Why did Ray choose not to have a child?

[Logan-]

I think this is an important topic, and I think, as a biologist and thinker, he may have interesting thoughts about having offspring.

Has anyone asked Ray Peat about his choice of not having a child, and his thoughts on having offspring in general?

 

[-Luke-]

He was asked a couple of times if he had children and/or was married and answered with a brief "No". So I guess it's something he doesn't want to discuss in public (which is his good right) and one can only speculate about the reasons. The most Jodelle could once get out of him was that he's been in a relationship for over 40 years.

As far as I know, no one has ever asked the "Why?" question.

 

[VonKeister]

Probably because he doesn't want to put children in a decaying world

 

[Lonewolfx]

Obviously to keep cortisol levels low.

 

[Peatful]

Peat is a father to many.
Just not in the traditional sense.

 

[tenkaypm]

I don't think he chose not to have children, just hasn't had so far

 

[Sunny Jack]

I think it would be improper to ask him, either way. Perhaps he didn't want to, perhaps he couldn't, perhaps his wife couldn't. Ray has a way of hinting that he doesn't wish to discuss certain personal questions. If we are friends of his, we should respect this.

 

[Jonathan Estis]

Soyciety:
You NEED to get married
You NEED to pass on your genetic code
You NEED to waste your time taking care of a little retard who will bring diminishing rewards when they're older

RayPeat(chadface): No

 

[aniciete]

You NEED to waste your time taking care of a little retard who will bring diminishing rewards when they're older

Hopefully you never have children

 

[Jonathan Estis]

Hopefully you never have children

 

[Sunny Jack]

How hoggish soft-skull! How very silly you are, throbbing your skull and face in such a foolish manner! How very foolish you are, Chi-wanese!

 

[A.D.]

Obviously to keep cortisol levels low.

LMAO! Facts. Kids are bad for your thyroid.

 

[FrostedShores]

It's unfortunate. Given all that he knows, he could have raised some super healthy kids. Then again, healthy people don't always have healthy children, and vice versa...

 

[FrostedShores]

Soyciety:
You NEED to get married
You NEED to pass on your genetic code
You NEED to waste your time taking care of a little retard who will bring diminishing rewards when they're older
View attachment 44841

RayPeat(chadface): No
View attachment 44842

Not sure where you're coming from, but seems to me society is saying the exact opposite: "Don't get married. Don't have children. Be a nihilistic hedonist. Believe in nothing. Die alone."

 

[Jonk]

LMAO! Facts. Kids are bad for your thyroid.

Maybe, but also Ray is in favor of a meaningful and stimulating life, rather than e.g. meaningless exercise. I can only imagine, but raising kids -should- be very meaningful.

 

[Jonk]

Not sure where you're coming from, but seems to me society is saying the exact opposite: "Don't get married. Don't have children. Be a nihilistic hedonist. Believe in nothing. Die alone."

And then act like they are part of some counter culture haha

 

[Zigzag]

Not sure where you're coming from, but seems to me society is saying the exact opposite: "Don't get married. Don't have children. Be a nihilistic hedonist. Believe in nothing. Die alone."

Maybe in your super leftist country.

 

[stoic]

Not sure where you're coming from, but seems to me society is saying the exact opposite: "Don't get married. Don't have children. Be a nihilistic hedonist. Believe in nothing. Die alone."

And then act like they are part of some counter culture haha

I agree.

Having lived in a few Western countries, some of which were fairly conservative, the general opinion among young people seemed to be that a) children are a big hassle and should be had as late as possible (if at all) in order to avoid wasting one's youth, b) there already too many people on the planet, so having children is an egocentric choice, and c) the world we live in is too decadent to raise children anyway.

Point a) is only true if one values temporary hedonistic pleasure above anything else — not the best plan for long-term life satisfaction, in my opinion. The West has become somewhat anti-child, but that can rapidly change if people start prioritising children and families again.

Point b) is ridiculous: every single Western country is in great demographic trouble, with their entire social and economic systems being dependent on a constant flux of immigrants to temporary contain the inevitable collapse. As long as most women are having less than 2 or 3 children, the population will keep shrinking and any talk about overpopulation is misplaced. Some third world countries are indeed growing very fast, but their growth wil also sooner or later stabilise, and Westerners not having children certainly won't do anything to sustainably solve the problem.

As for point c), anyone who believes that should pick up a history book. Our ancestors have gone through much worse times; in many respects, this is actually the easiest time to live and grow in history. If early humans had thought like some of the posters here, the human species would have gone extinct a long time ago. We do have some important issues to sort out, but not having children will only accelerate the downward spiral.

 

[Runenight201]

I agree.

Having lived in a few Western countries, some of which were fairly conservative, the general opinion among young people seemed to be that a) children are a big hassle and should be had as late as possible (if at all) in order to avoid wasting one's youth, b) there already too many people on the planet, so having children is an egocentric choice, and c) the world we live in is too decadent to raise children anyway.

Point a) is only true if one values temporary hedonistic pleasure above anything else — not the best plan for long-term life satisfaction, in my opinion. The West has become somewhat anti-child, but that can rapidly change if people start prioritising children and families again.

Point b) is ridiculous: every single Western country is in great demographic trouble, with their entire social and economic systems being dependent on a constant flux of immigrants to temporary contain the inevitable collapse. As long as most women are having less than 2 or 3 children, the population will keep shrinking and any talk about overpopulation is misplaced. Some third world countries are indeed growing very fast, but their growth wil also sooner or later stabilise, and Westerners not having children certainly won't do anything to sustainably solve the problem.

As for point c), anyone who believes that should pick up a history book. Our ancestors have gone through much worse times; in many respects, this is actually the easiest time to live and grow in history. If early humans had thought like some of the posters here, the human species would have gone extinct a long time ago. We do have some important issues to sort out, but not having children will only accelerate the downward spiral.

Back in antiquity having a child provided survival advantages. An extra hand meant another person to work and secure the living. Big reversal nowadays. A child is more of a hinderance to the family unit then a support. Having a child is a fruit of wealth than a survivalship advantage. If millennials are constantly stressed and can barely take care of themselves, why the hell would they have children.

 

[-Luke-]

Soyciety:

Freudian slip?