7 votes

What Number of Kids Makes Parents Happiest?

19 comments

  1. [4]
    Catt
    Link
    This is honestly the longest article I read about nothing... To sum up, people are happiest when their reality meets their expectations. If you want two kids and have two kids, you're likely...

    This is honestly the longest article I read about nothing...

    To sum up, people are happiest when their reality meets their expectations. If you want two kids and have two kids, you're likely happier than if you wanted two and have less.

    10 votes
    1. [3]
      aphoenix
      Link Parent
      I think that's an unfair characterization of this article, which suffers from the problem of needing to have a click-enhancing title. This article touches on a number of things that are...

      I think that's an unfair characterization of this article, which suffers from the problem of needing to have a click-enhancing title.

      This article touches on a number of things that are potentially of interest, such as how the generally accepted idea of ideal number of children has changed over time. It also touches on how happiness and economics aren't necessarily involved with each other, and... well, I could go on, but I think that the real issue is that, as with many articles that are written these days, we can't just have a title that describes what the article actually is about.

      "Children, Happiness, and Economics" is perhaps a better title, but it doesn't really fulfill our need for meaninglessly vapid titles that make you need to know the answer. What if there were some optimal number of children?! I have children; is it the right amount? Did I mess up when I got that vasectomy, and now I can't be economically happy with my limited number of offspring? Of course this article answers none of the questions it conjures, and we feel disappointment as a result, but if we ignore the stupid title and look at the themes of the article, I think there are actually some interesting things in there.

      3 votes
      1. [2]
        Catt
        Link Parent
        I do think the article suffers from a bad title. However, I found the piece a bit too conversational. It was a lot of someone said something or thought something. Guess I was looking for something...

        I do think the article suffers from a bad title. However, I found the piece a bit too conversational. It was a lot of someone said something or thought something. Guess I was looking for something a bit more empirical.

        The actual title of the article is a bit better - What Number of Kids Makes Parents Happiest?

        1 vote
        1. Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          Fixed.

          The actual title of the article is a bit better - What Number of Kids Makes Parents Happiest?

          Fixed.

          1 vote
  2. WinterCharm
    Link
    Considering our environment and the possibility of serious resource shortage in the future, I would say to people: If you don't want kinds don't have them, because the greenest thing you can do....

    Considering our environment and the possibility of serious resource shortage in the future, I would say to people:

    1. If you don't want kinds don't have them, because the greenest thing you can do.
    2. If you do want kids, please limit yourself to 1-2, because resources will be shorter, and I'd rather the earth trend down In population for the next 100 years, because it'll help everyone.
    5 votes
  3. [12]
    Nmg
    Link
    Zero, climate change and environmental destruction is real

    Zero, climate change and environmental destruction is real

    4 votes
    1. [6]
      cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      So we either keep going as is and suffer through environmental collapse, or we experience complete societal collapse by having zero kids from now on? Either one leads to massive amounts of human...

      So we either keep going as is and suffer through environmental collapse, or we experience complete societal collapse by having zero kids from now on? Either one leads to massive amounts of human suffering, and those choices ring as a false dichotomy to my ears since there is a third, far more realistic option:

      Keep a stable popular (2.1 children born per woman in developed nations) so modern society doesn't collapse, but cut down significantly on our consumption, and significantly increase our efforts/spending on finding solutions to our environmental issues. E.g. increase public transport network funding, implement congestion taxes to cut down on traffic with a "car pool" exemption, plant a trillion trees, implement harsh commercial carbon taxes, increase funding for alternative energy, ban single use plastics, etc. etc. etc.

      8 votes
      1. [4]
        Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        That assumes that the current population is the right number. What if it's not? What if there should be fewer humans on this planet? We could afford to have a slightly reducing population. Not a...

        Keep a stable popular (2.1 children born per woman in developed nations) so modern society doesn't collapse,

        That assumes that the current population is the right number. What if it's not? What if there should be fewer humans on this planet?

        We could afford to have a slightly reducing population. Not a Baby Crash (definitely not the "zero children" that @Nmg is recommending!), but we could probably taper off a bit, so the overall population reduces gradually over time. Maybe 2.0 children per woman, or possibly 1.9. Not enough to bring society to a crashing halt, but enough to reduce the overall population somewhat.

        5 votes
        1. [3]
          Nmg
          Link Parent
          I do not realistically believe that everyone will ever have zero children. Simply that enough people would such that our environmental destruction would be reduced.

          I do not realistically believe that everyone will ever have zero children.

          Simply that enough people would such that our environmental destruction would be reduced.

          1 vote
          1. [2]
            Algernon_Asimov
            Link Parent
            "Zero" is an extreme and unrealistic target. Most people are not going to entirely forgo having children. You're more likely to convince couples not to have a third child (or even a second one)...

            "Zero" is an extreme and unrealistic target. Most people are not going to entirely forgo having children. You're more likely to convince couples not to have a third child (or even a second one) than not to have any children at all.

            By declaring that "zero" is the optimal number of children, you're alienating a lot of people that you need to convince. You're presenting yourself as a radical extremist, and people generally don't like radical extremists. They prefer reasonable moderates.

            3 votes
            1. Nmg
              Link Parent
              Everything in moderation, including moderation... There is an entire subreddit that actually follows that philosophy. It's called /r/childfree. It's mostly people complaining that their families...

              Everything in moderation, including moderation...

              There is an entire subreddit that actually follows that philosophy. It's called /r/childfree. It's mostly people complaining that their families and friends are pressuring them to have children, however.

              My number, "zero" is just as arbitrary as the person in the article stating "four," if you ask me...

      2. Nmg
        Link Parent
        I agree with all those measures and practice my life in a way that is consistent with most of them, but our options are not mutually exclusive. I am not advocating for the human extinction...

        I agree with all those measures and practice my life in a way that is consistent with most of them, but our options are not mutually exclusive.

        I am not advocating for the human extinction movement, simply for the acknowledgement from an individual that children consume resources and produce waste, the former of which we as a society cannot always provide and the latter of which we cannot always recycle.

    2. [2]
      aphoenix
      Link Parent
      What's the end result of "having zero kids is the optimal number"? Isn't that extinction of humans?

      What's the end result of "having zero kids is the optimal number"? Isn't that extinction of humans?

      6 votes
      1. Nmg
        Link Parent
        Well, if no one has children ever again, obviously yes. The end result is that instead of humanity needing multiple earths to handle our consumption and waste, we only need one. We have many...

        Well, if no one has children ever again, obviously yes.

        The end result is that instead of humanity needing multiple earths to handle our consumption and waste, we only need one.

        We have many problems with the people who are here. Why not use our collective knowledge to solve these issues before we add more people to the equation?

        2 votes
    3. [3]
      Catt
      Link Parent
      To be fair the article is about parental happiness, not actual optimal for the world. This comment is off topic.

      To be fair the article is about parental happiness, not actual optimal for the world. This comment is off topic.

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        Nmg
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Sometimes they are one of the same. If your comment is off topic, then why did you post it? Edit: did the title change??

        Sometimes they are one of the same.

        If your comment is off topic, then why did you post it?

        Edit: did the title change??

        1 vote
        1. apoctr
          Link Parent
          Algernon_Asimov changed the title, see the topic log.

          Algernon_Asimov changed the title, see the topic log.

          1 vote
  4. Octofox
    Link
    Isn't this entirely personal? I would be very unhappy with anything more than 0

    Isn't this entirely personal? I would be very unhappy with anything more than 0

    4 votes
  5. mrbig
    (edited )
    Link
    I don't see how you can get any kind of reasonable answer for that question, that is subjective by nature. Outdoorsy parents might have trouble adapting to a nerdy asthmatic kid, while a couple of...

    I don't see how you can get any kind of reasonable answer for that question, that is subjective by nature. Outdoorsy parents might have trouble adapting to a nerdy asthmatic kid, while a couple of geeks might love having a kid who shares their preferences. It's also much harder to raise kids with disabilities, mental illnesses etc. And some kids are simply more difficulty than others.

    What Number of Kids Makes Parents Happiest?

    This math is not worth doing.

    1 vote