Thanks for writing this, it came at a good time for me. I think a lot of people don't even bother to think through the reasons for/against kids, they just pick one they hear a lot. My girlfriend of 1.5 years had been giving a bunch of different reasons to not have kids, including financial. As a MD/JD couple, this is about as silly of a reason as possible, we're obviously going to be in a top income percentile. I mapped out our future likely incomes, and after a lot of discussions and introspection she admitted that she just didn't want to go through the burden of focusing her life on a child after spending much of the "prime of her life" in professional training. She's an incredible person otherwise, but I guess I need to break-up with her, everyone tells me this is a non-negotiable thing for either party in a relationship. The fact that you say the focus is what makes fatherhood "the best thing you will ever do" is reassuring and makes me think its probably worth the relationship sacrifice.
I don't think this is necessarily non-negotiable, I've seen people change their minds especially when they see how important it is to a partner. So I wouldn't give up hope if that's her initial reaction, but some people might be unmovable.
I agree it can be negotiable with some people, and people can change. She's 30, I'm 36. She has two more years of residency left before her first post-training job as a doctor. It's entirely plausible to me that, after working that job for 1-2 years, she realizes not having a family leaves something missing in her life. However, we've been talking about the issue for 4 months and she has moved from ambivalence and general worries about children to stating clearly that she's not interested, and actively dislikes the idea of giving birth, breastfeeding, and focusing her life on a child. Some of that comes from how grueling med school and residency is, she hasn't had much time to enjoy life outside of an intense professional grind. But, spending another 3-4 years together on the chance she might change her mind when she now has formed a clearly stated view seems like a huge risk.
I don’t know if this helps but you can tell her breastfeeding isn’t that important and the idea that it is is based on junk science. But in the context of relationships 4 months isn’t that long of a time when you plant seeds. If she doesn’t budge in another 6 months I’d be more worried. But yes if nothing works and she really doesn’t want it then there’s nothing you can do. Just make sure she’s not unclear on how important it is to you.
Breast feeding is definitely important. It doesn't have that much effect on IQ in adulthood, because nothing does, but it's a major part of the mother-child relationship, boosts immune system, massively decreases chances of colic, makes bedtime easy etc. Also, if she doesn't breastfeed it is basically inevitable that you will have to hold the bottle at some point, and next thing you know you're changing nappies. Revolting.
It is indeed a huge risk, if she doesn't change her mind you'll be finding a fertile woman in your 40s which is radically different than in your 30s, even if you're on a good income.
> Heredity isn’t that reliable as a means of transmission for the combination of characteristics that make me who I am, and I can probably do more to create additional people with Hanania-like traits and raise their status through forgoing the time and expense of having children and focusing on spreading my ideas instead.
I don't think this really checks out. Your (mostly genetic, some cultural) influence on your kids is an order of magnitude larger than your influence on anyone else. And while I like your writing and it's not literally irreplaceable - if you didn't write most people receptive to your ideas probably would find someone only slightly worse to read (it's also unclear that you would write significantly, or at all, better if you spent all your time on it instead of your family).
That was my immediate thought, too. Children are often noted as being "just like" their parents, while students or readers rarely are. Likewise, although children and writing do compete for time, children when they grow can further write, increasing the reach of your ideas through time and numbers. I am thinking of Milton and David Friedman, for instance.
Plus, children only compete for attention with writing for a decade or two, so one has to ask whether the marginal gain from "no kids, write all the time in life" is huge compared to "bunch of kids, write maybe 80% of time in life." It certainly doesn't seem clear cut to me that the former is better.
No guarantee, but it is a lot more likely that you will guide their ideas than change the mind of someone reading you. Most people read folks they already agree with, so the marginal effect is often small. It is the difference between kids very likely to be like you and a lot of readers or no kids and some more readers, as I point out at the end.
My regret is that I didn't start earlier. At 40 I had my third and likely last child this year. I will subsidize my children so they may have kids earlier than me.
Inflammatory, callous, tear-jerking (gay), mundane, cosmic, empathetic, autistic, narcissistic, and grounded. This essay is one zinger after another. Hanania (gay) never fails to entertain.
"How am I supposed to live with the thought that, after all these creatures grasping their way towards survival and reproducing against microscopically small odds, a 4 billion year story will end because I wanted something as trivial as a bigger house or more vacations?"
I like the contrast you've created here. It's the continuation of our species versus the fleeting joy of self-indulgence. Your framing makes it seem like an easy choice! Cheers!
I'm sure you feel the irony of associating talking about your role as a heterosexual procreator with gayness. I'm sure you're not alone in that and it's probably worth interrogating where our collective notion of masculinity, or straight masculinity, went wrong.
Maybe it's less that it feels gay, and more asexual. Which is maybe a product of our squeamishness of even thinking about sex and kids in the same thought space, even though there's that intrinsic link that you need the former to get the latter. Or maybe because straight masculinity is too bound up with notions of alpha/omega masculinity where true masculinity is held to be not only heterosexual but also promiscuous.
OK, that was my first thought. What's *less* gay than talking about your family, something that can only be achieved (before a few decades ago) through heterosexual intercourse? Michelangelo could create the Sistine Chapel, and Alan Turing could create the computer, but they couldn't create kids without having straight sex somewhere along the line.
I think the idea is masculinity is about competition and destruction and cruelty, and fertility and kindness and childrearing are feminine. Which strikes me as the outcome of feminist propaganda...but I'm biased. ;)
There is something obviously un-masculine about the 'modern father'. Because of the nurturing role that modern parents generally take, with less need for physical protection from marauding tribes and the provision of freshly hunted game, modern fatherhood poses a bit of a threat to masculinity.
To quote Schopenhauer:
"Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long—a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full-grown man,"
New fathers need to learn to avoid falling into this trap.
With 11 children I suppose I'm a pronatalist. I do belive in an "afterlife," but aside from that, I guess that you and I see eye to eye on most of your well made points. Those who choose to be selfish (sorry if that seems being judgemental) and not have children are removing their worldview from the mix. More power to them. Being a father is the greatest adventure of my life and teaches me, above all else, that I'm NOT the center of the universe.
That's not what I meant. I've been told by countless people in my life that they don't want children because they want to enjoy life. And children are a drag, financially and emotionally. Fair enough.
OK. I think having kids is amazing and brilliant if it's what you want to do with your life, and tortuous if it isn't. I'm really unsure how selfishness comes into that equation, for me; I think it's putting the kids first to make sure that you REALLY want to dedicate yourself to them.
There's three frameworks from which to consider natalism.
1. Individualist: There is a belief, and it is an adaptive one, that children increase happiness. I am happy for those whom it makes happy, including Hanania. But most of the actual studies suggest it is neutral at best. But, not being rich, I can definitely say that having children would have a highly negative impact on the things I enjoy - free time, travel, casual dating, new and interesting experiences.
2. National: Natalism obviously makes collective sense in the context of the national interest or your religious sect. However, I come from an unprestigious culture that has proven itself to be a loser one (Russia). There is no good reason to create more Russians, or Slavs in general. While I might intellectually pedestalize the Anglo culture, I have zero emotional connection or loyalties towards it, instead identifying as a postnational superglobalist. And I am an atheist (and, come to think of it, religious natalism only really makes sense in the case of insular cults anyway). There's the other stuff about leaving a "genetic legacy" and "unbroken 4 billion year legacy" and so forth but that has always struck me as mystical claptrap that doesn't really mean anything.
3. Global: Dysgenic trends are obviously a long-term problem, and I am smarter and more interesting than most people, though probably less happy. However, the idea of making personal sacrifices in order to provision dubious and utterly marginal benefits to a pool of 8 billion people doesn't strike me as overly rational. The reason I say dubious is that there's some chance that (1) AGI/ASI makes biology entirely moot, for good or ill, within the next decade, or (2) bio/acc enables vastly smarter children and/or radical life extension within my expected lifetime, both developments that will cardinally change optimal fertility strategies.
Obviously, it's also possible that none of the above will happen. In that case, I expect the world's future to be quite bad and dreary, and would be all the more indifferent to not leaving it any descendants.
Living your life in a manner congruent with how you would like the world to be….seems like as reasonable a guiding philosophy as any. Anything beyond that seems like superfluous navel gazing.
My reasons for wanting to have kids was as concrete and tangible as my reasons for liking the colour blue: no idea. I just did. And I didn’t need to drill down any further than that.
First of all, Happy Father's Day! It's very nice to hear about your growing family. I'm an old gay man who never had children, though I always thought it would been wonderful. Had the recent thinking on the virtues of pro-natalism been prominent 30 years ago, my partner and I might have searched hard for a congenial lesbian couple who also wanted to have children, and raise two-fathers, two-mothers kids - something which, I can vouch from my friend's experience, can work just fine. Alas, 30 years ago the worry was overpopulation, and it seemed like a virtue to not have children. Oh well, all us childless old folks can do now is help the new generation along as best we can...
Great read. My husband read it though and now he’s gay, thanks.
This is the most beautiful thing you've ever written. No homo.
Thanks for writing this, it came at a good time for me. I think a lot of people don't even bother to think through the reasons for/against kids, they just pick one they hear a lot. My girlfriend of 1.5 years had been giving a bunch of different reasons to not have kids, including financial. As a MD/JD couple, this is about as silly of a reason as possible, we're obviously going to be in a top income percentile. I mapped out our future likely incomes, and after a lot of discussions and introspection she admitted that she just didn't want to go through the burden of focusing her life on a child after spending much of the "prime of her life" in professional training. She's an incredible person otherwise, but I guess I need to break-up with her, everyone tells me this is a non-negotiable thing for either party in a relationship. The fact that you say the focus is what makes fatherhood "the best thing you will ever do" is reassuring and makes me think its probably worth the relationship sacrifice.
I don't think this is necessarily non-negotiable, I've seen people change their minds especially when they see how important it is to a partner. So I wouldn't give up hope if that's her initial reaction, but some people might be unmovable.
I agree it can be negotiable with some people, and people can change. She's 30, I'm 36. She has two more years of residency left before her first post-training job as a doctor. It's entirely plausible to me that, after working that job for 1-2 years, she realizes not having a family leaves something missing in her life. However, we've been talking about the issue for 4 months and she has moved from ambivalence and general worries about children to stating clearly that she's not interested, and actively dislikes the idea of giving birth, breastfeeding, and focusing her life on a child. Some of that comes from how grueling med school and residency is, she hasn't had much time to enjoy life outside of an intense professional grind. But, spending another 3-4 years together on the chance she might change her mind when she now has formed a clearly stated view seems like a huge risk.
I don’t know if this helps but you can tell her breastfeeding isn’t that important and the idea that it is is based on junk science. But in the context of relationships 4 months isn’t that long of a time when you plant seeds. If she doesn’t budge in another 6 months I’d be more worried. But yes if nothing works and she really doesn’t want it then there’s nothing you can do. Just make sure she’s not unclear on how important it is to you.
Interesting, breast feeding isn’t important? Can anyone point me towards reading?
Breast feeding is definitely important. It doesn't have that much effect on IQ in adulthood, because nothing does, but it's a major part of the mother-child relationship, boosts immune system, massively decreases chances of colic, makes bedtime easy etc. Also, if she doesn't breastfeed it is basically inevitable that you will have to hold the bottle at some point, and next thing you know you're changing nappies. Revolting.
It is indeed a huge risk, if she doesn't change her mind you'll be finding a fertile woman in your 40s which is radically different than in your 30s, even if you're on a good income.
Brb going to impregnate my wife
> Heredity isn’t that reliable as a means of transmission for the combination of characteristics that make me who I am, and I can probably do more to create additional people with Hanania-like traits and raise their status through forgoing the time and expense of having children and focusing on spreading my ideas instead.
I don't think this really checks out. Your (mostly genetic, some cultural) influence on your kids is an order of magnitude larger than your influence on anyone else. And while I like your writing and it's not literally irreplaceable - if you didn't write most people receptive to your ideas probably would find someone only slightly worse to read (it's also unclear that you would write significantly, or at all, better if you spent all your time on it instead of your family).
That was my immediate thought, too. Children are often noted as being "just like" their parents, while students or readers rarely are. Likewise, although children and writing do compete for time, children when they grow can further write, increasing the reach of your ideas through time and numbers. I am thinking of Milton and David Friedman, for instance.
Plus, children only compete for attention with writing for a decade or two, so one has to ask whether the marginal gain from "no kids, write all the time in life" is huge compared to "bunch of kids, write maybe 80% of time in life." It certainly doesn't seem clear cut to me that the former is better.
There's no guarantee your kids will share your views. Paul Gottfried's son went left.
I love Richard's writing, but he's probably going to get a lot more happiness out of those kids than being the sharpest tool in the right-wing shed.
No guarantee, but it is a lot more likely that you will guide their ideas than change the mind of someone reading you. Most people read folks they already agree with, so the marginal effect is often small. It is the difference between kids very likely to be like you and a lot of readers or no kids and some more readers, as I point out at the end.
Dave’s cool and all, but he’s no Milton
Hanania is easily one of the top 12 politics writers in the world in terms of actual unique influence.
(and, of course, for people who aren't widely read writers this argument wouldn't hold at all)
My regret is that I didn't start earlier. At 40 I had my third and likely last child this year. I will subsidize my children so they may have kids earlier than me.
Inflammatory, callous, tear-jerking (gay), mundane, cosmic, empathetic, autistic, narcissistic, and grounded. This essay is one zinger after another. Hanania (gay) never fails to entertain.
Happy Father's Day Richard and congrats on #3. I actually am gay and a dad. So naturally, I wrote up some Father's Day thoughts here: https://jeffgiesea.substack.com/p/quiet-majesty-of-being-a-dad
Your daughter is so cute! Happy Father’s days
This is an excellent sentence:
"How am I supposed to live with the thought that, after all these creatures grasping their way towards survival and reproducing against microscopically small odds, a 4 billion year story will end because I wanted something as trivial as a bigger house or more vacations?"
I like the contrast you've created here. It's the continuation of our species versus the fleeting joy of self-indulgence. Your framing makes it seem like an easy choice! Cheers!
I'm sure you feel the irony of associating talking about your role as a heterosexual procreator with gayness. I'm sure you're not alone in that and it's probably worth interrogating where our collective notion of masculinity, or straight masculinity, went wrong.
Maybe it's less that it feels gay, and more asexual. Which is maybe a product of our squeamishness of even thinking about sex and kids in the same thought space, even though there's that intrinsic link that you need the former to get the latter. Or maybe because straight masculinity is too bound up with notions of alpha/omega masculinity where true masculinity is held to be not only heterosexual but also promiscuous.
OK, that was my first thought. What's *less* gay than talking about your family, something that can only be achieved (before a few decades ago) through heterosexual intercourse? Michelangelo could create the Sistine Chapel, and Alan Turing could create the computer, but they couldn't create kids without having straight sex somewhere along the line.
I think the idea is masculinity is about competition and destruction and cruelty, and fertility and kindness and childrearing are feminine. Which strikes me as the outcome of feminist propaganda...but I'm biased. ;)
There is something obviously un-masculine about the 'modern father'. Because of the nurturing role that modern parents generally take, with less need for physical protection from marauding tribes and the provision of freshly hunted game, modern fatherhood poses a bit of a threat to masculinity.
To quote Schopenhauer:
"Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long—a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full-grown man,"
New fathers need to learn to avoid falling into this trap.
PS your daughter is adorable!
cute kid
looks like someone's not retarded
not really. only retards believe that, so i guess i have to update my priors on you...
1) yes
2) real white nationalists always marry e. asians
With 11 children I suppose I'm a pronatalist. I do belive in an "afterlife," but aside from that, I guess that you and I see eye to eye on most of your well made points. Those who choose to be selfish (sorry if that seems being judgemental) and not have children are removing their worldview from the mix. More power to them. Being a father is the greatest adventure of my life and teaches me, above all else, that I'm NOT the center of the universe.
Is it really selfish to bring people into the world you don't want?
That's not what I meant. I've been told by countless people in my life that they don't want children because they want to enjoy life. And children are a drag, financially and emotionally. Fair enough.
OK. I think having kids is amazing and brilliant if it's what you want to do with your life, and tortuous if it isn't. I'm really unsure how selfishness comes into that equation, for me; I think it's putting the kids first to make sure that you REALLY want to dedicate yourself to them.
Like I said in my first comment, more power to them. And In my second comment, fair enough.
There's three frameworks from which to consider natalism.
1. Individualist: There is a belief, and it is an adaptive one, that children increase happiness. I am happy for those whom it makes happy, including Hanania. But most of the actual studies suggest it is neutral at best. But, not being rich, I can definitely say that having children would have a highly negative impact on the things I enjoy - free time, travel, casual dating, new and interesting experiences.
2. National: Natalism obviously makes collective sense in the context of the national interest or your religious sect. However, I come from an unprestigious culture that has proven itself to be a loser one (Russia). There is no good reason to create more Russians, or Slavs in general. While I might intellectually pedestalize the Anglo culture, I have zero emotional connection or loyalties towards it, instead identifying as a postnational superglobalist. And I am an atheist (and, come to think of it, religious natalism only really makes sense in the case of insular cults anyway). There's the other stuff about leaving a "genetic legacy" and "unbroken 4 billion year legacy" and so forth but that has always struck me as mystical claptrap that doesn't really mean anything.
3. Global: Dysgenic trends are obviously a long-term problem, and I am smarter and more interesting than most people, though probably less happy. However, the idea of making personal sacrifices in order to provision dubious and utterly marginal benefits to a pool of 8 billion people doesn't strike me as overly rational. The reason I say dubious is that there's some chance that (1) AGI/ASI makes biology entirely moot, for good or ill, within the next decade, or (2) bio/acc enables vastly smarter children and/or radical life extension within my expected lifetime, both developments that will cardinally change optimal fertility strategies.
Obviously, it's also possible that none of the above will happen. In that case, I expect the world's future to be quite bad and dreary, and would be all the more indifferent to not leaving it any descendants.
Living your life in a manner congruent with how you would like the world to be….seems like as reasonable a guiding philosophy as any. Anything beyond that seems like superfluous navel gazing.
My reasons for wanting to have kids was as concrete and tangible as my reasons for liking the colour blue: no idea. I just did. And I didn’t need to drill down any further than that.
First of all, Happy Father's Day! It's very nice to hear about your growing family. I'm an old gay man who never had children, though I always thought it would been wonderful. Had the recent thinking on the virtues of pro-natalism been prominent 30 years ago, my partner and I might have searched hard for a congenial lesbian couple who also wanted to have children, and raise two-fathers, two-mothers kids - something which, I can vouch from my friend's experience, can work just fine. Alas, 30 years ago the worry was overpopulation, and it seemed like a virtue to not have children. Oh well, all us childless old folks can do now is help the new generation along as best we can...