The Advantages of Older Fatherhood. Originally published 09/19/2019

20230128

This is a piece I wrote four years ago on older fatherhood.  That turns out to have been four months before Oksana became pregnant with our third, Marianna. 

Pointing out the risks involved in men's siring children later in life is a constant theme in the anti-fertility drumbeat. The thesis has been that the world has enough people already and we should avoid having children unless we are ideally positioned to do so. Older men, so the thesis goes, are not.

The fact is that developed societies throughout the world are not reproducing themselves. This includes the most numerous and most highly intelligent, the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, and European peoples on that continent and its former colonies.

A significant number of older men become available for marriage. Though some are widowed, the more common path is divorce.  Women are more often drawn by progressives' emotional appeals while the husband retains a pragmatic, traditional view of the world.  Or, she becomes wrapped up in a career and no longer needs him.  One way or another, whether they sought the freedom or not, older men find themselves no longer bound by obligations to former wives, children and grandchildren. They are free to start over.

Having children is in the interest of the human societies – not always identical with their governments – and of the governments themselves.  Children of our peoples will enjoy better prospects among others like themselves than among a mix of other ethnicities. Governments, whoever their citizens may be, have a constant need for new generations of taxpayers and soldiers.

The thesis that older men should not have children is misguided and detrimental to both society and government. Identitarians, the people that are making the strongest case for increasing the fertility of their own groups, should look at older men as natural allies and recruit us to the cause. Older men identify more strongly with the societies into which they were born.  They retain traditional values. They have demonstrated by their survival and success that they have "the right stuff," worth passing on to a new generation. And, they generally have the material resources to support children.  If they are denied the opportunity to pass their culture down to their grandchildren, they should consider simply starting a new family.

Ignoring this resource, encouraging older men to fritter away the last few decades of life traveling and playing golf is precisely the wrong thing to do. They should be standing shoulder to shoulder with young men who are re-finding their identities as both work to raise strong families to perpetuate their heritage.

Genetics

Genetics lie at the core of most arguments against older fatherhood. The argument bears examination.  Although the bulk of the deleterious mutations that appear in every person's genome are inherited from their parents, older men are more inclined to have de novo mutations to their genome - those that appear within the lifetime of the carrier.

According to Alexey Kondrashov, author of Crumbling Genome, most mutations arise spontaneously, attributable to neither radiation nor chemical interference. It is simply a risk involved in the process of cell division and replication. Different organisms experience different rates of mutation. In human beings it is approximately 100 de novo mutations per generation, of which 10 are deleterious. These originate in the parents and are passed to children through their gametes.  To keep the mutation load on a genome constant, the same number of mutations has to be eliminated in each generation – dropped from the genome, not passed along - as appear de novo. Kondrashov and others note that natural selection has been less operative among humans since the Industrial Revolution. Since so few die young, and society supports the children born to our worst specimens, deleterious mutations have been accumulating.

The germline cells in the mother do not duplicate themselves after her birth. The father's germline, on the other hand, continues to divide throughout his life. The number of mutations is a function of the number divisions, which is a function of his age.  As a rough approximation, a child will receive a number of de novo mutations equal to about half the father's age. Most mutations being neutral, this means that the load of deleterious de novo mutations will range between 10 and 30, depending primarily on paternal age.

This arithmetic would favor younger fathers. On the positive side, one could also expect that a disproportionate number of beneficial mutations would also come from older fathers. But this is hard to measure. Beneficial mutations are more rare. Moreover, they are usually associated with complex traits, whereas the detrimental ones are frequently associated with a single gene.

Although de novo mutations tend to be more deleterious, their number is small alongside the thousand or so inherited mutations.  Kondrashov presents a table showing that in the genome of a newborn, de novo mutations make up 10% of the most deleterious mutations (reducing fitness by 10% or more), 1% of the next tranche, those which reduce fitness by 1% or more, and 0.1% and .001% of the lesser orders of magnitude of deleterious mutations.  However old a father may be, he can take comfort in the fact that a significantly greater percentage of his children's load of deleterious genes will be ones he and is wife inherited rather than de novo. The increase in their risk of deleterious mutations would appear to be no more than about 25%. If the other componenents of his genome gives them a 25% edge in terms of charm, good looks and intelligence it would seem to be a fair trade.

Genetic advantages of an older father

An older guy who is available for marriage probably inherited fewer deleterious mutations than most. He obviously didn't inherit anything that would kill him young.  Heart disease is about 30% heritable. The older guy was fit enough to marry probably doesn't have it.  Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia are about 50% heritable. The older husband who doesn't yet show any signs of dementia is less likely to carry those mutations.  An older guy on the marriage market is less likely to carry genetic mutations favoring bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or other conditions that reveal themselves over the course of adult life.

The older fellow who is available for marriage it is probably genetically blessed with of the personality traits that make a person successful in life. On the OCEAN scale, he is more likely to be open, conscientious, and agreeable and less likely to be neurotic. He may also be a bit less extroverted – statistics show that extroverts are prone to take both physical and health risks that cause them to die a little bit younger.

An older man who is available for marriage has almost certainly been successful in life, and intelligence is a major predictor of success. Intelligence is about 80% heritable. As an aside, the other 20% is not due to environment – it simply can't be explained. A woman cannot control her own contribution to the child's intelligence – it is baked into her genome. But if the older partner she attracts has a 30 IQ point advantage over a younger suitor, she can reasonably expect her children will be correspondingly smarter.  15 points of IQ is a huge advantage in life, the difference between a teacher and a professor, or a paralegal and a lawyer.

Part of the argument about de novo mutations is that since the rates of childhood mortality fell from about 50% at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to today's 1%, an increasing number of deleterious genes are retained in each successive generation. They are not being flushed out of the gene pool by failures to reproduce.  The older father is one or two generations less removed from the Industrial Revolution.  If one were to assume that more deleterious mutations would have accrued to his father and grandfather and been passed down to him had he been born later than would have been lost, his overall load of deleterious mutations would not be increased at all.

Those of his de novo mutations that are deadly would have been deadly as well in the intervening generations. He would not have received them. However, those that are survivable, such as those contributing to a disagreeable personality, might not be flushed out. Modern society supports and even pampers individuals with antisocial personalities, whereas prior to the Industrial Revolution if you did not have what it took to make a living and attract a mate you may well have perished childless. Moreover, your children would have died rather than being saved by the state as is the case today.

In the end, though the older father will have somewhat more deleterious mutations, his genome will probably be superior as well in many particulars to that of a young woman's younger potential partner. 

What do we want out of life?

Taking the genetic arguments as a background, it is worth looking at the broader context. The happiness of the individual is the focus of just about every argument concerning parenthood in general, and older fatherhood in particular.  But there are broader concerns too.  The points of view to take into consideration include:

·        The older man's point of view

·        The younger wife's point of view

·        The children's point of view

·        The state's point of view.  The political entity needs a self-renewing population to perpetuate itself.

·        Society's point of view.  Society has an interest in perpetuating itself – the culture, values, traditions and so on.  That interest may be at variance with those of the individuals and the state.  Big multi-ethnic states can embrace many societies, often with conflicting interests.

What do people want out of life?  What are a person's personal goals in life? These apply about equally to people of any age.  They are cast here in terms of the potential older father, as he is presumably the one who would initiate the marriage. "Pursuit of happiness" is written into the United States Constitution. In today's interpretation, it most often means the pursuit of pleasure. Will children make a man happy?

Children take time and money away from the pursuit of commercialized happiness. They leave a man less time to pursue tennis or golf. It is harder to slip away to a movie. He can find time to watch a video at home only by ignoring the kids for a while – maybe parking them in front of a video instead of talking to them, playing with them, or helping them learn to cook, clean, and study. A man whose concept of "happiness" is defined by skiing, surfing or attending rock concerts will find that children are antithetical to happiness.

Personal consumption is a major element in many men's concept of happiness.  They want the latest iGadgets, imported wines and prestigious Swiss watches. Children are expensive – all but the wealthiest men have to make trade-offs. Children themselves can be a vehicle for conspicuous consumption. Sending them to expensive private schools, exclusive camps, and Ivy League universities burns money almost as effectively as buying yachts.

It is impossible to measure the absolute level of pleasure that comes from sex. Nonetheless, it is obviously a scarce commodity. The more desirable the partner, and the more frequent, the rarer it is.  To a real horn dog like Bill Clinton or Harvey Weinstein, a marriage – even more one with children – is an impediment to sexual gratification. The man raising children within a marriage can be reasonably sure of getting sex every now and again, but he can be equally sure that he will not get all he wants. The man who equates happiness with frequent sex is better off being a wealthy bachelor, frequenting prostitutes, using Tinder, or being homosexual.  Just by the way, an older husband, presumably with a somewhat reduced libido, has is likely to be better matched to his wife in this regard.

Happiness used to mean satisfaction rather than mere, fleeting pleasure. It is the satisfaction that comes from status in the community. The respect that comes from being successful in one's undertakings, having a successful marriage, and being a contributing member to the church and other organizations.

Responsibility for a family gives a man a reason for living.  The family provides emotional support. A lifelong partnership gives a man an anchor in life, a sense of stability.  Happiness comes with satisfying ones felt obligation to God and/or the church, one's clan, one's tribe and one's nation. For a patriot, serving his country brings happiness.

Family financial stability

For the past half-century the government has been a better bet for long-term financial security than children. For one thing, at the present, fewer children are doing materially better than their parents  They are not in a position to take care of them. For another, the government has shouldered aside children, private charity and all else who might enter the business of caring for the elderly. It is government turf. Raising children in the hopes that they will care for you and your declining years has been a losing proposition.

It is increasingly clear that there is no way that government can fulfill the promises that have been made with regard to health care and pensions. Both government and private pensions are underwater. In an atmosphere of 0% interest, they simply cannot earn the actuarially projected 7% annual return. Although few people are yet talking about it, it appears that there will be no alternative to supporting yourself or having your children support you in old age.  Health care is worse.  Just as more people are attaining a ripe age, there are fewer doctors, and fewer children with the skills needed to become doctors. Government control of the healthcare sector and healthcare funding has made it an unattractive field for doctors to enter. They have also made healthcare insurance and healthcare itself extremely expensive. As usual, the baby boomers are in better shape than the succeeding generations.

Community involvement

Being married provides a man with a secure niche in society. Other people know how to peg him: married with children. He is automatically included in other social groupings – the PTA, parents who carpool, babysitting cooperatives, swimming pool parents and the like.

These connections keep an older father involved in society. It is easy for a retiree to let go of life bit by bit as his family obligations are satisfied and no new ones appear. A late life family poses real obligations and compels a man to remain connected with society.

Why would an older man start a family?

Having children doesn't offer any material benefit for the older prospective father. If he is already old, he won't last long enough for children to care for him in his dotage.  Having a younger wife will confer status whether or not she bears him children. The tax and welfare benefits of having children are laughably small. In the final analysis, the only motivation is to have children for their own sake. To follow some higher calling, such as an obligation to ancestors, society or the church.

Why do women have children in the first place?

All of Western society has been drenched for decades with anti-fertility messages. There are too many people on earth, it is claimed. Westerners, because of our material consumption, are the most damaging. Our societies are inherently unfair to women, racial minorities and sexual minorities among others, and should simply be allowed to die out.  Add to that the scare stories from women's magazines about the genetic risks of an older father.

The practical arguments against having children are parallel those for a man, only in a somewhat exaggerated way.  A woman, being the primary caregiver, typically gives more of herself to a family than does her husband. She is the one who carries the child for nine months and gives it her breast for another two years.  She enjoys the status of being a mother, however much that status is worth in the society in which she finds herself. Motherhood is more highly esteemed in less-developed countries than in today's West.

An advantage which is currently underrated, is the children will give her support later in life. Modern society offers a vast number of examples of women past their childbearing years who do not have the support of either a husband or children. Surveys find that they are just about as content as married women. They live longer than single men. How they will do when and if their promised pensions come up short is a good question.

In the final analysis, a woman will be inclined to have children for more or less the same reasons as a man: for their own sake. To follow some higher calling, such as an obligation to ancestors, society or the church.

Why would a woman have children with an older man?

If a woman decides despite all argument to the contrary that she wants children, what are the advantages and disadvantages of an older man?  The age of the mother is dictated by biology. A woman's fertility declines quickly after 35. If she is over 40, the couple will almost certainly seek medical help one way or another, and will probably stop at one child. It is asymmetric: he has three more decades of fertility than she.

In Western society a woman who has decided to dedicate her fertile years to having children, for whatever reasons, is in a privileged position with regard to mate selection. Particularly for intelligent and educated women, the siren call of careers has beguiled a majority of their potential competitors. A woman interested in children can choose a partner from more or less her own age up to the limits of male fertility – in his 70s at least. Given the wide range of options, why would she choose an older man?

Financial resources

Raising a family takes money. A woman has an obvious interest in finding a man who can provide for her.

In choosing a younger man, a woman is betting on the come.  He should be on an upward career trajectory. How high he will rise is uncertain. He may burn out – and prove to be an unsuitable provider. On the other hand, he may become spectacularly successful, pulled away from his wife and family and subjected to all kinds of temptations. With an older man, what you see is what you get. The drama has already played out.

Older men tend to have more money. This is especially true of older men looking for younger woman in the marriage market. They would not be looking unless they were successful.  It is also a phenomenon somewhat specific to this generation. The baby boomers have been running society for more than forty years now, and they have stacked the deck in their own favor. The baby boomers are the richest generation in America's history, and the Western Europe's also. Younger men are simply not likely to have as much money.

Men already on pension are probably receiving fairly healthy ones. This is on top of the wealth that they have accumulated over a lifetime from appreciating houses and other assets. On the other hand, Gen X and especially millennial men have had a harder time scraping together the wherewithal for a down payment to benefit from the inflation in stocks and real estate.  Moreover, they have been cheated out of their pensions – there will be nothing but a dry well for them.  These arguments were not as applicable in previous epochs, and are unlikely to be applicable in the future. But at this writing, and 2019, they are highly pertinent.

Maturity

People tend to become more stable and predictable as they get older. They know more about life, and they fall into habits that have proven successful. An older husband is less likely to make erratic decisions, such as changing careers, moving, or developing a newfound taste for drugs, alcohol or video games.

Arguments and stress are a part of every marriage. A mature man is more likely to clearly see his long-term self-interest. He will weight the long-term benefits of marriage more heavily than short-term concerns about his self-esteem.

A woman should enter marriage with the expectation that her partner will be there for the twenty years or so it takes to raise children. An older guy is a better bet. Actuarially, an older suitor in good health is very likely to survive another twenty years. Psychologically, he is more likely to remain the same person over that twenty year period.

Likelihood of fidelity

A woman would be unwise to bet on a man who is unlikely to settle down. A man's character becomes obvious by the time he is fifty.  The majority will have come to the conclusion that marriage is pretty much the same deal with any woman, just as long as she is a reliable partner, and will not let his affections wander.

To return to a previous point, the primary reason an older man would want to marry a younger woman and have children is because he – wants children. Far and away the best way to succeed at having and rearing children is to remain in a monogamous marriage. Children in a stable marriage are more likely to succeed, and the man himself is far more likely to have more children with a single loving spouse than he is with whatever paramours he may find by stepping out.

Traditional values

The rate at which society changes has accelerated dramatically just over our lifetimes. We members of the silent generation grew up attending church, not cursing (very much, anyhow), believing in the Golden rule and that honesty was the best policy, and in the expectation that we would marry and stay married.

Our millennial children think we are hopelessly square. More than that, they slur us with epitaphs such as patriarchy, racist, bigot, homophobe and whatnot when we utter what was merely common sense when we were younger.

A woman might reflect that the family values with which an older man grew up are probably a better foundation for a family than the social justice notions that fill the minds of younger men.

Commitment to children

Convincing a much younger woman to have children is not an easy task. A man who does so has already shown his commitment to children. The chances are he already has some children. A prospective bride can talk with him about what worked and didn't, and how he will contribute to raising a new family. A man who has never married may not have given the subject too much thought, and except for a few who have had the chance to help raising younger siblings, not much experience either.

Experience

Older men who are inclined to marry have probably done it before. They have experience changing diapers and babysitting. They probably have experience washing dishes and keeping house. It is a question of energy as much is anything else. If the guy has kept himself in shape, as a great many have in this day of bicycling and health clubs, he should be up to the task.  A man who works to stay in shape can sustain himself pretty well until he reaches his seventies, but at some point age catches up with him.  An offsetting benefit is that an older husband is likely to have more time to spend with his wife and family

The Wife's Career

The odds are strong that he has already made whatever career progress he is going to. If he is a workaholic it will be evident – and he will probably not want to saddle himself with family responsibilities in any case. If he truly wants children, there is a strong chance he will be able to find time to spend with them.

If her husband has more time to spend with the children, his younger wife may find her own life easier. It will be more possible for her to pursue a career, if that is her pleasure, or to take music lessons, attend seminars and do other things strictly for herself.

Predictable problems

An older man will have a different circle of friends and different interests than a younger wife.  If both man and wife come from the same country and culture, the wife may face an expectation of socializing with people of his generation.  If they come from different countries, as is often the case with modern May-December marriages, one of them will have to adapt to a whole new environment and make a new set of friends.

For an older man, the better option appears to be to rise to the challenge of learning a new language, making new friends, and adapting to new customs in his bride's country.  If it is the woman who is doing the adaptation – moving to a wealthier Western country – there is a chance the new environment will change her perception of her husband. Not a few older men have seen their tender Asian or Eastern European brides adopt quite feminist attitudes and decide that marriage may not be exactly what they wanted.

Advantages to children of having an older father

The children of an older father will see more of their father. They can spend more time with him.  Spending time with father doesn't contribute to intelligence or the formation of personality. These things are mostly inherited.  However, boys especially have better life outcomes if they grow up in intact families and have frequent contact with their fathers.  When mother and father agree that developing a child's character is important, it appears that they are able to make a fair impact. Even in a therapeutic society dedicated to the proposition that every child should be "happy," parents who emphasize the virtues of responsibility and hard work seem to be rewarded.

The good of society

A society absolutely needs children in order to perpetuate itself in the long term. This is true no matter how society is construed.  A culture needs new generations to share everything that defines culture: customs, religious beliefs, history, dress and so on. 

In absolute terms, older fathers will be a benefit for society. The more fathers, the more children. The more children, the better.  The extent that older fathers sire more productive children – intelligence, personality, etc. – their children make more positive contributions than average.

If we look at society as a gene pool, the genetic argument applies just as it does for prospective mothers. An older father's increased load of de novo mutations is more than offset by the likelihood that he is perpetuating superior genetic material in the form of the DNA responsible for intelligence, longevity and positive personality traits.

The argument in favor of older fathers is even stronger with regard to their benefit to society. Whereas a prospective wife may decide that her personal success and happiness does not depend on having family, society absolutely depends on children for its renewal. The children of older fathers would be of benefit whether or not they were qualitatively superior to other children.  It is the numbers that count.

However, they will be qualitatively superior. The children of older fathers will have higher average intelligence and more positive personality traits. They will have more of what it takes to succeed in a modern society.

The good of government

A government needs soldiers and taxpayers to perpetuate itself.  Government benefits from children, whoever the father may be. In the short term children require investment. They need education and services. The government would have to provide these in any case.

Older fathers do not impose any special costs on government. The pensions not go up. The costs imposed by children – educating them, child welfare services and like – are the same regardless of the father's age. An older father is more likely to be solvent – less likely to be dependent on welfare – than the average father. This financial benefit is certainly more than enough to offset the marginally greater likelihood that he will die and his family will join the welfare rolls.

Conclusion

We of today's older generation are better positioned than any in history as far as education, material resources, and time. Although we do not have as much of a feeling for our family, tribe and nation as our ancestors did, we certainly have more than the generations following us. If there is going to be a revival of the sense of ethnic identity among people of our heritage, we should definitely be highly involved.

Many of us are already committed. Jared Taylor is committed to white identity, the simple notion that white people have as much of a right to a sense of identity as any other group.

Awareness alone, however, will not solve the problem. We need new generations of people like ourselves. We white people need to be raising white babies. Japanese need to be raising Japanese babies, and Chinese, Chinese. There is no danger in encouraging everybody. We need not even consider competition for resources.  Given our shrinking numbers, the world certainly affords room for all of us.

Older men, ranging from Generation X back to us of the silent generation, can give our lives new meaning by reclaiming the identities that have been swept away by the progressive dogmas of the past half-century. We as a society, and as nations, reached the zenith of human accomplishment when we had pride in ourselves and our people, and retained the commitment that what we possessed was worth passing on.  We can do it by spending time with our grandchildren, and when possible, by starting new families.

Resolving to start a new family, and finding a partner who shares the commitment, is not an easy task. But neither is it impossible. There are traditional women within our own countries, women who have retained religious commitment, who have not been swept up in the moral ambiguities of the age, who are looking for reliable partners. There remain countries such as those of Central and Eastern Europe where something approaching a majority of women of childbearing age would respond to the prospect of a traditional family. That is the challenge. Stop lamenting the unfortunate changes that have affected our countries and our society, and create a new generation to perpetuate all of the good that we inherited and cherish.