Here’s the conclusion of Daniel Akst‘s Wall St. Journal review of Parentonomics:

It’s a pity that Mr. Gans misses the chance to cover the most
interesting question an economist might address in the parenting arena:
Why he decided to have children in the first place? They’re no longer
an economic asset, after all. So is human reproduction nowadays
irrational? Is it even ethical? If a pill is invented that would confer
the joys of parenthood without all the mess or expense, should people
take it? Dreary speculation, I know, but what better topic for the
dismal science?

This gives me hope for a more sympathetic review for Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids
– after all, it’s all about the question Akst finds “most
interesting.”  In fact, I plan to address almost all of the issues he
mentions.  A quick preview, question-by-question:

Question: Why did he decide to have children in the first place? They’re no longer
an economic asset, after all. So is human reproduction nowadays
irrational?

My Short Answer: In
the modern world, kids are a consumption good.  It’s no more irrational
to have kids than to buy an HDTV.  In fact, it’s especially rational,
because buyer’s remorse is very rare, while non-buyer’s remorse is extremely common.

Aside: Akst echoes the common perception that kids used to be “an economic asset.”  But kids have probably always basically
been consumption goods.  Even in a primitive farming society, buying
land is a better retirement plan than having kids.  At the margin, of
course, a kid who helps on the farm is less of a burden than a kid who
doesn’t help; but if it’s just a matter of dollars and cents, hired
help is a better deal.

Question: Is it even ethical?

My Short Answer: Highly
– it’s not only better for the parent; it’s also better for the child
and the world.  Truly tragic cases excepted, the child is vastly better
off existing than not existing.  Aren’t you glad your parents had you? 
It’s also good for the world: As Julian Simon beautifully explained,
the positive externalities of more people are far bigger than any
negatives – once again, excepting a few tragic counter-examples.

Question: If a pill is invented that would confer
the joys of parenthood without all the mess or expense, should people
take it?

My Short Answer: This is the one question I probably won’t
deal with in my book.  Why not?  First, I’m trying to write a book of
practical advice, not puzzle over mere hypotheticals.  Second, Nozick’s Experience Machine
example already raises the question of whether you should give up real
life for a simulation.  Akst’s “joy of parenting” pill is just a more
specific version of a challenge that philosophers have hashed out for
decades.  So you should either solve the general version of the challenge, or stay away from it altogether.