Knowing how messed-up I am growing up from whatever family I am from, I never wanted a child of my own. Because I know whatever good intention I have, I cannot avoid hurting the child and messing him/her up tremendously.
Looking at the emptiness and loneliness and desperation that I feel daily, I never want another child to feel the same ever again. My insecurity, low self-esteem, self-sabotaging and intense fear originated from my birth and will keep rippling into the lives of my offspring unless I stop the vicious cycle. There is absolutely no need to create a living human being to suffer through another generation of ignorance and abuse.
Having made up my mind but looking at the suffering lives of children that are already irresponsibly brought to this world, it seems the best option here is to adopt a child after I reached my financial security. Because however messed-up I am, I am confident enough to provide a caring and nurturing home the best I can for them comparing to their alternative fate. At least I don't do drugs, and I won't beat them up or sexually molest them, the things I need to guard against, though, are verbal abuse and ignoring, which seem to be easily inherited non-genetically.
So the basic idea is that I won't bring another child to this planet for the suffering it will go through for its entire life only because I happened to be the biological Mom as messed-up as I am, but I can try to make a better life out of those children who might have to go through worse. From a perspective of the whole population, this is beneficial act.
End of story.
(I am very impressed at how noble this article sounds like, but I always doubt anything that sounds very noble....so I decided to make some mathematical logic out of it)
To summarize it in math, so we assume the human population is X, and the level of miserableness for each individual is a variable P, Pa is the average, the miserableness of my child (adopted or biological) would be Pm (m for Molly), and the miserableness of an orphan is Po, Assume Pm < Po, the miserableness of the whole population would be:
if I have my own child, and there is an orphan some out there not taken care of:
(X-1)•Pa + 1• Po + 1• Pm = X•Pa + Pm + Po - Pa
if I adopt that orphan:
(X-1)•Pa +1• Pm= X•Pa +Pm-Pa
Obviously the later is smaller than the former, in this case, the general miserableness of the world is decreased.
But after twisting the question a little bit by replacing the miserableness with happiness, something interesting shows up:
Let's assume the assume the human population is X, and the level of happiness for each individual is a variable Q, Qa is the average, the happiness of my child (adopted or biological) would be Qm (m for Molly), and the happiness of an orphan is Qo, Assume Qm > Qo, the happiness of the whole population would be:
if I have my own child and leave that orphan out there:
(X-1)•Qa + 1• Qo+ 1• Qm = X•Qa + Qm + Qo - Qa
if I adopt that orphan:
(X-1)•Qa +1• Qm= X•Qa +Qm-Qa
Apparently this case the happiness of the whole population is also reduced if I choose to adopt a child. The explanation is very simple, because If I create a extra human being and she or he will definitely have some happiness to add into the happiness pool.
But the question is, what if the happiness of my biological child (Qm) is less than the happiness increase of the orphan child (Qm-Qo) if I adopted him/her? in that case the general happiness of the world would be larger if I adopted a child. But that is the obviously impossible to happen because
Qm > Qm-Qo
So after all the mathematical calculation, the happiness (miserableness) of the whole world will increase (decrease) if I have my own child instead of adopting an orphan, which is exactly the opposite of my original thinking. I think the problem came from that I calculated the population as X+1 when I have my own child in comparison to X when I adopt an orphan. so of course the total sum will be increasing as long as P and Q are positive number. But the real case is because the world population is so large and there are so many variables of life and death going on everyday, that we can assume the population of the world is a constant X.
in which case: (to be continued....)
Continue 4-8-2012, Sunday
World miserableness when Molly adopts:
P1(world) = (X-1)Pa + Pm = X•Pa + Pm -Pa
World miserableness when Molly borns...
P2(world) = (X-2)Pa + Po + Pm = X•Pa + Pm + Po - 2Pa
P2(world) - P1(world) = Po-Pa
Because Po > Pa (Assume the miserableness of orphan is larger than average popultion)
then P2(World) > P1 (world), When Molly borns there is more miserableness than when Molly adopts.
Similar calculation for happiness:
when Molly adopts,
Q1 (world) = (X-1)Qa + Qm =X•Qa + Qm - Qa
when Molly borns,
Q2 (world)= (X-2)Qa + Qm + Qo = X•Qa + Qm + Qo - 2Qa
Q2-Q1= Qo-Qa,
Because of assumption: Qo<Qa,
then Q2-Q1<0, so Q2<Q1,
Therefore the world happiness is less when Molly borns than when Molly adopts.
Now my mathematical equation matches my logical prediction. And very interesting to note that, in the final equation
Q1-Q2= Qo-Qa, the world's final happiness is totally not related to Molly's ability to raise a child because Qm is eliminated from the equation, it's only related to the average happiness of the population Qa and the happiness of an orphan Qo. As long as the happiness of an orphan is less than that of average, it's always more beneficial to adopt than to give birth.
Well that is because I only considered two scenario, in which Molly either has to adopt one child or she has to give birth to only one child. I assume either way the outcome of the child happiness is the same therefore cancel each other during the subtraction. There could be more alternative choices, like Q3 (Molly keeps being childless), Q4 (Molly gives birth to more than one child ), Q5 (Molly adopts more than one child), Q6 (Molly both borns and adopts), etc etc..... it will be more complicated and more interesting than just simple adding and subtraction.
I think I will come back to this sometime later just to upscale the whole complexity of the problem by incorporating multiple options and having different assumptions.
(at the same time I hope my PhD ex in math and such wouldn't be visiting my blog to laugh at my silliness.)
Continue 4-8-2012, Sunday
World miserableness when Molly adopts:
P1(world) = (X-1)Pa + Pm = X•Pa + Pm -Pa
World miserableness when Molly borns...
P2(world) = (X-2)Pa + Po + Pm = X•Pa + Pm + Po - 2Pa
P2(world) - P1(world) = Po-Pa
Because Po > Pa (Assume the miserableness of orphan is larger than average popultion)
then P2(World) > P1 (world), When Molly borns there is more miserableness than when Molly adopts.
Similar calculation for happiness:
when Molly adopts,
Q1 (world) = (X-1)Qa + Qm =X•Qa + Qm - Qa
when Molly borns,
Q2 (world)= (X-2)Qa + Qm + Qo = X•Qa + Qm + Qo - 2Qa
Q2-Q1= Qo-Qa,
Because of assumption: Qo<Qa,
then Q2-Q1<0, so Q2<Q1,
Therefore the world happiness is less when Molly borns than when Molly adopts.
Now my mathematical equation matches my logical prediction. And very interesting to note that, in the final equation
Q1-Q2= Qo-Qa, the world's final happiness is totally not related to Molly's ability to raise a child because Qm is eliminated from the equation, it's only related to the average happiness of the population Qa and the happiness of an orphan Qo. As long as the happiness of an orphan is less than that of average, it's always more beneficial to adopt than to give birth.
Well that is because I only considered two scenario, in which Molly either has to adopt one child or she has to give birth to only one child. I assume either way the outcome of the child happiness is the same therefore cancel each other during the subtraction. There could be more alternative choices, like Q3 (Molly keeps being childless), Q4 (Molly gives birth to more than one child ), Q5 (Molly adopts more than one child), Q6 (Molly both borns and adopts), etc etc..... it will be more complicated and more interesting than just simple adding and subtraction.
I think I will come back to this sometime later just to upscale the whole complexity of the problem by incorporating multiple options and having different assumptions.
(at the same time I hope my PhD ex in math and such wouldn't be visiting my blog to laugh at my silliness.)
I always enjoy reading your blog, so I hope I can contribute something.
ReplyDelete1 the assumption for the second part is not reasonable. A scientific way to do a comparison is to use parallel experiments, which means everything else is assumed the same except the variable you want to study.
2 For the first part, the average level of happiness or misery should be used instead of the total amount. Similarly, it’s not scientific to say Chinese are so happy because of the high GDP of China. On the contrary, GDP per people is actually very low for Chinese.
3 There must be some relationship between one's happiness and misery, because one can't be very miseriable and very happy at the same time.
Below is my math:
n: population, Ha: average happiness, Ho: orphan happiness, Hm: happiness of molly’s baby
The average happiness of human being should be
No adopt, no born: nHa/n=Ha
Adopt, no born: (nHa-Ho+Hm)/n=Ha+(Hm-Ho)/n
No adopt, but born: (nHa+Hm)/(n+1)=Ha+(Hm-Ha)/(n+1)
So if Hm>Ho, average happiness will increase, which means if you can give a orphan a better home, the human being is happier.
If Hm>Ha, average happiness will increase as well, which means if you can make your biological baby happier than the average, the human being is happier.
Same thing for the misery:
No adopt, no born: nMa/n=Ma
Adopt, no born: (nMa-Mo+Mm)/n=Ma+(Mm-Mo)/n
No adopt, but born: (nMa+Mm)/(n+1)=Ma+(Mm-Ma)/(n+1)
So if Mm<Mo, average misery will decrease, which means if you can give less misery to a orphan, the world becomes better.
If Mm<Ma, average misery will decrease as well, which means if you can give less misery to your biological baby, the world becomes better.
All the results are consistent and reasonable. Case solved!
Dear Anonymous,
DeleteI am highly flattered that you always enjoy reading my blog and also am deeply impressed at your sharpness in pointing out the fundamental flaws in my basic assumptions.
I totally agree that the average happiness should be used instead of assuming that the total population is constant.
and your result is totally convincing.
I just want to add that, based on your equations, if we do "Adopt, no born" - "No adopt but born" and try to figure out if the result is positive and negative, is the result >0, it means Molly should adopt than give birth, if the result <0, it means Molly should give birth than adopt,
so we get:
Ha + (Hm-Ho)/n - Ha - (Hm-Ha)/(n+1) = Hm/n - Ho/n - Hm/(n+1) + Ha/(n+1) = Hm /[n(n+1)] - Ho/n + Ha/(n+1) =.......
= [n(Ha-Ho)+(Hm-Ho)]/[n(n+1)]
because n(n+1) is always positive, so if we want to figure out if the result is positive or negative, we can only look at the denominator n(Ha-Ho)+ Hm-Ho
this is very interesting result, because
If Ha-Ho is a relatively large number, (Ha>>Ho),meaning the difference of happiness between average child and orphan child is large, then you time the difference with the whole population n (n is a very large number), n(Ha-Ho) is going to be a very large number, in comparison, Hm-Ho can be ignored, the result will always be positive, meaning "it's always better to adopt than to born"
In contrast, if Ha-Ho is a very small number, meaning the world is a very nice place in which orphan child have similar happiness as average child, then n(Ha-Ho) will be a smaller number, if the Ha-Ho is small enough to the point that it's almost zero, Ha≈Ho, then n(Ha-Ho)≈0, in this case the n(Ha-Ho)-(Hm-Ho)≈ Hm-Ho =Hm-Ha (because Ho≈Ha), the result totally depends on the difference between Hm and Ha--Molly's ability to raise a child in comparison to the average.
As I delve deeper into the problem, I get even more interesting result relating the social equality.
DeleteLet's say we are examine the sign (positive or negative) of
n(Ha-Ho)+Hm-Ho,
and because as I analyzed earlier, we can see that Ha-Ho is a sign of how nice the world is, we can define that Z=Ha-Ho, naming Z as the index of social equality (in term of orphan happiness). So we assume that orphan is to be either equally happy as average or less happy as average, so Z is ranging from 0 to ∞.
So now nZ + Hm-Ho = nZ + Hm - (Ha-Z) = (n-1)Z + Hm-Ha
Assume that at one point that the happiness of "adopt, no born" = "born, no adopt", which is the balance point, and it could only be achieved when Z is a relatively small number AND Hm < Ha,
so (n-1)Z= Ha-Hm
Z=(Ha-Hm)/(n-1)
If Hm is a constant number, meaning Molly's ability to raise a child is certain and not changing with time, and also Hm < Ha.
in the case the index of social equality Z should equal to the difference of Ha-Hm diluted by the whole population.
basically it's the same thing as saying, "the existence of a bad mother can be rectified by the society's ability to provide happiness to an orphan"
And also how much effort the society should put into orphan happiness (how large Ha-Ho is ), is related to:
Delete1) how bad the bad mother is (how large Ha-Hm is). The worse a bad mother is, the more effort the society should put.
2) how large the total population is. the larger the population, the more diluted is the bad mother's impact, thus the less effort required for the society.
I like your deep extension. I totally agree your conclusions from the math.
DeleteOne thing I want to add is there are many other factors beyond the equation.
1 human is selfish: so facing different choices, one will choose the choice which will maximize his own interest. People always prefer born instead of adoption is because progenies will carry half of your genetic information. Biological children should be more reliable because blood relationship is a much stronger connection.
2 adoption or born can also affect the happiness of parents, which is ignored in the equation. So born may give more happiness to the parents than adoption.
3 The parents of orphans may have substantial disease or low intelligence. So those orphans may have a high chance to inherit those defect genes. Considering the gene pool of human being, the average may be dragged down by the survival of orphans. However, this point is kind of social Darwinism, and immoral.