(However they might still be a good idea. I don't know.)
It also depends on how you translate the 'traditional way'. For example, on the one hand, for most of history people had about one surviving descendant per person, ie two kids that made it into adulthood to have their own kids. [0] On the other hand, they gave birth to many, many more kids. Which of the two perspectives do you want to preserve?
Similarly, during most of the last few millennia most people used to have kids really late in life: they typically only had about perhaps 20 years or less left to live when their first child was born. Should we emulate that? Viewed through a different lens, people used to have kids really early in life: the distance in years between your own birth and the birth of your children was much shorter, too.
Of course, the above paragraph is just a long winded way to say that people live longer these days. But still: how do you want to translate past behaviour? It's a choice that's up to you.
[0] I'm basing that purely on the mathematical observation that population numbers have only gone up substantially in the last few hundred years. Thus replacement level fertility used to be the norm.
