You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Tem42 comments on Open Thread, January 11-17, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: username2 12 January 2016 10:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (180)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Clarity 13 January 2016 02:59:53PM *  0 points [-]

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.

Having a close family member affected by a mental illness is the largest known risk factor, to date

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 :

There are theoretical foundations in sociology for two seemingly incompatible positions: (1) children should have a strong negative impact on the psychological well-being of parents and (2) children should have a strong positive impact on the psychological well-being of parents. Most empirical analyses yield only a modest relationship between parenthood and psychological well-being. Usually, but not always, it is negative. In this study we consider the relationship between parental status and several dimensions of psychological well-being. Our analysis is based on data from a large national survey. It suggests that children have positive and negative effects on the psychological well-being of parents. The balance of positive and negative effects associated with parenthood depends on residential status of the child, age of youngest child, marital status of the parent, and the particular dimension of psychological well-being examined. When compared with nonparents, parents with children in the home have low levels of affective well-being and satisfaction, and high levels of life-meaning; parents with adult children living away from home have high levels of affective well-being, satisfaction, and life-meaning.

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.

Comment author: Tem42 27 January 2016 11:21:55PM 1 point [-]

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:

  1. 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

  2. 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.