Can Extreme Wealth Make Mass Parenthood Ethical?
Illustrative image — symbolic representation, not a literal depiction.
The recent statements attributed to Telegram founder Pavel Durov have drawn attention to a rarely discussed phenomenon at the intersection of extreme wealth, reproduction, and power. This pattern, seen among some ultra-wealthy men, treats mass reproduction as a form of legacy-building — not focused on parenting, partnership, or care, but on genetic reach and the idea of extending one’s presence beyond death by dominating the gene pool. Viewed this way, the emphasis shifts away from children’s well-being toward the pursuit of biological immortality. In such models, women risk being reduced to reproductive conduits, and children to symbols of lineage rather than individuals with emotional and developmental needs.
According to The Wall Street Journal (also shared on X), Telegram founder Pavel Durov says he will cover IVF costs for women under 37 who want to use his donated sperm and has promised his children a share of his fortune.
He already has more than 100 children through this method — meaning IVF with many different women.
As of 2025, his net worth is estimated at around $17 billion. What the future brings is obviously unknown. He won’t end up broke, sure — but that doesn’t mean he’ll realistically be able (or willing) to leave a meaningful fortune to hundreds of children.
As this example shows, even if you’re a dollar billionaire, it’s not exactly easy to find women who accept these conditions.
And then there’s another group entirely: poor men who ‘fantasize’ about the same setup and somehow expect women to accept it.
Men who can barely support themselves, yet have children with two or three different women. I see examples like this all the time. Some are past 60, still looking for “the next woman,” ready to have yet another child — as if they’ve been emotionally or financially present for the previous ones.
What they’re really looking for is a woman to take care of ‘them’.
And women, knowing they’ll be raising the child alone anyway, sometimes treat these men like sperm donors — with the added bonus of being able to say, “The father is that guy.”
Even then:
– If there’s money involved, this model is still ethically, emotionally, and socially problematic.
– If there’s no money, it’s pure fantasy — completely detached from reality.
—
1. Risks for Mothers
a) Power Imbalance
The core risk in arrangements like this is that the relationship is not between equals.
– On one side: a globally powerful, wealthy, largely absent father figure
– On the other: women making decisions under biological time pressure, financial stress, or future insecurity
This creates a clear power asymmetry.
Is there consent? Legally, yes.
Sociologically and psychologically, it’s far more questionable.
—
b) Legal Uncertainty
What’s being promised today:
– A share of the fortune
– IVF costs covered
But the unanswered questions matter:
– Under which country’s laws?
– Which legal system applies?
– A will, a fund, a trust?
– Do the terms change as the number of children grows?
The biggest risk for women:
What’s promised today may not be binding tomorrow.
—
c) The Burden of Solo Parenting
In this setup:
– The father exists biologically
– But is absent emotionally, daily, and practically
Which means:
– The full responsibility of raising the child falls on the mother
– The father becomes a distant, abstract, unreachable figure
This becomes especially heavy when the child eventually asks: “Why?”
—
2. Risks for Children
a) Identity and Belonging Issues
A structure with 100+ siblings means:
– The same genetic father
– Different mothers
– Different countries
– Different socioeconomic conditions
For children, questions like:
– “Who am I?”
– “Who is my father?”
– “Who are my siblings?”
become far more complicated.
Research links this kind of setup to identity fragmentation and attachment issues.
—
b) Biological Risks (Less Discussed, but Important)
Extremely widespread sperm donation increases:
– Unintentional narrowing of the genetic pool
– The risk of half-siblings growing up in the same city or country and meeting later without knowing their biological connection
That’s why many countries limit the number of children per donor.
In this case, that limit effectively doesn’t exist.
—
c) Psychological Comparison and Hierarchy
At some point, questions become unavoidable:
– “Which of us did he care about more?”
– “Who received how much?”
– “Who was luckier?”
This can quietly create competition, resentment, and feelings of inadequacy among children.
—
3. Can This Fortune Really Make Hundreds of Children Millionaires?
In theory:
– Net worth: $17 billion
– Let’s say 200 children (and the number could grow)
$17B / 200 = $85 million per child (gross, on paper).
In reality, though:
– Taxes
– Business volatility
– Political risk
– Personal choices
– Future children yet to be born
mean that number remains largely theoretical.
A more realistic scenario looks like:
– A fixed fund per child
– A capped amount
– Unequal distribution
So:
– Yes, some will live very comfortably.
– No, not everyone automatically becomes a “millionaire.”
—
Bottom Line
This story is:
– Not a tale of generosity
– Not a fairytale of future security
– But rather an experiment built around power, control, and genetic legacy
For mothers: legal and emotional uncertainty
For children: identity, belonging, and psychological weight
For society: a new model — but not an innocent one
—
The Genghis Khan Phenomenon
Historians and geneticists often cite Genghis Khan as an extreme historical example of how power can translate into genetic dominance. Genetic studies suggest that a single Y-chromosome lineage linked to him and his male relatives spread across vast regions of Asia and persists in millions of men today. This was not about intentional “parenting,” but about access, conquest, and legacy — where reproduction became an extension of power. The modern parallels are not identical, but the underlying logic of lineage, dominance, and symbolic immortality remains strikingly familiar.
Nil Taskin