I am father of four and would like to add my view to this.
| The Practical Case
| 1) yes kids do take a lot of time and effort, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing—lots of things that are rewarding require a lot of effort, such as learning a language or a new skill.
I fully agree with this. I like being a parent and playing with my children as well as educating them and observing their development. There are difficult times when there is conflict between parent and child when the child wants more than the parents want to provide esp. when the children compete among each other (ev-psych-wise explained by the mismatch between child interests and parent interests and the inter-child interests). But parts of the conflicts are more due to constraints of our society. Traffic (which is harder than predotory animals). Obligatory schooling. Complexity of society and media.
As a rationalist I can correctly assign my stress and conflict due to these effects to their sources (biology/society) instead of being dissatisfied with parent life due to stress and perceived child misdevelopment.Instead I am rewarded with the positive effects I do see that come out of my role as a parent.
2) Great parenting is extremely important for raising well adjusted, intelligent kids [...]
Well. What I read is that the work of parents accounts statistically to roughly one third of the observed differences. Statistically and on average. That doesn’t say anything about the variance and which differences can be made.
As with most human achievements I’d guess that if you fully concentrate your energy and affection onto parenting that you should be able to achieve exceptional results (albeit at the risk of possibly very negative ones).
We may not be able to shape the future live of our children but I always assumed that we can surely affect the future knowledge of our children. Even if puberty resets all the values we may have tried to establish the knowledge will most likely not be discarded (at least not if the child becomes a rationalist). At worst the knowledge will not applicable to the path the child goes. But that can be hedged against by focussing on general and procedural knowledge.
And regarding values questioned after puberty: I think it is unlikely that the child will discard values it is happy with. And a happy safe youth (not neccessaaryly a simple one) will make this more likely.
| The Financial Case
The spendings may be significant but here I’d like to adapt your reasoning from point 1: “lots of things that are rewarding cost a lot, such as a cool car and experience rich holiday.”
If you are a conscious parent and gain satisfaction from parenting you may intentionally choose children over societies consum good. Of course you can’t reduce the costs to zero.
I have read that the satisfaction from children doesn’t increase further after the second child (or at least it doesn’t exceed the increase in effort more than two children make. But economics of scale esp. financially just start to set in with two children.
A lot of goods can be reused: clothing (esp. for smaller children), romms and furniture, trips (counting the fraction of child cost). Most significant is the time cost: Caring for four children doesn’t cost you more time than caring for a single one (it is much more demanding though).
It is therefor rational from a rational utilitarian point of view that some couples should have no children and some many. In in that case you should choose the classical division of labour and one parent specializes in parenting (not neccessarily the women) with the other being the ‘provider’.
That is something I alway have wondered: Why do all people seem to assume that both parents should do equal shares of work, household and child care. That is often plain inefficient and robs them both the opportunity to specialize and invest full energy into what they do best.
| The Moral Case
I will don’t want to address the morality of parenting here. I have already written too long of a comment above. I only want to say that I think that morality is a function of the structure of the society (you might say of the advancement or freedom of the society) and that I personally value freedom and happyness probably less high then 90% of this society.
I think it is a good point to look farther into the furture than one generation.
I’d also like to say that if you choose a child for moral reasons you are probably in for a surprise wehen your child reaches puberty and questions all your reasoning. Can you deal with the dissatisfaction if your child turns out quite different from what you intended in such a case?
In particular I think that happyness is overvalued or too simplistically reduced to short term joy. I’d rather like to see a more balanced valuation which allows some bad experiences (if they don’t hurt you in the long run you may learn a lot from it) and provides a rich experience and favors baseline satisfaction. I think we can learn a lot from less ‘developed’ countries where people are often more ‘happy’ than we.
Why do all people seem to assume that both parents should do equal shares of work, household and child care.
Mostly for political reasons, I guess.
The rational part is that one day the parents may get into conflict and instead of playing cooperatively they will start playing against each other. At that moment the one which focused last years on their professional skills will have an advantage against the one which focused on child care. Dividing the household and child care is the most simple (and most likely suboptimal) way to reduce this advantage.
Most significant is the time cost: Caring for four children doesn’t cost you more time than caring for a single one (it is much more demanding though). It is therefor rational from a rational utilitarian point of view that some couples should have no children and some many.
In my opinion this is suboptimal in a similar way. Many people want to have their own biological children. I believe a better solution would be somewhere in a direction of caring for the children together. Somewhere between an extended family and a kindergarten; like a small private kindergarten where the parents are close friends with the caretakers. Sometimes the role of the caretaker can be changed, but it is not necessary for everyone to do it. If rationalists in some parts of the world are already moving to live closer together, this seems like a logical next step, if they decide to have children. With a critical mass of rationalists at some place we could probably invent some kind of a pyramid scheme, where the older children would take care of the younger children, so less adult supervision would be needed. This could be mixed with homeschooling, etc.
Somewhere between an extended family and a kindergarten; like a small private kindergarten where the parents are close friends with the caretakers.
That, right there, is one of my fondest dreams. To get my tiny scientists out of the conformity-factory and someplace where they can flourish (even more). Man, if this was happening in my town, in a heartbeat I’d rearrange my work schedule to spend part of the week being a homeschooler.
The rational part is that one day the parents may get into conflict and instead of playing cooperatively they will start playing against each other. At that moment the one which focused last years on their professional skills will have an advantage against the one which focused on child care. Dividing the household and child care is the most simple (and most likely suboptimal) way to reduce this advantage.
Indeed this has been the case. I have had such an advantage during our crisis and that is one reason I could deal with it. But then caring for four children is also something you can specialize in and also has a high worth in most countries and is also some kind of advantage.
Somewhere between an extended family and a kindergarten; like a small private kindergarten where the parents are close friends with the caretakers.
Sounds like a kibbuz. I like this idea. But I still think that a professionalization of ‘motherhood’ wouldn’t be a bad idea either. It has the advantage of high motivation. I once even read that this is generally an overdue and possibly needed step. Just cam’t find the ref.
I am father of four and would like to add my view to this.
| The Practical Case
| 1) yes kids do take a lot of time and effort, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing—lots of things that are rewarding require a lot of effort, such as learning a language or a new skill.
I fully agree with this. I like being a parent and playing with my children as well as educating them and observing their development. There are difficult times when there is conflict between parent and child when the child wants more than the parents want to provide esp. when the children compete among each other (ev-psych-wise explained by the mismatch between child interests and parent interests and the inter-child interests). But parts of the conflicts are more due to constraints of our society. Traffic (which is harder than predotory animals). Obligatory schooling. Complexity of society and media.
As a rationalist I can correctly assign my stress and conflict due to these effects to their sources (biology/society) instead of being dissatisfied with parent life due to stress and perceived child misdevelopment.Instead I am rewarded with the positive effects I do see that come out of my role as a parent.
Well. What I read is that the work of parents accounts statistically to roughly one third of the observed differences. Statistically and on average. That doesn’t say anything about the variance and which differences can be made.
As with most human achievements I’d guess that if you fully concentrate your energy and affection onto parenting that you should be able to achieve exceptional results (albeit at the risk of possibly very negative ones).
This is tentatively supported e.g. by this study that shows that indeed the parenting style didn’t have as much effect as the total amount of parent involvement: http://jea.sagepub.com/content/14/2/250.short
We may not be able to shape the future live of our children but I always assumed that we can surely affect the future knowledge of our children. Even if puberty resets all the values we may have tried to establish the knowledge will most likely not be discarded (at least not if the child becomes a rationalist). At worst the knowledge will not applicable to the path the child goes. But that can be hedged against by focussing on general and procedural knowledge. And regarding values questioned after puberty: I think it is unlikely that the child will discard values it is happy with. And a happy safe youth (not neccessaaryly a simple one) will make this more likely.
| The Financial Case
The spendings may be significant but here I’d like to adapt your reasoning from point 1: “lots of things that are rewarding cost a lot, such as a cool car and experience rich holiday.” If you are a conscious parent and gain satisfaction from parenting you may intentionally choose children over societies consum good. Of course you can’t reduce the costs to zero.
I have read that the satisfaction from children doesn’t increase further after the second child (or at least it doesn’t exceed the increase in effort more than two children make. But economics of scale esp. financially just start to set in with two children. A lot of goods can be reused: clothing (esp. for smaller children), romms and furniture, trips (counting the fraction of child cost). Most significant is the time cost: Caring for four children doesn’t cost you more time than caring for a single one (it is much more demanding though).
It is therefor rational from a rational utilitarian point of view that some couples should have no children and some many. In in that case you should choose the classical division of labour and one parent specializes in parenting (not neccessarily the women) with the other being the ‘provider’. That is something I alway have wondered: Why do all people seem to assume that both parents should do equal shares of work, household and child care. That is often plain inefficient and robs them both the opportunity to specialize and invest full energy into what they do best.
| The Moral Case
I will don’t want to address the morality of parenting here. I have already written too long of a comment above. I only want to say that I think that morality is a function of the structure of the society (you might say of the advancement or freedom of the society) and that I personally value freedom and happyness probably less high then 90% of this society.
I think it is a good point to look farther into the furture than one generation.
I’d also like to say that if you choose a child for moral reasons you are probably in for a surprise wehen your child reaches puberty and questions all your reasoning. Can you deal with the dissatisfaction if your child turns out quite different from what you intended in such a case?
In particular I think that happyness is overvalued or too simplistically reduced to short term joy. I’d rather like to see a more balanced valuation which allows some bad experiences (if they don’t hurt you in the long run you may learn a lot from it) and provides a rich experience and favors baseline satisfaction. I think we can learn a lot from less ‘developed’ countries where people are often more ‘happy’ than we.
Tag: parenting
Mostly for political reasons, I guess.
The rational part is that one day the parents may get into conflict and instead of playing cooperatively they will start playing against each other. At that moment the one which focused last years on their professional skills will have an advantage against the one which focused on child care. Dividing the household and child care is the most simple (and most likely suboptimal) way to reduce this advantage.
In my opinion this is suboptimal in a similar way. Many people want to have their own biological children. I believe a better solution would be somewhere in a direction of caring for the children together. Somewhere between an extended family and a kindergarten; like a small private kindergarten where the parents are close friends with the caretakers. Sometimes the role of the caretaker can be changed, but it is not necessary for everyone to do it. If rationalists in some parts of the world are already moving to live closer together, this seems like a logical next step, if they decide to have children. With a critical mass of rationalists at some place we could probably invent some kind of a pyramid scheme, where the older children would take care of the younger children, so less adult supervision would be needed. This could be mixed with homeschooling, etc.
That, right there, is one of my fondest dreams. To get my tiny scientists out of the conformity-factory and someplace where they can flourish (even more). Man, if this was happening in my town, in a heartbeat I’d rearrange my work schedule to spend part of the week being a homeschooler.
Indeed this has been the case. I have had such an advantage during our crisis and that is one reason I could deal with it. But then caring for four children is also something you can specialize in and also has a high worth in most countries and is also some kind of advantage.
Sounds like a kibbuz. I like this idea. But I still think that a professionalization of ‘motherhood’ wouldn’t be a bad idea either. It has the advantage of high motivation. I once even read that this is generally an overdue and possibly needed step. Just cam’t find the ref.