| ▲ | marssaxman 4 hours ago |
| The passionate hunger to do something significant and meaningful with my life was a major reason I took care never to have any children. Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear from a young age, and I knew that I was going to need every scrap of energy I could spare for the work I wanted to do. Years later, after I had to accept the failure of my ambitions, there was an opportunity to become the dad of a kid who needed one. So here I am being a dad after all, and it's been a good experience. Difficult, of course, and often frustrating, but worthwhile; I have no regrets - neither about this choice, nor the one I made when I was young. |
|
| ▲ | seabombs 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Thanks for sharing! I remember thinking pre-kids mostly about how much work they would be but not really considering the joy they bring too. Like I knew they would, but vastly underestimated what effect that would have on my life. I don't particularly regret any of my choices either, but knowing what I do now, would have chosen to have kids earlier in my life. |
| |
| ▲ | reillyse 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I find it funny that I spent my 20s and 30s doing everything in my power to avoid having kids and at this stage in my life I’m doing everything to have kids. I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around. | | |
| ▲ | tedggh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There’s never a right time to have kids. But having them older has its perks. You are much more calmed, patient, you are wiser and likely financially stable. Throwing money at problems definitely makes life 10X easier when you have kids, something most people can’t do in their 20s or even 30s. | | |
| ▲ | sacul an hour ago | parent [-] | | I disagree. As a father of nine children, I submit that the best time to have children is when you’re young. The next best time is now. Sure, you’ll be poor, and you’ll make lots of mistakes. But how do you know you’ll be able to have children later? And what’s so important now that makes it worth putting off children? | | |
| ▲ | dalyons 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | As a father of nine you have to acknowledge your perspective is an extreme outlier. Not criticizing, just, not a generalizable take. | |
| ▲ | Aeolun 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’ll feel poor anyhow. More money just means you want more. I’ll say there’s benefits to having a single child, but not nearly as many as there are to have multiple. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Aeolun 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around. Can confirm that starting at 30 makes it relatively easy to keep up. Still not early enough though. Wish I’d started at 25. It’s mostly a matter of effort though. You’ll become very good at it out of sheer need if you genuinely want to keep up. In far better shape now than I was at 30, mentally and physically. | |
| ▲ | voidmain0001 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This. I’m an old dad. I realized two years ago that to keep up with my pre-teens I had to change my lifestyle. For me that meant cutting out alcohol, not eating processed foods, avoiding sugar, reduced caffeine, way more protein and doing calisthenics. I sleep well and I have energy. I just have to keep this up for 10 more years when my youngest will be 21, then I can die. ;-) | | |
| ▲ | computerdork an hour ago | parent [-] | | Haha! Very interesting life goal - When your dependents have sucked all the life out of you, you can kick the bucket:) (And am sure it’s worth it) | | |
| |
| ▲ | testing22321 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was 41 when my daughter was born. I think it’s a great reason to stay for, strong and healthy. My goal is to keep up with her mountain biking, snowboarding and hiking for as long as I can. Hopefully I’ll be on the game well in my 60s and her 20s |
|
|
|
| ▲ | joshdavham 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear Similar experience here growing up Mennonite (they’re sorta like the Amish but more moderate). I’m one of the only remaining men in my family without kids, but those that do have kids (and there’s a lot of them) are super busy. This is at least partially offset by their wives who are more on the traditional side. They all do seem very fulfilled however :) |
|
| ▲ | brightball 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think one of the reasons that a lot of successful founders are in their mid-40s is because they combine 20ish years of experience with an empty nest after kids are out on their own. Nothing to back it up, but it makes sense to me. |
| |
| ▲ | Arubis 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Raising kids is fabulous experience for management. If you can convince a five-year-old that greens are tasty, you can motivate almost anyone. | |
| ▲ | hahahaa 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Add in personal networks too. |
|
|
| ▲ | Quothling 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I got sort of lucky early in my career because I had a talent that was discovered in a national network. Which meant I found myself writing national strategies for IT in our public sector (Denmark) at my late 20ies. It felt great for a year, or maybe two. When it stopped being fun though, it sort of hit me hard. I did enjoy writing and working on the strategies with other people. All the "glamour" around it, advicing politicians, going to conferences, networking with all sorts of "important" people. That got to me on one of the many train rides I had to take. I know a 3 hour commute might not be a lot to Americans or people in larger countries in general, but here it's a life time. Eventually I didn't know why I was going on them, so I quit and went back to being a nerd in a basement. Having my first child was the kick I needed to push me to where I was already heading though. I would've likely ridden the career ladder for a lot longer if I hadn't become a dad. I rarely speak about it but something about reading you accepting the failure of your ambitions made me want to do it. Are you sure it's a failure? For me family life turned out to be what I wanted and work is just a fun place which makes me money, but I totally get why people want to do it the opposite way. In some ways you could say that I did something significant, but it made me misserable. So I failed just as much as you, if not more. I don't regret any of it either though. It's what made me who I am. |
|
| ▲ | nubg 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| very happy for you that things turned out this way |
|
| ▲ | dyauspitr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | ColdStream an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I always find it funny the genetics argument or the "I'm a dopamine addict!" just how they are framed with fairly modern scientific language. Personally, legacy is but another grasping of the ego. It is meaningless and is most used as a justification to be selfish. I think kids are beyond that, it isn't something that is rationalized, it is just a means of life. And that is cool. I'm not pro or anti natalism, it all just seems to be a case of some people clinging to concepts and ideas just a little too strongly. But ultimately it has the same amount of meaning as a single ant that died a million years ago. Also what if you cannot create genetic legacy? | |
| ▲ | wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who gives a crap about "genetic legacy"? How about mind your own business. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a biological drive, at least until you're past the age of fertility. Whether you consciously think about carrying on your genetic line, it's baked into the hardware. | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most people. | | |
| ▲ | computerdork an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It was interesting of you to make the remark considering it’d clearly be unpopular, but agree with others, don’t really care about my genetic legacy. Am going to be dead so it’s meaningless to me. And actually, a non-genetic child might be nice, especially if you get one at the right age. You don’t have the intense burden of raising a baby or when they’re a young child, but still get to the joy of raising a child (as long as they like you, which is of course the biggest downside. Probably less of a tendency for them to attach strongly to you). | |
| ▲ | wat10000 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nah, creepy weirdos care about “genetic legacy.” Normal people have no problem with adoption or stepkids or whatever. | | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, you’re the normal one and most of the world is creepy weirdos | | |
| ▲ | qwerpy an hour ago | parent [-] | | The “reality has a liberal bias” crowd gets pretty quiet when biology comes up. |
|
|
|
|
|