Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, by Bryan Caplan

Bryan Caplan is on a mission.  This parenting book is not written by a psychologist, counselor, or pediatrician.  Caplan is an economist.  As an economist, one of his interests is measuring costs and benefits; he knows that a good investment is one in which the reutrns justify the investment.  In Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think, he demonstrates that the costs of parenthood don't have to be as great as they sometimes are and that benefits or returns are usually greater than we realize.

First, the macroeconomic question.  One of Caplan's inspiration was Julian Simon, who argued that man, as the title of his most well-known book indicates, is The Ultimate Resource.  In other words, every person born is not just a consumer--sure, the first years of life are spent primarily consuming--but virtually everyone makes a contribution.  As long as they're "alive and self-supporting" they are a net gain to humanity.  And, of course, as we grow older we need younger people to sustain society as we age and fade back into a position of being a net consumer.

Most of Selfish Reasons is spent on the microeconomic level, arguing that for an individual family more kids are better than fewer.  Caplan asks for parents to think long term when considering family size.  When you have a little one at home, keeping you up nights and requiring constant diapering and feeding (or two, as Caplan did with twins), you think, "No more!"  Or when you have two or three running around to sports and school activities in different places, you think, "This is plenty!"  But when the kids are out of the house, married and having kids, that's when it's nice to have a bunch.  More kids increases your chances of having more grandkids, which, as my Dad (father of 4) says, is when parenting pays off!  More kids also means better odds that you have an adult son or daughter come around to visit or help out when you're old and lonely.

One of the reasons some people choose not to have more kids is the pressure for performance.  Parents want their children to succeed academically, to be involved in sports, music lessons, etc.  Parents believe that if they have more kids, they have less time to invest in their kids' development.  But Caplan compiles the results from twin and adoption studies that show that parents ought to just relax.  There is very little we do as parents that determines the long-term success of our children.  We might have some short-term impact, but nature wins out over nurture.  Caplan says that we think children are like clay, that we can shape them and mold them.  But in reality, they are more like plastic; when we mold and shape them, they may stay that shape for a while, but they ultimately pop back into their original shape.

Because we have little long-term impact, we should avoid activities or parenting methods that introduce undue stress or difficulty on the family.  The little guy doesn't want to go to karate class?  Stay home and play.  The little girl doesn't want to go to ballet?  No sweat.  An easier schedule will make happier parents, and the kids won't be any worse off.

Of course, there are limits to Caplan's arguments.  He points out that all of the twin and adoption studies involve first-world families.  There are obvious benefits for children raised in the developed world where nutrition, sanitation, and health care are adequate.  And he certainly does not promote neglecting or ignoring your children altogether.  But he emphasizes relaxing.  Rather than get stressed out about parenting, reading parenting books, signing up for all the activities we can fit in, and worrying about college prospects of graduates of certain preschools, Caplan says if we can be approved by a typical adoption agency, we are good enough parents.  All of our other efforts, for whatever short-term impact they have, have very little long-term effects.

Caplan's writing is certainly entertaining, especially considering that he's an academic economist, and, I think, he makes a compelling argument.  But I'm an easy audience: I have a huge admiration for parents who choose large families, and as a father of 3, I can't help thinking that we're not done.  We have two biological children and one adopted, and hope to add by adoption at some point.  I do wish he would have spent more time addressing family growth by adoption.  I share Caplan's hope, that couples who have no kids will think about having a couple, and that couples with two or three might think about having a couple more.