Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Having Kids

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 902 posts

Re: Having Kids

#161

Post by AlexCoventry »

Zelphyr wrote: post #26
nickreese wrote: post #11

Uhh. Just going to chime in here. It is absolutely OK if you don’t experience the emotions he writes about here. You aren’t broken. I write this because I read and it immediately messaged a few friends who respect Paul as well asking them if I was broken. Everyone experiences parenthood differently. I never had the chemical changes in my brain and often over the past 3 years have realized just how selfish I am when i…

This is very true because yes, kids can be a lot of fun. They can also be exhausting, frustrating, terrifying, and just plain boring at times. That too is ok. It's kinda how it's supposed to be. I suspect one of the reason Paul Graham views them the way he does is because he has approached them with a genuine sense of curiosity. If you're trying to mould them too much (a mistake I'm sad to say I've made too much) the…

Probably another factor is wealth. He must be, what, at least a hundred-millionaire at this point? That's going to afford a lot more options for dealing with the dreary parts, and give him a lot more confidence that he'll be able to follow through on those protective urges he describes.

Re: Having Kids

#162

Post by scottLobster »

danarmak wrote: post #65
scottLobster wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I refer you to his later point: "On the other hand, what kind of wimpy ambition do you have if it won't survive having kids? Do you have so little to spare?" I'd argue that your ambition simply shifts upon having kids. If you channel that ambition into being a better parent everyone benefits. And from an "accomplishment" perspective, I'd ask which of a would-be parent's projects are so world-changing that they'll be…

> If you channel that ambition into being a better parent everyone benefits. That's begging the question. Your original ambition doesn't benefit. What if it was something really good and worthwhile? > for most people their kids will have more overall influence then their work ever will. This can't be the case, unless you think the amount of 'influence' always increases as generation pass (why?) My kids are humans, ju…

I'd say having kids is also really good and worthwhile if you raise them into responsible, productive adults.

Why would influence have to always increase? Kids have a lifespan as well, it's just much longer than most projects.

The piece of software I'm currently working on will almost certainly not be doing squat 20 years from now. It will have been replaced with something else or upgraded beyond all recognition. And if I wasn't there to write said code some other software developer would be hired to do it. My personal contributions will have zero or asymptotically approaching zero influence 20 years from now. Kids on the other hand...

Kids aren't entirely selected at random, you select your partner based on impulses evolutionarily designed to produce stronger offspring. Then you spend over a decade shaping their behavior, whether you choose to do so directly or not. If you're a responsible parent you teach your kids what you know so that they can build on it as they see fit, when they grow up. And then they pass along a diluted form of said lessons to grandchildren. Now there's no guarantee of this happening, tragedy can strike and you can mess it up. But it's an effective enough mechanism that, for most people, your indirect influence through raising kids will be far greater over time than your direct influence via your work. It's one of the ways generational wealth is formed.

If you can take an honest look at your work and say:

1. If I don't do this no one else will, or they'll do it substantially worse

and

2. Its direct or indirect impact will still be felt 70 years from now

Then sure, don't have kids. And I'm not being facetious, if you're working on some unique device or policy that shows real promise at saving/fundamentally improving lives and your leaving would set development back years or worse, that qualifies. Most people aren't doing stuff like that though, in part because simply being in a position to do so is largely luck. In that case, kids are probably a better bet.

Re: Having Kids

#163

Post by e40 »

nickreese wrote: post #11

Uhh. Just going to chime in here. It is absolutely OK if you don’t experience the emotions he writes about here. You aren’t broken. I write this because I read and it immediately messaged a few friends who respect Paul as well asking them if I was broken. Everyone experiences parenthood differently. I never had the chemical changes in my brain and often over the past 3 years have realized just how selfish I am when i…

And let's be honest, having (essentially) unlimited resources makes having kids a lot less stressful.

Many of us stress about college costs, and costs in general. And, getting help can be very expensive, unless you have extensive family support.

Re: Having Kids

#164

Post by sanj »

triangleman wrote: post #131

Hey guys. Anyone else have the experience of having kids, getting a burst of energy, but of course all that energy goes directly back into the kids and house, and you have absolutely no life for 3-5 years or more? Because my kids are 2 and 4 and so far it's been 4 years of no life, no freelance clients, almost no learning/hobbies, just 35-40 hours a week of working as much as I can at the office and then everything i…

It gets better. Way better.

Last night I explained quicksort to one kid.

Now we are designing cards to laser cut.

The kids get interesting and independent quicker than you might imagine.

The days are long, but the years are fast.

Re: Having Kids

#165

Post by brandnewlow »

triangleman wrote: post #131

Hey guys. Anyone else have the experience of having kids, getting a burst of energy, but of course all that energy goes directly back into the kids and house, and you have absolutely no life for 3-5 years or more? Because my kids are 2 and 4 and so far it's been 4 years of no life, no freelance clients, almost no learning/hobbies, just 35-40 hours a week of working as much as I can at the office and then everything i…

I can relate! I'm 13 months in with my first and while I love him to pieces and am very happy to be a father, ensuring he's cared for and gets what he needs at all times while also being there for my wife eats up a great deal of time and energy. I don't have any answers yet but hear similar things from friends a few years further ahead. The answer seems to be to just keep muddling along as best we can!

Re: Having Kids

#166

Post by atdrummond »

thdrdt wrote: post #155
nickreese wrote: post #11

Uhh. Just going to chime in here. It is absolutely OK if you don’t experience the emotions he writes about here. You aren’t broken. I write this because I read and it immediately messaged a few friends who respect Paul as well asking them if I was broken. Everyone experiences parenthood differently. I never had the chemical changes in my brain and often over the past 3 years have realized just how selfish I am when i…

What almost always bothers me about Paul's essays is that he includes 'facts' like they apply to everyone. This is why I don't like most of his eesays. For example: "..but having kids may make one less ambitious.". It might apply to Paul but I have never been more ambitious since I had kids. In his next sentences he almost makes us feeling guilty for it because "..you're probably going to care more about them than yo…

With the qualifiers (“may”, “probably”) provided I’m not sure I see him as offering any absolutes, at least in your quoted passages.

Re: Having Kids

#167

Post by Klinky »

PKop wrote: post #114
tenpies wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. In many ways I wonder if we're seeing a couple compounding forces at play: * The introduction of birth control and giving people (yes both men and women) too much control over procreation without having to control the impulse for procreation. * Seeing people solely as material beings as a consequence of the Enlightenment. After all, if you're just the matter you're composed off then you're no more special than…

Yes, and you're getting downvoted, but the whole framework of individualism and enlightenment principles prioritizing individual autonomy above all else often locks people's views in such a way they cannot conceive of having children as a fundamental responsibility/obligation to continue legacy of their ancestors. There is this enlightenment western philosophy that everyone is an atomized, isolated blank slate acting…

There is no responsibility or obligation to one's ancestors to have children. This is a construct you are creating to justify your choice, or rather "lack of choice". You're playing the logic games you're saying others play to justify not having children.

Re: Having Kids

#168

Post by Liron »

honkycat wrote: post #77

I'm not knocking Paul Graham or anyone who did well for themselves. But comparing your experience with that of Paul Graham, one of the richest people on the planet, is pointless. The wealthy live on a completely different PLANET than you or me. Of course he enjoys having kids, he has NONE of the stress of supporting himself and his family. His kids are going to have private tutors and house cleaners. He won't sweat t…

Most of us have rich lives compared to the average parent in 1950. I was struck by how Bryan Caplan put it in perspective [1]:

> If you asked parents in the Fifties to imagine raising their four children with the help of the technology and wealth that we take for granted, they probably would have cheered. Why are so few couples taking advantage of this historic opportunity?

[1] https://www.google.com/books/edition/Selfish_Reasons_to_Have...

Re: Having Kids

#170

Post by aflag »

johnwheeler wrote: post #154
honkycat wrote: post #77

I'm not knocking Paul Graham or anyone who did well for themselves. But comparing your experience with that of Paul Graham, one of the richest people on the planet, is pointless. The wealthy live on a completely different PLANET than you or me. Of course he enjoys having kids, he has NONE of the stress of supporting himself and his family. His kids are going to have private tutors and house cleaners. He won't sweat t…

No, worries never go away no matter where you’re at in life. It boils down to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. He doesn’t have to worry about financial stuff and instead gets to focus his worries on getting sick, dying prematurely, and not giving his children the awesome life he can with his unique personality. You didn’t mention that anywhere in your list, but I guarantee you it’s on his.

Poorer people also worry about that. And that's even worse for us with a lower wage. If I die, who will be able to provide for my children? I'm sure Paul is able to make arrangements so his kids can still have a finatially stable living if he dies prematurely.

It is a fact that life is easier for him now. Just as much life is easier for me than probably around 99% of the people in the planet. Even though I'm nowhere near to even be considered rich.

Post reply on HN