= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Clarity comments on Open Thread, January 11-17, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (180)
I want to determine whether I ought to have children or not based on the consequences for the population, my child(ren) and me personally.
I reckon the demographic factor that is most relevant to this choice is my status as a mentally ill person.
My decision cycle lasts from now till my prime fertile years (till I’m 35).
I will have kids if:
The consequences for the population is good. If existing evidence suggests population growth is good then the consequences for population growth is good. Population growth is basically good. There may be some non-linearity to that public good in the far future and that is a problem the future recipients of this past public good beyond my decision cycle can solve.
Is this consequence modified by greater participation in the population growth by individuals with mental illness? I have no relevant evidence so I will be stick the most proximate generalisation that the consequences on population growth is good.
The consequences for the children are good.
Therefore, relative to the general population, it is likely that the consequences for the children are bad. However, this is meaningful at a population level, rather than at the level of the child as I had intended to analyse. Regardless, I will adjust me interpretation of the consequences of population growth to be bad simulating that greater prevalence of risk factors in the population if mentally ill people participate at a greater level of reproduction.
Finally, are the consequences good for me?
Children cost hundreds of thousands of dollar’s in Western countries. The switching cost is tremendous. We may need not enumerate the trade from this angle, however, as there is a more psychologically proximate evidence-base to examine:
From the abstract for :
Scholarly evidence clearly favours non-parenthood for personal well-being.
Given the negative consequences for the general population and the individual with mental illness, and the uncertainty in forecasting consequences for the children themselves, not having children dominates the choice to have children.
Re the good of the child, do you think your life is net-positive for you? If so, and if you think your child's life is likely to be about as good as yours, that suggests their life will also be net-positive for them.
Watch your baseline: you should not consider the benefits that you and your child might get vs. not having children, but rather, the benefits you and the child might get vs. the benefits that you and another child might get if you did not have a child but became involved in a mentor program (or other volunteer activity helping children).
It may be hard to determine the value you get through working with other people's children, but there are big two plus sides to doing so:
you have a comparative advantage for a certain population of kids; those with mental illnesses may benefit especially from an adult who has experienced something like what they are going through and
you can experiment to determine the value you get from a mentor program much more easily (or rather, with much lower cost) than you can experiment with having your own kids -- and it makes good sense to try the low cost experiment before you run any final calculations.
I think the cost of children is a factor in the psychological well-being of the parents, so it's double counting to treat those as separate items. More to the point, you are not an average. While the effect of a child is slightly negative for the average parent, parents will vary widely in the effect of their own children on their life. If you are wealthy, in a stable marriage, and knowledgeable about parenting, then I would expect children to be net-positive for your well-being. I think a lot of the negatives of children stem from poor decision-making by the parents which leads to unnecessary stress.
Yes. You should be able to easily take care about yourself (financially, logistically, emotionally), before you accept the burden of taking care about someone else who cannot reciprocate in the following few years.
Imagine that you have less time, less energy, and less money; every day, for the following few years. Plus some unexpected problems appearing randomly. This is how it is when you have a baby.
In return you get a cute little person that is similar to you, loves you more or less unconditionally (unless you really screw up), and "becomes stronger" visibly every month. That can be hugely emotionally rewarding.
However, that emotional reward doesn't change the fact that you still have less time, less energy, and less money. So if something was a problem before, it will become much greater problem with the baby. That also includes the possible problems with the relationship: now the partners have more stress, and less time to talk or have sex (which are the two typical methods to solve interpersonal problems).