
Harried South Koreans pamper pets instead of having kids - starpilot
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-economy-pets/like-a-son-but-cheaper-harried-south-koreans-pamper-pets-instead-of-having-kids-idUSKCN1PI029
======
andyonthewings
We have the same trend in Hong Kong, where it was estimated in 2014 to cost
$700,000 (USD) to raise a kid [1].

I've several married friends (all Hong Kong locals) chose to have pets over
kids, and that's also my preference - except I don't want to have pets either.

By the way, there are 150 mainland Chinese migrating to Hong Kong, daily [2].
That means "original" Hong Kongers will be rare eventually.

[1]: [https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/09/04/want-to-
raise...](https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/09/04/want-to-raise-a-kid-
in-hong-kong-youll-need-700000/)

[2]: [https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/08/15/41000-one-way-
permit-h...](https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/08/15/41000-one-way-permit-
holders-moved-mainland-hong-kong-past-year/)

~~~
captainmuon
> By the way, there are 150 mainland Chinese migrating to Hong Kong, daily
> [2]. That means "original" Hong Kongers will be rare eventually.

There are over 7 million people in Hong Kong. I think it's going to take a
while for Mainland Chinese to swamp out "original" Hong Kongers at that
rate...

~~~
andyonthewings
The 150 new migrants are also giving birth of babies, unlike the "original"
Hong Kongers who prefer otherwise. So the process is a bit faster than you
think, but of course it will take a while.

~~~
lawlessone
This really sounds a lot like the alarmist propaganda spread about migrants in
other countries.

~~~
deogeo
Alarmist propaganda that happens to be true.

"Moreover, three of four children in the city under the age of six had
immigrant backgrounds.":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt#Immigration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt#Immigration)

"Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop –
a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be
expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050." :
[http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-
po...](http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/)

~~~
antoniuschan99
It's true. Feel like the Umbrella Revolution was the tipping point. 2040 is
only 2 decades away.

------
ahje
Same in Finland, and from what I've heard, in most of the developed world.
Many young people simply don't want to get kids, and there's probably a
demographic crisis looming over the horizon. Migration will probably be used
to keep increasing the population initially, but at some point we will run out
of immigrants.

The way I see it, there are two ways out:

1) We accept that the population cannot keep growing forever, and prepare
ourselves for a society where older people are going to be increasingly
common.

2) We coerce, or force young people start breeding. I don't really know how
that could be done without massive human rights violations.

There is, of course, the idea of vat-grown children, but that seems somewhat
far-fetched.

~~~
mcv
I'm used to people worrying about overpopulation and too much immigration. The
opposite is rather refreshing.

A lot of countries subsidise child care to some extent. That seems reasonable
way to enable people to have children despite having jobs. Although obviously
jobs shouldn't take up too much time either; 40 hour work weeks should be the
max, and I'd really prefer to move to shorter work weeks. Otherwise what's the
point of our increased productivity?

But beyond that, I think it's a good idea to prepare for a smaller population;
the world population is pretty big. Figuring out a way to live here with less
people doesn't seem so bad, it's just the transition we need to get used to.

------
mcny
I think this ought to be the default. If you don't have children, consider not
having any children. If you do have children, consider not having any more.
Let's pool our resources and try to give the best opportunities for the
children in our communities rather than everyone trying to have children.

No, I'm not being funny or sarcastic. Humans pollute a lot. Also for the 99%,
it doesn't so much matter if the world GDP continues to skyrocket. As long as
we can keep productivity going up (no idea how), the 99% should be ok.

No, I'm not talking about a ban on having children or a lottery system or a
qualification/licensing (at least not yet). If voluntary restraint works (and
so far it looks like it), there won't be any need for coercive action.

~~~
smileysteve
> Let's pool our resources and try to give the best opportunities for the
> children in our communities rather than everyone trying to have children.

What's good for the macro is not good for the micro. For communities, we need
a strong work force that enjoys entertainment, that takes care of their
elders, and raises the next generation to do the same.

If you bring macro policy to the micro, you end up with desolation, a
shrinking economy, decreasing home values, and nobody to do anything.

------
baybal2
Hardly an Asian only thing. When I lived in Vancouver, I was frequently
noticing that some people were spending more money and affection on their pets
than on their own children.

Seeing that made me rather uncomfortable, and contributed to my doubt of the
West.

------
polskibus
Isn't that out of pure convenience? It's just convenient not to have kids and
adapt your lifestyle, because entire economy is parasitic on people having
kids. Families with kids have to spend a lot more than those without (cost to
parent), kids become workers and tax payers (benefit to economy). I know that
in some countries there are measures to counter this imbalance, but they are a
rarity.

------
lazyjones
This seems to happen in developed countries where having kids is no longer
necessary to ensure one's own well-being after retirement. It might also have
something to do with common lack of self-appreciation, when proud parents see
their children as better versions of themselves and other people don't want
any...

~~~
geowwy
Cities have always been population sinks (i.e. deaths outnumber births), so I
think what we're seeing is just a result of urbanisation.

------
analognoise
Christ that seems so sad. I know I'm projecting from my life, and having kids,
and all that, but holy shit.

~~~
GreeniFi
I agree. Our generation must begin to question how a world has been created
where increasingly the cost benefit analysis favours not having children. I
acknowledge there’s more to it than the financial case, but the whole set of
reasons needs to be factored in.

~~~
analognoise
Yeah. There's a number of things that make me think we need to desperately re-
evaluate things, as a species. Like hunger - we're the most advanced species
on the planet, by far. World conquering, right? We've literally been to space.
But hunger still exists? How?

I mean, I don't really understand how we got to this point, but now that we're
here we really need to take a look around and go "Hey, is this what we're
really an about?"

~~~
Killes
And the answer to that, is a good dose of misanthropy ;)

"People are shit", well, you see, not all, of course not, but a majority of
shitty, poorly educated, selfish, "dishonest by default"(constantly lie to
themselves and others) people are reproducing at great rate, raising further
awful human beings.

Sadly at a greater rate than families to be composed of empathic people with
innate positive moral bend in them are. And such people are already largely
outnumbered, raising their reproductive rate will not allow outpacing the
others.

They would bring positive influence to the world through their children,
assuming the general ambient corruptions/experiences around them do not
overpower the parents influence (do these parents even have time to impart
enough of "them" to their children to make "good" people ?)

A lot of terms in "" by which I wish to indicate these are massively grey
concepts that can be debated at length, but I hope to convey my general gist.

And then, maybe some people are getting put off by the exposure to negative
human behavior around them and wish to surround themselves with purer
creatures they cannot fault - a popular one of these beings being dogs among
other pets :D

The more familiar one gets with them the more one is struck in awe at the
absolute sweetness and "goodness" present in many creatures of the animal
kingdom, a concentration of which through breeding is highly present in pets)

~~~
watwut
Don't think so. Selfish, "dishonest by default" tend to be attracted into
business rather then having large families. Having children costs you
practically. Moreover it makes harder to keep stable partner. There might be
larger population of impulsive people having kids or people who never had much
chance to be fulfilled by job, but "dishonest by default" I would expect more
among high management and those have less kids.

~~~
Killes
Dishonest by default starts with the little things, the tons of white lies
people tell themselves and each other day to day, perpetrating falsehoods
which become accepted as truth by enough of their social entourage accepting
and adopting these lies themselves, reinforcing each other - see immoral
actions from organised structures of all kinds, from religious to governmental
to simply a local village society...a classic example ostracizing and
disowning a woman who had poor sexual education for falling pregnant...the
whole village is behind perpetrating the lie that this is the just and moral
thing to do...

How else are by example are some religious societies so far from the teachings
of the books they venerate ?

I am talking about the human condition all round, not to specific first world
cases. Picture countless struggling working poor, right out poor, and yes also
more or less financially successful people.

Usually I would venture growing up poor, working poor, or in other forms of
struggle imposed by lets say, a corrupt government regime will tend to put
many of those people through a nasty time, this is not conducive to bringing
the best out of people or letting good sentiments develop.

An effect of the hardship and stress of these life situations beget substance
abuse and other psychological problems which get carried on down to the
children through traumatic upbringing.

Most large families are by far to be found in struggling communities, for good
and bad reasons...

------
aaronbrethorst
Plus the world is going to shit. How do you justify having a child who could
expect to live to about 2100 when there’s no clear guarantee that the earth
will be inhabitable then?

(n.b. Of course I hope I’m wrong, and I’m doing what I can to make sure I am,
buti it is a truly monstrous challenge.)

~~~
fipple
The same way that tens of billions of people have had kids for millennia with
an almost clear guarantee that half of them would die before age 5.

~~~
jobigoud
We have ubiquitous contraception now. The default stance is to not have kids
until you actively decide to have one.

~~~
bildung
In a few countries, yes, but sadly not for the majority of the world
population.

