Saw this today and thought it an interesting response to the whole of “childless life” being somehow better than having kids and rolling the dice. Or, having an “oops” baby and then valuing that child.
Disclosure: My wife and I are childless. Our daughter died of a Fentanyl overdose in 2022, but while we had her, we enjoyed the process of at least trying to bring along the next generation.
Anyway, having children or adopting, is to my mind a requirement of adulthood. Yes, some cannot have children, and I am sad for them. And some choose not to for what I think are valid reasons, like an itinerate professional life, or a decision to be additive to the American project in other ways (via, say, teaching). Barring those things, and as I tell my students – please, for the love of God, have babies and lots of them! We will need them, and darn soon. Read on …
To that end, let’s talk about Decision Theory. The decision that might resonate is this:
If there were two envelopes, and one had $100 while the other had $200, how much would you pay for a random shot?
I’ll give you a moment to think about it.
Some might say, “less than $100,” because either way you win. Of course, the seller has to be willing to lose money, which he would not.
That said, a reasonable answer might be in the $140-$149.99 range, giving you a positive expected value in return for taking on some risk. I’ll not talk about the formula here – just take my word for it.
That seems reasonable.
OK, now suppose you open the envelope and see that it contains $100. How much would I have to pay to buy it back from you?
Obviously, you would accept no less than $100. Why give away money? By the way, this was the same position taken by the Seller initially.
So, we’ve established reasonable terms for valuing an uncertain event and for valuing it after the uncertainty is removed.
Now let’s talk about the decision to have a child. A couple is deciding whether to have a first child. When weighing their options, they weigh the child against the chance to use the money and time they would spend on parenthood to go on two extra vacations a year.
They decide to remain childless and take the vacations. (See the above image that contrasts parenthood against lying on a beach.)
Assume for the moment that Dictator Trump has banned all abortion (this is called “Contrary to Fact Reasoning,” by the way, because Trump would have no such power and, besides, he has said he is opposed to a Congressional attempt to do so).
Anyway, assume further that the couple’s birth control fails, and they have an “oops” baby boy. Later, perhaps years later, their son gets sick and needs an operation to save him. The operation costs the couple’s entire net worth, which they pay without question. After all, the only other option is to take him home and kill him, thus saving money and pain.
I think the above story is plausible and reflects how people actually think about their decision to have kids and their medical decisions for their existing kids. But note the inconsistency. Before having a child, they valued a potential child less than two annual vacations. After having him they valued him more than their entire net worth.
In practice, people value potential children much (much!) less than the average value they place on an existing child. Nobody places their living, breathing children on the same level as a vacation, but many people think about potential children that way.
If there isn’t a whole literature in philosophy trying to resolve this inconsistency, there should be.
We are headed to the great de-population. The Black Plague will pale in comparison. We won’t be around for what comes after, but I hope and pray it’s another Renaissance (as came after the Plague).
