Trade Your Child for the Vacation of a Lifetime

 Manlyfesto 9

I had lunch with a group of friends today. One of them had a baby a few years ago, and so she and I started chatting about kids. I told her that my wife was pregnant with our second, and she made a funny face.

It’s hard to describe. It’s that face you see when someone is slightly surprised by what they just heard, and they also don’t really approve. It’s that face you make when you don’t agree with something that someone just said, and you want them to feel somehow out-of-line for saying it, but you don’t want to actually verbally express your disapproval. Kind of like this:


Later in the conversation, the whole table began talking about kids. Each person chimed in with how many siblings they grew up with, and how many children they wanted. When I said I wasn’t sure how many I wanted, but am thinking about having five, the table nearly gasped.

My friend then addressed me, with a kind smile:

“This is nothing against you; I totally respect your family decisions. But for me, I don’t want more than two children. I want to travel! I want to see the world. To me, there is nothing more thrilling than visiting a new place. It makes me feel so alive to breathe new air. Plus, I want my children to have opportunity. It’s expensive to have more than two children, and I want them to have good lives.”

*  *  *

I explained in another article why travel is a luxury for the rich, or a foolish frivolity for the poor. Right now, I want to talk about a human’s worth. If I spend all my free money on travel, I will visit many places. I will rack up experience after experience, and absorb those experiences into my body and mind. Some will make good memories, others will make poor memories, and I won’t always be able to control which they become.

Or, I could have more children. This means that both a yearly holiday and a new child have a fixed price, which varies from person to person. I could spend $X for a Caribbean cruise, or I could take that money and spend $X on creating a new child. Which is more valuable?


Let me put it this way. If you had, say, a three-year-old child, would you trade him for a Caribbean cruise? Or a Patagonian adventure? Is the experience really more valuable than creating, teaching, and loving a new human being? This is, of course, a ridiculous comparison. No mother would trade her child for any adventure, and yet both have absolute price tags. It costs a real, fixed price tag to travel, and it costs a real, fixed price tag to raise a child to the age of three. If you have to make the choice, then one or the other is a better investment.

Not everyone will have kids. Not everyone should have kids. I do not think those who produce children are morally superior to those who do not. But neither do I believe that having fewer kids is better, or that it’s morally wrong to raise more than two kids. I recently read about a family with 9 children and 2 adults, living in an 1,100 square-foot home. That, by the way, is the same square footage my family lives in, and the three of us feel cramped here. How do they do it?

Simple. They’re organized. They make exquisite use of every inch their home has. The kids share rooms and live in bunk beds. The kids chip in with chores. It’s a well-oiled machine. Check out the family photos. They all look healthy. None of them are starving, and they don’t take a dime from the government.

Here’s another family with 12 children. The parents make good money, but they made a conscious decision not to give their children any of it. Even so, all of their children, to date, have paid their own way through college, bought their own cars, paid for their own weddings, and funded their own vacations. How? It would probably upset you if I said, simply by working hard and not spending money on things you don’t need.

And here’s an example about a retired couple in their 30s. They have a few kids and manage to school them, clothe them, and feed them well, but they only make $40,000 a year. How can you be retired, refuse work, and feed your kids making only $40k? It would probably also stress you if I said, by living beneath your means, and living off of interest accrued from money you earned during your working years.

My point in sharing these examples is that it’s not how much money you make that defines how many kids you can have; it’s how you use that money. I’m sure if the family of 11 went on a cruise every year, there would only be three kids.

I feel like the wisdom of our culture says that we should spend our money on cultivating stories for ourselves–that these stories are wise investments, without which we waste our lives. I get the impression that we regard children today as just another chapter in that story. They’re accessories that make for a good plot twist, or a road bump in the hero’s narrative. In the end, our culture sees children in much the way we see dogs: cute companions that go with you on your journey, who accentuate your style and personal brand, and then someday leave.

Instead, I think we should return to the view that children are investments. Every man who does not reproduce will die alone, if he is lucky enough reach old age. Every child a man has is one more chance to die in the arms of someone who loves him.

While lack of travel is certainly one regret many people admit when they reach old age, not having had children is a greater one. Carrie Fisher was recently interviewed about her life after Princess Leah on Star Wars. This is a woman who rubbed shoulders with the most powerful people in show-business; who traveled to far-flung, exotic places, and who lived a life that has become legend. When asked what she was most proud of in her life, she responded:

I’m proud my daughter turned out as well as she has…

When asked if she could tell her 22-year-old self one thing, what would it be? she responded:

Have more kids; put the pills down.

(It’s interesting that the transcript of the interview on Time omits her line about having kids. However, you can hear her say it near the end of this short video interview).

It’s very rare for a man to write his own obituary. Jim Rebhorn died recently. He was an actor who played supporting roles in many movies. Sensing his impending death, he wrote a short obituary for himself, which his church published after he died. I have copied it below for you. I highlighted his obituary by topic. Guess which topic a dying man wrote most about?

The obituary of Jim Rebhorn.

Life means that death can occur at any time, so the more kids you have, the better your chances are to leave some piece of you living when you pass. Noted author Neil Postman summed it up eloquently when he said,

My octogenarian grandparents visited me recently. They sat on my living room couch and played with my boy Gavin, and we talked about having more children. My papaw looked at me and spoke, matter-of-factly:

“We had four children. And now we have two.”


is best known as his alter-ego Oxhorn, author of popular machinima movies. When he's not wearing suspenders with a certain sort of finesse, he's reading, writing, blogging, doing web design, making movies and more often than not enjoying a classy drink with an even classier cigar. Watch his movies at and feel free to stalk him on Twitter and Facebook.

Posted in Essays, General, Manlyfesto
6 comments on “Trade Your Child for the Vacation of a Lifetime
  1. Shannon says:

    “…the more kids you have, the better your chances are to leave some piece of you living when you pass.”

    I totally understand that kids are for some people, not for other people. Personally, I would argue against people having lots of kids, as I don’t see the point, but, as you said, each to their own. I just wanted to nit-pick this one a bit.

    Kids are an awful way to leave a legacy. They’re hella unreliable. Even the best parent can end up with kids that they honestly wouldn’t like except for the fact that they’re “family”. The idea of instilling your own moral code into your children is compelling, but not very consistently successful. I would definitely not consider this a pro in terms of children-having. Writing a book, being a teacher, volunteering- while not as personal, probably better overall choices in terms of the scale of impact per hour spent.

    One thing that I do agree with very much, is that society kind of looks down on people who have lots of kids. Especially in places like where I live, where the average number of offspring per person is less than two. In many people’s perception, it’s a sign of low socio-economic status, irresponsibility, or laziness. (Oddly enough, same thing goes for those who have no kids.) Apparently unless you’re average, you’re wrong.

    • Brandon says:

      Great points, thanks for sharing. While I agree that kids are no guarantee that you’ll leave a good legacy, I also think that the other ways you mentioned–writing books or giving to charity–are far from foolproof. For example, consider the works of Spinoza. In his day, he was the most popular philosopher in the western world. But what percentage of people know of him today? I only learned of him because he was mention in a piece of literature I read that was written in that era. Legacy through works lasts but a hundred years if your lucky, or until a culture perishes if you’re extremely influential. Most notable Greek writers have been lost to time, with few exceptions like Aristotle. No Aztec thinkers are remembered today, though surely there were many. And yet, nearly every man and woman who reproduced during those periods exist today in someone else’s genes. Most thinkers today will leave behind a 300 word Wikipedia article that none will know exists in 100 years.

      Charity is a great way to help your contemporaries and make an impact today. However, once the people you helped in life die, you’re forgotten. Few others will remember your legacy.

      It’s true that having children is no guarantee that they will live your values. But if you invest in their rearing and education, you have a much greater chance that they will continue your legacy after you die, than that some stranger will. The more children you have, the greater opportunities you have to mold the direction of a life, and leave a lasting legacy.

      • Keith says:

        I discovered your blog, and find it fascinating and relatable to much of my thoughts on life. I understand your reasoning of producing and raising children as a form of legacy building. I respect that, but I am not certain with all of your reasoning.

        Bear in mind that children are not clones of their parents, as they will have their own interests and their own legacies to advance and nurture. They will not necessarily advance your legacy, other than genetics, beyond your life span.

        I am not certain that your analogy with Spinoza is an accurate one. Even though people may not recognize his name, greater realms of society still benefit from his contributions rather than those just from his hypothetical genetic lineage and parental skills. Unless one comes from a well-documented pedigree, I would challenge the average American to know much about their great, great, great grandfather. The passage of time will make a child-based legacy hazy or entirely unknown. Legions of mortals, all who were someone’s child and had inherent worth, are now nameless forgotten souls.

        I think a more accurate way of assessing longevity of legacy is examining the expenditure of your numbered days. One’s “child” could also be their creations: an invention, idea, a physical manifestation, or art. To have the strongest legacy, your creation(s) need(s) to have strong impact on as many surviving people as possible to escape the fields of the forgotten. So, if large amounts of progeny is your way of leaving virtual fingerprints on Earth, that’s OK. If your inventions, ideas, or other creations touch many people in other ways, that’s OK too.

        Perhaps the answer lies not so much in perpetuating our ego beyond our terminal existence but focusing on the now, the present, and being content with what you have done with the life you were presented and making the best of it. No one will care more about your legacy than yourself. So, be mindful of what you are creating with your life and acknowledge it is a representation of you.

        • Brandon says:

          Excellent comment. I agree with you entirely. I do think, however, that the vast majority of people who focus their time on earth creating art, building companies, and other corporeal things will never be remembered. EVen if they are praised by their contemporaries, the majority of such things are forgotten in a generation. It is the incredible minority–the Rembrandts, daVincis, and Carnegies, that are remembered by history. Even if one sacrifices one’s progeny for art or career, the odds are that you’ll leave no legacy.

          I recognize that children are not carbon copies of their parents. There is no guarantee that my children will hold my values. But I think that of all the people on earth, I have the best chance of convincing my offspring to reason a certain way, than anyone else. I may fail, but the odds are in my favor. This is why the Soviets took over education. This is why Big Brother focused on brainwashing children in 1984. Children’s perceptions of the world are often forged by their immediate caregivers in early life.

          I also want to point out that one’s offspring are the best social security. As I mentioned earlier in the article, few people, when old, wish they had spent more time making art or building businesses. The greatest regrets in life are not having children, and not having traveled as much. I argue that those who regret not having traveled probably have children. Those who don’t probably don’t hold travel up to the same level of regret as having children.

          Unless you are very wealthy indeed, and can afford caretakers, the elderly have three options. 1) Die before you become infirm. 2) Get admitted to a government or charity funded home for the sick and elderly, living on social security for the rest of your life. 3) Be cared for by your descendants.

          Those without descendants have only two options.

  2. MaartenF says:

    Does it matter if somebody remembers Spinoza? I would say that the majority of people don’t care about old philosophers and those who DO care ( I am one of them) will encounter his works in some way or another just because they read a lot. After all Spinoza’s legacy has been preserved, so those who do have the interest have also the means to find their subject. The starting point can be as accessible as an copy of ‘Philosophy for Dummies’

    On the subject of kids, my view is that it’s nobody’s business except that of the couple involved. The man and woman can discuss that without society tellign them what to do and the woman has the final word. (because she does most of the ‘work’ ) A relative of mine had 3 children, all births were hazardous for the mother so she decided that the 3rd would be the last, overruling any earlier planning (if any, I wouldn’t know because it’s not my business)

    If society for example deems it preferable that people have less offspring (for example to prevent overpopulation) she may try to influence the people with education or other means, but never force people into behaving in one way or another. People will follow if they have a good case, and if they don;t why would we want to follow?

    I don’t really understand the wish for a legacy, after all you won’t be here anymore in 100 years so what does it matter how many people still remember you by then?

    I am glad I can enjoy your works right now. I found your site through an old warcraft video on youtube. I immediately thought “hey this video has some class not often found in the typical game video,” i am intrigued, who’s behind this? So I found you already have some sort of legacy, well done sir! But I think you made that for your own enjoyment, the enjoyment of others (the viewers), maybe a bit of coin, financial compensation doesn’t hurt, etc But never because you thought: ” I hope they remember me after I am dead”

    • Brandon says:

      The point of a legacy is that you want the world to be better, even if you’re not in it to enjoy those benefits. If you believe that Apple is good, and that those who practice Apple will live better lives and be happier, then a man should strive during his life to combat Orange and promote Apple, even if he will never live to see his efforts bear fruit.

      I’ve done a great many things without thinking of my legacy. I had a nice bowl of beef stew for dinner, and not a thought of legacy went into my eating it. When I do other things that have the potential to outlive me, I want to keep my legacy in mind, so that I can turn some people away from Orange and towards Apple.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


The Tale of Cloran Hastings

Buy me a cigar!

Classy Ads