No one wants to have kids anymore(torturechambersmalltalk.substack.com)
torturechambersmalltalk.substack.com
No one wants to have kids anymore
https://torturechambersmalltalk.substack.com/p/safe-sex-the-consequences
454 comments
Ketamine, psilocybin, and therapy have all made me a much better father, FWIW.
I’m having trouble finding affordable therapy that will care about my usage of shrooms and to a lesser extent, weed, as part of making me better. In between full time work so paying full price for therapy out of pocket would be a bit much.
You should still do ketamine with your friend!
I second that. Life is absurd, and ketamine is quite safe if done properly.
Ah is it? Good to know. I have yet to try it and my friends are becoming parents.
Congratulations and good luck!
> But deep down I get it. Babies are a huge opportunity cost. Financially speaking, they are like winning the lottery but backwards. You can't even think of having one without cancelling your subscription to a good night's sleep. And if you take into account inflation, economic recession, and the rest of the news cycle's highlight reel, even a one-child family can seem to have one too many mouths to fish Lego pieces out of.
Every time I visit family for the holidays, I see this in real-time and it reaffirms my decision to not have children. I have an incredibly comfortable lifestyle saving for retirement, traveling and buying real estate. The moment I become responsible for another human, that all goes away.
Saving for college? Yeah right, state schools are gonna cost $100k per year by the time my kid would going off to school. Retirement? Inflation is already killing my parents' retirement so I've got to bank that I'm still probably not saving enough right now anyway.
More power to people who want that in life, but I can't tell you how many coworkers or family members I've met that had kids and just seemed like shells of themselves afterwards.
Every time I visit family for the holidays, I see this in real-time and it reaffirms my decision to not have children. I have an incredibly comfortable lifestyle saving for retirement, traveling and buying real estate. The moment I become responsible for another human, that all goes away.
Saving for college? Yeah right, state schools are gonna cost $100k per year by the time my kid would going off to school. Retirement? Inflation is already killing my parents' retirement so I've got to bank that I'm still probably not saving enough right now anyway.
More power to people who want that in life, but I can't tell you how many coworkers or family members I've met that had kids and just seemed like shells of themselves afterwards.
The shift from child free adult to parent is similar in scale to adolescence. Can you remember being a pre-sexual child, all the confusion of teendom, and then sexual maturity. As a sexually mature adult, would you ever elect to revert to being a pre-sexual person?
That's the best analogy I can give to explain how parenthood changes you. Life is messier and more complex afterwards, just like sex, but immeasurably richer. And you develop parent-dar. It's like gaydar. Parenting changes you in a million tiny ways, and us parents can see that in others.
That's the best analogy I can give to explain how parenthood changes you. Life is messier and more complex afterwards, just like sex, but immeasurably richer. And you develop parent-dar. It's like gaydar. Parenting changes you in a million tiny ways, and us parents can see that in others.
I don't have kids; I really like this perspective, though. I don't happen to share it, but I can appreciate it.
It's obviously a necessary and good thing for people to have children if humanity is going to continue. However, one thing that isn't discussed much by Team Parents is the prospect of there being too much of a good thing. The population explosion over the last 150ish years is a clear trade between more people and less everything else in the natural world. At some point (now, anyone?), that trade is not worth making. It's an irresponsible trade. Does not promote the maturity of society, even if it matures the individual.
What say ye to this line of reasoning? I grant you that city-living and domestication is 'naturally' reigning things in as far as population growth, hence the article. I'm asserting that perhaps there is a kind of virtue in foregoing the wonderful self sacrificial experience known as being a parent, in that the childless are helping the general state of affairs.
It's obviously a necessary and good thing for people to have children if humanity is going to continue. However, one thing that isn't discussed much by Team Parents is the prospect of there being too much of a good thing. The population explosion over the last 150ish years is a clear trade between more people and less everything else in the natural world. At some point (now, anyone?), that trade is not worth making. It's an irresponsible trade. Does not promote the maturity of society, even if it matures the individual.
What say ye to this line of reasoning? I grant you that city-living and domestication is 'naturally' reigning things in as far as population growth, hence the article. I'm asserting that perhaps there is a kind of virtue in foregoing the wonderful self sacrificial experience known as being a parent, in that the childless are helping the general state of affairs.
Perfectly sound line of reasoning. The obvious counter is to point out that many of the world's biggest economies require young productive folk paying taxes to support the elderly. That's a problem for developed economies with falling birth rates and low immigration. And the counter to that counter is to point at the economic model that bakes in the requirement for growth.
Remaining childfree avoids a lot of exhausting and messy complications. Just as remaining celibate avoids emotional entanglements and STDs, at the cost of loneliness. Historically, virtue has attached to celibacy in many religious traditions. Maybe a sufficiently strong and pervasive environmentalist worldview could impute virtue to the childfree. It is possible to change popular ethics in a decade or so: cf LGBTQ rights or attitudes to drink driving.
Remaining childfree avoids a lot of exhausting and messy complications. Just as remaining celibate avoids emotional entanglements and STDs, at the cost of loneliness. Historically, virtue has attached to celibacy in many religious traditions. Maybe a sufficiently strong and pervasive environmentalist worldview could impute virtue to the childfree. It is possible to change popular ethics in a decade or so: cf LGBTQ rights or attitudes to drink driving.
This is a good analogy because parenthood is singular and profound. One of the few things for which is no replacement or equivalent experience.
If considering children you focus on financials/comfort, you're going to get the same answer every time.
You don't do it to be better off or more comfortable. You do it to have a meaningful relationship.
It's really the same as having a life partner. Why do it when going out costs money and you'll have to adjust your schedule to their needs?
You don't do it to be better off or more comfortable. You do it to have a meaningful relationship.
It's really the same as having a life partner. Why do it when going out costs money and you'll have to adjust your schedule to their needs?
I essentially see it the same way. It's a tradeoff of pleasure and comfort for meaning.
It's a counter intuitive choice in the modern world. Its increasingly common to choose comfort over meaning. Especially when so many dont think meaning even exists.
It's a counter intuitive choice in the modern world. Its increasingly common to choose comfort over meaning. Especially when so many dont think meaning even exists.
Is this borne out in data? I ask because among my friends and work mates, the ones with kids tend to be doing better financially. The higher ranks of the corporation are populated almost entirely with people who are supporting families.
I followed that path. When my first kid was born, I applied for a promotion into project management, and eventually people management. (I moved back out eventually). The vast majority of people I know who moved up into management did so coincidentally with the birth of their first kid.
I followed that path. When my first kid was born, I applied for a promotion into project management, and eventually people management. (I moved back out eventually). The vast majority of people I know who moved up into management did so coincidentally with the birth of their first kid.
An ancillary question would be, how many of those people wanted to move into management?
Definitely in IT departments I've worked in, in the past, there were a lot of people in management who would have preferred to still be ICs but, for financial reasons, had moved upwards...
Definitely in IT departments I've worked in, in the past, there were a lot of people in management who would have preferred to still be ICs but, for financial reasons, had moved upwards...
Just to preface this with: I don't try to convince you of anything, nor anyone else.
But there is a side of this conversation that I almost never see discussed:
What I want to add to this conversation is the following: it is a privilege (in the true sense that only a small group can afford to do this) for you to be able to decide not to have children and keep your conform. And this priviledge relies or borrows on the other people deciding to have children.
Because if nobody will have children then your retirement will be meaningless in the future. Nothing to invest in, no economical growth, no food, no products, no services.
Who will take care of you in the hospital when you will be old? As example? Who will pay for those (younger than you) doctors education?
Some parents, right?
So what you are exercising is a priviledge => available to a small group of people because the others are supporting the costs.
hot take: If the society will ever want to make this fair it should put higher taxes on people without children. As they need to spend money to buy good sleep and comfort in the future.
I even dare to say put a tax close to the estimated cost for having a children. Why? Just to make sure that the sleep is in the right balance when thinking about the future.
I repeat: this is not about the individual decision itself, everyone should do as they see it fit. But about the fact that we are part of a society and there are duties to that aswell.
But there is a side of this conversation that I almost never see discussed:
What I want to add to this conversation is the following: it is a privilege (in the true sense that only a small group can afford to do this) for you to be able to decide not to have children and keep your conform. And this priviledge relies or borrows on the other people deciding to have children.
Because if nobody will have children then your retirement will be meaningless in the future. Nothing to invest in, no economical growth, no food, no products, no services.
Who will take care of you in the hospital when you will be old? As example? Who will pay for those (younger than you) doctors education?
Some parents, right?
So what you are exercising is a priviledge => available to a small group of people because the others are supporting the costs.
hot take: If the society will ever want to make this fair it should put higher taxes on people without children. As they need to spend money to buy good sleep and comfort in the future.
I even dare to say put a tax close to the estimated cost for having a children. Why? Just to make sure that the sleep is in the right balance when thinking about the future.
I repeat: this is not about the individual decision itself, everyone should do as they see it fit. But about the fact that we are part of a society and there are duties to that aswell.
By the time the person without children retires, they already completed the duty of supporting the previous generation, making your case for a tax weaker.
So lets see:
Person A (no children) gives 60% of all income for 40 years.
Person B (with children) gives 60% of all income and a child which will work and generate income and give taxes
Are you saying they are equal when thinking who contributes more for the future of society?
Person A (no children) gives 60% of all income for 40 years.
Person B (with children) gives 60% of all income and a child which will work and generate income and give taxes
Are you saying they are equal when thinking who contributes more for the future of society?
You're conspicuously failing to account for the burden on society, the economy, and the environment that your children and their descendants will inflict, which is exponentially larger than a single non-breeder's finite contribution.
And you're also not addressing the fact that maximizing the number of humans on the earth is too much of a good thing, and makes life much worse for an exponentially larger number of people in the long run. Fewer people will suffer the sooner we slow and even gradually reverse population growth.
And you're incorrectly assuming that the only alternative to exponential population growth is sudden extinction, when it's much more likely that sudden extinction is actually the most likely result of overpopulation, due to ecological and climactic collapse and war.
If parents really altruistically cared for the wellbeing of their children and their descendants in the long term, and they're not just self-servingly and short-sightedly breeding in order to make their old age and retirement easier, then they should have fewer children to reduce the destruction they inflict of the environment from overpopulation, and stop driving their children to and from school in gas guzzling SUV minivans, when they could just as well ride their bikes or take a bus or public transit.
And you're also not addressing the fact that maximizing the number of humans on the earth is too much of a good thing, and makes life much worse for an exponentially larger number of people in the long run. Fewer people will suffer the sooner we slow and even gradually reverse population growth.
And you're incorrectly assuming that the only alternative to exponential population growth is sudden extinction, when it's much more likely that sudden extinction is actually the most likely result of overpopulation, due to ecological and climactic collapse and war.
If parents really altruistically cared for the wellbeing of their children and their descendants in the long term, and they're not just self-servingly and short-sightedly breeding in order to make their old age and retirement easier, then they should have fewer children to reduce the destruction they inflict of the environment from overpopulation, and stop driving their children to and from school in gas guzzling SUV minivans, when they could just as well ride their bikes or take a bus or public transit.
How is it a privilege when something like 10% or more of all people to have ever been born never reproduced? Not everyone who doesn’t have kids chose that. Some die before they can. Some are sterile. And some simply never get the chance for one reason or another.
I agree that we all have a duty to society but I disagree that I should have to pay absurd sums of money simply because you say so. I meet my duty how I choose and I already pay for your kids education through my taxes. Comments like that come across as envy that people without kids frequently have more disposable income than those with kids.
I agree that we all have a duty to society but I disagree that I should have to pay absurd sums of money simply because you say so. I meet my duty how I choose and I already pay for your kids education through my taxes. Comments like that come across as envy that people without kids frequently have more disposable income than those with kids.
Nah the first world can just rob third world elderly of their retirement by just importing in their most skilled/intelligent workers and spitting them back out when EvilCorp finishes chewing them up and cancels their work visa. No reason to have a child in the first world when the nominal comparative advantage in pricing is a little Bangladeshi child.
It costs $310k to pay for a kid from 0-18 per Brookings. The math is straightforward to work backwards to the income you need to afford that along with your basic needs and retirement savings, and most people don’t have the means. Median US lifetime earnings are $1.7 million.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3608647-new-estimate-proj...
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3608647-new-estimate-proj...
The article states two (2) children costs $310,000. Comes out to be $8,611/year or $718/month per child. A tiny sample size, but I have several children and none of them cost me $23.58/day for 18 years.
Do you have a link to the actual study or the breakdown what went into this?
Do you have a link to the actual study or the breakdown what went into this?
No, it states the per child cost for a family with 2 children:
> A recent estimate conducted by the Brookings Institution projected the cost of raising a child for a middle-income, two-parent married family with two kids to be north of $310,000.
>The estimate assumes the youngest child would be born in 2015 and covers raising the child through the age of 17. It does not include the cost of sending the child to college.
This seems to be the source:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Brookin...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2022/08/30/its-getti...
Edit: not only does the study exclude college costs, but it excludes daycare costs, which are relevant to pretty much all dual income couples.
> A recent estimate conducted by the Brookings Institution projected the cost of raising a child for a middle-income, two-parent married family with two kids to be north of $310,000.
>The estimate assumes the youngest child would be born in 2015 and covers raising the child through the age of 17. It does not include the cost of sending the child to college.
This seems to be the source:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Brookin...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2022/08/30/its-getti...
Edit: not only does the study exclude college costs, but it excludes daycare costs, which are relevant to pretty much all dual income couples.
This seems implausibly high excluding college and daycare costs, and maybe implausibly low including them.
Not to mention that this represents a very median case, whereas a lot of parents want to pay for higher status schools and real estate to get access to higher status education, it's a never-ending keeping-up-with-the-joneses pi*-ing contest. To raise kids around my peers, a child could easily cost $500k+.
Pregnancy and birth ($3k to $10k) + daycare ($18k to $30k per year) + sickness needing doctor ($300 per visit). I probably got to $130k+ per kid before hitting kindergarten, for 2 kids with no chronic healthcare needs.
And I needed a flexible job that allows you to work from home or be off as necessary to take care of sick kids.
And I needed a flexible job that allows you to work from home or be off as necessary to take care of sick kids.
This looks right for what it lists but it misses many costs. You also need a bigger house to support the kids, and a bigger car to carry them around, plus car seats, food, clothes, toys, and furniture. They will destroy parts of your house and some of your stuff and you'll need replacements. You'll be spending much more time and money cleaning.
They will make every vacation more expensive in terms of lodging, travel, food, and activities.
You'll be paying not just for gifts for them, but for their friends' birthdays, and holiday gifts for their teachers. You'll pay for admission to parks, memberships, and other activities you take them to to keep them busy and help them develop.
Even if they go to public school, you'll be paying for before and after care, extra classes, activities, equipment, lessons, tutoring, and so on. Their various support systems will ask for donations. You'll have to pay for babysitters until they reach the age where they can be unattended.
The total cost is tremendous and hard to estimate.
(I say this all as someone who thinks it is worth it and who 100% supports having children for people who are in stable relationships and who can afford it!)
They will make every vacation more expensive in terms of lodging, travel, food, and activities.
You'll be paying not just for gifts for them, but for their friends' birthdays, and holiday gifts for their teachers. You'll pay for admission to parks, memberships, and other activities you take them to to keep them busy and help them develop.
Even if they go to public school, you'll be paying for before and after care, extra classes, activities, equipment, lessons, tutoring, and so on. Their various support systems will ask for donations. You'll have to pay for babysitters until they reach the age where they can be unattended.
The total cost is tremendous and hard to estimate.
(I say this all as someone who thinks it is worth it and who 100% supports having children for people who are in stable relationships and who can afford it!)
4 kids, no major health issues, public school in a well regarded district, a few activities, company insurance, work from home spouse
My marginal housing, food, etc. costs is for them (guesstimating what I'd spend without them at 60% of my current expenditures), that's $700/month per kid * ~200 month = 140k per kid.
Maybe another $20k each in one off expenses like furniture, medical, birthdays?
A car for the last two years might run another $20k?
Day care definitely drives up the price.
But I guess being able to amortize over 4 kids makes it seem less daunting.
My marginal housing, food, etc. costs is for them (guesstimating what I'd spend without them at 60% of my current expenditures), that's $700/month per kid * ~200 month = 140k per kid.
Maybe another $20k each in one off expenses like furniture, medical, birthdays?
A car for the last two years might run another $20k?
Day care definitely drives up the price.
But I guess being able to amortize over 4 kids makes it seem less daunting.
The counter to that is that there's a lot of room _under_ that median case, too. Not everyone needs to be at or above the average. Not everyone _can_ be at or above the average.
Two nit-picks:
1 - It's likely going to cost more than 100k per year per kid to send them off to college in ~18 years, even to a very cheap state school. The financial picture gets really complex, so talk to an advisor and not some random internet commenter. That said, our own financial advisor has us planning for ~1M total per kid for college, but we're very much on the high end here.
2 - I've helped a lot of family members pass away in the last few years. It's been abnormally high, but the world has been abnormal too. I've helped somewhat poor family and very very wealthy family pass. The one thing I've learned is that the last few years/months are not something you can save for.
Not that you can't have so much cash as to not pass it along. But that the swanky retirement home is not very swanky at the end of the day. One family member was in a memory care place that was costing ~20k / mo. Yes, really. They had very good pensions. But the thing is that the retirement/hospice is still just a job to the people there.
They aren't getting out of bed at 3am to change you, to pick you up, to bathe you. They put you in an ambulance in lieu of putting you back in a chair, because of lawsuits. They are doing the bare minimum that they have to. Trying to plan for your retirement care via lawyer is just never going to cover all the bases and little things that come up.
The only people that are going to be taking care of you when the end is near (and that can be for years of time), are the people that love you. Sure, your kids may hate you, but that's mostly on you. But people that do not love you are not going to take very good care of you at all. That doesn't mean kids for sure, it can be other people. But you've got to have people that love you close by you near the end.
1 - It's likely going to cost more than 100k per year per kid to send them off to college in ~18 years, even to a very cheap state school. The financial picture gets really complex, so talk to an advisor and not some random internet commenter. That said, our own financial advisor has us planning for ~1M total per kid for college, but we're very much on the high end here.
2 - I've helped a lot of family members pass away in the last few years. It's been abnormally high, but the world has been abnormal too. I've helped somewhat poor family and very very wealthy family pass. The one thing I've learned is that the last few years/months are not something you can save for.
Not that you can't have so much cash as to not pass it along. But that the swanky retirement home is not very swanky at the end of the day. One family member was in a memory care place that was costing ~20k / mo. Yes, really. They had very good pensions. But the thing is that the retirement/hospice is still just a job to the people there.
They aren't getting out of bed at 3am to change you, to pick you up, to bathe you. They put you in an ambulance in lieu of putting you back in a chair, because of lawsuits. They are doing the bare minimum that they have to. Trying to plan for your retirement care via lawyer is just never going to cover all the bases and little things that come up.
The only people that are going to be taking care of you when the end is near (and that can be for years of time), are the people that love you. Sure, your kids may hate you, but that's mostly on you. But people that do not love you are not going to take very good care of you at all. That doesn't mean kids for sure, it can be other people. But you've got to have people that love you close by you near the end.
It’s your decision, but not having children because of your comfort is like saying you won’t ride an amazing wave as a surfer because it’s hard and dangerous.
Yep, it is. But when you ride that wave it will be the most amazing experience of your life. Even if it is hard.
it’s your choice, but you’re definitely missing out on something special. Something we were genetically created to do (which makes it even better than surfing)
Yep, it is. But when you ride that wave it will be the most amazing experience of your life. Even if it is hard.
it’s your choice, but you’re definitely missing out on something special. Something we were genetically created to do (which makes it even better than surfing)
> it’s your choice, but you’re definitely missing out on something special.
I totally forgot to mention the patronizing attitude that so many people come to this conversation with. Thank for you for heads up.
I totally forgot to mention the patronizing attitude that so many people come to this conversation with. Thank for you for heads up.
Patronising is thinking you know what it’s like having children without having them.
You don’t. You have no idea of the emotional and practical side of having children, and how hard and how amazing it is, and how it’s the best and hardest part of your life up until then.
Patronising is thinking you know you don’t want kids without having them. You don’t. You have no idea what it’s like.
You don’t. You have no idea of the emotional and practical side of having children, and how hard and how amazing it is, and how it’s the best and hardest part of your life up until then.
Patronising is thinking you know you don’t want kids without having them. You don’t. You have no idea what it’s like.
> Patronising is thinking you know you don’t want kids without having them. You don’t. You have no idea what it’s like.
This sentence is the definition of patronizing. It's the same thing parents tell their kids: "oh you just don't understand what it's like, that's why you don't agree with me".
This sentence is the definition of patronizing. It's the same thing parents tell their kids: "oh you just don't understand what it's like, that's why you don't agree with me".
> Patronising is thinking you know you don’t want kids without having them. You don’t. You have no idea what it’s like.
In this example, who exactly am I being patronizing toward? Myself?
In this example, who exactly am I being patronizing toward? Myself?
> Patronising is thinking you know you don’t want kids without having them. You don’t. You have no idea what it’s like.
... what?
... what?
It’s “make up random definitions for words I don’t know” day apparently.
I'm just confused. I mean, I suppose one could argue that - "you cannot whether you will like something unless and until you try it" - if one was in the mood for a stupid argument: people can and do have opinions on, say, not losing their limbs without having someone chop them off.
They can listen to third parties which had the same experience, have experiences which are similar but less intense, or just use their imagination and figure out whether the person they are - whose values and goals they hopefully know - could possibly enjoy whatever is being discussed.
I still have no idea how someone saying "I won't pursue that because that's not what I want for myself" could possibly be "patronizing", even assuming it could be false.
They can listen to third parties which had the same experience, have experiences which are similar but less intense, or just use their imagination and figure out whether the person they are - whose values and goals they hopefully know - could possibly enjoy whatever is being discussed.
I still have no idea how someone saying "I won't pursue that because that's not what I want for myself" could possibly be "patronizing", even assuming it could be false.
More than likely they associated themselves with and then took offense of the “patronizing” group mentioned by the first comment and needed to reach for a contrived “gotcha” to insult them back.
might be the most amazing experience of your life. Not everyone enjoys (or would enjoy) being a parent.
Getting kids is the best retirement investment that you can do, because they will be there to help you when your physical and mental state will start to degrade.
They will be the ones taking you to doctor for visits, the ones that will keep you from getting scammed from your retirement money, and in general they will help you navigate the future society that will be much different from the current. So even if you hate them, kids is an investment worth considering.
They will be the ones taking you to doctor for visits, the ones that will keep you from getting scammed from your retirement money, and in general they will help you navigate the future society that will be much different from the current. So even if you hate them, kids is an investment worth considering.
Bullshit. There is no guarantee your kids will be there for you in your old age. Just look at all the seniors living in care homes that have no one visiting or sending them presents for Christmas. Perfectly normal parents can raise selfish little shits who abandon them in their old age. And some parents are downright awful to their kids and deserve to be alone.
Anecdotally speaking, my grandfather was an abusive old bastard who drove away his children. He died alone. My own father is selfish, negligent, and arguably emotionally abusive. I’m the only one of his children who talks to him and I only do it a few times per year. I know for a fact none of us are going to take him in when he can’t live on his own anymore.
Anecdotally speaking, my grandfather was an abusive old bastard who drove away his children. He died alone. My own father is selfish, negligent, and arguably emotionally abusive. I’m the only one of his children who talks to him and I only do it a few times per year. I know for a fact none of us are going to take him in when he can’t live on his own anymore.
It’s fascinating to contrast this observation with my own as a parent: other parents seem to have much more richer lives post-kids than after, it just becomes much harder to relate with that part of them if you don’t also have kids, too.
> I have an incredibly comfortable lifestyle saving for retirement, traveling and buying real estate. The moment I become responsible for another human, that all goes away.
You realize that with the deflation that will hit most developed countries, all your savings will evaporate right ? It's a mathematical certainty given the way the economy works (coupled with fertility rates of < 1.5).
Immigration might work, but race is a big deal with a large section of the population esp. when it comes to low-end stuff.
You realize that with the deflation that will hit most developed countries, all your savings will evaporate right ? It's a mathematical certainty given the way the economy works (coupled with fertility rates of < 1.5).
Immigration might work, but race is a big deal with a large section of the population esp. when it comes to low-end stuff.
How would deflation cause savings to evaporate? Wouldn't the opposite happen during deflation and savings would be worth more?
Deflation would screw anyone with debt though.
Deflation would screw anyone with debt though.
[deleted]
If you only care about yourself go for it. I guess it’s somewhat sobering realizing you’re gonna be alone and your genetic material will be a dead end.
I have 3 kids 3 and under and probably got 4 hours of sleep last night. Wouldn’t trade it for the world. My kids are not treated like a drain on my potential investments.
Sure I can’t do my hobbies all the time but I can take my kids fishing and kayaking. The trips are shorter but fulfilling regardless.
I have 3 kids 3 and under and probably got 4 hours of sleep last night. Wouldn’t trade it for the world. My kids are not treated like a drain on my potential investments.
Sure I can’t do my hobbies all the time but I can take my kids fishing and kayaking. The trips are shorter but fulfilling regardless.
> If you only care about yourself go for it. I guess it’s somewhat sobering realizing you’re gonna be alone and your genetic material will be a dead end.
Sounds like you desperately needed to have a legacy, and got kids as a substitute for that. And as an insurance for your old age.
But sure GP is the one who only care about themselves.
> My kids are not treated like a drain on my potential investments.
True they’re treated as an investment.
Sounds like you desperately needed to have a legacy, and got kids as a substitute for that. And as an insurance for your old age.
But sure GP is the one who only care about themselves.
> My kids are not treated like a drain on my potential investments.
True they’re treated as an investment.
> If you only care about yourself go for it. I guess it’s somewhat sobering realizing you’re gonna be alone and your genetic material will be a dead end.
I don’t think your post makes you look like you’re the one who cares about others unlike who you’re responding to.
I don’t think your post makes you look like you’re the one who cares about others unlike who you’re responding to.
Not really OP doesn’t want to give up any of his investments or real estate because kids would be a drain on their finances and time.
My “genetic material” is a fucking dumpster fire. I struggle daily with incurable mental illness and I’m also a carrier for several debilitating diseases. I have chosen not to have children and nothing of value will be lost.
> Every time I visit family for the holidays, I see this in real-time and it reaffirms my decision to not have children. I have an incredibly comfortable lifestyle saving for retirement, traveling and buying real estate. The moment I become responsible for another human, that all goes away.
It is unfortunate that unless you have children you can never know what it is like to have children. You see the external things, the effort and the cost. For most (i.e. non egocentric/narcissist personalities) having children is the most profound and meaningful experience of their lives. A normal parent loves their children more than they ever thought it possible to love someone.
You call your life comfortable. I as a parent would call it empty and sad. What you think of people as shells of themselves, I see as people focusing on what truly matters and brings happiness instead of momentary joy.
It is unfortunate that unless you have children you can never know what it is like to have children. You see the external things, the effort and the cost. For most (i.e. non egocentric/narcissist personalities) having children is the most profound and meaningful experience of their lives. A normal parent loves their children more than they ever thought it possible to love someone.
You call your life comfortable. I as a parent would call it empty and sad. What you think of people as shells of themselves, I see as people focusing on what truly matters and brings happiness instead of momentary joy.
>I as a parent would call it empty and sad.
That's pretty judgemental of you. If your own children decide not to reproduce themselves, will you judge their own lives as empty and sad too, consider your own children hollow failures for not giving you grandchildren, and express your disappointment to them that they have failed to live up to your own expectations as a parent? Or will you love and support them for making their own decisions, like you refuse to extend to other people who decide not to become parents?
That's pretty judgemental of you. If your own children decide not to reproduce themselves, will you judge their own lives as empty and sad too, consider your own children hollow failures for not giving you grandchildren, and express your disappointment to them that they have failed to live up to your own expectations as a parent? Or will you love and support them for making their own decisions, like you refuse to extend to other people who decide not to become parents?
Funny how you can freely call parents shells of their former selves or slaves to their children or whatever you find online. But soon as you express your opinion on people who chose not to have children you are suddenly a judgemental asshole.
They said that many of their coworkers that had children seem like shells of their former selves. Not all of them, and not by definition.
You are saying that anyone that doesn't have children automatically empty and sad.
- One of the statements is "in the people I've seen do x, an outcome of y seems common".
- The other is "in any person that does x, y is true"
Those are not the same thing.
You are saying that anyone that doesn't have children automatically empty and sad.
- One of the statements is "in the people I've seen do x, an outcome of y seems common".
- The other is "in any person that does x, y is true"
Those are not the same thing.
Including his own children being empty and sad if they don't deliver him grandchildren. That's just terrible parenting, to be so judgemental and demeaning of your own children.
Edit:
Then address my question instead of ignoring it. Why by your own judgemental attitude would your own children be any less empty and sad than anyone else if they chose not to reproduce themselves? And how are you not being a bad judgemental parent with that attitude? Don't have kids if you're not willing to let them make their own decisions.
Edit:
Then address my question instead of ignoring it. Why by your own judgemental attitude would your own children be any less empty and sad than anyone else if they chose not to reproduce themselves? And how are you not being a bad judgemental parent with that attitude? Don't have kids if you're not willing to let them make their own decisions.
Nice straw man you have built here.
I did not answer your question because it is absurd. There is a difference between having an opinion and forcing that opinion on others. My children are their own people and they are allowed to disagree and I will not hold it against them. Because I love them more than they can understand until they have children themselves. I however hope they will be confident and flexible in their opinions and change them if they prove a poor fit to reality and not resort to logical fallacies or grudges.
I did not answer your question because it is absurd. There is a difference between having an opinion and forcing that opinion on others. My children are their own people and they are allowed to disagree and I will not hold it against them. Because I love them more than they can understand until they have children themselves. I however hope they will be confident and flexible in their opinions and change them if they prove a poor fit to reality and not resort to logical fallacies or grudges.
I'm not sure "I respect your decision to have a sad and empty life" is as wonderful a parenting statement as you seem to think it is.
You didn't answer my questions because they made my point and you don't want to follow what you said through to its logical conclusions and ultimate consequences.
It's not my questions that are absurd, it's your condescending attitude and statements, and I specifically asked you those questions to point out the absurdity of what you said, and by refusing to answer you proved my point.
Your demeaning judgements could apply just as much to the lack of value and sadness and emptiness of your own children's lives if they decide not to breed as they do against everyone else, which is my point that you're unable to acknowledge because you delusionally believe your own children are somehow magically different than everyone else in the universe, and you unfairly exempt them from your harsh degrading criticism of other people.
They're not, and your condescending attitude applies as much to your own children as to anyone else.
It's judgemental condescending parents like you who kick their kids out onto the streets because they're disappointed in them and believe they're sad and worthless for not wanting to breed when they find out they're gay or lesbian, so their kids don't trust them, are afraid to come out to them, hide their true feelings from their own parents, and often commit suicide, because they understand how harsh and judgemental their parents are, from all the condescending hateful things they say about other people all their lives.
You only judge that other people's lives are sad and empty for not breeding because they're not your children, so you have a double standard, and don't want to admit that. But kids can see through that, and know you'll ultimately judge them just as harshly too.
Part of being a good parent is being mature enough to not think and speak in such a childish nasty way, and to not be so condescending and demeaning.
It's not my questions that are absurd, it's your condescending attitude and statements, and I specifically asked you those questions to point out the absurdity of what you said, and by refusing to answer you proved my point.
Your demeaning judgements could apply just as much to the lack of value and sadness and emptiness of your own children's lives if they decide not to breed as they do against everyone else, which is my point that you're unable to acknowledge because you delusionally believe your own children are somehow magically different than everyone else in the universe, and you unfairly exempt them from your harsh degrading criticism of other people.
They're not, and your condescending attitude applies as much to your own children as to anyone else.
It's judgemental condescending parents like you who kick their kids out onto the streets because they're disappointed in them and believe they're sad and worthless for not wanting to breed when they find out they're gay or lesbian, so their kids don't trust them, are afraid to come out to them, hide their true feelings from their own parents, and often commit suicide, because they understand how harsh and judgemental their parents are, from all the condescending hateful things they say about other people all their lives.
You only judge that other people's lives are sad and empty for not breeding because they're not your children, so you have a double standard, and don't want to admit that. But kids can see through that, and know you'll ultimately judge them just as harshly too.
Part of being a good parent is being mature enough to not think and speak in such a childish nasty way, and to not be so condescending and demeaning.
Ad hominem
At least I'm not making ad hominem attacks against my own children and everyone else who choses not to reproduce themselves, like you did FIRST.
I'm merely pointing out that your own original ad hominem attacks could also apply just as well to your own children, which you don't want to admit.
And that you could drive your children to suicide with that kind of disrespectful attitude, judging your own children's lives as empty and sad, devoid of happiness, and incapable of truly experiencing love, just because they didn't deliver you grandchildren.
Are you really that homophobic and paternalistic, or do you more generally hate and demean and devalue the lives and love of everyone who doesn't breed "equally"?
So be careful, stop being so judgemental and demeaning, and try to be a better parent!
And stop complaining about ad hominem attacks, when you're the one who threw the first stone at the most number of people, possibly including your own children.
I'm merely pointing out that your own original ad hominem attacks could also apply just as well to your own children, which you don't want to admit.
And that you could drive your children to suicide with that kind of disrespectful attitude, judging your own children's lives as empty and sad, devoid of happiness, and incapable of truly experiencing love, just because they didn't deliver you grandchildren.
Are you really that homophobic and paternalistic, or do you more generally hate and demean and devalue the lives and love of everyone who doesn't breed "equally"?
So be careful, stop being so judgemental and demeaning, and try to be a better parent!
And stop complaining about ad hominem attacks, when you're the one who threw the first stone at the most number of people, possibly including your own children.
> You are saying that anyone that doesn't have children automatically empty and sad.
No I am saying that is what they seem to me. Just like people with children are shells of their former selves to him. You are splitting hairs and putting words in my mouth to make an obvious point. In the end you are just proving me right that one can not express any kind of negative about being childless without having people jump down their throats.
No I am saying that is what they seem to me. Just like people with children are shells of their former selves to him. You are splitting hairs and putting words in my mouth to make an obvious point. In the end you are just proving me right that one can not express any kind of negative about being childless without having people jump down their throats.
You just don't like it when somebody points out that your own ad hominem attacks could just as well apply to your own children. You threw the first stone, without considering that you could be attacking your very own children too, and now you're mad at me for pointing that out. I'm not the one attacking your children, I'm just pointing out that you are, which is terrible parenting.
Oh, I doubt it was sudden.
It might be empty and sad _for you_, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone. Each person has their own things they enjoy. You sound exactly like the people telling everyone "spend your money on experiences, not things" because that's what makes _them_ happy.
There are a lot of people very happy with the choice they made to have children. There are a lot of people very unhappy with the choice they made to have children. The same things are true of people who choose not to have children.
Just because something is right for you doesn't mean it's right for everyone. And treating them condescendingly because you believe is does makes you the bad one in the conversation.
There are a lot of people very happy with the choice they made to have children. There are a lot of people very unhappy with the choice they made to have children. The same things are true of people who choose not to have children.
Just because something is right for you doesn't mean it's right for everyone. And treating them condescendingly because you believe is does makes you the bad one in the conversation.
There are many great things about having kids. There are many tough things you need to deal with when you have kids. Before I became a dad, I had a decent insight into the good and the bad.
One good thing that surprised me is the immense inner joy I feel when I see them enjoying themselves. Whether it is watching them laugh uncontrollably, seeing them learn something, or watching them immersed in play.
These are things I used to enjoy, but with age, I either have fewer opportunities to do myself, or they became less enjoyable. Watching my kids go through these experiences stirs up all those same emotions once again.
I'd never think I would enjoy Santa's visits or the great feeling of learning to ride a bike again as an adult, but through my kids, I get to do it again.
Strangely, I don't get those feelings watching other kids doing these things. The chemistry of our minds and relationships is baffling.
One good thing that surprised me is the immense inner joy I feel when I see them enjoying themselves. Whether it is watching them laugh uncontrollably, seeing them learn something, or watching them immersed in play.
These are things I used to enjoy, but with age, I either have fewer opportunities to do myself, or they became less enjoyable. Watching my kids go through these experiences stirs up all those same emotions once again.
I'd never think I would enjoy Santa's visits or the great feeling of learning to ride a bike again as an adult, but through my kids, I get to do it again.
Strangely, I don't get those feelings watching other kids doing these things. The chemistry of our minds and relationships is baffling.
Isn't that insane? Christmas has taken on a totally new sheen for me. I've fallen in love with it again. I remember my dad saying something to that effect when I was a kid, and I asked him if he was excited about presents. He said he was more excited to see us enjoy Christmas, and I could not fathom what he was talking about. Now I'm exploding with excitement about future Christmases with this kid.
> at this pace, the world's population is going to flatline at around 10 billion in 50 years
Is that what you're panicking about? This means that for the next 50 years, we'll continue growing. Lack of offspring of current generations is clearly not the problem here.
I still remember how in the 1980s, people were panicking that the world population kept growing, and sooner or later we were going to hit 10 billion. And now 10 billion is not enough?
It's obvious that this population growth is not sustainable. Sure, the Earth may technically be able to feed 40 billion people if we all turn vegan, but so far, we don't exactly have a good track record of dividing our resources equally. That is a far bigger issue to worry about.
Should the population grow or shrink? I don't know, but whichever we end up doing, we should do so sustainably; make sure every kid is fed, cared for, received the best possible education, and can live a happy life. And if young people don't have the time or money for any of that, not having children is the responsible choice for them. If we don't like the results, we should change our economic balance to the point that they do have the time and money to raise children.
Is that what you're panicking about? This means that for the next 50 years, we'll continue growing. Lack of offspring of current generations is clearly not the problem here.
I still remember how in the 1980s, people were panicking that the world population kept growing, and sooner or later we were going to hit 10 billion. And now 10 billion is not enough?
It's obvious that this population growth is not sustainable. Sure, the Earth may technically be able to feed 40 billion people if we all turn vegan, but so far, we don't exactly have a good track record of dividing our resources equally. That is a far bigger issue to worry about.
Should the population grow or shrink? I don't know, but whichever we end up doing, we should do so sustainably; make sure every kid is fed, cared for, received the best possible education, and can live a happy life. And if young people don't have the time or money for any of that, not having children is the responsible choice for them. If we don't like the results, we should change our economic balance to the point that they do have the time and money to raise children.
>Should the population grow or shrink? I don't know
There was a good paper in the Lancet covering some of the expected repercussions if population growth continues to decline throughout this century (as current trends indicate it will): https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/full...
Certainly society's economic balance is going to be drastically affected:
"Although good for the environment, population decline and associated shifts in age structure in many nations might have other profound and often negative consequences. In 23 countries, including Japan, Thailand, Spain, and Ukraine, populations are expected to decline by 50% or more. Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48·0% decline (95% UI −6·1% to 68·4%). Population percentage declines do not immediately convey the associated profound shifts in age structure in these nations. Our findings suggest that the ratio of the population older than 80 years to the population younger than 15 years will increase in countries with more than 25% population decline, from 0·16 today to 1·50 (0·54–3·25) in 2100. These population shifts have economic and fiscal consequences that will be extremely challenging."
There was a good paper in the Lancet covering some of the expected repercussions if population growth continues to decline throughout this century (as current trends indicate it will): https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)30677-2/full...
Certainly society's economic balance is going to be drastically affected:
"Although good for the environment, population decline and associated shifts in age structure in many nations might have other profound and often negative consequences. In 23 countries, including Japan, Thailand, Spain, and Ukraine, populations are expected to decline by 50% or more. Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48·0% decline (95% UI −6·1% to 68·4%). Population percentage declines do not immediately convey the associated profound shifts in age structure in these nations. Our findings suggest that the ratio of the population older than 80 years to the population younger than 15 years will increase in countries with more than 25% population decline, from 0·16 today to 1·50 (0·54–3·25) in 2100. These population shifts have economic and fiscal consequences that will be extremely challenging."
> Is that what you're panicking about? This means that for the next 50 years, we'll continue growing. Lack of offspring of current generations is clearly not the problem here.
It think it can be and it might already be. The problem is the distribution of people in age groups. If you have a lot of old people and few young people, that creates pressure on the economy.
Sustainable would not just be about the number of people, but also the number of people in each age group.
It think it can be and it might already be. The problem is the distribution of people in age groups. If you have a lot of old people and few young people, that creates pressure on the economy.
Sustainable would not just be about the number of people, but also the number of people in each age group.
[deleted]
10 billion is not enough, if you subscribe to the capitalist tenet of never ending growth.
You need to expand those future markets!
I recently decided to have kids.
Got my wife pregnant, concluded I needed a raise, so I started to work really hard, go above and beyond, 5 months in a row of crunching overtime, got promised a raise during this.
Then just as my kid is about to be born, I get fired.
Still happy my wife is pregnant, but now I know why so many people give advice of the sort "do just the minimum necessary and never treat the company as family".
Got my wife pregnant, concluded I needed a raise, so I started to work really hard, go above and beyond, 5 months in a row of crunching overtime, got promised a raise during this.
Then just as my kid is about to be born, I get fired.
Still happy my wife is pregnant, but now I know why so many people give advice of the sort "do just the minimum necessary and never treat the company as family".
Capitalist: "without enough babies, economy will collapsed"
Employer: "Employees spend too much time on raising child, my business will fail"
Didn't they see who cause the problem?
Employer: "Employees spend too much time on raising child, my business will fail"
Didn't they see who cause the problem?
you're never going to get rich working for someone else, start a business if you want to increase your income. The whole point of the day job is just to pay the bills while you build your business which will make you rich.
Sorry you had to learn that lesson the hard way, hope your financial situation improves soon. :)
Sorry you had to learn that lesson the hard way, hope your financial situation improves soon. :)
I would expect you havee 0 experience in starting a company?
The overwhelming majority of small business starts fail.
People who come from wealthy families, or have other sources of finance, are able to be repeat offenders until possibly they succeed.
Almost everyone else fails.
Starting a business is primarily the best way to blow you life savings while working 60hour weeks.
Some exceptions exist...
The overwhelming majority of small business starts fail.
People who come from wealthy families, or have other sources of finance, are able to be repeat offenders until possibly they succeed.
Almost everyone else fails.
Starting a business is primarily the best way to blow you life savings while working 60hour weeks.
Some exceptions exist...
> The whole point of the day job is just to pay the bills while you build your business which will make you rich.
Not for me it's not. I have a day job because it's a relatively low risk, stable way to acquire the money I need. I don't need to be rich. I need a way to pay the bills and buy the things I want to enjoy my life.
And yes, I know that every job has risks, and the only way you can't be fired is if you own the company. But, while the upsides of your own company are bigger, so too are the downsides. When I start a new job, my savings stay where they are. If I start a new company, odds are I'm investing/risking my savings. I'm not interested in doing that while I have a family I'm responsible for.
Not for me it's not. I have a day job because it's a relatively low risk, stable way to acquire the money I need. I don't need to be rich. I need a way to pay the bills and buy the things I want to enjoy my life.
And yes, I know that every job has risks, and the only way you can't be fired is if you own the company. But, while the upsides of your own company are bigger, so too are the downsides. When I start a new job, my savings stay where they are. If I start a new company, odds are I'm investing/risking my savings. I'm not interested in doing that while I have a family I'm responsible for.
I was given the advice of: There is never a good time to have kids.
I'm over 50, I have kids (and now grandkids) - everyone of them was unplanned and at the time I could not afford them. But each time we struggled and either we made ends meet and it spurred me on to get more money (change jobs/ go contracting/ start my own business)
has it been stressful - yes, have I suffered lack of sleep - yes
would I do it again - absolutely yes, being a father has been one of the best things in life
I'm over 50, I have kids (and now grandkids) - everyone of them was unplanned and at the time I could not afford them. But each time we struggled and either we made ends meet and it spurred me on to get more money (change jobs/ go contracting/ start my own business)
has it been stressful - yes, have I suffered lack of sleep - yes
would I do it again - absolutely yes, being a father has been one of the best things in life
Am I the only person that looks at these (articles/rants/raves/sometimes serious) and thinks: Wait up, the start of the article noted that we are at 8 billion people on the planet... but dangit, we need to have more people!
Perhaps it is sarcasm, and I keep reading we do not have enough young people, but it sure seems ironic that the two headlines that keep cropping up are: Too many people and Not enough people.
Perhaps it is sarcasm, and I keep reading we do not have enough young people, but it sure seems ironic that the two headlines that keep cropping up are: Too many people and Not enough people.
Life is messy
As well written and funny as the article is it still finds itself in a tunnel vision scenario because if the population is rising continuously and no one wants to have kids anymore then where are all these extra kids coming from?
As Yogi Berra said, “Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.”
Because usually population means US and sometimes you can include Europe.
Arbsorlurtlrey.
The developing world. Lack of birth control + poverty + lower cost of raising children has our population exploding in all the places that haven't developed yet.
China and India both have declining fertility rates as well. It seems like fertility is incompatible with economic development.
You forgot the most important point, security when your old, if you have 10 children's the "burden" to provide money/time to the parents is smaller per child.
If the state is not providing "insurance" the family has to.
If the state is not providing "insurance" the family has to.
It depends on the culture, I guess - AFAIK the birth rate in western countries is decreasing.
On the other hand, the taxi drivers I remember talking to about children, had all a certain (non-western) background, and they had (as far as I remember) 2, 4, 3, 8 children, respectively.
On the other hand, the taxi drivers I remember talking to about children, had all a certain (non-western) background, and they had (as far as I remember) 2, 4, 3, 8 children, respectively.
Aside from the apt Yogi Berra reference, a lot of kids are made by "accident" by people who didn't "want" to but accept their fate when it's "happened". Oopsie!
There aren't just extra kids, there's extra old people.
Population growth is both more kids being born, and people living longer.
We're now in the people living longer stage.
Hans Rosling did a simple demonstration of this with boxes over a decade ago.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...
edit: better illustration of the point, still Hans with Boxes here:
https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI?t=203
We're now in the people living longer stage.
Hans Rosling did a simple demonstration of this with boxes over a decade ago.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...
edit: better illustration of the point, still Hans with Boxes here:
https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI?t=203
That was fascinating. Thanks for the link.
When I was 19, with childhood bullying issues at school and with my stepmother, low self esteem, parents separated when I was three months old, I realized I was not somebody who could have a family.
I just don't have the confidence, I don't have the friend network, and I'm just unable to deal with dating women with all the mixed messages and how women have internalized misogyny and sexism, which often makes relationships difficult. I support feminism, but I don't have the emotional intelligence to handle the problems women go through.
It's not that I don't want a family, it's mostly that I don't care.
I just don't have the confidence, I don't have the friend network, and I'm just unable to deal with dating women with all the mixed messages and how women have internalized misogyny and sexism, which often makes relationships difficult. I support feminism, but I don't have the emotional intelligence to handle the problems women go through.
It's not that I don't want a family, it's mostly that I don't care.
I have decided not to have kids, at least partly because I believe Earth is already overpopulated for the living standard that humans deserve.
Occasionally, someone asks the idiotic question, what if everybody made the same decision? Well, if they truly did, I would have made a different choice.
All these projections about (white) replacement are fundamentally flawed because they assume that the reasons for the decision won't change with the demographics.
Occasionally, someone asks the idiotic question, what if everybody made the same decision? Well, if they truly did, I would have made a different choice.
All these projections about (white) replacement are fundamentally flawed because they assume that the reasons for the decision won't change with the demographics.
You are just a narcissist.
Am I? I think from a selfish perspective, I am making a huge mistake. I have no doubt that having kids is a lot of fun, which I will miss, and also when I get old, I will miss someone keeping an eye on me. (Technically, you don't need your own kids for that but our society is, for better or worse, structured that way.) And I hope next generation will be very slightly better off (less resource contention) because of my choice.
Also, to clarify another thread which is no longer there, I am not anti-natalist, but "anatalist" - I believe in personal choice in this matter. I also don't think anatalism is hereditary, but acquired from intellectual reflection of the world.
Also, to clarify another thread which is no longer there, I am not anti-natalist, but "anatalist" - I believe in personal choice in this matter. I also don't think anatalism is hereditary, but acquired from intellectual reflection of the world.
Having children is also narcissistic. They are copies of you after all.
icare_1er(2)
My personal experience - and I've heard many others repeat the same sentiment:
When you're single, your happiness levels typically range on a scale from 0 to 10.
Once you get married, that range expands to run from -100 to +100.
Then when you have kids, all the limits are removed.
When you're single, your happiness levels typically range on a scale from 0 to 10.
Once you get married, that range expands to run from -100 to +100.
Then when you have kids, all the limits are removed.
Hah, agreed. Getting married has been a major highlight for me. Occasional -100 but many many +100s.
This is great, although I'd say single ranges from -10 to 10.
I am so surprised that, in a site visited by technical people, so many don't get that the rate of change is decreasing...
Didn't any of you study Calculus? Didn't you get the idea of "negative second derivative"?
Yes, population is still growing in poor 3rd world countries. But even there it does at a rate far bellow what was 40 years ago.
Didn't any of you study Calculus? Didn't you get the idea of "negative second derivative"?
Yes, population is still growing in poor 3rd world countries. But even there it does at a rate far bellow what was 40 years ago.
Until government recognize the needs for their own educated kids, they may get short end of the stick by importing large number of uneducated immigrants as a short-term measure.
Yeah, another contentious issue.
It is not like United States having done immigrating foreign scientists and tradesmen during and after WWI, WWII, Korean, Iran, or Vietnam Wars thereby actually benefited from them, economically and culturally.
Government are typically desperate for more taxpayers due to extended shrinkages (puns intended).
It is a battle for being able to cherry-pick from the pool of global immigrants (which US usually does well through its 38 different types of visa).
Like military recruiting , government will often get hamfisted by attaching strange and unreasonable stipulations based on their own morality (and not on its nation's needs).
Again, government should be making it easier to have its own kids, but they have not as of lately.
It is as if most government have done the math and have deemed raising kids as a loss-leader over recent immigration. My point is the longer-term cost sink is tremendously worse by a magnitude if they choose poorly.
Yeah, another contentious issue.
It is not like United States having done immigrating foreign scientists and tradesmen during and after WWI, WWII, Korean, Iran, or Vietnam Wars thereby actually benefited from them, economically and culturally.
Government are typically desperate for more taxpayers due to extended shrinkages (puns intended).
It is a battle for being able to cherry-pick from the pool of global immigrants (which US usually does well through its 38 different types of visa).
Like military recruiting , government will often get hamfisted by attaching strange and unreasonable stipulations based on their own morality (and not on its nation's needs).
Again, government should be making it easier to have its own kids, but they have not as of lately.
It is as if most government have done the math and have deemed raising kids as a loss-leader over recent immigration. My point is the longer-term cost sink is tremendously worse by a magnitude if they choose poorly.
It seems like a stretch to claim that our population is going to zero the instant that exponential growth stops. There is nothing stopping the population from dropping to (for example) 4B and then start climbing again.
I know this is going to be a hugely unpopular opinion, but life has no purpose if it was not for offspring. To me not wanting children gives me the same vibes as someone playing a sport or entering a competition and then not giving their absolute everything to win Gold.
Most people play sport to enjoy the game, not to become champions at it.
What about having offspring gives life purpose?
Do you just beget children to... help them grow up to beget more children so they can... help their children to beget more children so...
That doesn't sound (or vibe) purposeful to me. That description is obviously missing something essential.
If life has a purpose (or feeling/vibe of one) there must be something else than merely having offspring to propagate the species for its own sake.
Whatever that something else is, it seems obvious to me that it is not conditional on your own offspring specifically.
For example if you love children in person, there are a lot of orphans who would like soneone to raise them. And plenty of teaching and medicine to do.
If you love children more generally, there's plenty of science, entertainment, ending hunger, looking after the planet etc which lots of children really appreciate. They find that stuff purposeful, and that feels to me like that counts for a lot.
You do you, but you see where I'm coming from.
What about having offspring gives life purpose?
Do you just beget children to... help them grow up to beget more children so they can... help their children to beget more children so...
That doesn't sound (or vibe) purposeful to me. That description is obviously missing something essential.
If life has a purpose (or feeling/vibe of one) there must be something else than merely having offspring to propagate the species for its own sake.
Whatever that something else is, it seems obvious to me that it is not conditional on your own offspring specifically.
For example if you love children in person, there are a lot of orphans who would like soneone to raise them. And plenty of teaching and medicine to do.
If you love children more generally, there's plenty of science, entertainment, ending hunger, looking after the planet etc which lots of children really appreciate. They find that stuff purposeful, and that feels to me like that counts for a lot.
You do you, but you see where I'm coming from.
Life is very basic at its core. The purpose of all life is survival. Offspring is paramount for survival.
When there are too many people on Earth to support a sustainable live for humanity, not having kids is the paramount for survival.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33879397
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33879397
It's my job to teach my kids well enough to get them into a position to survive. The Earth is huge.
I was talking about the survival of humanity.
I know, I am talking about the portion of humanity I can help survive.
By adding another portion, you decrease the chances for the whole.
I'm sorry you feel that way. If everyone stops having kids the chances for the whole is 0%.
It won't happen anytime soon, so you don't have to worry. I am not arguing that everyone should stop having kids. This comment will not be read by everyone.
Also, it's not just my feeling, it's proven by research: https://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1ful....
Also, it's not just my feeling, it's proven by research: https://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1ful....
I wasn't worried. Research assumes a lot of things, like how the future will go. Humanity tends to do things to affect the course of the future. It may be that we use less, run out of stuff, or find alternatives. We have wars, famines, acts of god, or even plain old cultural shifts. Not having kids because you're worried about something like climate change that won't happen anytime soon feels kind of silly. The humans in the future will either adapt and survive, or not. Nothing I do will change the fact that life will change and they'll need to adapt in various ways.
> Research assumes a lot of things, like how the future will go.
The current expectations are based on many decades of data, when humanity did nothing to stop the climate change. Even starting to act right now will not have quick consequences, and even this is not really happening. Act of God could indeed change that, but I would not rely on it for my plans.
> climate change that won't happen anytime soon
For you it won't, but for your kids it will happen soon enough and may be devastating. Many other kids are already born and lack parental care. What forces you to care for your own kids only? Instincts? From the logic, all genes are already present in sufficient quantities, so it's not necessary to preserve your own ones.
> Nothing I do will change the fact that life will change and they'll need to adapt in various ways.
Do you believe that you actions do not affect the future? Sounds a bit like learned helplessness.
The current expectations are based on many decades of data, when humanity did nothing to stop the climate change. Even starting to act right now will not have quick consequences, and even this is not really happening. Act of God could indeed change that, but I would not rely on it for my plans.
> climate change that won't happen anytime soon
For you it won't, but for your kids it will happen soon enough and may be devastating. Many other kids are already born and lack parental care. What forces you to care for your own kids only? Instincts? From the logic, all genes are already present in sufficient quantities, so it's not necessary to preserve your own ones.
> Nothing I do will change the fact that life will change and they'll need to adapt in various ways.
Do you believe that you actions do not affect the future? Sounds a bit like learned helplessness.
> What about having offspring gives life purpose?
Each child is basically a project that you spend lots of time working on and care about deeply.
Each child is basically a project that you spend lots of time working on and care about deeply.
There's no "winning" life. We're all going to die, the sun will expand to engulf the earth, and the universe has several possible endings but it ending is something physicists are pretty confident about. There's no such thing as forever, not for you, not for your genetic lineage, not for anyone or anything. So there's no clear way that having offspring is any more purposeful than anything else.
My father was a lot like you when it came to pushing the "giving everything to win" mindset. It fucked me up for life because it made it very difficult for me to relax and enjoy things for the sake of them.
My father was a lot like you when it came to pushing the "giving everything to win" mindset. It fucked me up for life because it made it very difficult for me to relax and enjoy things for the sake of them.
> To me not wanting children gives me the same vibes as someone playing a sport or entering a competition and then not giving their absolute everything to win Gold
God forbid someone tried a sport to help get in shape or to enjoy themselves
God forbid someone tried a sport to help get in shape or to enjoy themselves
would it not be easier to say "life has no purpose for you"?
People are varied and have varying motivations, what's important to one is not necessarily important to another.
People are varied and have varying motivations, what's important to one is not necessarily important to another.
One small spark of reality is voiced in this comment ^^
Life HAS NO MEANING
Who ever started this idea that growing out of the slime mould on some obscure planet implies "meaning".
WTF is "meaning' anyway?
Isn't this just another way of asking "How does all of this affect me?"
The incredible level of a self centered view of the universe is one of the human primate's most distinguishing features...
BTW, I have one son, in his 20s. It's been both fulfilling and excruciating. I'm happy he was born, and I love him very much.
Life HAS NO MEANING
Who ever started this idea that growing out of the slime mould on some obscure planet implies "meaning".
WTF is "meaning' anyway?
Isn't this just another way of asking "How does all of this affect me?"
The incredible level of a self centered view of the universe is one of the human primate's most distinguishing features...
BTW, I have one son, in his 20s. It's been both fulfilling and excruciating. I'm happy he was born, and I love him very much.
correction: life has no purpose, EVEN IF you have offspring.
A self replicating machine doesn't have a purpose behind its actions, it just does them.
A self replicating machine doesn't have a purpose behind its actions, it just does them.
Thank you achenet!
Maybe everyone should watch the Steve Martin movie "The Jerk".
He searches for his "purpose".
SPOILER: It turns out to be his dick 8-)
Maybe everyone should watch the Steve Martin movie "The Jerk".
He searches for his "purpose".
SPOILER: It turns out to be his dick 8-)
I have a son, and he's awesome and I can't imagine life without him, nor would I want to experience life without him, but I find the propagation of our species the least interesting purpose of life. If nothing is done during that life except propagate, then nothing is happening of interest, just people hedonistically living. What is done with your life is the most important purpose, otherwise we are just cycling around to no end.
Do you think this applies to others too? Some people do sports or competitions for fun. Winning is overrated.
All the things that give me purpose in life would be impossible or unreasonably complicated with kids.
I feel sorry for the author, I couldn't finish reading what he wrote because it was far too cringy.
Overpopulation is not an issue. The real issue is logistics. If someone says they won't have children because they "wouldn't want to miss sleeping" or "clean up after a baby", they clearly are using an excuse. For whatever reason, they deem themselves unfit to be parents. Let them be. People on the fence don't stay there very long, and people rarely switch sides. Better one pair of good parents than five negligent pairs.
Overpopulation is not an issue. The real issue is logistics. If someone says they won't have children because they "wouldn't want to miss sleeping" or "clean up after a baby", they clearly are using an excuse. For whatever reason, they deem themselves unfit to be parents. Let them be. People on the fence don't stay there very long, and people rarely switch sides. Better one pair of good parents than five negligent pairs.
If the state wants babies let it act so as to make them easier to have. Medical care, parental leave, inexpensive day care even per child funding. Some have done this but it’s in disagreement with the conservative approach to governing. People get what they vote for.
Why would a/the state wanted babies? The most rational thing to want is educated proffessionals from lower cost countries (so you can lowball them more easily) who pay their taxes and stay until retirement, and then they can be sent where they came from for retirement. Minimum social and education costs, maximum tax income, lower costs of doing business for local population who would still be mostly in charge of local companies.
The state does want babies. Notice the meek state opposition to recent changes in availability of a certain healthcare procedure. Don’t expect that to be changed back anytime soon.
If you’re referring to abortion in the us, I’ve always viewed that as anti-enjoyment rather than pro-child. It’s certainly not pro-mother and it has nothing that helps children once born. Carlin did a riff on this.
I agree that it’s cynical, but I suspect we will see less reproductive freedoms as states see their population growth go negative. Why use the carrot when you have a perfectly good stick.
Except in Africa.
The world natural increase map is most interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_...
The world natural increase map is most interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_...
Niger is going to be insane real soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Niger
50% of the population under 14 years old right now
50% of the population under 14 years old right now
Finding a wonderful partner and building a family are the best things I have ever done. Highly recommended. If I could go back, I'd spend less time "working hard and playing hard" in the decade after I finished school and start working on the family much sooner. It's hard to express how much more rewarding it is than anything I was doing before.
Your mileage may vary, but kids are great, truly.
Your mileage may vary, but kids are great, truly.
What a confusing read. I largely can't discern the sarcasm from impassioned outrage. Nor am I certain that "any decrease in population is catastrophic" is the message that I was meant to receive, but that is what I got out of it. I've heard this argument before and I have never been able to piece together the logic. My best guess is that it's mainly a difference in perspective, and somebody's catastrophic is to me simply worse than what we have now.
Yes, there will be a time when things are worse. Rise and decline is a pattern in pretty much every facet of every trend that I can think of. Nothing goes up forever. Just because Earth's population flatlines at 10m, doesn't mean humanity is heading straight for extinction. I mean, it's possible. But far more likely is that at some point, for some reason, things turn back around and the population starts growing again. In the meantime, overpopulation and underpopulation both come with their own problems, and I'm not sure which is worse. We're only ~300 years into the industrial revolution after all. Maybe it's time for a little pullback. That is healthy for the real long-haul.
Sure, none of us actually wants to be a part of the hard times. We would rather the great-great-great-grandchildren that we've never met and never will be the ones to bear that burden. But somebody's going to have to deal with it eventually, and yes, it could be you (and me). Meanwhile, having a smaller number of people on the planet (while creating some problems that we had forgotten about) will surely also make some things easier. If literally no one wanted to have kids anymore, it might be a real problem. This is just another urban perspective; I could believe that no one in a city wants to have kids anymore. At least some of us forest dwellers are still breeding like rabbits.
Yes, there will be a time when things are worse. Rise and decline is a pattern in pretty much every facet of every trend that I can think of. Nothing goes up forever. Just because Earth's population flatlines at 10m, doesn't mean humanity is heading straight for extinction. I mean, it's possible. But far more likely is that at some point, for some reason, things turn back around and the population starts growing again. In the meantime, overpopulation and underpopulation both come with their own problems, and I'm not sure which is worse. We're only ~300 years into the industrial revolution after all. Maybe it's time for a little pullback. That is healthy for the real long-haul.
Sure, none of us actually wants to be a part of the hard times. We would rather the great-great-great-grandchildren that we've never met and never will be the ones to bear that burden. But somebody's going to have to deal with it eventually, and yes, it could be you (and me). Meanwhile, having a smaller number of people on the planet (while creating some problems that we had forgotten about) will surely also make some things easier. If literally no one wanted to have kids anymore, it might be a real problem. This is just another urban perspective; I could believe that no one in a city wants to have kids anymore. At least some of us forest dwellers are still breeding like rabbits.
> Just because Earth's population flatlines at 10m, doesn't mean humanity is heading straight for extinction
By the time the population flatlines (at 10B) it will be with a pretty old population already. Many countries have a birth rate < 1.3 and many more are headed that way. That means after every 30 years or so, the number of babies born every year will decrease by 35%. Every 30 years. This is already very noticeable in e.g. South Korea, which last year had a birthrate of 0.8 I believe, where schools are now closing in droves.
And the problem is, none of the mechanisms that are causing birthrates to plummet are showing any signs of slowing down or reversing. The countries with higher birthrates right now are just further back on the curve, they'll be where we are soon enough. It might be that the reasons for decreasing birthrates are things we're not willing to give up, like improved quality of life of singles, increased education and equality between the sexes. We'll see if natural selection will act quickly enough to produce people with a stronger instinct for having kids, but then the question is why hasn't this already happened, as birth rates have been declining for the past century while living standards have increased immensely. As the number of people choosing to have zero kids rather than just fewer increase, perhaps this will put the pressure on in a way it hasn't yet.
By the time the population flatlines (at 10B) it will be with a pretty old population already. Many countries have a birth rate < 1.3 and many more are headed that way. That means after every 30 years or so, the number of babies born every year will decrease by 35%. Every 30 years. This is already very noticeable in e.g. South Korea, which last year had a birthrate of 0.8 I believe, where schools are now closing in droves.
And the problem is, none of the mechanisms that are causing birthrates to plummet are showing any signs of slowing down or reversing. The countries with higher birthrates right now are just further back on the curve, they'll be where we are soon enough. It might be that the reasons for decreasing birthrates are things we're not willing to give up, like improved quality of life of singles, increased education and equality between the sexes. We'll see if natural selection will act quickly enough to produce people with a stronger instinct for having kids, but then the question is why hasn't this already happened, as birth rates have been declining for the past century while living standards have increased immensely. As the number of people choosing to have zero kids rather than just fewer increase, perhaps this will put the pressure on in a way it hasn't yet.
This topic is absolutely fascinating. Here are all the ingredients for the bomb:
- Demography department: a) fertility, b) pension systems, the link between economic growth, population growth, and productivity growth (how can you have a safe pension system anyway without economic growth? will people have access to safe investments, if all safe investments simply track economic growth? can we have economic growth which is based solely on productivity growth if population is contracting?)
- Climate warming department: lifetime CO2 emissions per human being, and environmental impact.
- The perception of all the above. If most people believe than the above problems are more severe than they are, due to amplification (schooling, social media, institutions, etc), then they will want to have even less children.
- Demography department: a) fertility, b) pension systems, the link between economic growth, population growth, and productivity growth (how can you have a safe pension system anyway without economic growth? will people have access to safe investments, if all safe investments simply track economic growth? can we have economic growth which is based solely on productivity growth if population is contracting?)
- Climate warming department: lifetime CO2 emissions per human being, and environmental impact.
- The perception of all the above. If most people believe than the above problems are more severe than they are, due to amplification (schooling, social media, institutions, etc), then they will want to have even less children.
It's not for everyone, and not everyone can (physically, financially, etc), and few that do will consistently feel 'successful' at parenting. No fidelity of a priori information will determine if it's for you. It's a leap. People shouldn't pressure others into or away from it. Governments worried about population growth should invest in social programs to aid early childcare and education; and generally improve social/medical safety nets for everyone. Under no circumstances disrupt the adoption apparatus, controls, standards therein - provide appropriate additional support around transracial adoption. The only certainty is that having a(nother) kid definitely won't repair a strained relationship.
Sure, the article is funny, but what's the alternative to the dreaded arrest of growth? There's one: continual growth, forever.
I find the premise of infinite growth absurd: we'll hit some hard resource limits and fizzle out sooner or later. Perhaps the author thinks it's more fun that way than fizzle out out of caution/apathy?
Or maybe we'll keep growing, but will have to change something about being a human. Turn into a hive mind? Become microscopic? Either way, it's going to be more difficult than preventing the economic collapse due to oldster overflow.
Out of two ways to preserve population growth one is more ridiculous than the other. I get an impression that it's written by someone who wants to keep running while reality indicates to slow down.
I find the premise of infinite growth absurd: we'll hit some hard resource limits and fizzle out sooner or later. Perhaps the author thinks it's more fun that way than fizzle out out of caution/apathy?
Or maybe we'll keep growing, but will have to change something about being a human. Turn into a hive mind? Become microscopic? Either way, it's going to be more difficult than preventing the economic collapse due to oldster overflow.
Out of two ways to preserve population growth one is more ridiculous than the other. I get an impression that it's written by someone who wants to keep running while reality indicates to slow down.
> Don't fool yourself; we're not overpopulating ourselves to global economic and environmental meltdown;
Yes we are. Yes. We. Are.
Let it happen. I'll start panicking if the human population is still decreasing at 100 million. But for now, we are still growing.
Yes we are. Yes. We. Are.
Let it happen. I'll start panicking if the human population is still decreasing at 100 million. But for now, we are still growing.
Even if you believe that the earth is overpopulated and think a shrinking population is good, you still need to consider the sustainability of that population change.
Birth rates below replacement means that the proportion of elderly increases every year, forever. This means an every increasing proportion of resources has to be transferred from the working to non-working population.
It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change.
Birth rates below replacement means that the proportion of elderly increases every year, forever. This means an every increasing proportion of resources has to be transferred from the working to non-working population.
It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change.
I don't forsee climate change being addressed under today's economic system of 'build wealth and support themselves', so I'm not sure what kind of world you envision.
Do you think it would addressed under destroy wealth and neglect themselves? lol What are you even saying?
I was just trying to say that as the proportion of retired people increases they will take more resources and that will mean fewer resources for /anything/ else.
I was just trying to say that as the proportion of retired people increases they will take more resources and that will mean fewer resources for /anything/ else.
[deleted]
>Birth rates below replacement means that the proportion of elderly increases every year, forever.
Not when life expectancy decreases, as it is here in the United States.
>It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change.
"Big problems" like climate change because much less "big" when other problems grow more pressing and threatening to immediate survival. People who don't have a roof over their heads or a meal to eat aren't concerned with climate change.
Not when life expectancy decreases, as it is here in the United States.
>It will become harder and harder for young people to build wealth and support themselves and it means fewer resources to solve the other very big problems we have such as climate change.
"Big problems" like climate change because much less "big" when other problems grow more pressing and threatening to immediate survival. People who don't have a roof over their heads or a meal to eat aren't concerned with climate change.
> Not when life expectancy decreases, as it is here in the United States.
That's scary! Do you think life expectancy to continue to decrease?
> People who don't have a roof over their heads or a meal to eat aren't concerned with climate change.
Sure that's what I was trying to communicate. Climate change won't be a priority when people are struggling but it doesn't go away...
That's scary! Do you think life expectancy to continue to decrease?
> People who don't have a roof over their heads or a meal to eat aren't concerned with climate change.
Sure that's what I was trying to communicate. Climate change won't be a priority when people are struggling but it doesn't go away...
What is your response to Ezra Klein's "Your Kids Are Not Doomed"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-sh...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-sh...
Humans are not “fungible”. Therefore:
- Immigration will alter the societal outcomes of a region, for “better” or “worse”, as the region chooses
- Destruction of productive and healthy societies by prolific but unhealthy ones will cause widespread harm.
- Failure to reproduce at replacement levels won’t show up as a disaster until many years after it is too late to correct it.
Wouldn’t it be better to aim to reduce harm and increase productivity, than to blanket reduce the overall population?
- Immigration will alter the societal outcomes of a region, for “better” or “worse”, as the region chooses
- Destruction of productive and healthy societies by prolific but unhealthy ones will cause widespread harm.
- Failure to reproduce at replacement levels won’t show up as a disaster until many years after it is too late to correct it.
Wouldn’t it be better to aim to reduce harm and increase productivity, than to blanket reduce the overall population?
Human's at scale are fungible. "Destruction of productive and healthy societies by prolific but unhealthy ones". I hesitate to use the word dog whistle, but this is pretty inarguably racist. Unless you'd like to clarify which 'unhealthy' cultures you're referring to. For many value judgements, the lack of social cohesion, level of violent crime, historically high rates of imprisonment etc make the US an 'unhealthy culture'.
Excel begs to differ ;)
I don't think the issue is the absolute number of humans but the ratio of young to old.
We wanted to have kids, changed country and had 2!
We are very frugal compared to the average people in Canada, so we are still able to save for college and retirement.
Having kids pushed to take ownership of my finances, plan ahead and so many benefits.
Yeah, I lost a lot of sleep too.
Overall, having a child helped me grow enormously, but I think owning a company with employees might end up with some overlap in what you learn (pure theory). So if the goal is growing, you could skip the child.
The affection a child gives you "for free" is invaluable though. You don't experience that without children. If you are a physical person be aware, children are the first time when all your hug needs will be satisfied!
One thing that I'm still processing is the following: my parents (one if them) fucked up their retirement even though they started life way ahead of me (millions ahead of me) and I will be faced with the question "should I help them". While the answer seems obvious, it's not now: it means that due to my parent failure, my children may need to do the same, because I would be wasting my retirement.
I'm still fighting with this,hard to process.
We are very frugal compared to the average people in Canada, so we are still able to save for college and retirement.
Having kids pushed to take ownership of my finances, plan ahead and so many benefits.
Yeah, I lost a lot of sleep too.
Overall, having a child helped me grow enormously, but I think owning a company with employees might end up with some overlap in what you learn (pure theory). So if the goal is growing, you could skip the child.
The affection a child gives you "for free" is invaluable though. You don't experience that without children. If you are a physical person be aware, children are the first time when all your hug needs will be satisfied!
One thing that I'm still processing is the following: my parents (one if them) fucked up their retirement even though they started life way ahead of me (millions ahead of me) and I will be faced with the question "should I help them". While the answer seems obvious, it's not now: it means that due to my parent failure, my children may need to do the same, because I would be wasting my retirement.
I'm still fighting with this,hard to process.
This matter is a very clear choice:
1) Have children early at risk of living life without wealth but at minimum risk of health for all parties.
2) Delay. This risks never having children for various biological reasons for the impractically increased chance of increased wealth.
As somebody who had children early, went through poverty, and now lives in a large house with a nice job I can't help but look at single people in their 30s or older. I always want to ask them why they cannot afford a Lamborghini or live in a giant mansion. They had no such restrictions on their time and/or finances to dedicate increased efforts in advancing their careers or founding new businesses.
1) Have children early at risk of living life without wealth but at minimum risk of health for all parties.
2) Delay. This risks never having children for various biological reasons for the impractically increased chance of increased wealth.
As somebody who had children early, went through poverty, and now lives in a large house with a nice job I can't help but look at single people in their 30s or older. I always want to ask them why they cannot afford a Lamborghini or live in a giant mansion. They had no such restrictions on their time and/or finances to dedicate increased efforts in advancing their careers or founding new businesses.
Why would you need a giant mansion if you're single? That's just a whole lot of empty space nobody is gonna use.
Whilst I obviously can't speak for the single people you've met, it is possible that not all of them were optimizing for the outcome of living in giant mansions or owning lamborghinis :)
It is odd to assume people in their 30s are single by choice. Especially when, given the strain of having children on a relationship, partner quality matters a lot.
> I always want to ask them why they cannot afford a Lamborghini or live in a giant mansion
Do you lack any critical thinking ability whatsoever? Or do you have a need to be in peoples’ business?
Do you lack any critical thinking ability whatsoever? Or do you have a need to be in peoples’ business?
Plenty of us still do and still are, despite the plethora of articles like this trying to plant the seeds of bad influence :)
When we reach 10bn people, we will already have almost no children. This is what most people don’t get.
The slowdown is already here. Birth rates are still collapsing. But people worldwide are living longer so the actual number of people is still increasing.
By the time you get to 10bn in 50 years, it means you will have the majority of that pretty old. It will mean a completely unsustainable world demographic. And it will probably mean a massive collapse in population to 2-3bn within a few generations.
No idea what that will bring, but it will be a very different society to now.
The slowdown is already here. Birth rates are still collapsing. But people worldwide are living longer so the actual number of people is still increasing.
By the time you get to 10bn in 50 years, it means you will have the majority of that pretty old. It will mean a completely unsustainable world demographic. And it will probably mean a massive collapse in population to 2-3bn within a few generations.
No idea what that will bring, but it will be a very different society to now.
> I mean, fertility rates have been going down for 50 years; women are having half as many children, and some are so focused on their careers they might as well repurpose their wombs into walk-in closets.
Jesus. That language alone is part of why many women choose to remain child-free. Women aren't living incubators ffs.
> Maybe governments will wake up to the urgency of this issue and start implementing ways to encourage young people to take a look at Ikea's crib catalogue.
And that sentence hints at the problem. My parents could afford two kids on basically one income in the 90's Munich. Me today? Barely two cats on two incomes, and not that small incomes either.
When wages are so low that people struggle to live paycheck to paycheck - in America, almost a third of all [1] - they obviously won't have children if they can prevent having them.
We need significant wage increases, we need actual provisions for parents (i.e. paid parental leave for both parents for at least a year), we need lower rents and lower utility bills.
Oh, and we need lower working hours as well. 8 hours a day is already stretching it particularly with commuting involved, you need time and mental space not just for having sex, but also to actually care for a child.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/more-americans-live-paycheck...
Jesus. That language alone is part of why many women choose to remain child-free. Women aren't living incubators ffs.
> Maybe governments will wake up to the urgency of this issue and start implementing ways to encourage young people to take a look at Ikea's crib catalogue.
And that sentence hints at the problem. My parents could afford two kids on basically one income in the 90's Munich. Me today? Barely two cats on two incomes, and not that small incomes either.
When wages are so low that people struggle to live paycheck to paycheck - in America, almost a third of all [1] - they obviously won't have children if they can prevent having them.
We need significant wage increases, we need actual provisions for parents (i.e. paid parental leave for both parents for at least a year), we need lower rents and lower utility bills.
Oh, and we need lower working hours as well. 8 hours a day is already stretching it particularly with commuting involved, you need time and mental space not just for having sex, but also to actually care for a child.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/24/more-americans-live-paycheck...
I think it cliche to believe it's strictly a financial decision. In fact, in the West (afaik) the middle and upper class have a lower birth rates than those below them.
Not to get subjective and fuzzy but children are a symbol of hope and promise. Any reasonable adult who is considering children has to ask themselve how to answer when the child asks, "Why? Why did you bring me into *this* world?"
Who has a good answer for that at this point?
Not to get subjective and fuzzy but children are a symbol of hope and promise. Any reasonable adult who is considering children has to ask themselve how to answer when the child asks, "Why? Why did you bring me into *this* world?"
Who has a good answer for that at this point?
> "Why? Why did you bring me into this world?"
"This world as in the safest and wealthiest world we've ever known? Son, for as long as humanity has existed, we've mastered all the challenges that have been thrown at us. Challenges much worse than the ones we are currently facing, be they environmental, societal or other. You'll find your place in this world and make the best of it."
Of course he'd be an angsty teenager asking that question, so I don't think it'd get through to him for the time being. I'd get him Marcus Aurelius' Meditations for his birthday.
"This world as in the safest and wealthiest world we've ever known? Son, for as long as humanity has existed, we've mastered all the challenges that have been thrown at us. Challenges much worse than the ones we are currently facing, be they environmental, societal or other. You'll find your place in this world and make the best of it."
Of course he'd be an angsty teenager asking that question, so I don't think it'd get through to him for the time being. I'd get him Marcus Aurelius' Meditations for his birthday.
Son? What?? That aside...
We are human. By definition, we are not rational. We are emotional beings. That's the way it is. That's The Science.
Furthermore, we all know the saying: Past performance is no indication of future returns.
As for the wealth of the world. Much like the future, it's unevenly distributed; and getting more and more imbalanced. Yes, extreme poverty has been reduced. But in The West, so has the middle class.
We can pitch the "we're all better off" all we want. But we're all selfish. It's ultimately about us. And if I don't feel secure about the future then in my world that future isn't secure.
We are human. By definition, we are not rational. We are emotional beings. That's the way it is. That's The Science.
Furthermore, we all know the saying: Past performance is no indication of future returns.
As for the wealth of the world. Much like the future, it's unevenly distributed; and getting more and more imbalanced. Yes, extreme poverty has been reduced. But in The West, so has the middle class.
We can pitch the "we're all better off" all we want. But we're all selfish. It's ultimately about us. And if I don't feel secure about the future then in my world that future isn't secure.
>Who has a good answer for that at this point?
There likely isn't a satisfactory answer for everyone but I consider our job (as a whole) to move the human civilization forward. Every person can help take the one small step they can and it may not even be in the direction we intended it to be. My job as a parent is to provide the nurturing environment for my son to develop that sense of self and direction so he can find his purpose.
So while I work to make the better place for my son to live in, I can't solve all the problems we face. It is up to people collectively to overcome those burdens and the trip we make along the way is part of it.
For all the grief, hardship and depression we see in the world, Joy, Love and Happiness still exists to be found and I'm doing my best to let my son find the latter while trying to shelter him from much of the former.
There likely isn't a satisfactory answer for everyone but I consider our job (as a whole) to move the human civilization forward. Every person can help take the one small step they can and it may not even be in the direction we intended it to be. My job as a parent is to provide the nurturing environment for my son to develop that sense of self and direction so he can find his purpose.
So while I work to make the better place for my son to live in, I can't solve all the problems we face. It is up to people collectively to overcome those burdens and the trip we make along the way is part of it.
For all the grief, hardship and depression we see in the world, Joy, Love and Happiness still exists to be found and I'm doing my best to let my son find the latter while trying to shelter him from much of the former.
Considering that it's the poorer people having more children it seems like the obvious answer is that most children are unplanned or the product of dim people with a figure it out later attitude.
> the product of dim people with a figure it out later attitude
I wonder how many of the "figure it out later" attitude people overlap the "absolute faith in higher power" people? Poorer people possibly have more subscribers to religious faith?
A decline in the religious population, that comforted themselves with wellbeing of their offspring being a matter of prayer and ritual and whatnot, has had some impact on peoples' outlook in this matter?
I wonder how many of the "figure it out later" attitude people overlap the "absolute faith in higher power" people? Poorer people possibly have more subscribers to religious faith?
A decline in the religious population, that comforted themselves with wellbeing of their offspring being a matter of prayer and ritual and whatnot, has had some impact on peoples' outlook in this matter?
I think that narrative itself is fairly dim.
Consider a much more reasonable alternative - Having children can be seen as a path to traditional success by those who have very limited financial options.
By having a child - they gain a sense of purpose that is just utterly absent in most of our menial jobs. Further - Most people enjoy many aspects of their childhood, and having a child is a chance to pass on that joy and relive it.
Finally - additional children can bring additional revenue and help on the long term. If you know you have no job security, no money for savings, no pension, no 401k, and a low social security payout due to low earnings - children can be a way to have some semblance of retirement, and a safety net in old age.
---
Is there some overlap where it's also a consequence on not thinking through your decisions? Sure - probably. But that answer is simplistic.
For every complex question there's an answer that's short, simple, and wrong.
Consider a much more reasonable alternative - Having children can be seen as a path to traditional success by those who have very limited financial options.
By having a child - they gain a sense of purpose that is just utterly absent in most of our menial jobs. Further - Most people enjoy many aspects of their childhood, and having a child is a chance to pass on that joy and relive it.
Finally - additional children can bring additional revenue and help on the long term. If you know you have no job security, no money for savings, no pension, no 401k, and a low social security payout due to low earnings - children can be a way to have some semblance of retirement, and a safety net in old age.
---
Is there some overlap where it's also a consequence on not thinking through your decisions? Sure - probably. But that answer is simplistic.
For every complex question there's an answer that's short, simple, and wrong.
It's not really figure it out later. They have reasons like they will take care in the old age. If all of my peers can why can't I etc. Also, it's more of modern concept to actively not have children, which is not really permeated to all economic groups.
Atleast in India.
In other news, Lalu Prasad Yadav's daughter gave her one kidney to him yesterday. Where point 1 literally panned out.
Atleast in India.
In other news, Lalu Prasad Yadav's daughter gave her one kidney to him yesterday. Where point 1 literally panned out.
I believe it’s hope relative to your personal circumstance that drives hopes for the next generation.
Do I think the next generation will have a better life than I had?
That’s easier to answer yes to if you started with little because the baseline is low.
For the squeezed middle in countries that have stopped developing? Probably not given the current trajectory
Do I think the next generation will have a better life than I had?
That’s easier to answer yes to if you started with little because the baseline is low.
For the squeezed middle in countries that have stopped developing? Probably not given the current trajectory
My answer is that people brought other people into the world after the black plague, after world war 2, after Hiroshima, and I'm personally very happy they did.
The world has a lot of issues for sure, but it used to be much much worse, and despite many issues left and appearing constantly, I think we're still going in the right general direction.
There are challenges and obstacles today, there surely will be some in the future, but I'm sure we will prevail, and I for one am happy to be there and want to give this opportunity to someone else.
The world has a lot of issues for sure, but it used to be much much worse, and despite many issues left and appearing constantly, I think we're still going in the right general direction.
There are challenges and obstacles today, there surely will be some in the future, but I'm sure we will prevail, and I for one am happy to be there and want to give this opportunity to someone else.
I used to think like that, but not anymore. The parents must not answer this question. They must not even attempt to do it. It's up to the children, who have their whole lives before them, to look for an answer. And that's the whole point.
Yes, and the children who have grown are answering "I won't do that to another generation".
isnt it U-shaped? after a certain level of wealth i think the rate goes back up?
For me being dad has been the best experience in my life. Being dad is a lonely road this days with so many messages talking about no kids couples but for me is ok, let people decide freely.
In the worst case scenario this solo couples simply will disappear in a few decades and my kids will have to adapt to a different world. Change is the only thing they will inherit and it's ok.
I think there's more going on with respect to the slow decline in population growth. Sure, the wealth a nation has the less it seems people have children but the why isn't always explored, it's just assumed people become more risk adverse or the wealth gap causes people to forego the thought of having a family. I think there's multiple problems at play here. First, you got people being generally more risk adverse which is just a normal thing. Second, the wealth gap is causing more and more folks to delay having a family for their later years. Third, I think some social pressures are just absent from the picture that was once the norm. I know that sounds cruel to pressure someone to have kids (I'm child-free and happy to be that way so I'm not hoping anyone to shame me into having a wife and kids) but I wonder if that even works whether it's positive depictions of young families or the old fashioned nagging of your parents to "settle down."
If you are a curious person, someone generally fascinated by how the world works, raising children is an endless, powerful chance to understand what makes us as we are. (Not to mean that you should treat your children as experiments! Just that it’s one of the by definition unique benefit of raising children, you get to see their humanity unfurl)
If AI and robots are going to be our progeny then what do we need kids for? </s>
I raised three kids. They're now starting to think about having kids of their own. I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. But I don't judge anybody who doesn't have kids, I know many couples my age who don't. Which tells you this isn't a recent trend because I'm not exactly a young man!
We shouldn't be forcing people to have kids. The world needs fewer people, not more, and if people are naturally selecting themselves out of the gene pool and not being forced by government to do so then I guess so much the better.
It really is a Brave New World!
I raised three kids. They're now starting to think about having kids of their own. I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. But I don't judge anybody who doesn't have kids, I know many couples my age who don't. Which tells you this isn't a recent trend because I'm not exactly a young man!
We shouldn't be forcing people to have kids. The world needs fewer people, not more, and if people are naturally selecting themselves out of the gene pool and not being forced by government to do so then I guess so much the better.
It really is a Brave New World!
How is this not good news for humanity?
As many people as he annoyed, RMS had a point.
http://www.art.net/studios/hackers/hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-d...
As many people as he annoyed, RMS had a point.
http://www.art.net/studios/hackers/hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-d...
I like RMS being out there and having the opinions he does, but please don't act like he is some great role model for men or humans. He's a weird nerd who doesn't attract mates and alienates his allies. Woe be unto any man who tries to be like him, you'll end up unhappy and considered a loser
Where did you get that I was acting like he is some great role model?
If you read the entire thread, you will see that I made fun of him 29 years ago by feeding his own words into his own psychiatric diagnosis program (Emacs Doctor), which recognized his name, and criticized him for having hangups and inhibitions.
My point was that in spite of his acerbic but hilarious biting sense of humor, he has a valid point about natalism, despite being annoying and confrontational on purpose to make a point, not that he's a great role model.
>You people just have no sense of humor. I thought the original message was pretty funny and made a few good points (if it didn't, nobody would have been offended). I guess it's a shock for smug self-righteous breeders to learn that not everybody in the world thinks babies are cute and special. -Wayne A. Christopher
>Finally, someone read the message as it was intended to be read. -RMS
If you read the entire thread, you will see that I made fun of him 29 years ago by feeding his own words into his own psychiatric diagnosis program (Emacs Doctor), which recognized his name, and criticized him for having hangups and inhibitions.
My point was that in spite of his acerbic but hilarious biting sense of humor, he has a valid point about natalism, despite being annoying and confrontational on purpose to make a point, not that he's a great role model.
>You people just have no sense of humor. I thought the original message was pretty funny and made a few good points (if it didn't, nobody would have been offended). I guess it's a shock for smug self-righteous breeders to learn that not everybody in the world thinks babies are cute and special. -Wayne A. Christopher
>Finally, someone read the message as it was intended to be read. -RMS
Fair, I think I read more into your comment than was warranted
toejam guy!
RMS has nothing good to say about children.
RMS has nothing good to say about children.
Hmmm! The article talks a lot less about kids but more about the process of making one.
Anyways, here is a fun tip for parents with kids at home -- give them your ChatGPT account and let them have fun. My elder daughter pretty much spent the whole night awake creating a whole bunch of rap songs. She has already sang quite a few to us at the dinner table. Topic ranges from toes to everything the kid talk about these days. Her teachers might ban her access to it if she keeps up with making fun of discussion topics in her class.
OK. Raising kids is a really bad experience 50% of the time. However, there is a slight deviation towards fulfillment and fun, say 1% -- tilting the fun and excitement part to be 51% and that 1% makes all the difference.
Anyways, here is a fun tip for parents with kids at home -- give them your ChatGPT account and let them have fun. My elder daughter pretty much spent the whole night awake creating a whole bunch of rap songs. She has already sang quite a few to us at the dinner table. Topic ranges from toes to everything the kid talk about these days. Her teachers might ban her access to it if she keeps up with making fun of discussion topics in her class.
OK. Raising kids is a really bad experience 50% of the time. However, there is a slight deviation towards fulfillment and fun, say 1% -- tilting the fun and excitement part to be 51% and that 1% makes all the difference.
I wish I could upvote comment by user "Meh" under the article.
This is not a problem. This is a brief hiccough that will literally evolve out in a generation or two. That "trend" is measurable in decades, against millions of years of history. And it's not universal, either.
We would be INCREDIBLY LUCKY if it lasted long enough to cut the human population in half, because we are likely already over long-term sustainable carrying capacity. In fact we might be over sustainable capacity at 4 billion. But we are very unlikely to get that lucky.
It's very fashionable right now to hand-wring over "population collapse", but it's dumb.
This is not a problem. This is a brief hiccough that will literally evolve out in a generation or two. That "trend" is measurable in decades, against millions of years of history. And it's not universal, either.
We would be INCREDIBLY LUCKY if it lasted long enough to cut the human population in half, because we are likely already over long-term sustainable carrying capacity. In fact we might be over sustainable capacity at 4 billion. But we are very unlikely to get that lucky.
It's very fashionable right now to hand-wring over "population collapse", but it's dumb.
> Are you really making an argument for why we don't need more babies to be brought into this world? That is a bit on the side of fucked up if you ask me.
Great argument. About as great as the rest of the article which misses any nuance.
Great argument. About as great as the rest of the article which misses any nuance.
It is sad to see that our generation is on its way to being the one to transform the world into a nursing home. I myself don't have children, but half my life taking antidepressants, trying to have a house that I couldn't have,it haven't helped me. And I feel that my circumstances are unfortunately very widespread among the population, regardless of whether or not there are people who want or not to have children as their own decision, instead of because of an impossibility due to their life circumstances.
Why are random substack rants upvoted?
I think it depends on culture for having/not having a kid.
In developing countries, the purpose as i see is mostly to have a child to take care of them when they get old, which seems wrong!
In developing countries, the purpose as i see is mostly to have a child to take care of them when they get old, which seems wrong!
Everyone wants to have kids. Everyone. But the whole fear of the future between paying for school loans, divorce rates, rising cost of living, exciting work environments, both couples working, thoughts of day care, and finally the lack of compromise in reducing your class of living is driving people bonkers where children and family are just no longer part of the equation.
I never wanted kids. Hated being a child, my parents didn't want me, but were culturally pressured to do so (Dad: "Your mother got pregnant to try and trap me." Mom: "Having kids is just what you did back then."), and I got trapped as a bargaining chip in a toxic divorce situation. And I have a chronic pain issue since I was little and wouldn't want to pass that on to anyone.
Got fixed in my early 20s with no regrets.
Got fixed in my early 20s with no regrets.
Absolutely not. I know many people who absolutely hate the idea of having kids in their core.
I would imagine that population growth follows something like a sigmoid growth curve. Having birth rates slow down is to be expected once humans reaches carrying capacity.
I wouldn't worry about humanity fading out - I mean, reaching a stable plateau would be great! The worry is that we'll overshoot that by too big a margin and suffer a big collapse.
I wouldn't worry about humanity fading out - I mean, reaching a stable plateau would be great! The worry is that we'll overshoot that by too big a margin and suffer a big collapse.
A (relatively weak) inherited instinctual desire to procreate aside, people have kids because it improves their personal outcome. Without modern machinery, the work input of kids will improve the family farm's productivity by more than they consume. With high infant mortality, more kids improves the chances that enough will survive to adulthood. Without modern social safety nets, elders would simply starve or die of exposure if grown offspring didn't take care of them. And so on.
Take those motivators away - and replace them with demotivators such as very high child rearing costs - and the birthrate drops. Low sperm counts? If they aren't zero, people will find a way to have kids if they really want them.
It's a great self-regulating mechanism. The planet's population is getting uncomfortably high, so the birthrate drops. Great.
While the city I live in hardly looks like, say, Shanghai, there has been nonstop residential construction here in all the decades I've lived here. Does this have to be normal? Do cities have to expand until they fill the planet completely? Obviously not. Of course it's going to suck when "peak infrastructure" exceeds the population but not as much as an infinitely growing population would.
Take those motivators away - and replace them with demotivators such as very high child rearing costs - and the birthrate drops. Low sperm counts? If they aren't zero, people will find a way to have kids if they really want them.
It's a great self-regulating mechanism. The planet's population is getting uncomfortably high, so the birthrate drops. Great.
While the city I live in hardly looks like, say, Shanghai, there has been nonstop residential construction here in all the decades I've lived here. Does this have to be normal? Do cities have to expand until they fill the planet completely? Obviously not. Of course it's going to suck when "peak infrastructure" exceeds the population but not as much as an infinitely growing population would.
>The planet's population is getting uncomfortably high, so the birthrate drops. Great.
If the birthrate drops, neither you nor I nor the kids alive today will get a "retirement". It'll become a quaint little thing we once could afford.
Not so bad if all your work is tapping into a laptop. It's bloody murder for anyone that has to stand and lift and DO for a living.
If the birthrate drops, neither you nor I nor the kids alive today will get a "retirement". It'll become a quaint little thing we once could afford.
Not so bad if all your work is tapping into a laptop. It's bloody murder for anyone that has to stand and lift and DO for a living.
this is probably my inner uptopian leftist speaking but -
robots. And the fact that a large amount of the work doesn't actually need to get done.
So long we keep enough skilled tradesmen and farmers, which is not that many with increases in automation, we'll still have enough food, shelter and clothing. Being able to spread that work out amongst more people because bullshit jobs aren't a thing anymore will also probably help, as will changes in lifestyle that enable people to stay healthy longer.
We really don't need a new H&M collection every two weeks, or a new sport jersey every two seconds, or to keep making more and more cars/washing machines/TVs... most manufactured goods (including clothing) can last a while, especially in a world where planned obselence is no longer the norm. If population stabilizes, need for construction drops as well. Food/agriculture is already very automated, I'm sure we can continue to find 3% of the population to keep us fed.
I believe most of the work currently done on earth contributes very little to human happiness, and I hope/want to believe that as our ability to do work diminishes with an aging population, the useless stuff will be the first to go.
silly example, but with GPT-3/ChatGPT, we can now fire all the influencers and have them go toil as construction workers :P
So long we keep enough skilled tradesmen and farmers, which is not that many with increases in automation, we'll still have enough food, shelter and clothing. Being able to spread that work out amongst more people because bullshit jobs aren't a thing anymore will also probably help, as will changes in lifestyle that enable people to stay healthy longer.
We really don't need a new H&M collection every two weeks, or a new sport jersey every two seconds, or to keep making more and more cars/washing machines/TVs... most manufactured goods (including clothing) can last a while, especially in a world where planned obselence is no longer the norm. If population stabilizes, need for construction drops as well. Food/agriculture is already very automated, I'm sure we can continue to find 3% of the population to keep us fed.
I believe most of the work currently done on earth contributes very little to human happiness, and I hope/want to believe that as our ability to do work diminishes with an aging population, the useless stuff will be the first to go.
silly example, but with GPT-3/ChatGPT, we can now fire all the influencers and have them go toil as construction workers :P
Are people still going to be doing that type of work 20-30 years from now?
I'm assuming that by the time I reach retirement, we will only need 5-10% of today's labor force due to advances in automation
I'm assuming that by the time I reach retirement, we will only need 5-10% of today's labor force due to advances in automation
If anyone wants to increase the birthrate:
- Back work from home
- Universal child care
- Universal health care
- Universal college
- Stop calling child support for nothing
The easier you made it to be parents, the more parents you'll get. The existing "the beatings will continue until the morale improves" approaches will get you more people making rational decisions to skip having kids.
- Back work from home
- Universal child care
- Universal health care
- Universal college
- Stop calling child support for nothing
The easier you made it to be parents, the more parents you'll get. The existing "the beatings will continue until the morale improves" approaches will get you more people making rational decisions to skip having kids.
In the UK I know a lot of people who can't afford decent housing, who can't afford weddings, who can't afford retirement, who struggle against a rent-keeping uber-efficient capitalist age to not live month to month.
Against this back drop a choice emerges: To take what little is left and use that to eke out some semblance of life, some work/life balance... that first they delay having children from their 20s to their 30s. Then when they arrived in their 30s they're still very much behind where they had planned to be (wars, Brexit, COVID, financial crashes, inflation, etc)... and they're either delaying to their 40s or just accepting now that this was not for them. They wanted a decent life, it included children... but in reality the economic reality and pace of life has precluded it.
I'm late 40s, that was my reality (further delayed start due to being homeless when younger and having an even worse starting point)... and I get it, it's hard.
Having children feels like something that has become the preserve of the wealthy or the poor, and if one wishes to achieve a betterment in your own lifetime - a social mobility, then you're likely choosing against having children. I've long accepted this, but once in a rare moon I get to just write it down like this as there's definitely shame involved at making those choices (and it's way worse for women who are constantly asked when they're going to have children, whereas men are mostly left alone on the subject).
Against this back drop a choice emerges: To take what little is left and use that to eke out some semblance of life, some work/life balance... that first they delay having children from their 20s to their 30s. Then when they arrived in their 30s they're still very much behind where they had planned to be (wars, Brexit, COVID, financial crashes, inflation, etc)... and they're either delaying to their 40s or just accepting now that this was not for them. They wanted a decent life, it included children... but in reality the economic reality and pace of life has precluded it.
I'm late 40s, that was my reality (further delayed start due to being homeless when younger and having an even worse starting point)... and I get it, it's hard.
Having children feels like something that has become the preserve of the wealthy or the poor, and if one wishes to achieve a betterment in your own lifetime - a social mobility, then you're likely choosing against having children. I've long accepted this, but once in a rare moon I get to just write it down like this as there's definitely shame involved at making those choices (and it's way worse for women who are constantly asked when they're going to have children, whereas men are mostly left alone on the subject).
Or if you have kids and you truly wanna save the planet consider this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn3oXHSUdKY
Personally I don't really care about world population or planet too much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn3oXHSUdKY
Personally I don't really care about world population or planet too much.
> I mean, fertility rates have been going down for 50 years; women are having half as many children, and some are so focused on their careers they might as well repurpose their wombs into walk-in closets.
Ah, the good old reduction of women to walking wombs.
Ah, the good old reduction of women to walking wombs.
I wish I’d had kids earlier, even if it would have been harder financially.
I love these new people.
I love these new people.
The people I see in my neighborhood carrying kids in those chest carriers or pushing them in carriages seem cheerful enough. I was cheerful enough back then, though there was a big effect on my time, including sleep time.
I have started to find it a bit odd that people can take such a strong position to have or not to have kids. It's a personal choice, that's it that's all.
On the off chance that someone reading this has a kid they can't support, My Wife and I would love to adopt. We have not been able to have kids of our own.
I didn't realize RMS was of the childless drone society. For shame. Hope he gets some work in before meeting the elephants and cosmic seaturtles.
A word of advice to anyone on the fence about having kids: There’s nothing wrong with choosing not to have kids, but do yourself and consult with actual parents for what it’s really like to have kids. Articles like this one, which are written by someone who apparently has chosen not to have children, are almost universally terrible at representing the true experience of being a parent.
Yes, being a parent involves a period of reduced sleep (as this author points out). No, it does not mean your world ends and you’re never sleeping again. The low-sleep phase is temporary. It’s such a short duration relative to the rest of your life as a parent that it really doesn’t matter much in the long run. Same goes for changing diapers and dealing with baby vomit. If you’re focused on these experiences as the defining characteristics of being a parent, you’ll completely miss the big picture.
This article also has a big strawman at the center:
> I don't see how babies could possibly come back as the preferred lifestyle choice for couples in their 20s
Most of the parents I know in my area had kids in their 30s. And it’s fine! Obviously you don’t want to be too old, but having kids in your 30s is basically the norm among working professionals. The fact that this author is focused on having kids in your 20s makes me wonder if they’re living in a childfree peer bubble or if they’re simply too young to see their friends and peers grow up, have children, and enjoy it.
Yes, being a parent involves a period of reduced sleep (as this author points out). No, it does not mean your world ends and you’re never sleeping again. The low-sleep phase is temporary. It’s such a short duration relative to the rest of your life as a parent that it really doesn’t matter much in the long run. Same goes for changing diapers and dealing with baby vomit. If you’re focused on these experiences as the defining characteristics of being a parent, you’ll completely miss the big picture.
This article also has a big strawman at the center:
> I don't see how babies could possibly come back as the preferred lifestyle choice for couples in their 20s
Most of the parents I know in my area had kids in their 30s. And it’s fine! Obviously you don’t want to be too old, but having kids in your 30s is basically the norm among working professionals. The fact that this author is focused on having kids in your 20s makes me wonder if they’re living in a childfree peer bubble or if they’re simply too young to see their friends and peers grow up, have children, and enjoy it.
Having a kid is the most fun I’ve ever had. Used to go to raves, done bunch of crazy sexual stuff, as well as most drugs under the sun. There’s nothing close to chasing a toddler in a circle for an hour.
Complete disagreement. Toddlers were completely uninteresting to me, nothing but hassle and pain and sorrow. Around 6 years old they get much more interesting and less awful to deal with.
My wife feels the same way.
My wife feels the same way.
Sorry you guys had a bad experience.
I'm just the opposite: the toddler stage is far and away my favorite stage of my kids' development. They are old enough to communicate with, but young enough that they discover something new and amazing in the world every single day. Getting to see the world through the eyes of a toddler really clarifies your world view.
I'm just the opposite: the toddler stage is far and away my favorite stage of my kids' development. They are old enough to communicate with, but young enough that they discover something new and amazing in the world every single day. Getting to see the world through the eyes of a toddler really clarifies your world view.
How old are your kids now?
Same here. On Friday afternoon I'm already looking forward to Monday.
I'm ok to play with a toddler for couple o hours, but entertaining a small but very active child for two days is really exhausting. I wish day care was opened on the weekends too, at least for few hours.
This is so true. I can’t believe how much I love having a kid. And mine’s only 6 months old. I’m beyond excited to actually do things with him, like run around with him, or go skiing/ride bikes.
[deleted]
I love wrastling toddlers, too.
I wanted to say—these two lifestyles you describe (raves and toddlers) are not incompatible. I’ve had to get better at scheduling and communication, that’s all.
For me, it was really helpful to develop concrete agreements with my partner. (E.g., I get to travel 8 weeks a year, I have to schedule 1 month in advance, and it can be for any reason). I don’t like the view that having kids means giving up on what you love to do in life.
4th kid is on the way. Seems nutso to me, but because my wife really wanted another. And if that is her dream, I am not going to stand in her way.
I wanted to say—these two lifestyles you describe (raves and toddlers) are not incompatible. I’ve had to get better at scheduling and communication, that’s all.
For me, it was really helpful to develop concrete agreements with my partner. (E.g., I get to travel 8 weeks a year, I have to schedule 1 month in advance, and it can be for any reason). I don’t like the view that having kids means giving up on what you love to do in life.
4th kid is on the way. Seems nutso to me, but because my wife really wanted another. And if that is her dream, I am not going to stand in her way.
> I don’t like the view that having kids means giving up on what you love to do in life.
Is there anyone other than you and your spouse helping raise the children? Does your spouse work?
Lots of people do not have support from friends or family. Being able to take off while spouse is pregnant and taking care of 3 other kids is surely an abnormal situation.
Is there anyone other than you and your spouse helping raise the children? Does your spouse work?
Lots of people do not have support from friends or family. Being able to take off while spouse is pregnant and taking care of 3 other kids is surely an abnormal situation.
A parent being able to travel for a few days while one parent manages the kids is not abnormal.
She took a weekend recently and left me with the 3 kids. It was fun and honestly more relaxed than most weekends. Maybe importantly is our spacing — 13, 10 and 3. Not saying 3 toddlers.
She took a weekend recently and left me with the 3 kids. It was fun and honestly more relaxed than most weekends. Maybe importantly is our spacing — 13, 10 and 3. Not saying 3 toddlers.
Oh, the ages change everything, since the 13 and 10 year old are basically capable of handling themselves and helping.
I have a video recording of one irrationally happy time, I recorded it because I had a nifty new camera that could do it... the subject... me and my daughter in her car seat, waiting for my Wife to do some shopping.
It's simply half an hour of "Where's Daddy?... oh oh... There's Daddy... " peek-a-bo with laughter all around.
That was an insanely happy time. There's been lots of other fun, but that was peak pure bliss.
It's simply half an hour of "Where's Daddy?... oh oh... There's Daddy... " peek-a-bo with laughter all around.
That was an insanely happy time. There's been lots of other fun, but that was peak pure bliss.
[deleted]
> There’s nothing close to chasing a toddler in a circle for an hour.
amen
amen
Chasing twin toddlers in a circle for an hour!
Which raises question, who's chasing whom?
It's a Mexican standoff.
Then the older ones get envious and hop in. It is an entire football team chasing each other.
Then the older ones get envious and hop in. It is an entire football team chasing each other.
Is this satire? I have a child and the monotonous boredom of dealing with a toddler forces me to suppress the distant memories of freedom to go to raves, fight in foreign militia, get lost in stormy mountains, hitchhike across the plains...
Chasing your toddler for an hour is fun. Chasing your toddler day after day, hour after hour because you have no one else to help you might not be so fun.
There is distinct difference in the fun of raising children in a village where there are tons of other kids with low risk of cars so they can play outside freely, and raising children 24/7 because they cannot be left without supervision and there are few other kids on the street and the adults do not trust each other enough.
Just having functional grandparents or aunts/uncles to take them off your hands once in a while would probably make a big difference.
There is distinct difference in the fun of raising children in a village where there are tons of other kids with low risk of cars so they can play outside freely, and raising children 24/7 because they cannot be left without supervision and there are few other kids on the street and the adults do not trust each other enough.
Just having functional grandparents or aunts/uncles to take them off your hands once in a while would probably make a big difference.
The bit of advice I got from another parent before I had kids was golden: parents need time off the clock. Sometimes you need to hear your kid screeching about something and know it's someone else's problem. We don't have family around, so we give each other breaks on the weekend, usually one day where my spouse and I give each other half-day breaks. Idk what it's going to be like when he's older, but for now it works.
Same here. My wife likes to sleep in, I like to wake up early.
Our typical Saturday involves me and my son spending 7A-nap time together outside the house while my wife sleeps in, lounges around and does her hobbies.
When we get home, she’s totally refreshed.
Another thing we do sometimes is drop him at daycare and we take an afternoon off to do something together.
Works great for us. We don’t have any family within 3000 miles of us, so solutions were needed.
Our typical Saturday involves me and my son spending 7A-nap time together outside the house while my wife sleeps in, lounges around and does her hobbies.
When we get home, she’s totally refreshed.
Another thing we do sometimes is drop him at daycare and we take an afternoon off to do something together.
Works great for us. We don’t have any family within 3000 miles of us, so solutions were needed.
Exactly. It seems that most of the "childfree" arguments are based on this terrible modern, industrial, low-trust worldview that assumes that parents are solely responsible for their kids.
Unless both parents come from a really dysfunctional family, this should never be the case.
Unless both parents come from a really dysfunctional family, this should never be the case.
>Unless both parents come from a really dysfunctional family, this should never be the case.
Why? Many people immigrate away from their families for a variety of reasons other than them being “dysfunctional”. For example, economic opportunities.
I know a quite a few couples that moved from places with low economic opportunities to places with better opportunities, and one of the downsides is that they have to navigate parenting by themselves. It is a cost they are incurring to give their kids a higher probability of success when they grow up.
Why? Many people immigrate away from their families for a variety of reasons other than them being “dysfunctional”. For example, economic opportunities.
I know a quite a few couples that moved from places with low economic opportunities to places with better opportunities, and one of the downsides is that they have to navigate parenting by themselves. It is a cost they are incurring to give their kids a higher probability of success when they grow up.
I'm from Brazil, my wife is from Greece. We are both living in Germany. So I'm well aware of what you are talking about.
Yet:
> one of the downsides is that they have to navigate parenting by themselves.
That's not true. Our families may be away most of the time, but we have a constant rotation of our parents (and my wife's Giagia) coming to stay with us. When our second kid was born, I don't think we were by ourselves for the first six months. Even today, we get someone visiting us at least every other month.
> kids a higher probability of success when they grow up.
This is increasingly becoming something we are asking ourselves. I think our kids would benefit more from being able to grow up close to their families than in a place with a culture and values that we don't really share. For us (and me specially) living in Germany has been more of a "tolerable" than a "desirable" situation. With remote work becoming a reality, I think we can have our cake and eat it too.
Yet:
> one of the downsides is that they have to navigate parenting by themselves.
That's not true. Our families may be away most of the time, but we have a constant rotation of our parents (and my wife's Giagia) coming to stay with us. When our second kid was born, I don't think we were by ourselves for the first six months. Even today, we get someone visiting us at least every other month.
> kids a higher probability of success when they grow up.
This is increasingly becoming something we are asking ourselves. I think our kids would benefit more from being able to grow up close to their families than in a place with a culture and values that we don't really share. For us (and me specially) living in Germany has been more of a "tolerable" than a "desirable" situation. With remote work becoming a reality, I think we can have our cake and eat it too.
>That's not true. Our families may be away most of the time, but we have a constant rotation of our parents (and my wife's Giagia) coming to stay with us. When our second kid was born, I don't think we were by ourselves for the first six months. Even today, we get someone visiting us at least every other month.
That is not possible for many others.
That is not possible for many others.
Then the question is why? What is dysfunctional about their lives that makes it impossible?
I would guess money is a frequent issue, plus visa and other family obligations such as other siblings great grandparents. Health issues too since grandparents are older than in previous times.
None of those qualify as dysfunction in my book.
None of those qualify as dysfunction in my book.
Apologies in advance for the (slight) moving of the goal posts, but to me the problems you mention do point to very dysfunctional aspects of modern life and common family structures:
- "Older grandparents" is a sign that people are waiting too much to have their own kids.
- "Other family obligations", like what... Work? Perhaps we should rethink our globalized, modern economy that makes dual-income families a necessity. I really hope that by the time my kids get to have their kids, my wife and I are in condition to dedicate ourselves to help them as much as our own parents helped us.
- "Visa issues" is mostly an American thing, which unfortunately I also I am very familiar with (lived in the US before coming to Germany). The US is only going to sort this out after it solves the Milton Friedman dilemma: it can be either a country of Open Borders, or it can be a Welfare State. Until it tries to be both, it is doomed to these catastrophic policies.
- "Older grandparents" is a sign that people are waiting too much to have their own kids.
- "Other family obligations", like what... Work? Perhaps we should rethink our globalized, modern economy that makes dual-income families a necessity. I really hope that by the time my kids get to have their kids, my wife and I are in condition to dedicate ourselves to help them as much as our own parents helped us.
- "Visa issues" is mostly an American thing, which unfortunately I also I am very familiar with (lived in the US before coming to Germany). The US is only going to sort this out after it solves the Milton Friedman dilemma: it can be either a country of Open Borders, or it can be a Welfare State. Until it tries to be both, it is doomed to these catastrophic policies.
Yeah Brazil at least has Mercosur. It's pretty crazy North America doesn't have something similar considering capital can mostly freely flow between NAFTA countries. (although we do have something similar with compact free association i.e. micronesia / palau / marshall islands)
- The grandparents have jobs of their own with limited vacation time (maybe a US-specific problem, you say you are from Brazil)
- Does either side of the family have enough money to fund cross-country travel more than once a year for a week at a time?
- Does either side of the family have enough money to fund cross-country travel more than once a year for a week at a time?
You can fly from Greece to Germany for less than 50€ (Ryanair, Easyjet)
My parents are retired/semi-retired. When they come, it's usually during the summer (here)
My parents are retired/semi-retired. When they come, it's usually during the summer (here)
Why do you assume "dysfunctional"?
Flying costs money. Having apartment big enough to accommodate 3 adults plus one or two kids costs money. Family members have to work too.
There is no black and white here.
I’ve put in some effort to identify things my toddler and I can do together that we both enjoy. Here’s some in random order:
- go to beach, play in sand & swim in ocean, find other kids to play with
- go to woods, walk around and spot wildlife
- go to farmer’s market, try various foods/drinks, play with other kids
- go out for ice cream
- go to playground, play with other kids
- go out for some (light) off-roading, he loves the bumps
My son will be 3 next week.
- go to beach, play in sand & swim in ocean, find other kids to play with
- go to woods, walk around and spot wildlife
- go to farmer’s market, try various foods/drinks, play with other kids
- go out for ice cream
- go to playground, play with other kids
- go out for some (light) off-roading, he loves the bumps
My son will be 3 next week.
Great list! For mine (2.5YO) I'll add:
- go to the library and pick out books
- go grocery shopping, discuss what foods we like/don't like, practice remembering something I'm supposed to get
- play with model trains and make up Thomas stories
- go to the aquarium store and talk about the fish
- go to the park (One time we stopped on the way for fast food and ate it at the park, which was fun, but it created an expectation for a while that there would always be chicken and fries at the park.)
- go to the library and pick out books
- go grocery shopping, discuss what foods we like/don't like, practice remembering something I'm supposed to get
- play with model trains and make up Thomas stories
- go to the aquarium store and talk about the fish
- go to the park (One time we stopped on the way for fast food and ate it at the park, which was fun, but it created an expectation for a while that there would always be chicken and fries at the park.)
There's just a lot of variation between people and families.
I would prefer hanging out with my children over doing most anything else. That comes down to who I am and who my children are, and probably other circumstances.
It's also worth recognizing that the early childhood years (0-3) can be difficult and super isolating. We had fun during that time, but it got way more fun as they got out of that age and became fully interactive.
I would prefer hanging out with my children over doing most anything else. That comes down to who I am and who my children are, and probably other circumstances.
It's also worth recognizing that the early childhood years (0-3) can be difficult and super isolating. We had fun during that time, but it got way more fun as they got out of that age and became fully interactive.
As the downvotes for your comment shows, it isn't acceptable to express dislike for having children. With this in mind we ought to take all positive things people say with a grain of salt, since a lot of those things will be said to get social points and many people avoid complaining since it isn't acceptable.
Its like in discussions about exercise, if you just read discussions online you'd think that everyone loves to exercise, but most people really hate it or at least don't like it.
Its like in discussions about exercise, if you just read discussions online you'd think that everyone loves to exercise, but most people really hate it or at least don't like it.
This entire post is people talking about not wanting children. Not wanting and not having children has been a way to signal group membership in the PMC class for decades now. Social media is full of people complaining about kids on airplanes, in restaurants etc.
I'm over it, and I'm over the PMC signaling in general. The happiest people I know enjoy things without irony, love their kids, and aren't afraid to look stupid. The most miserable detest children and only care about trends.
I'm over it, and I'm over the PMC signaling in general. The happiest people I know enjoy things without irony, love their kids, and aren't afraid to look stupid. The most miserable detest children and only care about trends.
Well, if you grow up with abusive parents who were miserable and constantly depressed, you likely don't want kids to avoid going down the same route. But that sort of upbringing likely means you are miserable as well.
Happy people ought to have kids, since likely they will have happy kids. Unhappy kids ought to not have kids, since they will likely have unhappy kids, and would make themselves unhappier for it. How is this strange? Do you think that miserable people shouldn't be able to express their misery? do you think that hating those miserable people will help in any way?
Happy people ought to have kids, since likely they will have happy kids. Unhappy kids ought to not have kids, since they will likely have unhappy kids, and would make themselves unhappier for it. How is this strange? Do you think that miserable people shouldn't be able to express their misery? do you think that hating those miserable people will help in any way?
[deleted]
I like to say that, in being a parent, I'm less happy on an "instantaneous" basis, but more happy overall; more fulfilled. I expect, to some extent, it has something in common with volunteering at a charity. It's not the actual act of doing the work that makes you happy, it's the fact that you're doing the work for a reason.
Would I love to sit around and play video games in the large amounts of free time I would have if I didn't have a family? Sure. But that instantaneous gratification does not compare to the more "overall" happiness of having a family. For me. Clearly, it's different for everyone.
Would I love to sit around and play video games in the large amounts of free time I would have if I didn't have a family? Sure. But that instantaneous gratification does not compare to the more "overall" happiness of having a family. For me. Clearly, it's different for everyone.
As I am getting older, I see young couples told to wait till they are settled and are in a better situation to have their token child.
If you want children, do not wait. It will never be 'better situation'. There will be always some reason, mostly financial not to have them.
If you want children, do not wait. It will never be 'better situation'. There will be always some reason, mostly financial not to have them.
Surely you have a cut off on the lower bound below which you don't offer this advice. 21? 18? 16? 13?
Yes, it's possible to put it off long enough thinking you'll find that perfect time, and either it getting to be too late, or perhaps running into the reality that with age comes higher likelihood of birth defects, in many cases. But the flat advice to just do it seems like it's missing a bit of at least a basic foundation advised.
I worked with folks who had kids in high school. They made it work, and had a different cultural background, but nothing about it seemed like the best idea -- at LEAST they had multigenerational households to cover some of the otherwise likely insurmountable difficulties particularly on the budgets they had working service industry jobs.
Yes, it's possible to put it off long enough thinking you'll find that perfect time, and either it getting to be too late, or perhaps running into the reality that with age comes higher likelihood of birth defects, in many cases. But the flat advice to just do it seems like it's missing a bit of at least a basic foundation advised.
I worked with folks who had kids in high school. They made it work, and had a different cultural background, but nothing about it seemed like the best idea -- at LEAST they had multigenerational households to cover some of the otherwise likely insurmountable difficulties particularly on the budgets they had working service industry jobs.
On your last paragraph that's how human raised kids for the first 10k+ years. In small groups of multigenerational settings.
Only in the last 100 (maybe even less, say 60) or so years we've started to say fk that, when I retire I want to be on a beach and not taking care of my grandkids.
Only in the last 100 (maybe even less, say 60) or so years we've started to say fk that, when I retire I want to be on a beach and not taking care of my grandkids.
It seems like the experiment of retirement is a recent phenomenon and one that the jury is still out in terms of whether it's a good idea, let alone sustainable.
Before 100 years ago there was precious little nation-state level social security, so families were far more dependent upon other family members. Middle age parents needed to support their parents directly, so there was an obvious quid-pro-quo for the grandparent to take care of the child.
Our forefathers changed this dynamic by making this arrangement somewhat invisible, in that we pay social security tax instead. We still take care of our parents, but not directly, and it's by the gun of the tax man rather than by a family arrangement. There is little incentive for this kind of unspoken bargaining of the past where you may take care of shelter and the grandparents take care of a kid. There's an IRS agent waiting with a gun if you don't pay social security, so any unspoken bargaining power is gone and the working age parent basically gets the squeeze from both sides.
Our forefathers changed this dynamic by making this arrangement somewhat invisible, in that we pay social security tax instead. We still take care of our parents, but not directly, and it's by the gun of the tax man rather than by a family arrangement. There is little incentive for this kind of unspoken bargaining of the past where you may take care of shelter and the grandparents take care of a kid. There's an IRS agent waiting with a gun if you don't pay social security, so any unspoken bargaining power is gone and the working age parent basically gets the squeeze from both sides.
While this might be right for overall humanity, for white collar professional workers specifically (typical audience of HN), I think late 20's / early 30's is a pretty good time to have kids - people have a solid 10 years of career experience under their belt, proportional amount of savings which help with both a financial cushion and with down payment for a house and some emotional maturity. On the other hand, one can get all sorts of experiences in 20's and their novelty starts wearing off. Finally, one is still young enough to have enough energy for child rearing.
A guy I worked with told me this advice and I wish I listened. We still had a kid early relatively to my other friends, I was 29 and wife was 27. It's better to be chasing around young kids when your 24 vs 34 I'll tell you that. But of course you're only as old as you feel.
I had my first at 32, and that was earlier than my friends. And when I pick mine up at daycare, I feel like I am the youngest. But I also do not feel noticeably worse off physically in mid 30s compared to mid 20s.
I disagree that there will never be a better situation. A couple with secure cash flows and in demand talents can optimize when they have kids to accommodate goals (for example, their preferred living situation, career goals, etc).
Things like moving, and working strenuous roles while having kids seems less than ideal. Of course, if you want 5 kids then waiting is not an option, but if you want 2, then there is some room for maneuvering.
I disagree that there will never be a better situation. A couple with secure cash flows and in demand talents can optimize when they have kids to accommodate goals (for example, their preferred living situation, career goals, etc).
Things like moving, and working strenuous roles while having kids seems less than ideal. Of course, if you want 5 kids then waiting is not an option, but if you want 2, then there is some room for maneuvering.
Of course there are better situations, there's just no perfect situation. Your advice entails people should have kids in high school with their sweetheart if they want to. That's obviously wrong.
At worst their advice is just as wrong as the conventional wisdom they're contradicting.
I would say that the major factor isn't age, it's situation. If you are in a stable relationship with someone who can help financially and emotionally support an additional human, having a child could be an option.
If you are in a precarious situation, do not bring another human into it.
I would say that the major factor isn't age, it's situation. If you are in a stable relationship with someone who can help financially and emotionally support an additional human, having a child could be an option.
If you are in a precarious situation, do not bring another human into it.
[deleted]
Pretty consistently research has found waiting until at least roughly 30 or so leads to greater average life satisfaction for parents. I'm not going to provide a rigorous or even cited defense here but I spent several days sifting through the studies before coming to this conclusion. I encourage the reader to also study the journals before coming to their own conclusion.
If someone could guarantee that I'll have healthy children, physically, mentally and emotionally, then sure I'll put up with reduced sleep and baby vomit.
Oh and that I'll have a partner who will stay healthy (and loyal) for the 15 ~ 25 years it takes to turn a child into a self-sustaining responsible adult.
But as it stands that's a game of Russian Roulette that I'm not willing to play.
Oh and that I'll have a partner who will stay healthy (and loyal) for the 15 ~ 25 years it takes to turn a child into a self-sustaining responsible adult.
But as it stands that's a game of Russian Roulette that I'm not willing to play.
As someone going through a horrible divorce, replete with custody fights and the whole nine yards, I’d still say that you’re thinking about this wrong.
I am the father of a three-year-old girl. I would go through my marriage a thousand times, complete with abuse and emotional trauma, if it meant I could get my daughter in the end.
I’ve found that happiness has never been found by endeavoring to avoid any and all potential suffering. I cannot control how my wife behaves. I can only control my reaction.
Find a partner that is emotionally resilient, calm under pressure, and has a desire to continually better themselves, then go for it. It may still end in divorce, but I promise you it will be worth it.
I am the father of a three-year-old girl. I would go through my marriage a thousand times, complete with abuse and emotional trauma, if it meant I could get my daughter in the end.
I’ve found that happiness has never been found by endeavoring to avoid any and all potential suffering. I cannot control how my wife behaves. I can only control my reaction.
Find a partner that is emotionally resilient, calm under pressure, and has a desire to continually better themselves, then go for it. It may still end in divorce, but I promise you it will be worth it.
> Find a partner that is emotionally resilient, calm under pressure, and has a desire to continually better themselves, then go for it.
It sounds like you're blessed (whether in the religious or random probability sense) with a daughter who is your joy. The worst partner and the ugliest divorce in the world can't offset that.
I have no assurance that I'll be similarly blessed, and I don't want to roll those dice, because I have no idea to what degree the game is rigged against me, genetically, environmentally and circumstantially speaking.
Adults can marry, get along, fight with, or divorce adults. But once there's a child in the mix one's hands are tied.
If it's a healthy, loving and developing child, it might all be worth it. The odds of that are not only unknowable, they're relatively risky.
It sounds like you're blessed (whether in the religious or random probability sense) with a daughter who is your joy. The worst partner and the ugliest divorce in the world can't offset that.
I have no assurance that I'll be similarly blessed, and I don't want to roll those dice, because I have no idea to what degree the game is rigged against me, genetically, environmentally and circumstantially speaking.
Adults can marry, get along, fight with, or divorce adults. But once there's a child in the mix one's hands are tied.
If it's a healthy, loving and developing child, it might all be worth it. The odds of that are not only unknowable, they're relatively risky.
> Oh and that I'll have a partner who will stay healthy (and loyal)...
The LVB (lowest viable bar) is "will I be able to have a civil conversation with this person about our child whenever needed, for at least 20 years?"
People get so bitterly disappointed when "unconditional love" doesn't happen, they can't even meet the LVB. Keep LVB front and center when evaluating a potential mate. If the answer is "yes, no matter what happens, we can always be civil about the children", then no matter what, it should be okay.
The LVB (lowest viable bar) is "will I be able to have a civil conversation with this person about our child whenever needed, for at least 20 years?"
People get so bitterly disappointed when "unconditional love" doesn't happen, they can't even meet the LVB. Keep LVB front and center when evaluating a potential mate. If the answer is "yes, no matter what happens, we can always be civil about the children", then no matter what, it should be okay.
> If the answer is "yes, no matter what happens, we can always be civil about the children
I agree with you, although that's necessary but not sufficient.
Having children isn't so wonderful that I'd put up for decades with a miserable relationship with my partner in the endeavor.
With children in the mix, especially unhealthy children who require special support, you can't just say "looks like we've grown apart and can't communicate well anymore about even the basics, so cya".
It's a lifelong commitment to a cofounder, no matter what.
I agree with you, although that's necessary but not sufficient.
Having children isn't so wonderful that I'd put up for decades with a miserable relationship with my partner in the endeavor.
With children in the mix, especially unhealthy children who require special support, you can't just say "looks like we've grown apart and can't communicate well anymore about even the basics, so cya".
It's a lifelong commitment to a cofounder, no matter what.
> Having children isn't so wonderful that I'd put up for decades with a miserable relationship with my partner in the endeavor.
Agreed, but that's not what I said nor even implied. If you're insisting on staying together for decades, and happily so to boot, that is a very high bar indeed. Such a high bar that only very few couples manage it. Few couples even manage the LVB.
No. If you want to have kids, you have to know that even if you divorce, even horribly, even catastrophically, that you can have a civil conversation as needed about the child for at least 20 years. If you're not sure, don't do it. Do not have a child. Spare the children and the world your children.
Agreed, but that's not what I said nor even implied. If you're insisting on staying together for decades, and happily so to boot, that is a very high bar indeed. Such a high bar that only very few couples manage it. Few couples even manage the LVB.
No. If you want to have kids, you have to know that even if you divorce, even horribly, even catastrophically, that you can have a civil conversation as needed about the child for at least 20 years. If you're not sure, don't do it. Do not have a child. Spare the children and the world your children.
Life never has any guarantees, my friend. You can get screwed any time from any direction. Having a family can add some stress and responsibilities on your shoulders but will also give you resiliency and support you will most probably need at some point.
There's nothing wrong with risk aversion as long as it is acknowledged that reward aversion always is always inseparably paired with it.
Real parents consistently make it clear how terrible having kids is.
The childless among us hear every complaint and lament about how terrible it is. Why would we do that to ourselves?
The childless among us hear every complaint and lament about how terrible it is. Why would we do that to ourselves?
I have 2 kids, I don’t recommend it. Quality of life decline is steep unless you’re wealthy and can hire robust childcare support, and it causes a significant decline in relationship satisfaction with your partner. Maybe you end up happy in the end, maybe you don’t, it’s Russian Roulette in a different form. People who tell you to go for it aren’t going to make you whole if it doesn’t work out or be your village when you need help.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-25189-001
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8062063/
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-25189-001
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8062063/
This is extremely location-dependent. In countries where you have universal healthcare, free education and childcare benefits, the financial impact of having a child can be very low.
What are the birth rates in these countries? If you check (Our World In Data Fertility Rates), you’ll see it’s lower than the US, even countries with strong pro natalist policies. The opportunity cost of kids is just too damn high.
When fathers in Spain were given more parental leave, they have less kids, for example. The revealed preference is clear.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN
https://qz.com/work/1614893/after-men-in-spain-got-paternity...
When fathers in Spain were given more parental leave, they have less kids, for example. The revealed preference is clear.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-UN
https://qz.com/work/1614893/after-men-in-spain-got-paternity...
“As the authors point out, it’s impossible to draw sweeping conclusions from this observation of a single data point in a single country.”
The study doesnt mention any effect on career progression or any other type of opportunity cost either. You’re entitled to your opinion but this article does not support it.
The study doesnt mention any effect on career progression or any other type of opportunity cost either. You’re entitled to your opinion but this article does not support it.
[deleted]
Those countries just offload the cost of the child onto other people. The cost is not low.
The cost to a society of not having children is also quite high, so pick your poison.
No disagreement there, although I think perhaps society should stop treating children as crops to be harvested for the commons. A tragedy of the commons has been created as society claims social security tax from grown children to pay to the elderly, so the economic incentive is to be a free-rider and live off other people's children while having none of your own.
> so the economic incentive is to be a free-rider...
I'm reminded of societies in which families have more children than they want because there is no social safety net. Children are the safety net. Talk about harvesting human beings. Children suffer immense pressure and even abuse in such places.
I'm reminded of societies in which families have more children than they want because there is no social safety net. Children are the safety net. Talk about harvesting human beings. Children suffer immense pressure and even abuse in such places.
Just to think through this a little bit further. There is a proportion of "free-riders" in every given population, even those without a safety net. Some free-riders will exploit their own children, the government, their family's status, their spouse, or whatever or whoever is at hand. Some people decide they would rather be homeless than exploit anyone. In short, let us acknowledge that free riding is a thing that happens, and that it is usually morally reprehensible.
Which will lead to a more stable society: social safety net, or no social safety net?
In my experience and observation, societies that have protections from poverty seem to be far more stable as compared to societies that do not have them.
Which will lead to a more stable society: social safety net, or no social safety net?
In my experience and observation, societies that have protections from poverty seem to be far more stable as compared to societies that do not have them.
I'm curious why you ended up having two?
My wife and I are done with the one. I think we got lucky - she is a sweet, fun and fairly easy (for now) two year old, but the decrease in life quality is significant. I didn't want to further extend the monotony of our current life by having a second.
Overall my advice to anyone would be if you are not missing anything in your life and are happy, you don't have to have children. Other people might tell you how great it is (after complaining a bunch, and then complaining some more later) but that's their life, not yours.
My wife and I are done with the one. I think we got lucky - she is a sweet, fun and fairly easy (for now) two year old, but the decrease in life quality is significant. I didn't want to further extend the monotony of our current life by having a second.
Overall my advice to anyone would be if you are not missing anything in your life and are happy, you don't have to have children. Other people might tell you how great it is (after complaining a bunch, and then complaining some more later) but that's their life, not yours.
First one required several rounds of IVF and a switch to a remote job to have the flexibility needed for such an endeavor, second one was unexpected. Got a vasectomy after the second.
Experience is what we get what when we don’t get what we expected.
Experience is what we get what when we don’t get what we expected.
Interesting. You sound like me from the future or something, except we only had to do IUIs instead. No vasectomy yet but maybe this is a good warning.
It’s $1000 to collect some semen and have it frozen for a few years (Reprotech is a cryoprovider I can recommend)). Vasectomies are cheap (<$1000 but free in a handful of states). Bank the tissue and get snipped is my advice. Buys you an option if you change your mind (call for a specimen and do IUI) but firmly insulates you from mistakes or decisions made under suboptimal conditions.
This. And no, it's not just the baby stage.
Just yesterday, in my team of five, three work colleagues were counseling each other about how go get help for their kids. The two children of one colleague suffer from anxiety and attention deficit, which is the same problem another colleague has. The third colleague needed to leave yesterday mid-afternoon because his daughter had a breakdown at school. Today he is taking her to therapy, and that's a regular occurrence.
I've started to suspect that there is a silent pandemic of mental health issues between kids these days. Maybe it's the cell phones, maybe it's over-diagnosis, maybe it's because it's too much. Maybe the entire way we do families and child-rearing is broken. I remember feeling lonely and sad as a kid, then I went to boarding school and made some amazing friends and life was so much better and easier. Kids shouldn't grow alone.
Just yesterday, in my team of five, three work colleagues were counseling each other about how go get help for their kids. The two children of one colleague suffer from anxiety and attention deficit, which is the same problem another colleague has. The third colleague needed to leave yesterday mid-afternoon because his daughter had a breakdown at school. Today he is taking her to therapy, and that's a regular occurrence.
I've started to suspect that there is a silent pandemic of mental health issues between kids these days. Maybe it's the cell phones, maybe it's over-diagnosis, maybe it's because it's too much. Maybe the entire way we do families and child-rearing is broken. I remember feeling lonely and sad as a kid, then I went to boarding school and made some amazing friends and life was so much better and easier. Kids shouldn't grow alone.
> Real parents consistently make it clear how terrible having kids is.
What world do you live in? I have 4 (soon to be 5) kids myself and I’m happy with my choices. I know many families with kids, and only a small percentage seem unhappy, similar to most other life choices.
What world do you live in? I have 4 (soon to be 5) kids myself and I’m happy with my choices. I know many families with kids, and only a small percentage seem unhappy, similar to most other life choices.
> I know many families with kids, and only a small percentage seem unhappy, similar to most other life choices.
"Seem" is the keyword. People successfully hide suicidal depression from close friends and family, so I'm not sure why you think people can't hide mild unhappiness.
"Seem" is the keyword. People successfully hide suicidal depression from close friends and family, so I'm not sure why you think people can't hide mild unhappiness.
If they "seem" happy, then they are not "consistently mak[ing] it clear how terrible having kids is."
You're talking about two different contexts: they can make happy while with friends and family where there are social expectations, and they can also report how they honestly feel in anonymous or confidential circumstances, like surveys, studies and therapy.
The analogy I made to depression was intentional because it exhibits exactly this pattern: every depressed person consistently reports how terrible it is, and yet they often make a show of appearing happy in public.
The analogy I made to depression was intentional because it exhibits exactly this pattern: every depressed person consistently reports how terrible it is, and yet they often make a show of appearing happy in public.
I'm talking about the statement that "Real parents consistently make it clear how terrible having kids is."
If they "seem" happy in all my interactions, I don't see how they can be "consistently mak[ing] clear how terrible having kids is."
I also don't see how some secret only-tell-the-therapist-and-pollsters views could qualify as "consistently mak[ing] clear" their supposed negative feelings.
If they "seem" happy in all my interactions, I don't see how they can be "consistently mak[ing] clear how terrible having kids is."
I also don't see how some secret only-tell-the-therapist-and-pollsters views could qualify as "consistently mak[ing] clear" their supposed negative feelings.
It's difficult to express to non-parents how good the good parts are. Speaking from personal experience, I never understood why people would want kids until we decided to have our own.
This isn't a judgment or to say parents are in any way superior! Having children is a very personal choice which everyone has to confront, and there's no wrong answer. The feeling of being a parent is just incredibly difficult to put into words.
This isn't a judgment or to say parents are in any way superior! Having children is a very personal choice which everyone has to confront, and there's no wrong answer. The feeling of being a parent is just incredibly difficult to put into words.
Yes, it's extremely obvious what the unpleasant things are, like a screaming toddler in the supermarket. But you can't explain the joy in simply watching some DuckTales with your kid and laughing together. I try to describe it like it's like when you're in love with a girl, the honey moon, except the honey moon never passes. Just like you can't stop looking at your crush you can't stop looking at your child, you find everything they do and learn extremely interesting. May not be the experience for everyone but if it were not like this it would be very difficult to get through the rough parts!
The interesting thing is I care more about others kids as well now. Before kids I didn't have many interactions with them, not really a kids person, but now I feel more paternal for all kids. While there's an obvious confounding variable here, my friends with kids care about mine and want to meet them while those without pretend like they don't exist.
The interesting thing is I care more about others kids as well now. Before kids I didn't have many interactions with them, not really a kids person, but now I feel more paternal for all kids. While there's an obvious confounding variable here, my friends with kids care about mine and want to meet them while those without pretend like they don't exist.
I think you got the point right - it's easy to agree, almost objective, that sleepless nights are not good for you or crying babies or toddler with tantrums or chasing a toddler for the bed routing might not be the most funny thing to do after work is not the funniest activity in most of the cases, while the positive things are very subjective, less universal and more personal. That's why pointing out the "bad" things is easier, while reflecting on the positive side takes considerably longer than a random article on the web.
Did you hear from marathon runners how difficult it was? Same here, it's difficult but it brings experiences you could not have otherwise, and on pragmatic side passes on your genes ;)
The people you hear most vocally for many things (for example, video games) are the ones that are listing the problems with it. They're also the ones that are doing it the most, by choice. As a general rule, it's common for the vocal minority to be the complainers; and also to be the ones that most enjoy the thing in question.
My wife had a friend who would watch us deal with our then toddler son and claim that we were the best birth control she could wish for :-)
I wish my sister had a child first. I would have never agreed to have one on my own :D
Real parent, here.
Having a son anchored me to the (land and planet)* in a very unexpected way. Formerly, there was always an option to chuck things and go somewhere else, but now whatever is in front of me I must deal with and make happen. It's not about what I want to do any more, but the first underlying thought behind everything I do is how it will affect my son and family.
Lots of former options are closed. I can no longer start a relationship with a fun and beautiful but legitimately insane woman. I can no longer splurge my life savings on some risky venture. I can no longer spontaneously digital nomad. Heck, I can't really hit the local pub or have a night out without negotiation.
Is that terrible? I don't think so. It doesn't feel so. More, like, I do whatever I want within the bounds determined by my responsibility to someone who cannot care for himself yet.
I have a fatherly and calm personality, though, and I know it's not suited for everyone.
So, TL;DR: Not terrible. Anchoring. Limiting, but not oppressive.
* There's no really good word for this.
Having a son anchored me to the (land and planet)* in a very unexpected way. Formerly, there was always an option to chuck things and go somewhere else, but now whatever is in front of me I must deal with and make happen. It's not about what I want to do any more, but the first underlying thought behind everything I do is how it will affect my son and family.
Lots of former options are closed. I can no longer start a relationship with a fun and beautiful but legitimately insane woman. I can no longer splurge my life savings on some risky venture. I can no longer spontaneously digital nomad. Heck, I can't really hit the local pub or have a night out without negotiation.
Is that terrible? I don't think so. It doesn't feel so. More, like, I do whatever I want within the bounds determined by my responsibility to someone who cannot care for himself yet.
I have a fatherly and calm personality, though, and I know it's not suited for everyone.
So, TL;DR: Not terrible. Anchoring. Limiting, but not oppressive.
* There's no really good word for this.
I strongly identify with this post. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, there are lots of things I can't do now. But that's ok with me. It doesn't even feel like a sacrifice really. Being a dad is just part of who I am and I want to do it well just like any other thing I do.
My kids won't need me anchored forever. And I still get to go fishing, see concerts, play video games, and do other stuff I enjoy. It's not the total loss of all freedom some make it out to be.
Yeah, there are lots of things I can't do now. But that's ok with me. It doesn't even feel like a sacrifice really. Being a dad is just part of who I am and I want to do it well just like any other thing I do.
My kids won't need me anchored forever. And I still get to go fishing, see concerts, play video games, and do other stuff I enjoy. It's not the total loss of all freedom some make it out to be.
Agreed. Fun is to be had. Is essential, actually.
Kids and covid lockdown are a combo that speaks to that "anchoring". Sure, the world has gone to hell and you can't buy toilet paper anymore. But the kids need you so yeet any nascent doomscrolling feelings in the bin, there's no room for that shit.
There are tons of "having a kid is great" in this thread. I have been present at many conversations in groups along these lines ... in multiple cases, the same people 1 on 1 tell me afterwards the exact opposite, what they have said in a group setting was an outright lie.
Nobody wants to be the one who speaks out, everyone is saying its amazing because the others say it is amazing.
Nobody wants to be the one who speaks out, everyone is saying its amazing because the others say it is amazing.
[deleted]
People complain about kids in a similar way to how they complain about their jobs. An unemployed observer might conclude that a career is inevitably hell on earth, but that wouldn't be the whole picture, even if everyone's work sucks some of the time and some people's work just sucks all the time.
> If you’re focused on these experiences as the defining characteristics of being a parent, you’ll completely miss the big picture.
Right. Because that’s the easy part, when they’re babies.
At first I didn’t believe my friend’s dad when he told me it actually gets more difficult when they get older.
Right. Because that’s the easy part, when they’re babies.
At first I didn’t believe my friend’s dad when he told me it actually gets more difficult when they get older.
It really does get harder. Babies are not really that hard. They're a lot of work, but each individual thing you have to do is easy. Annoying or gross, sure, sometimes. But changing a diaper takes about a minute. Night time can be tough at first but if you do a good job with sleep training it gets better pretty quickly. My wife breastfed, so most mid-sleep wakeups just become "go grab the baby and hook him onto Mom, make sure everyone has what they need, and go lay back down."
My sons are 8 and 6 now and that's much more difficult on some ways. They're 'people' enough that you can reason with them sometimes, but also sometimes they get trapped in completely ridiculous loops of illogic and emotion and you just have to ride it out while trying to remain calm. There's all kinds of dramas, illnesses, places to go, one thing after another.
Mostly though, being a dad is great, and I recommend it. I meet lots of folks my age who seem kinda directionless, like they can't figure out what's missing, and I think for many of them, family is that missing piece.
I've also met many DINKs who seem like they're having the time of their lives, so YMMV. I don't want to tell anyone how to live their life.
But there does seem to me to be a cultural knee-jerk ruling out of family among my generation that puzzles and saddens me. Everyone seems to think there are a million qualifications they have to meet before becoming a parent. "We need to have a house, and 100k in savings, etc etc etc." And yes, it's good to be prepared. But also, as long as you're a semi functional human, you'll make it work.
If you think you want to have children, you should!
My sons are 8 and 6 now and that's much more difficult on some ways. They're 'people' enough that you can reason with them sometimes, but also sometimes they get trapped in completely ridiculous loops of illogic and emotion and you just have to ride it out while trying to remain calm. There's all kinds of dramas, illnesses, places to go, one thing after another.
Mostly though, being a dad is great, and I recommend it. I meet lots of folks my age who seem kinda directionless, like they can't figure out what's missing, and I think for many of them, family is that missing piece.
I've also met many DINKs who seem like they're having the time of their lives, so YMMV. I don't want to tell anyone how to live their life.
But there does seem to me to be a cultural knee-jerk ruling out of family among my generation that puzzles and saddens me. Everyone seems to think there are a million qualifications they have to meet before becoming a parent. "We need to have a house, and 100k in savings, etc etc etc." And yes, it's good to be prepared. But also, as long as you're a semi functional human, you'll make it work.
If you think you want to have children, you should!
> Everyone seems to think there are a million qualifications they have to meet before becoming a parent. "We need to have a house, and 100k in savings, etc etc etc." And yes, it's good to be prepared. But also, as long as you're a semi functional human, you'll make it work.
Very true. I didn’t have my own place to live or any money when the first one was on the way. In fact, my kids are the reason I started a new career, worked my way up, bought a house.
It doesn’t all have to happen in a specific order. Like the parent post says, you make it work.
Very true. I didn’t have my own place to live or any money when the first one was on the way. In fact, my kids are the reason I started a new career, worked my way up, bought a house.
It doesn’t all have to happen in a specific order. Like the parent post says, you make it work.
> Like the parent post says, you make it work.
What does make it work mean? Most people I know will not accept the child “surviving” as making it work.
What does make it work mean? Most people I know will not accept the child “surviving” as making it work.
It just means what it means, I guess. You do the best you can to provide a good life for your child by whatever means are available to you. Sometimes you have to make compromises - even painful compromises.
Maybe you are living paycheck to paycheck so you don't buy the new game this week. You play an old game that you already had.
Maybe some mornings you have to give them a bowl of cereal instead of making eggs, because you don't have enough time.
Maybe some afternoon when everyone is exhausted from working, you let the kids play the tablets for 2 hours instead of 30 minutes like they're supposed to.
Maybe instead of renting out the trampoline park for the birthday party, you get a pavilion at your local nature park.
Maybe your kid might get a "cheese sandwich" in their lunch because you were out of turkey and didn't realize it until 11pm.
Maybe your kid desperately wants a dog, but your current living situation doesn't allow it and he has to go without.
Obviously we all want what's best for our children all the time, but life is full of compromises. I'm not saying that parents shouldn't do everything within their power to provide the best life possible for their kids - in fact, I think that's exactly the moral duty of parenthood. But there are many degrees of happiness between "pure utopian bliss" and "mere survival." And so many potential parents these days seem to think that if they can't do it absolutely perfectly then it's not worth doing.
Maybe this is just my own background, but I can't think of a single person I know whose childhood was perfectly ideal.
Maybe you are living paycheck to paycheck so you don't buy the new game this week. You play an old game that you already had.
Maybe some mornings you have to give them a bowl of cereal instead of making eggs, because you don't have enough time.
Maybe some afternoon when everyone is exhausted from working, you let the kids play the tablets for 2 hours instead of 30 minutes like they're supposed to.
Maybe instead of renting out the trampoline park for the birthday party, you get a pavilion at your local nature park.
Maybe your kid might get a "cheese sandwich" in their lunch because you were out of turkey and didn't realize it until 11pm.
Maybe your kid desperately wants a dog, but your current living situation doesn't allow it and he has to go without.
Obviously we all want what's best for our children all the time, but life is full of compromises. I'm not saying that parents shouldn't do everything within their power to provide the best life possible for their kids - in fact, I think that's exactly the moral duty of parenthood. But there are many degrees of happiness between "pure utopian bliss" and "mere survival." And so many potential parents these days seem to think that if they can't do it absolutely perfectly then it's not worth doing.
Maybe this is just my own background, but I can't think of a single person I know whose childhood was perfectly ideal.
> But there are many degrees of happiness between "pure utopian bliss" and "mere survival." And so many potential parents these days seem to think that if they can't do it absolutely perfectly then it's not worth doing.
Where does being able to afford routine healthcare land? And I do not mean waiting in the few overcrowded clinics that take Medicaid because Medicaid reimbursed very poorly so providers do not accept it.
The only difference between now and before is that now we have very effective birth control. I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to say, for example, I am not likely to be able to pay for a child’s healthcare, and so it is not worth it for me to have children (yet). Or a home in a decent school, where the other kids are not likely to be in gangs. And so on and so forth.
My parents were poor, and I never received any healthcare as a child. My dad told me to play carefully, otherwise any injuries I incurred could derail the family. I also went to a different school in different states every year until high school. So I was fed and sheltered. But would I have kids if I predicted that is what their life would be? Hell no.
Where does being able to afford routine healthcare land? And I do not mean waiting in the few overcrowded clinics that take Medicaid because Medicaid reimbursed very poorly so providers do not accept it.
The only difference between now and before is that now we have very effective birth control. I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to say, for example, I am not likely to be able to pay for a child’s healthcare, and so it is not worth it for me to have children (yet). Or a home in a decent school, where the other kids are not likely to be in gangs. And so on and so forth.
My parents were poor, and I never received any healthcare as a child. My dad told me to play carefully, otherwise any injuries I incurred could derail the family. I also went to a different school in different states every year until high school. So I was fed and sheltered. But would I have kids if I predicted that is what their life would be? Hell no.
> I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to say, for example, I am not likely to be able to pay for a child’s healthcare, and so it is not worth it for me to have children (yet). Or a home in a decent school, where the other kids are not likely to be in gangs. And so on and so forth.
I agree.
What I'm arguing against is what seems to be a fairly modern conception: "oh, we can't possibly consider children until we own a home with 4 bedrooms and a pool and we've gone on a backpacking trip through Europe and we've unpacked all our own childhood trauma and come to terms with it and gone to therapy and etc, etc etc".
I'm not saying "yeah, fuck it, you live in a box, get all your money from hooking, and nurse a heroin addiction, but you should still have kids, it'll work out."
I'm just saying that nearly every human in history has been born into a situation that was non-optimal in some way. It's OK to have a kid when the house is too small. It's OK to not have a fully baked plan to finance every activity the child might ever want to do. A fulfilling and happy life can be found in less-than-ideal circumstances.
My parents didn't have much money. We were fortunate in many other ways. Some folks were born with more money and less parental kindness. Some sadly lacked in both.
As an adult, I can say that I am happy to have been born in spite of the many challenges that I faced growing up. I believe (hope) that most people on Earth can honestly say the same.
I agree.
What I'm arguing against is what seems to be a fairly modern conception: "oh, we can't possibly consider children until we own a home with 4 bedrooms and a pool and we've gone on a backpacking trip through Europe and we've unpacked all our own childhood trauma and come to terms with it and gone to therapy and etc, etc etc".
I'm not saying "yeah, fuck it, you live in a box, get all your money from hooking, and nurse a heroin addiction, but you should still have kids, it'll work out."
I'm just saying that nearly every human in history has been born into a situation that was non-optimal in some way. It's OK to have a kid when the house is too small. It's OK to not have a fully baked plan to finance every activity the child might ever want to do. A fulfilling and happy life can be found in less-than-ideal circumstances.
My parents didn't have much money. We were fortunate in many other ways. Some folks were born with more money and less parental kindness. Some sadly lacked in both.
As an adult, I can say that I am happy to have been born in spite of the many challenges that I faced growing up. I believe (hope) that most people on Earth can honestly say the same.
> And I do not mean waiting in the few overcrowded clinics that take Medicaid because Medicaid reimbursed very poorly so providers do not accept it.
Sorry you had a bad experience with that growing up. Really.
As a parent I can’t say I shared that worry with only having medicaid. That was our best option before I had a job with healthcare benefits, which took me years to get to.
But I would still say it was pretty far from just “survival”.
Sorry you had a bad experience with that growing up. Really.
As a parent I can’t say I shared that worry with only having medicaid. That was our best option before I had a job with healthcare benefits, which took me years to get to.
But I would still say it was pretty far from just “survival”.
Babies are the worst. They take so much from you and you get so little back. Toddlerhood is when things start to get fun.
Babies cry for every reason and figuring out what’s wrong (if anything) was stressful. I felt that once my kids were able to communicate, everything got easier and waaaaaay more fun.
My kids are in college now and I’m so happy and proud of them but at the same time I realize that my parenting job is wrapping up. When I think about the past 20 years I’m a little sad because I should have been a much better parent. The deserved better. It’s also astonishing how quickly two decades passed.
Babies cry for every reason and figuring out what’s wrong (if anything) was stressful. I felt that once my kids were able to communicate, everything got easier and waaaaaay more fun.
My kids are in college now and I’m so happy and proud of them but at the same time I realize that my parenting job is wrapping up. When I think about the past 20 years I’m a little sad because I should have been a much better parent. The deserved better. It’s also astonishing how quickly two decades passed.
The first baby is exhausting. The second one feels easy. The nervous stress that you'll break something is gone and replaced with "been there, done that". Which is really fortunate because the older one can run and climb now so you'll need that time back.
Unless they’re a poor sleeper then you’ll still suffer plenty
> Babies cry for every reason and figuring out what’s wrong (if anything) was stressful.
Yep, but it's important for would-be parents to know that that's normal and doesn't take all that long IF you are being an attentive parent. Some parents can tell by the "kind" of cry what their baby wanted. I could never do that, so I always just went through a mental checklist every time: Poopy diaper? (Usually you can smell one before it upsets the baby, though.) Hungry? Tired? Wants to play? Wants to sit down? Wants to get up? Etc.
Yep, but it's important for would-be parents to know that that's normal and doesn't take all that long IF you are being an attentive parent. Some parents can tell by the "kind" of cry what their baby wanted. I could never do that, so I always just went through a mental checklist every time: Poopy diaper? (Usually you can smell one before it upsets the baby, though.) Hungry? Tired? Wants to play? Wants to sit down? Wants to get up? Etc.
Right- it’s almost always the regular 4 things.
When they’re a young teenager, and they’re trying to kill themselves, and you have to lock up all the sharp objects, including the knives you cook with every day, constantly watch them, which means working from home before everyone was doing that, keep them out of school because the school isn’t committed to keeping an eye on suicidal people, yet still informs you that they will call the authorities if you continue to keep them out of school, AND you’re also keeping them from being institutionalized, because that’s how the system is if you don’t do all this yourself to protect your children while they are in this window of time where you could lose them.
I wouldn’t say babies are the worst. They are simple beings.
When they’re a young teenager, and they’re trying to kill themselves, and you have to lock up all the sharp objects, including the knives you cook with every day, constantly watch them, which means working from home before everyone was doing that, keep them out of school because the school isn’t committed to keeping an eye on suicidal people, yet still informs you that they will call the authorities if you continue to keep them out of school, AND you’re also keeping them from being institutionalized, because that’s how the system is if you don’t do all this yourself to protect your children while they are in this window of time where you could lose them.
I wouldn’t say babies are the worst. They are simple beings.
It really depends, because children force us to negotiate.
Babies are dead easy. They are incapable of expressing their will. You put them in a stroller, that baby is in the stroller. Yes, you have to feed and clean the baby and it will sometimes be hard to wrangle into whatever situation you want. But it doesn't have a choice ultimately.
Adults are also relatively easy. You don't have to do any of the cleaning or feeding, and you also don't have to tolerate anything you don't want to. Bob is being a jerk? Fuck him. Sally doesn't come to your birthday party? Well, now she's not invited to Friendsgiving. Etc.
Toddlers who grow into children who grow into teenagers are a whole category unto themselves. You slowly divest yourself of the cleaning and direct feeding duties. But you also can't just abandon them. When little Billy is pitching a fit, you have to deal with that. And as they get older and get savvier themselves, you're going to have to navigate that. You are going to have a lot of responsibility with decreasing levels of authority.
So now you have to get your kid to do what you would like for them to do without physical coercion. Ideally without much coercion if you want to preserve a relationship with them. You are going to have to convince them. And you aren't allowed to quit.
Babies are dead easy. They are incapable of expressing their will. You put them in a stroller, that baby is in the stroller. Yes, you have to feed and clean the baby and it will sometimes be hard to wrangle into whatever situation you want. But it doesn't have a choice ultimately.
Adults are also relatively easy. You don't have to do any of the cleaning or feeding, and you also don't have to tolerate anything you don't want to. Bob is being a jerk? Fuck him. Sally doesn't come to your birthday party? Well, now she's not invited to Friendsgiving. Etc.
Toddlers who grow into children who grow into teenagers are a whole category unto themselves. You slowly divest yourself of the cleaning and direct feeding duties. But you also can't just abandon them. When little Billy is pitching a fit, you have to deal with that. And as they get older and get savvier themselves, you're going to have to navigate that. You are going to have a lot of responsibility with decreasing levels of authority.
So now you have to get your kid to do what you would like for them to do without physical coercion. Ideally without much coercion if you want to preserve a relationship with them. You are going to have to convince them. And you aren't allowed to quit.
It’s different. I would say for most people the infant age is the toughest just because it’s physically tough which is not something most people in the modern world are used to. The rest is mainly just dealing with a moody person who is learning about the world and themselves and can be completely infuriating about half of the time.
I have friends who haven’t had a good night’s sleep in years because of one of their kids being unable to settle into normal patterns.
I’m sure they’d still say it was worth it.
Mind you they are getting divorced now so who knows.
I think it’s fair to say YMMV on the sleep front.
I’m sure they’d still say it was worth it.
Mind you they are getting divorced now so who knows.
I think it’s fair to say YMMV on the sleep front.
Definitely YMMV, and it's not just when they are toddlers- teeanagers are a pain in the ass and will make you lose sleep, then they start dating with all the wrong people, get their heart broken, make bad life decisions and you will be able to do is watch and cry.
I see it the same way as people who have iPhones or luxury German cars.
People who have iPhones or luxury German cars are more likely than not to rate themselves as satisfied with their purchase.
It is as simple as wanting to feel good and usually it feels good to believe I am correct.
Therefore, I suspect this is correct for both breeders and the child free
that we will try to justify our own decisions,
not for anyone else but to satisfy ourselves.
We probably get simply defensive when questioned.
It may not have anything to do with the greater fool theory as we aren't constantly buying or selling children or doing child swaps like banks do with money but it is worth bringing up as we are humans in both places and I suspect the underlying human psychology is the same.
> In finance, the greater fool theory suggests that one can sometimes make money through the purchase of overvalued assets — items with a purchase price drastically exceeding the intrinsic value — if those assets can later be resold at an even higher price.
> In this context, one "fool" might pay for an overpriced asset, hoping that he can sell it to an even "greater fool" and make a profit. This only works as long as there are enough new "greater fools" willing to pay higher and higher prices for the asset. Eventually, investors can no longer deny that the price is out of touch with reality, at which point a sell-off can cause the price to drop significantly until it is closer to its fair value, which in some cases could be zero.[1][2][3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
tl;Dr NEVER EVER trust a parent to tell you the truth about the "wonders" of being a parent, not because they are malicious but because they are likely incapable of being objective.
edit: disclaimer, if it wasn't obvious, i made this all up. i don't have any children
It may not have anything to do with the greater fool theory as we aren't constantly buying or selling children or doing child swaps like banks do with money but it is worth bringing up as we are humans in both places and I suspect the underlying human psychology is the same.
> In finance, the greater fool theory suggests that one can sometimes make money through the purchase of overvalued assets — items with a purchase price drastically exceeding the intrinsic value — if those assets can later be resold at an even higher price.
> In this context, one "fool" might pay for an overpriced asset, hoping that he can sell it to an even "greater fool" and make a profit. This only works as long as there are enough new "greater fools" willing to pay higher and higher prices for the asset. Eventually, investors can no longer deny that the price is out of touch with reality, at which point a sell-off can cause the price to drop significantly until it is closer to its fair value, which in some cases could be zero.[1][2][3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
tl;Dr NEVER EVER trust a parent to tell you the truth about the "wonders" of being a parent, not because they are malicious but because they are likely incapable of being objective.
edit: disclaimer, if it wasn't obvious, i made this all up. i don't have any children
Having children is one of the big things that we cannot reasonably speculate our reaction to.
Life is so fundamentally different before and after you have children you must care for. There is no amount of theorizing or philosophizing that will prepare you for the reality of the thing. You absolutely cannot trust the opinion of anyone who does not have children. They simply do not have the necessary experience.
People with children however, have had life without children and life with children. So at least they have a basis of comparison. However, every experience is different. Being a single teen mom is a different situation than even being a teen mom with a supportive family. And different again than a "typical" mid-20s couple having a child.
And everyone reacts differently. I can only say how experiences affected me. Bob can only say how experiences affected him. So you really can't base your decision on other people's experiences either. Not because of "greater fools" but because of self-selection bias. Most people who you will talk to about being parents enjoy parenthood and love their children.
So while you don't know whether or not you'd be a good parent or if you'd like your children until you actually have children, it's still a decent reason to avoid having them. Not wanting to confront the question is a valid reason to avoid the question.
Life is so fundamentally different before and after you have children you must care for. There is no amount of theorizing or philosophizing that will prepare you for the reality of the thing. You absolutely cannot trust the opinion of anyone who does not have children. They simply do not have the necessary experience.
People with children however, have had life without children and life with children. So at least they have a basis of comparison. However, every experience is different. Being a single teen mom is a different situation than even being a teen mom with a supportive family. And different again than a "typical" mid-20s couple having a child.
And everyone reacts differently. I can only say how experiences affected me. Bob can only say how experiences affected him. So you really can't base your decision on other people's experiences either. Not because of "greater fools" but because of self-selection bias. Most people who you will talk to about being parents enjoy parenthood and love their children.
So while you don't know whether or not you'd be a good parent or if you'd like your children until you actually have children, it's still a decent reason to avoid having them. Not wanting to confront the question is a valid reason to avoid the question.
This is like one of those “things parents think about having children that are wrong” articles.
It makes a lot of assumptions about all parents having the same experience. It’s not. A lot of this assumes kids without any health issues.
“The low-sleep phase is temporary.” Nope. “Same goes for changing diapers” Nope.
There are lots of good things when it comes to children, and I love mine, but if you aren’t mentally prepared for the possibility that your entire life will have to change, you might want to think harder.
It might not happen to you, but it could also happen. Do not let someone pretend that it’s all temporary.
No.
It’s literally for the rest of your life.
It makes a lot of assumptions about all parents having the same experience. It’s not. A lot of this assumes kids without any health issues.
“The low-sleep phase is temporary.” Nope. “Same goes for changing diapers” Nope.
There are lots of good things when it comes to children, and I love mine, but if you aren’t mentally prepared for the possibility that your entire life will have to change, you might want to think harder.
It might not happen to you, but it could also happen. Do not let someone pretend that it’s all temporary.
No.
It’s literally for the rest of your life.
> “The low-sleep phase is temporary.” Nope. “Same goes for changing diapers” Nope.
Huh? Does your child have an issue where they never grow out of diapers?
For the vast majority of people, the diaper phase is temporary.
Huh? Does your child have an issue where they never grow out of diapers?
For the vast majority of people, the diaper phase is temporary.
For the vast majority of people, the diaper phase is temporary.
Sure, but it is far from a guarantee. And you should at least be aware of that.
Sure, but it is far from a guarantee. And you should at least be aware of that.
I guess. What is the percentage of people who have to wear diapers their whole life? I don't know but it has to be a small fraction of a percent.
> I guess.
You guess what? That potential parents should be prepared to take care of their children for their entire life? I think that's reasonable. Things happen all the time, too, where tragedies happen and people suffer medical issues that require lifetime care.
Being a parent is committing to that.
And if your thought is "I'm going to gamble that it doesn't happen to me" is really telling.
Regardless, being informed is important. Maybe you got lucky in your ignorance, but not everyone will be so lucky.
You guess what? That potential parents should be prepared to take care of their children for their entire life? I think that's reasonable. Things happen all the time, too, where tragedies happen and people suffer medical issues that require lifetime care.
Being a parent is committing to that.
And if your thought is "I'm going to gamble that it doesn't happen to me" is really telling.
Regardless, being informed is important. Maybe you got lucky in your ignorance, but not everyone will be so lucky.
I'm pushing back against this:
> “The low-sleep phase is temporary.” Nope. “Same goes for changing diapers” Nope.
Someone made the point that, in some small fraction of cases, a child might be in diapers their whole life.
What would you call the diaper-changing phase, if not "temporary"? "Temporary in 99.999% of cases"? It's certainly not "permanent."
> “The low-sleep phase is temporary.” Nope. “Same goes for changing diapers” Nope.
Someone made the point that, in some small fraction of cases, a child might be in diapers their whole life.
What would you call the diaper-changing phase, if not "temporary"? "Temporary in 99.999% of cases"? It's certainly not "permanent."
Probably also worth consulting with someone in their 50s that hasn't had kids. Having kids when you have an active social life seems like everything grinds to a half. NOT having kids when everyone you used to hang out with does is suddenly busy, on the other hand, is its own can of worms. At different age brackets, "normal social life" tends to look different -- and it varies by class and geography as well.
> The low-sleep phase is temporary. It’s such a short duration relative to the rest of your life as a parent that it really doesn’t matter much in the long run.
Yeah.. I am a new dad to a 21 week old baby girl (our first) and I would say that the sleep deprivation stopped after about 8 weeks. The last few weeks have been absolutely amazing. I play with my daughter every day, I cuddle her, her giggles warm my heart and make me dream and get excited about the future. So many amazing things to look forward to. I can't wait to build a snowman with her. I can't wait to go snorkelling, skiing, ice skating, surfing, etc. with her. I can't wait to take her to places and answer all her questions and tell her stories and spend time together. Until now my best friend was my wife, but now we have an additional best friend in our life. It's someone to play a board game with in the evening when all our other friends are too busy watching Netflix. It's an extra person to have dinner with and have interesting conversations with. An extra person who will challenge me in my thinking, will educate me on issues I would be unaware of as an older person now. An extra person to argue with, love, hug, miss and root for in her own accomplishments.
Who doesn't want an additional best friend in their life? Someone who you love so much that you know everything that you accumulate in your life you can happily pass down to?
What I find interesting is that the same people who argue that having children is such a churn and piece of work because of the nappy changes, short lived lack of sleep, etc. are the same people who end up having 2 cats and a dog. That doesn't make sense to me. If you don't like to change nappies for a few months then why did you pick a pet which you'll have to walk to the park at 5am in the morning for many years to come just so it can have a piss and shit every morning. My friends with pets are much more limited in visiting restaurants or going on holiday than my friends with kids. Kids go everywhere, pets don't.
Yeah.. I am a new dad to a 21 week old baby girl (our first) and I would say that the sleep deprivation stopped after about 8 weeks. The last few weeks have been absolutely amazing. I play with my daughter every day, I cuddle her, her giggles warm my heart and make me dream and get excited about the future. So many amazing things to look forward to. I can't wait to build a snowman with her. I can't wait to go snorkelling, skiing, ice skating, surfing, etc. with her. I can't wait to take her to places and answer all her questions and tell her stories and spend time together. Until now my best friend was my wife, but now we have an additional best friend in our life. It's someone to play a board game with in the evening when all our other friends are too busy watching Netflix. It's an extra person to have dinner with and have interesting conversations with. An extra person who will challenge me in my thinking, will educate me on issues I would be unaware of as an older person now. An extra person to argue with, love, hug, miss and root for in her own accomplishments.
Who doesn't want an additional best friend in their life? Someone who you love so much that you know everything that you accumulate in your life you can happily pass down to?
What I find interesting is that the same people who argue that having children is such a churn and piece of work because of the nappy changes, short lived lack of sleep, etc. are the same people who end up having 2 cats and a dog. That doesn't make sense to me. If you don't like to change nappies for a few months then why did you pick a pet which you'll have to walk to the park at 5am in the morning for many years to come just so it can have a piss and shit every morning. My friends with pets are much more limited in visiting restaurants or going on holiday than my friends with kids. Kids go everywhere, pets don't.
Sorry to say but 8 weeks is way too early to celebrate. They tend to reset their sleep as they gain major milestones and sometimes can completely flip their sleeping habits once they have one of their huge eureka moments about the world.. or just start teething
My daughter slept fine for like 5 years straight, and then started waking up around 2-3 am almost every single night for the next 18 month. That was fun.
>consult with actual parents for what it’s really like to have kids.
There's an interesting wrinkle into the answer you get, however. If you ask parents in one environment (say, at the workplace) about their thoughts on children they will often be different than asking about them in the act of raising those children. There is often an irreconcilable difference between our experience in the moment and how we later remember that experience. It's possible to be quite miserable raising children and still think back on it fondly.
I'm not sure what that implies on the advice of consulting actual parents unless you know which you would prefer optimizing for.
There's an interesting wrinkle into the answer you get, however. If you ask parents in one environment (say, at the workplace) about their thoughts on children they will often be different than asking about them in the act of raising those children. There is often an irreconcilable difference between our experience in the moment and how we later remember that experience. It's possible to be quite miserable raising children and still think back on it fondly.
I'm not sure what that implies on the advice of consulting actual parents unless you know which you would prefer optimizing for.
In my experience real parents all lie about what having kids is like. You can see they are clearly worn out and depressed and in a fog but if you ask "OH KIDS ARE GREAT! REGRET NOTHING!"
Later I had kids and that did not change my opinion!
Later I had kids and that did not change my opinion!
It often sounds kind of stockholm syndrom-ey
I'll never understand why the immediate response of some people is trying to coax others into having kids.
It's not so bad blabla.
Imagine someone doing the opposite to those who want them.
Some men and women just aren't interested.
It's not so bad blabla.
Imagine someone doing the opposite to those who want them.
Some men and women just aren't interested.
> The low-sleep phase is temporary. It’s such a short duration relative to the rest of your life as a parent that it really doesn’t matter much in the long run. Same goes for changing diapers and dealing with baby vomit.
The weird thing is that I miss this phase. They're little for such a short amount of time and there's just nothing else like this pre-toddler phase. Maybe it's the oxytocin that just wipes your memory clean of all the fatigue and sleep deprivation.
The weird thing is that I miss this phase. They're little for such a short amount of time and there's just nothing else like this pre-toddler phase. Maybe it's the oxytocin that just wipes your memory clean of all the fatigue and sleep deprivation.
As a parent of a toddler, sleep and housework can still be challenging, but diapers barely even register any more. I hardly remember the sleepless month we had when my kid was about 3 months old. I still have friends and hobbies and an identity outside of being a parent.
Honestly the biggest impact on my life so far is having to keep in mind that there is a developing person following me (both literally and figuratively) and copying exactly what I do and say.
Honestly the biggest impact on my life so far is having to keep in mind that there is a developing person following me (both literally and figuratively) and copying exactly what I do and say.
> Articles like this one, which are written by someone who apparently has chosen not to have children, are almost universally terrible at representing the true experience of being a parent.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Being a parent-at-home can be a huge mistake... I would not do it again...
Kid-having emerges. This (western biased) article is blaming the victim.
An entire generation bled dry by student loans for useless degrees, unable to buy homes that their elders view as retirement funds. A thousand and one more entertaining things to do online which don't risk creating 18-year bundles of debt. And absolutely no idea how to break the cycle for your offspring.
Pick one thing to fix and spend your life addressing it and maybe you'll have it solved in time for when the population reaches 9 billion.
An entire generation bled dry by student loans for useless degrees, unable to buy homes that their elders view as retirement funds. A thousand and one more entertaining things to do online which don't risk creating 18-year bundles of debt. And absolutely no idea how to break the cycle for your offspring.
Pick one thing to fix and spend your life addressing it and maybe you'll have it solved in time for when the population reaches 9 billion.
Came here to say this - I live in London and see many a fellow parent struggling to even have space for the kids they already have (or soon will have). Trying hastily bolt on a loft extension - if they can afford that.
Meanwhile landlords are reaping in INSANE rents from anyone who didn’t manage to buy back when that was at least a realistic dream.
People are people. The urge to have kids is incredibly strong. But if you are living in a tiny flat earning no money then it’s going to at the least be strongly suppressed.
Parents are getting _older_ as well as fewer so that should give an indication of what’s going on here.
No-one is in a financial position to have a baby in their 20s anymore, and by the time you’re in your 30s it’s biologically already harder to have a baby.
Meanwhile landlords are reaping in INSANE rents from anyone who didn’t manage to buy back when that was at least a realistic dream.
People are people. The urge to have kids is incredibly strong. But if you are living in a tiny flat earning no money then it’s going to at the least be strongly suppressed.
Parents are getting _older_ as well as fewer so that should give an indication of what’s going on here.
No-one is in a financial position to have a baby in their 20s anymore, and by the time you’re in your 30s it’s biologically already harder to have a baby.
Nail on the head.
For people who have certainty of access to future resources and plenty of living space I'm pretty sure the urge to reproduce isnt repressed.
London reminds me of this rat experiment: https://gizmodo.com/how-rats-turned-their-private-paradise-i...
For people who have certainty of access to future resources and plenty of living space I'm pretty sure the urge to reproduce isnt repressed.
London reminds me of this rat experiment: https://gizmodo.com/how-rats-turned-their-private-paradise-i...
Housing prices in London, SF, NYC, and most major cities are insane and unsustainable for all but the very rich. The average person should move and live anywhere else where they can afford it.
The US has wide open country areas for cheap.
I think too often people clamor to a lifestyle they can't afford and make believe it will magically workout.
The US has wide open country areas for cheap.
I think too often people clamor to a lifestyle they can't afford and make believe it will magically workout.
USA is just 300 millions people. "West" depending on your definitions is about 1.5 billion people. Most of the west has cheap/free university education and good welfare. They still have problems with demography, because it's not economy that discourages people from having kids. Universally - the wealthier the society becomes - the less kids it has.
China is a great example too. After they lifted the one child policy there was no change at all. Having lots of kids was a net positive for the family’s finances in an agricultural society but in a modern service oriented society it’s a huge resource drain. Even in countries with free childcare and other policies, you’ll still have to somehow afford a 3-4 bedroom near a big city where your well paying job is and so on.
There are a lot of countries where you have cradle to grave social support - free education, free healthcare, excellent parental benefits etc. And yet they have low birth rates. In fact, there seems to be an inverse correlation between the quality of life in a country and its birthrate. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rat...
The trouble is, the numbers just don’t support your hypothesis. Birth rates are falling in almost every country on the planet, however poor they are, however rich they are, however large student loans are.
This just isn’t the root of the issue. It’s pretty common knowledge that mostly the richer a country is the less babies it has.
So, maybe research what the actual problem is, before projecting your own views of society on this issue
This just isn’t the root of the issue. It’s pretty common knowledge that mostly the richer a country is the less babies it has.
So, maybe research what the actual problem is, before projecting your own views of society on this issue
I think you missed the point of my comment. I don't believe the author's premise at all, that population will decline. The population is still growing as it always has. Why would it stop now? The author makes no argument that it will and the data shows it hasn't. To lerp the declining growth rate derivative out a few decades is as ridiculous as the people who lerp the population count directly. This is Henny Penny stuff.
So instead I critique the author's views on society. It's not women having careers, prevalence of safe sex, or tinder usage to blame. Has anyone tried blaming the avocado toast yet?
So instead I critique the author's views on society. It's not women having careers, prevalence of safe sex, or tinder usage to blame. Has anyone tried blaming the avocado toast yet?
This is the crux of the issue. If society places value on more future taxpayers, it needs to create the environment where more people want to create future taxpayers. We would have "probably" been fine having a couple kids, but in the US you're often one job loss and major illness or accident away from permanent debt and/or bankruptcy. So we opted out.
> Pick one thing to fix and spend your life addressing it and maybe you'll have it solved in time for when the population reaches 9 billion.
That's only ~2037, 15 years or so from now. Less than half a career.
That's only ~2037, 15 years or so from now. Less than half a career.
Being a victim of student loans would mean the borrower cannot properly consent to the debt. If that's the case we shouldnt offer student loans.
Otherwise theyre a victim of their own decision making. Of course they have a tough decision and probably received bad information like "education is priceless". So dont ever mislead kids with that crap. Ultimately We can distribute blame and repercussions across society l, which preserves the problem, or we could hold individuals responsible.
Otherwise theyre a victim of their own decision making. Of course they have a tough decision and probably received bad information like "education is priceless". So dont ever mislead kids with that crap. Ultimately We can distribute blame and repercussions across society l, which preserves the problem, or we could hold individuals responsible.
Ever talked with someone looking to hire? How often have you heard "I just need to hire someone with a degree and <some list of other minor requirements>".
My university degree is not in tech at all, but it sure has managed to open enough doors to make my self-learned skillset profitable.
Pretending that people were making bad decisions with going to college is victim-blaming - there isn't a job market out there which doesn't demand a degree, pretty much any degree if you want to be in the middle class.
Some just-so story of how people should've picked the obvious degree of some sort when they're 18, have no life experience and the entire job market can pivot around in 4 years is so much junk to defend an overpriced education system which can't deliver on it's promises and is protected by a debt-issuance structure no other financial instrument gets. Undischargeable loans! Give money away and just don't bother ever analyzing the risk. Imagine a student loan system where the issuers might lose their hat if they don't know what the job market would be like for their investments.
My university degree is not in tech at all, but it sure has managed to open enough doors to make my self-learned skillset profitable.
Pretending that people were making bad decisions with going to college is victim-blaming - there isn't a job market out there which doesn't demand a degree, pretty much any degree if you want to be in the middle class.
Some just-so story of how people should've picked the obvious degree of some sort when they're 18, have no life experience and the entire job market can pivot around in 4 years is so much junk to defend an overpriced education system which can't deliver on it's promises and is protected by a debt-issuance structure no other financial instrument gets. Undischargeable loans! Give money away and just don't bother ever analyzing the risk. Imagine a student loan system where the issuers might lose their hat if they don't know what the job market would be like for their investments.
There are good cheap unis and community colleges whose quality is not bad and which cost a whole lot less. I’d like to see those utilized more
Agreed -- having a degree is important; having it from a prestigious/expensive university, for most people, is quite often much less so.
Obvious exceptions exist; we don't typically see presidential candidates who came from a community college. But most of the time, the degree is there more to show you could commit to a more self-directed educational experience than high school, and follow through with it while not usually under your parent's roof. Executive functioning, basically. Show some engagement in clubs, sports, or other activities for a bonus.
In many fields, if anything beyond this is expected, they want a graduate degree anyway, and this is where it can pay to splurge on the name, depending on your field.
Obvious exceptions exist; we don't typically see presidential candidates who came from a community college. But most of the time, the degree is there more to show you could commit to a more self-directed educational experience than high school, and follow through with it while not usually under your parent's roof. Executive functioning, basically. Show some engagement in clubs, sports, or other activities for a bonus.
In many fields, if anything beyond this is expected, they want a graduate degree anyway, and this is where it can pay to splurge on the name, depending on your field.
My friends that stuck it out in community college near us were on the 5 year plan. 5 years until they had enough credits to transfer to a CSU. A lot of the courses were remedial to catch people up and the college track classes filled up instantly with people that had been in the school for years getting priority. If you came out of high school at a college level, you competed with all of the people that had taken 2-3 years of catch up courses and they got the spots.
I think if you had the opportunity to go to an inexpensive school or an expensive school and you chose to take loans and go to the expensive one, then you chose the loans.
That said, I think we are all victims of the horrible free-financial-aid policies that have pumped overwhelming amounts of seemingly-but-not-at-all-free money into the system and driven college tuitions to absolutely insane heights.
That said, I think we are all victims of the horrible free-financial-aid policies that have pumped overwhelming amounts of seemingly-but-not-at-all-free money into the system and driven college tuitions to absolutely insane heights.
In India- or that subcontinent, people were majority in the very poor category. Only recently middle class grew, 20-40 years. What people did was buy homes and invest live savings to have a "permanant shelter over heads" for themselves and their families.
This is true for a lot of people so children when the start earning, "there is no rent to pay" which is a big savings considering.
On the other hand, you have "american dream" of kicking your kids out at 18 so the roof over heads analogy falls out the window.
I get it. Its fun, its freedom but at what cost? Apparently running your ass off to stay afloat.
Then there is this argument about "no opportunities in home town" but does this apply to 100% of 18 year olds in USA that they have to necessarily move out?
This is true for a lot of people so children when the start earning, "there is no rent to pay" which is a big savings considering.
On the other hand, you have "american dream" of kicking your kids out at 18 so the roof over heads analogy falls out the window.
I get it. Its fun, its freedom but at what cost? Apparently running your ass off to stay afloat.
Then there is this argument about "no opportunities in home town" but does this apply to 100% of 18 year olds in USA that they have to necessarily move out?
This is an over generalization of American culture. Yes, in my experience, when parents live in a high cost of living city with plentiful opportunities, the children tend to live at home longer. This seems quite common in California and New York. In areas with less opportunity, children are forced to move out or never have much of a career.
This was the case for me. I had no choice but to leave home at 18 or I would have been working in food service or lawn care for the rest of my life.
This was the case for me. I had no choice but to leave home at 18 or I would have been working in food service or lawn care for the rest of my life.
Everywhere? No. But it is commonly the case that the jobs are in one place, and the "good towns to raise a kid in" (schools, parks, low crime, or even just affordable housing suitable to raise a child in) are in others. Sure, perhaps when you've made your way up in your career field, you can go into a smaller/private practice of some sort (thinking law, finance, medicine here), but typically, for a lot of white collar fields, you start off in larger institutions, which typically means cities.
Could this change with the growing use of remote work? It could. Whether it does or not though remains to be seen.
Could this change with the growing use of remote work? It could. Whether it does or not though remains to be seen.
Man, and people give me a hard time about speaking hyperbole 8-/
I mean WTF? Really! OMG there will only be 10B people! OMG!! OMG!!!
Seriously, if 98% of the human species vanished, it can't be anything but a good thing.
The only people "worried" about this reduction are extractive capitalists who are afraid there aren't going to be enough idiot herd to pilfer.
OMG!!!!!
I mean WTF? Really! OMG there will only be 10B people! OMG!! OMG!!!
Seriously, if 98% of the human species vanished, it can't be anything but a good thing.
The only people "worried" about this reduction are extractive capitalists who are afraid there aren't going to be enough idiot herd to pilfer.
OMG!!!!!
"flatline" at 10 billion. I think we can make that work.
Between the economic impact, and the social/environmental pressure of climate change doomers, anti-natalist are a symptom of our broken society, and it's very disturbing.
'A response to' seems a fairer framing than 'a symptom of'. Further, I think climate change itself is the actual problem not (again) the response to it.
"The De-Population Bomb" [0].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNdnlrkx-wg
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNdnlrkx-wg
Elizabeth Warren's book The Two-Income Trap argued that dual income couples priced out single income families from the best locations.
It makes sense that DINKs and childless single people are simply reacting to the same economic incentives and now pricing out dual income families.
I think high-rents is a major driver of this decision. The USDA puts the cost of your first kid at $14.4k annually edited. That is primarily due to housing.
It makes sense that DINKs and childless single people are simply reacting to the same economic incentives and now pricing out dual income families.
I think high-rents is a major driver of this decision. The USDA puts the cost of your first kid at $14.4k annually edited. That is primarily due to housing.
I’ll give you a hint, the best locations are not in the city. Check out small towns. The people are down to earth. The cost of living is much less and the people are generally awesome to be around. I love in a small farming town and your neighbors would give the shirt off their back to come help you. One of our daughters has to go to the hospital for about a week and we came home to a clean house and meals for a week.
Those who think the city is good place to be, explore a little outside your urban bubble.
In addition to this, we have lots of kids and there are plenty of ways to have kids affordably. You don’t have to send your kids Ivy League schools and if they do, they can get their student loans to pay for it.
Lastly, yes, kids can a source of frustration and pain but they are by the one of the largest sources of joy, pride and happiness in our life. Watching them grow and develop is amazing.
Those who think the city is good place to be, explore a little outside your urban bubble.
In addition to this, we have lots of kids and there are plenty of ways to have kids affordably. You don’t have to send your kids Ivy League schools and if they do, they can get their student loans to pay for it.
Lastly, yes, kids can a source of frustration and pain but they are by the one of the largest sources of joy, pride and happiness in our life. Watching them grow and develop is amazing.
I've done both. I liked being able to walk around an empty little three-street downtown taking pictures of buildings in various states of decay and renewal without anyone bothering me, but it's no way to live. The people you meet are nice until they aren't, and then they can be dangerous. Younger people there are usually better, but they're all trying to get out.
> Those who think the city is good place to be, explore a little outside your urban bubble.
And for those that thing “small towns” are some homogenous idyllic 50s family fantasy, be careful. Last one I lived in was a pit of unemployment, methamphetamine and heroin.
And for those that thing “small towns” are some homogenous idyllic 50s family fantasy, be careful. Last one I lived in was a pit of unemployment, methamphetamine and heroin.
Because no one wants to work anymore either, so how can you afford kids if you don't want to go to work ;o
We often quip that companies (particularly publicly listed companies) are incredibly bad at long-term planning. They optimize for the current quarter only (mostly). Dell was a great example of this. It essentially created the Taiwan PC industry that eviscerated it but further outsourcing every part of their production line. A series of short-term decisions that had long-term consequences.
I hate to breka it to you but capitalism is doing the exact same thing to people.
Financial security and independence is bad for capitalism because it needs people to show up to work. It needs people to need those jobs and (even better) live paycheck-to[aycheck. That's the recipe for a compliant workforce. Increasing real wages is bad because it decreases dependence and profits, which is why there has been almost no increase in overall real wages in 40+ years.
Student debt, housing debt and medical debt are by design. Your labor is extracted to very few. Centuries ago, nobles were at the top of that pyramid and we called that serfdom. What we have now is basically the same thing but we've just replaced nobles with the capital-owning class.
People once had children because of high infant mortality (and mortality in general) and to look after them when they got old. Now we need a certain amount of security to provide for those children. And the short-term exploitation of labor has the completely understandable effect of people waiting to have children, not having children at all and/or having less children.
We produce enough such that everyone could live comfortably. We produce enough food such that everyone could be fed. We, as a society, have allowed people to starve and be homeless and instead of sharing the wealth letting it concentrate in the hands of a few hundred individuals.
I hate to breka it to you but capitalism is doing the exact same thing to people.
Financial security and independence is bad for capitalism because it needs people to show up to work. It needs people to need those jobs and (even better) live paycheck-to[aycheck. That's the recipe for a compliant workforce. Increasing real wages is bad because it decreases dependence and profits, which is why there has been almost no increase in overall real wages in 40+ years.
Student debt, housing debt and medical debt are by design. Your labor is extracted to very few. Centuries ago, nobles were at the top of that pyramid and we called that serfdom. What we have now is basically the same thing but we've just replaced nobles with the capital-owning class.
People once had children because of high infant mortality (and mortality in general) and to look after them when they got old. Now we need a certain amount of security to provide for those children. And the short-term exploitation of labor has the completely understandable effect of people waiting to have children, not having children at all and/or having less children.
We produce enough such that everyone could live comfortably. We produce enough food such that everyone could be fed. We, as a society, have allowed people to starve and be homeless and instead of sharing the wealth letting it concentrate in the hands of a few hundred individuals.
I cannot find it right now, but our beloved Terry Davis once said something like this: "If you make having children enough of a hassle, people will stop having kids".
"Are we millennials so busy coming up with pronouns that we can't find a weekend to make copies of ourselves?"
Oh sod off with this. The primal prerogative of reproduction is predicated on the primal need for safe and secure territory. The wealthiest oligarchs of the boomer generation have done everything they can to ensure the consequent generations are unable to attain that one entirely reasonable primal need. Women's rights have had an affect on birth rates, yes, but I'd rather take away the oligarch's right to own all the single family homes than my girlfriend's right to decide what to do with her life.
Oh sod off with this. The primal prerogative of reproduction is predicated on the primal need for safe and secure territory. The wealthiest oligarchs of the boomer generation have done everything they can to ensure the consequent generations are unable to attain that one entirely reasonable primal need. Women's rights have had an affect on birth rates, yes, but I'd rather take away the oligarch's right to own all the single family homes than my girlfriend's right to decide what to do with her life.
"The primal prerogative of reproduction is predicated on the primal need for safe and secure territory"
>> Never heard of that.
>> Never heard of that.
To translate it to a more common sentiment: "we'd like to have kids, but don't feel stable enough" or "we would have kids, but can't afford a house"
Seems very false to me. The rule, for hundreds of thousands of years, has always been to have kids whatever the situation, despite much higher risks and adversity in general.
Even today, the people still making kids are largely those in the poorest deciles of the population, with no stable home, etc.
Even today, the people still making kids are largely those in the poorest deciles of the population, with no stable home, etc.
Women were not quite in control of becoming pregnant until very recently.
Spoiler alert: Idiocracy
Paywall?
The unspoken subtext of these hysterical articles is that they are only speaking about wealthy white people. The rest of the planet does not exist to them.
Just look at the trend :
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?view=map
Fertility rates are close to or below 2 pretty much everywhere except subsaharian africa, and dropping significantly on a world wide level.
Trying to make this issue 'white vs other' is unwarranted and simply does not fit actual data.
Fertility rates are close to or below 2 pretty much everywhere except subsaharian africa, and dropping significantly on a world wide level.
Trying to make this issue 'white vs other' is unwarranted and simply does not fit actual data.
There are plenty of countries with a sub replacement level birth rate. Were it not for immigration, this would put them in deep economic peril.
Perhaps you found more meaning in the race angle for some reason (countries like Japan are left puzzled with your logic), but I found the message pretty clear. The observation “white people are lazy and rich” is a pretty outdated and lazy one, it’s surprising to see it here on HN tbh. Do you think the birth rate in Ukraine is down because of wealthy whiteness?
No, that's you reading into the article. Go look at recent global demographics data, it's not restricted to "wealthy white people", it's been an issue in East Asia for decades and countries from in Latin America, to Iran, even India all are dealing with or are now fast approaching the issue.
> only speaking about wealthy white people
Wealthy or not, white or not, you're going to feel it sooner or later in most countries. The whole system is built on a strong working class, once the balance shift to an older population it's going suck for a few generations
Not many white peeps in Japan or China btw, yet they'll suffer the same thing, India will be next, albeit a bit later
But yeah, "white man bad", that's good enough !
Wealthy or not, white or not, you're going to feel it sooner or later in most countries. The whole system is built on a strong working class, once the balance shift to an older population it's going suck for a few generations
Not many white peeps in Japan or China btw, yet they'll suffer the same thing, India will be next, albeit a bit later
But yeah, "white man bad", that's good enough !
And the subtext of your comment is your pathological urge to speak about so-called "white privilege" whatever the topic is.
China birth rate rings a bell?
Does the change over from home manufactured children to imported mirror the offshoring of North American industry? This could be an inevitable outcome of optimizing for labor costs.
You kid but in reality our children are nothing more than mere genetic copies. Memetically they are assets of the state and the media, academic and pop-culture class. No one really cares about the genetic part (it's generic) today; furthermore, there's no culture or tradition to pass on, so you're essentially paying a great amount to run the debt-economy.
I'm sure people have caught onto this, esp. with the breakdown of the family system (a big cause is the memetic disconnect). It's not even like you'll be looked after later on in life - there's zero justification for having kids (other than things like 'companionship', which let's admit it, a dog would do a better job of).
If you're a guy esp. in insanely misandric countries like India (where you and your family can be thrown in jail at the mere word of the bride; where the culture/languages of the land are increasingly banned by the colonial state) it's even less so.
I'm sure people have caught onto this, esp. with the breakdown of the family system (a big cause is the memetic disconnect). It's not even like you'll be looked after later on in life - there's zero justification for having kids (other than things like 'companionship', which let's admit it, a dog would do a better job of).
If you're a guy esp. in insanely misandric countries like India (where you and your family can be thrown in jail at the mere word of the bride; where the culture/languages of the land are increasingly banned by the colonial state) it's even less so.
I think this is a strange perspective, but it also kind of hits it perfectly.
Western society has been breaking down the autonomy and independence of the family. More and more policies are aimed at treating parents as temporary caregivers of a state asset. Public education is probably the biggest one of all time, but there are a lot of little policies as well. If you let little Timmy roam free the state could very well decide to swoop in and assign new caregivers. Genetics are de-emphasized in this whole system to be made irrelevant.
People are fighting back against this state interference with things like “free range parenting” and homeschooling.
Western society has been breaking down the autonomy and independence of the family. More and more policies are aimed at treating parents as temporary caregivers of a state asset. Public education is probably the biggest one of all time, but there are a lot of little policies as well. If you let little Timmy roam free the state could very well decide to swoop in and assign new caregivers. Genetics are de-emphasized in this whole system to be made irrelevant.
People are fighting back against this state interference with things like “free range parenting” and homeschooling.
The world has a major underpopulation problem. Not overpopulation like the malthusians attempt to portray.
There's high correlation, at minimum, between the 'paradox' of women unhappiness and the lack of babies. https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
Though obviously the authors of said article incorrectly see it as a paradox. Seemingly didn't understand what's happening to cause male happiness and female unhappiness.
Then you have sex ed which teaches men they are oppressive sexual deviants which cant be trusted, and sex for women is nothing but pain and misery. Funnily nobody seems to care why women have painful periods... they shouldnt...
Then politicians pushed and succeeded at breaking the social contract between men and women. There's tremendous evidence showing the abusive nature of divorce court or childrens court toward men. It's practically impossible for men to have kids due to the risk involved. Quite a number of men have simply decided not to get into that societal trap. All sex shall now be anonymous on some app, can't trap someone anonymous.
So it's interesting. Men seemingly are happier than ever before. Women are unhappier than ever before. Who is arguing to fix any of this? Certainly not women. Why would men want to change something which is making them happier? I guess Jordan Peterson is arguing to try to fix this but women call him a nazi for trying to help solve their problem. Crazy.
There's high correlation, at minimum, between the 'paradox' of women unhappiness and the lack of babies. https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
Though obviously the authors of said article incorrectly see it as a paradox. Seemingly didn't understand what's happening to cause male happiness and female unhappiness.
Then you have sex ed which teaches men they are oppressive sexual deviants which cant be trusted, and sex for women is nothing but pain and misery. Funnily nobody seems to care why women have painful periods... they shouldnt...
Then politicians pushed and succeeded at breaking the social contract between men and women. There's tremendous evidence showing the abusive nature of divorce court or childrens court toward men. It's practically impossible for men to have kids due to the risk involved. Quite a number of men have simply decided not to get into that societal trap. All sex shall now be anonymous on some app, can't trap someone anonymous.
So it's interesting. Men seemingly are happier than ever before. Women are unhappier than ever before. Who is arguing to fix any of this? Certainly not women. Why would men want to change something which is making them happier? I guess Jordan Peterson is arguing to try to fix this but women call him a nazi for trying to help solve their problem. Crazy.
It's funny because in my family everyone has kids. The reason being it's the only way to move out of your parents home because we don't have rich parents and no one's buying a home and affording a kid with a working class job.
> Babies are a huge opportunity cost. Financially speaking, they are like winning the lottery but backwards.
I can only assume OP is talking about people who work here? Here in the UK if you don't work you're fast-tracked a home for having a kid and if you have a few you're generally given a very nice 3 bed house so I'm not sure this applies generally. Typically you're very poor you're much better off for having a kid here.
I'd personally love a kid or two or three. My girlfriend too. And it upsets me deeply that I'll probably never be able to afford to have one. It's just so hard to afford a home, taxes, bills, student loans and all the costs of a kid on top of that. I've considered just giving up and going on benefits more times than I care to admit, but I think we both agree that wouldn't be the life we want either.
I don't want support, but the one thing that annoys me is how I know pensioners living in 5 bed homes who are receiving state pensions which unlike my salary goes up in line with inflation, while receiving help for energy bills and getting a host of other perks like discounted bus tickets, etc.
The fact the only people I know with homes are 60+ or on benefits seems weird and deeply immoral to me. Literally all my friends who work are in their 30s and living with there parents while my sister is a single mum in her 20s and somehow has her own house and a BMW (also partly given to her by the government). If we care to solve the birth rate problem it seems to me prioritising homes and resources for working families instead of the unemployed and pensioners would be the way to go.
Sorry for ranting, and I know I've brought this up before. But I feel this is the most important issue of my generation and no one is seriously discussing it. Happy to receive insults about how I don't care about the elderly and poor people now.
> Babies are a huge opportunity cost. Financially speaking, they are like winning the lottery but backwards.
I can only assume OP is talking about people who work here? Here in the UK if you don't work you're fast-tracked a home for having a kid and if you have a few you're generally given a very nice 3 bed house so I'm not sure this applies generally. Typically you're very poor you're much better off for having a kid here.
I'd personally love a kid or two or three. My girlfriend too. And it upsets me deeply that I'll probably never be able to afford to have one. It's just so hard to afford a home, taxes, bills, student loans and all the costs of a kid on top of that. I've considered just giving up and going on benefits more times than I care to admit, but I think we both agree that wouldn't be the life we want either.
I don't want support, but the one thing that annoys me is how I know pensioners living in 5 bed homes who are receiving state pensions which unlike my salary goes up in line with inflation, while receiving help for energy bills and getting a host of other perks like discounted bus tickets, etc.
The fact the only people I know with homes are 60+ or on benefits seems weird and deeply immoral to me. Literally all my friends who work are in their 30s and living with there parents while my sister is a single mum in her 20s and somehow has her own house and a BMW (also partly given to her by the government). If we care to solve the birth rate problem it seems to me prioritising homes and resources for working families instead of the unemployed and pensioners would be the way to go.
Sorry for ranting, and I know I've brought this up before. But I feel this is the most important issue of my generation and no one is seriously discussing it. Happy to receive insults about how I don't care about the elderly and poor people now.
have you considered moving to another country? If the issue is bad housing market and government policies, you'll be happy to hear that there are probably better options elsewhere. The benefits that pay for that free housing comes from your taxes, if the system seems unfair, there is no reason for you to participate, emigrate to Canada/Australia, or even somewhere more exotic if you're feeling brave.
It's funny you say that because we had this conversation just last weekend. I think it's fair to say we're seriously considering it now because we're both extremely unhappy here.
Obviously we don't want to leave though because at the end of the day this is our home and it will always be where the people we love are. But I think we both agree we're getting to the point where we really have no choice if we want the live the life we want.
Honestly the main blocker is just that the kids in my family have really crappy parents (most are prostitutes, drug dealers, or drug addicts) so we kind of act as parents. They're my family and I love them, but they're honestly the worst parents anyone could possibly have. In recent years we've had kids get falsely diagnosed with various illnesses, get expelled from school, have various dental issues, get trouble with the law, drug abuse, etc. We basically have act as the adults and be there for them because no one else is. If they have parent teacher days, it's not the parents who go, it's us. If they're suck on homework we're the ones who help them. If they're being drugged, we're the ones who step in to stop it. And it's the smaller things that I think are important, like when they're boasting about their dad stealing them a bike for their birthday, explain why that's wrong, just dumb stuff like that.
But still, I think we both know we shouldn't be this involved, but if we don't we know we'll fail them. So you know, it's hard...
Recently though my girlfriend suggested it could work if she could come home once month just to keep an eye on things, but I think that might turn out more difficult that it sounds. If we're needed, we're needed. We can't wait until the end of the month to catch a flight.
Obviously we don't want to leave though because at the end of the day this is our home and it will always be where the people we love are. But I think we both agree we're getting to the point where we really have no choice if we want the live the life we want.
Honestly the main blocker is just that the kids in my family have really crappy parents (most are prostitutes, drug dealers, or drug addicts) so we kind of act as parents. They're my family and I love them, but they're honestly the worst parents anyone could possibly have. In recent years we've had kids get falsely diagnosed with various illnesses, get expelled from school, have various dental issues, get trouble with the law, drug abuse, etc. We basically have act as the adults and be there for them because no one else is. If they have parent teacher days, it's not the parents who go, it's us. If they're suck on homework we're the ones who help them. If they're being drugged, we're the ones who step in to stop it. And it's the smaller things that I think are important, like when they're boasting about their dad stealing them a bike for their birthday, explain why that's wrong, just dumb stuff like that.
But still, I think we both know we shouldn't be this involved, but if we don't we know we'll fail them. So you know, it's hard...
Recently though my girlfriend suggested it could work if she could come home once month just to keep an eye on things, but I think that might turn out more difficult that it sounds. If we're needed, we're needed. We can't wait until the end of the month to catch a flight.
The only solution is to ban condoms. Will solve so many problems.
Btw this article neglects to mention a very important feedback loop: less babies equals less economic growth, which equals less babies because it’s too expensive, which in turn leads to less economic growth and so on.
Collapsing birth rates are a serious problem! You won’t notice until the country becomes a depopulated wasteland and then it will be too late to do anything about it - at least for 30 years.
Btw this article neglects to mention a very important feedback loop: less babies equals less economic growth, which equals less babies because it’s too expensive, which in turn leads to less economic growth and so on.
Collapsing birth rates are a serious problem! You won’t notice until the country becomes a depopulated wasteland and then it will be too late to do anything about it - at least for 30 years.
Considering that’s never actually happened it seems you have an unreasonable level of certainty about the outcomes.
People who don’t have kids don’t pass down their culture, which seems like an obvious feedback loop to keep things going. On top of this population declines have generally resulted in increased individual prosperity for hopefully obvious reasons.
People who don’t have kids don’t pass down their culture, which seems like an obvious feedback loop to keep things going. On top of this population declines have generally resulted in increased individual prosperity for hopefully obvious reasons.
And you are wrong about individual prosperity being a result of fewer people. Extremely wrong in fact. In a village of 100 people everyone is poor. Part of the reason US is becoming less prosperous in the last 50 years is because of this collapsing birth rate.
Prosperity after population decline is supported by history, look up the economic impact of the Black Plague for example.
What confuses things is local areas tend to lose population due to economic decline and prosperous areas attract people. However, when the decline is on much larger scale things flip.
What confuses things is local areas tend to lose population due to economic decline and prosperous areas attract people. However, when the decline is on much larger scale things flip.
History is not a useful guide here. Widespread birth control is an extremely new phenomenon. Cannot be compared to any other era. We are already seeing the impact of low birth rates on economic growth / home ownership etc and it will become even more dramatic as the boomers continue to retire.
Everyone always says this time will be different, but you didn’t actually put forth any reasons why it would be.
Fewer people from war, disease, or birth control still just means fewer people. You need to look at economics after population decline not causes of population decline to suggest why today might be different.
Fewer people from war, disease, or birth control still just means fewer people. You need to look at economics after population decline not causes of population decline to suggest why today might be different.
War and disease have existed forever and hasn’t stopped human population from exploding.
Sometimes “this time is different” is actually true. What’s different about now is that you have this feedback loop of less kids -> less growth -> less kids. That’s never happened in history because people have never had so much control over their reproductive rights. Most of your ancestors were “surprise” children - you certainly would not be born today if your ancestors could have just used a piece of plastic to avoid the trouble.
There is a reason sex feels good. People for the most part don’t have sex to have kids. Birth control hacks this process and turns sex from a necessary condition for human survival to a drug people take to feel good.
Like I said this is unprecedented.
Sometimes “this time is different” is actually true. What’s different about now is that you have this feedback loop of less kids -> less growth -> less kids. That’s never happened in history because people have never had so much control over their reproductive rights. Most of your ancestors were “surprise” children - you certainly would not be born today if your ancestors could have just used a piece of plastic to avoid the trouble.
There is a reason sex feels good. People for the most part don’t have sex to have kids. Birth control hacks this process and turns sex from a necessary condition for human survival to a drug people take to feel good.
Like I said this is unprecedented.
Again you just suggested that population will decline not why that would cause economic problems. Let’s assume it does at some point hit 4 billion people and is trending down at that point, that’s still only half the argument.
You need to also justify why a world with 4 billion people would be worse for those living in it than today.
You need to also justify why a world with 4 billion people would be worse for those living in it than today.
Economy is roughly proportional to number of people and economic growth is roughly lagging indicator of birth rates. China for instance has a billion people which is why it’s economy is so huge but as the birth rate has collapsed so has the economic growth.
It’s per person GDP that matters not total GDP, would you rather be in a tiny rich country like Switzerland or a giant poor one like Pakistan? Also, the data doesn’t support your conclusions in terms of China’s growth.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=C...
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/gdp-growth-r...
Looking at per capita growth rates it even goes in the other way with higher average economic growth as the birth rate declines thus their infamous one child policy. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat...
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=C...
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/gdp-growth-r...
Looking at per capita growth rates it even goes in the other way with higher average economic growth as the birth rate declines thus their infamous one child policy. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat...
Switzerland is rich because it's a hub for international trade and finance, and therefore has an "effective market" that is much larger than their actual population. Same was true of England in its heyday. If you cut off international trade and finance Switerland's economy would be a tiny fraction of what it is today.
It's strangely difficult to get intelligent people to understand the basic concept of more people -> bigger economy. Intelligent people a lot of times think that if the logic for something is too obvious and simple it must be false, because if it was true, their favorite intellectual / institution would be saying it.
That's why a lot of times, lower status people actually have more accurate perception of politics than higher status people, because all they have is common sense and their wits, and not some status driven perspective on "the truth", because by definition lower class people aren't winning status games so all they are left with is the truth.
It's strangely difficult to get intelligent people to understand the basic concept of more people -> bigger economy. Intelligent people a lot of times think that if the logic for something is too obvious and simple it must be false, because if it was true, their favorite intellectual / institution would be saying it.
That's why a lot of times, lower status people actually have more accurate perception of politics than higher status people, because all they have is common sense and their wits, and not some status driven perspective on "the truth", because by definition lower class people aren't winning status games so all they are left with is the truth.
It is already happening very successfully in fact in some communities.
> The only solution is to ban condoms. Will solve so many problems.
It might solve the "problem" that the article discusses. But it will create many many more worse problems.
It might solve the "problem" that the article discusses. But it will create many many more worse problems.
Worse problems than a dying population? I don’t think so. If the population keeps getting older and smaller by definition it is dying. And not dying is the first imperative of life.
> Worse problems than a dying population? I don’t think so.
What worth is it to have a population who don't feel they're valued?
Forcing others to have children just because you're concerned about population ignores the truly human element. You should instead focus on wanting to help people be happy and feel secure in their economy and self such that they want to have children. Abolishing contraceptives is not the right way to do that. It is utterly disrespectful to the people.
What worth is it to have a population who don't feel they're valued?
Forcing others to have children just because you're concerned about population ignores the truly human element. You should instead focus on wanting to help people be happy and feel secure in their economy and self such that they want to have children. Abolishing contraceptives is not the right way to do that. It is utterly disrespectful to the people.
The human element? Humans like kids naturally especially their own. A lot of women will have kids when they hit 30 and wish they’d started earlier and recognize the incredibly disrespectful attitudes towards women who want to continue human civilization.
> Humans like kids naturally especially their own.
I personally do not like children. I know a lot of unnatural humans then; a lot of humans who neither like kids nor ever want kids of their own. And there's many (!!!) anecdotes of people who had children they do not like or want.
And that's on top of the responsible adults who realize that they can't afford to give a child a healthy loving home when they can't even afford to properly take care of themselves.
I personally do not like children. I know a lot of unnatural humans then; a lot of humans who neither like kids nor ever want kids of their own. And there's many (!!!) anecdotes of people who had children they do not like or want.
And that's on top of the responsible adults who realize that they can't afford to give a child a healthy loving home when they can't even afford to properly take care of themselves.
Healthy loving homes are over rated. A lot of the best people I know didn’t grow up in such environments and ALL of the worst people I know grew up in “healthy loving homes” where parents made lots of money. For example Jeff Bezos’ mom had him when she was still in high school and struggled quite a bit.
You say you don’t like children because you don’t have any. It’s that simple.
You say you don’t like children because you don’t have any. It’s that simple.
> Healthy loving homes are over rated.
No, they are not.
> A lot of the best people I know didn’t grow up in such environments.
Cool. Same here.
> ALL of the worst people I know grew up in “healthy loving homes” where parents made lots of money.
Remember that correlation is not causation.
> For example Jeff Bezos’ mom had him when she was still in high school and struggled quite a bit.
I know not Jeff Bezos and I am not so egotistic to judge him one of the "worst" people I know as such. I only know he's rich on paper and has built a large and profitable business empire. Good for him. I don't agree with how he uses that empire, and I believe that it's used for bad purposes at many layers. But I'm not a part of that empire and I also believe that any large empire falls into similar categories. Is that the fault of Jeff Bezos though? I can recognize an argument for it but that doesn't make it true. There are many (!) confounding situations such that he's could simply be a product of the people and circumstances around him. That doesn't make him one of the worst people.
Have you actually met Jeff Bezos?
> You say you don’t like children because you don’t have any. It’s that simple.
I think it's extremely presumptuous of you to assume why I do or do not like something. Your comments here so far come across as extremely, almost dangerously, naive and bigoted.
I've spent a lot of time introspecting myself to learn why I do or do not like things. I can tell you right now that it's not because I don't have any. It's the opposite. I don't have any children because I know I would not be good to them. I don't enjoy dealing with children. I enjoy typing, video games, building things, burning things, and being alone.
I know that because I grew up in a poor and abusive family. I grew up in a large family as the second-oldest of nine children. I raised my siblings myself. I saw early on how neglectful parents cause problems, how cruel children can intentionally be, and how people who could help but don't are even worse.
I've had many opportunities to work with children, forcefully and voluntarily. I have never ever enjoyed the experiences. So, frankly, your comment here is disrespectful and sociopathic. Not everyone enjoys children and you are wrong to assume that everyone must enjoy the things that you enjoy.
No, they are not.
> A lot of the best people I know didn’t grow up in such environments.
Cool. Same here.
> ALL of the worst people I know grew up in “healthy loving homes” where parents made lots of money.
Remember that correlation is not causation.
> For example Jeff Bezos’ mom had him when she was still in high school and struggled quite a bit.
I know not Jeff Bezos and I am not so egotistic to judge him one of the "worst" people I know as such. I only know he's rich on paper and has built a large and profitable business empire. Good for him. I don't agree with how he uses that empire, and I believe that it's used for bad purposes at many layers. But I'm not a part of that empire and I also believe that any large empire falls into similar categories. Is that the fault of Jeff Bezos though? I can recognize an argument for it but that doesn't make it true. There are many (!) confounding situations such that he's could simply be a product of the people and circumstances around him. That doesn't make him one of the worst people.
Have you actually met Jeff Bezos?
> You say you don’t like children because you don’t have any. It’s that simple.
I think it's extremely presumptuous of you to assume why I do or do not like something. Your comments here so far come across as extremely, almost dangerously, naive and bigoted.
I've spent a lot of time introspecting myself to learn why I do or do not like things. I can tell you right now that it's not because I don't have any. It's the opposite. I don't have any children because I know I would not be good to them. I don't enjoy dealing with children. I enjoy typing, video games, building things, burning things, and being alone.
I know that because I grew up in a poor and abusive family. I grew up in a large family as the second-oldest of nine children. I raised my siblings myself. I saw early on how neglectful parents cause problems, how cruel children can intentionally be, and how people who could help but don't are even worse.
I've had many opportunities to work with children, forcefully and voluntarily. I have never ever enjoyed the experiences. So, frankly, your comment here is disrespectful and sociopathic. Not everyone enjoys children and you are wrong to assume that everyone must enjoy the things that you enjoy.
I don't "like children" either because I'm a masculine person by nature and I don't have the baby loving gene, but it's a special thing to have a child with a woman you love. I grew to love my kids even though initially it's just a really odd thing to have a newborn in the house. Having kids changes you. It's especially transformative for women.
I hope one day you find a woman you love and have kids and a happy family, perhaps even giving them a more loving home than the one you grew up in yourself.
I hope one day you find a woman you love and have kids and a happy family, perhaps even giving them a more loving home than the one you grew up in yourself.
The population is getting older partially because we've gotten a lot better at preventing people from dying. And the population is not getting smaller, but bigger. The population is growing and dying less.
The main reason for low birth rates is widespread birth control. People are still having sex. It’s not complex.
Great talk about that here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi_nFz1CJSI
Zeihan is great.
Zeihan is not always intellectually honest and I don’t trust what he says about Ukraine but he says a lot of interesting things about demographics. He says nothing though about culture, sovereignty, or the quality of bureaucracies.
> The only solution is to ban condoms. Will solve so many problems.
Is that a serious comment, or sarcasm? Because banning condoms will not solve any problems, it will create more.
If you want people to have more kids, make sure they can afford more kids: pay young families more, give them the ability to buy a house big enough to raise children in, provide affordable childcare, and offer better healthcare to pregnant women, instead of worse.
Is that a serious comment, or sarcasm? Because banning condoms will not solve any problems, it will create more.
If you want people to have more kids, make sure they can afford more kids: pay young families more, give them the ability to buy a house big enough to raise children in, provide affordable childcare, and offer better healthcare to pregnant women, instead of worse.
People can’t afford enough kids because there isn’t enough economic growth, because there’s not enough young people, the only solution is more people. Banning condoms - or banning premarital sex as Indonesia has done recently - are sort of the only ways out of this mess.
You’ll know I am right if you live long enough - another 30 to 40 years and it will be obvious to anyone how catastrophic low birth rates can be.
You’ll know I am right if you live long enough - another 30 to 40 years and it will be obvious to anyone how catastrophic low birth rates can be.
For the next 30-40 years, the world's population will continue to grow. And banning condoms or sex is a bit of a weird take. I've got the feeling you're not really talking about population growth, but simply about sex you disapprove of.
It’s not about morality it’s about pragmatism. I don’t want to live in a dying country like Japan with suicide forests and old people committing crimes so they can go to jail and actually have human contact, I want to live in a young and vibrant and growing country.
A big part why people are so lonely in USA these days is because of birth rate collapse, people have less siblings and young people are heavily outnumbered by the old, which means that after college they are a minority wherever they go.
A big part why people are so lonely in USA these days is because of birth rate collapse, people have less siblings and young people are heavily outnumbered by the old, which means that after college they are a minority wherever they go.
I understand that, but I also don't want to live in a country where people have children they can't afford to raise. Simply forcing people to have kids they don't want is going to create more problems. You have to address why people don't want kids in the first place.
Japan, even more so than the US, is an extremely work-centric country. People there live for work, rather than for their family. Work is their family. If you don't give people time with their actual families and children, why would they have any? People need to work less, and be financially secure enough to raise a family.
Japan, even more so than the US, is an extremely work-centric country. People there live for work, rather than for their family. Work is their family. If you don't give people time with their actual families and children, why would they have any? People need to work less, and be financially secure enough to raise a family.
"I understand that, but I also don't want to live in a country where people have children they can't afford to raise."
It's a catch 22, because people can't afford to have kids if there isn't enough economic growth, and not enough optimism for the future. Why would you be optimistic about your country's future if it's going to look like a depopulated geriatric wasteland? Of course people don't want to have kids under such circumstances!
This is why the low birth rate -> low economic growth feedback is so vicious. Smart countries - eg Indonesia - are currently attempting radical social policies to escape this catch 22.
It's a catch 22, because people can't afford to have kids if there isn't enough economic growth, and not enough optimism for the future. Why would you be optimistic about your country's future if it's going to look like a depopulated geriatric wasteland? Of course people don't want to have kids under such circumstances!
This is why the low birth rate -> low economic growth feedback is so vicious. Smart countries - eg Indonesia - are currently attempting radical social policies to escape this catch 22.
It's not about economic growth, it's about being able to afford a house big enough to raise kids in, have time to raise them, and be able to give them a good education. Housing costs in particular are so ridiculously high that lots of young people simply can't afford to move out of their parents' place, and if they can, it's to a tiny apartment.
Economic growth isn't going to help them if all that money is going only to the rich, and if you divide society's wealth right, you can still make sure they have enough during low or no economic growth. The problem is in political economic decisions.
Economic growth isn't going to help them if all that money is going only to the rich, and if you divide society's wealth right, you can still make sure they have enough during low or no economic growth. The problem is in political economic decisions.
Looks like I’m going to be a father!
I knew that this could happen sooner or later, but only as an abstract thought; something that will happen sometime way ahead in the future, like your own death.
At that moment it became something tangible. A few days later I’ve noticed that I’m driving much more carefully, respecting the speed limit and whatnot. A few weeks ago I was contemplating doing ketamine with a friend of mine - now it sounds absurd.
It’s frightening how fast your subconscious changes your perspective practically overnight.