social network advertising

Agreed that having kids is more about meaning than happiness. I myself said this to a coworker who was ambivalent about fathering children due to the loss of free time and romance with his wife:

“You’ll have less fun and happiness, but you’ll have more joy and meaning.”

Potentially, there’s a point parallel to those utilitarians who want to maximize total utility instead of average utility.

If meaning is asserted/manufactured by humans, more humans might result in a greater production of meaning.

Agreed that having kids is more about meaning than happiness. I myself said this to a coworker who was ambivalent about fathering children due to the loss of free time and romance with his wife:

“You’ll have less fun and happiness, but you’ll have more joy and meaning.”

Potentially, there’s a point parallel to those utilitarians who want to maximize total utility instead of average utility.

If meaning is asserted/manufactured by humans, more humans might result in a greater production of meaning.

You don’t want people to decide whether to have kids or how many to have without accurate information about the costs. Fair enough — more accurate information is always helpful when optimizing.

But, since we know that not having kids (or not having enough kids) might have an opportunity cost in terms of benefits foregone, shouldn’t you be equally worried that those who have not had kids lack accurate information about what they are missing out on? Why assume net costs instead of net benefits?

Since most parents nowadays (in contrast to times when everyone got married at 18) have experienced at least some portion of their adult life childless, I think we should take their assessments of the net benefits/costs of having children as the more accurate, at least given their idiosyncratic preferences.

We might say to the childless as we say to children “How do you know you don’t like it? You haven’t even tried it yet.”

The only people I can think of who have comparable information to make informed assessments would be those who *had* been parents, but had lost or severed the relationship with the child.

You don’t want people to decide whether to have kids or how many to have without accurate information about the costs. Fair enough — more accurate information is always helpful when optimizing.

But, since we know that not having kids (or not having enough kids) might have an opportunity cost in terms of benefits foregone, shouldn’t you be equally worried that those who have not had kids lack accurate information about what they are missing out on? Why assume net costs instead of net benefits?

Since most parents nowadays (in contrast to times when everyone got married at 18) have experienced at least some portion of their adult life childless, I think we should take their assessments of the net benefits/costs of having children as the more accurate, at least given their idiosyncratic preferences.

We might say to the childless as we say to children “How do you know you don’t like it? You haven’t even tried it yet.”

The only people I can think of who have comparable information to make informed assessments would be those who *had* been parents, but had lost or severed the relationship with the child.

And still… How many do you have, and why don’t you have one more than that?