I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. - Thomas Jefferson
Oh dear. Not this again.
“Economists have modeled the impact of many variables on people’s overall happiness and have consistently found that children have only a small impact. A small negative impact,” reports Harvard psychologist and happiness researcher Daniel Gilbert. In addition, the more children a person has the less happy they are. According to Gilbert, researchers have found that people derive more satisfaction from eating, exercising, shopping, napping, or watching television than taking care of their kids. “Indeed, looking after the kids appears to be only slightly more pleasant than doing housework,” asserts Gilbert in his bestselling, Stumbling on Happiness (2006).
Of course, that’s not what most parents say when asked. For instance, in a 2007 Pew Research Center survey people insisted that their relationships with their little darlings are of the greatest importance to their personal happiness and fulfillment. However, the same survey also found “by a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the ‘mutual happiness and fulfillment’ of adults rather than the ‘bearing and raising of children.’”
Gilbert suggests that people claim their kids are their chief source of happiness largely because it’s what they are expected to say. In addition, Gilbert observes that the more people pay for an item, the more highly they tend to value it and children are expensive, even if you don’t throw in piano lessons, soccer camps, orthodonture, and college tuitions. Gilbert further notes that the more children people have, the less happy they tend to be. Since that is the case, it is not surprising that people are choosing to have fewer children. And if people with fewer children are happier, then people with no children must be happiest, right? Not exactly, but the data do suggest that voluntarily childless women and men are not less happy than parents. And they sure do have more money to squander as they try to pursue what happiness they can and strive to somehow fill up their allegedly empty lives
This post ended up long. More past the break.
I’ve blogged on this before. Money quote:
As a father-to-be, I’m not having kids because I think it will make me happy. I hope it will. But I’m principally having kids because I think it’s an end in itself, that I have a duty to the future to create and form a good person to advance the human comedy one more generation. To not have kids because it might affect my life is the ultimate selfishness, no? To sacrifice the future to sustain my present?
We all do things that we must do, whether we like them or not. I work a job because I need to provide for myself and my family and I hope to contribute something with my time on this planet. That I enjoy my work is a nice side effect. I also do a lot of things I don’t like because I must. That includes mowing the lawn, cleaning the house, scooping the cat litter, etc., etc. I have always hated the Utilitarian philosophy.
I hope that having kids will bring me happiness. And I think it will. But that’s not the reason I’m doing it.
I tend to be very Kantian in my personal philosophy, in case you haven’t noticed.
But thinking about it some more, I call bullshit on the entire exercise. Measures of happiness are complete crap. Different things make different people happy and to different degrees. So if one couple is very happy about kids and another is unhappy, we conclude that kids that don’t make you happy. And while you are doing that, you might all want to slip into your size 10 shoes. Just cut off some toes if they don’t fit.
(Also, keep in mind that the poor are having more kids than the middle class. They might be unhappy for other reasons.)
Moreover, the happiness of kids is highly variable. At 3 am, when my daughter won’t sleep, my kid is making me extremely unhappy. In the afternoon, when she wakes up from her nap, sees me and gives a great big grin, I’m probably the happiest I’ve ever been in my life. And this applies double over the macro scale. As Yglesias points out:
Whatever else raising children may be, it’s also an expensive and time consuming pain in the ass that sharply limits your flexibility to do a variety of things for a large number of years. One can easily imagine the joys of parenthood being roughly offset by the burdens. But later in life, having a solid relationship with grownup kids and their children seems low-cost and hard-to-replace. Loneliness is very hard on people. To acknowledge that reality isn’t to say we need to get all freaked out if the norm moves from 2-3 kids per family to 1-2 kids per family.
This is one of the biggest reasons I decided to have kids. Because I didn’t want to be a lonely 85 year-old man wishing he had kids. The novel I’m working on deals with precisely this theme. I think of kids as an investment in happiness. They are going to make me extremely miserable between the ages of about 2 and 30. But watching them finish college or get married or have kids of their own will make up for that. Hell, watching my daughter figure out how to yank the power cord of Daddy’s laptop is rewarding. And when I die—hopefully at a very advanced age while in flagrante delicto with someone of very moderate age—it will be of some comfort to know that it wasn’t all for nothing.
OK, that was all just filler. Now we get to the statement that really pissed me off and got me blogging:
Your net carbon impact depends far more on the number of children you will have than any other variable; remember good environmentalism uses a zero rate of discount. So people with no biological children should be allowed to fly a lot and people with lots of biological children should not get to fly so much at all.
I think he’s being ironic (it’s 3 am and I just fed my little happiness investment. Give me a break). But I’ve heard this stated seriously, most often when people were incorrectly freaking out about overpopulation.
Yes, it’s true, my daughter will emit a lot of greenhouse gases over the course of her life. Mostly by breathing.
She might also discover the fundamental breakthrough that leads to nuclear fusion power and the complete abolition of fossil fuels.
You see, the only real capital in the world is human ingenuity and endeavor. We need as much of it as we can get. We could solve global warming by offing our entire race. But that’s not exactly an ideal solution, is it? Well, maybe if you’re a member of PETA, it is.
Oh, one last thing. These projections that our problem in the mid-21st century will be underpopulation because of declining birth rates? Yeah, I call bullshit on that too. These are the same jackasses who were telling us the world was going to be dangerously overpopulated. They were saying this as recently as ten years ago. Anyone who tries to project a half century down the road is playing with Numbers in the Dark. It’s something to keep an eye on (see Security, Social). But formulating panic-laden policy over it is asking for trouble.
Posted by
Hal_10000 on 02/29/08 at 12:58 AM (
Discuss this in the forums)
Comments
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
<< Back to main
Well, not actually. We’d only stop the human contribution to global warming caused by our breathing. Most other animals breathe as well, so they’d continue to add to it.
Just a thought.