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

Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 175 posts

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#141

Post by WayneDB »

Jem wrote: post #91
WayneDB wrote: post #63

I love children but I am looking forward to NEVER having them. My sister's got a couple now and my cousin's boys are carrying on the family name for the people in my family who care about that. I think it's incredibly selfish to bring new kids into the world when there are so many that nobody wants. I don't normally say that to people and I don't really hold it against anyone (I do understand the motivations for havi…

Having watched a friend do it a few times, I think only someone who has never adopted would ask the question "why wouldn't you _just_ adopt?"

I am close to two sets of families who each adopted multiple kids. One family adopted 2 kids from Russia and the other adopted 2 from China. The first family also had multiple children biologically.

Honestly, the 4 adoptions seemed much easier to me than the biological process which I've also seen many times. This probably sounds terrible, but you can also return the adopted ones if there are any major problems (and I've seen that happen too.)

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#142

Post by mahyarm »

WayneDB wrote: post #63

I love children but I am looking forward to NEVER having them. My sister's got a couple now and my cousin's boys are carrying on the family name for the people in my family who care about that. I think it's incredibly selfish to bring new kids into the world when there are so many that nobody wants. I don't normally say that to people and I don't really hold it against anyone (I do understand the motivations for havi…

The adoption process is very very difficult unless your willing to pay $30k+. It's much easier to just be pregnant for 9 months. It took my parents 6 years.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#143

Post by 0ffworlder »

bad_user wrote: post #62
rdtsc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the funny thing is, I remember them telling me "one day, if you have kids, you'll understand how this feels". I didn't take them seriously because I thought I knew everything. Now sort of understand what they meant. Now friends with older children keep telling me "little kids -- little problems, big kids -- big problems". I hear the words, but it doesn't really mean anything to me now, just a nice saying. But som…

My kid is a little sensitive. He was born prematurely and he also inherited a little allergic material from me. A month ago he had a very mild version of Lyell syndrome, most probably as an allergic reaction to an infection with staphylococcus aureus. He's over it, he's doing great in general, he looks his age both physically and mentally and to us he's the best kid in the world (and I'm sure we aren't exaggerating m…

harlequin baby... nanural selection is a bitch lol. 0_o

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#144

Post by 0ffworlder »

So we have a 51/49% ratio for happiness and crazy in relation to child rearing. And this is for a middle to upper class person who wanted kids in the first place. Kids are crazy, generally make the gf/wife look 15y older after they have had em, and allow said gf/wife to have ultimate control (child support and divorce) which essentially robs a man of his independance and ability to have fun. There is a damn good reason that there are family sections of restraunts... Also, consider bars/leaving bong & vape on the coffee table/leaving porn and condoms out/leaving booze out/leaving good food out (kids are less behaved than kitties in most ways)/leaving expensive tech out (kiddies going to puke on that MBP)....ad nauseum. There is really no point to having kids, although social convention aka parents in some cultures sometimes advocates them, but it is a matter of rational self interest to disagree with this notion. 99% chance your kids will put you in a rest home, rather than take care of you, thats how the cookie crumbles.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#145

Post by jccodez »

tbourdon wrote: post #61

I just hope Jeff realizes that the amount of work per child is exponential not linear. So having twins will be about four times the work of just one child. Also, I'm sure Jeff has already done the math on this but at at roughly seven diapers per day, 40 diapers per week, 2000 diapers per year, your average child goes through about 5000 diapers. 5K down, 10K to go :)

Regarding the amount of work per child being exponential, is this from your personal experience? My experience is the opposite.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#146

Post by marcamillion »

OMG...I was just trying to explain to a friend why she should wait 3 - 5 years before having kids, but I found it so hard to put into words.

That graph is SOOO true. Haven't even read the entire post yet, but after 2 kids (both under 4) that graph sums up the entire experience - from my perspective anyway - more true than any words can.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#147

Post by shinratdr »

0ffworlder wrote: post #144

So we have a 51/49% ratio for happiness and crazy in relation to child rearing. And this is for a middle to upper class person who wanted kids in the first place. Kids are crazy, generally make the gf/wife look 15y older after they have had em, and allow said gf/wife to have ultimate control (child support and divorce) which essentially robs a man of his independance and ability to have fun. There is a damn good reas…

Right, but people who don't hate women, children, and possibly themselves, don't really have that reaction right off the bat.

You are right in the sense that you should not have children, less because this is a reasonable and healthy outlook on life and more because if you believe this bullshit and live your life by it, you aren't fit to raise kids period.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#148

Post by mjs00 »

jccodez wrote: post #145
tbourdon wrote: post #61

I just hope Jeff realizes that the amount of work per child is exponential not linear. So having twins will be about four times the work of just one child. Also, I'm sure Jeff has already done the math on this but at at roughly seven diapers per day, 40 diapers per week, 2000 diapers per year, your average child goes through about 5000 diapers. 5K down, 10K to go :)

Regarding the amount of work per child being exponential, is this from your personal experience? My experience is the opposite.

His point on twins (triplets ..), where there are parallel simultaneous needs is perhaps different than multiple children, where at some point older ones 'help' with younger ones.

Re: Jeff Atwood On Parenthood

#149

Post by stat »

deanproxy wrote: post #125
TamDenholm wrote: post #102

I'm not a parent and don't ever plan to be (not all plans go that way, so my feelings might change on the matter) but I dont really get the whole parenting/having kids thing. I really have no affection for children at all, I dont find babies cute, i dont think kids are darling and i honestly think i'd make an absolutely terrible father because i just dont think im wired that way. When Jeff talks about the 51% to the…

This is hilarious because this is exactly what both my wife and I think and we would have said exactly the same thing as you just did. I think some people are geared for it. Some people are not. Unfortunately, a lot of people that aren't geared for it still end up having children anyway and that becomes a huge mess, obviously. I personally just don't like children. My family begs my wife and I to have children and it…

"We understand the complexities of having a child and we also understand how selfish we currently are." How is not having a child selfish? I believe that having children is way more selfish - there's already 6 billions mouths feed and it's just adding another one.
Post reply on HN