Fun thing I realized: with startups, you have a _maybe_ 1% chance you'll "change the future."

With children: ~100% chance because you'll be in your child's life.

And you don't need VC funding.

Well, in most countries, you get external funding from childless people which are paying higher taxes... If people were to pay entirely for the education and health of their offsprings, they would be way less babies in the developed world. And I don't even mention externalities. A human being in a developed country has a big impact on the environment, if people had to pay for it, having a child would out of reach of most.

Which is partly true. Those children will also grow up and pay taxes and contribute to companies which in turn fund the retirement accounts of the elderly community.

So an investment. But an investment is also a cost that you might not be able to afford upfront.

> having a child would out of reach of most

I think that just means more children get less fulfilling lives.

At least that seems to be the case in countries where children are not subsidised.

> If people were to pay entirely for the education and health of their offsprings, they would be way less babies in the developed world.

On the contrary I'd bet that if both these services weren't subsidized so much, they'd be far cheaper. Nature will create the need either way.

Until they get to college...