years of having a family.
Getting balanced takes from happy parents around you is a good idea. Online it’s too easy to get drawn into social media whirlpools of unhappy parents venting about things, but I’ve found the best advice comes from the happy parents around you that are quietly enjoying their lives without bringing up the topic of kids. You have to bring it up with them. Depending on where you work, it’s possible that the average person around you has a family and is happy about it, but they’re not bringing it up all the time because it’s just normal life for them.
I was on the fence for a long time as well. It just looked like a lot of work. And not to sugar coat it, it _is_ a lot of work. But it’s also been so rewarding. You get to see someone experience things for the first time, like riding a bike or eating a tomato. Teaching them it’s ok to have feelings, helping them overcome their fears, watching them make friends. Giving them the advice I wished I had heard from someone I trusted growing up. And a million other things. And the hug and kiss at night with “I love you daddy” can’t be replicated.
To offer a contrasting opinion, I was on the fence, went for it, and it was a big mistake. Unfortunately, it's impossible to be sure what it'll be like until you try it. And there's no undo button. I would strongly recommend not having children until you're absolutely sure you want to.
> I would strongly recommend not having children until you're absolutely sure you want to.
That's good advice. I'll add the caveat that sometimes you cannot be entirely sure (few things in life are so clear cut), but if you truly hesitate, don't do it. Also don't do it for the sake of a partner who insists, or to save your relationship. Big mistake; children are neither bargaining chips nor bets that can pay off.
If you're leaning towards "yes", however, I think it can be a wonderful (if hard!) experience.
Yeah, I guess 100% certainty is not achievable. But it should be to the point where the thought is “hell yeah, let’s do this” rather than “I’m not so sure.”
Surely a lot of this can be experienced by associating with parents and their children rather than having them yourself, right?
This may sound somewhat reductive, and please correct me if that is the case, but I find that I can be around and play with my nephew and experience all of this wonder and how he progresses through life, while not being around for the sleepless nights and tantrums that I feel are the "work" part of being a parent.
Obviously a personal anecdote and YMMV, but I have several nieces and nephews, and I've gotten to watch them grow over the last ~15 years. During this time, I've tried to spend as much time with them as I can.
But I'm a new dad as of this year, and it's totally different. It really doesn't compare.
There's only so much time you can spend with someone else's kid, even if they're family. Even seeing a niece or nephew every week doesn't compare with waking up with a newborn at 3 AM and seeing them stick their tongue out for the first time, or seeing the squinty face they make when they try a strawberry for the first time at 5 PM on a random Tuesday.
It also doesn't compare with the sheer joy of having a little one who joyfully loves the heck out of you because you've bonded with each other and they feel loved and secure with you -- you've cared for them, loved them unconditionally, been understanding, responsive, and emotionally stable with them, and patiently/consistently enforced healthy boundaries on their behavior.
In a sense, one could say there's no greater joy.
But there's also perhaps no greater pain when parenting gets really complex and hard. One of my kids is autistic and raising him has been incredibly difficult and painful (he's a teen now).
In part, for sure. I was an uncle for a long time, which formed part of my hesitation. But there’s a different level of investment and connection if you are responsible for something 24/7. Like visiting someone’s house and seeing their dog do a trick, vs having your own dog and training it. There’s people who can articulate it better than me, but (not to sound sappy about it) the first time I held my firstborn my world changed.
Edit: I think another poster put it well that “it wasn’t about ‘me’ anymore”. Depending on your disposition, this could be great or it could be really bad. I’ve definitely changed for the better over the course of being a parent.
As is the case with so many things, the person you're replying to will reply with what they can quantify about the experience, but there is much much more to it that is unquantifiable and hard to convey. It is the difference between "using" someone's child for the satisfaction of these experiences, versus raising a child for their own sake, that you are wholly responsible for, especially in the early years.
> Surely a lot of this can be experienced by associating with parents and their children rather than having them yourself, right?
No, not really.
Also not the same as being the cool uncle/aunt, though that can give you a lightweight preview. I know because I went through this myself, I was so involved with my nephews I became their favorite uncle by far, and to this day they still remind me of this.
In reality, only being an actual parent can give you the true experience. Nothing else comes close.
In the spirit of this forum and at the risk of being very cringe, I’d guess that’s like being the founder of a company versus being one of the early employees :)
I have a kid with my partner and I'm still not sure it was the right decision for me. They do become a full-time job in their own right and there is a whole set of skills that you can kind of learn through books but is going to be unique to your little one.
The first couple of months were especially hard as they don't have much of a personality, don't really react much to the world around them, they're just feeding, sleeping, and growing. Starting at the beginning of the third month for me it started changing and every baby is kind of unique.
I now _detest_ most of the books/articles/child-rearing advice I've encountered. Most of all of their content is fluff to pad pages, a blog roll, and are frequently superseded by more modern research backed evidence. There is a lot of toxic advice in those books and systems as well, usually for parents that are prioritizing restoring their prior social lives over the well-being of their children.
It's time-consuming and exhausting, but I haven't found it to be _hard_ yet. Waking up in the middle of the night and giving your kid a hug and maybe reading to them a bit when they have a nightmare isn't a challenging task. The challenging tasks are exceptions (surprise medical issues, your daycare closing down with two days notice, etc). The baby and child industry put a cost premium on the clothes targeting them and they don't last very long due to the child's growth. I _saw_ this coming but not to the extreme it has actually manifested and you'll find it replicated in every child/baby sized item.
There are a lot of surprising upsides and my motivations have definitely changed since we had a kid. I will flip a mountain to see my kid smile and laugh, it hits deep. I enjoy spending time with her and I'm terrified of missing her achievements and milestones. When she comes to me and asks me to show her how something works, wants a book read to her, or just wants a hive five I get a double whammy of that serotonin once for being a Dad that she wants to engage with and once for getting to spend time with her.
I still, and unfortunately kind of frequently, miss what I have effectively sacrificed to have her. I am slower at staying on top of emerging trends, hobbies have been left by the wayside that I did for decades, I gave up running conferences and with it I drifted away from whole treasured social groups. None of this was really a surprise, but I didn't realize how much what I gave up was really part of who I was.
The social thing is interesting, you will inevitably drift away from friends who don't have kids. Even for the ones who do you will be so busy with your own life that you won't get to see them much. You will probably end up with more contact with parents from their schools although that will stop suddenly when they finish.
Not sure what the solution is other than putting in some deliberate effort to maintain those relationships (which I didn't do).
> It's time-consuming and exhausting, but I haven't found it to be _hard_ yet.
I think this is exactly what people mean when they say "hard": time-consuming and exhausting, not hard as in "I cannot figure this out". Usually you figure it out as you go.
This is excluding children with serious health problems, etc. I'm thankful I won the lottery in this regard, I know some situations can destroy families.
> I still, and unfortunately kind of frequently, miss what I have effectively sacrificed to have her. I am slower at staying on top of emerging trends, hobbies have been left by the wayside
Also rings true for me. Especially my hobbies, I barely have time for them now; and when she grows up who knows whether I'll be able to resume them. But in my case, this is balanced by this thought: would I be happier if I had more time for my hobbies, but she wasn't in my life. And the answer is very clearly that I prefer her to be in my life 1000000%, and if I cannot do my hobbies all that often that's an acceptable loss.
It's not a cost-benefit calculation. You just do it because you do it and you wouldn't be you if you didn't.
Hard to put in words. And yes, you will feel like "WTF why did I do this" at times. A lot of people have parents who will remind them that they could have had an easy life instead. I try not say that even though I think it too.
I could sell you some fluff about being part of a continuity or the reward it brings, but it's post hoc rationalisation.
The replies in this thread are already very good. I'm a dad of two, but I won't add anything more than that you will be hard pressed to find a parent who will regret having children. I understand the bias in it, but people can be persuaded into honesty and, under anonymity on this website, are more likely to be honest about such things.
Agreed, though I know some people who evidently regretted having children, or never bonded with their own but developed "quasi-parental" relationships with children who weren't their own. More than one case, actually!
But I think most parents, in reasonable socioeconomic conditions, don't regret having children.
Partner and I are childfree but in talking with other parents about it, I've had 3 admit, if they knew now, they wouldn't have had kids or had less. My father was one of them.
If you want to dedicate your life to raising and creating a new human being from the ground up, and being able to see your work in action as they grow to become an actual human person - impressing you, disappointing you, going their own way, surprising you, then parenting might be for you.
It's expensive, and labor intensive, and full of decisions that are damnably hard because there's no "right" answer. It's a cult. It's a genetic imperative. It's also amazing.
You will not necessarily experience a tangible personal benefit - it's not an investment with a return. It's a "pour your love into this thing and get love back" kinda deal.
Agree, but with the caveat. we have to develop ambition, passion, habits, and success in the right areas of life, so that the right partner wants to choose us. (We typically don't get to pick.)
I feel like this is missing the point about why people in these situations are ambitious. Some are looking for external validation and jealousy from their peers. Most just want to be able to provide well for their families and get a point of having enough in the bank that the future feels secure.
As a parent, the feeling of having enough in my career to have the financial stability and career options to ensure that my kids are always taken care of and can go to any education path they want without worrying about finances is huge. Knowing that I can retire young enough to spend a lot of time with them is also huge. It took a lot of ambition and hard work to get here, but I was never doing it for external validation.
i got the ick at that. i'm not ambitious for validation. i'm ambitious to maximize my agency, IN PARTICULAR from the need of validation non ambitious people typically have
I think about it. At one point job accomplisments mattered and later it stopped not because of having family, but also what mattered at work changed. All the tips, tricks, late night work, things I thought were clever, unique, frugal solutions were marked as hack, obsoleted solutions, need to be replaced by "industry standards" platforms. Of course things change, one learn and apply new skills, but underlying theme was new solutions will be done proper experts this time. While I have to hang around to explain and repent my past mistakes if I want to hold onto job.
"Behind every great man there's a great woman." I thought I was killing it at work and as a dad when I was answering emails about complex bugs while hiking with my first kid riding in a backpack. But then I quit working to be a full-time dad for kid #2 and found out how much work my partner had been doing that I didn't know about. I suddenly understood why so many of the men at my former workplace had been divorced. So be ambitious, but check in with your partner and make sure they are on the same page.
I identified with this article despite being a new mom rather than dad. I was minted in the ambition track and have alighted on work I find meaningful.
I still wake up with a burning fire in my stomach for my work. This was dulled somewhat the first few months postpartum; it wasn't entirely gone, but it felt like a different person had taken over the reins, one who only cared about the baby and nothing else. Now the fire is back.
I do not know how to navigate this at all. As the author of the linked article searches for good father figures in vain, so do I. The search feels even more difficult. Everywhere I am met with young mothers who confess that whatever meaning they felt from their work feels like a distant shadow of what they feel with their child, and that they are only too happy to stay home. The other direction includes women who are militantly childfree, or who offload an unacceptable level of hours onto hired labor.
I wholly agree with the author's main thrust: for some people, the ambition is still there and unhelpfully competes with the ambition to be a perfect parent. When the expectation for mothers is as high as it is, the situation feels impossible; it feels as if you're doomed to either traumatize your children or renege whatever great potential you were told you had all your life.
Thats why, when divorcing in Switzerland, retirement savings are bundled and then split equally between two. So if woman was a stay-at-home mum, she still gets good savings. If both brought cca same income, not much changes.
Same in Canada. All assets acquired after common law or marriage are shared and split evenly in the divorce. Whoever makes more salary needs to pay alimony to the other.
Are you American? The US has community and equitable distribution schemes. 50% of all assets is the default under both schemes with alimony regularly awarded to women to make up for lack of income.
Changing divorce laws to be less equitable, as far as I know, has never been a major platform of either party in the South. I'm not aware of any politician that advocates for it. I'm sure it exists but it must be an incredibly marginal view.
YC reject so I bootstrapped and was thankfully able to hit profitability before my first kid showed up. I’ve now got two. I also have dreams bigger than ever.
In fact, writing this while sitting on the couch with the kids watching Muppet Treasure Island while my kids are wearing pirate hats and waving foam swords.
I’m still extremely productive and prolific. Probably less compared with before. But before, I had friends and TV shows subtracting from my time.
Today, my life priorities are kids, work and sleep.
There is no Netflix. There are no hobbies. No downtime. No friends unless I happen to like my kids friends parents.
I’m up at 5:30/6 and get 90 mins of focused work in. Skip breakfast. Then workout and walk/bike with the kids. Then ready for work at 10 - and thankfully my office is two blocks away. Skip lunch. Home at 5/5:30. Dinner with kids and play. Work from 8-10. Every single day.
I love my kids, work and learning is fun, and I value sleep. Everything else is a nice to have.
The way I see it, when I’m 100 years old I won’t regret drag on my ambitions because I had kids. In fact I’ll probably think the ambitions were nice but kind of pointless in the end anyway. I will see the kids as important and meaningful, and will write a life story where I was the best dad I could be and still hustled like hell.
I love my work and I love playing with the kids so it can be exhausting but in a good way. Never a drag (not usually anyway).
Super thoughtful consistent schedule with little room for anything else is my tradeoff if I want to maintain high quantity of high quality output with my business. And TBH, it lasts for 15-18 years at most.
I didn’t mention the weekends - those are more of a free for all. Lots of family time, work sneaks in. It’s a lot more thinking than working though.
Burnouts often happen to passionate people who love their work. There are hard limits that conscious part of the mind simply ignores, with laser/tubular focus on whatever is the drive.
For example nurses (both male and female) during WWI - worked themselves to mental breakdowns because there was endless stream of properly suffering people to help or even save. One can't have much more noble goal. Yet hard burnouts kept happening.
I don't want to sound all gloomy since I know nothing about your situation. Just listen to your body and mind, it keeps telling things in subtle ways, not a good idea to ignore that.
This is basically what my life is like (going on 9 years now). I don't think it has necessarily led to burnout for me. Keep in mind that time spent with your children isn't all work. There is some fun and leisure in there as well (although it is a lot of work too).
As a fun project, you should look up the history of eating schedules. They vary wildly between different cultures. Some have a single large meal at the start of the day, others have 5 smaller meals spread through, and everything in between. There is no standard even if it feels like it simply because that is how we are raised.
Most "good for your health" advice is pop culture driven with a half life of 5 years anyway and breakfast being the most important meal of the day is a marketing slogan. In other words, no better than any various convention.
About the only things that stick are "don't stop physical and mental activity as you age" and "do stuff in moderation".
If you call it "intermittent fasting" and write a book about it, you can get a whole movement behind how healthy skipping breakfast and lunch is. And another movement preaching about how bad it is. And a followup book about what you REALLY should do ad nauseam.
Pretty much, so much of what we take for granted in culture was actually intentionally designed from the top down to have masses of people fall into line and become good servants of the economic system.
As for good diets, for instance, there is a wild meal schedule that has shown to be fairly good at managing weight, it is just intense. It is the 16 to 17 meals a day plan. One meal every hour you are awake, each one only about 100 to 150 calories. It does potentially work but try selling it to people and worse getting folks to stick to it.
Social behavior and the actual behaviors themselves evolved through populations as, among other things, an information storage mechanism that survives generations.
Agreed. This view also makes sense if we look at pre-agriculture humans - they’d eat heartily when there’s a good catch, maybe eat some leftovers the next day, go without food for some time, etc. Evolution by natural selection doesn’t move fast enough for humans to have adapted strongly to a fixed 3 meals a day schedule by now; eating times are still very much a convention.
"hitting a protein goal" being one of the current health fads I'm talking about
surely the natural response here will be about how important, healthy, and real this particular fad is. same as all the other health fads everyone would talk about for the last hundred years
Intermittent fasting and calorie reduction are the only known way to EXTEND lifespan and wellness. 10 years of low carb + fasting is the single most important health decision I have ever made.
You are more correct, but I think the truth lies somewhere between your statement and theirs. We have correlative evidence that lower calorie diets and/or fasting results in longer lifespans, improved insulin sensitivity, pancreatic cell responsiveness, blood pressure, oxidative-stress measures, and more, in humans. We also have animal testing showing causative evidence that fasting produces longer lifespans. Of course, animals are not humans, and correlation does not imply causation. Still, we do not currently have causative evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, and we widely agree that that is harmful for lungs. With enough correlative evidence I think it becomes reasonable to accept it as actionable evidence.
The secret is to have your children eat for you, then just do blood transfusions when they’re at peak nutrient level. You can do that while you work for optimal efficiency.
Yeah I had a schedule like that when the kids were very young but it caught up with me, frankly. Having the computer be the first and last thing I interacted with every day was not great for my mood either.
Granted, I do need to take a break from that schedule every so often. If I catch myself being unfocused I just go to bed.
Also, the first thing I work on is usually a high leverage project that excites me. Reading news or answering emails (things that can affect my emotions) are usually avoided during that time. Usually.
Wellllll, kind of... I've realized hunger is often just another habit because we're used to eating N meals a day, like the GP comment implies. I've done a quasi OMAD (1-meal a day) thing on-and-off for 3+ years now and don't feel hungry the rest of the time, given my current physical activity levels. It took a few days to get used to, but now I can start and stop OMAD on demand.
I'd recommend everyone try fasting and figure out what their bodies really need (preferably over the holidays, because the adjustment period can be a bit rough and could interfere with work.) I suspect most of the developed world is over-eating by quite a lot given our largely sedentary lifestyles.
I did fasting for a while, usually fasting for 16+ hours and eating 1-2 meals in the eight hour feeding window, but eventually stopped in favour of working out. I'd like to be able to lift while also fasting, but I'm worried that (1) I'd struggle to hit my protein targets and (2) only eating during a small window each day would hurt muscle growth.
Oh for sure, if your physical activity is higher you need to eat commensurately more! What I meant is, for most of us with desk jobs and little physical activity, our bodies need surprisingly little food and this is what fasting reveals.
Like even on OMAD I pretty much don't lose any weight (and no, I'm not as lean as I wish I were!) I strongly suspect if average, healthy people cut out an entire meal a day and changed nothing else, their bodies would stay mostly the same.
Man good motivating schedule. Are you married as well? I notice this is missing the wife time. I feel like I really have to wreck my sleep to get worktime between wife and kids.
My block is crawling with kids and usually playing baseball or hockey - they are pretty much never on screens apart from watching something on Disney+. Other than that we play outside year round.
I appreciate people like OP because they create jobs for people like me. I am more than happy to let him keep his profits and his lousy existence while I take it easy, do some work and then hang out with kids and friends and collect the paycheck. Yeah, I will never get rich, but I don't care. Work is just something I do to get by, I did find meaning in it earlier in life, but since I hit 40 work is just a thing I do so I don't end up under the bridge.
Really just thoughtfully and consistently disciplined.
Some people think diet and exercise are miserable. Others put more weight on how they feel when in good health.
The author seems self-aware and I think there's a lot of good observations in this post.
At the same time, I think ambition needs to be paired with humility and acceptance of you can't have it all.
There's no perfect life. You can't optimize everything such that you achieve a hypothesized balance between all the things that are competing for your time and energy. In the final analysis, most people, if given the chance to reflect before they die, would choose more time with the people they care about than more time working, even if, in the moment, they felt they were doing a good job balancing the two.
Kids are also not always a joy. I love my kids, and there were certainly moments of joy, mostly when they were young. As they grow up, they turn out to be their own people. They may ignore your advice and learn life lessons the hard way. They may not live up to the hopes you had for them. Be prepared for some disappointment. Doesn't mean that you don't love them, but they can be frustrating.
To be fair, I'm sure I disappointed my parents in some ways or times also.
Work is also not always a joy. Success is not always a joy.
But there's more than enough evidence to show that, when people look back on their lives, most of them most highly value their relationships and have the most regrets around how they managed those relationships.
Having a child doesn't guarantee happiness. Raising a child is not always going to be rainbows and I suppose learning to accept that the life you create doesn't mean you get to dictate what that life becomes is a form a wisdom. But none of this takes anything away from the experience if you accept it for what it really is.
I think this is the point though right? The author is saying that he rejects this dichotomy and he's attempting to take on both even if others might perceive it as impossible.
Which is good if sailing is what you wanted and like to do, which is what the author and the OP is implying. You don't necessarily have to "succeed" or "reach" somewhere.
What I wrote isn't about "success". It's about direction.
What the author is at risk of doing, in my opinion, is pretending to a certain extent that he can have his cake and eat it too. As I wrote in my original comment, "you can't have it all."
Please don't take this to mean that you have to choose between your family and career (or a business). That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, at a certain point of "ambition", there is no perfect balance possible between all the the things you're trying to maximize.
The wise person accepts that sometimes you have to make choices, and choices always require that you give something up to get something else.
Excellent, you reached the point that Edward Elric, from the first Fullmetal Alchemist anime, arrived at in the final episode(s): The illusion of balance, when everything in that world revolved around the Law of Equivalent Exchange.
Sometimes the rewards do not match the sacrifice/effort, but that doesn't mean you won't pick that same choice when given the chance, or that it was a "bad choice". If you accept what may come from your choices, you can more objectively act upon them.
I felt successful before I had kids. Satisfying, upward-moving career; happy marriage; lots of travel; volunteering in multiple organizations. I liked all these things, succeeded in them, people liked me, etc.
As a dad, I feel like a total loser. All of the aforementioned are diminished or put entirely on hold (travel, most volunteering). I'm medicore at everything, except parenting, in which I am successful at keeping my kids alive and safe and healthy, but not in satisfying their desires. In that I am totally inadequate.
I expected that I would have to put "my" life largely on hold when we had kids and instead of the satisfaction I got from the pre-kid things, would enjoy the satisfaction of raising happy children. To have neither is demoralizing and I'm constantly looking for the critical thing that will improve the child-raising experience. And no, waiting it out for the kids to grow up is not the answer!
I fully empathise. It feels like my career went from upwards to a horizontal line. I have far less energy for work, for learning, and for the things I'm interested in. It's incredibly demoralising. I dread weekends and look forward to school drop-offs - what kind of life is that?
I don't care about my career so much, but the weekend and school dropoff thing resonates hard.
Work is the only part of my life where I feel any sort of competency. Anything else I'm just a ship on a stormy sea being battered around. I can change the sails and move the rudder, but the sea takes me where it wants me to go anyway.
The joke was "welcome to your vacation" when people got back from paternity leave for their new kid. I don't think I ever left that vacation.
It's also normal, and okay, to feel down about being tired and feeling like you can't do everything at once. Because that's how it is — you can't do everything at once. You have to choose, and a lot of the time the depression comes from the conflict of having to give up things you want to do.
And what can also help is talking to your partner or to a friend who's also a parent. And realizing it's normal to look forward to the weekend being over so you can sit down and work on the thing you're good at and know how to do... unlike dealing with our kids, who are always creating problems we don't know how to solve.
Luckily I have an amazing wife. We don't hide anything from each other, and she's always been there for me (just as I have for her). I have good support.
That said, you say "it's normal to look forward to the weekend being over so you can sit down and work on the thing you're good at and know how to do" - this isn't what I'm getting at. I look forward to the weekend being over so that I can spend time away from my kids. I trudge through work for the week while trying to regain mental energy to tackle the after-school pickups and the next weekend. I'm just always running at a mental energy deficit. I enjoy my work, but I just have no energy to apply myself - the kids suck it out of me.
> It feels like my career went from upwards to a horizontal line. I have far less energy for work, for learning, and for the things I'm interested in. It's incredibly demoralising
How do you separate how much having kids affects this, and how much of it is just being 30+ and not taking care of own health?
I have a few childless friends who say the same thing word for word.
I had a week where the kids were with Grandma and Grandpa. I got more done on a Wednesday after work than I did in the previous few weeks including weekends.
I don't think everyone needs kids and I don't subscribe to the 'moral high ground' of having kids, BUT I have zero sympathy for childless peers that think their life is too busy.
Maybe the problem is trying to satisfy the wishes of someone who doesn't know what they want, because they're under 6 years old!
What worked for me to make the experience of raising kids better is paying attention to the small things they notice. For them the world is a completely new place, and if you can get in tune with that, you can rediscover the world all over again from another angle. Talking with my son makes me see everything differently — they're great triggers for creativity.
Mine is 6 now.....and man it is by far the most difficult stage for me.
Begging and thinking of ideas to get him to brush his TEETH DAILY. Meltdowns, even in public places. Conflicts which need resolutions. Dealing with teachers, who sometimes I agree but other times disagree with. Working with them on homework. Constant need to watch them not to get hurt.
I've saved 2 children from drowning, and one of them was my child, who randomly thought it would be a great idea to jump into a deep pool without a life vest.
I would have a child again as I do finding rewarding but my career has taken a back seat and my energy levels are always on low. I dread mornings.
Yeah... I'm in the 3-year-old stage and oh boy... it can be really tough. But lately I bought some kids' board games (HABA) and we can enjoy them together — not always, and it's not the same as playing with peers, but I can see it being like that in the future. And the experience of teaching, for me, not being a teacher, is really educational and transformative.
Sorry if this offends anyone but why must we choose between having a great career and being a great parent. Why is it a zero-sum game? Want to be great at something neglect your children to do so. Want to be a great parent, fine you have a mediocre career. From the article you are ambitious about building things. Well guess what children are, the ultimate piece of clay from which you get a front row seat to mold.
If you are trying to compete with people who are kidless and constantly comparing your output to them, then yes, you are going to feel you are falling behind. But you need to stop and ask yourself, “what am I doing all this work for”? What is your goal? For me, having children changed my perspective on life. I am lucky to make enough money to live a good first world lifestyle and the rest is enjoying the moments life brings. I still have the motivation I had 20 years ago but that motivation has shifted from “building things for the wealthy” to building peace and happiness for myself and my family.
I no longer work a ton of hours, but my day is still full of conversations, walks, work-outs, bike rides ect… These things when done with family and friends bring me level of accomplishment that no product launch ever did. Also, I openly avoid the hustle-grind culture that seems to run rampant these days.
You seem to be on the correct path, just don’t fall into that trap that says you must be grinding 60+ hours a week in-order to be successful or happy. It will find you if you let it.
The article is not talking about having "a great career" (which you can have while also having good balance and focusing on things).
To me, the article is more a lament. There is only so much time in this life, and if you're organized (I read that to mean intentional in your execution and not wasting time) then you apply that time to your highest priority.
Work / building things / personal hobbies / your partner / your family / your kids - these all compete. It's impossible to do everything you'd LOVE to do in your building and hobbies without burning the candle on both ends a bit with the other priorities.
You can do it for short periods, but eventually it catches up and you'll either do it all bad or sacrifice something.
Time is finite. Desire / drive are not. Solve for X. I feel what the author is saying every day, but I'm OK with it because there's no question in my mind that my kids and family are going to be the best use of my time and what I'm thinking about on my death bed.
Do I still sleep too little and occasionally overwork to execute? Yes - but you have to pick your spots.
You just can't do it ALL.
(And mind you - that's for me as an extremely involved, work-from-home, caring for children MAN. This is an entirely different equation if you're a female and you don't have support structure. Nobody can have it all but I've probably got the best shot at having a TON of it - but there are still trade-offs)
Do you mean in the case of divorce? Or in the case that a husband decides to not be a collaborating partner in raising a child? Obviously to be totally secure you need to make sure you have some money, but ideally it's a collaboration and not a competition even if the law doesn't provide an entitlement.
Because energy is limited and TBH very few people are really fit for doing two jobs properly at the same time. Honestly, sometimes, or most of the times, a great career do demand more than 40 hours of work.
You also need very good mental for both jobs, too.
I used to think, wow progressing is so easy, why doesn't everyone just read a technical book, documentation or take a course after work.
I then had a child. The time is just gone. Having children is extremely time consuming. I have my own health issues, but now I am responsible for one more person. Morning routine takes 1 - 1.5 hours by the time my kid is dropped off at school. He hates getting up, so by the time I'm done I would love to crawl back into bed.
After school it is dinner time, we try to cook and eat healthy. After dinner it is bed time. If I have time to watch a show or just talk to my wife for an hour without being interrupted, I'm happy.
Having a child is great, but if you are committed and involved parent, there isn't much time or energy left to do anything but work and child.
Yea we only get so many trips around the sun and it sometimes feels like modern society tries to push you to win or go home. I have one child in college and one who just started high school (today) and I can tell you the pressure they are experiencing to "succeed" is immense. I have no clue how I would have handled that when I was in school. Probably not well.
> why must we choose between having a great career and being a great parent. Why is it a zero-sum game?
I had basically this exact conversation with a close family member, who sees having children as being forced to give up on her dreams of being a writer forever, which I just don't get (she's already written and released 4 novels which have made some decent money, just not enough to do it fulltime, and still has a day job in marketing that makes good money).
For a little while it will likely mean a shift in focus, sure, but that doesn't mean you have to give up on something forever. I've mostly taken a break from designing games the past couple of years (unrelated to children, just not as motivated lately, there's so many great board games out there already I'm trying to just enjoy playing them for a while), but I haven't totally given up on being a game designer (plus I've already released several games in the past, that can't be taken away from me, even if basically no one is still playing those games nowadays).
Plus children could also help enrich your life experience that lead to further inspiration for your creative efforts anyway, especially since it seems like the adult life experience society encourages nowadays seems to be sit in front of a computer all day for a day job, sit in front of a computer all evening for side hustle, get takeout, doomscroll/tv for a bit before going to sleep, repeat.
For women it is much harder as they don't even have an option to put less energy into kids at all, society pressures and berates them if something is off (men might get a comment but largely it is ignored and accepted), so I can totally see why she feels this way, _especially_ for a side thing.
Lately I've been playing a lot of cooperative games with a lot of clever card play, often against some sort of boss or some other win/loss condition, and usually it needs a lot of expansions so I can keep trying new combinations of heros/villains/scenarios. I can set them up and play a game or two solo most evenings.
So the ones I keep coming back to are Lord of the Rings - The Card Game, Legendary (mostly Marvel since it has so many expansions you can mix and match, but I also have and like DC, James Bond, and Alien), Ashes Ascendancy (also Ashes Reborn), Marvel Champions, Aeon's End, Arkham Horror - The Card Game.
Memoir '44 would be in that list too if you could play that solo. I love that game, but I haven't had a buddy to play it with in a long time. BoardGameArena has a great implementation but I don't like playing against random people on there as much. Supposedly there's a new app coming that will let you play solo, so I'm looking forward to that.
I've also tried the following recently and they're pretty high up too, they might eventually join the games above: Primal: The Awakening, Star Trek Captain's Chair, Marvel United, Boss Fighters QR, and Bullet.
Smaller, shorter games I enjoy include Cursed!?, Rove, Hoki, Fliptoons, D-Day Pocket, All is Bomb, Palm Island, and Harmonies
It is always funny to read these threads where all the men are saying how you don't need to compromise when they have a stay at home wife keeping it all together. It's a totally different ballgame for the majority of women.
I stated she had a day job making pretty good money. That's not a stay at home wife.
Also didn't say they don't need to compromise, obviously having children requires compromises to be made in your life, there's no way you can live it entirely the same way as you used to anymore. I said they don't need to totally give up on it forever. Thinking something has to be all or nothing is the opposite of compromise. That's essentially a self-imposed ultimatum.
It's also not backed by history. There's plenty of women authors who have children and continue writing books, and have prolific writing careers. It can slow down or delay getting books out, sure, but so can plenty of other things in life besides children, which I've also seen happen (like multiple 1+ year long writer's blocks): https://slate.com/culture/2022/09/women-writers-motherhood-h...
> why must we choose between having a great career and being a great parent
Because there is a limited number of hours in the day? That doesn't mean that one cannot do both at the same time, at times. It doesn't even mean that having kids can't also make you a better founder in some ways. But I think most people recognize that the large time demands of being a founder take away more from one's ability to build than they contribute (in terms of extra motivation or perspective).
Hear hear. Although being great at something and being a great parent do not have to be mutually exclusive.
You can work yourself to death with or without kids. You can also have a successful career and a great relationship with your family.
This whole premise that one must come at the expense of the other seems like rationalizing, or excuse-making, or maybe just another caustic result of capitalism.
And even if the drive to compete is so real, why stop at competing for either/or? Why not compete at being a whole person according to your own values?
To hell with anyone who says you can’t have the life you want. Win at being yourself.
I have a good friend who has a special needs kid and we've discussed his struggles at length - suffice it to say that it takes an order of magnitude more time and attention than what's described here.
The thing is, you of course don't get tipped off that you've been selected for that particular curse (and yes, I'd say it's a curse. It's not some inspiring after-school special thing, it's unfair as f*k to all involved).
The point of this is, I suppose, it's okay to choose not to have kids if you don't feel like gambling, because it turns out, you are. And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries.
My parents were both teachers, who, before moving into admin rolls (when I was somewhat older) worked in special ed.
My mother later ended up back in a classroom for a period of time with severely handicapped children. Bound to beds and wheelchairs, non verbal, never going to have independence.
For years after she left her admin job she would go back and spend an evening or two every year watching the kids, so the parents could have some sense of "normalcy".
Her lament was what would the outcome be for these children. Because every one thinks they are doing the best for them by keeping them at home, and close. But the reality is (in so many cases) that the plans for "family to take care of them" almost never works out. Years later my neighbor was an older woman, with an adult special needs child. She died, suddenly, from breast cancer. The brother, who was to take care of him, shipped him off to a group home (because he had kids of his own and lacked the time to care for him properly). That poor mans trauma was doubled when his living situation and life and loss of mother all happened in such a short period.
My own family, I have a severely handicapped cousin (who, became that after a high fever). He too is wheelchair bound and non verbal. However his mother, heeded my mother's advice and transitioned him into a group home early. It worked out well for him as he had a more fulfilling life, and the family (sister, aunts) weren't under pressure for his care, rather just rounding out his life. He still gets out a few times a week with them, and is always around for the holidays.
It's a tough thing for parents to understand that what's best for your special needs kid is sometimes going to be harder on them than all the hard work they doing. And I remain grateful that is isn't a choice I ever had to make myself.
It's very frustrating that behind every "you should be eternally grateful for every child no matter what" warm fuzzy message is an implicit "and if you ever express regret for having a kid who wound up non-verbal and violent and destroyed your marriage and your relationship with your other kids you're a horrible person".
Not referring to your cousin specifically but my mom's life's work is with severely autistic children (the "can't talk and hits people" sort, not "I'm a bit awkward and love math and doing anything to help autistic kids is abject cruelty!" sort), and the experience for parents mostly seems to be abject misery.
> And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries.
Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse and not due to resource/environmental blow back. It would be the smoothest path down. In the same way that inflation is a smoother way to grow a pool of poverty.
Demographic collapse is happening due to resource/environmental blowback, but many of the resources in question are artificial ones like money and jobs.
Demographic collapse is happening because women finally have the choice to have fewer or no children and can have them later in life due to career options.
Wealthy people are also having less children than they used to. Unless you are arguing that people are having less children due to potential societal issues around global warming.
> Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse
The problem is, there isn't _going_ to be a population collapse in developed countries. The path these governments have chosen is to import anyone and everyone in order to keep the numbers growing. Why? Because all those wonderful social programs collapse without people at the bottom of the pyramid to keep things going. The main problem is there's only so many net contributors that can be imported, so we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for people to bring in and oh yeah, they're eligible for social programs from day one. It's going to be a disaster long term, but it's the future we chose -- "I don't want kids, but I don't want the systems that are in place to collapse either, so sure, bring in the entire world, I'm sure we'll be fine."
For that particular issue you can improve your "gambling" odds by having kids at a younger age, rather than waiting until you've optimized your career and environment.
I agree. I'm saying that "just have kids younger" isn't a good solution to the risks of developmental defects, because it's usually merely a trade of that risk for a different one.
It's not like people had an established career when they had kids at 19 in the 1940s. They just didn't view "being halfway to a comfortable retirement" as the prerequisite to having kids, the way my generation thinks it is.
The difference likely there is in the ‘40s you were seeing improvement after the Great Depression and employment during WWII, followed by the postwar boom. Whereas the past two generations have seen precarity increase while living standards falter if not drop compared to their parents’ generation. So they are striving to recreate what they once experienced in their childhood, yet may never return.
Also the entirety of society including their families emphasizing the importance of higher education, good careers, etc. even as the latter is harder to achieve and the former becomes increasingly devalued, yet pricy.
People had kids even in the 30s, too. During tough times, we have to work harder and endure more adversity. Our great grandparents understood this just fine. In western countries, current generations (including my own) are incredibly soft, and expect that because they know boom times existed before, we are simply owed an equally easy time automatically — but in reality, there are often external factors that just don’t allow that to happen.
Contrast China, for example. 1950-1990 was not a 40-year prosperity party like it was in America and Western Europe. Therefore, they are at least twice as willing as we are to grind, and as a result multiplied their economy an astounding amount over the past 35 years. You can see the same thing in many development countries today. They take nothing for granted.
But people are working harder- they’re simply working harder at their jobs.
It should also be noted that the birth rates in China are not increasing, either, despite the end of the One Child Policy. Partly it is also because the younger generation feels immiseration from higher costs of living and fewer opportunities- see the concept of involution.
Finally, during the Great Depression, fertility rates in the U.S. dropped to all-time lows. Not unlike the Great Recession, which has triggered a nonstop decline. We all live in the shadow of 2008.
I think the best advice to having kids young is to lower your expectations. The only reason people ‘cannot’ have children young is because they want a specific kind of life for themselves and their kids that is incompatible with that.
It is absolutely a prerequisite to having kids responsibly.
Education and health care are fantastically expensive now, as well as inflation chipping away at purchasing power, each year more than the last due to compounding effects.
To have children without being financially secure is one of the most foolish, selfish, and irresponsible things anyone can choose to do.
I’m basing this on the vibe from a chart someone showed me when I was in the hospital 8 years ago after my son was born. The point is the chances increase exponentially. Found the list now:
Age 20: About 1 in 500 (0.2%) Age 30: About 1 in 270 (0.37%) Age 35: About 1 in 80 (1.25%) Age 40: About 1 in 60 (1.66%) Age 45: About 1 in 20 (5.0%)
Which actually kinda refutes me because 1 in 500 is still a lot.
You're right about this, for some conditions, and of course depending on laws may have options.
But I want people to be fully aware: There isn't a test for a lot of disabilities, including what my friend's kid has, so, the gamble must be factored into your decision because there's no way to guarantee you won't face this kind of thing.
On my end, becoming a dad didn’t make me less ambitious, just more focused.
I was vp of engineering at a Series A startup when my kid was born. It was a challenging job, but one that felt increasingly devoid of any meaning for me (maybe also because I'd been there for 5 years). I was compensating by working on side-projects at night and on weekends. I even wrote a novel that took me 4 years to finish.
Then my son was born, and nights and weekends disappeared! Suddenly, all my non-father activity was dedicated to a job that was boring me more and more.
So what did i do? I started a company, so I could decide what to work on during the day!. Basically, I took a side project and put it at the center of my working life. Now my days feel rewarding enough that when I disconnect, I can completely devote myself to my son and my wife and ignore everything else.
Of course, I don’t have side projects anymore. I barely even have hobbies: I completely stopped watching movies, which used to be the love of my life. I read books before bed and on the subway, and work out occasionally to stay sane. My life = my startup, my son, my wife. That’s pretty much it.
But I feel much more balanced than before, when I was always chasing something.
I became an engineering manager when my daughter was 2. Way back in the old days before LLMs so I had to both code and manage. Completely burnt me out. I never fully got back into traditional tech career after I was laid off in '23.
I did start two businesses: One brick and mortar and one app. The brick and mortar has the biggest drain on family time since with the app I can grind at night and only miss out on sleep.
"Be ambitious enough to be an ambitious dad." - agreed! Being an ambitious dad IS exhausting. And the successful people telling you that you can't be a present, ambitious dad and be successful -- that you have to trade successful fatherhood for professional success -- are weak. They are not heroes.
The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now. That's what I aspire to be... and those are my role models. Not the ones who abandon their kids or wife to pursue their own dreams and make excessive amounts of money.
If you really can only muster enough time or energy to be ambitious about one thing, be ambitious within your home/family.
I would also add that, at least in my experience, those who are professionally ambitious and maximizing professional success, while being highly confident they are also succeeding at home, often have an inaccurate view of their home life. It's not until the kids are grown and openly fighting their demons that they realize the bargain that they made.
It's that old adage of, anyone who thinks they're a great parent, probably isn't. And almost all kids would be happier with a less wealthy (or even poorer) upbringing, and a tighter family.
The number of wives who have complained to me privately about the lack of family commitment of rock star husbands whom everyone admires (often precisely for their apparent family commitment) was a real eye-opener.
I'm not convinced that stratospheric success in business is very often compatible with high levels of parental and spousal involvement. It is sometimes, but those are anomalies we shouldn't build our fairy tales around. I know very few old-timers who wish they'd spent less time with their families when they could have made the difference of a lifetime.
There’s a pretty interesting self-help book that is designed to help couples share domestic and family work equally; I thought it was an interesting read. It makes exactly the same point about rockstar husbands that contribute less than their spouses.
The central idea is a set of 100 cards representing various tasks that are necessary for running a household, that you split up between the two partners. Supposedly women tend to hold ~80 of the cards in most relationships.
The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments) but I do think that it’s a good starting point if you want to genuinely try to contribute equally.
I haven't read into them much, (so maybe I shouldn't be repeating it here;) but there are studies about how even when women are the higher earners in relationships, they end up taking on a greater share of household management and maintenance work. (The rhetorical context is usually around why young women aren't as interested in dating.... But again, that's something I'm throwing out there w/o due diligence)
But the idea of having physical cards that you split up and assign does sound really helpful. I might look into that. I would say in my experience breaking out household chores even amongst roommates, some tasks that seem even aren't remotely so once you get into it (I have been the advantaged and disadvantaged party in different apartments) and some are simply different such that some are trivial for one person and not so for another person. But that's a part of dealing the cards, even when splitting evenly. (now I'm wondering if I can see where people are getting into arguments.... ^_^')
> The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments)
Yeah, no wonder given that it starts with an unrealistic view that the average man is a lazy slob that sits around playing video games while his wife has to handle everything with children and the household. You keep waiting for her to mention that anything else might be possible throughout the book, but that never happens. I think gay couples were mentioned maybe once.
Yeah... I do have some issues with the book. I think that the cards tend to be weighted towards things that women care more about, which naturally means that women end up being responsible for more of them. And different cards require different amounts of time to handle.
The way that I’ve tried to handle this is to focus on equalizing “total time per week spent on managing cards”, which requires time-tracking but is more fair, and also negotiating a modified set of cards.
The book kinda suggests both of those but I think that in practice most people don’t implement them.
And, as you said, the tone of the book can be off-putting at times. I still feel like it’s the best available resource for this problem.
My wife and I have a very simple rule, which is that both of us do tasks at the same time. No need to track time, no need to assign cards, and no resentment about one of us doing more or less than the other.
I don't know what the right answer is but I do kind of feel this desire for equal effort might be misguided. My sister wanted to spend her time raising kids. Her husband less so. That is decision they made together. It's no different than any other difference. He like working on cars. She likes knitting. She doesn't require him to spend equal time on knitting and he doesn't require her to spend equal time on cars. Why are children any different?
Further, many cultures, past in particular, seem to be very different in terms of parent involvement. To take an example from fiction, Harry Potter goes to Hogwarts at 11 years old. Yes, that's fiction but it's based on current and past cultures. It's still a thing in the UK for "elite" kids as young as 7 or 8 to go to boarding school, away from their parents. Kids in places too far for a public school are often sent to other cities, to boarding schools. East Asia & India also have famous boarding schools.
The point being, this idea that parents must be with their kids many hours a day until they kids move out of the house at 18 or 21 is not a fact of life, it's a cultural choice. I am from that culture and wish to spend as much time as possible with my kids. But I can also see it's a cultural choice, not some universal way things must be or else bad stuff happens.
Those boarding schools make for some quality upbringing!
"Winston Churchill would recall the floggings, done until pupils “bled freely” and screamed loudly. In “Such, Such Were The Joys”, George Orwell writes of being beaten so violently that his headmaster broke his riding crop and “reduced me to tears”."
A good example is the crushing stories of Frank Zappa's kids. Here is the guy touring the world making millions of dollars, releasing albums non-stop. His kids, barely saw him. For instance, his daughter Moonunit said the most time ever spent with him was recording lines for the song Valley Girl, beyond that he was fairly absent.
I have heard similar stories from many you wouldn't know, they say the same thing about their partner or parents. The desire to have it all ends up trading one thing over the other.
This is a conversation that ambitious women have been having for decades. To the point where it's a cliche. Having it about men and women is valuable, having it be about them separately I think masks some of the structural problems- e.g. better childcare, more and better laid out parental leave(1), etc.
Two things I've heard from different ambitious women: "To really achieve, you need a wife" is something I've heard a lot- that it takes one parent sacrificing some of their career priority; traditionally that was the woman but it in theory could be the man (2), it just rarely is.
The other thing an ambitious woman told me once is that her mom told her "husband, career, kids, pick two." Basically, there is just only enough energy for a given person per day to invest in two of them. I've seen some women who managed, from the outside, to at least look successful at all three, but it's rare indeed.
1: When my kid was born the software company I worked for (I'm an American at an American company, but this was an area of competition for software devs at the time) offered a 14 week paid parental leave, even for men. Most men took a four week ("secondary caregiver" leave) and overlapped it with their wives 12 week unpaid FMLA. I took mine (14 week "primary caregiver") after my wife's leave expired, such that our kid had one of us caring for him every moment of his first six months. I remain convinced that was absolutely vital as the basis for both my relationship with my son and with my wife- she had to rely on me, trust me to care for the kid, and I couldn't hand him off, it was all on me every day. And so we both developed the parental muscles, could trust that the other one understood the reality of the situation, in a way that many father's don't get a chance. And that experience convinced me that the US needs maternal leave, obviously, but it also needs paternity leave- and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
2: In a recent survey of American households https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-gr... about 55% of American heterosexual marriages the man makes 60% or more of the household income, about 30% both halves of the couple were between 40-60%, and just 16% saw the woman make more than 60% of the household income. In the majority of the 16% the woman still spent more time on unpaid household chores and carework than the man they were out-earning. Only in the 6% of heterosexual marriages where the woman earned 100% of the income did the number of hours per week in unpaid labor of men even equal that of their female partner.
> and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
Not sure how to apply a legal framework, but in my area this is often enforced by the lack of daycare options for <2yos (the threshold might be lower, but about that much).
Very rare to see parents around me take their parental leave at the same time bc they'd be risking still being on a waitlist when they're done.
I think the point that my friend's mom was making to her was that for a woman (with significantly higher social expectations for the amount of care work and housework) you can only be good at two of the three, because you are a human being with a finite amount of time and energy.
As for how you end up with just those two, I think the answer is divorce: you don't spend the energy to maintain your relationship with your spouse. Before you had kids you could invest your time and energy in your spouse and your career, then the kids come along and your relationship with your spouse weakens, either all the way to divorce or to just a degraded state.
Yeah I can accept that point of view. I think this is highlighting a certain relationship expectation delta between men (or at least myself) and women (or some women). If my wife is doing well in her career and we are doing well with the kids, I could easily see this being considered ‘good’, but my wife may view the relationship as being neglected. I see the core functions working and consider the relationship doing well.
This situation is in development for me so we will see. 0 and 3 year old
Yeah, this is also what I see as the main threat to my relationship with my wife: my complacency, taking it and her for granted. We both work hard on our parenting our 9 year old, and our careers, but then you need to spend the time with each other, lest you become roommates who run an unpaid childcare service on the side.
And I do wonder if this is about the engineer mindset ('I've reduced this to a previously solved problem, I just let the subroutine handle it') or about the way that men are socialized in my culture (just take her out to dinner twice a year- Mother's Day and Valentine's- and remember her birthday and you're meeting social expectations) or what. But it's the biggest threat to my (and I'd hazard a guess most other) marriages.
I've started peering behind the curtains when I get the chance, and I've not yet found someone wildly successful who is also a model parent. Time after time, their spouse is quietly shouldering an enormous load, or their children spin their wheels and wind up rudderless, etc.
You can certainly be successful and be a good parent, but one of the first steps is recognizing and picking out the false prophets. You can't hold yourself to a superhuman standard, which is what a parent maximizing career while letting family malinger will present. They will say, Look at me, a captain of industry with vaults of gold, who has the physique of a twenty-five year old and is also an all-star parent. And you have to figure out that it's a lie.
One little clue - start to notice: of your professional idols who are good parents and seem to have it all, how many have a spouse working a demanding full time job as well? I realized for me it was zero.
Unfortunately, I think that this is possible, but it requires a superhuman well of energy, sleep deficit tolerance, and benevolence that very very few people possess. :/
Seriously, aside from the folks with the “2hrs of sleep is enough” gene, it’s not. It’s an actively harmful myth that is sold hard. Start gathering your own evidence, with a critical fact-finding eye. Don’t just accept the narrative. It’s one of those legitimizing stories that serves the teller.
Try watching The Dawn Wall or Free Solo, keep notes, and fill in the blanks on how long they were gone from family. It’s a canned example of how it gets glossed over.
The same attitude as towards gear in weightlifting is appropriate. They tell you it’s natty all day long, but you know delts don’t get that round without gear.
> The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now.
so pedagogy and psychology researchers? giving that having biological children is the worst ecological offense someone can do in an ever increasing worldwide population? [0] how about adopting and getting into voluntary programs or even do pro-social things with your money?
giving birth on the current societal status-quo not only screws with the future of our own specie but also a bunch of others which may go extinct because of our greed
Things are considered important in the context of humanity. Environmental concerns only exist because of its impacts on humanity. The planet does not care.
Calling having children an ecological offence is like saying that best way to reduce emissions is for all people to die.
Yeah, sometimes I think people lose track of why they support environmental movements. I've had people question my choice to have kids along these lines before. I just don't understand it - surely we only care about all this stuff because it is observed by humans? For humanity to continue, someone has to have children.
I can sympathise more with the idea that humans are destroying everything and life won't be worth living for my descendants. But that feels like giving up on the possibility of humans. I don't want to do that.
In any case, it turns out that global fertility rates are in freefall and we're facing population decline faster than anyone predicted.
you can perfectly justify whatever you want based on whatever else... will take myself for example: i just slave workers on my IT firm because there are sweatshops elsewhere /j
like there isn't a correlation on more resources being used or explored in a bigger population?
Just wanted to say thank you for this. In particular, the part where often it seems the "Founder mode" icons some evangelize (seem to) neglect their children and/or effectively put childrearing entirely on their partner.
I wish I had a good term (or some other concise way) to reject/criticize this aspect of tech culture.
I say founders above but I see it happen in lots of my peers who are simply workaholics. The closest saying I have (which I repeat often) is:
"The only people who will remember you worked late are your kids."
> "The only people who will remember you worked late are your kids."
I really need to kick my engrossing tech hobbies. :(
And yes to the wider point. There are many people more capable people than me, but sometimes it's about priorities, and top achievers in fields will usually be sacrificing something else.
If we are talking about points people don't make, how about this: your life is going to get harder and worse as you get older. Your dreams will very likely die. Having kids will make that more clear, but honestly I know plenty of people with and without kids and they all struggle with the not fulfilling their ambitions (or realizing those ambitions and finding they weren't what they imagined), the fading of youth, disenchantment with their jobs, etc. Kids are all the horrible things you have heard, but it is a way to grow, it is a very concrete reason to live, at least until they move out. I very much feel the author of this post and I hope that they (and I) keep the fire that drives ambition, but grow enough to enjoy the fire itself, not care quite so much about being productive or scoring points in whatever game.
This seems like a very strange way to look at children, in effect they are a means to an ends for you personally to think your life means something. Surely you would want children because you think the world is intrinsicly beautiful and would want them to experience that? If you think life is bitter and depressing then why on earth would you force someone else to experience that as well?
It just seems like a very nihilistic and egotistical way of viewing children. Your children will also grow old and their dreams will also die and they will be faced with the same problems in life that you are currently facing.
Having extreme career success (like the kind referred to in the article) is basically a lottery ticket. I spend a lot of time with my kids, because I figure even if I halve my chances of winning the lottery, well, the odds haven’t changed that much, all considered.
The way I think of it is: my family comes first and work and whatever is second, third and so on.
I have no ambitions of running a company (the horror) or even being in charge of anything - it takes a special type of person to do that, and I am 100% not that guy.
My goal is to always be employable - so I can always provide a middle class existence for my family. Anything beyond that is of no interest to me.
Having a successful career used to be a thing to aspire to, but since I hit 40 I stopped caring about that. I used to learn a lot, but with AI I see little value in adding knowledge to my repertoaire - I would rather read a good book or fool around with my kids or go for a walk with my wife.
Work isn't going anywhere, but family time is definitely a finite resource that's slipping away every second.
I will leave the world-changing to someone else who is willing to lay it all on the line for an imaginary medal.
Exactly this! When I had my first two kids only a year apart and early in my career, I thought I'm giving something up because I could no longer invest as much time and effort into my projects and research ideas as before. But in retrospect, looking at how the field has evolved since etc., those ideas, which I had regretted I couldn't push harder, anyway had only a small chance for some grand success (beyond the low-medium success of the low-medium effort versions I managed to put together).
I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
So while PG may believe that people may have their "act already together" pre-kids, I sort of look at the amount of time people without kids waste and think "if only I had that much free time..."
Yes. Before I became a dad, I didn't realize how physically and financially constrained people are with regards to number of kids that they have. For me and my wife, our first child took all our time, resources and energy.
This was a shock to me because my parents had 4 children and never seemed to struggle. Also, they were much better off than me financially and could afford to hire help.
My biggest achievement as a dad is the fact that my son speaks 3 languages. In spite of the fact that I was working full time, he still learned to speak my native language fluently from me. And I still did house chores too. And still worked on side hustles at night and weekends.
But yes, I had no life at all for 5 years straight. No life at all. I'm a shell of my former self. My main concern is that I'm showing my son a bad example of how a dad should be. I literally can't afford to raise him with the same values as I was raised with... Because he would grow up into someone like me and that would be my greatest fear.
Now I understand why some parents spoil their children and focus 100% on boosting the child's confidence. This is what you have to do if you're poor. Because you need your child to believe they are above you. That way when they see how shit your life is, they don't have to believe theirs will also end up like this.
> I literally can't afford to raise him with the same values as I was raised with...
If it's any consolation he would have to figure out that himself anyway, because the world is currently changing faster than ever.
I was on vacation a while ago, where I had to explain to my kids the concept of not being able to pause a TV broadcast.
They live in a world of entertainment on demand and LLMs. My values were coined way before all that.
As for myself I'm wearing the skin of that young man I was 10 years ago and don't understand what was the big deal with some of those things he cared so much for.
>Because he would grow up into someone like me and that would be my greatest fear
If you didn't want someone to be like you, then you probably shouldn't have given them 50% of your DNA. If it's any consolation, a child's eventual personality has very little to do with their upbringing.
The old "I won't raise my kids like my parents raised me" problem, which inevitably seems to lead to raising kids with a different set of grievances and unresolved issues.
I realised it was a lost cause when I realised that literally everyone I knew had some sort of "my parents are imperfect and it's broken me somehow" story. I think it might just be part of the human condition to grow up and realise your parents were flawed humans who made mistakes raising you.
Yeah, most people are just trying to make it day to day doing their best. We are flawed but that is what make it fun.
There is also just a matter of randomness.
Marcus Aurelius was considered one of the great emperors of Rome with a fairly level head considering his position. It seems like he would have been an idea parent, so when his son Commodus came a long as almost the total opposite. It says something about human nature, it cannot be contained at times.
At every point in my life after age 25 or so, I could look back 10 years and be appalled at how much time I wasted back then. 50-year-old me is angry at 40-year-old me for wasting my 40s, as 25-year-old me was angry at 15-year-old me for wasting my high school time. What a waste my youth always seems!
For me to feel like it is wasted is to put on a definition of the time period that wasn't there. It is internal personal fan fiction at that point.
I don't feel like I missed out on anything.
There is also the added point of whatever position you take, it is always a trade off with something else.
To be awfully reductionist. The fat people envy the skinny because their health is in check, the skinny envy the fat because they have a sense of care free freedom.
> I work at home, and if I wanted to, I could have a computer right by my bed, and I’d never have to leave it. But I use a typewriter, and afterward I mark up the pages with a pencil. Then I call up this woman named Carol out in Woodstock and say, “Are you still doing typing?” Sure she is, and her husband is trying to track bluebirds out there and not having much luck, and so we chitchat back and forth, and I say, “Okay, I’ll send you the pages.”
> Then I go down the steps and my wife calls, “Where are you going?” “Well,” I say, “I’m going to buy an envelope.” And she says, “You’re not a poor man. Why don’t you buy a thousand envelopes? They’ll deliver them, and you can put them in the closet.” And I say, “Hush.”
> So I go to this newsstand across the street where they sell magazines and lottery tickets and stationery. I have to get in line because there are people buying candy and all that sort of thing, and I talk to them. The woman behind the counter has a jewel between her eyes, and when it’s my turn, I ask her if there have been any big winners lately.
> I get my envelope and seal it up and go to the postal convenience center down the block at the corner of Forty-seventh Street and Second Avenue, where I’m secretly in love with the woman behind the counter. I keep absolutely poker-faced; I never let her know how I feel about her. One time I had my pocket picked in there and got to meet a cop and tell him about it.
> Anyway, I address the envelope to Carol in Woodstock. I stamp the envelope and mail it in a mailbox in front of the post office, and I go home.
> And I’ve had a hell of a good time. I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you any different.
> I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
I'm shocked by the sanctimonious tone of those with kids; it's likely professional bias from having someone that needs schooling at home.
Then, I will always be amazed by how those with offspring feel the need to constantly validate and justify themselves for their choice, while those without barely touch the argument.
I'm not saying I'm better than me without kids; I'm just saying the level of freedom (high) and time management required without kids (low) is shocking and I believe it can only be fully realized in the normcore world by having kids.
I think to be honest its a good indicator of who I might consider a good boss; if its an uninvolved parent who hires out help to manage their kid and doesn't participate, that's a scary person to work for. They will expect the same of you.
Similarly, those without offspring don't fully understand that free dinner at work isn't a perk. You have a small life form that needs you at home to be present.
Things like kids rolling in to work at 11, eating free lunch, then working a few hours and eating free dinner is no longer fun; it becomes an annoying perception of non-productivity. Partly jealousy, because you used to be able to do that. And now you are regimented around a school and activity schedule.
Not sure this is fully accurate. Managing kids can use up one's will power or self control resources considerably. There can also be sleep deprivation with young children and other energy drain. I'm not really sure but my focus / ability to avoid distractions at work may actually have gotten worse since having kids.
I kinda miss the argument why so many “ambitious” people are bad parents. Maybe because it is too obvious? If you are not present for your child at the time your kid grows up (before and after school, weekends, etc) you are not a parent at all. You’re a roommate with certain privileges, but no child is interested in that.
People who work 60+ hours a week will be “worse” parents than others.
I don't think a lot of people will agree with you here because it's HN, but you are right. There are exceptions, of course, and it's way easier for the father to still have a career, but I have seen personally the difference between the parent that stays at home and the one that goes out to work. The connection with the children is different. I would hope that AI gives them more time with their children, but I know that it will not happen
I'm reading Careless People, and it discusses parents in high positions at Fb. They are not parents. They hire people to do most of the work. The author was "talked to" about sharing a story about her child.
My father worked 2 jobs in my teenage years. While I appreciate that he supported me to the best of his ability, I regret not having a connection with him. No trips, no plans together. Now, our relationship is need based.
I felt very conflicted about this topic when I was young and working for Apple. I decided the Valley commute and rat race wasn’t very family conducive so I took a remote job and moved a few states over and it’s been great.
I’ve been fully remote for 12+ years now, and I’ve had a very successful career in engineering and engineering leadership. I also have eight kids that I get to spend a ton of time with. There’s a remote tax on career growth, but my RE side hustles have more than compensated for it.
Every now and then I wonder what might have been if I had stayed at Apple. No way to know for sure, but I probably couldn’t have afforded the family and lifestyle that I enjoy now.
There’s “how to be a good parent” advice and there’s also “oh boy how do we manage mealtimes and laundry and the school run” type advice. Someone with lots of kids is going to have great insights into the latter at very least.
I am the father, and I have a ton of involvement in the day-to-day work of running the house. This brings me and my wife a lot of satisfaction and it undoubtedly wouldn’t be possible if I was still commuting to work in Silicon Valley.
Most successful people I know have much higher number of children than the average. Unicorn and decacorn founders with 2-5 kids, every single one I know.
I think it's the energy and desire to live a rich fulfilling life. Building a company was part of it, but at least for me, family is ever greater fulfillment. From where I can see, all are still together with their kids parent and seem like ok parents themselves.
I also, had a successful yet still a great, supportive dad. He traveled a lot for work, was in one of the highest engineering positions available, all through my younger years. Still a great dad. He is immensely curious about us kids (and now grandkids), positive, kind. I think the curiosity part made him a great engineer but also a great parent.
I have 3 kids now and while it's true there's less time, I guess my experience has thought me not to think of it as any kind of limiting factor towards life.
They are not driving their kids to daycare/schools/doctor's office themselves.
If you have the means to let someone else take care of your kids, sure.
The vast, vast majority of people, including most tech company employees, need to make arrangements for these everyday chores, some of which affect which meetings they have to skip and when/if they can show up in the office.
Yep absolutely. Available support network (grand parents) and what role your partner has, can make a big difference. If you don't have these available, nor the means to pay for extra childcare, cleaning, cooking at home then it becomes more difficult.
Maybe ambitious is not the right word. It's more like, at some point you have to go home.
Before my kids, I started at sunrise, and coming home was optional. Then I got married and divided my attention. Then I got twins, so I divided it even more. But it doesn't make me any less ambitious, in fact, I have more fire behind me to ensure I give them a bright future. It's just that, I come home on time now.
Edit: and thank you for writing this post. It's rarely something we mention in our personal blogs, but it's always nice to know how diverse this culture is.
Exactly. If he means successful instead, then we can have different definitions of successful. That being said, I don't think most startup founders have the same definition of successful as that meets: dad that wants to be there for their children.
First definition of ambition in merriam webster is "an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power." Ambition is basically definitionally antisocial.
A desire to accumulate power is tantamount to a desire to accumulate wealth. Most ways to wealth these days involve finding ways to consume more of the world's resources or siphon resources to yourself.
Consider refining word choice. (Though if your notion of ambition corresponds to building a sillycon valley startup, then 'ambition' is probably the right word.) I don't mean that nothing good ever comes of technology; I mean that VC-funded startup tech is mostly done in the pursuit of money, damn any social consequences.
Over time I've come to realize that some of the most organic time—sometimes seemingly mundane, other times seemingly very unpleasant—spent with your kids can yield some incredibly high quality downstream. It isn't about being opportunistic. It's about gradually building something together. It's the same with any relationship. If you treated your spouse like this, they would leave you. If you treat your kids like this, they're mostly trapped, but given the chance one day, they will likely leave you behind to some degree or another.
Things worth building take time, effort, dedication, and perseverance. Social relations are the epitome of this. There are no short cuts. Everyone notices when you're opportunistic. Your kids most of all.
The author expresses frustration, which I totally feel too. But I often remind myself that life was never promised to be easy, nor are many things worth doing very easy (and if they are, acquiring or experiencing those things is usually the fruit of some other effort).
I've tended to enjoy being ambitious about work because it comes so easily, too. While it feels great to be productive, I'm not sure it means what it feels like it means. My productivity doesn't mean anything to others, other than my employers. Who cares? My kids don't care. My wife doesn't care. And all the while it doesn't really push me to grow in any direction other than one I already feel very comfortable with. In my experience, this is fine and healthy to engage in moderately, but going bananas with it directly subtracts from the rest of your life (such as your relationship with your kids). And there's no way that in 30 years at the end of my life I'd be glad I was good at... What, building stuff on the computer? Do I want to be alone with that thought? Not at all.
First, I respect anyone’s choice not to be a parent. It’s constant, demanding work, far more intense than any job I’ve ever had as a baseline.
Second, this is the third time in two days I’ve seen some variation on “I dreamed of doing something significant and never wanted kids.” That’s a wild construction. Having kids is incredibly significant, and more world-changing than most of us will ever do. Having kids didn’t give my life meaning, but I’m certainly able to pour life’s meaning into my kid and family more than into anything else before it.
Life insurance companies and federal agencies estimate the value of the life of an average US citizen at around 10 million USD, last I checked. If you consider that anywhere close to accurate, it's hard to imagine anything you could do with a higher ROI than having a child, at least from a public goods perspective. You'll never see the 10 million but they're out there enjoying themselves because you helped bring them into being. And if you consider it a woeful underestimate, or that it's wrong to put a price on something priceless, that argument only gets stronger.
>Having kids is incredibly significant, and more world-changing than most of us will ever do
This is a strange thing to say. Where does the "world changing" part come from, is it just in the parent's head? Or are you expecting it to be in the actions of your children? Surely your parents would have also done something "world changing" by having you, which implies that your existence is already world changing.
Maybe this is just a saying and not to be taken literally. But I feel like people divorce the concept of "having children" from the reality of that child becoming an adult and having all the same worries and neuroses you do.
Creating a sentient person and equipping him or her to exist in and affect the world is by definition world changing, and to a far greater and more sustained degree than almost any entrepreneurial activity. The usual construct is “I thought I knew what was important until I had kids,” which I have historically actually been uncomfortable with (because imho being a good parent is as much about being fully you than putting on a parent uniform), but what’s notable about the meditations on the topic I’ve seen in the last couple of days is the persistence in bifurcating “something of significance” from “having children”, as if the writers never quite accept that having kids is significant. I fully accept that people have wildly different ideas about having kids, but it’s odd (to me) to not see parenthood as at least as significant as starting a business.
I guess sure, but if the main "world changing" thing you do is have children, then that would imply that the main "world changing" thing your children do, is again have children. So if your child turns out to be infertile or something, has your "world changing" effect suddenly vanished? If the only real value you have as a person is to create more people.
> “I thought I knew what was important until I had kids”
I wouldn't doubt this, obviously in the mind of the parent their children are going to be an almost spiritual experience. But it seems like the most important thing children -actually do- is make their parents happier.
People usually talk about children in terms of how it makes them feel I guess, "my children give me meaning" etc. With the children being more of an abstraction of "potential".
> “I dreamed of doing something significant and never wanted kids.” That’s a wild construction. Having kids is incredibly significant
Sure, but you have to remember that there is most likely a silent "and new" in there; most jobs in a competitive industry are significant, because otherwise they would be cut. Being a cleaner at a hospital you are doing significant work too, but at the same time it is probably not what was imagined by an author of the phrase "I dream of doing significant things".
'Ambitious' often means doing optional things that take time.
A single person who cuts back on time spent doom scrolling / tv watching / beer drinking to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices is ambitious.
A new parent who cuts back on time with their kids to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices needs their head checked.
I didn’t like what the market was offering, and I didn’t like depending on other people not firing me, so I made one for myself where I can work on what I like the way I like (started a small software business).
You can, too. It’s the simplest and cheapest business to start in the entire history of humankind, and you literally just sit with your laptop at home all day pressing buttons
Did you forget what the post we're commenting on is about?
I watch a toddler all day so my wife can do her best to not get let go too along with household work that other people pay people to do. I'm not building a business that can pay my mortgage with 2 hours of free time at night.
I’m far less ambitious, but not less driven. It’s just that what I’m driving for is to maximize time doing things I and my family enjoy. In fact it’s a lens through which I analyze jobs and career opportunities.
I feel like my dreams have died with becoming a parent and having a family. 2 hours of free time isn't enough focus time to do anything significant or learn anything. I thought abound going back to school recently and there's no practical way to pull it off. Once they're in school I'll be in my 40s anyway. I doubt I'm pivoting my life into anything fun at that point. It's been tough to deal with mentally.
what the author doesn't say - is being ambitious at what ? ambitious at making useless software ? useless hardware ?
in tech we like to overwork on nonsense problems ie working on problems that change or are non permanent. literally if 98% of the software went away today it won't be missed, just like shit that came before.
if people listened to Jeff Bezos - who said - focus on things that don't change - you will realize - you can live your life - without overworking. because guess what - if you don't do something today, the problem Will exist tomorrow & the day after.
certain problems never get fully solved, just tiny bits of progress.
thank you for this, very well written, and rings true.
I will say for me this is the root contradiction:
> I do not believe the quality time theory. I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them; there are no diminishing returns for them on that front.
If you believe that to be the most true statement, then it leads to the conclusion that you should work as little as possible to spend as most time with them, up to and including not working at all. The ambition to be kidmaxxing, if you will. This is incompatible with career ambition obviously.
I guess i'm just sharing the same frustration but with a stronger conclusion - it seems fundamentally contradictory to be ambitious in both, at least at young ages. Seems like we're fooling ourselves if we think you can, we're compromising on one aspect at least.
Ultimately any two ambitions will compete with each other for finite time and energy. (Assuming each ambition benefits from more time and energy being spent on it, which is usually the case.)
You can be reasonably successful in multiple areas, but you can't max them all, you have to compromise somehow.
I read the post as the author acknowledging the compromise, expressing frustration about it, and determining to live on the pareto frontier with his strategy of focus and discipline and so on. Sacrificing other things in order to achieve both ambitions at a high level (though not maximizing either one).
"Maximising time within reason" is probably a better construction. As usual if you follow these arguments to their absolute meaning they become ridiculous
But what’s “within reason”? Right now I have an unlimited list of ambitions of things to do with my kids. Traveling, sports, skiing, mountain biking, surfing, camping, building, electronics, etc etc… there are not enough hours in a year to do just those with zero paid work. Is that ridiculous, assuming I can afford to do so?
"Define nuance" I dunno, it depends on all of the factors that go into your life. There might be a lower level construction of the logical argument but it eludes me and begins to feel arbitrary
This is something that makes me really sad, because as an extremely ambitious man, I've found it difficult to make friends with men who are similarly ambitious. It seems that everyone gives up once they have a kid and becomes a helicopter parent. I like to think I'm a good dad (have four kids; work from home; regularly do sports, music, etc with them; cook regularly) and also pretty ambitious (work in a MAANA company, have side businesses and gigs, have a good marriage, hobbies, exercise, etc), but it's difficult to find other dads into this. Or at least that's my perception here in Portland, OR. I've met a few, but most ambitious people seem uninterested in kids, and the ones interested in kids seem thoroughly unambitious in my opinion.
This resonates a lot with how I felt while building our company. My kids were born during the early days of our startup and it was pretty much what he described- work and being a dad. Thankfully the startup was pretty successful and I made a good amount of money that’s allowed me the luxury of not having to work when the older one was 10. I am really enjoying not working and being a full time dad :-)
The thought of having kids brings up really complex feelings for me. I feel like the biological clock is ticking louder and louder and yet I barely have a career to speak of. I live with the constant burden of ADHD and have always struggled to hold down a job. The optimist in me thinks that maybe things will improve in the future and I should just take the plunge and figure things out. The pessimist worries that I'm already at capacity just waking up, cooking, cleaning for myself and kids would push me over the edge.
I once bumped into a couple of very high profile VCs sitting outside a coffee shop. Somehow the conversation got round to the fact that we were potty training our 12-month-old. One of the VCs told me their two kids, 2 and 3 years old, weren't yet out of nappies, just used pull-ups, because there hadn't been time to potty train them. There are reasons why this could have been legit (failed attempts, developmentally challenged children, etc.) but it was delivered as a kind of admonishment that I was involved in potty-training at all (even though their fund hadn't invested in my business or even been pitched).
It really depressed me at the time, realising there was a class of entrepreneurs and backers who were genuinely stop-at-nothing, even if it meant their three-year-old at day care was wondering why he was the only nappy-wearer, and carrying that subliminally into later life.
What I learnt from that and host of other experiences over time was that a young family and running a venture-backed, high-growth trajectory business aren't very compatible, but...
What I've also learned is that your first venture's going to be imperfectly executed anyway, so get the learnings out of the way anyway, with kids in the picture, then go again when the kids are school-age, and hope they get to enjoy the fruits of venture number two as teenagers.
Also, I never saw consistency from the people who put venture before family. They'd be buying shots for young staff at 11.00 at night on a week night, checking their crypto-balance continously, micro-managing, taking unnecessary business trips, etc. There are some absolute time-management machines out there, who never seem to waste a moment of their working days (I know two, and they both combined successful startups and young families), but in reality everyone needs some downtime/respite and family time is a better restorative than anything else except pure rest.
On that point, there's the famous adage, 'Startup, sleep, parenthood. Pick any two.' I picked startup and parenthood. Sleep deprivation means I look 10 years older than I am, but no regrets.
Finally, I think kids give you a second wave of competitive determination after your initial ambition wanes. Problematic investors, cheating competitors, over-demanding enterprise customers, careless execs, etc. could leave a lone individual feeling sorry for themselves, and defeatist. It's amazing how creative and determined one becomes when it feels like these different personas are causing setbacks that, rathervthan just interfering with your personal ambitions, might be stealing your kids' future opportunities and financial security.
I've seen something similar with regards to neglecting child development, but instead of nappies, they're just not fed properly. People who have more disposable income than I could imagine, but are strapped for time, feed their children the simplest, most low effort food imaginable. Think a cheeseburger from McDonald's, plain pasta or bread, frosted flakes, etc. Their excuse is that their child won't eat anything else, but more often than not it's a matter of getting them accustomed with other foods, which of course takes time and effort.
I'm getting to the point where I too feel like I most likely won't be noteworthy in any professional sense (i.e. a name known across the industry), but at moments like that I take solace in the fact I'm taking time to spend with my son, learn alongside him, and provide him a life that I never had in so many other ways.
I remember being shocked by the carelessness of (some of) the wealthy in this regard when I first became friends with (newly) rich people in lines of work where you couldn't be too precious about ethics (finance, property, music, film, TV). Feeding kids cereal for their evening meals before heading out for dinner. Unopened shopping hauls cluttering the hallway for days or weeks with the packaging from the items that have actually been opened littering the carpet. Broken or unused tech and toys everywhere. Single items of laundry getting emergency washes while actual laundry just piles up. Domestic help getting requisitioned to do random errands instead of getting on top of their actual duties. Prestige cars scraped and ticketed. Pets loitering hopefully by the fridge. Beautiful, enormous homes in chaos. Drugs not usually a contributing factor, just a kind of grasping selfishness that made both chores and children an unwanted demand. Depressing.
If you have kids and you prioritize your career to the point you never see your kids, and you will have huge and legitimate regrets later in life. Especially if you don't achieve Jobs / Musk level of financial success. That's pretty common knowledge.
But the opposite is also true. As parents, we're always examples for our kids, for better or worse. Do we want our kids to see us abandon our dreams 'because of them' or do we want them to see their parents showing them how to go after their dreams, because that's what life is about ?
The middle way, perhaps? What "dreams" are more important than having a strong connection with your kids? Not only are the regrets that will come later in life huge and legitimate, they would also be irreversible. But, assuming you're in relatively good health midlife, you can always attempt to build the 5 startups that will almost definitely fail. Just my opinion of course.
Ah, I may have misunderstood your comment. I thought you were leaning more towards the "dream" part. But so my comment also meant to say that the definition of ambition and success changed after becoming a parent. I know I won't be curing cancer in my lifetime and so what thing is really important that I have to sacrifice time with my children for? To me, being the founder of the next failed facebook for cats is just not it.
Note that I am not talking about earning a living and thus necessarily sacrificing time doing that and showing your kids that sometimes you have to work hard to survive in a decent way. I am talking about the parents who outsource their children to childcare to work to pay off the loan on their third car and newest iphone and tell you that they have no choice.
I have many similar thoughts, but one thing that worries me is also trying too hard to do the optimal thing. I often find that my own expectations collide with reality (kids’ moods, random events necessitating change of plans etc). So it’s important to switch from “rationally making shit happen” mode during work time to “vibe and see what happens” during family time. This mental switch is hard.
It drives me crazy that everything in SF is designed to either be kid-focused or adult-focused. There's very few places where you can have a serious conversation with a collaborator while with your kids. Dogpatch Hub (right by YC) is one of the few exceptions - excellently stocked kids space, snacks, WiFi, and comfy chairs for adults to work.
I've been working on something similar at Mox (the effective altruism coworking space in the mission) as part of my (joyful parenting efforts but it won't be ready until winter when their 1st floor renovations are done.
I used to think that it was hard to make the decision to have kids, but somehow now it feels harder to make the decision to not have them. I am at the age that people around me have kids ranging from new borns to young adults (and somebody is always pregnant). Having kids is totally normalized. I socialize a lot in childrens parties. Kids schedules determine what we can do with friends most of the time. I am often the babysitter and take care of other peoples children.
When I was growing up I thought everyone had kids (I guess I only socialized with families with kids). This was my future. As a young adult making the jump to having kids seemed like a big decision, but with hindsight that looks like following the default path. Now that there is growing amount of people like me with no kids I am wondering what life should look like. I lack the rolemodels.
I have witnessed my friends grow a lot in short time period when they have a kid. At first it’s a bit jarring how baby takes over their life. I think it is super cool and all of them say that it is an unique experience they can’t really explain.
By the time kid hits maybe 10 years old they have adjusted and interaction with them is pretty normal again from my perspective.
At the same time I feel I have also grown at my own pace. I don’t feel totally out of sync with my grown up parent friends although I must say I can be bit more lighthearted and experimental with my life. The stakes are low. It is not like I think life is about career or hedonistic pursuits anymore. I don’t want to live the life of a 30 year old. I value being part of society, socially present and giving. Enjoying simple things and seeing beauty in the world.
In a way my life looks like that of an empty nester, but without the prospect of seeing my child building a life for themselves, having grand children etc. Feels like a big decision I have done for my future self.
Being a parent teaches you how to stop procrastinating and use every second you have available. You are at your most productive era (work items per minute spent).
The bad news is that the day still has 24 hours, and that means that your career needs to adapt.
For example I had to turn down an opportunity that would require me to be putting 70 hours per week and I stayed at a job that I could do 9-5. That opportunity went sideways (the startup failed) so overall my career is fine.
A lot of good stuff in this thread. The party I'll add and haven't seen yet is that I think being a dad has made me a better people manager at work. I think about humans more than ever and that has helped make me more efficient at work
Like OP with my first kid, I constantly had itchy fingers -- too many ideas to ever execute on. Tired and no more flow state. Work seemed like a waste of time with politics. My hobbies were my outlet - and now it was reduced to maybe 1 hrs a day.
Then AI got good.
I've always been able to solve problems fast in my head, but was bottlenecked by fingers and dumb infra.
AI gave me my time back honestly. Nix solved infra. backlog CLI kept the work clear. Good engineering, in spurts.
Now I have more execution power than ever, and I can steer my minions. Yes, I don't get to code and there is little flow state, but I always better liked to solve a problem and go to the next than actually typing it out.
From my phone, wireguard and aVNC to my homelab, I conduct ralph loops on my architecture and principles. This is so powerful, that my brain poops out even more ideas - and so I find myself fully immersed - another kind of flow state.
Consequence: Brain fry and less sleep, so sometimes I just crash out and sleep for 10 hrs. Usually get 5-6 hrs nowadays.
I’m a dad who has struggled with this too. I’ve also had the privilege of getting to know a relatively large number of highly successful people.
One thing I’ve noticed is that, yes, to make it into the history books you likely have to pursue your career at the cost of everything else (and be insanely lucky).
But right below that degree of one in a billion success is a much larger group of very successful people who manage to achieve admirable balance in their lives. Their spouses love them, their kids want to spend time with them, and rhey might even have a hobby or two.
The thing is, these people tend to be quieter - a few I know are downright secretive. They aren’t constantly online or in the press seeking validation because they have achieved fulfillment at home and work.
Hits hard. I know this is wrong, but I often find myself resentful when I see colleagues burning the midnight oil (or otherwise putting in time that I no longer have) in service of career progression.
I think the author is spot on about ruthlessly optimizing the time you do have, though. That seems to be the only way to keep up.
> I often find myself resentful when I see colleagues burning the midnight oil
I don't care, especially with AI. I just let it do all the work and I take credit. Plus career progression after a certain point is useless - more responsibilities for smaller increases in paycheck.
I found that being a senior developer is the sweet spot for me - others have to think about the product and requirements and communicate and I just sit autistically in the corner and ship at my own pace.
Personal ambition is often a poor signal for living your life because it tends to have an arbitrary and empty goal, being successful or powerful or wealthy just for the sake of it. It will be a struggle and never feel like enough, each milestone is as arbitrary as the last.
The people I have known who were the most grounded, happiest, productive, and fulfilled all understood their lives on some level to be in service of something that has value to more than just themselves. That can be being a mom or dad, furthering the knowledge of humanity, serving your community, it can be anything that you recognize as greater than yourself.
It brings you into contact with other people who share the same goal. It is a stronger fuel than personal ambition, and one that doesn't leave you empty along the way.
So this piece really resonates with me. I have a five month old child who I really like/love - but I am filled with a passionate software idea and everytime I get a tiny bit of time to work on it, it is heaven. A while back I was able to do one hour in the morning before work on it - but have lost that hur recently. At night, I occassionally look wistfully at my computer sometimes and wish I could build - but I am just trying to be patient and I am hopefully I will soon get back 'one hour' a day in my evenings. One day...
My partner and I are considering paying for a weekend nanny to look after the boy when he turns one on Sunday- so again we have free time to work on our passion projects. Its great to be a dad but it is so time consuming with young children.
A somewhat unpopular opinion, but personally I don't mind being kind of absent in my kids' lives relative to others' expectations. I think there's been some expectation creep around parental involvement for high-achieving couples without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of. There's also something to be said for leaning on grandparents and other support structures more heavily than a lot of people currently do.
One "superpower" from being married with kids is that your life becomes a lot more predictable. Like, having sex regularly and spending quality family time is probably a healthy part of a balanced, productive lifestyle, and is a good counterbalance to the stresses of a demanding career - it's nice not to always be thinking about how you're going to get laid, or in the event that you do become successful, whether or not your partner is just gold digging you or something. Although a lot of that depends on who you marry and making sure you're both doing good maintenance.
For what it's worth, I had a "high-achieving" dad. The big house, going on vacation and all that jazz was nice, sure. My grandparents and the support system were cool too. I consider the grandma who raised us while he worked like my second mother. I definitely would have preferred to get to spend a lot more time with him before he got old. Cause he is now, that wheel ain't turning back, and I barely got to know him. He was present as much as he could with the career he chose.
We turned out okay, no major problems with any of us, decent careers, whatever. I guess we probably wouldn't have turned out much better. So yeah, I guess there wouldnt have been much in terms of better "outcome". Still, my siblings have voiced the same regret. I genuinely think he does too. The expectation of being more present than he was is one I give myself, not "expectation creep".
I think the difference between your opinion and others is that for many being a dad is the intention and not an expectation. They want the experience of being an active and present parent. If it were purely about obligation, in this day and age they probably just wouldn't have children.
> without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of.
Not to pick on others’ life choices, but I don’t think that this particular assertion is true. Depends on your evidentiary bar, I suppose, but just from googling it:
* Mass General’s Fatherhood Project (https://thefatherhoodproject.org/schools/the-research/): “Findings from the rapidly growing science of early childhood and brain development show that a father’s active participation and emotional engagement with his children leads to improved social, emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes.”
Just because you don't see the many small moments when your children need you doesn't mean they don't exist; trust me bro, they do. Your partner or support network is probably doing too much to cover for your absence, to you and your kids' detriment. Unless you're a horrible bastard, they'd probably rather have you around more.
I grew up having a "kind of absent" father who focused on his high-paying career more than spending time with his kids. He no doubt rationalized it to no end, but the net result was that he wasn't there when I needed him the most. Growing up I often wished we were poorer so he could be around more.
I agree in the strongest terms with the article's rejection of "quality time" as a substitute for quantity, and the rejection of delegating away one's parenting.
I agree so strongly that I walked away from a promising postgraduate degree and millions of dollars of future compensation in my relatively secure MAANG position to be a full-time father to my young children.
I know not everyone can do this and don't know what the future will hold, but at least we'll be together.
Being a dad is fulfilling enough that I don’t want to do anything else but hang out with my kids. Perhaps that’s what Paul Graham meant when he said kids make you less ambitious? And I know the day will come when they won’t like to hang out with me, so I’ll have the time to go back to building things.
In college, I burned out on normal coursework and dropped out to teach myself how to code instead. To support myself, I worked in restaurants. I found that working as a dishwasher was quite complementary to learning to code. It was tiring physically, but I ended each day in need of mental stimulation, so went home and coded all night.
Now, as a father, I've found there's a similar complementarity in some ways but not others. There's a huge physical component to parenting, and this is perfectly complementary. There's also an emotional aspect (sometimes 2 or even 3 cry at once). This can be complementary or not depending on how much emotional labor work required (usually very little).
The one area where both work and kids is exhausting is attention. A toddler demands a huge amount of attention, and performing at work does too.
> I know many ambitious parents; it’s not an uncommon combination
That is a weird statement. Most people eventually have kids, so obviously the average ambitious person has kids.
My experience is actually that there is a bias towards more ambition among the childless. Not because of laziness of parents, mind you. But in the decision whether to have kids or not, ambition may play the decisive role, everything else being equal. It goes so far that I have heard otherwise reasonable people resent childless colleagues because of course those workaholics can afford to push overtime while those with kids are pushed into carreer disadvantages, so they say.
I started off and a shy, awkward (probably autistic) computer programmer wondering if I could ever convince a woman to marry me. Now I'm on my 3rd kid and hoping for more.
Parenting gives to access to a part of the world you never knew existed. The school events, sports, Cub Scouts, neighbors down the street. You meet people who are trying to create a great world for their children. Your interests align, so you end of working together on it. You actually become part of the community.
I used to be Mr. Career, and maybe someday I'll get back to it. But right now my job plays such a small role in my life compared to my family.
When I was in high school, my dad was an executive at a large international Fortune 500 finance firm.
His main job was to fly around the world and train salespeople on how better attract and retain clients.
One year, he was traveling for 180 days aka half of the entire year.
For many years I was somewhat conflicted about this b/c on the one hand he wasn't around much but on the other hand my mom didn't have to work, we had a great life and got to take international vacations every year.
As a father now, I appreciate the sacrifice my dad made to not see us as much but to provide a great life for his wife and kids.
This article reminds me of a time when I was pushing my kid on a swing in the backyard after work. It was all I was doing. No background processes running mentally. With all the obligations and people waiting on me at work and deliverables due yesterday, I had managed to turn it off. It occurred to me that simply pushing my kid on a swing and thinking of nothing else was probably the most important thing I could ever do in that single moment. That was a freeing change of perspective for me.
Is a bit harsh to me. You might be ultra competitive but it could also be how you define it. But in my opinion sometimes “time wasting activities” are needed for recharging your own batteries and this kind of phrasing sounds like burnout.
Like if I said fishing someone would justify it as not being time wasting etc or meditating or something you would justify as health work but that justification is even contradictory to meditation at all.
time wasting is an odd phrase and stressful wording to me I don’t like. “wasting time” can sometimes be a productive and useful endeavor.
Conflating low quality downtime (like scrolling on your phone) to fishing is not fair. I've probably been happiest during periods of almost zero downtime (but still separate days off)
You’re missing my point that is that any activity that does not have a means to an end or reaching some goal or objective does not make it a negative… unless you’re ultra competitive and every single activity (even spending time with your kids) has to be seen as a means to an end.
This is pretty accurately defined as spiritual materialism
Right now you have a window. AI can do a huge chunk of the work you were doing last year, and outside of programming, nobody seems to know about it yet. I've cut 10 hours a week out of my schedule in the last several months just in time to have my first kid, at the ripe old age of 46.
They'll figure it out and we will be right back to the same pressure we had before, but for a short time at least, if your field is competitive, you have a huge edge.
For me (father of 5 adult children, +2) being an older man and an experienced father (and grandfather as well) my parental responsibilities have largely changed what being ambitious means. As a man in my late 30s to 40s, I was ambitious in a fairly conventional sense, although my focus was a little unconventionally centered. Over the last decade or so, my focus has drifted to ways I can prepare my family for, or influence outcomes of the course of events. Some of those things are intersectional with creating value and benefiting from that process, but that part has become a lot less important to me even if it isn’t any less urgent.
At my age, you start to understand the trajectory aspect of life and how changing circumstances put the lie to the illusion of stability and permanence. You start to glimpse things in the context of centuries, with decades as fundamental units rather than years, or months. Even things that happened before you were born begin to seem recent, and things evolving half a decade or more in the future are fairly clear and immediately relevant.
Watching time compress as you age is indeed illuminating.
Another thing is arguments you have as a child with an adult. It's not that kids are always "technically" wrong when they argue their cases or reasons for things - It's that you realize how impactful actions/words are and often technical details don't matter as much as the grand scheme of things.
Uh, I think at the very least you have to caveat on the age of the kids. Babies need a lot of fussy obsessiveness. Kids arms aren’t long enough for them to wipe their own ass until they’re about 4. Don’t know when you get them to start doing laundry or dishes but that takes longer still.
Watching my kid grow up I realise that despite the modern world having/wanting so many kids we really don't build affordances for them.
Most kids 5-8 at the family dinner table are trying to eat from a plate at shoulder height. No wonder they don't care about cutlery use. It's pretty hard to put downwards force on a knife that is at shoulder height, let alone coordinate all the minor muscle movements required.
The bathroom sink in most houses, similar height, and they struggle to reach taps and soap.
Little stools abound around the home!
But then you go out and public toilets have hand driers right next to their head. No surprise they complain it is too damn loud!
In a world where we supposedly want kids, if for no other reason than to keep society going, we sure don't make it easy for them.
Why not having a hobby that includes friends? Playing in a band, singing in a choir, hiking, learning a language in evening school, going to the pub, just to name some of the possibilities. There are a lot more.
It shouldn't be hard though. For me personally, I'm mostly friends with other dads with kids and I do my hobbies (music, rock climbing, skiing) with my kids. It's not that difficult.
This. Involve your kids in your hobbies. If they aren't interested, that's okay too -- you can be involved in theirs. Some hobbies have a finite life anyway. You aren't going to be a gymnast forever, for example, and that's okay.
I very much agree with this blog post but would reframe it a bit. I think ambition, like most things in life, is zero-sum and requires trade-offs. Before kids, all of your ambition could go into your professional life, but what happens when you become a parent and have parental ambitions?
To have a life that will feel successful to you, you need to have your ambitions aligned with what really matters to you. Whether that is being a great parent, having great community, building a great company, creating amazing works of art, etc.
There isn't necessarily one "right" balance, but there are certainly many examples of people who went all in on one thing (Einstein, Steve Jobs, etc) to the detriment of anything else, even though they brought children into this world. It doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong, but they were probably crap fathers to have.
One of the biggest challenges I have as an ambitious engineer and a father of two, is that I do actually have plenty of time to be a high achiever in both facets of my life, but only if I'm working in isolation.
My kids are active in about 12-13 hour period between 6.30am and 7.30pm. The rest of the time they're asleep. On school days, window of time in which I can actually be present with them narrows right down to two blocks: 6.30-8.30, and 3.30-7.30. That's only 6 hours in a business day in which I can be active and present with them, leaving me with 18 hours to get everything else done.
There's obviously more to being a dad than just being actively engaged with your children when they're at home and awake. There's all this supplemental work that needs to happen to support them as well. But it's not _that_ much.
The problem is that this I spend with my children actively overlaps the time in which my peers and co-workers are working. Not being available to my teams for synchronous communication slows down their execution, and not having my team available to me while I'm working slows down my own execution. When my team or I need answers or collaboration to unblock us, communicating asynchronously means we can potentially be blocking for half a day or more on a task.
At that point you can either just wait and be unproductive, or start/continue a different task, maintaining multiple active work streams. The latter is problematic for a number of reasons, such as the increased cognitive load of regular context switching, an inability to work on dependent tasks, etc.
So ultimately for me, I don't think the issue is that there's not enough time to do both, it's just that both work and family generally need you at the same time.
I was thinking lately how lucky I am to have gotten good guidance from my parents and grandparents that oriented me well to life and work. I think this is / used to be more commonly understood or maybe just seems that way.
Ambition and drive are important but there's an important "so what" there as well. Am I aimlessly ambitious or am I ambitious for the sake of being able to support my family and make a significant impact on the world? If you are lucky enough to have the second orientation then I think there's less conflict between these things.
I have plenty to tech and finance friends who are successful and in our mid 40s, and unfortunately for those who neglected to have the family side of the equation, the shine is wearing off. What's the point of making the next level promotion and making the next 200k pay bump when what you do with it is come back to your apartment by yourself? Sure it's more comfortable and could still be fun to be ambitious and successful but it's lacking the goal piece.
The other half of my friends have family and then the financial etc success feeds directly into it. Can you give your family a good home, a good education, good experiences? It's easier for me to call a "success" a friend with a 4 bedroom house with 3 kids on it, than one with a Manhattan penthouse with no kids in it, even if the homes cost the same. It's just a different dimension.
The other thing is - making the world a better place for the future. The kids you raise and the work you achieve both feed into that. And also the future you are building is something that will benefit your kids - so all the things are aligned.
Then it becomes a "simple" balance - what's the thing that maximizes what I actually want to achieve. I want to be a good father and that takes both being with the kids, and working to make money - and also to set a good example for them of what work looks like. So yes in a simple sense you become less productive because you are going to work fewer hours, but I don't feel less productive in the grand total of life because all the things I am doing across work and family add up to what I want to accomplish.
I am curiosit - I bet many people will read this and think "of course, I feel the same way and what other way to feel is there" and others will say "I disagree at the root" which goes back to this being something with how your family raised you and the perspective you have from it.
I think men in this day and age have been hoodwinked just as much as women when it comes to the career vs. family debate. For a man there is truly nothing more important in life than having a family and providing for them. It is what we are evolutionarily tuned towards and anything short of it will leave you empty and hollow. There's a desperate longing for fulfillment and meaning among our generation that a lifetime of being told "having kids = dead dreams" has left us confused and lost as to how to achieve. But having them makes it crystal clear what you were put on this earth to do, and nothing comes close in the realm of professional success to that feeling of meaning and purpose.
>And would you agree that being sufficiently "indoctrinated" into the right thinking by your own parents and grandparents is the only way through?
Maybe it is. But there's still something to be said for breaking out of that and trying to see your own way in the world. Until it beats you back down and biology takes over and you start to understand life. Kids can only be taught so much; they have to burn their finger on that stove in their own way and time. Millenials still had that connection to and context of the old world that the younger generations now do not; (my wife and I have expressed that we want the life our grandparents had together, to the bewilderment of our Boomer/GenX parents), so maybe we have a bit of leg up in that regard. But I think the ones who didn't will come around naturally as well as the social media driven hustle culture burns itself out.
From my perspective this article ignores a key part of being a parent - your partner! Me and my wife build and sold a business - while having a our first child. If you have a partner which supports you/or you support your partner - you can find the time for your kids. Paid help can give you time back without taking time from your kids: get a chef (can also just hire for meal-prep), cleaners, all sorts of helpers (even try to get along with your own parents). If you are successful you can spend money to get time with your kids/family AND put time into work.
We also started building an AI agent (of course) hermo.ai which can help manage and reduce your admin work and giving you more time for whatever you want - for example playing with your kids.
I believed this idea of kids = dead dreams for a long time. I don't think it's true. I think the author of the blog is letting his particular interests and cherry-picked examples cloud his judgment.
If you look beyond the narrow sphere of technology and founders, you'll find many of humanity's greats had kids, or more broadly, family responsibilities, at some point. Their ability and involvement as parents varies widely, but this idea that kids are some kind of an inevitable death-knell for "being successful" or renowned whatever that means, isn't true.
An alternative lens would suggest that having kids reveals a lot about life that you can use in your other pursuits.
Your kids also eventually become adults, at which point the demands likely lower significantly.
Just like the "starving artist" myth, it's mostly baloney hyperbole that people promulgate because there's some obvious basic truth to it, but it isn't a law of the universe by any means.
Bryan Cantrill (inventor of DTrace and cofounder of Oxide Computer) comes to mind as someone who seems to do both. It’s hard to know somebody’s parenting quality from the outside, but he talks about his kids a lot.
In his case, I think he didn’t start his company until his kids were older. I’m not sure what the early childhood years were like for him.
Wow, thanks for that shout out! When we started Oxide in 2019[0], my kids were 15, 12, and 7, so out of those time-consuming younger years. But when we started Fishworks[1] inside of Sun in 2006, that 15-year-old (now nearly 22) was not yet 3 -- and his brother and sister were still in the future. Point being: I worked plenty hard with young kids.
More generally, I have always believed that the choice between work and parenting is broadly a false dichotomy (especially in our domain and age, which affords quite a bit of flexibility). In my role as a parent, I served on the board of the kids preschool (hello, SOMACC!); I was the president of the elementary school PTA (originally called the Mothers' Club!); I led the kids' Cub Scout Den (hardest parenting job no question); I coached baseball several times over; and I have been (and still am!) the scoutmaster of the kids' Scout troop.
These experiences were all time consuming (and truthfully, there were moments with each of them when I wondered what I had signed up for!) -- but they also made my life richer, and that very much includes my professional life. There are many dimensions of this, but to take one very concrete example: anyone who is familiar with scouting will see an echo in Oxide's values[2] -- but a subtler influence can be found in our hiring materials[3], the open-ended questions of which coming from an adult training that I did in 2017.
I won't profess to the quality of my parenting (it's... really hard), but it's something that I've certainly spent a lot of time on -- and it has paid surprising dividends to my professional life.
> Steve Jobs literally abandoned his daughter Lisa because “the time wasn’t right” (he was focused on Apple).
Steve Jobs is also a criminal. See the court cases where he underpaid developers and conspired with other companies to avoid hiring people away. That is criminal.
See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/23/steve-job... and many similar reports. It is time to stop idolizing this guy. The "time was not right" is not surprising by someone who steals money from developers, which Steve did here. Apple owes people money.
Interestingly, the case you linked was a purely civil action. However, in 2016, the DOJ announced that in the future, it would prosecute similar cases criminally. [0][1] Take that for what you will!
I think having kids has made me more ambitious than I was before, certainly recently. One has some extra needs, that have come to light over the last few years, so I've spent most evenings and the odd weekend over the last 2 years trying to build something that I'm hoping will help with that.
Always had ideas to build things before, and they kinda fizzled out, but recent developments have made me realise that I have to be ambitious right now, that doesn't mean taking time away from them, just time away from me.
So in a weird way, they have encouraged me to be ambitious by just being themselves.
My career plateaued as soon as I had kids. I don't regret it, but companies definitely don't promote people with kids as rapidly, almost as if they know they have extra bargaining power over them because they have dependents to worry about.
If you have something to live for, you're less valuable to the company. That's more about corporate politics than some fundamental underlying truth about your productivity potential as a parent
Well said. I hope some day to make it and start parent.capital a place where parents can get funding. I believe there are thousands of people out there with great ideas and immense talent who are unable to leave their salary and benefits behind to pursue them.
When you become a parent, your risk profile changes immensely. I can hire some of the world’s best people tomorrow if i can promise them equal salary, benefits and retirement accounts for a set number of years. Plus the benefit of a large upside if it works. Most startups offer lower salaries and abysmal benefits. Security matters.
I still don’t get it. It sounds like the business plan is to fund companies so they can offer compelling employment. That’s great but that’s no different than any other VC.
Noted that aside from Einstein most of the others were just engaged in shallow FOMO business building; cars, computers, business as usual.
Numerous other options to solve those problems existed.
The return on their mechanical investment and abandonment of their kids, from a STEM context, was meaningless; it's all been superseded by better modern solutions. They were engaged in meager iterative improvement and social moat building.
Einstein is the only one whose contribution will be discussed in another century.
I had a conversation about this topic yesterday with a colleague of mine. We both found some kind of career-family balance, and are continually honing it. However, we both lamented the loss of hobbies.
My career didn't really take off until I got kids in my 30s. And my wife's took off even harder; she's now director at a Dutch government organisation. I went from fairly average developer when they were born, to self-employed freelancer with increasingly cool, complex projects on my CV, to now starting my own business.
Sure, not Steve Jobs level, but pretty good. We both worked 4 days a week most of that time (I a bit more consistently than my wife), and took plenty of time off to do stuff with the kids.
The trick is not making it about being very productive, but productive "enough".
Elon and many others act like if not everyone is giving it their 110%, the world will be doomed, however the world is full of communities that otherwise were living happily getting destroyed by 110ers.
If you accept your (and everyone elses) insignificance, focus on your community, and just try to be compatible with your kids or colleagues or random people on the street , while at the same keeping your ability to reject judgement, life gets much easier.
I have a relatively good stable job, working in tech. When I came across generative AI and how it could be used to solve difficult math problems and materialize amazing codebases, the feeling of awe makes me want to understand the magic. I am contemplating choosing between changing my career and being in my stable job, raising my kids. Of course, I am probably unqualified for frontier labs, where I want to work on models. Ambition seems to have gotten a hold off me and won't let me go.
Strauss Zelnick the TakeTwo CEO has talked about how there’s two periods to go hard at your career ambitions: before kids and then after they are older and have their own lives. In between, my frame on this personally has always been that no matter how much money I make in the future, one day I would spend all of it to have another day with my kids at the age they are right now. And so for a period, that’s the focus. It won’t be forever but it is right now.
but having a child actually rejuvenates me to do more. yes I probably staring at the screen less number of hours per day, becuase I have children. But I wouldn't say I was doing 10X as much as when I was a bachelor. there is only so much effective work you can get done in a day before you're out of ideas and need sleep or break. playing for 2 hours with my kid gets me fresh and kicking no matter how badly my day sucked.
The weird thing is how most of the comments here are from dads saying it's hard but worth it in various ways. I've been scrolling for a while and failed to find an alternative point of view.
This feels really weird. I feel like I’m far more productive than ever now, even with half the time spent and zero crunch. When I was younger I was flailing around doing tons of pointless shit. I could make up for that with more effort, but it doesn’t change that I can achieve the same result with far less effort now. So the output with children is more or less the same as before.
There’s also the simple fact that it’s much better for your productivity to play a round of tag than it is to attend another stupid meeting.
I don't know if I'm ambitious. I've worked my way to a high-paying tech job I enjoy. I'm not looking to found a startup or job-hop my way to a fancy title, and plan to stay here until I retire if I can. On the other hand, I put a lot of effort into my work, not because I'm angling for a promotion but because I like what I do and I want to do the best I can for the users.
Does that count as ambition? Doesn't really matter. The basic tension described here is strong, in any case, between work and family.
I don’t know about you, but sometimes ambition is just to put food on the table. That’s all it’s ever got me and the rest is the dream to escape a life of work work work.
This essay feels like the 2010s when feminists were debating if it were possible as a women to "have it all": successful/satisfying career, family, and personal life.
To achieve maximum career success & maximum effort to be a great dad is not possible.
Time, energy, & your age are finite. That’s all there is to it.
However, if the metric of career/financial success is reduced to just net worth gaining at X% rate consistently, then it is possible to spend as little time as possible on career success and maximum time to be the best dad possible.
I wonder if the solution is simply to focus and effectively use resources so you can be effective and ambitious in a reasonable number of hours. Which is fine for 99.99%. Only if you are at the helm of discovering a revolution in physics or changing the world in some other way then go all in when you have kids. Which today is rare since team work makes the dream work way more. Of course there is greed. If you are greedy that is a different thing.
Personally, I decided that being ambitious at work wasn't as important to me relative to being involved in my kids' lives, and intentionally pulled back. I'm fortunate that my work offers part time options, so I went down to 80%. I take two half days per week to spend the afternoon with my kids after school.
I dont have kids and this post is really making me think about the future, wether i want kids or not, reading the comments i see people that say "i wish i had started having kids earlier"... Is it really that impactfull? Are parents really linked that hard towards their childrens? Im sincerely very courious about this...
There are two things that jump out at me being a parent of two children.
Until kids get to about 10 years old they need 24x7 supervision. Which means your time and energy is spent there. Your schedule completely revolves around them.
It’s hard to be 100% committed to anything else because you could get a call to attend to them regardless of your situation.
So yes, kids need their parents most of the time in early childhood.
However it also depends upon how much of community, relatives & governmental support you have. So take my words with a grain of salt.
If parenting and building are both truly aspirations, why not have people you admire that are great parents as well? I guess they don’t have many biographies for great moms and dads.
I admire the ambition. I wonder how many people out there are chasing both of these things, thinking they are being great parents and great builders, but are failing at one, or both.
I think the hardest part is how to define “waste”. Are you “wasting” your time if you go to a school event for your kids during the weekday? Is it a waste of time walking your kids to the bus? Is it a waste of time reading to my kids before they sleep? I argue it’s extremely hard to draw that line and a personal question for sure but being “efficient” is hard.
I too have to disagree with pg on that line `> having kids may make one less ambitious`. The fact is that the world is very very multi-modal, i.e. the brains of people and how they think are wildly different. I think having kids makes me more ambitious and more focused, and more selective re the problems I work on, partly because I am also setting an example.
This guy equates ”ambition” with ”career ambition”. Getting children means splitting your ambition between work and family. And family always comes first. There are no excuses for anyone, no matter how ”ambitious” or entrepreneurial, to work a 50 hour week if you have young kids at home.
That's a pretty narrow viewpoint. I could see many examples where it's better to work than focus on your kids... At least for society. Leader of a country comes to mind as one of those jobs
Then again don't forget being ambitious enough to be an ambitious founder, ambitious dad and an ambitious husband/wife/partner. And then being healthy enough to have energy to do all three. I keep thinking if I divide 24 hrs by 4, that would be the optimal time allocation to all 4 endeavors, but that's naive.
My solution is to involve my kids in all my projects. I am very lucky that I build games and often they are educational games where my kids are literally the target audience. No better education for the kids and you get a very natural organic quality time.
I like the sentiment from Hitchens that we choose our regrets. Being an absent father was not something I was willing to regret. I know it has cost me some degree of earning potential and career progression. I wouldn't change anything.
i've always given priority to my family and kids, at the detriment of my career growth. i viewed the job as being something in service to my higher calling of being a dad, not the other way around. I have no regrets.
In fact, I was sharing with my wife the other day that now that my kids are older I am finding myself able to give more to my work in a way I didn't/couldn't before. So my perspective is that, if you abandon the retirement mindset, you can have a fruitful and abundantly productive career later on after having prioritize your family. Especially in this early years when time spent is the most important. This post is right about that.
I grew up in a huge family with a dad who wasn't particularly successful but spent all his time working anyway, with little attention to either the household or to building relationships with his kids.
I think this was mostly a matter of temperament; he liked to work and he didn't really care much about the operation he was funding, which is unfortunately why he has no contact with most of his adult children today.
All that to say, I didn't mind that he worked a lot, but it was pretty damaging that he almost never spoke to me other than for urgent logistical or disciplinary reasons. Just, you know, don't do that.
I don't know if progress made it more hard to spend time with kids, on average.
In older generations, men spent relatively little time with little kids. I don't know if it was social convention or lack of time. Either way, it seems that now a lot more dads are spending time with kids than 2 generations earlier.
I agree that it is hard, but I would not paint a bleak picture.
It was both, however where I lived, a few years before fathers would get up at 6am and go and work down a mine all day, or a shipyard or factory. They might get home at 6pm but after dinner they'd quickly go for a pint or go fishing or go to the football. Women often didn't work, or worked part-time so they could take the kids to school so saw a lot more of the kids and managed the household more.
Now women have the freedom to work, so both sexes can choose to avoid seeing their children if they want to. Bleak indeed.
> can choose to avoid seeing their children if they want to
The choice is there. It's sad how many people choose to not spend time with kids. But the fact that more people have this choice now than they did in the past makes me conclude that it is not as bleak.
Kids don't need dad's time. They observe and learn. Dad might minimally guide occasionally, but there shouldn't be an expectation for dads to sit with kids.
This kind of expectations makes it hard to have more kids.
We have one life and so much we want to do. This was me, now I have kids. Wake up, read news reply to email. Get kids ready for school. From drop off at school straight to work, from work straight to pickup the kids.
My working hours are 6-9 most days. Wish I had more hours in the day.
It is not just the time. Having kids (dependents) consciously or subconsciously lowers your risk threshold. Makes you less flexible in a lot of aspects. All these little things will lead to tempering your ambitions or take on additional stress to keep it up..
I'm coming out of the period where my kids need less help and it's really great working on projects alongside my kids making stuff. I try to model working on my projects as something that is enjoyable to me and that I am working over a long time period.
He's having kids only to satisfy his eugenist, white supremacist kink. He doesn't care about them and even hate them if they stray out of his worldview - just ask Vivian.
“You can’t have it all” frequently comes unbidden into my brain when thinking about this sort of thing.
I don’t know, my goals are more and more about cool stuff I can do with my kids, and far less about business stuff? I’m not less ambitious but my ambitions have changed?
my read is that PG is one of the lucky people who was very successful before kids, so he could just put YC in self-driving mode by handing off to the next generation and his life's work still feels meaningful.
I think it's very different if you have not achieved your life's work yet.
I would only add that if increasing general family cohesion is one of your goals, I think having lots of kids accomplishes that. Having a large family and multiple automatic life long best friends brings me so much joy.
> setting clear rules on time with kids (weekday dinners, weekends prioritize family) and
Are these examples or an exhaustive list? Eating dinner during the week is.. not a lot. So I assume it's about setting time limits for these activities?
Kids cured my nihilism. Since my first was born I feel more focused and find it easier to prioritize what's important. Could have never had this without the appropriate partner though.
Love the article. One question; how do you unwind? I think it's achievable to spend enough time on both your career and your children, but consequently personal time will suffer.
Healthy things. For me its riding a bike, which is magical because i) its solo activity so my brain meditates ii) its healthy but no shocks on my knees and body iii) its technology free, no notifications on a bike
Many years before becoming a Dad, I recall watching a video recorded by the Penny Arcade web cartoon folks while working where they reflected on both becoming fathers and asked themselves if it had been a net drain on their productivity and creativity.
They both concluded (not quickly, they discussed it) no, because it forced both of them to level up their time management game, quit whining and learn to get on with it, to the point where they generally got more done a couple of years in.
I have found this to be true. Our little one is turning 3 in November, and while the first two years were a bit slower (I took half a year of work while my wife finished up her Master's, etc.), in 2026 I've so far had a fantastic year and find myself much more capable of juggling more balls at the same time, finally learned the skill of grabbing sleep where I can, etc. I'm pretty sure I already "had my act together" (as per the article) and was doing well career-wise, but raising the stakes on the family side has definitely only improved things.
Got a whole lot of Open Source work done, reverse engineered an old cult video game I used to play, wrote HMI and firmware for a robot used in the Great Pyramid of Egypt for a scientific mission, taught myself GPRs and built a new radar control system, spent a week rolling around in the dust of millenia inside Khufu's Pyramid, etc., all next to the day job.
The most unexpected professional/skills growth and fun year I've had in a while, and it's all so much more meaningful when I get to share it with the little one.
I agree with this. Especially as you gain experience and your work becomes less day to day grunt work and more high level strategic thinking, having constraints on time actually has been beneficial for me.
Taking work problems into other spheres of my life, especially parenting, gives me distance and a new lens to view them through.
Here's my 2 cents: In life, like in economy, everything's about marginal utility. If you work 5 days a week and you reduce by one, you gain 50% (free/family/hobby) time, while reducing 20% of work time. In the lost 20% work time, would you have produced the corresponding amount of output? Or are you even more productive because you avoid unnecessary meetings etc.?
It's clear that being an involved parents doesn't allow you pulling all nighters all the time or work through weekends and doing additional sideprojects. Though I agree that without full involvement and ambition one will not achieve a top position or become a tennis superstar, I think a good mixture of all aspects (family/work/sports/friendships) makes everything much more worthwhile. And in my opinion, all involved parent parts should have their fair share of those aspects.
- Parent with partner both working part time, living in a country that allows for that, equally sharing child care for two that regularly make them crazy, but it's soo worth it.
Building things into your middle and late middle age is a waste of your talents. You're not as good at building things as you were in your youth. Einstein's output drastically went down after say 1919 or so.
That doesn't mean you don't have something to offer, you do. You're better off teaching and guiding others to carry on the work as you get older. They'll appreciate you for it rather than you selfishly doing it all yourself. Raise your children as if they are your most important project because they are. The work will carry on without you.
I am in nearly the exact same boat as the OP. I'll observe a few things after having 2 kids and running a startup at the same time for a few years...
* Your amount of "lost" time with kids is often less than you think. On one side, you very likely socialized more, traveled more, were less disciplined about what you worked on, etc. On another side, some things that you are going to do anyway (dishes, maybe calling your parents, groceries), you can often do with kids, and so this time isn't really "lost"
* If you are fortunate enough to have some means, you might consider not outsourcing parenting, but outsourcing "life admin" work. Specifically things like laundry, dishes, buying groceries, picking up around the house, etc. I recently got someone to come to our house 3x / week for 3 hours and it's a game changer for me and my wife (who also works). (I know my point above says you can do some of this with kids, and that's kind of true, but not always, and it still lets you do other things with your time)
* Assuming you have a partner, and the premise here is you still want to be a very active parent, then I recommend being very deliberate about almost never parenting together. As in, one of you take all the kids, and the other can do what they want for 1-4 hours at a time.
Lastly, while I'm a pretty active dad myself, I reject the premise put forth here that your job is to maximize the time spent with your kids, as if this is the main metric by which parenting success should be judged. Just no. Actively no. Kids having time alone and with their own friends outside of the eye or ear of their parents is a really important part of growing up. Kids having time with various caregivers who are not their parents (be that grandparents, aunts, uncles, friend's parents, camp counselors, babysitters) is also good and healthy.
The struggle is real though. There's no easy answer. Hope these thoughts help!
>Lastly, while I'm a pretty active dad myself, I reject the premise put forth here that your job is to maximize the time spent with your kids, as if this is the main metric by which parenting success should be judged. Just no. Actively no.
Kinda disagree. My Kids 3 mind, so apples:oranges. But something I keep reminding my wife about, whenever she feels like shes failed, is that childhood outcomes are strongly correlated to parental involvement and interest at this age. 2 active, interested parents is a huge advantage over 1, and 1 is a huge advantage over 0. Just the time we both spend with him, engaged in conversation or reading books, has already paid massive dividends, and we can see that he just soaks it all up like a sponge. Wont be that way forever, he will eventually find better interaction with peers. But right now its a massive force multiplier, and we only get one shot at it.
"I am not less ambitious. But I am also ambitious about being a great dad." Or Mom. This is a powerful mindset right here. It's also hard to judge someone's ambition from the outside because there is still so much inequality of opportunity. The OP mentioned limitations of Einstein, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk as parents.
The story of Paul Ehrenfest is an even more depressingly stark contrast between personal and professional success.
On the other hand, there is a lot of moral ambiguity when it comes to judging someone else's parenting - and lack of ambition clearly does not make one a better parent. The history of women in science and mathematics and literature illustrates the tradeoffs among talent and opportunity and ambition that have persisted for centuries and continue to this day. Two of my favorite examples are that of George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), who was supported in her studies because her father considered her lacking in beauty and Emmy Noether (referred to as essentially the most intelligent woman of all time by Einstein), who demonstrated no prodigious talent in her early education but due to persistent and opportunities shaped in part by having a father who was an Algebraist, is remembered as an intellectual giant.
Thank you for writing this! I've been thinking about this a lot after becoming a dad (3yo + a 2nd baby in about one week or so).
Ambition may or may not be the right word to use, as others have commented. One thing I have reflected on is not if I should be making a compromise with one or the other, but why in our modern society the easiest path is to only pick one. The more I read about how to bring up healthy strong children, the more I think we've just gone backwards as a species.
There is a lot of research about the bad effects of screens and constant dopamine on long-term mental health and resilience (read The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Heidt). In reality, until just maybe 50 years ago, it was socially accepted for parents to be raising children with a support network around them. That had both good and bad sides - fewer rights for moms/women, dads less involved in parenting. But instead of fixing that, we threw out the whole idea that you need a village to support you as a parent and replaced it with career maxxing as the only prominent virtue to speak about.
I have believed in individual freedom and liberalism forever, but these days I think there is such a thing as too much individualism and we've taken that to an extreme. This makes it really hard to want or be able to raise children, and our society's long-term health suffers as a result, despite all of our scientific progress. Individual parents shouldn't be forced to have the internal debate that the author is having and pick between them - we should fix our social systems and institutions to not need that choice. But that's an even harder problem.
family life is not about "compounding gains" -- in part because family life is not about "gain" at all. On the contrary - you sacrifice and are ultimately consumed! The language of investing is entirely out of place in this context.
Reality check: this guy worked on "Mocha is an online AI powered app builder. It allows everyone to build web apps, no coding required"
He 'loves' building. Building what? Crypto thing when crypto is hot and AI thing when AI is hot? Is there a word to describe this behaviour that we may be familiar with?
I had roughly the same realization about the pillars of math & science years ago. Many terrible, terrible parents whose children suffered mightily. While I had aspired to intellectual impact all my life, I had an unexpected realization. I could not bear the thought of being famous and intellectually successful yet having totally failed my children. It reversed my longstanding priorities, and I realized I wanted to be a parent more than I had thought.
I still believe that having passionate and driven parents is good for kids.
I'm a father. Best thing I ever did, but it is work, it is hard.
In ways, it really crisped up my time working on work. My wife and I have some bottom lines, we're invovled, we have dinner as a family every day. We go to school events, all of them. We go to sports and activities, all of them (although there have been some times we had to split up and each to a different one.) I'm at the table when my kids have breakfast, every day except when I travel for work which is a week or two per quarter. It's great for the kids, it's great for the family but suddenly it feelds like your day is shorter. Personally, I have tried to find other "thought time" and that has resulted in much better execution when I get to writing code or plans or whatever. I used to sit at the blank editor and start to compose but now I am forced to think more before hand. I've built a few things I honestly don't think I could have built before kids, just out of necessity, I've had to be more efficient and effective.
There are also times of utter exhaustion but I had those before kids. I'll also went through the process of sort of cutting out extras to make time, once your kids are in that 10-11 age, they'll have friends and interests, I've added some of those extras back because they are busy on Sunday afternoons or whenever.
There is no exact framework on how to do it successfully for sure - a pretty interesting challenge worth trying and succeeding at for me. A kid teaches you to be present and grateful and not spend time on bullshit. But the most important thing to do is to have the right spouse for you; this is instrumental for happiness and success:)
> As long as there is the desire to gain, to achieve, to become, at whatever level, there is inevitably anxiety, sorrow, fear. The ambition to be rich, to be this or that, drops away only when we see the rottenness, the corruptive nature of ambition itself. The moment we see that the desire for power in any form — for the power of a prime minister, of a judge, of a priest, of a guru — is fundamentally evil, we no longer have the desire to be powerful. But we don't see that ambition is corrupting, that the desire for power is evil; on the contrary, we say that we shall use power for good — which is all nonsense. A wrong means can never be used towards a right end. If the means is evil, the end will also be evil. Good is not the opposite of evil; it comes into being only when that which is evil has utterly ceased.
>
> So, if we don't understand the whole significance of desire, with its results, its by-products, merely to try to get rid of desire has no meaning.
In 100 years nobody will know who you were. In 200 years, only a few hundred people will be remembered from today. So what is the goal of your ambition? Is it the self-satisfaction? Temporary bragging rights that will be soon forgotten? Whatever wealth you accumulate, you can't take it with you. The pharoahs already trie this. It doesn't work.
Nobody's going to give a shit that you founded an AI company and sold it to Meta for $600 million. Sure you can enjoy the material benefits while you're here. Maybe you can even pass some of that onto your children.
The Good Place was one of the best TV shows of the best shows of the last decade (IMHO) and it brought up a relatively recent (1998) book "What we owe to each other". It makes the point that it's not a question (ie "what do we owe to each other?"). You're only meaningful impact is on the people you affect around you, positively or negatively.
Personally, I have no opinion on whether people should or shouldn't have children. That's none of my business other than this: you have to make a choice between having and raising those children and chasing material "ambitions". Bringing people into the world without their consent and then neglecting them makes you an objectively terrible person. Pick a lane.
And if you do choose ambition instead, at least ask yourself why. Studies have been done on this. Money does buy happiness but only to a very limited point. Beyond that it's isolating. So why are you doing whatever it is you're ambitious about, really?
Money can solve most of these problems? Send your kid to daycare, hire a nanny or two and then the world will believe you can be a great father and ambitious and successful in your career. They do not see the village taking care of your kid while you are busy with work
* Sometimes I'm in flow state, and so breaking at 17:00 breaks that.
* 17:00 is rush hour, so if so leave then, my commute goes from 60m to 90m. So I leave at 16:00, and catch up later. But now I'm context switching more.
* If it's 14:30 and I know I'm leaving at 16:00, then I'm hesitant to work on something that might need more focus/debugging.
All these are workable, and many parents are testament to that, but at least for me, it's all contributing to less productivity.
This is an excellent post. I definitely limited my career growth by choosing roles that allowed me to spend more time with my daughters. I did not accomplish the things I wanted to career wise—but a wise person once said “The world does not need more successful people.”
You will likely feel at times like you missed out on career opportunities, and as an ambitious person that will always nag at you. But I believe ambition is a bit of a selfish drive to achieve instead of to serve.
I guess I am just trying to say—you will regret it at times. But you will end up having achieved something for them and yourself that is far more important than anything you could have built in your career. I hope you will look back on your post one day and realize what a great choice you made!
Maybe you should read about women's career choices because for them it might be even more challenging to make trade-off btw career and family.
Your inspiring figures seems to be mainly men and I don't have a lot of examples of women in tech (I'm not just well informed enough) but in other fields such as politics it might be very inspiring to have their advices.
It would be also very meaningful to have a small glimpse at how you and your wife chose to balance careers and life because maybe the balance btw family and work is more at couple level rather than one of the two of you.
thanks for sharing your thought here, wishng you good luck for your kids, your wife and you mate ;)
I would be open to having kids if society were better. But as it is reproducing is too risky. Cost of living is already super expensive, no community support, friends' kids are mediocre at best and often disabled. Divorces are more financially devastating. Plus the whole fascism in the USA thing and staring at a screen their whole lives as the environment gets destroyed. Plus my girlfriend doesn't want them and I'm old. Maybe on another planet. Hence the idiocracy.
Weekday dinners? Pff.. I'm 100x better parent, and probably 100x less productive. But my employer is happy with me, I'm happy too, and my wife and kids too. So happy, I do not need to write articles about it.
I have had to very deliberately and repeatedly let myself off the hook for ambitions while parenting. There is SO MUCH that I am hungry to do, and none of it is as important as being fully present with my kids.
Will there come a time when these are more complimentary than in conflict? Maybe! But while the kids are young, not often. And while I feel the conflict, it’s helpful to have somewhat pre-decided what I’d regret more, and it would be not having connected with them.
If there’s time later to do great things, especially with them, so much the better.
I worked with some ambitious motherfucker who fancied himself so important and so busy his secretary scheduled when he would take a piss.
He told me once that his work was his passion and his legacy. No kids, no wife. And he was brilliant and hard working. But he was running from something in his mind. There was a shakeup at the top and he got pushed out in the ensuing politics.
His legacy is a cautionary tale. But I don’t remember his last name.
Having kids is easily and by a huge distance the very best thing you can “build”. It’s the best project you’ll ever make.
If you can find a way to run a cool thing on the side then great. I’ve been lucky, or something, and I have. And I love it.
But my kids are a trillion times more important. And now they’re 21 and 19 I can live knowing that I’ve launched the best couple of projects in the world.
The IPO in my parental project arrived and stocks are doing well :-)
The capitalist LinkedIn-dwellers are obsessed with productivity. They can claim that AI will raise productivity and that we will need to work even more at the same time. Ultimately, most of the productivity gains in the recent decades are focused on displaying more ads, in one way or another.
Edit: I have realized my original comment/rant might have come off as a negative sentiment towards the post author. While generally, I sympathize with the author and agree with the original post. My rant has been focused exclusively on the current market trends and double-speak of AI productivity gains, layoffs and increased workload.
A lot of juggling with words here: being ambitious, a builder, competing etc. It really boils down to the same thing: making more money + fame. The author should really stick to that and stop hiding behind big words. There's nothing noble about the recent slop-producing startups that YC funds. They do not make the world a better place.
I don't know, this feels kind of overly judgy. It's pretty healthy and normal to have some goals in life and even to try to do something impressive. The fact that he is trying hard to balance this with caring for his family seems pretty reasonable to me.
In the article, then named figures in technology (Paul Graham, DHH, Jeff Dean, even Mark Zuckerberg) who are classified as great fathers and great achievers all succeeded before having kids. Who succeeded after having kids and was at the same time great father?
It should be a lot more shameful to pretend that having kids is a normal or healthy activity.
It’s selfish, unnecessary, consumes immense amounts of resources, increases unfair social policies against those who are intelligent enough to avoid it, and almost universally induces a delusion in the parents that they have done something meaningful, helpful, world-changing, or profound, without affecting their ability to notice the plainly obvious fact that humans have evolved this delusion to keep them bonded to the incredible amount of time and inconvenience caused by children so that the species will continue.
Pro-natalists will of course dismiss this view as abnormal, simply because they themselves have succumbed to this delusion. There is no objective benefit to society or others caused by reproduction, and the harms are well-documented (increased resource consumption, crowding, increased need for resource redistribution, etc).
Kids are nothing but a burden to anyone other than their parents, yet society is so biased toward children that everyone in society is forced to accommodate and pay for the poor choices of parents. Parents are encouraged nonstop to have children they cannot afford to fully care and provide for.
It is a nonstop tragedy from all angles.
Children are a luxury option, like buying a Porsche or taking regular vacations to the Greek isles. You probably can’t afford to do it well, it burdens everyone around you for your own pleasure, and after you’re done you haven’t meaningfully improved the world for anyone.
Most people have children by accident, or out of motivations formed exclusively from fear, selfishness, narcissism, or greed. Societal traditions allow and encourage them to paper over these motivations with noble illusions.
Do not in any way confuse the good that human beings have accomplished with the need to produce more of them.
What really stands out reading this piece is how different this attitude is than what we as a society thought 50 years ago. The great men name-dropped in the article surely had more on their plates than the average 1960s middle manager at G.E., or corporate attorney, or advertising agency VP, or shift manager at a Ford plant, and thus were surely more absent parents than their contemporaries. But in that era, fathers didn't even lose any sleep over it. It was just accepted that their primary role was to bring home as much money as possible to pay for a better life for their family, and if you're lucky to leave a legacy as a builder of great things or organizations. It was the mother's job to raise the children (or in the wealthiest families, perhaps that fell to the nanny(s) while the mother focused on socializing or hobbies).
In two generations, we've gone from that to most dads constantly asking themselves "Am I a good enough dad? How could I be better?" Fathers feel that they aren't good enough if they merely provide for a good life for their family and set a good example. They try to find a way to, while of course not dropping the ball at all on the provider role, also be a 'fun dad' and a friend to their kids and be deeply involved in their lives.
I would say this is also kind of a mirror image to women's very real struggle post-1980 or so -- before, you were absolutely acknowledged to be a success if you cared well for the next generation of children and taught them to be good people. Some would say (and still do) that's one of the most important callings. Now women worry that they're not good enough unless they - without missing a beat on that first mission - also have an impactful and meaningful commercial career.
This isn't arguing to force people to perform only one sex-prescribed role or anything. And I don't want any parents to just be absent, because frankly being there for your kid is incredibly rewarding. I'm just saying, I think it's an insane amount of pressure we put on mothers AND fathers to be everything to everyone both within the family and in the professional world.
You touch on the right point when you say “completely removing time-wasting activities.” Looking at a handful of biographies and trying to extract universal lessons from them is somewhat misguided/infantile.
I used to be more ambitious, but I am not anymore. I enjoy my kids, I enjoy nature, camping, friends... I will the pointless work drivel to someone else and just collect the paycheck.
The modern (mostly western?) obsession with "parenting" as a job/hobby is truly despicable. Probably as despicable as the standard education factory farming most of these parents are subjecting their children to. It is a miracle that despite all this parenting and education, some children manage to grow into fully formed individuals.
I love my parents. They are not perfect, but as much as they could afford, they never stood in my way. I love my children and I will strive to provide for them the resources, space, and freedom to grow and become who they are as individuals with infinite potential. I will never treat them as extensions of myself.
I'm writing this for the log, so I can remember my ideals. I'm sure everyone here has disagreements, opinions and wisdom that they wish to impart, but I frankly don't care. A culture that condones keeping dysgenic inbred mutilated wolves in one's house to satisfy the pleasure of "caring" for an animal weaker than oneself has no lessons to teach me about raising children. Whatever lessons I could distill from it for myself, I have already done so.
I think that the drive and energy to build one's own business (even if the business itself is very banal, like a laundromat or app-builder) is impressive and counts as ambitious. It's not easy. I tried starting a business and couldn't hack it.
> Some figures in technology (Paul Graham, DHH, Jeff Dean, even Mark Zuckerberg) seem to be pushing on both fronts with rare success
Possibly true, but who knows. Especially Zuck, who does not lead a remotely ordinary life (imo).
Dad of 2 girls. 8 and 4. Maybe this should be titled “being ambitious because you’re a dad”
I am better than ever post kids. Always great, no. Always amazing, no. Not sure I agree with the post otherwise, especially quality vs quantity. High quality interactions are the best.
"I do not believe the quality time theory. I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them."
Because I think that among highly motivated workers there's a falsely held belief that you can make up for missed time with your children by planning "exclusive time" with them, either over a nice vacation, or special night in a month, or whatever. And, don't get me wrong, any time is better than no time. But I think that strong relationships might be made best in the down moments, the "bored" time, the random stuff, the drives to school, picking up the house, mealtimes, random crap, that those are the times that you discover the little nuances of your children's personality (and your own personality).
Before kids, I frequently defined myself by my work or my hobbies. Meet someone new and you're chatting with them, and I'd say "Oh, yeah, I'm a software engineer, yeah, I like to fish, I play basketball, I love watching football and drinking beer, I'm from [X] city, I want to this college and studied this subject." And that's how I defined myself. It's pretty normal, I think. Since having kids so much of my identity has changed and how I identify myself has changed. That "I Think You Should Leave" sketch from Season 2 or 3 resonated with me, the "DONT TALK ABOUT YOUR KIDS" sketch because it's so hard not to, especially with other people who have kids, it's like ... what else can I talk about? The hobbies I had before kids seem utterly pointless and valueless in retrospect.
After our second, my wife got sick, she was diagnosed with ALS when he was just over a year old, though she had undiagnosed symptoms going back to before she was pregnant with him. She physically can't care for him, and so I've been my son's sole caretaker, and my daughter's primary/default caretaker though she's 8 years old, so my wife is able to contribute more evenly with parenting for her. As he gets older, depending on the progression of the disease, that can increase with my son as well, but for a newborn, infant, baby, and toddler, there's just so much physical care for those ages that it's hard for someone with a neurological, degenerative disease to contribute in the same way.
Kids truly changed everything with me. Every single way that I define myself. I don't define myself by my work at all anymore, and I sometimes define myself by my hobbies, but I feel entirely defined by my kids. If I was answering some general inquiry about myself, and if I was allowed to be frank, I'd lead with my kids, it's how I see myself.
When I saw the Bob Odenkirk line from Mike Birbiglia's podcast/interview, I legitimately cried, because it hit me right in the throes of parenting hell. I have a wife who I'm taking care of, I had a ~7ish year old who I was trying my best to help through adolesence, and I had a 1.5 year old who I was completely and wholly responsible for keeping alive, keeping healthy, and keeping happy. And this quote just hit me like a ton of bricks.
Birbiglia: "Who are you jealous of?"
Odenkirk: "Anybody who has little kids at home, growing up. ... Yeah, there's no question I knew what I was doing when I had kids growing up, I was being a dad. I mean, that was my job, and I didn't have to ask myself, 'What am I doing here? How can I be a part of this world? How can I be meaningful today?' I didn't have to ask that question, because the fucking answer is 'Pick up everything between here and the door, and make sure they get to school, and have a laugh with them.'
I understood my purpose."
And god, that fucking resonates with me so, so hard. It still makes me cry when I hear that or see the clips of it, because I realized that when I was answering that question every other time trying to describe myself, and when I answered with what I do, and what I studied, and where I'm from, or what my hobbies are, those were all bull shit. And now when I think of who I am, I know who I am, I am dad.
I am a bad software engineer. I'm a mediocre project lead. I think I'm a good colleague. But I know that I'm a great dad.
Focus on your kids, your health, and your work? It seems like a very tall order.
You've studied many notable builders, but have you studied the great dads? How much time does one have to spend to be a great dad? Do they get to pick the times when they can spend their focus on being dad, or do they have to be present at times they'd rather be doing other things? I think being a great dad might involve a lot of taking your children to sports practice, music lessons, play dates, libraries, and tons of other activities until you discover what clicks with them, and then there's many years of supporting those interests. I don't think you can just put it on pause during the week. To be a great and present dad, I think you can only count on being able to spend maybe 55 to 60 hours a week on work (with a lot of that being after bedtime and/or starting very early).
Looking at the great builders, I think the common element is that they picked the right thing to work on at the right time, in the right place, executed better than their peers, and also had a ton of luck.
* Zuckerberg was in the right place at the right time with ample luck and he chose to drop out of Harvard to spend a few years doing the hardcore startup house thing working exclusively on building Facebook, and nine years later he had his first kid. Right place, right time, strong execution, and much luck.
* Bill Gates was in the right place (a high school where he got extensive access to a mainframe computer, then in a local company that gave him and his friends unlimited computing time in exchange for them finding and fixing bugs) at the right time (when mainframe computers were an extremely rare and expensive thing and before operating systems existed) and he dropped out of Harvard to go all in on building Microsoft, then 21 years later he had his first kid. Right place, right time, right skills, great execution, and much luck.
* Paul Graham was in the right place (a Harvard CS Ph.D. who studied design at RISD living in NYC) at the right time (during the Internet 1.0 boom and before both the bust and before anyone else had brought a site building cloud application SAAS offering to the market), and he brought a great idea to market in time to sell it to Yahoo in 1998 for $49M of stock and he correctly elected to cash out his stock before the bubble burst in March 2000. And then he leveraged his great technical and business faculties to identify and develop great business ideas via YCombinator (2005-present). Then he had his first kid in 2009). Right place, right time, right skills, great execution of a novel great idea, and much luck.
* John Carmack is probably the platonic ideal of focusing and getting things done. His work ethic and habits are legendary (8 hours of sleep a night, 10 hours of focused work a day, and 60 hours of work a week) as is his output (Doom, Commander Keen, Wolfenstein 3D, Quake). In 1978 he discovered video games and in 1982 (at age 12), his family bought an Apple II computer and he quickly learned BASIC to start making games before digging deeper to learn assembly code. He gained deep and extensive knowledge of how computers work, motivated by his drive to make games, and this enabled him to make the limited PC hardware of the time do things comparable to purpose-built arcade machines. He came up at the right time, had sufficient interest, drive, and vision that motivated him to deeply explore and master computing as well as design and develop many iconic games of the 1990s. Then in 2004 he had his first kid, at which point he started working less, although still a 50+ hour per week workload. Luckily his children are interested in programming, which makes it easier for him to get quality time in. Still, right time, great skills, great ideas, much luck.
* etc.
Having a child already, you might be a bit constrained. But if you can manage getting into the right place to seize upon a great and novel idea that you are uniquely positioned to execute on, you might be able to build the idea out while the market and need is unserved.
Another potential strategy is to work on an established business model that someone else came up with, and spend your evenings and weekends with your children. The best dad I knew growing up did this (he was/is a database administrator and was the dad of three of my friends I knew through my boy scout troop who have all grown up to do incredible things and also be deeply happy people) and is still one of the coolest, most interesting and well-rounded people I've ever met.
Earnestly: LLM hosting companies allow easy exchange of money for relatively nuanced language processing. Great power for filtering text anywhere you have the need.
The passionate hunger to do something significant and meaningful with my life was a major reason I took care never to have any children. Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear from a young age, and I knew that I was going to need every scrap of energy I could spare for the work I wanted to do.
Years later, after I had to accept the failure of my ambitions, there was an opportunity to become the dad of a kid who needed one. So here I am being a dad after all, and it's been a good experience. Difficult, of course, and often frustrating, but worthwhile; I have no regrets - neither about this choice, nor the one I made when I was young.
> The passionate hunger to do something significant and meaningful with my life was a major reason I took care never to have any children.
Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible. Movies and TV shows portrayed only the bad. Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world. A wide range of celebrities spend their days posting about how amazing it is to be without children.
I accept that there are some parents out there who regret their decision, but research shows them to be a vanishingly small minority. The VAST majority of parents report greater meaning, more love, personal growth, enjoyment, fulfillment, etc. Something has become quite sick in modern society when we provide such an imbalanced and untrue message to young people.
> Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
I completely agree with you. But I can't say around me, people, movies, society ever sent the message that parenthood is terrible. The way I interpret the message was always "this was hard, this was grueling, but I wouldn't change it for the world". I didn't get this apparent contradiction until it was my turn.
I think the people who miss almost all of these "tickboxes" and can somehow link it to the kids become unhappy with parenthood. If they ever feel their personal time, romance, career, success suffered because of the focus on the children, they will end up in the "disappointment" camp.
I never personally met anyone who was willing to admit regret of having children but I did meet people who were disappointed and put a veiled blame for their failure on the children.
You'd never hear me say it in person, but I'll admit it here. I'm sure it's great for most people, but it's not for me.
I agree with your assessment of society at large. The prevailing attitude is, having children is the best thing you'll ever do, that you ever could do. The most you'll get is, it's the hardest job in the world but also the best, and totally worth it. I have no idea what the other person is talking about when they say everything conveyed the message that parenthood is terrible. This sort of thing almost makes me wonder if the internet actually connects parallel universes and we just haven't realized it, because that's not how it is in mine.
I was on the fence, but had no support for it. All the media said do it. Everybody around me said do it. There was literally not a single dissenting voice in my life saying, "don't do it if you're not sure." Or even just "if you feel that way then maybe it's worth considering not having kids as an option, or at least waiting until you become more certain."
I feel a lot of regret having had children. Not 100%, but it's always going to be more than 0%. I adore my kids but it's too much for my brain and it makes me miserable a lot of the time. I don't bring it up except to counsellors (or anonymous internet bros, apparently) because (a) it's not actionable - there is no going back (b) it's a bummer and no one has anything to say about it.
This is one of the things I think about when considering kids++, when does the regret start (if at all)? Or as posted in other comments, will the health lottery have me regret having +1? Time will tell.
> it's a bummer and no one has anything to say about it.
I think a lot of people could have something to say about this but they're afraid of being branded bad parent or bad people.
> it's not actionable - there is no going back
Going back isn't the only way to take action. If you can't change the trigger you can try to control to a degree how you feel about it.
True - ultimately I will have to, as that is the only escape from suffering.
How old are they? I honestly felt like that sometimes for the first few years but no longer now that they are somewhat capable of not dying without constant supervision and are becoming their own new persons
One is 6 years, the other is 6 months.
This is arguably the toughest it will ever get. It's very normal to feel all kinds of tough emotions right now. If this were climbing Mount Everest, you'd be near the top.
Or maybe they’ll run away at sixteen to join a gang.
You are probably right! But you might be assuming I wanted kids before I realized it wasn't all I'd hoped. I never really wanted them but said ok to my partner. I figured that most of the nicer and more fulfilled older people I knew had kids. Then again now I wonder if that's because there are plenty of older fulfilled people without kids off doing their thing and not interacting with the likes of me.
85% of women eventually have at least one child. So there are older folks out there without kids, but it's a relatively small group.
I'm sorry to hear you never wanted kids. I guess it's more complicated if you were sure beforehand that it's not for you. I hope you're able to balance the love with the effort.
That's great insight. My sister missed some of these milestones and I hear echoes of what you describe in some of our conversations.
I've thought about this and while I agree with you completely, I think the reason why is not just society at large. Externally what most people see is the time suck, money suck, and frustration with teaching behavior, fixing bad behavior etc.
What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
not only easy to miss but also hard to believe!
how do i explain that my child running into my arms after his first day of daycare is a high ill be chasing for the rest of my life? or the irrational pride when you see your kid flip over for the first time?
it's so many mundane moments that punch 100000x above their weight when its your kid having them. the good parts of parenting sound like fake news (unless youre talking to other parents)
Agree 100%. I often tell expecting parents "All the hard stuff they tell you about; the sleep loss, the stress, the cost... All that stuff is true. But there's also all this amazing stuff they don't tell you about, which is also true."
I think that people probably tried to tell me about the amazing stuff, but I couldn't take it in. This created a very pleasant surprise for me when I found out about the good feels after the dread of just expecting everything I know to be upended with no reward.
You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
There‘s a lot of ancient biology at play in raising kids. You won’t get exactly this kind of feeling elsewhere. Doesn’t mean it has to be your kids though. You just need to be an important part of their life.
Do you have children? If no, then how can you make this assertion? If yes, what or who is filling the gap that children fill for you?
This is a fallacy. You don't need to live a situation to be able to comment about it.
Especially if we try to rationalize the choice. If you talk about "feelings", then fine. But be aware that "feelings" could simply be your hormone levels changing after having kids.
You don’t need to be a parent to be allowed to comment on or speculate about being a parent, but this is definitely one of those things you can’t guess at or estimate.
Until it is your kid in front of you you can’t know what you’ll feel as a parent. Maybe it’s all hormones and monkey brain, but that doesn’t make it any different.
Many people do not have that Hollywood Magic moment where “everything changed.” Some of my friends experienced this, some of them did not. None of us experienced what we thought we would.
Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion.
We are talking past each other because some/most parents in those discussion cannot get out of their self-centered view of the worlds based on "feelings". But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world, you should be able to substantiate that claim without going back to "feelings" that only you can feel.
> Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion.
Yes, they should. We are, after all, replying to the initial assertion that (and I quote) "you don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings [love, being needed, needing someone]".
> But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world
That wasn't a claim anybody made in this thread, and specifically everyone was talking from a personal perspective about parenthood, not making universal claims. Certainly not the person who wrote this (and to whom you indirectly replied):
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
If you don't like talking about feelings, fine. But this discussion was about feelings, not about some universal "most important thing in the world".
The feelings are definitely influences by hormones. Doesn't make them any less real.
Sure. But if you want a rationale discussion about what matters in life as this blog post and parent commenter suggest you probably don't want to get influenced by feelings.
There is a ton of philosophy written around this. Feelings are a very self-centric view of the world. The goal of rationalization is to take a wider systemic view without being self-centered.
Because if you push feelings and chemistry to the max you could also make an argument that taking meth and heroin is the most important thing in the world, as the feelings coming out of it are very real.
Being a parent is in large part about feelings.
Also, the context of this conversation was replying to this assertion:
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings
So it's about feelings, not about "rational discussion". Not a "fallacy" like you claimed, but the actual topic of discussion.
This discussion is many level deeps based on a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life. And other grand similar statements.
>>> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
I don't think so. You specifically replied to a comment by calling it a "fallacy", when it was discussing feelings of parenthood. That's very specific and cannot be excused as arguing it was addressing the broader context of TFA. And the whole sub-thread was about feelings.
Also, nobody here -- the people you're debating with, I mean -- is arguing that having kids is universally the most meaningful thing anyone can do with their life; they are instead offering their personal perspectives. For example, in the sentence you quote:
> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life
The operating words are "I have done with my life"; it's not telling you what you should do with yours.
In fact, the whole debate in this sub-thread was sparked by a very aggressive comment (not yours), but which you chose to implicitly defend:
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Well, whether the person saying the above has or doesn't have children is entirely relevant. It's not a "fallacy". We're discussing feelings, even the above comment acknowledges it; and in relation to parenthood the fact remains: these feelings must be experienced, you cannot truly comment on them otherwise. I mean, you can, but your opinion wouldn't be of much value.
Read again the comment that prompted the above comment:
> What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.
Really, it's all about subjective feelings. Which, essentially, is all that matters in the context of this conversation. If you don't have children, you won't have felt like this. You simply cannot. So it's not a fallacy to ask if you have them.
edit:
> a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life
The blog doesn't claim this, either.
> You don't need to live a situation to be able to comment about it.
In the case of being a parent, yes, yo do. This is not something you can experience second-hand.
Agree.
Remember that once you have kids you are stuck in that situation forever. There is a lot of coping and trying to persuade yourself that this is the best thing in the world. It might as well be as there is no escape anyways!
I can honestly say, I think there was a chemical change in my brain or a biological equivalent when my kids were born. That is to say, something more primal than the "love" you can get from a spouse/SO; you feel it in your bones, deep down, always on and changed forever.
I think it could be possible to replicate this without children, but it is extremely uncommon. Ask any parent if they could accomplish the same before they had kids. I have never met a parent yet who thinks it's possible.
This is a very snarky, flippant, uninformed take that serves no purpose other than to tear others down in an effort to validate your decision.
Have kids or don’t, live your life the way you want. But taking unsolicited dumps on other people’s decisions is a pretty lame way to live.
And yes, you do have to have kids in order to understand what it feels like to have kids. You do not know what it’s like, as evidenced by your thinking having kids entitles a parent to their love. Let me tell you clearly and unequivocally: it does not. Love is earned. A family is a big lesson in that.
To use a less charged example: I can’t claim to know what strawberries taste like if I never try a strawberry.
TL;DR: I understand anti-natalism is in vogue right now, but some of y’all are really shitty about it.
Other people’s choices have externalities that harm society. I don’t need validation for not doing something that benefits no one and harms everyone. It’s already obvious that abstaining from this selfish and self-indulgent activity is the only intelligent choice.
Furthermore I don’t need to shoot heroin to know that shooting heroin feels extremely good and that the people that do it really enjoy the feeling. I also don’t need to shoot heroin to see the harms it causes to the people that do it, and those around them.
You are trying to make a logical argument for the observed preferences of an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA. It’s a shame that so many people are blinded to that by instinct and emotion.
If I were developing nanotech grey goo in my basement, everyone would rightly point out that it’s a risk to society. Yet, humans doing the exact same thing (just more slowly) are praised.
People get unreasonably defensive when confronted with these facts, as you have demonstrated.
Can you name one thing that benefits from people creating more selfish and self-replicating creatures other than the emotional state of people who share some of their DNA?
PS: No mother “earns” the love of a one or two year old. It’s automatic and meritless. To assert otherwise to bolster your argument is obviously silly and should clue you in to how shaky the logical foundation for your claims is.
Forgeties79 is talking about understanding parenthood at the experiential level. You can read as much as you want about how heroin makes people feel extremely good, you will never understand at the experiential level how it actually feels until you use it yourself. Not that I recommend...
Also you seem to be saying that not having children is the "only intelligent choice". Intelligent for what? Then you state that we are "an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA." while in the same breath excluding yourself from being said system, calling yourself logical and calling your preference superior to others.
And "harms everyone" assumes the damages of the life you create outweigh the goods. That's your value judgment, not a measurement, and plenty of the people actually created have thought it through and disagree... As for one benefit? Existing people benefit, including you. Everything keeping you alive was built by people who had to be born.
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
Peak HN comment.
Technically you don't "need" anything in life besides food and shelter. You don't need to have children, or loved ones, or friends, or ambitions, or projects, or goals... but life is very sad if you miss all of them.
[flagged]
Wow I didn’t think that stale term was used anymore outside of boomer circles on Facebook
As much as I sometimes wonder what life would have been like as DINKs, the feeling of my 7 year old girl sneaking up behind me to give me a cuddle outweighs all of the fast cars and long walks on the beach I personally could ever have.
Kids love beaches!
Alas, they are not so keen on long walks!
For a few more years.
Bearings on a stroller not so much.
There are toy wagons (Dutch: bolderkar, is "toy wagon" really the correct translation?) that are great fun for transporting kids on a beach.
Interesting perspective. Your first paragraph also describes my experience, perfectly.
However, even though I also think nothing comes even close to parenthood for me, my perspective is that society strongly encourages —I'd even say strongly pressures— people to have kids, to feel that if you don't, it's almost like something is wrong with you. Maybe we're just different generations? :-)
I never felt that pressure to have kids. In fact, even though I waited until I was in my mid 30's, I was the first in my social circle to have kids (I guess I hung around with younger people?).
I knew since I was a kid myself that I wanted to someday be a father. If society pushed me, it would have been when I was still in elementary school.
After I had kids though… It was strange to scroll through coworkers social media feeds and see the same photos of groups of 30-somethings holding up wine glasses while the waiter (I assume) takes their photo at some fancy restaurant in the Bay Area. It all seemed so… hedonistic? Or maybe just kind of empty.
Becoming a father gave me purpose that was (finally) not about me any longer.
And now, the nest empty, I still am unable to go back to that person I was before. (Whoever that was.)
It really does put the partying in perspective, doesn't it? It helps focus what really matters, and it's usually not alcohol and fancy dinners.
Unless you meet your SO drunk at a party ;-)
I live in a neighborhood of older retired folks and I get this vibe from them as well when walking my younger kids. Their faces light up with joy. Just another season in life I suppose. Let's enjoy it while we can.
Yeah, speaking as a female-bodied person here - undoubtedly a minority on this site - I absolutely feel the pressure to have children in society, pretty much every day.
Look at the "birth rate" discourse that's been going on. There's tremendous pressure on women to have more babies. There's also a lot of pendulum-swinging in the opposite direction with your edgy "antinatalists", in some sort of weird "overcorrection" or some such, but ultimately those voices are much louder online than in real life.
Fewer people are reproducing, but that doesn't mean the pressures to do so aren't still there. "It's complicated."
This onslaught of birth rate articles laying the blame at women's feet drives me up a wall. Many of my female peers have frozen their eggs to preserve their ability to have children to the best of their abilities or have undergone fertility evaluations proactively, other female friends in their 30s/40s have pursued the single-mom-by-choice route once they had the financial security to do so. I do not see my male peers pursuing sperm testing / freezing or pursuing single-fatherhood-by-choice. Of my married friends with kids, if there is a second kid it has been because the wife advocated for it. All that said, I don't blame men either the husbands that were talked into the second kid were all concerned about their ability to pay for school / daycare and/or to afford another bedroom even with the help of their working wives / breadwinner wives. For men talked into their first kid, their hesitation was that after undergraduate and masters they felt they'd barely had time to financially establish themselves or live their own lives.
Not to mention the evidence coming out about advanced paternal age and adverse outcomes on offspring. The pressures are definitely lopsided. If anything, the pressures should be on society and institutions to provide more support for parents, people who want to become parents, and people who just want to be part of "the village". So... support for people, I suppose. A rising tide lifts all boats. Something like that. I dunno. There's a lot of factors at play here; I'm just spitballing.
Does the birth rate discourse put pressure on you as an individual? I had expected that to also be more of an online than real life push.
There is more pressure on women to have kids than on men. That is not new. What is new is a more negative attitude to children and parenting in society in general. Do you feel there are conflicting pressures now?
>Does the birth rate discourse put pressure on you as an individual?
Implicitly, I think, yes. It builds on all of the other social pressures, big and small. I'm sure an entire humanities thesis could be written about how it all adds up over time.
I wrote another comment elsewhere in the thread talking about polarized opinions broadcasted on social media and how that also adds to the stress of it all. Nobody ever wants to talk about the "it was/is... fine, actually. kind of whatever. not great, but not horrible." possibility of pregnancy (and parenthood). It's always either the most wonderful, miraculous thing ever and you're insane for not wanting it, or it's the most horrible, irreversibly damaging thing ever and you're insane for wanting it.
And the thing is... it COULD be any of those outcomes! It could ruin your life. It could also make your life so much more fulfilling. There's simply no way to know for sure what it will be like for you without doing it. It is an enormous gamble, especially when you are the person who has to endure the pregnancy, and it is a gamble that you can't really walk away from. (Of course, you can give a child up for adoption, but there's a lot of social shame involved in that, especially if it is a wanted child that you're quite literally giving up on rearing.)
I think the other comment was in answer to me too.
I think you are right about the polarised opinions. I think in real life (at least for people I know) pregnancy is generally fine, with maybe a few horrible bits (i.e. if there are any medical problems/something goes wrong). It has lots of positives but its difficult.
Parenthood is usually wonderful. I am afraid men have it easier as we get the parenthood without the pregnancy!
>I am afraid men have it easier as we get the parenthood without the pregnancy!
Ain't that the truth! I've long joked that I'd make a great Dad. :)
It also depends on your social and professional background. If you are an orthodox jew, you will likely have the maximum pressure.
On the other hand, my wife, who was a lawyer, was fired from from a Big4 when they suspected that she was pregnant.
As a father in the tech/startup industry, it's sometimes quite hard to get people to understand what having children implies for instance, my ex-boss couldn't understand that I wasn't available at 21:30 everyday to answer his questions, as I was bedding the kids.
I mean, humans are made to comply to social pressure, so if they stop collectively having children, it more likely means that the social and economic pressure is overall rather against having them.
I think it's social pressure in some cultures, but even in those (sub)cultures which don't have the explicit pressure to have kids, people have a drive to procreate. I cannot tell you how many couples I know who decided they would not have kids, or would only have one, and at a certain point one partner (usually a woman in their late 30s or early 40s if I am being honest) decided this was the most important thing and no amount of money or career setbacks or relationship turmoil wouldn stand in the way.
Sadly for many of these women the clock hit too late. They call it "geriatric pregnancy" if it's after 35 for a reason.
Yup. Several of these people I know left it too late and went through a lot with IVF or adoption of just not having the kids they wanted.
Yeah that biological clock had a surprisingly loud alarm!
Different generations, different places, exactly where you are in your society, religious influences, your immediate social circle, how much time you spend on social media....
Certainly in the UK there is a group of people who have become very negative about having kids, partly because they are scared of the expense, and partly because society makes it look so hard, and partly because they genuinely have less support.
Pregnancy is also a really scary prospect for a lot of people (myself included), and there doesn't seem to be much work done in trying to make it, well, less shitty of an experience. "It's just how it is," but... is it really? Does it really need to be so bad?
Not to mention that "it takes a village", but in many places the village has been basically stolen from us.
Pregnancy is never going to be easy (and its one part of parenting I am glad I did not have to do!) but it can definitely be made easier and more pleasant. it varies a lot though. We were quite lucky in many ways.
However, why is pregnancy scarier than it used to be when it is safer than it has ever been? It seems to be more scary in developed countries than in poor ones too.
I wonder whether the loss of the "village" might be part of the reason for this. it certainly is for a lot of other things around having kids.
I wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that birth control offers us a choice in the matter. Pregnancy used to be something You Just Did, because, well, most people enjoy having sex, and pregnancy is the intended consequence of unprotected sex. It's scary, it's stressful, it's risky, and it's sometimes even fatal... but it's "part of life". It's how we ended up here, after all.
Now we have a choice. Which is GREAT, amazing, even. Absolutely necessary. I'll never argue that anyone's right to choose if they want to be a parent is a bad thing.
I wonder if social media is also contributing, with its polarizing nature. It's rare you see any opinions or even anecdotes about pregnancy being "fine" or "whatever". It's always a big deal, and it's always a big deal (horrible) or a big deal (wonderful). There's not a lot of in between. The negative end of the spectrum scares people, while the positive end of the spectrum is met with skepticism since it's too-often (for me at least) correlated with right-wing religious people trying to push women to be what're effectively baby factories, so the "it's the most wonderful experience ever!" just comes off as disingenuous and manipulative.
Combined with the fact that women's healthcare is rife with challenges, and women's pain is often dismissed (not looking to start any "gender wars" arguments; just stating things that can be backed up https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10937548/), the prospect of becoming pregnant is a scary one, when you have the option to not do that.
"What if it's nine months of constant nausea, being bedbound, gaining weight I'll never be able to lose? My body will change, in many ways irreversibly. Will my partner still find me attractive? Will they support me during? Will they support me after? Will I feel supported? Will I feel resentment that they'll be able to enjoy things like alcohol while I'll have to stay completely sober for a very long time? Will I feel resentment if the majority of childcare falls on me, which is statistically actually quite likely? What about my career? Will I regret it? What if my child is born with a disability? What if I'm bad at being a mom? What if I hate it? What if I'm trapped in a life I don't want? What if there's no way out?"
Of course, the above thought process could also be one with thoughts like "what if it's wonderful?" but it's a lot easier to worry about the negative, and put weight on the negative, than it is to fantasize and put weight on the positive what-ifs.
This is just my perspective, though. Some people love being pregnant and find parenthood really wonderful (or so they tell me about those things), and I love that for them. Truly. I'm just not sure if I have it in me to ever find out what it would be like for me, and I know I'm not alone. Fun Auntie is a better role for me I think. But maybe I would feel differently if pregnancy were easier and a less destructive process on the female body, and there was more social support for parents.
Birth control has been around for a long time now. The oral contraceptive pill was invented 70 years ago. Fear of pregnancy to the level of putting people off having kids is much newer.
I think its very likely that social media plays apart.
I think people glossing pregnancy over as wonderful are optimistic. I think a more honest take is "its hard but worth it".
> What if it's nine months of constant nausea, being bedbound, gaining weight I'll never be able to lose?
Its not nine months of nausea or being bedbound though. Most women I know lived normal lives for most of their pregnancies.
> Will my partner still find me attractive? Will they support me during? Will they support me after? Will I feel supported
Absolutely do not have kids with a partner whose support you cannot rely on!
None of us are going to keep our looks all our lives anyway.
> Will I feel resentment that they'll be able to enjoy things like alcohol while I'll have to stay completely sober for a very long time?
When i had my kids the NHS advice was to drink in moderation. Changes since then have been politically driven (and by increased American influence on attitudes) rather than being the rest of any new science. My ex went off alcohol before she knew she was pregnant (which is the most critical time) and then drank moderately thereafter.
> Will I feel resentment if the majority of childcare falls on me, which is statistically actually quite likely?
That is understandable. Again it partly comes down to having the right partner. Some men do end up doing the majority of childcare - I am one, and I have come across a few others. This is something that is improving too (I hope!).
> What about my career? Will I regret it? What if my child is born with a disability?
Careers get into perspective when you have kids. Very few people regret having their kids, whatever goes wrong. They are so much more important than having a career. I have a lot less money than I would have had without kids, but there is no way I would want to have the money instead.
> What if I'm bad at being a mom? What if I hate it? What if I'm trapped in a life I don't want?
IMO it is extremely rare for the sort of person who worries about being a good parent to be a bad parent. The problem is that people want to be perfect parents, and society encourages anxiety instead of reassuring them that it is OK not to be perfect.
> Fun Auntie is a better role for me I think
Its not a bad role to have! I would point out that being a fun auntie requires someone to have kids!
> and there was more social support for parents.
I think this is critical. I am not sure to what extent pregnancy can be made easier in a direct physical sense, but many women could be better supported through it.
All valid responses/pushback to the anxiety! It's still a lot of unknowns and what-ifs; I was more trying to make the point that for some people, it's overwhelming, and some may conclude it's not worth the risk in finding out. Which brings me to another important point, which is that parenthood isn't for everybody. Some people really shouldn't be parents, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. (Not saying I'm necessarily one of those people; just speaking more generally.)
Unfortunately - and this is kinda related to your comment about it being rare for the kind of person who worries about being a good parent to be a really bad parent - we often see opposite patterns play out... people that would probably make good parents seem less likely to reproduce, and vice versa. I know "Idiocracy" is a bit of a meme these days and is arguably classist, but I can't help but think about it. It's probably a far larger socioeconomic issue than can be feasibly hashed out in an internet forum, and I certainly can't solve it.
Ultimately, I think where I'm at these days, is that we need the village back, and I would love to be a part of it. How? Well, currently, it's that "Fun Auntie" role, as I've no kids of my own, nor do I plan to change that. I've long "wanted to want" bio-children, but so far, I don't. I'm mid-30s now, so there is still time, especially thanks to fertility technology continuing to improve. I'm probably not gonna change my mind, but I'm far too autistic to speak in absolutes, so I cant 100% rule anything out.
Regardless: the village is a beautiful thing. It's an honor to be a part of it in the ways that I am and have been throughout my life. More people should be a part of it. We should all (within reason) be a part of it. It should be celebrated and supported each and every day, to the point where parenthood isn't so much of a burden on the individual family unit, and is instead a shared responsibility of the local community. How do we best go about doing that? Obviously governmental and institutional support is critical, but we also need societal/cultural support, and that will be a lengthier project... we owe it to ourselves to try, though.
I appreciate the conversation and insights in this conversation; thanks for the well-thought out responses in these threads.
Thank you.
I really appreciate how well you have explained a perspective very different from my own. Not only am I a man who has had children, my younger daughter turned 18 today, and will be off to university in less than two months so my children are no longer children and worries about parenting etc. are behind me.
Its interesting how much we agree about the social and political problems and the loss of the village.
I think that used to be the case but has dramatically shifted in the opposite direction in recent years.
No modern western society does that, for quite some time. Maybe specific people around you behave so, but society as a whole? Nah
I agree parenthood is underappreciated and undersold. Nothing in life beats seeing kids grow up from helpless infants to well-adjusted, passionate young adults.
Lately I frequently find myself wondering if every philosopher who pondered the meaning of life was childless, because it feels to me like the answer must be pretty obvious to any parent.
> Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world
That’s…unhealthy and unusual.
I think they were trying to scare us into not having sex. Or at least having protected sex. Either way, they made all the kids watch videos about teen pregnancy and how it would ruin our lives. They also repeated it frequently in sex education. They focused on how terrible it was to have children. The struggles, etc. I suppose it is difficult for teens to understand nuance, but it certainly left a fairly grim impression of parenthood on all of us. Was it different for you?
Oh this is when you were a student? I thought this was as a parent with kids in school.
Getting pregnant (especially in the wrong state) in the US as a high schooler can absolutely ruin your life. In some states it can even get you killed due to the legal chaos still happening in hospitals.
In my experince we got that, but it was all focused on having a kid while being a teenager will ruin your life not that having a kid at all will ruin your life. Which is fair, a teenager having a child is in a lot of ways ending their lifes or making at a minimum way more difficult( if they family support that is, otherwise good luck )
>> Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible
Uh? I feel it's the opposite. Society constantly judges people that don't have kids. Having kids has always been the norm. It projects you as a grown up mature adult. In fact I think a ton of people have kids simply because they want to give that image of being a well established mature person.
> Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible. Movies and TV shows portrayed only the bad. Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world. A wide range of celebrities spend their days posting about how amazing it is to be without children.
Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but this isn't at all what I remember. I frankly can't think of a single movie or TV show that paints parenting as bad, let alone the worst thing in the world. I can think of only one celebrity who I can recall extolled his child-free life. That was within the past year-- and I think the guy is a total dipshit man-child.
And I have no idea where you grew up, or whether that's actually a factor, but my teachers, when they had kids, seemed like loving parents. When they didn't have kids, I don't think they ever spoke badly or parenting.
I love my kids and would do anything for them. But at the same time, I really don't feel it is a big deal. Humans and animals been having kids for millions of years. It is just basic animal instinct to procreate and raise your offspring.
It is like basic human instinct is to consume and store calories. And there is nothing wrong with it. But to become athlete and win a gold medal, that requires going against these basic instincts. That means eating healthier and working out instead of preserving calories.
Having kids is great but to achieve something great in life, does require going against your basic instincts and not procreate. Or if you do have kids, then not be a good parent.
I had my startup dreams but after having kids, biology kicked in and startup dreams got deprioritized. But I made peace with it and I enjoy my quiet basic life with my kids. I just know I will not do anything significant and that is totally okay.
I feel like when young people think they want to do significant and meaningful things, they think about things that will make them famous in one way or another. Most of such things are neither significant nor meaningful.
This is very true :)
I used to think this way, and then I realised that I actually want to be famous and respected. After some time, I realised that I just wanted the approval of people. And finally I realised all I wanted was to feel loved and cared for.
Or perhaps you simply just wanted to finally love yourself.
Indeed that seems like the next logical step
That's unnecessarily pessimistic. I think it's much more common for drive people to want to make a significant positive impact on the world, rather than becoming famous.
Doesn't matter either way, though, once you realize you're just a blip like the other 8,000,000,000 people on this earth.
Is it really? How much of that is a "feeling" that evolution made you feel in order to protect your kid from issues?
having kids is the baseline normal for millions of years. As much as you "feel" that this is the most important thing you ever did, it is worth taking a step back and think rationally about this. Is it really? What about it makes it SO important? Because we for sure are not going extinct at all. Having a lot of kids has always been the default. If you don't have kids the world will be absolutely fine, in fact nothing will change at all.
So you should ask yourself. Why is it the most meaningful thing you ever did? Because it is YOUR DNA? Isn't that then a completely self-centered pursuit?
Any kind of accomplishment outside of having kids could also be boiled down to an "evolutionary" drive for status, power, belonging, etc.
Why is this nihilist lens applied selectively to one pursuit and not others?
They should absolutely all be discussed. I just don't see a lot of rationale that supports that having kids is the "biggest accomplishment of a lifetime" though.
There is inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about it. It has always been the normal things that happen to most humans and animals since the dawns of time.
If you respond to this, please use rationale and not feelings to describe why having kids is the "biggest achievement from your lifetime".
There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after.
[dead]
Why? Noy disputing you but I am childless yet primarily I cannot think why bringing up a kid would be significant or meaningful.
Like once I have a kid, then that kid has to be the most significant part of my life. But before that, why?
Because any fault of theirs feels like a fault of yours, but you learn that you cannot fix faults of theirs like you can (try to) fix faults of yours. You learn to become a parent, a teacher, a guide, a kind of friend, in the most deeply connected relationship you’ll ever have. A relationship that exposes you to every fault of yourself, while you feel the deepest love for and connection with your children. A connection that’s not even always reciprocated. Parenting is the true Aristotelian politeia.
(I’m halfway through our main parental fase.)
Thank for your answer. I appreciate that.
It is kinda weird, because you feel so much more tired all the time. Yet at the same time you have so much more motivation to do _everything_. It is like I feel 50% more tired, yet 200% more engaged with everything I do. It really makes your life a lot more meaningful.
Before I would waste so much time engaging on video games / internet-browsing / TV-youtube / etc and just not enjoying the time I spent. It felt very meaningless, like why even bother working? I have (had) savings to go take several years of sabbatical if I wanted.
When I actually boot up a video game today I actually enjoy it. And that is all on top of normal stuff you hear about having kids.
Thanks. I have a friend who says the same as you.
I’m surprised this hasn’t come up yet: Because by being a parent, you become responsible for someone else’s life besides your own, permanently and beyond the transactional or contractual sense of a job or a passion project. It is a life experience unmatched by anything else (though I think that being a teacher or the caretaker of children in an orphanage come close). You get free reign over the shaping of a person who will touch the lives of others, and the good or the bad that becomes of it is the consequence of your own values and way of existence.
Not disputing you either—I once said I will never have children, too—but indeed and as with other life decisions, you should stay childless while you find the meaning of it incomprehensible. It’s not for people who are not ready to stop thinking about themselves.
Because it's evolutionarily favourable - the same reason sex feels good. One is instantaneous pleasure, and the other is sustained doses of feelings of satisfaction, because they optimise for different things; but ultimately you can understand them easily if you think about how core they are to what evolution favours.
Why is anything significant or meaningful? This will always be subjective.
Although there is an evolutionary reason why our brain would make our offspring significant to us.
Ever built something and felt proud of it? Like 'that was cool' or 'that was neat'. It's like a never ending source of that feeling. Most things you do in life just don't last that long, but raising kids lasts a really long time.
Yes. I keep getting that feeling everyday with my work as of now. And I also got a PhD after fighting a lot of hardship including huge opposition from my parents to the effect of having lost contact with them. But what you said does ring a bell in that, I need to be constantly doing my work in getting that feeling. (apart from my PhD which every once in a while makes me go wheeeee).
I guess with kids, its like my PhD but a constant source instead of static fading in time?
My own accomplishments make me go wheeeee but my kids’ accomplishments, even mundane ones, make me go WHEEEEEEEEE!
Now imagine all that drive and motivation except you’re doing it all for someone else.
[dead]
Agree with the sibling comment. As a new father, nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - can describe the love, adoration and reverence that parents feel for their children. To be understood, it must be experienced. There is simply no other way.
Thanks for the answer. And I understand that. But for me, that answer is potentially a very biased answer. Is it a feeling that comes naturally or is it forced in the sense that you realise you are everything for the kid and the kid is everything for you and both you the kid have no other choice.
Talking to a lot of people (bit you) i felt it was more the latter.
I think it comes mostly naturally.
Babies have no guile or instinct to deceive; they literally can't even conceive of doing so because their worldview just isn't developed enough. So when your baby cries, you can have absolute faith that it's because there's some problem that needs solving or need that is unmet, and then you can go and solve the problem, fill the need, and the baby is happy. And when the baby's happy, you have absolute faith that it's because you were there doing the thing. There's no pretense to the relationship at all, and it's a sort of unusual honesty that can be really hard to find in relationships where both parties understand basic facts like "there is a world of people outside myself" and "people don't have special insight into my interior being and I can give them information that doesn't fully reflect the state of the world".
So that kind of honest exchange does a lot to foster love and adoration from you to the child, and the fact that you're there providing food, shelter, comfort et all to the baby fosters love and adoration from them to you.
My kid is just under 18 months old now. He's old enough to have distinct ideas about what he wants to do, and when he wants to do it, and he's old enough to understand that not getting to do the thing that he wants is really upsetting, so he cries. That's hard sometimes. But if I'm relaxing on the couch and he brings a book over to me, I can know with absolute faith that it's because right now, what he wants more than anything in the world is to sit in my lap and have me read a book to him, and that feels amazing. When he goes and hides behind the kitchen island and then jumps out, it's because the thing he wants to do more than anything else is play peekaboo with me, and that feels amazing too.
This was so heartwarming and relatable. Thank you for sharing!
Let me paraphrase a scene from “Lessons in Chemistry”.
The main character confesses that twice she has wanted to give up her child for adoption. Another mom laughs... "Twenty times would still make you an amateur."
The point is: it’s not all love and adoration.
It didn't come naturally for me. Babies aren't much fun. There were plenty of times I wondered why everybody else finds being a parent fulfilling and here I am trying not to swear at a crying six month old at 1 am.
Toddlers though... toddlers are fun. Not always, but a lot of the time. Once both of my kids cleared the baby stage I finally would describe myself as a proud parent, mostly happy.
Now we are empty nesters and both of my kids live far away and are doing great. With the space that leaves I've spent some time thinking about myself as a dad and boy do I have a lot of regrets. I don't think I was very good at it.
I understand now why so many people who weren't the greatest parents get very excited about grandchildren. I know if that happens for me, I'm going to be a much better grandparent than I ever was parent.
+1. I also felt this huge gap between knowing (intellectually) what parenting is and actually experiencing it. It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently. I think I can perceive fairly accurately whether someone my age is a parent after just a few minutes of general conversation (obviously, without having to visit adjacent topics).
I experienced this so strongly I spent some time actually writing a poem (in Spanish) about it: https://alejo.ch/39l
> It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently.
As a childless person, the inverse is equally true. I have wildly different levels of obligation and constraint - and that difference typically becomes obvious very very quickly. I don't say that as a better/worse, just different.
Once you have kids you quickly discover that you get forced into it. You have to engage. If you don't, they scream. They get in trouble at school. They are unhappy and it breaks your heart. Once you have no choice but to do something, you will find it's better to find meaning in it. Meaning is ultimately something you create for yourself.
> I cannot think why bringing up a kid would be significant or meaningful.
I don't think it's something to think or reason about. You feel it (or don't, in some cases). As an atheist, I suppose this is how truly religious people feel about their religion: it brings them joy and meaning. (And much like in some religions, you sometimes feel you're beholden to a demanding, whimsical god!).
It’s because of the opportunity to truly learn responsibility to others, instead of selfish responsibility to self.
>But before that, why
You can ask that question about a lot of things whether it's one entrepeneurial baby or their nature conservation effort which reveals it to be somewhat meaningless question.
As a parent, I get to give you The Most Infuriating Answer: once you have kids, you'll understand.
Also as a parent, I still don't understand. I have two kids and regret it. They suck all the time and energy from my life. I give my all to be a great parent to them, and I would never let them know that I regret having kids, but if I could wind the clock back I almost certainly would. I feel like I'm throwing the most valuable years of my life in a wood chipper.
Some do try:
On Parenthood, https://blog.codinghorror.com/on-parenthood / https://archive.vn/zxDzb (Oct 2011).I'd modify that to once you have kids, you might understand. It's for sure not a given and there are a lot of really terrible people out there who probably shouldn't have the kids they do.
I'd like to object to this hopefully unintentional suggestion that failing to understand it means you're a terrible person.
I don't think I'm a terrible person. My kids are healthy, mostly happy, seem to be well adjusted. I support their physical needs, do my best to support their emotional needs. I read to them, changed their diapers, taught them how to ride a bicycle, help them with their homework, kiss them goodnight. But I still don't understand. I know most parents have this whatever it is, but I'm still wondering.
I for sure didn't intend to imply that. My apologies.
Have you been diagnosed with depression at all?
Yes. Probably since my teens although diagnosed much later.
Except... a million reasons where they will either not understand, or they should have not become a parent.
The problem with the "The Most Infuriating Answer" is that it entirely neglects facts, and only those say it who do have a good experience with it.
Happy for you, internet stranger. Just like I am happy for all of those around me: you all are the ones who do good parenting.
In case you also want to become a better person in general, I recommend to stop being condescending, and not to say this ever again to anyone. You hurt more than you think you are wise.
I don't see OP's comment as condescending but I'm also not in these "should have not become a parent" shoes to tell, for sure. Insensitive? Perhaps. On a discussion board, it is hard to know who you're talking to. OP likely assumed some "persona" (different to those that might find it hurtful) before they wrote the comment.
> You hurt more than you think you are wise
We are all fighting some demon or the other. I appreciate you for bringing forth the kind most of us are (fortunate enough to be) oblivious to. Ignorance is bliss.
I also dont think the OPs done was condescending.
> I recommend to stop being condescending
Said in perhaps, the most condescending way possible
The irony of this fact should be front and center to everyone and thus people saying it should have this forced to be capitalized with exclamation points.
Similar, all invocations of "calm down" should be in all caps with exclamation points. Never in history has telling someone whose upset to "calm down" actually led to them calming down.
I mean, ok, they might just understand or they might hate their children with a fiery passion and never miss and opportunity to vocalize it and ruin innocent lives like my parents did?
One of the two I guess.
I’m sorry to hear that about your parents.
You can say that about any life experience, and those who do shouldn’t even be chiming in discussions
>Why? Noy disputing you but I am childless yet primarily I cannot think why bringing up a kid would be significant or meaningful.
Its because they are more important than anything else to a parent. You are invested in their outcome more than anything else. I don’t see how this isn’t obvious.
> I don’t see how this isn’t obvious
What contribution does this add to your point? It comes off as a put-down
It's said by lots of people every time this subject comes up, it's obviously true, but IMO it's also a little tautological. I read it as essentially: "I created a massive problem to solve, and here I am successfully solving it." Of course it's meaningful. Of course it's significant.
When I hear people say this with all the morale high ground that comes with it I’m always wondering if it’s partially because of some hormonal changes. It has been proven recently that the human brain changes after having kids.
I know you didn’t intend it that way but there are so many people that are extremely judgmental about having kids (or rather judging people that don’t have kids). I also understand that it’s such a hard task that there must be some level of self convincing needed to make it work.
All that to say, i tend to dismiss those opinions.
I feel that physical change the moment I saw my son first time. Something snapped/connected in my brain. I will do anything for that little thing. The feeling is visceral. It is very hard not to preach your best experience to others
That added some intensity behind my motivation to avoid parenthood: so many people describe having their brains hijacked in this way that I could not be sure I would be immune. Best steer far clear, I thought.
I mean the obvious retort to this is that until you become a parent all of your behaviour is probably driven by some deep evolutionary desire to demonstrate your suitability as a mate.
So we can dismiss opinions of non-parents as well.
Ideally we should discuss all those behaviour (becoming parents, becoming successful) logically without the hormones and feelings that makes you think they are the most important thing in the world.
Essentially discussing facts versus emotions.
Almost every parent in this discussion uses emotions to justify why they are doing the grandest accomplishment in the world by being a parent.
> without the hormones and feelings
I'm saying that's impossible, we're all emotional creatures. That parents have higher levels of certain hormones than non-parents doesn't mean non-parents are rational, objective creatures. They're just feelings-driven in different ways.
Like, to put it another way, try to give me a totally value-less assessment of why winning Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children.
In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
It is perfectly possible to study the world around us without our emotions and feelings. There is in fact a ton of philosophy that has been written on this topic. Please read about rationalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
And yes, I could in fact give you multiple logical arguments for why winning an Olympic gold is a "grander" accomplishment than having children:
- Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty. One way to measure difficulty is that fewer people are able to achieve it. Everyone (literally almost everyone) can have kids. But only a select few can win a gold.
- By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids. You will be in a lot of history books, and a ton of people will look after you. You will inspire the next generations. By having kids, you will also change the next generation but I would argue by way less than by winning gold in the olympics.
See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.
>>> In another comment you said there's "inherently nothing very special, unique or difficult about" having children. I'm saying that's an illogical, hormonal/emotional statement. Not that it's wrong, but that it's irrelevant to whether having children is a "grand accomplishment". Something being special/unique/difficult is only relevant to you because of how you feel about the world.
No, again: those words have measurable meaning: Having children is neither special/unique (as it is literally the normal outcome for most people), neither difficult (at least to HAVE children is not difficult, raising them well has probably some level of measurable difficulty). How can you disagree with this logically?
> See? Those are logical arguments. They are based on measurable input/outputs. You could argue with similar arguments as to why having a kid is such a grand achievement, but yet, no parents did that. They all come back to hormones and feelings.
No, they're not logical arguments, they're based on a whole suite of assumptions about value systems that I would argue reflects more about how you feel about the world than any sort of rational/objective assessment of what constitutes a "grand achievement".
> Logically, this is a way more difficult achievement than having kids by at least some measure of difficulty.
Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident. Can you make an argument for this that isn't an appeal to emotion?
> By winning a gold medal you leave a bigger legacy than by having kids.
Same exact response from me. Why is a bigger legacy grander or more of an achievement? Can you make a logical argument in favour of a bigger legacy that's not an appeal to emotion?
I see no logic in your arguments, I see you restating your values as if they are logical.
> How can you disagree with this logically?
I don't disagree with what the words mean, I'm saying that you think special/unique/difficult = grand accomplishment for feelings-based reasons, not logical reasons.
This is going to be my last reply because we are talking past each other.
I think it is perfectly fine and logical for you to reply to my logical arguments with other counter-logical arguments such as:
>> Why is difficult grander or more of an achievement? This is not self-evident
You could say to you a "grand achievement" is keeping your bloodline as this is what evolution wants us to be. That has some logic. I actually would agree with some of those arguments, and we could go back and forth. Sure, it represents some of our values but you are making at least some logical sense.
What I reject is reasoning such as: "Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life." and when asked clarifications around why that would be the cause, the replies are "feelings, and you will know when you have them".
Absolutely. What happened to the old “no one ever wishes they’d worked more on their deathbed”?
> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
That might say more about what you haven't done than what you have.
"First-time fathers show longitudinal gray matter cortical volume reductions: evidence from two international samples"
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/33/7/4156/6691667
Everybody says that because it makes them feel good.
In reality, simply adding more children to the pool doesn’t accomplish anything real.
I am aware that this is true for many people, and I am glad it works for you. For me, it is a completely different category of experience.
Would that be true if your child turned out to be a new Hitler or a burden on society?
Personally, I'm with the OP. Raising children, and to do a good job at it, is waaaay too much of a burden for me, and would seriously negatively affect most areas of my life.
I find it much more meaningful to focus on creating jobs, companies, products and services people need, than to raise a child with unknown outcome. I see way too many parents who try and appear as if they are happy and say they don't regret the decision, but deep down it is clear they do.
That is why, many of them, once the children are somewhat grown up, split up from their partner, and then try to re-live their lives and all that they missed.
Exactly how I feel too. They bring magic into my life that I didn't even know I was missing. I'll be sad when they grow up and leave.
Thanks for sharing! I remember thinking pre-kids mostly about how much work they would be but not really considering the joy they bring too. Like I knew they would, but vastly underestimated what effect that would have on my life.
I don't particularly regret any of my choices either, but knowing what I do now, would have chosen to have kids earlier in my life.
I find it funny that I spent my 20s and 30s doing everything in my power to avoid having kids and at this stage in my life I’m doing everything to have kids.
I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around.
There’s never a right time to have kids. But having them older has its perks. You are much more calmed, patient, you are wiser and likely financially stable. Throwing money at problems definitely makes life 10X easier when you have kids, something most people can’t do in their 20s or even 30s.
I disagree. As a father of nine children, I submit that the best time to have children is when you’re young. The next best time is now.
Sure, you’ll be poor, and you’ll make lots of mistakes. But how do you know you’ll be able to have children later? And what’s so important now that makes it worth putting off children?
As a father of nine you have to acknowledge your perspective is an extreme outlier. Not criticizing, just, not a generalizable take.
I don't know if you are joking, but being poor is something big for most people. Specially people who don't make as much as SWEs did in USA in the last decade
Yes. Had one kid mid thirties. And now I realize I want nine of them too. Or four maybe. We started too late and I doubt we will make it. Biggest mistake of my life. In my environment I see people delaying kids because they think 33, 34 is still alright to start. And it is. If you want to have 1 or 2...
We will go for the third one next year and that would be it for us. I come from a family of 8 children and my wife is a single child. I don’t think I had a better childhood, just different. She has a lot of good memories of traveling with her parents and does not regret not having siblings. I saw my dad a few days a week for a good portion of my early childhood and regret that a bit. My wife and I are equally social, I’m actually more of an introvert in some circumstances. We are both considered of others, and like to share. I would say the one skill I developed that she lacks is the ability to focus and concentrate in public spaces with noise. Because that’s how I did homework and studied all the way from elementary school to college, always around a bunch of loud people, no place in the house where I could close a door and be alone.
You’ll feel poor anyhow. More money just means you want more.
I’ll say there’s benefits to having a single child, but not nearly as many as there are to have multiple.
In my experience having room in the house, not having to cook dinner, not having to go grocery shopping, never have to clean the house, travel comfortably and have a full time nanny, makes a lot of a difference. You save a lot of time that you can then invest in yourself, your partner and your kids.
Explain this please.
I mean: siblings.
Not to discount that it’s great when you play with your kids, but it’s different when your kids play together, and in particular when you can’t play that they have someone to interact with.
Yeah, the group dynamics of, say, a family with two children:
As compared to a three-child household: So, in a bigger family, many more communication patterns between children can arise, which, among other things, might develop the child's empathy etc.Adding mom and dad as "players" would give us many more possible scenarios here (Kid A playing with mom, Kid B alone or with dad, etc).
I'm a father of two with a low income, and I would like to have a third child for precisely the above described reason. As a sociologist in my country put it -- somewhat harsh words maybe, but probably largely true: a single child might get spoiled, two children may start competing too heavily, but three children and above is company.
I disagree, when looking at 3-kids setup out there in the world. Ie my wife comes from such, she is the oldest and all 3 follow the typical 3 kids pattern - oldest was pushed into most responsibility to the point of trauma, middle one feels unappreciated and has inferiority complex as middle ones often do, and youngest is by huge margin the most spoiled one. This is the default for 3 kids that many parents end up with, unless fighting hard against this natural direction.
And yes a lot of interaction, but it doesn't guarantee anything further down the line - when long time adults youngest is still spoiled and selfish and not really a pleasant person to be around with for anybody, including siblings and their own mom. Middle one is scared to have kids, a decision that she may end up regretting later easily. And my wife is also carrying her part of the burden, won't bother you with details.
The grass is always greener behind the fence and all that.
There are so many stereotypes involved in this that it may be hard to believe but at least I know I have caught myself repeating the stereotype almost to a T (especially with regard to the oldest being worked so hard or, as I would put it, constantly on the hardest jobs).
That said it does help that it’s a stereotype/generalization/trope that I’m aware of because I get to take that as part of my feedback loop to make the attempt to iterate around the negative aspects you’ve pointed out.
I think I’m doing better - I’ll know if my kids still talk to me after they move out.
Insightful comment, got me thinking, thanks for sharing. I suppose, in the end, there isn't all that much logic in human relations, or there are always far too many "unknown unknowns".
There's very few humans that have enough time, energy, skills, wherewithal, and money to devote to 3+ kids to make these sorts of positive "three's company" interactions happen in the modern world. I am not saying that it's impossible, just that it's difficult and doesn't happen naturally like you're implying.
On a personal note, I never had much positive interactions with either of my siblings, certainly not as children as not now that we're in our 40s either. Lots of fighting, absolutely zero closeness or positive feelings.
I think you have a really different experience from me. In my experience it doesn’t cost any time, effort or money to make those interactions happen. You can just stick three kids in the same room for about 10 minutes and it will.
Not only do they play but they also learn to care for each other. Parental effort doesn't increase uniformly with each child – if you're lucky and have done a good job parenting them, children create a society and help with raising each other.
This is the take I pursue in my home, everyone is doing a see one, do one, teach one. There are still struggles around it but consistency makes the conversations shorter and more effective.
I'd offer a contrasting view, as a father of many fewer. If I'd had children young it would have been an utter disaster. It's difficult enough when you're financially and romantically stable and have more emotional maturity. To ask a contrasting question, what's so important about having children that you need to rush into it on the off chance you'll be unable to later?
im in the "wish i had em earlier" camp assuming the same partner. i was not prepared for how much a kid would change me - so i spent more of my time and effort on priorities i would one day drop.
another thing i think about is grandparents. having kids earlier would mean longer time with grandparents! (heck, maybe one day my time with potential grandkids)
off topic - i understand my parents so much more now that im a parent. i think being a parent has helped heal my relationship with them. grandparents are awesome and i wish i had more time with mine.
100% on this. In my life I have 0 regrets except not having kids younger. I was never especially fond of kids, but it turns I out love my own more than I imagined possible, and have more fun with them I ever thought I would! I only wish we could have many more but given when we started, the odds of having more than 2 are very low. The amount of joy and life they bring to you and to your house is something you can't really appreciate until you've had them. To say nothing of the sort of fulfillment and life satisfaction they bring.
My parent's goal was to get me to go to college. My goal for my kids is to teach them the importance of having kids early. The fact it might help in having a grandkid or two before I kick the bucket is just a wee bit of icing on that cake. I think the ideal time to start is probably in your 20s. This also maximizes the amount of time you'll get to spend with your kids. I'm quite 'jealous' (sans the negative connotations) of those who will get to see their kids live til retirement, but hey - they made wiser decisions, so hopefully I can help encourage my children to do the same.
I for a change am happy I had my kids in late 30s / 40. I am certainly wiser, way more experienced with world, humans, got to be successful and in much better financial position which also helped my parents to have better retirement.
I wasn't a full adult in my 20s, too naive, too trusting, undefined for the lack of better words, not experienced with various types of women (laugh all you want, this was probably the most important experience from all for me, it afterwards formed my choice of wife which is often the most important choice in one's life).
Plus I've managed in a decade before having kids to travel the world backpacking, various experiences that changed me for the better and basically reinvented myself, on my own. I don't come from competitive or nurturing environment, nobody expected anything from me. I've found my passions in various mountain/extreme sports. None of that would happen if I had kids earlier, thats very clear when looking at peers who took the other trajectory.
If my kids will have their kids young or older is completely up to them, I find it selfish to push any expectations on them, they (will) live vastly different life compared to me, I can just respect their choices and love them regardless.
I think your example of e.g. being able to provide a better retirement harken back to what times were like in the past. My parents and theirs on back had children quite young. It gave me a life where I was able to know my great grandparents. I didn't really appreciate it, or anything, at the time - but I hold those memories dearly now, in hindsight. And it also created an environment where social security, so to speak, was never any concern - you have about 20 relatives who are mostly all working together to make a better life for themselves, and always there for each other. Everybody was dirt poor, but you would never know it from what we were able to have.
If people start having children in their 40s then statistically grandparents will simply no longer be a thing, let alone great grandparents. And people's family sizes will substantially decline. I think that's quite sad from all perspectives, and also significantly detrimental. For instance there is so much I want to pass onto my children about having children (and I'm sure much I've yet to learn myself) but none of it will really 'stick' until they themselves have children. If they wait until their 40s then I'll most likely be dead by then.
And what we do we get in exchange in this sort of world? Slightly greater liberty to pursue self indulgence? And I think "slightly" is correct because you're right that self indulgences do become more difficult with children, but far from impossible, and even less difficult with large families. Want to head off to the mountains on the weekend? Sure, that's what grandparents are for!
> I was never especially fond of kids, but it turns I out love my own more than I imagined possible, and have more fun with them I ever thought I would!
That's because we're designed to have kids.
This. I’m an old dad. I realized two years ago that to keep up with my pre-teens I had to change my lifestyle. For me that meant cutting out alcohol, not eating processed foods, avoiding sugar, reduced caffeine, way more protein and doing calisthenics. I sleep well and I have energy. I just have to keep this up for 10 more years when my youngest will be 21, then I can die. ;-)
Same here in almost all ways, except the caffeine. What was the benefit there? My hot pots keep me going. Once my wife hits menopause I might also consider TRT. I'm almost certainly not low by the standards of the average American, let alone for my age, but it's gonna keep falling as I age and wouldn't mind that extra oomph.
Previously, when my head touched the pillow I was asleep. Two years ago I noticed that wasn’t happening and I would wake frequently through the night. I cut back my caffeine intake and my restored my sleep. Without knowing the physiological reason I assume my metabolism is slowing down and I had to alter my lifestyle to fit to it, hence my strict diet now. The calisthenics has been awesome for me. I love the progression moves to unlock skills and levelling up. Pushing weights just to stack more plates wasn’t motivation for me - cali is. It replaces my caffeine.
As for menopause, or more accurately, perimenopause, my wife has been in that for years. (She’s an old mom) She started HRT about 6 months ago and it has been amazing. She no longer wants to murder me or anyone else that irritates her.
Yip peri is also where we're at right now. Still trying and hoping for another kiddo. Glad to hear it can last for years at least there's a bit more chance.
Haha! Very interesting life goal - When your dependents have sucked all the life out of you, you can kick the bucket:) (And am sure it’s worth it)
> When your dependents have sucked all the life out of you, you can kick the bucket:)
Don't laugh, there's a reason for it. Read the book "The Red Queen" which explains all this.
Ah, think the commenter was joking around a bit
> when my youngest will be 21, then I can die. ;-)
which I thought was a funny way to put.
But, am sure there is an evolutionary reason for dying after your children leave the nest. It's all good:)
Is this the teen novel or something else? Curios how a teen novel could address these issues?
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0...
Rather sounds like they’ve given them their life back.
Am not sure what your statement means? :) who is "them" and who is "their" in this?
I read it as “them” and “their” is the OP and “they’ve” are OP’s children.
Exactly, good for them
I was 41 when my daughter was born. I think it’s a great reason to stay for, strong and healthy.
My goal is to keep up with her mountain biking, snowboarding and hiking for as long as I can. Hopefully I’ll be on the game well in my 60s and her 20s
My dad was 42 when I was born, and he was keeping up with me on hikes in my early 20s (his mid 60s). I haven't done much hiking with him lately, but he's going on 50 mile bike rides at 70.
I think having kids late can help people stay young longer, if you let it.
> I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around.
Can confirm that starting at 30 makes it relatively easy to keep up. Still not early enough though. Wish I’d started at 25.
It’s mostly a matter of effort though. You’ll become very good at it out of sheer need if you genuinely want to keep up. In far better shape now than I was at 30, mentally and physically.
I was nearly 40 when my younger daughter was born. No problem. Kids helped keep me fit.
> Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear
Similar experience here growing up Mennonite (they’re sorta like the Amish but more moderate).
I’m one of the only remaining men in my family without kids, but those that do have kids (and there’s a lot of them) are super busy. This is at least partially offset by their wives who are more on the traditional side.
They all do seem very fulfilled however :)
I got sort of lucky early in my career because I had a talent that was discovered in a national network. Which meant I found myself writing national strategies for IT in our public sector (Denmark) at my late 20ies. It felt great for a year, or maybe two. When it stopped being fun though, it sort of hit me hard. I did enjoy writing and working on the strategies with other people. All the "glamour" around it, advicing politicians, going to conferences, networking with all sorts of "important" people. That got to me on one of the many train rides I had to take. I know a 3 hour commute might not be a lot to Americans or people in larger countries in general, but here it's a life time. Eventually I didn't know why I was going on them, so I quit and went back to being a nerd in a basement. Having my first child was the kick I needed to push me to where I was already heading though. I would've likely ridden the career ladder for a lot longer if I hadn't become a dad.
I rarely speak about it but something about reading you accepting the failure of your ambitions made me want to do it. Are you sure it's a failure? For me family life turned out to be what I wanted and work is just a fun place which makes me money, but I totally get why people want to do it the opposite way. In some ways you could say that I did something significant, but it made me misserable. So I failed just as much as you, if not more.
I don't regret any of it either though. It's what made me who I am.
I'd also agree with this. Children don't make you give up your ambitions in the least. However they will almost certainly make you rethink what is important in life. It's not even conscious like an 'ok I give this up, in order to get that' but rather they just make you feel very differently, in a way that you can't really explain. But it's good, very good.
100% agree with this. But its not uniform for everybody, mothers generally change and throw away previous life after having kids in ways that most men don't. Some fathers are similar (and few mothers are similar to average guy) but difference is pretty big when you dig deeper.
That's mostly due to social pressures and expectations - women are expected/demanded/forced to perform most of the child care duties. Which is why when a man does child care (in the US at least), he is seen as "helping out", even if he is the full-time caretaker/househusband.
I don't find these sort of critical theory takes to make much practical sense. Most/all mammalian species are similar in this regard, and there are very practical reasons. For instance most don't seem to understand that early on breastfeeding is literally a 24 hour job. That forms a special bond between a mother and child that a father could never match.
Even the most involved father's role there is basically to give the mother some downtime and this will, in turn, shape how the child responds to parents. We often joke that daddy's for fun, mommy's for comfort - but it's not really a joke. Your children's earliest months will have food literally coming out of mommy while daddy is just there to keep you happy when mama's trying to get some elusive sleep. And that carries forward even as the child ages.
There are also other instinctual issues in play. For instance most mothers experience vivid and highly unpleasant nightmares involving just about every possible awful thing happening to their children. It's quite horrific, but likely an instinctual thing to help the mother be wary, form a deeper bond, and so on. I'm not sure the rate for fathers, but I never had anything like that - and so the bond formed is again, just very different than for a mother.
Finally, there's also the realistic timelines involved. Having a child takes about a year, and you want around a year between each child. For a sustainable society every single woman needs to have a bit more than 2 children. So that's like 5-6 years, at the minimum, solely dedicated to having your children. And then of course the show is just beginning at that point. The reality is that advancing a career in this context is simply not realistic, and trying to build societies that reject this isn't going to do anything but ensure those societies are unsustainable, which is exactly what has happened.
I think one of the reasons that a lot of successful founders are in their mid-40s is because they combine 20ish years of experience with an empty nest after kids are out on their own.
Nothing to back it up, but it makes sense to me.
Raising kids is fabulous experience for management. If you can convince a five-year-old that greens are tasty, you can motivate almost anyone.
Having been on the receiving end of someone trying to manage me like they do with their kids - No. A really strong NO to that behaviour.
That just tells us the person wasn’t a good parent either. Your comment assumes the only way to parent is to manipulate, patronize, etc. That’s just one perspective though.
There are other ways to parent that are actually fantastic management training - figuring out how to think from another human’s POV, acknowledge their frustrations, help them build the skills to handle their feelings, etc.
It turns out great parenting is to a first degree about great relationship skills.
You can achieve that trivially with such young kids by simply leading by example, not having snacks and junkfood at home and so on. We eat a lot of healthy stuff, so our kids do. You are still their world and define many patterns they will follow later subconsciously.
That doesn't translate that much into say teens but it lays a solid foundation.
Raising kids is a fabulous experience for management of kids. Trying to apply the lessons to adults... I pity either the manager, or the adults.
Add in personal networks too.
I think being a proper dad (or mom of course) you realise that that is something extremely "significant and meaningful".
My ambition is to become a dad. I have other ambitions too whcih require a lot of time but if need be i'll make my choices.
May I ask you what significant and meaningful thing you tried to do, and why you think you failed at it?
I've spent my 30s doing something similar and it's still unclear whether it will work out or not. And I've foregone essentially all else, including family.
very happy for you that things turned out this way
and yet most nobel prize laureates seem to be family people. I found that adult responsibilities have a way of making me very very intentional about how i spend my time.
Most nobel prize laureates have children because the vast majority of humans have children.
And I would bet that most of them don't spend a lot of time with their kids.
[flagged]
I always find it funny the genetics argument or the "I'm a dopamine addict!" just how they are framed with fairly modern scientific language.
Personally, legacy is but another grasping of the ego. It is meaningless and is most used as a justification to be selfish. I think kids are beyond that, it isn't something that is rationalized, it is just a means of life. And that is cool. I'm not pro or anti natalism, it all just seems to be a case of some people clinging to concepts and ideas just a little too strongly. But ultimately it has the same amount of meaning as a single ant that died a million years ago.
Also what if you cannot create genetic legacy?
Meaning, when applied broadly like that is rather… meaningless. In “what is the meaning of life?” the word meaning in that sentence is completely nonsensical. That being said, most people would prefer the world to be shaped in a particular way and a large part of how the world is shaped comes down to normalized cultural and societal expectations. If you don’t voice your opinions on how you want the world to be shaped or agree to be silenced, then the world will probably not be shaped the way you want it to. I want the world to be shaped a particular way and every interaction I have including this minor comment thread is one step in that direction just like everyone else.
Within my world view, if you cannot create a genetic legacy, you have failed at a key aspect of life.
Who gives a crap about "genetic legacy"? How about mind your own business.
It's a biological drive, at least until you're past the age of fertility. Whether you consciously think about carrying on your genetic line, it's baked into the hardware.
I forget the precise nature of what the guy said, but it wasn’t just “people want to have kids who came from them.”
Only as far as having sex. And what about kin selection?
Most people.
It was interesting of you to make the remark considering it’d clearly be unpopular, but agree with others, don’t really care about my genetic legacy. Am going to be dead so it’s meaningless to me.
And actually, a non-genetic child might be nice, especially if you get one at the right age. You don’t have the intense burden of raising a baby or when they’re a young child, but still get to the joy of raising a child (as long as they like you, which is of course the biggest downside. Probably less of a tendency for them to attach strongly to you).
Nah, creepy weirdos care about “genetic legacy.” Normal people have no problem with adoption or stepkids or whatever.
International adoption is actually extremely controversial and full of abuse. Many countries have straight up banned it and basically declared that the folks who want to adopt outside of their borders are by-in-large "creepy weirdos"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_adoption
I don’t think that’s relevant to the “genetic legacy” crap. Non-international adoption fails just as much in that respect.
Yeah, you’re the normal one and most of the world is creepy weirdos
It’s funny. Normally saying that something is wrong because it got downvoted and flagged would be a fallacy. You’ve managed to make it a valid argument.
The “reality has a liberal bias” crowd gets pretty quiet when biology comes up.
The two genders: liberal and biological
What do you mean?
The older I get the more I realize ambition and "being ambitious" is a completely misplaced way to orient your life.
The chance of validation from others is not a good reason for making one choice or another and a life made of choices of that kind will eventually leave you spiritually bankrupt.
Make decisions based on what you're passionate about, based on what will bring and keep meaningful relationships into your life, based on what will leave you with habits that take you outside, into the sun, moving your body and eating healthy, and, sure, that will afford you the ability to pay for those things.
Focus on the process, not the outcome.
Making decisions based on what will make you more "successful" will make you a slave to others approval. And those others will use you up and waste your life to achieve their own objectives.
Also, if you pick the right partner, having kids does all the good things in life at once. It is the most efficient way to get yourself into the good life possible.
I don't disagree, except that you've taken ambitious to mean climbing the corporate ladder, which is a relatively narrow reading.
It can also mean wanting a achieve a large dream or goal e.g. writing a book.
I can +1 who you're replying to in the context of founders and achieving a large dream (building a massive company.)
I was in the Summer 2016 batch. Ten years out feels like long enough for some reflections on lives well-lived. There were people in my batch who were ambitious, not in climbing someone else's corporate ladder but in building their own massive/successful/wealthy company.
For those who separated it from what they were passionate about—and here I mean the impact, not "passionate about building a big business”—there have been more than a few crash outs. Existential crises, Extremely Online Syndrome, pulled into a world where what VCs say or competition with press releases on Tech Crunch define their self-worth.
These people are generally not happy. Some are! But many are not.
The founders who worked on things that they care about—with technology or company-building as a _means_ to achieving some greater end—are doing much better. They might or might not still be at their start-ups. Many have gone on to work at other impactful companies or organizations. They seem much more content with life and their contributions to the world.
That's the type of ambition that is healthy _and_ meaningful _and_ lasting. It's not that these people aren't ambitious—they very much are! But it's not "big company good". It's "big positive impact good."
In my experience, this is the kind of thing that one should explore when choosing co-founders. Misalignment here, at least the kind where you're not fully (100%!) okay with, and you're up for a painful journey. Maybe not at the beginning, but most likely at some point in time. The kind of thing that can ruin a lot, including causing an identity and life crisis.
Or the dream of financial security and early retirement, which are both highly valuable in the context of having a family.
I couldn’t care less about the external validation part of it or my job title.
I think the OP's logic applies. Every author is hoping their book is a best-seller and/or wins awards i.e. the approval of others.
I know a couple of O’Reilly authors. I don’t think any of them expected a best-seller or awards from their work, just “I get a high-four or barely-five figure payment for a competent treatment of a technical topic.”
Maybe you could argue that’s a lightweight version of “approval of others”
Surprised to hear that an O'Reilly book will net you less than a month of work for a SWE in the US and some parts of Europe.
But I guess the reward is not the money but the expertise and signal.
Here's an authors account of royalties received from the no. 2 best selling O'Reilly book at the time (around $500k over 6 years)
https://martin.kleppmann.com/2020/09/29/is-book-writing-wort...
That plus, online, in-person training opportunities.
It might not be as common, but some authors do write something to get it out of their head.
Focusing on your passion for writing is more likely to produce the book than focusing on your desire to be able to say you were someone who finished a book.
And who is being able to say you were someone who finished a book for? You? Or is it for someone else?
Or the dream of keeping a stable job.
The trouble with that is it's always someone else's decision whether you keep your job.
While I agree with everything you say... I'd sure like to earn more money. It would make my life better and my kid's lives better. The surest path to achieving that is to be ambitious in the workplace. It's something I find myself constantly conflicted on.
> a life made of choices of that kind will eventually leave you spiritually bankrupt.
> I'd sure like to earn more money.
i heard a lyric a while back about being "unhappy with the riches, cuz you're p**-poor morally"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koVHN6eO4Xg
I’m not convinced it’s a binary thing like that. At the extreme end you have the father that steals bread to feed his starving family. At the other end you have the father that spends more time at work in pursuit of a promotion. I’m not sure that makes anyone morally piss-poor.
Taking a job at Palantir in order to make an extra few hundred K… yeah, maybe that’s morally piss poor.
it's definitely a multi-axis thing :)
Aladdin makes me sympathize with stealing to feed your family, though The Protomen helped me place a balance between sacrificing for your family and working for personal ambitions
Being ambitious doesn't necessarily mean you're aiming for validation. It means you're aiming for a goal that's challenging. What drives that ambition is what matters.
Many are driven by a desire to create real change, a desire to build, to solve a problem, and/or help people. Many do it simply because it's fun, but it doesn't make them any less ambitious.
> The older I get the more I realize ambition and "being ambitious" is a completely misplaced way to orient your life.
The older you get, the closer you get to being a corpse. That's not something to be proud of :)
I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your comment in spirit, but you are conflating "ambition" with "seeking validation from others". The most passionate and driven people I know are intrinsically motivated and have ideals that go beyond social validation.
That is one way to look at it. But equally, the older you get, the longer you've fought off becoming a corpse.
Heh love the optimistic outlook, I'll keep that in mind!
> The older I get the more I realize ambition and "being ambitious" is a completely misplaced way to orient your life.
> Make decisions based on what you're passionate about, based on what will bring and keep meaningful relationships into your life, based on what will leave you with habits that take you outside, into the sun, moving your body and eating healthy, and, sure, that will afford you the ability to pay for those things.
Most people are ambitious about one or more of those things.
> Making decisions based on what will make you more "successful" will make you a slave to others approval
Again, many of the things you listed above will make people more "successful".
> Also, if you pick the right partner, having kids does all the good things in life at once. It is the most efficient way to get yourself into the good life possible.
This is a broad generalization that does not apply to everyone.
Do the things for the things in themselves.
Don't do the things to be able to say you were someone who did the things.
[dead]
I kinda agree with you but Could you please elaborate on “ having kids does all the good things in life at once” as I dont see how is that so straightforward. I’m actually currently really conflicted on the idea whether I want or dont want kids.
Looking back, I found most Internet comment section advice about having kids to be unhelpful. There’s a cliche that gets rephrased 1000 different ways to say a variation of “It’s a lot of work and my kids drive me crazy but I wouldn’t trade it for the world”. Now that I am a parent that advice feels like it oversells the negatives and fails to explain why people like their kids.
Truthfully, it is hard to relate to non-parents why you enjoy your own kids. It’s completely different than babysitting someone else’s kids. It’s your family and you like being with them. After work I’d rather hang out with my kids and go for a bike ride or build legos with them instead of relax and watch TV. I’m kind of dreading the day that they don’t want to spend so much time with me because we have so much fun. It’s a little extra motivation to get my work done early and start my day early so I can have more time with them, which is something I never thought I’d say as a nights and evenings person.
The extra work is more work than if I didn’t have kids and just relaxed after work and on weekends, but it’s not the world-ending grind like some people talk about. The early part where they’re waking up through the night and need constant feedings and changes goes by quickly and then you’re into a routine and teaching them ever more self sufficiency. I wouldn’t dwell on it, or at least don’t let it be an obstacle to imagining the rest of your years with a family. It’s a year or two of altered sleep schedules for 40 years of having a family.
Getting balanced takes from happy parents around you is a good idea. Online it’s too easy to get drawn into social media whirlpools of unhappy parents venting about things, but I’ve found the best advice comes from the happy parents around you that are quietly enjoying their lives without bringing up the topic of kids. You have to bring it up with them. Depending on where you work, it’s possible that the average person around you has a family and is happy about it, but they’re not bringing it up all the time because it’s just normal life for them.
I was on the fence for a long time as well. It just looked like a lot of work. And not to sugar coat it, it _is_ a lot of work. But it’s also been so rewarding. You get to see someone experience things for the first time, like riding a bike or eating a tomato. Teaching them it’s ok to have feelings, helping them overcome their fears, watching them make friends. Giving them the advice I wished I had heard from someone I trusted growing up. And a million other things. And the hug and kiss at night with “I love you daddy” can’t be replicated.
To offer a contrasting opinion, I was on the fence, went for it, and it was a big mistake. Unfortunately, it's impossible to be sure what it'll be like until you try it. And there's no undo button. I would strongly recommend not having children until you're absolutely sure you want to.
> I would strongly recommend not having children until you're absolutely sure you want to.
That's good advice. I'll add the caveat that sometimes you cannot be entirely sure (few things in life are so clear cut), but if you truly hesitate, don't do it. Also don't do it for the sake of a partner who insists, or to save your relationship. Big mistake; children are neither bargaining chips nor bets that can pay off.
If you're leaning towards "yes", however, I think it can be a wonderful (if hard!) experience.
Yeah, I guess 100% certainty is not achievable. But it should be to the point where the thought is “hell yeah, let’s do this” rather than “I’m not so sure.”
Absolutely agree! There are people that parenting is not a good fit, for various reasons. And it does a disservice to both the parent and the child.
Surely a lot of this can be experienced by associating with parents and their children rather than having them yourself, right?
This may sound somewhat reductive, and please correct me if that is the case, but I find that I can be around and play with my nephew and experience all of this wonder and how he progresses through life, while not being around for the sleepless nights and tantrums that I feel are the "work" part of being a parent.
Obviously a personal anecdote and YMMV, but I have several nieces and nephews, and I've gotten to watch them grow over the last ~15 years. During this time, I've tried to spend as much time with them as I can.
But I'm a new dad as of this year, and it's totally different. It really doesn't compare.
There's only so much time you can spend with someone else's kid, even if they're family. Even seeing a niece or nephew every week doesn't compare with waking up with a newborn at 3 AM and seeing them stick their tongue out for the first time, or seeing the squinty face they make when they try a strawberry for the first time at 5 PM on a random Tuesday.
It also doesn't compare with the sheer joy of having a little one who joyfully loves the heck out of you because you've bonded with each other and they feel loved and secure with you -- you've cared for them, loved them unconditionally, been understanding, responsive, and emotionally stable with them, and patiently/consistently enforced healthy boundaries on their behavior.
In a sense, one could say there's no greater joy.
But there's also perhaps no greater pain when parenting gets really complex and hard. One of my kids is autistic and raising him has been incredibly difficult and painful (he's a teen now).
In part, for sure. I was an uncle for a long time, which formed part of my hesitation. But there’s a different level of investment and connection if you are responsible for something 24/7. Like visiting someone’s house and seeing their dog do a trick, vs having your own dog and training it. There’s people who can articulate it better than me, but (not to sound sappy about it) the first time I held my firstborn my world changed.
Edit: I think another poster put it well that “it wasn’t about ‘me’ anymore”. Depending on your disposition, this could be great or it could be really bad. I’ve definitely changed for the better over the course of being a parent.
I like your dog trick analogy, that definitely helped me understand it more :)
As is the case with so many things, the person you're replying to will reply with what they can quantify about the experience, but there is much much more to it that is unquantifiable and hard to convey. It is the difference between "using" someone's child for the satisfaction of these experiences, versus raising a child for their own sake, that you are wholly responsible for, especially in the early years.
What I found and I think this is quite common for men is my attitude to kids in general completely changed once I had my own.
> Surely a lot of this can be experienced by associating with parents and their children rather than having them yourself, right?
No, not really.
Also not the same as being the cool uncle/aunt, though that can give you a lightweight preview. I know because I went through this myself, I was so involved with my nephews I became their favorite uncle by far, and to this day they still remind me of this.
In reality, only being an actual parent can give you the true experience. Nothing else comes close.
In the spirit of this forum and at the risk of being very cringe, I’d guess that’s like being the founder of a company versus being one of the early employees :)
No, unfortunately. It's similar, but different in my opinion / view.
I have a kid with my partner and I'm still not sure it was the right decision for me. They do become a full-time job in their own right and there is a whole set of skills that you can kind of learn through books but is going to be unique to your little one.
The first couple of months were especially hard as they don't have much of a personality, don't really react much to the world around them, they're just feeding, sleeping, and growing. Starting at the beginning of the third month for me it started changing and every baby is kind of unique.
I now _detest_ most of the books/articles/child-rearing advice I've encountered. Most of all of their content is fluff to pad pages, a blog roll, and are frequently superseded by more modern research backed evidence. There is a lot of toxic advice in those books and systems as well, usually for parents that are prioritizing restoring their prior social lives over the well-being of their children.
It's time-consuming and exhausting, but I haven't found it to be _hard_ yet. Waking up in the middle of the night and giving your kid a hug and maybe reading to them a bit when they have a nightmare isn't a challenging task. The challenging tasks are exceptions (surprise medical issues, your daycare closing down with two days notice, etc). The baby and child industry put a cost premium on the clothes targeting them and they don't last very long due to the child's growth. I _saw_ this coming but not to the extreme it has actually manifested and you'll find it replicated in every child/baby sized item.
There are a lot of surprising upsides and my motivations have definitely changed since we had a kid. I will flip a mountain to see my kid smile and laugh, it hits deep. I enjoy spending time with her and I'm terrified of missing her achievements and milestones. When she comes to me and asks me to show her how something works, wants a book read to her, or just wants a hive five I get a double whammy of that serotonin once for being a Dad that she wants to engage with and once for getting to spend time with her.
I still, and unfortunately kind of frequently, miss what I have effectively sacrificed to have her. I am slower at staying on top of emerging trends, hobbies have been left by the wayside that I did for decades, I gave up running conferences and with it I drifted away from whole treasured social groups. None of this was really a surprise, but I didn't realize how much what I gave up was really part of who I was.
The social thing is interesting, you will inevitably drift away from friends who don't have kids. Even for the ones who do you will be so busy with your own life that you won't get to see them much. You will probably end up with more contact with parents from their schools although that will stop suddenly when they finish.
Not sure what the solution is other than putting in some deliberate effort to maintain those relationships (which I didn't do).
Good comment. I have two remarks:
> It's time-consuming and exhausting, but I haven't found it to be _hard_ yet.
I think this is exactly what people mean when they say "hard": time-consuming and exhausting, not hard as in "I cannot figure this out". Usually you figure it out as you go.
This is excluding children with serious health problems, etc. I'm thankful I won the lottery in this regard, I know some situations can destroy families.
> I still, and unfortunately kind of frequently, miss what I have effectively sacrificed to have her. I am slower at staying on top of emerging trends, hobbies have been left by the wayside
Also rings true for me. Especially my hobbies, I barely have time for them now; and when she grows up who knows whether I'll be able to resume them. But in my case, this is balanced by this thought: would I be happier if I had more time for my hobbies, but she wasn't in my life. And the answer is very clearly that I prefer her to be in my life 1000000%, and if I cannot do my hobbies all that often that's an acceptable loss.
It's not a cost-benefit calculation. You just do it because you do it and you wouldn't be you if you didn't.
Hard to put in words. And yes, you will feel like "WTF why did I do this" at times. A lot of people have parents who will remind them that they could have had an easy life instead. I try not say that even though I think it too.
I could sell you some fluff about being part of a continuity or the reward it brings, but it's post hoc rationalisation.
There is no easy life so stop thinking it.
It is an absolute ton of work and is absolutely worth it for me.
The replies in this thread are already very good. I'm a dad of two, but I won't add anything more than that you will be hard pressed to find a parent who will regret having children. I understand the bias in it, but people can be persuaded into honesty and, under anonymity on this website, are more likely to be honest about such things.
>you will be hard pressed to find a parent who will regret having children
It is such an extreme social taboo to admit you regret having your children that even if you find someone that does you would never know.
Agreed, though I know some people who evidently regretted having children, or never bonded with their own but developed "quasi-parental" relationships with children who weren't their own. More than one case, actually!
But I think most parents, in reasonable socioeconomic conditions, don't regret having children.
I agree, I would assume anonymity would allow for some honesty here, but I agree.
Partner and I are childfree but in talking with other parents about it, I've had 3 admit, if they knew now, they wouldn't have had kids or had less. My father was one of them.
Interesting. Did they cite any reasons?
If you want to dedicate your life to raising and creating a new human being from the ground up, and being able to see your work in action as they grow to become an actual human person - impressing you, disappointing you, going their own way, surprising you, then parenting might be for you.
It's expensive, and labor intensive, and full of decisions that are damnably hard because there's no "right" answer. It's a cult. It's a genetic imperative. It's also amazing.
You will not necessarily experience a tangible personal benefit - it's not an investment with a return. It's a "pour your love into this thing and get love back" kinda deal.
Agree, but with the caveat. we have to develop ambition, passion, habits, and success in the right areas of life, so that the right partner wants to choose us. (We typically don't get to pick.)
You pick when you choose them back.
> The chance of validation from others
I feel like this is missing the point about why people in these situations are ambitious. Some are looking for external validation and jealousy from their peers. Most just want to be able to provide well for their families and get a point of having enough in the bank that the future feels secure.
As a parent, the feeling of having enough in my career to have the financial stability and career options to ensure that my kids are always taken care of and can go to any education path they want without worrying about finances is huge. Knowing that I can retire young enough to spend a lot of time with them is also huge. It took a lot of ambition and hard work to get here, but I was never doing it for external validation.
> The chance of validation
i got the ick at that. i'm not ambitious for validation. i'm ambitious to maximize my agency, IN PARTICULAR from the need of validation non ambitious people typically have
>Also, if you pick the right partner,
For many (75%+ ?) even that is not an option. If they tried, they would be single forever(which is not a bad option in itself)
If 75% of people cannot find a good partner, that suggests that all involved would be well-served by learning how to be better partners themselves:)
Just remember, for 99.9% of us, work accomplishments are meaningless.
I think about it. At one point job accomplisments mattered and later it stopped not because of having family, but also what mattered at work changed. All the tips, tricks, late night work, things I thought were clever, unique, frugal solutions were marked as hack, obsoleted solutions, need to be replaced by "industry standards" platforms. Of course things change, one learn and apply new skills, but underlying theme was new solutions will be done proper experts this time. While I have to hang around to explain and repent my past mistakes if I want to hold onto job.
"Behind every great man there's a great woman." I thought I was killing it at work and as a dad when I was answering emails about complex bugs while hiking with my first kid riding in a backpack. But then I quit working to be a full-time dad for kid #2 and found out how much work my partner had been doing that I didn't know about. I suddenly understood why so many of the men at my former workplace had been divorced. So be ambitious, but check in with your partner and make sure they are on the same page.
I identified with this article despite being a new mom rather than dad. I was minted in the ambition track and have alighted on work I find meaningful.
I still wake up with a burning fire in my stomach for my work. This was dulled somewhat the first few months postpartum; it wasn't entirely gone, but it felt like a different person had taken over the reins, one who only cared about the baby and nothing else. Now the fire is back.
I do not know how to navigate this at all. As the author of the linked article searches for good father figures in vain, so do I. The search feels even more difficult. Everywhere I am met with young mothers who confess that whatever meaning they felt from their work feels like a distant shadow of what they feel with their child, and that they are only too happy to stay home. The other direction includes women who are militantly childfree, or who offload an unacceptable level of hours onto hired labor.
I wholly agree with the author's main thrust: for some people, the ambition is still there and unhelpfully competes with the ambition to be a perfect parent. When the expectation for mothers is as high as it is, the situation feels impossible; it feels as if you're doomed to either traumatize your children or renege whatever great potential you were told you had all your life.
This quote certainly comes to mind:
Housework is not situated outside of economic production. It is simply non-salaried and paid through the husband’s salary.
Thats why, when divorcing in Switzerland, retirement savings are bundled and then split equally between two. So if woman was a stay-at-home mum, she still gets good savings. If both brought cca same income, not much changes.
Same in Canada. All assets acquired after common law or marriage are shared and split evenly in the divorce. Whoever makes more salary needs to pay alimony to the other.
i would LOVE to get that in front of some conservative southern congressmen in america if only to watch them self immolate from the rage
Are you American? The US has community and equitable distribution schemes. 50% of all assets is the default under both schemes with alimony regularly awarded to women to make up for lack of income.
Changing divorce laws to be less equitable, as far as I know, has never been a major platform of either party in the South. I'm not aware of any politician that advocates for it. I'm sure it exists but it must be an incredibly marginal view.
(original author)
this is true for me, wouldn't be remotely possible without my wife.
YC reject so I bootstrapped and was thankfully able to hit profitability before my first kid showed up. I’ve now got two. I also have dreams bigger than ever.
In fact, writing this while sitting on the couch with the kids watching Muppet Treasure Island while my kids are wearing pirate hats and waving foam swords.
I’m still extremely productive and prolific. Probably less compared with before. But before, I had friends and TV shows subtracting from my time.
Today, my life priorities are kids, work and sleep.
There is no Netflix. There are no hobbies. No downtime. No friends unless I happen to like my kids friends parents.
I’m up at 5:30/6 and get 90 mins of focused work in. Skip breakfast. Then workout and walk/bike with the kids. Then ready for work at 10 - and thankfully my office is two blocks away. Skip lunch. Home at 5/5:30. Dinner with kids and play. Work from 8-10. Every single day.
I love my kids, work and learning is fun, and I value sleep. Everything else is a nice to have.
The way I see it, when I’m 100 years old I won’t regret drag on my ambitions because I had kids. In fact I’ll probably think the ambitions were nice but kind of pointless in the end anyway. I will see the kids as important and meaningful, and will write a life story where I was the best dad I could be and still hustled like hell.
So you're basically a machine that spends their time working and taking care of your children? This feels like a one-way ticket to a burnout.
I love my work and I love playing with the kids so it can be exhausting but in a good way. Never a drag (not usually anyway).
Super thoughtful consistent schedule with little room for anything else is my tradeoff if I want to maintain high quantity of high quality output with my business. And TBH, it lasts for 15-18 years at most.
I didn’t mention the weekends - those are more of a free for all. Lots of family time, work sneaks in. It’s a lot more thinking than working though.
Burnouts often happen to passionate people who love their work. There are hard limits that conscious part of the mind simply ignores, with laser/tubular focus on whatever is the drive.
For example nurses (both male and female) during WWI - worked themselves to mental breakdowns because there was endless stream of properly suffering people to help or even save. One can't have much more noble goal. Yet hard burnouts kept happening.
I don't want to sound all gloomy since I know nothing about your situation. Just listen to your body and mind, it keeps telling things in subtle ways, not a good idea to ignore that.
This is basically what my life is like (going on 9 years now). I don't think it has necessarily led to burnout for me. Keep in mind that time spent with your children isn't all work. There is some fun and leisure in there as well (although it is a lot of work too).
Agreed. This sounds like absolute hell. No time for even a single hobby? Where's your pleasure in life?
Isn’t it unhealthy to skip both breakfast and lunch? How are you getting the energy to do stuff without eating?
As a fun project, you should look up the history of eating schedules. They vary wildly between different cultures. Some have a single large meal at the start of the day, others have 5 smaller meals spread through, and everything in between. There is no standard even if it feels like it simply because that is how we are raised.
It is but social convention.
Social and historical conventions don’t necessarily align with “good for your health”.
Most "good for your health" advice is pop culture driven with a half life of 5 years anyway and breakfast being the most important meal of the day is a marketing slogan. In other words, no better than any various convention.
About the only things that stick are "don't stop physical and mental activity as you age" and "do stuff in moderation".
If you call it "intermittent fasting" and write a book about it, you can get a whole movement behind how healthy skipping breakfast and lunch is. And another movement preaching about how bad it is. And a followup book about what you REALLY should do ad nauseam.
Pretty much, so much of what we take for granted in culture was actually intentionally designed from the top down to have masses of people fall into line and become good servants of the economic system.
As for good diets, for instance, there is a wild meal schedule that has shown to be fairly good at managing weight, it is just intense. It is the 16 to 17 meals a day plan. One meal every hour you are awake, each one only about 100 to 150 calories. It does potentially work but try selling it to people and worse getting folks to stick to it.
>intentionally designed from the top down
not designed, evolved
Social behavior and the actual behaviors themselves evolved through populations as, among other things, an information storage mechanism that survives generations.
Agreed. This view also makes sense if we look at pre-agriculture humans - they’d eat heartily when there’s a good catch, maybe eat some leftovers the next day, go without food for some time, etc. Evolution by natural selection doesn’t move fast enough for humans to have adapted strongly to a fixed 3 meals a day schedule by now; eating times are still very much a convention.
High protein breakfast is the easiest way to hit a protein goal
"hitting a protein goal" being one of the current health fads I'm talking about
surely the natural response here will be about how important, healthy, and real this particular fad is. same as all the other health fads everyone would talk about for the last hundred years
hey hey don't interrupt the hustleporn
Intermittent fasting and calorie reduction are the only known way to EXTEND lifespan and wellness. 10 years of low carb + fasting is the single most important health decision I have ever made.
Kind of a strong statement there. Happy that fasting’s had such a positive influence on your life but:
No: fasting has not been proven to extend lifespan in humans.
Also no: exercise has been far more provably correlated with healthspan improvements than fasting.
You are more correct, but I think the truth lies somewhere between your statement and theirs. We have correlative evidence that lower calorie diets and/or fasting results in longer lifespans, improved insulin sensitivity, pancreatic cell responsiveness, blood pressure, oxidative-stress measures, and more, in humans. We also have animal testing showing causative evidence that fasting produces longer lifespans. Of course, animals are not humans, and correlation does not imply causation. Still, we do not currently have causative evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, and we widely agree that that is harmful for lungs. With enough correlative evidence I think it becomes reasonable to accept it as actionable evidence.
You’re right of course, I was more responding to the very matter-of-fact “only known” phrasing.
Nit: Humans are animals, but those animals were not humans
The secret is to have your children eat for you, then just do blood transfusions when they’re at peak nutrient level. You can do that while you work for optimal efficiency.
Yeah I had a schedule like that when the kids were very young but it caught up with me, frankly. Having the computer be the first and last thing I interacted with every day was not great for my mood either.
Granted, I do need to take a break from that schedule every so often. If I catch myself being unfocused I just go to bed.
Also, the first thing I work on is usually a high leverage project that excites me. Reading news or answering emails (things that can affect my emotions) are usually avoided during that time. Usually.
It's only unhealthy if you get hungry.
Wellllll, kind of... I've realized hunger is often just another habit because we're used to eating N meals a day, like the GP comment implies. I've done a quasi OMAD (1-meal a day) thing on-and-off for 3+ years now and don't feel hungry the rest of the time, given my current physical activity levels. It took a few days to get used to, but now I can start and stop OMAD on demand.
I'd recommend everyone try fasting and figure out what their bodies really need (preferably over the holidays, because the adjustment period can be a bit rough and could interfere with work.) I suspect most of the developed world is over-eating by quite a lot given our largely sedentary lifestyles.
I did fasting for a while, usually fasting for 16+ hours and eating 1-2 meals in the eight hour feeding window, but eventually stopped in favour of working out. I'd like to be able to lift while also fasting, but I'm worried that (1) I'd struggle to hit my protein targets and (2) only eating during a small window each day would hurt muscle growth.
Oh for sure, if your physical activity is higher you need to eat commensurately more! What I meant is, for most of us with desk jobs and little physical activity, our bodies need surprisingly little food and this is what fasting reveals.
Like even on OMAD I pretty much don't lose any weight (and no, I'm not as lean as I wish I were!) I strongly suspect if average, healthy people cut out an entire meal a day and changed nothing else, their bodies would stay mostly the same.
Oh no you see this is now called intermittent fasting not "lunch is for wimps".
Your body has energy reserves that it can use when you aren't eating.
No idea but worth remembering that modern breakfast was invented to sell cereal.
> Isn’t it unhealthy to skip both breakfast and lunch?
No, why would you think that?
break-fast is for farmer that do hard work
Man good motivating schedule. Are you married as well? I notice this is missing the wife time. I feel like I really have to wreck my sleep to get worktime between wife and kids.
> There are no hobbies. No downtime. No friends unless I happen to like my kids friends parents.
this sounds miserable
Not just miserable, but also unhealthy for the kids - You're really not going to teach your kids to socialize?
Beyond that, he's admitting he's ignoring the kids to post hustleporn on HN instead of engaging with them.
My block is crawling with kids and usually playing baseball or hockey - they are pretty much never on screens apart from watching something on Disney+. Other than that we play outside year round.
I appreciate people like OP because they create jobs for people like me. I am more than happy to let him keep his profits and his lousy existence while I take it easy, do some work and then hang out with kids and friends and collect the paycheck. Yeah, I will never get rich, but I don't care. Work is just something I do to get by, I did find meaning in it earlier in life, but since I hit 40 work is just a thing I do so I don't end up under the bridge.
Really just thoughtfully and consistently disciplined. Some people think diet and exercise are miserable. Others put more weight on how they feel when in good health.
Where do you fit all the other things that come into life randomly?
Helping aging parents? Dealing with problems? House chores? House maintenance?
Props if you can do this and not burn out. I would not be able to live like this.
I noticed housework wasn’t mentioned in this idealized schedule.
I noticed the same. Housework consumes a LOT of my time. But maybe that's just because of income level and failure to delegate?
But time to post on HN?
He posts less than once a week so yes
Friends "distracting"? Man, that sounds backwards. Work, skip breakfast on purpose, work until 10pm... Nah. That's not a good place.
so your first meal of the day is at 5pm? and you manage to workout and attend work all day on no food?
When do you spend time with your spouse lol
I can't say is this sarcasm or is this guy serious?
yep all of this resonates
The author seems self-aware and I think there's a lot of good observations in this post.
At the same time, I think ambition needs to be paired with humility and acceptance of you can't have it all.
There's no perfect life. You can't optimize everything such that you achieve a hypothesized balance between all the things that are competing for your time and energy. In the final analysis, most people, if given the chance to reflect before they die, would choose more time with the people they care about than more time working, even if, in the moment, they felt they were doing a good job balancing the two.
Kids are also not always a joy. I love my kids, and there were certainly moments of joy, mostly when they were young. As they grow up, they turn out to be their own people. They may ignore your advice and learn life lessons the hard way. They may not live up to the hopes you had for them. Be prepared for some disappointment. Doesn't mean that you don't love them, but they can be frustrating.
To be fair, I'm sure I disappointed my parents in some ways or times also.
Not sure what this has to do with the post?
Work is also not always a joy. Success is not always a joy.
But there's more than enough evidence to show that, when people look back on their lives, most of them most highly value their relationships and have the most regrets around how they managed those relationships.
Having a child doesn't guarantee happiness. Raising a child is not always going to be rainbows and I suppose learning to accept that the life you create doesn't mean you get to dictate what that life becomes is a form a wisdom. But none of this takes anything away from the experience if you accept it for what it really is.
I think this is the point though right? The author is saying that he rejects this dichotomy and he's attempting to take on both even if others might perceive it as impossible.
Yes, he seems to be going in that direction, which I think is the fallacy. This is where I think humility should balance amibiton.
I don't think he is guaranteeing success, but stating his aim. Gotta have a goal to work towards if you claim to be ambitious.
You can have the best ship but if you're sailing in the wrong direction, you're still sailing in the wrong direction.
Which is good if sailing is what you wanted and like to do, which is what the author and the OP is implying. You don't necessarily have to "succeed" or "reach" somewhere.
What I wrote isn't about "success". It's about direction.
What the author is at risk of doing, in my opinion, is pretending to a certain extent that he can have his cake and eat it too. As I wrote in my original comment, "you can't have it all."
Please don't take this to mean that you have to choose between your family and career (or a business). That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, at a certain point of "ambition", there is no perfect balance possible between all the the things you're trying to maximize.
The wise person accepts that sometimes you have to make choices, and choices always require that you give something up to get something else.
Excellent, you reached the point that Edward Elric, from the first Fullmetal Alchemist anime, arrived at in the final episode(s): The illusion of balance, when everything in that world revolved around the Law of Equivalent Exchange.
Sometimes the rewards do not match the sacrifice/effort, but that doesn't mean you won't pick that same choice when given the chance, or that it was a "bad choice". If you accept what may come from your choices, you can more objectively act upon them.
I felt successful before I had kids. Satisfying, upward-moving career; happy marriage; lots of travel; volunteering in multiple organizations. I liked all these things, succeeded in them, people liked me, etc.
As a dad, I feel like a total loser. All of the aforementioned are diminished or put entirely on hold (travel, most volunteering). I'm medicore at everything, except parenting, in which I am successful at keeping my kids alive and safe and healthy, but not in satisfying their desires. In that I am totally inadequate.
I expected that I would have to put "my" life largely on hold when we had kids and instead of the satisfaction I got from the pre-kid things, would enjoy the satisfaction of raising happy children. To have neither is demoralizing and I'm constantly looking for the critical thing that will improve the child-raising experience. And no, waiting it out for the kids to grow up is not the answer!
I fully empathise. It feels like my career went from upwards to a horizontal line. I have far less energy for work, for learning, and for the things I'm interested in. It's incredibly demoralising. I dread weekends and look forward to school drop-offs - what kind of life is that?
I don't care about my career so much, but the weekend and school dropoff thing resonates hard.
Work is the only part of my life where I feel any sort of competency. Anything else I'm just a ship on a stormy sea being battered around. I can change the sails and move the rudder, but the sea takes me where it wants me to go anyway.
The joke was "welcome to your vacation" when people got back from paternity leave for their new kid. I don't think I ever left that vacation.
It's also normal, and okay, to feel down about being tired and feeling like you can't do everything at once. Because that's how it is — you can't do everything at once. You have to choose, and a lot of the time the depression comes from the conflict of having to give up things you want to do.
And what can also help is talking to your partner or to a friend who's also a parent. And realizing it's normal to look forward to the weekend being over so you can sit down and work on the thing you're good at and know how to do... unlike dealing with our kids, who are always creating problems we don't know how to solve.
Luckily I have an amazing wife. We don't hide anything from each other, and she's always been there for me (just as I have for her). I have good support.
That said, you say "it's normal to look forward to the weekend being over so you can sit down and work on the thing you're good at and know how to do" - this isn't what I'm getting at. I look forward to the weekend being over so that I can spend time away from my kids. I trudge through work for the week while trying to regain mental energy to tackle the after-school pickups and the next weekend. I'm just always running at a mental energy deficit. I enjoy my work, but I just have no energy to apply myself - the kids suck it out of me.
> It feels like my career went from upwards to a horizontal line. I have far less energy for work, for learning, and for the things I'm interested in. It's incredibly demoralising
How do you separate how much having kids affects this, and how much of it is just being 30+ and not taking care of own health?
I have a few childless friends who say the same thing word for word.
Like 95% kids.
I had a week where the kids were with Grandma and Grandpa. I got more done on a Wednesday after work than I did in the previous few weeks including weekends.
I don't think everyone needs kids and I don't subscribe to the 'moral high ground' of having kids, BUT I have zero sympathy for childless peers that think their life is too busy.
Maybe the problem is trying to satisfy the wishes of someone who doesn't know what they want, because they're under 6 years old!
What worked for me to make the experience of raising kids better is paying attention to the small things they notice. For them the world is a completely new place, and if you can get in tune with that, you can rediscover the world all over again from another angle. Talking with my son makes me see everything differently — they're great triggers for creativity.
https://sive.rs/pa
kids are rough before.... 3y. especially in the "wriggling sacks of flesh" stage. you look at this larva and youre like 'wtf did i get myself into?'
Once they start doing extracurriculars, and learning skills, and developing talents, then something starts to click. for me at least.
things got REALLY fun when they started to also enjoy things i liked.
Mine is 6 now.....and man it is by far the most difficult stage for me.
Begging and thinking of ideas to get him to brush his TEETH DAILY. Meltdowns, even in public places. Conflicts which need resolutions. Dealing with teachers, who sometimes I agree but other times disagree with. Working with them on homework. Constant need to watch them not to get hurt.
I've saved 2 children from drowning, and one of them was my child, who randomly thought it would be a great idea to jump into a deep pool without a life vest.
I would have a child again as I do finding rewarding but my career has taken a back seat and my energy levels are always on low. I dread mornings.
Yeah... I'm in the 3-year-old stage and oh boy... it can be really tough. But lately I bought some kids' board games (HABA) and we can enjoy them together — not always, and it's not the same as playing with peers, but I can see it being like that in the future. And the experience of teaching, for me, not being a teacher, is really educational and transformative.
[dead]
Sorry if this offends anyone but why must we choose between having a great career and being a great parent. Why is it a zero-sum game? Want to be great at something neglect your children to do so. Want to be a great parent, fine you have a mediocre career. From the article you are ambitious about building things. Well guess what children are, the ultimate piece of clay from which you get a front row seat to mold.
If you are trying to compete with people who are kidless and constantly comparing your output to them, then yes, you are going to feel you are falling behind. But you need to stop and ask yourself, “what am I doing all this work for”? What is your goal? For me, having children changed my perspective on life. I am lucky to make enough money to live a good first world lifestyle and the rest is enjoying the moments life brings. I still have the motivation I had 20 years ago but that motivation has shifted from “building things for the wealthy” to building peace and happiness for myself and my family.
I no longer work a ton of hours, but my day is still full of conversations, walks, work-outs, bike rides ect… These things when done with family and friends bring me level of accomplishment that no product launch ever did. Also, I openly avoid the hustle-grind culture that seems to run rampant these days.
You seem to be on the correct path, just don’t fall into that trap that says you must be grinding 60+ hours a week in-order to be successful or happy. It will find you if you let it.
The article is not talking about having "a great career" (which you can have while also having good balance and focusing on things).
To me, the article is more a lament. There is only so much time in this life, and if you're organized (I read that to mean intentional in your execution and not wasting time) then you apply that time to your highest priority.
Work / building things / personal hobbies / your partner / your family / your kids - these all compete. It's impossible to do everything you'd LOVE to do in your building and hobbies without burning the candle on both ends a bit with the other priorities.
You can do it for short periods, but eventually it catches up and you'll either do it all bad or sacrifice something.
Time is finite. Desire / drive are not. Solve for X. I feel what the author is saying every day, but I'm OK with it because there's no question in my mind that my kids and family are going to be the best use of my time and what I'm thinking about on my death bed.
Do I still sleep too little and occasionally overwork to execute? Yes - but you have to pick your spots.
You just can't do it ALL.
(And mind you - that's for me as an extremely involved, work-from-home, caring for children MAN. This is an entirely different equation if you're a female and you don't have support structure. Nobody can have it all but I've probably got the best shot at having a TON of it - but there are still trade-offs)
In my country you're not entitled to your husband/wife money so both parents need to make sure that they're financially independent.
Do you mean in the case of divorce? Or in the case that a husband decides to not be a collaborating partner in raising a child? Obviously to be totally secure you need to make sure you have some money, but ideally it's a collaboration and not a competition even if the law doesn't provide an entitlement.
i really like your framing, this encapsulates the problem very consisely:
> Time is finite. Desire / drive are not. Solve for X
Thank you! That's very kind. It's definitely not an easy equation to solve and is a constant moving target :)
Because energy is limited and TBH very few people are really fit for doing two jobs properly at the same time. Honestly, sometimes, or most of the times, a great career do demand more than 40 hours of work.
You also need very good mental for both jobs, too.
I used to think, wow progressing is so easy, why doesn't everyone just read a technical book, documentation or take a course after work.
I then had a child. The time is just gone. Having children is extremely time consuming. I have my own health issues, but now I am responsible for one more person. Morning routine takes 1 - 1.5 hours by the time my kid is dropped off at school. He hates getting up, so by the time I'm done I would love to crawl back into bed.
After school it is dinner time, we try to cook and eat healthy. After dinner it is bed time. If I have time to watch a show or just talk to my wife for an hour without being interrupted, I'm happy.
Having a child is great, but if you are committed and involved parent, there isn't much time or energy left to do anything but work and child.
100%. I wonder how many of us have the exact same day.
> Why is it a zero-sum game?
Not to be flippant, but it's a zero-sum game because time is finite.
I think you know this too since the following paragraphs describe you making this tradeoff yourself.
Yea we only get so many trips around the sun and it sometimes feels like modern society tries to push you to win or go home. I have one child in college and one who just started high school (today) and I can tell you the pressure they are experiencing to "succeed" is immense. I have no clue how I would have handled that when I was in school. Probably not well.
> why must we choose between having a great career and being a great parent. Why is it a zero-sum game?
I had basically this exact conversation with a close family member, who sees having children as being forced to give up on her dreams of being a writer forever, which I just don't get (she's already written and released 4 novels which have made some decent money, just not enough to do it fulltime, and still has a day job in marketing that makes good money).
For a little while it will likely mean a shift in focus, sure, but that doesn't mean you have to give up on something forever. I've mostly taken a break from designing games the past couple of years (unrelated to children, just not as motivated lately, there's so many great board games out there already I'm trying to just enjoy playing them for a while), but I haven't totally given up on being a game designer (plus I've already released several games in the past, that can't be taken away from me, even if basically no one is still playing those games nowadays).
Plus children could also help enrich your life experience that lead to further inspiration for your creative efforts anyway, especially since it seems like the adult life experience society encourages nowadays seems to be sit in front of a computer all day for a day job, sit in front of a computer all evening for side hustle, get takeout, doomscroll/tv for a bit before going to sleep, repeat.
For women it is much harder as they don't even have an option to put less energy into kids at all, society pressures and berates them if something is off (men might get a comment but largely it is ignored and accepted), so I can totally see why she feels this way, _especially_ for a side thing.
A bit off topic, but would you share a few of your favorite board games? Thank you!
Lately I've been playing a lot of cooperative games with a lot of clever card play, often against some sort of boss or some other win/loss condition, and usually it needs a lot of expansions so I can keep trying new combinations of heros/villains/scenarios. I can set them up and play a game or two solo most evenings.
So the ones I keep coming back to are Lord of the Rings - The Card Game, Legendary (mostly Marvel since it has so many expansions you can mix and match, but I also have and like DC, James Bond, and Alien), Ashes Ascendancy (also Ashes Reborn), Marvel Champions, Aeon's End, Arkham Horror - The Card Game.
Memoir '44 would be in that list too if you could play that solo. I love that game, but I haven't had a buddy to play it with in a long time. BoardGameArena has a great implementation but I don't like playing against random people on there as much. Supposedly there's a new app coming that will let you play solo, so I'm looking forward to that.
I've also tried the following recently and they're pretty high up too, they might eventually join the games above: Primal: The Awakening, Star Trek Captain's Chair, Marvel United, Boss Fighters QR, and Bullet.
Smaller, shorter games I enjoy include Cursed!?, Rove, Hoki, Fliptoons, D-Day Pocket, All is Bomb, Palm Island, and Harmonies
Thank you, I had no idea such games even existed.
Screaming hot take: sometimes folks use giving up on their dreams or ambitions as an excuse. (_sometimes_)
But also it's just a different deal for mothers than fathers. Physically, mentally, it's just not comparable.
It is always funny to read these threads where all the men are saying how you don't need to compromise when they have a stay at home wife keeping it all together. It's a totally different ballgame for the majority of women.
I stated she had a day job making pretty good money. That's not a stay at home wife.
Also didn't say they don't need to compromise, obviously having children requires compromises to be made in your life, there's no way you can live it entirely the same way as you used to anymore. I said they don't need to totally give up on it forever. Thinking something has to be all or nothing is the opposite of compromise. That's essentially a self-imposed ultimatum.
It's also not backed by history. There's plenty of women authors who have children and continue writing books, and have prolific writing careers. It can slow down or delay getting books out, sure, but so can plenty of other things in life besides children, which I've also seen happen (like multiple 1+ year long writer's blocks): https://slate.com/culture/2022/09/women-writers-motherhood-h...
Sounds like you accept that the choice must be made, you've just accepted yours. And nothing wrong with that, of course.
> why must we choose between having a great career and being a great parent
Because there is a limited number of hours in the day? That doesn't mean that one cannot do both at the same time, at times. It doesn't even mean that having kids can't also make you a better founder in some ways. But I think most people recognize that the large time demands of being a founder take away more from one's ability to build than they contribute (in terms of extra motivation or perspective).
Hear hear. Although being great at something and being a great parent do not have to be mutually exclusive.
You can work yourself to death with or without kids. You can also have a successful career and a great relationship with your family.
This whole premise that one must come at the expense of the other seems like rationalizing, or excuse-making, or maybe just another caustic result of capitalism.
And even if the drive to compete is so real, why stop at competing for either/or? Why not compete at being a whole person according to your own values?
To hell with anyone who says you can’t have the life you want. Win at being yourself.
I have a good friend who has a special needs kid and we've discussed his struggles at length - suffice it to say that it takes an order of magnitude more time and attention than what's described here.
The thing is, you of course don't get tipped off that you've been selected for that particular curse (and yes, I'd say it's a curse. It's not some inspiring after-school special thing, it's unfair as f*k to all involved).
The point of this is, I suppose, it's okay to choose not to have kids if you don't feel like gambling, because it turns out, you are. And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries.
My parents were both teachers, who, before moving into admin rolls (when I was somewhat older) worked in special ed.
My mother later ended up back in a classroom for a period of time with severely handicapped children. Bound to beds and wheelchairs, non verbal, never going to have independence.
For years after she left her admin job she would go back and spend an evening or two every year watching the kids, so the parents could have some sense of "normalcy".
Her lament was what would the outcome be for these children. Because every one thinks they are doing the best for them by keeping them at home, and close. But the reality is (in so many cases) that the plans for "family to take care of them" almost never works out. Years later my neighbor was an older woman, with an adult special needs child. She died, suddenly, from breast cancer. The brother, who was to take care of him, shipped him off to a group home (because he had kids of his own and lacked the time to care for him properly). That poor mans trauma was doubled when his living situation and life and loss of mother all happened in such a short period.
My own family, I have a severely handicapped cousin (who, became that after a high fever). He too is wheelchair bound and non verbal. However his mother, heeded my mother's advice and transitioned him into a group home early. It worked out well for him as he had a more fulfilling life, and the family (sister, aunts) weren't under pressure for his care, rather just rounding out his life. He still gets out a few times a week with them, and is always around for the holidays.
It's a tough thing for parents to understand that what's best for your special needs kid is sometimes going to be harder on them than all the hard work they doing. And I remain grateful that is isn't a choice I ever had to make myself.
It's very frustrating that behind every "you should be eternally grateful for every child no matter what" warm fuzzy message is an implicit "and if you ever express regret for having a kid who wound up non-verbal and violent and destroyed your marriage and your relationship with your other kids you're a horrible person".
Not referring to your cousin specifically but my mom's life's work is with severely autistic children (the "can't talk and hits people" sort, not "I'm a bit awkward and love math and doing anything to help autistic kids is abject cruelty!" sort), and the experience for parents mostly seems to be abject misery.
> And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries.
Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse and not due to resource/environmental blow back. It would be the smoothest path down. In the same way that inflation is a smoother way to grow a pool of poverty.
Demographic collapse is happening due to resource/environmental blowback, but many of the resources in question are artificial ones like money and jobs.
Demographic collapse is happening because women finally have the choice to have fewer or no children and can have them later in life due to career options.
Their wanting to do that is due to resource/environmental blowback.
Wealthy people are also having less children than they used to. Unless you are arguing that people are having less children due to potential societal issues around global warming.
> Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse
The problem is, there isn't _going_ to be a population collapse in developed countries. The path these governments have chosen is to import anyone and everyone in order to keep the numbers growing. Why? Because all those wonderful social programs collapse without people at the bottom of the pyramid to keep things going. The main problem is there's only so many net contributors that can be imported, so we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for people to bring in and oh yeah, they're eligible for social programs from day one. It's going to be a disaster long term, but it's the future we chose -- "I don't want kids, but I don't want the systems that are in place to collapse either, so sure, bring in the entire world, I'm sure we'll be fine."
For that particular issue you can improve your "gambling" odds by having kids at a younger age, rather than waiting until you've optimized your career and environment.
Perhaps, but that often means selecting a partner more quickly, which is another gamble with potentially terrible consequences.
Life is full of such gambles and it's inevitable.
Anyone who drives risks their life more than they risk having a special needs child at reasonably non-late age.
We just brush off most such gambles because:
1. People have a terrible intuition for probabilities.
2. If it were better, they would go insane.
I agree. I'm saying that "just have kids younger" isn't a good solution to the risks of developmental defects, because it's usually merely a trade of that risk for a different one.
My intuition is that taking too long to select a partner carries the same risk.
Technology becomes a way to hedge bets. Maybe the demand for egg freezing, IVF, surrogacy will rise, and associated costs will drop.
Easy to prescribe, hard to implement for the last two generations or so
It's not like people had an established career when they had kids at 19 in the 1940s. They just didn't view "being halfway to a comfortable retirement" as the prerequisite to having kids, the way my generation thinks it is.
The difference likely there is in the ‘40s you were seeing improvement after the Great Depression and employment during WWII, followed by the postwar boom. Whereas the past two generations have seen precarity increase while living standards falter if not drop compared to their parents’ generation. So they are striving to recreate what they once experienced in their childhood, yet may never return.
Also the entirety of society including their families emphasizing the importance of higher education, good careers, etc. even as the latter is harder to achieve and the former becomes increasingly devalued, yet pricy.
People had kids even in the 30s, too. During tough times, we have to work harder and endure more adversity. Our great grandparents understood this just fine. In western countries, current generations (including my own) are incredibly soft, and expect that because they know boom times existed before, we are simply owed an equally easy time automatically — but in reality, there are often external factors that just don’t allow that to happen.
Contrast China, for example. 1950-1990 was not a 40-year prosperity party like it was in America and Western Europe. Therefore, they are at least twice as willing as we are to grind, and as a result multiplied their economy an astounding amount over the past 35 years. You can see the same thing in many development countries today. They take nothing for granted.
But people are working harder- they’re simply working harder at their jobs.
It should also be noted that the birth rates in China are not increasing, either, despite the end of the One Child Policy. Partly it is also because the younger generation feels immiseration from higher costs of living and fewer opportunities- see the concept of involution.
Finally, during the Great Depression, fertility rates in the U.S. dropped to all-time lows. Not unlike the Great Recession, which has triggered a nonstop decline. We all live in the shadow of 2008.
I think the best advice to having kids young is to lower your expectations. The only reason people ‘cannot’ have children young is because they want a specific kind of life for themselves and their kids that is incompatible with that.
It is absolutely a prerequisite to having kids responsibly.
Education and health care are fantastically expensive now, as well as inflation chipping away at purchasing power, each year more than the last due to compounding effects.
To have children without being financially secure is one of the most foolish, selfish, and irresponsible things anyone can choose to do.
[dead]
I wonder how much of that is because people who are autistic (for example) find love later, and then pass down their autism.
Almost everyone are having children later.
The gamble is basically only a gamble if you wait longer. The graph for pre-35 parents is practically nonexistent.
I could live with the 2% chance at 42, but not with the 15% at 45.
Where the chance is of random abnormalities. Who knows what exciting variant you get.
Most chromosome defects (trisomy) can be screened for now. NIPT is effective at 9 weeks pregnant and the technology is only going to get better.
15% at 45? You better have a source for that number.
It's widely known that maternal age causes more genetic defects and it's especially significant later on. The term "hitting the wall" came from the charts. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.05.21254264v...
I’m basing this on the vibe from a chart someone showed me when I was in the hospital 8 years ago after my son was born. The point is the chances increase exponentially. Found the list now:
Age 20: About 1 in 500 (0.2%) Age 30: About 1 in 270 (0.37%) Age 35: About 1 in 80 (1.25%) Age 40: About 1 in 60 (1.66%) Age 45: About 1 in 20 (5.0%)
Which actually kinda refutes me because 1 in 500 is still a lot.
In some cases you CAN be tipped off about this, and even abort as a result depending on where you are!
Many people act like this is some sick thing to do. It's mercy.
You're right about this, for some conditions, and of course depending on laws may have options.
But I want people to be fully aware: There isn't a test for a lot of disabilities, including what my friend's kid has, so, the gamble must be factored into your decision because there's no way to guarantee you won't face this kind of thing.
On my end, becoming a dad didn’t make me less ambitious, just more focused.
I was vp of engineering at a Series A startup when my kid was born. It was a challenging job, but one that felt increasingly devoid of any meaning for me (maybe also because I'd been there for 5 years). I was compensating by working on side-projects at night and on weekends. I even wrote a novel that took me 4 years to finish.
Then my son was born, and nights and weekends disappeared! Suddenly, all my non-father activity was dedicated to a job that was boring me more and more. So what did i do? I started a company, so I could decide what to work on during the day!. Basically, I took a side project and put it at the center of my working life. Now my days feel rewarding enough that when I disconnect, I can completely devote myself to my son and my wife and ignore everything else.
Of course, I don’t have side projects anymore. I barely even have hobbies: I completely stopped watching movies, which used to be the love of my life. I read books before bed and on the subway, and work out occasionally to stay sane. My life = my startup, my son, my wife. That’s pretty much it.
But I feel much more balanced than before, when I was always chasing something.
I became an engineering manager when my daughter was 2. Way back in the old days before LLMs so I had to both code and manage. Completely burnt me out. I never fully got back into traditional tech career after I was laid off in '23.
I did start two businesses: One brick and mortar and one app. The brick and mortar has the biggest drain on family time since with the app I can grind at night and only miss out on sleep.
"Be ambitious enough to be an ambitious dad." - agreed! Being an ambitious dad IS exhausting. And the successful people telling you that you can't be a present, ambitious dad and be successful -- that you have to trade successful fatherhood for professional success -- are weak. They are not heroes.
The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now. That's what I aspire to be... and those are my role models. Not the ones who abandon their kids or wife to pursue their own dreams and make excessive amounts of money.
If you really can only muster enough time or energy to be ambitious about one thing, be ambitious within your home/family.
I would also add that, at least in my experience, those who are professionally ambitious and maximizing professional success, while being highly confident they are also succeeding at home, often have an inaccurate view of their home life. It's not until the kids are grown and openly fighting their demons that they realize the bargain that they made.
It's that old adage of, anyone who thinks they're a great parent, probably isn't. And almost all kids would be happier with a less wealthy (or even poorer) upbringing, and a tighter family.
The number of wives who have complained to me privately about the lack of family commitment of rock star husbands whom everyone admires (often precisely for their apparent family commitment) was a real eye-opener.
I'm not convinced that stratospheric success in business is very often compatible with high levels of parental and spousal involvement. It is sometimes, but those are anomalies we shouldn't build our fairy tales around. I know very few old-timers who wish they'd spent less time with their families when they could have made the difference of a lifetime.
There’s a pretty interesting self-help book that is designed to help couples share domestic and family work equally; I thought it was an interesting read. It makes exactly the same point about rockstar husbands that contribute less than their spouses.
https://www.fairplaylife.com/the-book
The central idea is a set of 100 cards representing various tasks that are necessary for running a household, that you split up between the two partners. Supposedly women tend to hold ~80 of the cards in most relationships.
The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments) but I do think that it’s a good starting point if you want to genuinely try to contribute equally.
I haven't read into them much, (so maybe I shouldn't be repeating it here;) but there are studies about how even when women are the higher earners in relationships, they end up taking on a greater share of household management and maintenance work. (The rhetorical context is usually around why young women aren't as interested in dating.... But again, that's something I'm throwing out there w/o due diligence)
But the idea of having physical cards that you split up and assign does sound really helpful. I might look into that. I would say in my experience breaking out household chores even amongst roommates, some tasks that seem even aren't remotely so once you get into it (I have been the advantaged and disadvantaged party in different apartments) and some are simply different such that some are trivial for one person and not so for another person. But that's a part of dealing the cards, even when splitting evenly. (now I'm wondering if I can see where people are getting into arguments.... ^_^')
> The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments)
Yeah, no wonder given that it starts with an unrealistic view that the average man is a lazy slob that sits around playing video games while his wife has to handle everything with children and the household. You keep waiting for her to mention that anything else might be possible throughout the book, but that never happens. I think gay couples were mentioned maybe once.
Yeah... I do have some issues with the book. I think that the cards tend to be weighted towards things that women care more about, which naturally means that women end up being responsible for more of them. And different cards require different amounts of time to handle.
The way that I’ve tried to handle this is to focus on equalizing “total time per week spent on managing cards”, which requires time-tracking but is more fair, and also negotiating a modified set of cards.
The book kinda suggests both of those but I think that in practice most people don’t implement them.
And, as you said, the tone of the book can be off-putting at times. I still feel like it’s the best available resource for this problem.
I had no problem with the cards or the system, I like and have tried them with my partner.
My wife and I have a very simple rule, which is that both of us do tasks at the same time. No need to track time, no need to assign cards, and no resentment about one of us doing more or less than the other.
I don't know what the right answer is but I do kind of feel this desire for equal effort might be misguided. My sister wanted to spend her time raising kids. Her husband less so. That is decision they made together. It's no different than any other difference. He like working on cars. She likes knitting. She doesn't require him to spend equal time on knitting and he doesn't require her to spend equal time on cars. Why are children any different?
Further, many cultures, past in particular, seem to be very different in terms of parent involvement. To take an example from fiction, Harry Potter goes to Hogwarts at 11 years old. Yes, that's fiction but it's based on current and past cultures. It's still a thing in the UK for "elite" kids as young as 7 or 8 to go to boarding school, away from their parents. Kids in places too far for a public school are often sent to other cities, to boarding schools. East Asia & India also have famous boarding schools.
The point being, this idea that parents must be with their kids many hours a day until they kids move out of the house at 18 or 21 is not a fact of life, it's a cultural choice. I am from that culture and wish to spend as much time as possible with my kids. But I can also see it's a cultural choice, not some universal way things must be or else bad stuff happens.
Those boarding schools make for some quality upbringing!
"Winston Churchill would recall the floggings, done until pupils “bled freely” and screamed loudly. In “Such, Such Were The Joys”, George Orwell writes of being beaten so violently that his headmaster broke his riding crop and “reduced me to tears”."
Sad little boys: the backlash against Britain’s boarding schools https://economist.com/britain/2023/05/28/sad-little-boys-the... from The Economist
Love your anecdata. Would you like me to list abusive parents as counter examples?
Sure, why not. But your reposte, as it is, is pretty weak.
Generally the desire for equal effort applies to the things neither person wants to do.
A good example is the crushing stories of Frank Zappa's kids. Here is the guy touring the world making millions of dollars, releasing albums non-stop. His kids, barely saw him. For instance, his daughter Moonunit said the most time ever spent with him was recording lines for the song Valley Girl, beyond that he was fairly absent.
I have heard similar stories from many you wouldn't know, they say the same thing about their partner or parents. The desire to have it all ends up trading one thing over the other.
This is a conversation that ambitious women have been having for decades. To the point where it's a cliche. Having it about men and women is valuable, having it be about them separately I think masks some of the structural problems- e.g. better childcare, more and better laid out parental leave(1), etc.
Two things I've heard from different ambitious women: "To really achieve, you need a wife" is something I've heard a lot- that it takes one parent sacrificing some of their career priority; traditionally that was the woman but it in theory could be the man (2), it just rarely is.
The other thing an ambitious woman told me once is that her mom told her "husband, career, kids, pick two." Basically, there is just only enough energy for a given person per day to invest in two of them. I've seen some women who managed, from the outside, to at least look successful at all three, but it's rare indeed.
1: When my kid was born the software company I worked for (I'm an American at an American company, but this was an area of competition for software devs at the time) offered a 14 week paid parental leave, even for men. Most men took a four week ("secondary caregiver" leave) and overlapped it with their wives 12 week unpaid FMLA. I took mine (14 week "primary caregiver") after my wife's leave expired, such that our kid had one of us caring for him every moment of his first six months. I remain convinced that was absolutely vital as the basis for both my relationship with my son and with my wife- she had to rely on me, trust me to care for the kid, and I couldn't hand him off, it was all on me every day. And so we both developed the parental muscles, could trust that the other one understood the reality of the situation, in a way that many father's don't get a chance. And that experience convinced me that the US needs maternal leave, obviously, but it also needs paternity leave- and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
2: In a recent survey of American households https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-gr... about 55% of American heterosexual marriages the man makes 60% or more of the household income, about 30% both halves of the couple were between 40-60%, and just 16% saw the woman make more than 60% of the household income. In the majority of the 16% the woman still spent more time on unpaid household chores and carework than the man they were out-earning. Only in the 6% of heterosexual marriages where the woman earned 100% of the income did the number of hours per week in unpaid labor of men even equal that of their female partner.
> and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
Not sure how to apply a legal framework, but in my area this is often enforced by the lack of daycare options for <2yos (the threshold might be lower, but about that much).
Very rare to see parents around me take their parental leave at the same time bc they'd be risking still being on a waitlist when they're done.
Nitpick comment. But is kids and career really a valid pick two choice
I think the point that my friend's mom was making to her was that for a woman (with significantly higher social expectations for the amount of care work and housework) you can only be good at two of the three, because you are a human being with a finite amount of time and energy.
As for how you end up with just those two, I think the answer is divorce: you don't spend the energy to maintain your relationship with your spouse. Before you had kids you could invest your time and energy in your spouse and your career, then the kids come along and your relationship with your spouse weakens, either all the way to divorce or to just a degraded state.
Yeah I can accept that point of view. I think this is highlighting a certain relationship expectation delta between men (or at least myself) and women (or some women). If my wife is doing well in her career and we are doing well with the kids, I could easily see this being considered ‘good’, but my wife may view the relationship as being neglected. I see the core functions working and consider the relationship doing well.
This situation is in development for me so we will see. 0 and 3 year old
Yeah, this is also what I see as the main threat to my relationship with my wife: my complacency, taking it and her for granted. We both work hard on our parenting our 9 year old, and our careers, but then you need to spend the time with each other, lest you become roommates who run an unpaid childcare service on the side.
And I do wonder if this is about the engineer mindset ('I've reduced this to a previously solved problem, I just let the subroutine handle it') or about the way that men are socialized in my culture (just take her out to dinner twice a year- Mother's Day and Valentine's- and remember her birthday and you're meeting social expectations) or what. But it's the biggest threat to my (and I'd hazard a guess most other) marriages.
> As for how you end up with just those two, I think the answer is divorce:
Does that solve the problem? Now you're trying to prioritise kids and career while also being a single parent for half the week.
> we shouldn't build our fairy tales around
Being self-aware and self-critical is one of those changes that instantly improves everyone's life around us, including our own.
Yes, for most I would guess it's hard to get criticism in the right dose/frequency
I've started peering behind the curtains when I get the chance, and I've not yet found someone wildly successful who is also a model parent. Time after time, their spouse is quietly shouldering an enormous load, or their children spin their wheels and wind up rudderless, etc.
You can certainly be successful and be a good parent, but one of the first steps is recognizing and picking out the false prophets. You can't hold yourself to a superhuman standard, which is what a parent maximizing career while letting family malinger will present. They will say, Look at me, a captain of industry with vaults of gold, who has the physique of a twenty-five year old and is also an all-star parent. And you have to figure out that it's a lie.
One little clue - start to notice: of your professional idols who are good parents and seem to have it all, how many have a spouse working a demanding full time job as well? I realized for me it was zero.
> how many have a spouse working a demanding full time job as well? I realized for me it was zero.
Zero for me too, but boy are people quiet about it. Almost taboo to let on that that is the arrangement
“Lol dude can’t their mom do that?”
-Random manager ca. 2018 when I explained I couldn’t join an 8 AM meeting because I had to take my kid to daycare.
Unfortunately, I think that this is possible, but it requires a superhuman well of energy, sleep deficit tolerance, and benevolence that very very few people possess. :/
Seriously, aside from the folks with the “2hrs of sleep is enough” gene, it’s not. It’s an actively harmful myth that is sold hard. Start gathering your own evidence, with a critical fact-finding eye. Don’t just accept the narrative. It’s one of those legitimizing stories that serves the teller.
Try watching The Dawn Wall or Free Solo, keep notes, and fill in the blanks on how long they were gone from family. It’s a canned example of how it gets glossed over.
The same attitude as towards gear in weightlifting is appropriate. They tell you it’s natty all day long, but you know delts don’t get that round without gear.
Yeah I think that word is spelled i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e.
"People telling you"
That's the real problem. People need to stay in their damn lane.
parents dont do shit to change the world for their children
> The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now.
so pedagogy and psychology researchers? giving that having biological children is the worst ecological offense someone can do in an ever increasing worldwide population? [0] how about adopting and getting into voluntary programs or even do pro-social things with your money?
giving birth on the current societal status-quo not only screws with the future of our own specie but also a bunch of others which may go extinct because of our greed
[0] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/...
Things are considered important in the context of humanity. Environmental concerns only exist because of its impacts on humanity. The planet does not care.
Calling having children an ecological offence is like saying that best way to reduce emissions is for all people to die.
Yeah, sometimes I think people lose track of why they support environmental movements. I've had people question my choice to have kids along these lines before. I just don't understand it - surely we only care about all this stuff because it is observed by humans? For humanity to continue, someone has to have children.
I can sympathise more with the idea that humans are destroying everything and life won't be worth living for my descendants. But that feels like giving up on the possibility of humans. I don't want to do that.
In any case, it turns out that global fertility rates are in freefall and we're facing population decline faster than anyone predicted.
Speak for yourself. We’re not all raising gas guzzling kids who eat beef three times a day.
giving that having biological children is the worst ecological offense someone can do in an ever increasing worldwide population?
Have you ever heard of fracking? Or mining Gold using mercury?
you can perfectly justify whatever you want based on whatever else... will take myself for example: i just slave workers on my IT firm because there are sweatshops elsewhere /j
like there isn't a correlation on more resources being used or explored in a bigger population?
Or RTO mandates
Pretty unbelievable how much the near urban wild life managed to actually recover during covid lockdowns.
Just wanted to say thank you for this. In particular, the part where often it seems the "Founder mode" icons some evangelize (seem to) neglect their children and/or effectively put childrearing entirely on their partner.
I wish I had a good term (or some other concise way) to reject/criticize this aspect of tech culture.
I say founders above but I see it happen in lots of my peers who are simply workaholics. The closest saying I have (which I repeat often) is:
"The only people who will remember you worked late are your kids."
> "The only people who will remember you worked late are your kids."
I really need to kick my engrossing tech hobbies. :(
And yes to the wider point. There are many people more capable people than me, but sometimes it's about priorities, and top achievers in fields will usually be sacrificing something else.
If we are talking about points people don't make, how about this: your life is going to get harder and worse as you get older. Your dreams will very likely die. Having kids will make that more clear, but honestly I know plenty of people with and without kids and they all struggle with the not fulfilling their ambitions (or realizing those ambitions and finding they weren't what they imagined), the fading of youth, disenchantment with their jobs, etc. Kids are all the horrible things you have heard, but it is a way to grow, it is a very concrete reason to live, at least until they move out. I very much feel the author of this post and I hope that they (and I) keep the fire that drives ambition, but grow enough to enjoy the fire itself, not care quite so much about being productive or scoring points in whatever game.
This seems like a very strange way to look at children, in effect they are a means to an ends for you personally to think your life means something. Surely you would want children because you think the world is intrinsicly beautiful and would want them to experience that? If you think life is bitter and depressing then why on earth would you force someone else to experience that as well?
It just seems like a very nihilistic and egotistical way of viewing children. Your children will also grow old and their dreams will also die and they will be faced with the same problems in life that you are currently facing.
My point is that nihilism and egotism are coming for you with or without children.
(And I, like many more than will admit, didn't want children, but my partner did)
> it is a very concrete reason to live, at least until they move out
Even after that, I think being there for major life events is important too; college graduations, weddings, birth of grand babies.
Having extreme career success (like the kind referred to in the article) is basically a lottery ticket. I spend a lot of time with my kids, because I figure even if I halve my chances of winning the lottery, well, the odds haven’t changed that much, all considered.
The way I think of it is: my family comes first and work and whatever is second, third and so on. I have no ambitions of running a company (the horror) or even being in charge of anything - it takes a special type of person to do that, and I am 100% not that guy. My goal is to always be employable - so I can always provide a middle class existence for my family. Anything beyond that is of no interest to me. Having a successful career used to be a thing to aspire to, but since I hit 40 I stopped caring about that. I used to learn a lot, but with AI I see little value in adding knowledge to my repertoaire - I would rather read a good book or fool around with my kids or go for a walk with my wife. Work isn't going anywhere, but family time is definitely a finite resource that's slipping away every second.
I will leave the world-changing to someone else who is willing to lay it all on the line for an imaginary medal.
Exactly this! When I had my first two kids only a year apart and early in my career, I thought I'm giving something up because I could no longer invest as much time and effort into my projects and research ideas as before. But in retrospect, looking at how the field has evolved since etc., those ideas, which I had regretted I couldn't push harder, anyway had only a small chance for some grand success (beyond the low-medium success of the low-medium effort versions I managed to put together).
I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
So while PG may believe that people may have their "act already together" pre-kids, I sort of look at the amount of time people without kids waste and think "if only I had that much free time..."
Yes. Before I became a dad, I didn't realize how physically and financially constrained people are with regards to number of kids that they have. For me and my wife, our first child took all our time, resources and energy.
This was a shock to me because my parents had 4 children and never seemed to struggle. Also, they were much better off than me financially and could afford to hire help.
My biggest achievement as a dad is the fact that my son speaks 3 languages. In spite of the fact that I was working full time, he still learned to speak my native language fluently from me. And I still did house chores too. And still worked on side hustles at night and weekends.
But yes, I had no life at all for 5 years straight. No life at all. I'm a shell of my former self. My main concern is that I'm showing my son a bad example of how a dad should be. I literally can't afford to raise him with the same values as I was raised with... Because he would grow up into someone like me and that would be my greatest fear.
Now I understand why some parents spoil their children and focus 100% on boosting the child's confidence. This is what you have to do if you're poor. Because you need your child to believe they are above you. That way when they see how shit your life is, they don't have to believe theirs will also end up like this.
> I literally can't afford to raise him with the same values as I was raised with...
If it's any consolation he would have to figure out that himself anyway, because the world is currently changing faster than ever.
I was on vacation a while ago, where I had to explain to my kids the concept of not being able to pause a TV broadcast.
They live in a world of entertainment on demand and LLMs. My values were coined way before all that.
As for myself I'm wearing the skin of that young man I was 10 years ago and don't understand what was the big deal with some of those things he cared so much for.
>Because he would grow up into someone like me and that would be my greatest fear
If you didn't want someone to be like you, then you probably shouldn't have given them 50% of your DNA. If it's any consolation, a child's eventual personality has very little to do with their upbringing.
I appreciate the intention you and others are bringing. Not to be defeatist, but I do wonder how much of trying to set it straight sticks long term?
People have been trying to straighten things out for millennia and we are still in this predicament.
That isn't to say, don't try. It is to say, don't cling to an out come.
The old "I won't raise my kids like my parents raised me" problem, which inevitably seems to lead to raising kids with a different set of grievances and unresolved issues.
I realised it was a lost cause when I realised that literally everyone I knew had some sort of "my parents are imperfect and it's broken me somehow" story. I think it might just be part of the human condition to grow up and realise your parents were flawed humans who made mistakes raising you.
Yeah, most people are just trying to make it day to day doing their best. We are flawed but that is what make it fun.
There is also just a matter of randomness.
Marcus Aurelius was considered one of the great emperors of Rome with a fairly level head considering his position. It seems like he would have been an idea parent, so when his son Commodus came a long as almost the total opposite. It says something about human nature, it cannot be contained at times.
The outcome I'm clinging to is freedom. Until I have that, nothing else matters.
At every point in my life after age 25 or so, I could look back 10 years and be appalled at how much time I wasted back then. 50-year-old me is angry at 40-year-old me for wasting my 40s, as 25-year-old me was angry at 15-year-old me for wasting my high school time. What a waste my youth always seems!
I generally tend to not have that feeling.
For me to feel like it is wasted is to put on a definition of the time period that wasn't there. It is internal personal fan fiction at that point.
I don't feel like I missed out on anything.
There is also the added point of whatever position you take, it is always a trade off with something else.
To be awfully reductionist. The fat people envy the skinny because their health is in check, the skinny envy the fat because they have a sense of care free freedom.
Counterpoint, via Kurt Vonnegut:
> I work at home, and if I wanted to, I could have a computer right by my bed, and I’d never have to leave it. But I use a typewriter, and afterward I mark up the pages with a pencil. Then I call up this woman named Carol out in Woodstock and say, “Are you still doing typing?” Sure she is, and her husband is trying to track bluebirds out there and not having much luck, and so we chitchat back and forth, and I say, “Okay, I’ll send you the pages.”
> Then I go down the steps and my wife calls, “Where are you going?” “Well,” I say, “I’m going to buy an envelope.” And she says, “You’re not a poor man. Why don’t you buy a thousand envelopes? They’ll deliver them, and you can put them in the closet.” And I say, “Hush.”
> So I go to this newsstand across the street where they sell magazines and lottery tickets and stationery. I have to get in line because there are people buying candy and all that sort of thing, and I talk to them. The woman behind the counter has a jewel between her eyes, and when it’s my turn, I ask her if there have been any big winners lately.
> I get my envelope and seal it up and go to the postal convenience center down the block at the corner of Forty-seventh Street and Second Avenue, where I’m secretly in love with the woman behind the counter. I keep absolutely poker-faced; I never let her know how I feel about her. One time I had my pocket picked in there and got to meet a cop and tell him about it.
> Anyway, I address the envelope to Carol in Woodstock. I stamp the envelope and mail it in a mailbox in front of the post office, and I go home.
> And I’ve had a hell of a good time. I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you any different.
Reminds me of that saying "The youth is wasted on the young". It's only once we truly have no time do we realize how much time we really had.
I love my kids but they take a lot of time. Wouldn't change it for the world though.
Nothing teaches productivity better than being a participating parent.
> I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
I'm shocked by the sanctimonious tone of those with kids; it's likely professional bias from having someone that needs schooling at home.
Then, I will always be amazed by how those with offspring feel the need to constantly validate and justify themselves for their choice, while those without barely touch the argument.
I'm not saying I'm better than me without kids; I'm just saying the level of freedom (high) and time management required without kids (low) is shocking and I believe it can only be fully realized in the normcore world by having kids.
I think to be honest its a good indicator of who I might consider a good boss; if its an uninvolved parent who hires out help to manage their kid and doesn't participate, that's a scary person to work for. They will expect the same of you.
Similarly, those without offspring don't fully understand that free dinner at work isn't a perk. You have a small life form that needs you at home to be present.
Things like kids rolling in to work at 11, eating free lunch, then working a few hours and eating free dinner is no longer fun; it becomes an annoying perception of non-productivity. Partly jealousy, because you used to be able to do that. And now you are regimented around a school and activity schedule.
Not sure this is fully accurate. Managing kids can use up one's will power or self control resources considerably. There can also be sleep deprivation with young children and other energy drain. I'm not really sure but my focus / ability to avoid distractions at work may actually have gotten worse since having kids.
Yeah, work is now my time for tranquility.
My passion for tech remains, and now work is the time I spend on it, but not on my assigned priorities, sadly.
I kinda miss the argument why so many “ambitious” people are bad parents. Maybe because it is too obvious? If you are not present for your child at the time your kid grows up (before and after school, weekends, etc) you are not a parent at all. You’re a roommate with certain privileges, but no child is interested in that.
People who work 60+ hours a week will be “worse” parents than others.
I don't think a lot of people will agree with you here because it's HN, but you are right. There are exceptions, of course, and it's way easier for the father to still have a career, but I have seen personally the difference between the parent that stays at home and the one that goes out to work. The connection with the children is different. I would hope that AI gives them more time with their children, but I know that it will not happen
I'm reading Careless People, and it discusses parents in high positions at Fb. They are not parents. They hire people to do most of the work. The author was "talked to" about sharing a story about her child.
My father worked 2 jobs in my teenage years. While I appreciate that he supported me to the best of his ability, I regret not having a connection with him. No trips, no plans together. Now, our relationship is need based.
I felt very conflicted about this topic when I was young and working for Apple. I decided the Valley commute and rat race wasn’t very family conducive so I took a remote job and moved a few states over and it’s been great.
I’ve been fully remote for 12+ years now, and I’ve had a very successful career in engineering and engineering leadership. I also have eight kids that I get to spend a ton of time with. There’s a remote tax on career growth, but my RE side hustles have more than compensated for it.
Every now and then I wonder what might have been if I had stayed at Apple. No way to know for sure, but I probably couldn’t have afforded the family and lifestyle that I enjoy now.
8 kids! Well if anyone wants to ask for parenting advice, they can go to you as you are a lone human data set.
How is having numerous kids correlated with being a good parent? If anything, the reverse is probably true.
There’s “how to be a good parent” advice and there’s also “oh boy how do we manage mealtimes and laundry and the school run” type advice. Someone with lots of kids is going to have great insights into the latter at very least.
If he’s the father, he may have no involvement in the logistics whatsoever. Especially if he has a large family.
I am the father, and I have a ton of involvement in the day-to-day work of running the house. This brings me and my wife a lot of satisfaction and it undoubtedly wouldn’t be possible if I was still commuting to work in Silicon Valley.
Probably would have just remained as an apple lifer
RE side hustles, as in, reverse engineering?
I'm assuming real estate
Correct, real estate.
I have a positive look on this.
Most successful people I know have much higher number of children than the average. Unicorn and decacorn founders with 2-5 kids, every single one I know.
I think it's the energy and desire to live a rich fulfilling life. Building a company was part of it, but at least for me, family is ever greater fulfillment. From where I can see, all are still together with their kids parent and seem like ok parents themselves.
I also, had a successful yet still a great, supportive dad. He traveled a lot for work, was in one of the highest engineering positions available, all through my younger years. Still a great dad. He is immensely curious about us kids (and now grandkids), positive, kind. I think the curiosity part made him a great engineer but also a great parent.
I have 3 kids now and while it's true there's less time, I guess my experience has thought me not to think of it as any kind of limiting factor towards life.
They are not driving their kids to daycare/schools/doctor's office themselves.
If you have the means to let someone else take care of your kids, sure.
The vast, vast majority of people, including most tech company employees, need to make arrangements for these everyday chores, some of which affect which meetings they have to skip and when/if they can show up in the office.
Yep absolutely. Available support network (grand parents) and what role your partner has, can make a big difference. If you don't have these available, nor the means to pay for extra childcare, cleaning, cooking at home then it becomes more difficult.
The author talked about conventionally successful people such as Musk with roughly a few dozen children, but that doesn't make them good parents.
>I think it's the energy and desire to live a rich fulfilling life
Don't forget the narcissism.
Maybe ambitious is not the right word. It's more like, at some point you have to go home.
Before my kids, I started at sunrise, and coming home was optional. Then I got married and divided my attention. Then I got twins, so I divided it even more. But it doesn't make me any less ambitious, in fact, I have more fire behind me to ensure I give them a bright future. It's just that, I come home on time now.
Edit: and thank you for writing this post. It's rarely something we mention in our personal blogs, but it's always nice to know how diverse this culture is.
Exactly. If he means successful instead, then we can have different definitions of successful. That being said, I don't think most startup founders have the same definition of successful as that meets: dad that wants to be there for their children.
Twins is a different league entirely. Hats off
First definition of ambition in merriam webster is "an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power." Ambition is basically definitionally antisocial.
A desire to accumulate power is tantamount to a desire to accumulate wealth. Most ways to wealth these days involve finding ways to consume more of the world's resources or siphon resources to yourself.
Consider refining word choice. (Though if your notion of ambition corresponds to building a sillycon valley startup, then 'ambition' is probably the right word.) I don't mean that nothing good ever comes of technology; I mean that VC-funded startup tech is mostly done in the pursuit of money, damn any social consequences.
A flip on this reading. Rank, fame, and power all rely on others to enable it.
Sort of like how a narcissistic person ultimately needs others to validate them.
You aren't wrong, it just can be read two ways.
"I do not believe the quality time theory."
Over time I've come to realize that some of the most organic time—sometimes seemingly mundane, other times seemingly very unpleasant—spent with your kids can yield some incredibly high quality downstream. It isn't about being opportunistic. It's about gradually building something together. It's the same with any relationship. If you treated your spouse like this, they would leave you. If you treat your kids like this, they're mostly trapped, but given the chance one day, they will likely leave you behind to some degree or another.
Things worth building take time, effort, dedication, and perseverance. Social relations are the epitome of this. There are no short cuts. Everyone notices when you're opportunistic. Your kids most of all.
The author expresses frustration, which I totally feel too. But I often remind myself that life was never promised to be easy, nor are many things worth doing very easy (and if they are, acquiring or experiencing those things is usually the fruit of some other effort).
I've tended to enjoy being ambitious about work because it comes so easily, too. While it feels great to be productive, I'm not sure it means what it feels like it means. My productivity doesn't mean anything to others, other than my employers. Who cares? My kids don't care. My wife doesn't care. And all the while it doesn't really push me to grow in any direction other than one I already feel very comfortable with. In my experience, this is fine and healthy to engage in moderately, but going bananas with it directly subtracts from the rest of your life (such as your relationship with your kids). And there's no way that in 30 years at the end of my life I'd be glad I was good at... What, building stuff on the computer? Do I want to be alone with that thought? Not at all.
First, I respect anyone’s choice not to be a parent. It’s constant, demanding work, far more intense than any job I’ve ever had as a baseline.
Second, this is the third time in two days I’ve seen some variation on “I dreamed of doing something significant and never wanted kids.” That’s a wild construction. Having kids is incredibly significant, and more world-changing than most of us will ever do. Having kids didn’t give my life meaning, but I’m certainly able to pour life’s meaning into my kid and family more than into anything else before it.
Life insurance companies and federal agencies estimate the value of the life of an average US citizen at around 10 million USD, last I checked. If you consider that anywhere close to accurate, it's hard to imagine anything you could do with a higher ROI than having a child, at least from a public goods perspective. You'll never see the 10 million but they're out there enjoying themselves because you helped bring them into being. And if you consider it a woeful underestimate, or that it's wrong to put a price on something priceless, that argument only gets stronger.
>Having kids is incredibly significant, and more world-changing than most of us will ever do
This is a strange thing to say. Where does the "world changing" part come from, is it just in the parent's head? Or are you expecting it to be in the actions of your children? Surely your parents would have also done something "world changing" by having you, which implies that your existence is already world changing.
Maybe this is just a saying and not to be taken literally. But I feel like people divorce the concept of "having children" from the reality of that child becoming an adult and having all the same worries and neuroses you do.
Creating a sentient person and equipping him or her to exist in and affect the world is by definition world changing, and to a far greater and more sustained degree than almost any entrepreneurial activity. The usual construct is “I thought I knew what was important until I had kids,” which I have historically actually been uncomfortable with (because imho being a good parent is as much about being fully you than putting on a parent uniform), but what’s notable about the meditations on the topic I’ve seen in the last couple of days is the persistence in bifurcating “something of significance” from “having children”, as if the writers never quite accept that having kids is significant. I fully accept that people have wildly different ideas about having kids, but it’s odd (to me) to not see parenthood as at least as significant as starting a business.
I guess sure, but if the main "world changing" thing you do is have children, then that would imply that the main "world changing" thing your children do, is again have children. So if your child turns out to be infertile or something, has your "world changing" effect suddenly vanished? If the only real value you have as a person is to create more people.
> “I thought I knew what was important until I had kids”
I wouldn't doubt this, obviously in the mind of the parent their children are going to be an almost spiritual experience. But it seems like the most important thing children -actually do- is make their parents happier.
People usually talk about children in terms of how it makes them feel I guess, "my children give me meaning" etc. With the children being more of an abstraction of "potential".
> “I dreamed of doing something significant and never wanted kids.” That’s a wild construction. Having kids is incredibly significant
Sure, but you have to remember that there is most likely a silent "and new" in there; most jobs in a competitive industry are significant, because otherwise they would be cut. Being a cleaner at a hospital you are doing significant work too, but at the same time it is probably not what was imagined by an author of the phrase "I dream of doing significant things".
> I dreamed of doing something significant and never wanted kids
This wasn’t a sentiment I took away from the post
No, but the conflict between significance and kids, a variant of the opportunity cost of being a parent, was clearly there.
>to pour life’s meaning into my kid and family
It's grammatically awkward but IMO this is the fundamental reason people have kids. We need a project and most of us don't have any better candidates.
> having kids may make one less ambitious
Can't say this resonates with me. Though being a dad has wildly changed what I'm ambitious about.
'Ambitious' often means doing optional things that take time.
A single person who cuts back on time spent doom scrolling / tv watching / beer drinking to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices is ambitious.
A new parent who cuts back on time with their kids to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices needs their head checked.
Unless you need a job to keep that kid housed because you made the unfortunate decisions of taking jobs at companies that didn't use kubernetes...
Man, re-read this comment in 10 years
If I have Internet still sure.
You got any of those job things to spare btw?
I didn’t like what the market was offering, and I didn’t like depending on other people not firing me, so I made one for myself where I can work on what I like the way I like (started a small software business).
You can, too. It’s the simplest and cheapest business to start in the entire history of humankind, and you literally just sit with your laptop at home all day pressing buttons
Did you forget what the post we're commenting on is about?
I watch a toddler all day so my wife can do her best to not get let go too along with household work that other people pay people to do. I'm not building a business that can pay my mortgage with 2 hours of free time at night.
I’m far less ambitious, but not less driven. It’s just that what I’m driving for is to maximize time doing things I and my family enjoy. In fact it’s a lens through which I analyze jobs and career opportunities.
I feel like my dreams have died with becoming a parent and having a family. 2 hours of free time isn't enough focus time to do anything significant or learn anything. I thought abound going back to school recently and there's no practical way to pull it off. Once they're in school I'll be in my 40s anyway. I doubt I'm pivoting my life into anything fun at that point. It's been tough to deal with mentally.
what the author doesn't say - is being ambitious at what ? ambitious at making useless software ? useless hardware ?
in tech we like to overwork on nonsense problems ie working on problems that change or are non permanent. literally if 98% of the software went away today it won't be missed, just like shit that came before.
if people listened to Jeff Bezos - who said - focus on things that don't change - you will realize - you can live your life - without overworking. because guess what - if you don't do something today, the problem Will exist tomorrow & the day after.
certain problems never get fully solved, just tiny bits of progress.
but I guess zero sum thinking has taken over.
thank you for this, very well written, and rings true.
I will say for me this is the root contradiction:
> I do not believe the quality time theory. I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them; there are no diminishing returns for them on that front.
If you believe that to be the most true statement, then it leads to the conclusion that you should work as little as possible to spend as most time with them, up to and including not working at all. The ambition to be kidmaxxing, if you will. This is incompatible with career ambition obviously.
I guess i'm just sharing the same frustration but with a stronger conclusion - it seems fundamentally contradictory to be ambitious in both, at least at young ages. Seems like we're fooling ourselves if we think you can, we're compromising on one aspect at least.
Ultimately any two ambitions will compete with each other for finite time and energy. (Assuming each ambition benefits from more time and energy being spent on it, which is usually the case.)
You can be reasonably successful in multiple areas, but you can't max them all, you have to compromise somehow.
i agree. But i read the blog post as the author trying to escape having to compromise. Which, as we seemingly both think, is not possible.
I read the post as the author acknowledging the compromise, expressing frustration about it, and determining to live on the pareto frontier with his strategy of focus and discipline and so on. Sacrificing other things in order to achieve both ambitions at a high level (though not maximizing either one).
"Maximising time within reason" is probably a better construction. As usual if you follow these arguments to their absolute meaning they become ridiculous
But what’s “within reason”? Right now I have an unlimited list of ambitions of things to do with my kids. Traveling, sports, skiing, mountain biking, surfing, camping, building, electronics, etc etc… there are not enough hours in a year to do just those with zero paid work. Is that ridiculous, assuming I can afford to do so?
"Define nuance" I dunno, it depends on all of the factors that go into your life. There might be a lower level construction of the logical argument but it eludes me and begins to feel arbitrary
This is something that makes me really sad, because as an extremely ambitious man, I've found it difficult to make friends with men who are similarly ambitious. It seems that everyone gives up once they have a kid and becomes a helicopter parent. I like to think I'm a good dad (have four kids; work from home; regularly do sports, music, etc with them; cook regularly) and also pretty ambitious (work in a MAANA company, have side businesses and gigs, have a good marriage, hobbies, exercise, etc), but it's difficult to find other dads into this. Or at least that's my perception here in Portland, OR. I've met a few, but most ambitious people seem uninterested in kids, and the ones interested in kids seem thoroughly unambitious in my opinion.
This resonates a lot with how I felt while building our company. My kids were born during the early days of our startup and it was pretty much what he described- work and being a dad. Thankfully the startup was pretty successful and I made a good amount of money that’s allowed me the luxury of not having to work when the older one was 10. I am really enjoying not working and being a full time dad :-)
The thought of having kids brings up really complex feelings for me. I feel like the biological clock is ticking louder and louder and yet I barely have a career to speak of. I live with the constant burden of ADHD and have always struggled to hold down a job. The optimist in me thinks that maybe things will improve in the future and I should just take the plunge and figure things out. The pessimist worries that I'm already at capacity just waking up, cooking, cleaning for myself and kids would push me over the edge.
If it helps, I find a kid genuinely grounding. Absolutely best thing that happened to me. And I'm divorced, which isn't exactly optimal scenario.
Lots of people talk about how kids are hard and there is some truth to it. Nobody mentions how ridiculously, insanely fun they are.
I have nothing constructive to say but wanted to wish you good luck
Just wanted to say thanks for putting words to the anxiety that lurks in the back of my mind most days. Glad to know I'm not alone.
I once bumped into a couple of very high profile VCs sitting outside a coffee shop. Somehow the conversation got round to the fact that we were potty training our 12-month-old. One of the VCs told me their two kids, 2 and 3 years old, weren't yet out of nappies, just used pull-ups, because there hadn't been time to potty train them. There are reasons why this could have been legit (failed attempts, developmentally challenged children, etc.) but it was delivered as a kind of admonishment that I was involved in potty-training at all (even though their fund hadn't invested in my business or even been pitched).
It really depressed me at the time, realising there was a class of entrepreneurs and backers who were genuinely stop-at-nothing, even if it meant their three-year-old at day care was wondering why he was the only nappy-wearer, and carrying that subliminally into later life.
What I learnt from that and host of other experiences over time was that a young family and running a venture-backed, high-growth trajectory business aren't very compatible, but...
What I've also learned is that your first venture's going to be imperfectly executed anyway, so get the learnings out of the way anyway, with kids in the picture, then go again when the kids are school-age, and hope they get to enjoy the fruits of venture number two as teenagers.
Also, I never saw consistency from the people who put venture before family. They'd be buying shots for young staff at 11.00 at night on a week night, checking their crypto-balance continously, micro-managing, taking unnecessary business trips, etc. There are some absolute time-management machines out there, who never seem to waste a moment of their working days (I know two, and they both combined successful startups and young families), but in reality everyone needs some downtime/respite and family time is a better restorative than anything else except pure rest.
On that point, there's the famous adage, 'Startup, sleep, parenthood. Pick any two.' I picked startup and parenthood. Sleep deprivation means I look 10 years older than I am, but no regrets.
Finally, I think kids give you a second wave of competitive determination after your initial ambition wanes. Problematic investors, cheating competitors, over-demanding enterprise customers, careless execs, etc. could leave a lone individual feeling sorry for themselves, and defeatist. It's amazing how creative and determined one becomes when it feels like these different personas are causing setbacks that, rathervthan just interfering with your personal ambitions, might be stealing your kids' future opportunities and financial security.
I've seen something similar with regards to neglecting child development, but instead of nappies, they're just not fed properly. People who have more disposable income than I could imagine, but are strapped for time, feed their children the simplest, most low effort food imaginable. Think a cheeseburger from McDonald's, plain pasta or bread, frosted flakes, etc. Their excuse is that their child won't eat anything else, but more often than not it's a matter of getting them accustomed with other foods, which of course takes time and effort.
I'm getting to the point where I too feel like I most likely won't be noteworthy in any professional sense (i.e. a name known across the industry), but at moments like that I take solace in the fact I'm taking time to spend with my son, learn alongside him, and provide him a life that I never had in so many other ways.
I remember being shocked by the carelessness of (some of) the wealthy in this regard when I first became friends with (newly) rich people in lines of work where you couldn't be too precious about ethics (finance, property, music, film, TV). Feeding kids cereal for their evening meals before heading out for dinner. Unopened shopping hauls cluttering the hallway for days or weeks with the packaging from the items that have actually been opened littering the carpet. Broken or unused tech and toys everywhere. Single items of laundry getting emergency washes while actual laundry just piles up. Domestic help getting requisitioned to do random errands instead of getting on top of their actual duties. Prestige cars scraped and ticketed. Pets loitering hopefully by the fridge. Beautiful, enormous homes in chaos. Drugs not usually a contributing factor, just a kind of grasping selfishness that made both chores and children an unwanted demand. Depressing.
I believe parents should definitely aim for both.
If you have kids and you prioritize your career to the point you never see your kids, and you will have huge and legitimate regrets later in life. Especially if you don't achieve Jobs / Musk level of financial success. That's pretty common knowledge.
But the opposite is also true. As parents, we're always examples for our kids, for better or worse. Do we want our kids to see us abandon our dreams 'because of them' or do we want them to see their parents showing them how to go after their dreams, because that's what life is about ?
The middle way, perhaps? What "dreams" are more important than having a strong connection with your kids? Not only are the regrets that will come later in life huge and legitimate, they would also be irreversible. But, assuming you're in relatively good health midlife, you can always attempt to build the 5 startups that will almost definitely fail. Just my opinion of course.
That's what I'm saying, maybe not with right words then.
Strong connections with kids are the most important thing, but it cannot be the only one. It wouldn't end great neither for both parties.
Ah, I may have misunderstood your comment. I thought you were leaning more towards the "dream" part. But so my comment also meant to say that the definition of ambition and success changed after becoming a parent. I know I won't be curing cancer in my lifetime and so what thing is really important that I have to sacrifice time with my children for? To me, being the founder of the next failed facebook for cats is just not it.
Note that I am not talking about earning a living and thus necessarily sacrificing time doing that and showing your kids that sometimes you have to work hard to survive in a decent way. I am talking about the parents who outsource their children to childcare to work to pay off the loan on their third car and newest iphone and tell you that they have no choice.
Thank you fur writing this nichochar.
I have many similar thoughts, but one thing that worries me is also trying too hard to do the optimal thing. I often find that my own expectations collide with reality (kids’ moods, random events necessitating change of plans etc). So it’s important to switch from “rationally making shit happen” mode during work time to “vibe and see what happens” during family time. This mental switch is hard.
It drives me crazy that everything in SF is designed to either be kid-focused or adult-focused. There's very few places where you can have a serious conversation with a collaborator while with your kids. Dogpatch Hub (right by YC) is one of the few exceptions - excellently stocked kids space, snacks, WiFi, and comfy chairs for adults to work.
I've been working on something similar at Mox (the effective altruism coworking space in the mission) as part of my (joyful parenting efforts but it won't be ready until winter when their 1st floor renovations are done.
Others who feel the same way may also be interested in this old post i wrote about how to be productive before your baby turns one on the EA forum https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xocdNsa8At3bmQKm3/...
https://joyfulparentingsf.com/
I used to think that it was hard to make the decision to have kids, but somehow now it feels harder to make the decision to not have them. I am at the age that people around me have kids ranging from new borns to young adults (and somebody is always pregnant). Having kids is totally normalized. I socialize a lot in childrens parties. Kids schedules determine what we can do with friends most of the time. I am often the babysitter and take care of other peoples children.
When I was growing up I thought everyone had kids (I guess I only socialized with families with kids). This was my future. As a young adult making the jump to having kids seemed like a big decision, but with hindsight that looks like following the default path. Now that there is growing amount of people like me with no kids I am wondering what life should look like. I lack the rolemodels.
I have witnessed my friends grow a lot in short time period when they have a kid. At first it’s a bit jarring how baby takes over their life. I think it is super cool and all of them say that it is an unique experience they can’t really explain.
By the time kid hits maybe 10 years old they have adjusted and interaction with them is pretty normal again from my perspective.
At the same time I feel I have also grown at my own pace. I don’t feel totally out of sync with my grown up parent friends although I must say I can be bit more lighthearted and experimental with my life. The stakes are low. It is not like I think life is about career or hedonistic pursuits anymore. I don’t want to live the life of a 30 year old. I value being part of society, socially present and giving. Enjoying simple things and seeing beauty in the world.
In a way my life looks like that of an empty nester, but without the prospect of seeing my child building a life for themselves, having grand children etc. Feels like a big decision I have done for my future self.
Being a parent teaches you how to stop procrastinating and use every second you have available. You are at your most productive era (work items per minute spent).
The bad news is that the day still has 24 hours, and that means that your career needs to adapt.
For example I had to turn down an opportunity that would require me to be putting 70 hours per week and I stayed at a job that I could do 9-5. That opportunity went sideways (the startup failed) so overall my career is fine.
A lot of good stuff in this thread. The party I'll add and haven't seen yet is that I think being a dad has made me a better people manager at work. I think about humans more than ever and that has helped make me more efficient at work
I knew one lovely guy who was a young dad. He started in the server team and was team leader in 6 months.
Not because he knew about the tech, though he was learning fast, but because he knew how to wrangle and intermediate the man-children.
Like OP with my first kid, I constantly had itchy fingers -- too many ideas to ever execute on. Tired and no more flow state. Work seemed like a waste of time with politics. My hobbies were my outlet - and now it was reduced to maybe 1 hrs a day.
Then AI got good. I've always been able to solve problems fast in my head, but was bottlenecked by fingers and dumb infra.
AI gave me my time back honestly. Nix solved infra. backlog CLI kept the work clear. Good engineering, in spurts.
Now I have more execution power than ever, and I can steer my minions. Yes, I don't get to code and there is little flow state, but I always better liked to solve a problem and go to the next than actually typing it out.
From my phone, wireguard and aVNC to my homelab, I conduct ralph loops on my architecture and principles. This is so powerful, that my brain poops out even more ideas - and so I find myself fully immersed - another kind of flow state.
Consequence: Brain fry and less sleep, so sometimes I just crash out and sleep for 10 hrs. Usually get 5-6 hrs nowadays.
I’m a dad who has struggled with this too. I’ve also had the privilege of getting to know a relatively large number of highly successful people.
One thing I’ve noticed is that, yes, to make it into the history books you likely have to pursue your career at the cost of everything else (and be insanely lucky).
But right below that degree of one in a billion success is a much larger group of very successful people who manage to achieve admirable balance in their lives. Their spouses love them, their kids want to spend time with them, and rhey might even have a hobby or two.
The thing is, these people tend to be quieter - a few I know are downright secretive. They aren’t constantly online or in the press seeking validation because they have achieved fulfillment at home and work.
Hits hard. I know this is wrong, but I often find myself resentful when I see colleagues burning the midnight oil (or otherwise putting in time that I no longer have) in service of career progression.
I think the author is spot on about ruthlessly optimizing the time you do have, though. That seems to be the only way to keep up.
> I often find myself resentful when I see colleagues burning the midnight oil
I don't care, especially with AI. I just let it do all the work and I take credit. Plus career progression after a certain point is useless - more responsibilities for smaller increases in paycheck. I found that being a senior developer is the sweet spot for me - others have to think about the product and requirements and communicate and I just sit autistically in the corner and ship at my own pace.
these people have ai too. AI increases competition amongst the ambitious, so it doesn't solve the problem
Personal ambition is often a poor signal for living your life because it tends to have an arbitrary and empty goal, being successful or powerful or wealthy just for the sake of it. It will be a struggle and never feel like enough, each milestone is as arbitrary as the last.
The people I have known who were the most grounded, happiest, productive, and fulfilled all understood their lives on some level to be in service of something that has value to more than just themselves. That can be being a mom or dad, furthering the knowledge of humanity, serving your community, it can be anything that you recognize as greater than yourself.
It brings you into contact with other people who share the same goal. It is a stronger fuel than personal ambition, and one that doesn't leave you empty along the way.
So this piece really resonates with me. I have a five month old child who I really like/love - but I am filled with a passionate software idea and everytime I get a tiny bit of time to work on it, it is heaven. A while back I was able to do one hour in the morning before work on it - but have lost that hur recently. At night, I occassionally look wistfully at my computer sometimes and wish I could build - but I am just trying to be patient and I am hopefully I will soon get back 'one hour' a day in my evenings. One day...
My partner and I are considering paying for a weekend nanny to look after the boy when he turns one on Sunday- so again we have free time to work on our passion projects. Its great to be a dad but it is so time consuming with young children.
Free time will return!
Not much, but some evenings will soon be available!
Thanks for your words - I live in hope :)
A somewhat unpopular opinion, but personally I don't mind being kind of absent in my kids' lives relative to others' expectations. I think there's been some expectation creep around parental involvement for high-achieving couples without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of. There's also something to be said for leaning on grandparents and other support structures more heavily than a lot of people currently do.
One "superpower" from being married with kids is that your life becomes a lot more predictable. Like, having sex regularly and spending quality family time is probably a healthy part of a balanced, productive lifestyle, and is a good counterbalance to the stresses of a demanding career - it's nice not to always be thinking about how you're going to get laid, or in the event that you do become successful, whether or not your partner is just gold digging you or something. Although a lot of that depends on who you marry and making sure you're both doing good maintenance.
For what it's worth, I had a "high-achieving" dad. The big house, going on vacation and all that jazz was nice, sure. My grandparents and the support system were cool too. I consider the grandma who raised us while he worked like my second mother. I definitely would have preferred to get to spend a lot more time with him before he got old. Cause he is now, that wheel ain't turning back, and I barely got to know him. He was present as much as he could with the career he chose.
We turned out okay, no major problems with any of us, decent careers, whatever. I guess we probably wouldn't have turned out much better. So yeah, I guess there wouldnt have been much in terms of better "outcome". Still, my siblings have voiced the same regret. I genuinely think he does too. The expectation of being more present than he was is one I give myself, not "expectation creep".
I think the difference between your opinion and others is that for many being a dad is the intention and not an expectation. They want the experience of being an active and present parent. If it were purely about obligation, in this day and age they probably just wouldn't have children.
aka helicopter parent. Taking all the time and all the space. Poor kids.
> without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of.
Not to pick on others’ life choices, but I don’t think that this particular assertion is true. Depends on your evidentiary bar, I suppose, but just from googling it:
* Mass General’s Fatherhood Project (https://thefatherhoodproject.org/schools/the-research/): “Findings from the rapidly growing science of early childhood and brain development show that a father’s active participation and emotional engagement with his children leads to improved social, emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes.”
* NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/health/fathers-child-heal...): “Research Finds Interaction With Father, Not Mother, Affects Child Health”
* https://firstfivenebraska.org/blog/6-ways-children-benefit-f... provides a catalog of evidence and reported benefits
Just because you don't see the many small moments when your children need you doesn't mean they don't exist; trust me bro, they do. Your partner or support network is probably doing too much to cover for your absence, to you and your kids' detriment. Unless you're a horrible bastard, they'd probably rather have you around more.
I grew up having a "kind of absent" father who focused on his high-paying career more than spending time with his kids. He no doubt rationalized it to no end, but the net result was that he wasn't there when I needed him the most. Growing up I often wished we were poorer so he could be around more.
I agree in the strongest terms with the article's rejection of "quality time" as a substitute for quantity, and the rejection of delegating away one's parenting.
I agree so strongly that I walked away from a promising postgraduate degree and millions of dollars of future compensation in my relatively secure MAANG position to be a full-time father to my young children.
I know not everyone can do this and don't know what the future will hold, but at least we'll be together.
Being a dad is fulfilling enough that I don’t want to do anything else but hang out with my kids. Perhaps that’s what Paul Graham meant when he said kids make you less ambitious? And I know the day will come when they won’t like to hang out with me, so I’ll have the time to go back to building things.
Father of three and startup founder here.
In college, I burned out on normal coursework and dropped out to teach myself how to code instead. To support myself, I worked in restaurants. I found that working as a dishwasher was quite complementary to learning to code. It was tiring physically, but I ended each day in need of mental stimulation, so went home and coded all night.
Now, as a father, I've found there's a similar complementarity in some ways but not others. There's a huge physical component to parenting, and this is perfectly complementary. There's also an emotional aspect (sometimes 2 or even 3 cry at once). This can be complementary or not depending on how much emotional labor work required (usually very little).
The one area where both work and kids is exhausting is attention. A toddler demands a huge amount of attention, and performing at work does too.
> I know many ambitious parents; it’s not an uncommon combination
That is a weird statement. Most people eventually have kids, so obviously the average ambitious person has kids.
My experience is actually that there is a bias towards more ambition among the childless. Not because of laziness of parents, mind you. But in the decision whether to have kids or not, ambition may play the decisive role, everything else being equal. It goes so far that I have heard otherwise reasonable people resent childless colleagues because of course those workaholics can afford to push overtime while those with kids are pushed into carreer disadvantages, so they say.
I started off and a shy, awkward (probably autistic) computer programmer wondering if I could ever convince a woman to marry me. Now I'm on my 3rd kid and hoping for more.
Parenting gives to access to a part of the world you never knew existed. The school events, sports, Cub Scouts, neighbors down the street. You meet people who are trying to create a great world for their children. Your interests align, so you end of working together on it. You actually become part of the community.
I used to be Mr. Career, and maybe someday I'll get back to it. But right now my job plays such a small role in my life compared to my family.
When I was in high school, my dad was an executive at a large international Fortune 500 finance firm.
His main job was to fly around the world and train salespeople on how better attract and retain clients.
One year, he was traveling for 180 days aka half of the entire year.
For many years I was somewhat conflicted about this b/c on the one hand he wasn't around much but on the other hand my mom didn't have to work, we had a great life and got to take international vacations every year.
As a father now, I appreciate the sacrifice my dad made to not see us as much but to provide a great life for his wife and kids.
This article reminds me of a time when I was pushing my kid on a swing in the backyard after work. It was all I was doing. No background processes running mentally. With all the obligations and people waiting on me at work and deliverables due yesterday, I had managed to turn it off. It occurred to me that simply pushing my kid on a swing and thinking of nothing else was probably the most important thing I could ever do in that single moment. That was a freeing change of perspective for me.
“Completely removing time-wasting activities”
Is a bit harsh to me. You might be ultra competitive but it could also be how you define it. But in my opinion sometimes “time wasting activities” are needed for recharging your own batteries and this kind of phrasing sounds like burnout.
Like if I said fishing someone would justify it as not being time wasting etc or meditating or something you would justify as health work but that justification is even contradictory to meditation at all.
time wasting is an odd phrase and stressful wording to me I don’t like. “wasting time” can sometimes be a productive and useful endeavor.
Conflating low quality downtime (like scrolling on your phone) to fishing is not fair. I've probably been happiest during periods of almost zero downtime (but still separate days off)
You’re missing my point that is that any activity that does not have a means to an end or reaching some goal or objective does not make it a negative… unless you’re ultra competitive and every single activity (even spending time with your kids) has to be seen as a means to an end.
This is pretty accurately defined as spiritual materialism
Right now you have a window. AI can do a huge chunk of the work you were doing last year, and outside of programming, nobody seems to know about it yet. I've cut 10 hours a week out of my schedule in the last several months just in time to have my first kid, at the ripe old age of 46.
They'll figure it out and we will be right back to the same pressure we had before, but for a short time at least, if your field is competitive, you have a huge edge.
For me (father of 5 adult children, +2) being an older man and an experienced father (and grandfather as well) my parental responsibilities have largely changed what being ambitious means. As a man in my late 30s to 40s, I was ambitious in a fairly conventional sense, although my focus was a little unconventionally centered. Over the last decade or so, my focus has drifted to ways I can prepare my family for, or influence outcomes of the course of events. Some of those things are intersectional with creating value and benefiting from that process, but that part has become a lot less important to me even if it isn’t any less urgent.
At my age, you start to understand the trajectory aspect of life and how changing circumstances put the lie to the illusion of stability and permanence. You start to glimpse things in the context of centuries, with decades as fundamental units rather than years, or months. Even things that happened before you were born begin to seem recent, and things evolving half a decade or more in the future are fairly clear and immediately relevant.
Watching time compress as you age is indeed illuminating.
Another thing is arguments you have as a child with an adult. It's not that kids are always "technically" wrong when they argue their cases or reasons for things - It's that you realize how impactful actions/words are and often technical details don't matter as much as the grand scheme of things.
"Startup, parenting, hobbies, friends. I think you can do 2 of these well. But you'll have to quite light on the others."
Someone on X, don't recall who, but it resonated.
For “parenting” and “startup”, I would say that each is extremely hard to do well even when it’s the only thing on the list.
Parenting is easy. Kids don't need the fussy obsessiveness that has become characteristic of modern parneting.
Uh, I think at the very least you have to caveat on the age of the kids. Babies need a lot of fussy obsessiveness. Kids arms aren’t long enough for them to wipe their own ass until they’re about 4. Don’t know when you get them to start doing laundry or dishes but that takes longer still.
Watching my kid grow up I realise that despite the modern world having/wanting so many kids we really don't build affordances for them.
Most kids 5-8 at the family dinner table are trying to eat from a plate at shoulder height. No wonder they don't care about cutlery use. It's pretty hard to put downwards force on a knife that is at shoulder height, let alone coordinate all the minor muscle movements required.
The bathroom sink in most houses, similar height, and they struggle to reach taps and soap.
Little stools abound around the home!
But then you go out and public toilets have hand driers right next to their head. No surprise they complain it is too damn loud!
In a world where we supposedly want kids, if for no other reason than to keep society going, we sure don't make it easy for them.
Parenting is work, but it's straightforward. People obsess and fuss over the kids.
Why not having a hobby that includes friends? Playing in a band, singing in a choir, hiking, learning a language in evening school, going to the pub, just to name some of the possibilities. There are a lot more.
It shouldn't be hard though. For me personally, I'm mostly friends with other dads with kids and I do my hobbies (music, rock climbing, skiing) with my kids. It's not that difficult.
This. Involve your kids in your hobbies. If they aren't interested, that's okay too -- you can be involved in theirs. Some hobbies have a finite life anyway. You aren't going to be a gymnast forever, for example, and that's okay.
I very much agree with this blog post but would reframe it a bit. I think ambition, like most things in life, is zero-sum and requires trade-offs. Before kids, all of your ambition could go into your professional life, but what happens when you become a parent and have parental ambitions?
To have a life that will feel successful to you, you need to have your ambitions aligned with what really matters to you. Whether that is being a great parent, having great community, building a great company, creating amazing works of art, etc.
There isn't necessarily one "right" balance, but there are certainly many examples of people who went all in on one thing (Einstein, Steve Jobs, etc) to the detriment of anything else, even though they brought children into this world. It doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong, but they were probably crap fathers to have.
Thanks for sharing
Being dad is really hard joyful, you watch they grow from a tiny one to some big one which argue with you also sometimes care you when you sad
I quit from a high pay job because I want to enjoy more time with kids because I feel not get enough in my childhood
I like to read philosophy and settled with existentialism, this helps with the stress of low earning compared the previous time
Life may all about trade off, we may not lucky to get everything we want
One of the biggest challenges I have as an ambitious engineer and a father of two, is that I do actually have plenty of time to be a high achiever in both facets of my life, but only if I'm working in isolation.
My kids are active in about 12-13 hour period between 6.30am and 7.30pm. The rest of the time they're asleep. On school days, window of time in which I can actually be present with them narrows right down to two blocks: 6.30-8.30, and 3.30-7.30. That's only 6 hours in a business day in which I can be active and present with them, leaving me with 18 hours to get everything else done.
There's obviously more to being a dad than just being actively engaged with your children when they're at home and awake. There's all this supplemental work that needs to happen to support them as well. But it's not _that_ much.
The problem is that this I spend with my children actively overlaps the time in which my peers and co-workers are working. Not being available to my teams for synchronous communication slows down their execution, and not having my team available to me while I'm working slows down my own execution. When my team or I need answers or collaboration to unblock us, communicating asynchronously means we can potentially be blocking for half a day or more on a task.
At that point you can either just wait and be unproductive, or start/continue a different task, maintaining multiple active work streams. The latter is problematic for a number of reasons, such as the increased cognitive load of regular context switching, an inability to work on dependent tasks, etc.
So ultimately for me, I don't think the issue is that there's not enough time to do both, it's just that both work and family generally need you at the same time.
I was thinking lately how lucky I am to have gotten good guidance from my parents and grandparents that oriented me well to life and work. I think this is / used to be more commonly understood or maybe just seems that way.
Ambition and drive are important but there's an important "so what" there as well. Am I aimlessly ambitious or am I ambitious for the sake of being able to support my family and make a significant impact on the world? If you are lucky enough to have the second orientation then I think there's less conflict between these things.
I have plenty to tech and finance friends who are successful and in our mid 40s, and unfortunately for those who neglected to have the family side of the equation, the shine is wearing off. What's the point of making the next level promotion and making the next 200k pay bump when what you do with it is come back to your apartment by yourself? Sure it's more comfortable and could still be fun to be ambitious and successful but it's lacking the goal piece.
The other half of my friends have family and then the financial etc success feeds directly into it. Can you give your family a good home, a good education, good experiences? It's easier for me to call a "success" a friend with a 4 bedroom house with 3 kids on it, than one with a Manhattan penthouse with no kids in it, even if the homes cost the same. It's just a different dimension.
The other thing is - making the world a better place for the future. The kids you raise and the work you achieve both feed into that. And also the future you are building is something that will benefit your kids - so all the things are aligned.
Then it becomes a "simple" balance - what's the thing that maximizes what I actually want to achieve. I want to be a good father and that takes both being with the kids, and working to make money - and also to set a good example for them of what work looks like. So yes in a simple sense you become less productive because you are going to work fewer hours, but I don't feel less productive in the grand total of life because all the things I am doing across work and family add up to what I want to accomplish.
I am curiosit - I bet many people will read this and think "of course, I feel the same way and what other way to feel is there" and others will say "I disagree at the root" which goes back to this being something with how your family raised you and the perspective you have from it.
I think men in this day and age have been hoodwinked just as much as women when it comes to the career vs. family debate. For a man there is truly nothing more important in life than having a family and providing for them. It is what we are evolutionarily tuned towards and anything short of it will leave you empty and hollow. There's a desperate longing for fulfillment and meaning among our generation that a lifetime of being told "having kids = dead dreams" has left us confused and lost as to how to achieve. But having them makes it crystal clear what you were put on this earth to do, and nothing comes close in the realm of professional success to that feeling of meaning and purpose.
Yup. And would you agree that being sufficiently "indoctrinated" into the right thinking by your own parents and grandparents is the only way through?
>And would you agree that being sufficiently "indoctrinated" into the right thinking by your own parents and grandparents is the only way through?
Maybe it is. But there's still something to be said for breaking out of that and trying to see your own way in the world. Until it beats you back down and biology takes over and you start to understand life. Kids can only be taught so much; they have to burn their finger on that stove in their own way and time. Millenials still had that connection to and context of the old world that the younger generations now do not; (my wife and I have expressed that we want the life our grandparents had together, to the bewilderment of our Boomer/GenX parents), so maybe we have a bit of leg up in that regard. But I think the ones who didn't will come around naturally as well as the social media driven hustle culture burns itself out.
From my perspective this article ignores a key part of being a parent - your partner! Me and my wife build and sold a business - while having a our first child. If you have a partner which supports you/or you support your partner - you can find the time for your kids. Paid help can give you time back without taking time from your kids: get a chef (can also just hire for meal-prep), cleaners, all sorts of helpers (even try to get along with your own parents). If you are successful you can spend money to get time with your kids/family AND put time into work. We also started building an AI agent (of course) hermo.ai which can help manage and reduce your admin work and giving you more time for whatever you want - for example playing with your kids.
I believed this idea of kids = dead dreams for a long time. I don't think it's true. I think the author of the blog is letting his particular interests and cherry-picked examples cloud his judgment.
If you look beyond the narrow sphere of technology and founders, you'll find many of humanity's greats had kids, or more broadly, family responsibilities, at some point. Their ability and involvement as parents varies widely, but this idea that kids are some kind of an inevitable death-knell for "being successful" or renowned whatever that means, isn't true.
An alternative lens would suggest that having kids reveals a lot about life that you can use in your other pursuits.
Your kids also eventually become adults, at which point the demands likely lower significantly.
Just like the "starving artist" myth, it's mostly baloney hyperbole that people promulgate because there's some obvious basic truth to it, but it isn't a law of the universe by any means.
Preach!
Bryan Cantrill (inventor of DTrace and cofounder of Oxide Computer) comes to mind as someone who seems to do both. It’s hard to know somebody’s parenting quality from the outside, but he talks about his kids a lot.
In his case, I think he didn’t start his company until his kids were older. I’m not sure what the early childhood years were like for him.
Wow, thanks for that shout out! When we started Oxide in 2019[0], my kids were 15, 12, and 7, so out of those time-consuming younger years. But when we started Fishworks[1] inside of Sun in 2006, that 15-year-old (now nearly 22) was not yet 3 -- and his brother and sister were still in the future. Point being: I worked plenty hard with young kids.
More generally, I have always believed that the choice between work and parenting is broadly a false dichotomy (especially in our domain and age, which affords quite a bit of flexibility). In my role as a parent, I served on the board of the kids preschool (hello, SOMACC!); I was the president of the elementary school PTA (originally called the Mothers' Club!); I led the kids' Cub Scout Den (hardest parenting job no question); I coached baseball several times over; and I have been (and still am!) the scoutmaster of the kids' Scout troop.
These experiences were all time consuming (and truthfully, there were moments with each of them when I wondered what I had signed up for!) -- but they also made my life richer, and that very much includes my professional life. There are many dimensions of this, but to take one very concrete example: anyone who is familiar with scouting will see an echo in Oxide's values[2] -- but a subtler influence can be found in our hiring materials[3], the open-ended questions of which coming from an adult training that I did in 2017.
I won't profess to the quality of my parenting (it's... really hard), but it's something that I've certainly spent a lot of time on -- and it has paid surprising dividends to my professional life.
[0] https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2019/12/02/the-soul-of-a-new-co...
[1] https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2008/11/10/fishworks-now-it-can...
[2] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0002
[3] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003
> Steve Jobs literally abandoned his daughter Lisa because “the time wasn’t right” (he was focused on Apple).
Steve Jobs is also a criminal. See the court cases where he underpaid developers and conspired with other companies to avoid hiring people away. That is criminal.
See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/23/steve-job... and many similar reports. It is time to stop idolizing this guy. The "time was not right" is not surprising by someone who steals money from developers, which Steve did here. Apple owes people money.
Interestingly, the case you linked was a purely civil action. However, in 2016, the DOJ announced that in the future, it would prosecute similar cases criminally. [0][1] Take that for what you will!
[0] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-a... [1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/acting-assistant...
The problem with that article is, it defines greatness with people who are popular on the Internet or have had a popular success.
For great parents, if you can think on your own, don't look further than your own parents. Did they something right.
I think having kids has made me more ambitious than I was before, certainly recently. One has some extra needs, that have come to light over the last few years, so I've spent most evenings and the odd weekend over the last 2 years trying to build something that I'm hoping will help with that.
Always had ideas to build things before, and they kinda fizzled out, but recent developments have made me realise that I have to be ambitious right now, that doesn't mean taking time away from them, just time away from me.
So in a weird way, they have encouraged me to be ambitious by just being themselves.
My career plateaued as soon as I had kids. I don't regret it, but companies definitely don't promote people with kids as rapidly, almost as if they know they have extra bargaining power over them because they have dependents to worry about.
If you have something to live for, you're less valuable to the company. That's more about corporate politics than some fundamental underlying truth about your productivity potential as a parent
Well said. I hope some day to make it and start parent.capital a place where parents can get funding. I believe there are thousands of people out there with great ideas and immense talent who are unable to leave their salary and benefits behind to pursue them.
How is that different than normal VC? Most people I know get healthcare as soon as they are funded. The problem is what happens before that.
When you become a parent, your risk profile changes immensely. I can hire some of the world’s best people tomorrow if i can promise them equal salary, benefits and retirement accounts for a set number of years. Plus the benefit of a large upside if it works. Most startups offer lower salaries and abysmal benefits. Security matters.
I still don’t get it. It sounds like the business plan is to fund companies so they can offer compelling employment. That’s great but that’s no different than any other VC.
Noted that aside from Einstein most of the others were just engaged in shallow FOMO business building; cars, computers, business as usual.
Numerous other options to solve those problems existed.
The return on their mechanical investment and abandonment of their kids, from a STEM context, was meaningless; it's all been superseded by better modern solutions. They were engaged in meager iterative improvement and social moat building.
Einstein is the only one whose contribution will be discussed in another century.
He forgot to talk about hobbies :)
I had a conversation about this topic yesterday with a colleague of mine. We both found some kind of career-family balance, and are continually honing it. However, we both lamented the loss of hobbies.
My career didn't really take off until I got kids in my 30s. And my wife's took off even harder; she's now director at a Dutch government organisation. I went from fairly average developer when they were born, to self-employed freelancer with increasingly cool, complex projects on my CV, to now starting my own business.
Sure, not Steve Jobs level, but pretty good. We both worked 4 days a week most of that time (I a bit more consistently than my wife), and took plenty of time off to do stuff with the kids.
Be ambitious to be happy.
The trick is not making it about being very productive, but productive "enough".
Elon and many others act like if not everyone is giving it their 110%, the world will be doomed, however the world is full of communities that otherwise were living happily getting destroyed by 110ers.
If you accept your (and everyone elses) insignificance, focus on your community, and just try to be compatible with your kids or colleagues or random people on the street , while at the same keeping your ability to reject judgement, life gets much easier.
I have a relatively good stable job, working in tech. When I came across generative AI and how it could be used to solve difficult math problems and materialize amazing codebases, the feeling of awe makes me want to understand the magic. I am contemplating choosing between changing my career and being in my stable job, raising my kids. Of course, I am probably unqualified for frontier labs, where I want to work on models. Ambition seems to have gotten a hold off me and won't let me go.
Strauss Zelnick the TakeTwo CEO has talked about how there’s two periods to go hard at your career ambitions: before kids and then after they are older and have their own lives. In between, my frame on this personally has always been that no matter how much money I make in the future, one day I would spend all of it to have another day with my kids at the age they are right now. And so for a period, that’s the focus. It won’t be forever but it is right now.
Maybe I just suck at accounting or productivity
but having a child actually rejuvenates me to do more. yes I probably staring at the screen less number of hours per day, becuase I have children. But I wouldn't say I was doing 10X as much as when I was a bachelor. there is only so much effective work you can get done in a day before you're out of ideas and need sleep or break. playing for 2 hours with my kid gets me fresh and kicking no matter how badly my day sucked.
The weird thing is how most of the comments here are from dads saying it's hard but worth it in various ways. I've been scrolling for a while and failed to find an alternative point of view.
I guess HN users like their kids. Maybe enough time spent on software increases the relative percieved value of hardware.
It is not hard at all but worth it in many ways, then.
Literally:
> 1. birds & bees
> 2. time
> 3. ???(more time)
> 4. legacy
This feels really weird. I feel like I’m far more productive than ever now, even with half the time spent and zero crunch. When I was younger I was flailing around doing tons of pointless shit. I could make up for that with more effort, but it doesn’t change that I can achieve the same result with far less effort now. So the output with children is more or less the same as before.
There’s also the simple fact that it’s much better for your productivity to play a round of tag than it is to attend another stupid meeting.
I don't know if I'm ambitious. I've worked my way to a high-paying tech job I enjoy. I'm not looking to found a startup or job-hop my way to a fancy title, and plan to stay here until I retire if I can. On the other hand, I put a lot of effort into my work, not because I'm angling for a promotion but because I like what I do and I want to do the best I can for the users.
Does that count as ambition? Doesn't really matter. The basic tension described here is strong, in any case, between work and family.
I don’t know about you, but sometimes ambition is just to put food on the table. That’s all it’s ever got me and the rest is the dream to escape a life of work work work.
This essay feels like the 2010s when feminists were debating if it were possible as a women to "have it all": successful/satisfying career, family, and personal life.
To achieve maximum career success & maximum effort to be a great dad is not possible.
Time, energy, & your age are finite. That’s all there is to it.
However, if the metric of career/financial success is reduced to just net worth gaining at X% rate consistently, then it is possible to spend as little time as possible on career success and maximum time to be the best dad possible.
I retired after realizing and choosing this path.
I wonder if the solution is simply to focus and effectively use resources so you can be effective and ambitious in a reasonable number of hours. Which is fine for 99.99%. Only if you are at the helm of discovering a revolution in physics or changing the world in some other way then go all in when you have kids. Which today is rare since team work makes the dream work way more. Of course there is greed. If you are greedy that is a different thing.
Solution to what?
Regret
> I am writing this because I never hear anyone say it.
Actually I am hearing ambitious Moms saying it. From a different baseline though.
Personally, I decided that being ambitious at work wasn't as important to me relative to being involved in my kids' lives, and intentionally pulled back. I'm fortunate that my work offers part time options, so I went down to 80%. I take two half days per week to spend the afternoon with my kids after school.
To quote Billy Joel: “you can get what you want or you can just get old”
This person is gonna burnout soon. If you have no clue why I would say this after reading this article, you might burnout soon as well..
I dont have kids and this post is really making me think about the future, wether i want kids or not, reading the comments i see people that say "i wish i had started having kids earlier"... Is it really that impactfull? Are parents really linked that hard towards their childrens? Im sincerely very courious about this...
There are two things that jump out at me being a parent of two children.
Until kids get to about 10 years old they need 24x7 supervision. Which means your time and energy is spent there. Your schedule completely revolves around them.
It’s hard to be 100% committed to anything else because you could get a call to attend to them regardless of your situation.
So yes, kids need their parents most of the time in early childhood.
However it also depends upon how much of community, relatives & governmental support you have. So take my words with a grain of salt.
Depends on each parent. Some are pretty distant or absent.
To me, my daughter is my world. But children are work too, however doesn't tell you this is lying.
“All the people I admire most are builders.”
If parenting and building are both truly aspirations, why not have people you admire that are great parents as well? I guess they don’t have many biographies for great moms and dads.
I admire the ambition. I wonder how many people out there are chasing both of these things, thinking they are being great parents and great builders, but are failing at one, or both.
I think the hardest part is how to define “waste”. Are you “wasting” your time if you go to a school event for your kids during the weekday? Is it a waste of time walking your kids to the bus? Is it a waste of time reading to my kids before they sleep? I argue it’s extremely hard to draw that line and a personal question for sure but being “efficient” is hard.
I too have to disagree with pg on that line `> having kids may make one less ambitious`. The fact is that the world is very very multi-modal, i.e. the brains of people and how they think are wildly different. I think having kids makes me more ambitious and more focused, and more selective re the problems I work on, partly because I am also setting an example.
This guy equates ”ambition” with ”career ambition”. Getting children means splitting your ambition between work and family. And family always comes first. There are no excuses for anyone, no matter how ”ambitious” or entrepreneurial, to work a 50 hour week if you have young kids at home.
That's a pretty narrow viewpoint. I could see many examples where it's better to work than focus on your kids... At least for society. Leader of a country comes to mind as one of those jobs
Then again don't forget being ambitious enough to be an ambitious founder, ambitious dad and an ambitious husband/wife/partner. And then being healthy enough to have energy to do all three. I keep thinking if I divide 24 hrs by 4, that would be the optimal time allocation to all 4 endeavors, but that's naive.
Hey Nicolas! its Jake from Cruise. pretty wild to see your post blow up on HN. hope all is well!
My solution is to involve my kids in all my projects. I am very lucky that I build games and often they are educational games where my kids are literally the target audience. No better education for the kids and you get a very natural organic quality time.
So using the kids as guinea pigs. Nice
I'am also dad of a seven month kid and in my case it increase dramatically my ambition.
I'm working harder again even if i have less time, because i want to build a legacy for him and want to show and make make him an exceptional life.
It can make you stronger.
Dropping this all-timer: http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-doctor.html
I like the sentiment from Hitchens that we choose our regrets. Being an absent father was not something I was willing to regret. I know it has cost me some degree of earning potential and career progression. I wouldn't change anything.
"I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them; there are no diminishing returns for them on that front."
This is something that should be self evident to any parent, no need to write or read a piece to establish that truism.
Time to close the laptop and spend time with the kids...
i've always given priority to my family and kids, at the detriment of my career growth. i viewed the job as being something in service to my higher calling of being a dad, not the other way around. I have no regrets.
In fact, I was sharing with my wife the other day that now that my kids are older I am finding myself able to give more to my work in a way I didn't/couldn't before. So my perspective is that, if you abandon the retirement mindset, you can have a fruitful and abundantly productive career later on after having prioritize your family. Especially in this early years when time spent is the most important. This post is right about that.
I grew up in a huge family with a dad who wasn't particularly successful but spent all his time working anyway, with little attention to either the household or to building relationships with his kids.
I think this was mostly a matter of temperament; he liked to work and he didn't really care much about the operation he was funding, which is unfortunately why he has no contact with most of his adult children today.
All that to say, I didn't mind that he worked a lot, but it was pretty damaging that he almost never spoke to me other than for urgent logistical or disciplinary reasons. Just, you know, don't do that.
The so called human progress and advanced lifestyle made the simple and natural things such as having kids an adventure.
Where did the "progress" go wrong? Why did it take us backwards in the very basic goals of human life and why is it still called progress?
I don't know if progress made it more hard to spend time with kids, on average.
In older generations, men spent relatively little time with little kids. I don't know if it was social convention or lack of time. Either way, it seems that now a lot more dads are spending time with kids than 2 generations earlier.
I agree that it is hard, but I would not paint a bleak picture.
It was both, however where I lived, a few years before fathers would get up at 6am and go and work down a mine all day, or a shipyard or factory. They might get home at 6pm but after dinner they'd quickly go for a pint or go fishing or go to the football. Women often didn't work, or worked part-time so they could take the kids to school so saw a lot more of the kids and managed the household more.
Now women have the freedom to work, so both sexes can choose to avoid seeing their children if they want to. Bleak indeed.
> can choose to avoid seeing their children if they want to
The choice is there. It's sad how many people choose to not spend time with kids. But the fact that more people have this choice now than they did in the past makes me conclude that it is not as bleak.
Kids don't need dad's time. They observe and learn. Dad might minimally guide occasionally, but there shouldn't be an expectation for dads to sit with kids.
This kind of expectations makes it hard to have more kids.
I found that the time they spend with me, their dad, observing and learning how I do things, impacts them positively.
I don't know if they need it or not, but I do see that they benefit from it. And it feels good too.
Just have a simple rule. The period from 4pm to 8pm in the week days are holy. No work - no phone. Kids are the top priority.
If you can stick to this you are most likely spending more time with your kids than a normal non-ambitious parent anyways.
…or just don’t have kids. Reproducing is the ultimate in self-centeredness. It’s entirely optional.
Replace having kids in this article with rebuilding a vintage engine from scratch in your garage to see how ridiculous this attitude is.
Do one thing and do it well.
We have one life and so much we want to do. This was me, now I have kids. Wake up, read news reply to email. Get kids ready for school. From drop off at school straight to work, from work straight to pickup the kids.
My working hours are 6-9 most days. Wish I had more hours in the day.
It is not just the time. Having kids (dependents) consciously or subconsciously lowers your risk threshold. Makes you less flexible in a lot of aspects. All these little things will lead to tempering your ambitions or take on additional stress to keep it up..
I'm coming out of the period where my kids need less help and it's really great working on projects alongside my kids making stuff. I try to model working on my projects as something that is enjoyable to me and that I am working over a long time period.
The trade offs are real, but a suppressed desire to have kids can lead to dissatisfaction and with time that will be hard to ignore or fix.
Also, let's just not ignore that Musk is wildly successful in having shown you an example that you don't have to choose one thing
He sure as heck failed at the family thing.
True, but try being a dad to 14 kids in today's world.
He's having kids only to satisfy his eugenist, white supremacist kink. He doesn't care about them and even hate them if they stray out of his worldview - just ask Vivian.
Nothing wrong with wishing your own kind to continue.
That's why he is using one of his own kids as a human shield.
With the billions he has, not a problem if he actually tried.
When he dies, I while track the titles of news articles about the inheritance fight with mild amusement. I won't read the articles however...
Um, he is a massive failure at the family part
“You can’t have it all” frequently comes unbidden into my brain when thinking about this sort of thing.
I don’t know, my goals are more and more about cool stuff I can do with my kids, and far less about business stuff? I’m not less ambitious but my ambitions have changed?
I love reading content like this. It makes me feel sane in very insane times.
my read is that PG is one of the lucky people who was very successful before kids, so he could just put YC in self-driving mode by handing off to the next generation and his life's work still feels meaningful.
I think it's very different if you have not achieved your life's work yet.
I like it. Great points made.
I would only add that if increasing general family cohesion is one of your goals, I think having lots of kids accomplishes that. Having a large family and multiple automatic life long best friends brings me so much joy.
> setting clear rules on time with kids (weekday dinners, weekends prioritize family) and
Are these examples or an exhaustive list? Eating dinner during the week is.. not a lot. So I assume it's about setting time limits for these activities?
Kids cured my nihilism. Since my first was born I feel more focused and find it easier to prioritize what's important. Could have never had this without the appropriate partner though.
Love the article. One question; how do you unwind? I think it's achievable to spend enough time on both your career and your children, but consequently personal time will suffer.
How do you balance that?
Healthy things. For me its riding a bike, which is magical because i) its solo activity so my brain meditates ii) its healthy but no shocks on my knees and body iii) its technology free, no notifications on a bike
Many years before becoming a Dad, I recall watching a video recorded by the Penny Arcade web cartoon folks while working where they reflected on both becoming fathers and asked themselves if it had been a net drain on their productivity and creativity.
They both concluded (not quickly, they discussed it) no, because it forced both of them to level up their time management game, quit whining and learn to get on with it, to the point where they generally got more done a couple of years in.
I have found this to be true. Our little one is turning 3 in November, and while the first two years were a bit slower (I took half a year of work while my wife finished up her Master's, etc.), in 2026 I've so far had a fantastic year and find myself much more capable of juggling more balls at the same time, finally learned the skill of grabbing sleep where I can, etc. I'm pretty sure I already "had my act together" (as per the article) and was doing well career-wise, but raising the stakes on the family side has definitely only improved things.
Got a whole lot of Open Source work done, reverse engineered an old cult video game I used to play, wrote HMI and firmware for a robot used in the Great Pyramid of Egypt for a scientific mission, taught myself GPRs and built a new radar control system, spent a week rolling around in the dust of millenia inside Khufu's Pyramid, etc., all next to the day job.
The most unexpected professional/skills growth and fun year I've had in a while, and it's all so much more meaningful when I get to share it with the little one.
I agree with this. Especially as you gain experience and your work becomes less day to day grunt work and more high level strategic thinking, having constraints on time actually has been beneficial for me.
Taking work problems into other spheres of my life, especially parenting, gives me distance and a new lens to view them through.
What's the old cult video game?
Trespasser!
I like the OP, very honest.
Here's my 2 cents: In life, like in economy, everything's about marginal utility. If you work 5 days a week and you reduce by one, you gain 50% (free/family/hobby) time, while reducing 20% of work time. In the lost 20% work time, would you have produced the corresponding amount of output? Or are you even more productive because you avoid unnecessary meetings etc.?
It's clear that being an involved parents doesn't allow you pulling all nighters all the time or work through weekends and doing additional sideprojects. Though I agree that without full involvement and ambition one will not achieve a top position or become a tennis superstar, I think a good mixture of all aspects (family/work/sports/friendships) makes everything much more worthwhile. And in my opinion, all involved parent parts should have their fair share of those aspects.
- Parent with partner both working part time, living in a country that allows for that, equally sharing child care for two that regularly make them crazy, but it's soo worth it.
Building things into your middle and late middle age is a waste of your talents. You're not as good at building things as you were in your youth. Einstein's output drastically went down after say 1919 or so.
That doesn't mean you don't have something to offer, you do. You're better off teaching and guiding others to carry on the work as you get older. They'll appreciate you for it rather than you selfishly doing it all yourself. Raise your children as if they are your most important project because they are. The work will carry on without you.
Love this thinking and wish we'd see more content like this on HN.
As an ambitious engineer with a 10-month-old baby, this perfectly captures my situation and how I’ve been feeling. Thank you for writing it.
I am in nearly the exact same boat as the OP. I'll observe a few things after having 2 kids and running a startup at the same time for a few years...
* Your amount of "lost" time with kids is often less than you think. On one side, you very likely socialized more, traveled more, were less disciplined about what you worked on, etc. On another side, some things that you are going to do anyway (dishes, maybe calling your parents, groceries), you can often do with kids, and so this time isn't really "lost"
* If you are fortunate enough to have some means, you might consider not outsourcing parenting, but outsourcing "life admin" work. Specifically things like laundry, dishes, buying groceries, picking up around the house, etc. I recently got someone to come to our house 3x / week for 3 hours and it's a game changer for me and my wife (who also works). (I know my point above says you can do some of this with kids, and that's kind of true, but not always, and it still lets you do other things with your time)
* Assuming you have a partner, and the premise here is you still want to be a very active parent, then I recommend being very deliberate about almost never parenting together. As in, one of you take all the kids, and the other can do what they want for 1-4 hours at a time.
Lastly, while I'm a pretty active dad myself, I reject the premise put forth here that your job is to maximize the time spent with your kids, as if this is the main metric by which parenting success should be judged. Just no. Actively no. Kids having time alone and with their own friends outside of the eye or ear of their parents is a really important part of growing up. Kids having time with various caregivers who are not their parents (be that grandparents, aunts, uncles, friend's parents, camp counselors, babysitters) is also good and healthy.
The struggle is real though. There's no easy answer. Hope these thoughts help!
>Lastly, while I'm a pretty active dad myself, I reject the premise put forth here that your job is to maximize the time spent with your kids, as if this is the main metric by which parenting success should be judged. Just no. Actively no.
Kinda disagree. My Kids 3 mind, so apples:oranges. But something I keep reminding my wife about, whenever she feels like shes failed, is that childhood outcomes are strongly correlated to parental involvement and interest at this age. 2 active, interested parents is a huge advantage over 1, and 1 is a huge advantage over 0. Just the time we both spend with him, engaged in conversation or reading books, has already paid massive dividends, and we can see that he just soaks it all up like a sponge. Wont be that way forever, he will eventually find better interaction with peers. But right now its a massive force multiplier, and we only get one shot at it.
If your ambition is to have lots of free time and not too much responsibility...that's also difficult to balance with having kids.
"I am not less ambitious. But I am also ambitious about being a great dad." Or Mom. This is a powerful mindset right here. It's also hard to judge someone's ambition from the outside because there is still so much inequality of opportunity. The OP mentioned limitations of Einstein, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk as parents. The story of Paul Ehrenfest is an even more depressingly stark contrast between personal and professional success.
On the other hand, there is a lot of moral ambiguity when it comes to judging someone else's parenting - and lack of ambition clearly does not make one a better parent. The history of women in science and mathematics and literature illustrates the tradeoffs among talent and opportunity and ambition that have persisted for centuries and continue to this day. Two of my favorite examples are that of George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), who was supported in her studies because her father considered her lacking in beauty and Emmy Noether (referred to as essentially the most intelligent woman of all time by Einstein), who demonstrated no prodigious talent in her early education but due to persistent and opportunities shaped in part by having a father who was an Algebraist, is remembered as an intellectual giant.
Thank you for writing this! I've been thinking about this a lot after becoming a dad (3yo + a 2nd baby in about one week or so).
Ambition may or may not be the right word to use, as others have commented. One thing I have reflected on is not if I should be making a compromise with one or the other, but why in our modern society the easiest path is to only pick one. The more I read about how to bring up healthy strong children, the more I think we've just gone backwards as a species.
There is a lot of research about the bad effects of screens and constant dopamine on long-term mental health and resilience (read The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Heidt). In reality, until just maybe 50 years ago, it was socially accepted for parents to be raising children with a support network around them. That had both good and bad sides - fewer rights for moms/women, dads less involved in parenting. But instead of fixing that, we threw out the whole idea that you need a village to support you as a parent and replaced it with career maxxing as the only prominent virtue to speak about.
I have believed in individual freedom and liberalism forever, but these days I think there is such a thing as too much individualism and we've taken that to an extreme. This makes it really hard to want or be able to raise children, and our society's long-term health suffers as a result, despite all of our scientific progress. Individual parents shouldn't be forced to have the internal debate that the author is having and pick between them - we should fix our social systems and institutions to not need that choice. But that's an even harder problem.
"work is love made visible" - Kahlil Gibran. Part of a poem you could read.
The greatest gift the childless have is not knowing how amazing having children is.
4 kids, 4 companies, let’s go!
Claude Code fits my lifestyle.
Just believe! And accept constant stress as a good thing.
I can think of three other great dads who were hugely ambitious:
* Jimmy Carter * Bill Clinton * Barak Obama
Do we really know?
Have discipline, and you'll have all the time you need.
Easier said than done, I mean, what I am doing here?
family life is not about "compounding gains" -- in part because family life is not about "gain" at all. On the contrary - you sacrifice and are ultimately consumed! The language of investing is entirely out of place in this context.
Being a great dad is also enough. Raising good kids is a huge benefit to society.
Reality check: this guy worked on "Mocha is an online AI powered app builder. It allows everyone to build web apps, no coding required"
He 'loves' building. Building what? Crypto thing when crypto is hot and AI thing when AI is hot? Is there a word to describe this behaviour that we may be familiar with?
I had roughly the same realization about the pillars of math & science years ago. Many terrible, terrible parents whose children suffered mightily. While I had aspired to intellectual impact all my life, I had an unexpected realization. I could not bear the thought of being famous and intellectually successful yet having totally failed my children. It reversed my longstanding priorities, and I realized I wanted to be a parent more than I had thought.
I still believe that having passionate and driven parents is good for kids.
I'm a father. Best thing I ever did, but it is work, it is hard.
In ways, it really crisped up my time working on work. My wife and I have some bottom lines, we're invovled, we have dinner as a family every day. We go to school events, all of them. We go to sports and activities, all of them (although there have been some times we had to split up and each to a different one.) I'm at the table when my kids have breakfast, every day except when I travel for work which is a week or two per quarter. It's great for the kids, it's great for the family but suddenly it feelds like your day is shorter. Personally, I have tried to find other "thought time" and that has resulted in much better execution when I get to writing code or plans or whatever. I used to sit at the blank editor and start to compose but now I am forced to think more before hand. I've built a few things I honestly don't think I could have built before kids, just out of necessity, I've had to be more efficient and effective.
There are also times of utter exhaustion but I had those before kids. I'll also went through the process of sort of cutting out extras to make time, once your kids are in that 10-11 age, they'll have friends and interests, I've added some of those extras back because they are busy on Sunday afternoons or whenever.
There is no exact framework on how to do it successfully for sure - a pretty interesting challenge worth trying and succeeding at for me. A kid teaches you to be present and grateful and not spend time on bullshit. But the most important thing to do is to have the right spouse for you; this is instrumental for happiness and success:)
[dead]
> As long as there is the desire to gain, to achieve, to become, at whatever level, there is inevitably anxiety, sorrow, fear. The ambition to be rich, to be this or that, drops away only when we see the rottenness, the corruptive nature of ambition itself. The moment we see that the desire for power in any form — for the power of a prime minister, of a judge, of a priest, of a guru — is fundamentally evil, we no longer have the desire to be powerful. But we don't see that ambition is corrupting, that the desire for power is evil; on the contrary, we say that we shall use power for good — which is all nonsense. A wrong means can never be used towards a right end. If the means is evil, the end will also be evil. Good is not the opposite of evil; it comes into being only when that which is evil has utterly ceased. > > So, if we don't understand the whole significance of desire, with its results, its by-products, merely to try to get rid of desire has no meaning.
—Jiddu Krishnamurti, Think on These Things
In 100 years nobody will know who you were. In 200 years, only a few hundred people will be remembered from today. So what is the goal of your ambition? Is it the self-satisfaction? Temporary bragging rights that will be soon forgotten? Whatever wealth you accumulate, you can't take it with you. The pharoahs already trie this. It doesn't work.
Nobody's going to give a shit that you founded an AI company and sold it to Meta for $600 million. Sure you can enjoy the material benefits while you're here. Maybe you can even pass some of that onto your children.
The Good Place was one of the best TV shows of the best shows of the last decade (IMHO) and it brought up a relatively recent (1998) book "What we owe to each other". It makes the point that it's not a question (ie "what do we owe to each other?"). You're only meaningful impact is on the people you affect around you, positively or negatively.
Personally, I have no opinion on whether people should or shouldn't have children. That's none of my business other than this: you have to make a choice between having and raising those children and chasing material "ambitions". Bringing people into the world without their consent and then neglecting them makes you an objectively terrible person. Pick a lane.
And if you do choose ambition instead, at least ask yourself why. Studies have been done on this. Money does buy happiness but only to a very limited point. Beyond that it's isolating. So why are you doing whatever it is you're ambitious about, really?
Materialist ambition is not the exclusive worthwhile option besides raising children, for how to spend a life
One of my fears is that I can't live up to how my kids look up to me.
Money can solve most of these problems? Send your kid to daycare, hire a nanny or two and then the world will believe you can be a great father and ambitious and successful in your career. They do not see the village taking care of your kid while you are busy with work
Just have a rule that you'll leave the office at 17:00.
I try this, but it has issues.
* Sometimes I'm in flow state, and so breaking at 17:00 breaks that.
* 17:00 is rush hour, so if so leave then, my commute goes from 60m to 90m. So I leave at 16:00, and catch up later. But now I'm context switching more.
* If it's 14:30 and I know I'm leaving at 16:00, then I'm hesitant to work on something that might need more focus/debugging.
All these are workable, and many parents are testament to that, but at least for me, it's all contributing to less productivity.
Being a dad has brought more focus into my life as an entrepreneur.
This is an excellent post. I definitely limited my career growth by choosing roles that allowed me to spend more time with my daughters. I did not accomplish the things I wanted to career wise—but a wise person once said “The world does not need more successful people.”
You will likely feel at times like you missed out on career opportunities, and as an ambitious person that will always nag at you. But I believe ambition is a bit of a selfish drive to achieve instead of to serve.
I guess I am just trying to say—you will regret it at times. But you will end up having achieved something for them and yourself that is far more important than anything you could have built in your career. I hope you will look back on your post one day and realize what a great choice you made!
Articulates my thoughts and conundrums better than I could have.
Maybe you should read about women's career choices because for them it might be even more challenging to make trade-off btw career and family. Your inspiring figures seems to be mainly men and I don't have a lot of examples of women in tech (I'm not just well informed enough) but in other fields such as politics it might be very inspiring to have their advices. It would be also very meaningful to have a small glimpse at how you and your wife chose to balance careers and life because maybe the balance btw family and work is more at couple level rather than one of the two of you. thanks for sharing your thought here, wishng you good luck for your kids, your wife and you mate ;)
Being a dad has made me a more focused entrepreneur.
I would be open to having kids if society were better. But as it is reproducing is too risky. Cost of living is already super expensive, no community support, friends' kids are mediocre at best and often disabled. Divorces are more financially devastating. Plus the whole fascism in the USA thing and staring at a screen their whole lives as the environment gets destroyed. Plus my girlfriend doesn't want them and I'm old. Maybe on another planet. Hence the idiocracy.
Weekday dinners? Pff.. I'm 100x better parent, and probably 100x less productive. But my employer is happy with me, I'm happy too, and my wife and kids too. So happy, I do not need to write articles about it.
Beat that
I have had to very deliberately and repeatedly let myself off the hook for ambitions while parenting. There is SO MUCH that I am hungry to do, and none of it is as important as being fully present with my kids.
Will there come a time when these are more complimentary than in conflict? Maybe! But while the kids are young, not often. And while I feel the conflict, it’s helpful to have somewhat pre-decided what I’d regret more, and it would be not having connected with them.
If there’s time later to do great things, especially with them, so much the better.
I worked with some ambitious motherfucker who fancied himself so important and so busy his secretary scheduled when he would take a piss.
He told me once that his work was his passion and his legacy. No kids, no wife. And he was brilliant and hard working. But he was running from something in his mind. There was a shakeup at the top and he got pushed out in the ensuing politics.
His legacy is a cautionary tale. But I don’t remember his last name.
Be a parent, ffs. And be it, 100%. Be it 500%.
Having kids is easily and by a huge distance the very best thing you can “build”. It’s the best project you’ll ever make.
If you can find a way to run a cool thing on the side then great. I’ve been lucky, or something, and I have. And I love it.
But my kids are a trillion times more important. And now they’re 21 and 19 I can live knowing that I’ve launched the best couple of projects in the world.
The IPO in my parental project arrived and stocks are doing well :-)
How much did you sell them for?
Kidding, I largely agree with what you have said, my 3 year old is amazing. Teaching him big words and concepts brings me a huge amount of joy.
Ha :-)
3 is fun. They get better and better I reckon!
Great parents are invisible.
The capitalist LinkedIn-dwellers are obsessed with productivity. They can claim that AI will raise productivity and that we will need to work even more at the same time. Ultimately, most of the productivity gains in the recent decades are focused on displaying more ads, in one way or another.
Edit: I have realized my original comment/rant might have come off as a negative sentiment towards the post author. While generally, I sympathize with the author and agree with the original post. My rant has been focused exclusively on the current market trends and double-speak of AI productivity gains, layoffs and increased workload.
And focused on raising the rent.
A lot of juggling with words here: being ambitious, a builder, competing etc. It really boils down to the same thing: making more money + fame. The author should really stick to that and stop hiding behind big words. There's nothing noble about the recent slop-producing startups that YC funds. They do not make the world a better place.
I don't know, this feels kind of overly judgy. It's pretty healthy and normal to have some goals in life and even to try to do something impressive. The fact that he is trying hard to balance this with caring for his family seems pretty reasonable to me.
Nothing bad about chasing money and fame tbh. It's just the way it's phrased feels like the author believes he's curing cancer or world hunger.
In the article, then named figures in technology (Paul Graham, DHH, Jeff Dean, even Mark Zuckerberg) who are classified as great fathers and great achievers all succeeded before having kids. Who succeeded after having kids and was at the same time great father?
In case the author of this reads this - on your death bed you will look back at this time and regret not spending _more_ time with your kids.
Being ambitious on both fronts means you are running at 200%.
Life will normalise that for you whether you like it or not.
They will be gone soon. Stop optimizing for both. It's dada time.
It should be a lot more shameful to pretend that having kids is a normal or healthy activity.
It’s selfish, unnecessary, consumes immense amounts of resources, increases unfair social policies against those who are intelligent enough to avoid it, and almost universally induces a delusion in the parents that they have done something meaningful, helpful, world-changing, or profound, without affecting their ability to notice the plainly obvious fact that humans have evolved this delusion to keep them bonded to the incredible amount of time and inconvenience caused by children so that the species will continue.
Pro-natalists will of course dismiss this view as abnormal, simply because they themselves have succumbed to this delusion. There is no objective benefit to society or others caused by reproduction, and the harms are well-documented (increased resource consumption, crowding, increased need for resource redistribution, etc).
Kids are nothing but a burden to anyone other than their parents, yet society is so biased toward children that everyone in society is forced to accommodate and pay for the poor choices of parents. Parents are encouraged nonstop to have children they cannot afford to fully care and provide for.
It is a nonstop tragedy from all angles.
Children are a luxury option, like buying a Porsche or taking regular vacations to the Greek isles. You probably can’t afford to do it well, it burdens everyone around you for your own pleasure, and after you’re done you haven’t meaningfully improved the world for anyone.
Most people have children by accident, or out of motivations formed exclusively from fear, selfishness, narcissism, or greed. Societal traditions allow and encourage them to paper over these motivations with noble illusions.
Do not in any way confuse the good that human beings have accomplished with the need to produce more of them.
This hits home
So, a time-constrained ambitious dad spends his time on HN and reads extensive biographies.
Good luck :)
What really stands out reading this piece is how different this attitude is than what we as a society thought 50 years ago. The great men name-dropped in the article surely had more on their plates than the average 1960s middle manager at G.E., or corporate attorney, or advertising agency VP, or shift manager at a Ford plant, and thus were surely more absent parents than their contemporaries. But in that era, fathers didn't even lose any sleep over it. It was just accepted that their primary role was to bring home as much money as possible to pay for a better life for their family, and if you're lucky to leave a legacy as a builder of great things or organizations. It was the mother's job to raise the children (or in the wealthiest families, perhaps that fell to the nanny(s) while the mother focused on socializing or hobbies).
In two generations, we've gone from that to most dads constantly asking themselves "Am I a good enough dad? How could I be better?" Fathers feel that they aren't good enough if they merely provide for a good life for their family and set a good example. They try to find a way to, while of course not dropping the ball at all on the provider role, also be a 'fun dad' and a friend to their kids and be deeply involved in their lives.
I would say this is also kind of a mirror image to women's very real struggle post-1980 or so -- before, you were absolutely acknowledged to be a success if you cared well for the next generation of children and taught them to be good people. Some would say (and still do) that's one of the most important callings. Now women worry that they're not good enough unless they - without missing a beat on that first mission - also have an impactful and meaningful commercial career.
This isn't arguing to force people to perform only one sex-prescribed role or anything. And I don't want any parents to just be absent, because frankly being there for your kid is incredibly rewarding. I'm just saying, I think it's an insane amount of pressure we put on mothers AND fathers to be everything to everyone both within the family and in the professional world.
Amen brother.
You touch on the right point when you say “completely removing time-wasting activities.” Looking at a handful of biographies and trying to extract universal lessons from them is somewhat misguided/infantile.
While I do not know anything about DHH's parenting, rarely have I heard of a racist shithead being a good dad, so I'll keep my reservations, thanks
Great post Nicholas.
I’d look outside Silicon Valley for examples of how to do this well.
Outside of the big coastal cities, raising kids and building a career aren’t treated as competing ambitions. They’re just what people do.
I used to be more ambitious, but I am not anymore. I enjoy my kids, I enjoy nature, camping, friends... I will the pointless work drivel to someone else and just collect the paycheck.
Kind of a silly, borderline delusional premise. Be a "great" dad while also working a full time job? What a huge constraint to operate within.
Nailed it.
yeah can we talk about how icky elon musk paying women to artificially inseminate them is? and ONLY selecting male embryos?
The modern (mostly western?) obsession with "parenting" as a job/hobby is truly despicable. Probably as despicable as the standard education factory farming most of these parents are subjecting their children to. It is a miracle that despite all this parenting and education, some children manage to grow into fully formed individuals.
I love my parents. They are not perfect, but as much as they could afford, they never stood in my way. I love my children and I will strive to provide for them the resources, space, and freedom to grow and become who they are as individuals with infinite potential. I will never treat them as extensions of myself.
I'm writing this for the log, so I can remember my ideals. I'm sure everyone here has disagreements, opinions and wisdom that they wish to impart, but I frankly don't care. A culture that condones keeping dysgenic inbred mutilated wolves in one's house to satisfy the pleasure of "caring" for an animal weaker than oneself has no lessons to teach me about raising children. Whatever lessons I could distill from it for myself, I have already done so.
One thing I hate about SV culture is the bullshit. Are we talking about making lots and lots of money? If so, please for the love of god just say so.
Fame? Status?
If you can’t have a career and a family you may be in a death cult.
Jesus. I couldn't imagine being a YC startup bro with kids.
>"This sucks. I am ambitious: I wake up every morning with a burning fire in my stomach to build awesome things."
And then his company is an AI slop no-code website generator...
I think that the drive and energy to build one's own business (even if the business itself is very banal, like a laundromat or app-builder) is impressive and counts as ambitious. It's not easy. I tried starting a business and couldn't hack it.
> Some figures in technology (Paul Graham, DHH, Jeff Dean, even Mark Zuckerberg) seem to be pushing on both fronts with rare success
Possibly true, but who knows. Especially Zuck, who does not lead a remotely ordinary life (imo).
Dad of 2 girls. 8 and 4. Maybe this should be titled “being ambitious because you’re a dad”
I am better than ever post kids. Always great, no. Always amazing, no. Not sure I agree with the post otherwise, especially quality vs quantity. High quality interactions are the best.
zuckerberg has a nanny for each of their kids. I know because I am a neighbour.
Some of those names were amusing to see. Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. Really?
I am glad to see this:
"I do not believe the quality time theory. I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them."
Because I think that among highly motivated workers there's a falsely held belief that you can make up for missed time with your children by planning "exclusive time" with them, either over a nice vacation, or special night in a month, or whatever. And, don't get me wrong, any time is better than no time. But I think that strong relationships might be made best in the down moments, the "bored" time, the random stuff, the drives to school, picking up the house, mealtimes, random crap, that those are the times that you discover the little nuances of your children's personality (and your own personality).
Before kids, I frequently defined myself by my work or my hobbies. Meet someone new and you're chatting with them, and I'd say "Oh, yeah, I'm a software engineer, yeah, I like to fish, I play basketball, I love watching football and drinking beer, I'm from [X] city, I want to this college and studied this subject." And that's how I defined myself. It's pretty normal, I think. Since having kids so much of my identity has changed and how I identify myself has changed. That "I Think You Should Leave" sketch from Season 2 or 3 resonated with me, the "DONT TALK ABOUT YOUR KIDS" sketch because it's so hard not to, especially with other people who have kids, it's like ... what else can I talk about? The hobbies I had before kids seem utterly pointless and valueless in retrospect.
After our second, my wife got sick, she was diagnosed with ALS when he was just over a year old, though she had undiagnosed symptoms going back to before she was pregnant with him. She physically can't care for him, and so I've been my son's sole caretaker, and my daughter's primary/default caretaker though she's 8 years old, so my wife is able to contribute more evenly with parenting for her. As he gets older, depending on the progression of the disease, that can increase with my son as well, but for a newborn, infant, baby, and toddler, there's just so much physical care for those ages that it's hard for someone with a neurological, degenerative disease to contribute in the same way.
Kids truly changed everything with me. Every single way that I define myself. I don't define myself by my work at all anymore, and I sometimes define myself by my hobbies, but I feel entirely defined by my kids. If I was answering some general inquiry about myself, and if I was allowed to be frank, I'd lead with my kids, it's how I see myself.
When I saw the Bob Odenkirk line from Mike Birbiglia's podcast/interview, I legitimately cried, because it hit me right in the throes of parenting hell. I have a wife who I'm taking care of, I had a ~7ish year old who I was trying my best to help through adolesence, and I had a 1.5 year old who I was completely and wholly responsible for keeping alive, keeping healthy, and keeping happy. And this quote just hit me like a ton of bricks.
Birbiglia: "Who are you jealous of?"
Odenkirk: "Anybody who has little kids at home, growing up. ... Yeah, there's no question I knew what I was doing when I had kids growing up, I was being a dad. I mean, that was my job, and I didn't have to ask myself, 'What am I doing here? How can I be a part of this world? How can I be meaningful today?' I didn't have to ask that question, because the fucking answer is 'Pick up everything between here and the door, and make sure they get to school, and have a laugh with them.'
I understood my purpose."
And god, that fucking resonates with me so, so hard. It still makes me cry when I hear that or see the clips of it, because I realized that when I was answering that question every other time trying to describe myself, and when I answered with what I do, and what I studied, and where I'm from, or what my hobbies are, those were all bull shit. And now when I think of who I am, I know who I am, I am dad.
I am a bad software engineer. I'm a mediocre project lead. I think I'm a good colleague. But I know that I'm a great dad.
Some of the names there were amusing. Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. Really?
Focus on your kids, your health, and your work? It seems like a very tall order.
You've studied many notable builders, but have you studied the great dads? How much time does one have to spend to be a great dad? Do they get to pick the times when they can spend their focus on being dad, or do they have to be present at times they'd rather be doing other things? I think being a great dad might involve a lot of taking your children to sports practice, music lessons, play dates, libraries, and tons of other activities until you discover what clicks with them, and then there's many years of supporting those interests. I don't think you can just put it on pause during the week. To be a great and present dad, I think you can only count on being able to spend maybe 55 to 60 hours a week on work (with a lot of that being after bedtime and/or starting very early).
Looking at the great builders, I think the common element is that they picked the right thing to work on at the right time, in the right place, executed better than their peers, and also had a ton of luck.
* Zuckerberg was in the right place at the right time with ample luck and he chose to drop out of Harvard to spend a few years doing the hardcore startup house thing working exclusively on building Facebook, and nine years later he had his first kid. Right place, right time, strong execution, and much luck.
* Bill Gates was in the right place (a high school where he got extensive access to a mainframe computer, then in a local company that gave him and his friends unlimited computing time in exchange for them finding and fixing bugs) at the right time (when mainframe computers were an extremely rare and expensive thing and before operating systems existed) and he dropped out of Harvard to go all in on building Microsoft, then 21 years later he had his first kid. Right place, right time, right skills, great execution, and much luck.
* Paul Graham was in the right place (a Harvard CS Ph.D. who studied design at RISD living in NYC) at the right time (during the Internet 1.0 boom and before both the bust and before anyone else had brought a site building cloud application SAAS offering to the market), and he brought a great idea to market in time to sell it to Yahoo in 1998 for $49M of stock and he correctly elected to cash out his stock before the bubble burst in March 2000. And then he leveraged his great technical and business faculties to identify and develop great business ideas via YCombinator (2005-present). Then he had his first kid in 2009). Right place, right time, right skills, great execution of a novel great idea, and much luck.
* John Carmack is probably the platonic ideal of focusing and getting things done. His work ethic and habits are legendary (8 hours of sleep a night, 10 hours of focused work a day, and 60 hours of work a week) as is his output (Doom, Commander Keen, Wolfenstein 3D, Quake). In 1978 he discovered video games and in 1982 (at age 12), his family bought an Apple II computer and he quickly learned BASIC to start making games before digging deeper to learn assembly code. He gained deep and extensive knowledge of how computers work, motivated by his drive to make games, and this enabled him to make the limited PC hardware of the time do things comparable to purpose-built arcade machines. He came up at the right time, had sufficient interest, drive, and vision that motivated him to deeply explore and master computing as well as design and develop many iconic games of the 1990s. Then in 2004 he had his first kid, at which point he started working less, although still a 50+ hour per week workload. Luckily his children are interested in programming, which makes it easier for him to get quality time in. Still, right time, great skills, great ideas, much luck.
* etc.
Having a child already, you might be a bit constrained. But if you can manage getting into the right place to seize upon a great and novel idea that you are uniquely positioned to execute on, you might be able to build the idea out while the market and need is unserved.
Another potential strategy is to work on an established business model that someone else came up with, and spend your evenings and weekends with your children. The best dad I knew growing up did this (he was/is a database administrator and was the dad of three of my friends I knew through my boy scout troop who have all grown up to do incredible things and also be deeply happy people) and is still one of the coolest, most interesting and well-rounded people I've ever met.
omg does nobody have an issue with calling Bill Gates and Zuckerberg great dads? are you not watching primetime news?
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Earnestly: LLM hosting companies allow easy exchange of money for relatively nuanced language processing. Great power for filtering text anywhere you have the need.
So you chose to spend your time to sign up and complain instead?
good news! you can just skip it if you don't want to read it :)