My take is that there's really nothing to say.

Anyone looking at having children (or any other relationship really) through the lens of cost/benefit will arrive at the logical conclusion that it's a huge investment with an uncertain reward, so likely not worth it from that perspective. There's no arguing with logical reasoning.

People in the developed world(or adjancent) have children anyway because they allow themselves to not apply such thinking for once.

The lens of cost / benefit is no way to live, and is a sure road to misery. Scrooge.

There is a balance. Surely it is reasonable for cost / benefit to cross the mind of a woman, who has to sacrifice at least some portion of her health, and become dependent on others for an unknown amount of time.

> Anyone looking at having children (or any other relationship really) through the lens of cost/benefit will arrive at the logical conclusion that it's a huge investment with an uncertain reward, so likely not worth it from that perspective.

Many people with children talk about how much more wonderful their life has been since they've had them (including here in HN comments). If you think there is a good chance of that happening to you, that's the "benefit" in the cost/benefit analysis and having children can end up being the logical conclusion.

>People in the developed world(or adjancent) have children anyway because they allow themselves to not apply such thinking for once.

I assume you meant developing world, in which case the reason is probably that many women do not have the opportunity to apply such thinking, due to lacking financial independence and/or access to highly effective contraception such as IUDs.

> I assume you meant developing world

Nope, developed, where people have children despite a culture of analysing everything to death.

I have kids. I've found that people listing reasons they don't want kids to be their genuine feelings on the topic. I don't judge them one iota and hope they feel the same towards people with kids.

Agreed. Having kids can cause you to change, often for the better. You have the opportunity to be completely selfless.

It's certainly an opportunity for selflessness but I'd argue that that's quite a generous take since I can't rightly see it being truly 'selfless' as it's still _your_ genetic scion.

People often do the worst things to the better part of humanity in the name of "family". I think, among other texts, this heuristic of not being overly attached to family is still relevant if we don't want to sublimate and becomes completely isolated as a species.

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Matthew 10:37)

Yes I know the above isn't an article from Gwern or some sort of neuvo-techo-traditionalist diatribe, or even a peer reviewed paper. My point being that this civic feeling was enough of a point of contention that the authors of the Bible thought to include it.

Anyways, this wasn't meant to be an attack, more like a, what do you think?

To be fair, a zealot's missionary tract attempting to convince local religious adherents under the heel of a regional crackdown from an authoritarian regime isn't a great source to encourage familial relationships, despite almost two millenia of veneration. Let alone the implication that family relationships are valued below internal devotion, which I've seen from my parents and siblings as well as across several religious and political communities, causes much unnecessary harm. I don't think the principle you've pointed to is very strong to build communities and societies, though it's great to build a fad/brand and a new schism community among the disowning.

I argue that selflessness can only occur from people who can help those thar have no capacity to help themselves. The old, children, the infirmed, the powerless.

I'm not an adherent and used it for what it was trying to express. In fairness this was through the lens of reading Tolstoy that prompted me to reference the Bible as a piece of text that tried to synthesize the feeling of para-familial bonds, asking: why should I help my neighbor?

The bit I quoted in hindsight does read like fanatical dribble. I'll lean on Tolstoy here and say that from his angle, he posited that only a larger, universally conscious philosophical system (one that many people can understand, not just scientists or philosophers) would elevate our social systems to consider more than just our immediate family.

I think there is definitely choice wisdom in these kinds of collected works, the fact that corrupt churches etc leverage these things is another matter, I think you could read it tabula rasa.

Anyways back to the point, imo you probably don't need a large binding locus like God in smaller groups. I suppose even in larger societies bonds could be maintained along cultural/economic/etc lines. I could in fact just worship science (as DFW says, we all worship).

Having a philosophical system that encourages self-effacement seems to me to be what could undergird the impetus to be selfless. If it happens to be religion or science based doesn't matter, but it's atleast something that has thought put into it and has been QA'd so to speak.

Also I agree with you on your last point, but I think for it to occur it needs to have a why, and the why (to me) can't just be 'cuz family' because it doesn't scale (literally).

I've had the opportunity to be that completely selfless person for someone else who's very young. Perhaps being of one's own blood can factor into making that commitment to acting selfless, but once such a commitment is made, those factors can't have any bearing on continuing to act in a selfless way without contradicting that initial commitment. Once you make that commitment you make decisions based on their needs, wants, goals, and their and your limitations, with no interest to whatever idea is tied up to being of one's blood, beyond being just another asset or limitation just like everything else that define your social place.

The impetus for that feeling or set of decisions being familial bonds, I believe, is a different kind of selflessness. I'm not sure how you could detach the consequences from the antecedent. I guess you're making a deontological claim (but don't take my word for it, I'm a philosophy novice).

I'd go further in the case for selflessness and say that _if_ the happenstance of the decision to be selfless is based on some unthoughtout biological drive, then can it really be selfless? Thinking is the thing here, and why should this necessarily lead to broader self effacement. That's like saying I'd donate my liver to my brother (cuz he's my brother) and after that the consequences and ritual and beauty of the donation are enough to warrant the possible future where I might donate another organ to a complete stranger, because I did the dance.

I think that people who don't want kids rarely state their real reasons in public. And same goes for the decision to have kids.

Both groups state what they consider to be socially appropriate reasons. They might not be entirely made up, but both groups keep the remaining deeply personal reasons for themselves. They reveal them only if they feel very safe.

I suppose that goes for a lot of things. However, I wager the burden of why someone is bucking the momentum is more on people who _choose_ not to. Choosing to have a kid is difficult because 'anxiety is the dizziness of freedom' so to speak (also a great short story).

Freedom of choice offers unlimited possibilities and claws out from momentum and yells at you to think about your choice. Most peoples 'secret' reason for having kids usually amounts to, 'because that's just how it is'.

> it’s the most unique and rewarding one there is

Absolute statements like this are one of the reasons I avoid the conversation about kids vs no kids. It may be the most rewarding experience of your life, but I can assure you that your experience is not universal.