Anecdata: I am 31 and have 3 young kids. They have 0 cousins and, on top of that, 0... second cousins? Cousins-once-removed? Whatever the one is for my cousin's kids. My kids are my grandma's only great-grandkids. And I have... 6 cousins.
On top of that, at my last job, on my team of 15, I was the only one with kids, and only 1 of those 15 engineers were under the age of 30. At my current job, my team is 8, and again we're all about 30, and nobody is even thinking about kids at all.
It baffles me. And it's also a bit inconvenient that nobody else at work has such pressing obligations, it makes me feel bad (though not too bad at this point) that I *have* to log off at quittin' time, sharp, to go relieve my wife of some childcare and make a family dinner.
All us over-30s with kids probaly random-walked into jobs that are family-friendly and are staying there. In my current team, almost half the people - and importantly, the previous and current manager - have kids, usually more than one. Can't speak for the corporation we merged into, but before the merger, the whole mid-sized company cleraly leaned for average age closer to 35-40, and a good chunk of employees at every level were parents.
Once you land in a job like that, and the pay is adequate, you really don't want to leave - jumping ship would be gambling with life of several people, and you're already above average with combined pay + work environment, and regression to the mean is a thing.
(And I say "random-walked" because how supportive the job is of parents is not something apparent on the outside - you'd have to know someone on the inside who's also a parent to get an accurate indication beforehand.)
This sounds accurate to me—I found my way into a company that offers 10 weeks paid leave for both mom and dad, unlimited PTO, flexible scheduling, work from home, among other things. A director just left for round two of her parental leave, I know at least two other people who are currently on it, and a lot of the developers are parents (quick mental straw poll suggests ~50%), many of whom explicitly have time off during the work day to take care of kids. I'm certainly not planning on going anywhere else any time soon.
Yes - I made this mistake. Granted I left a place that was shifting towards less family-friendly, but ended up at a place that actively pushed people with families out. Literally any worker with kids who didn't quit due to the absurd asks of availability was pushed out via PIP or layoffs.
I'm in Denmark so pretty much every company is like this, supporting family is a big thing here. But that means people will leave because not so much a gamble.
In my first job, my boss was a psychopath fresh out of grad school, no kids. Had no problem getting himself promoted but held us back, saying top performers would have to work “nights and weekends” to rise above junior levels. (Which was supposed to be a routine promotion)
It’s remarkable how different my next employers were.
> into jobs that are family-friendly and are staying there. In my current team, almost half the people - and importantly, the previous and current manager - have kids, usually more than one
Interesting observation. At 3 kids I’m probably around median for the over 30 set at my work. My wife’s old firm had several people with 5+ kids. (Catholic+Jewish firm.) This is in DC where the median number of children for a college educated woman is around 1.
I have a similar job but there aren't that many parents,just a job treating us well. We do have an amazing cto and ceo from the human point of view, which is why I think the company works well with parents.
One joke that me and my wife say is that we cannot find other parents that like videogames and board games. Apparently we are a rare category and it's incredibly annoying
>it makes me feel bad (though not too bad at this point) that I have to log off at quittin' time, sharp, to go relieve my wife of some childcare and make a family dinner.
It shouldn't make you feel bad. I have no children and I have strict policy of logging off at the end of my work day (unless in truly exceptional circumstances). No one shuold feel shame (children or not) about finishing the work when they are no longer paid for it.
second cousins? Cousins-once-removed? Whatever the one is for my cousin's kids
Since it doesn't look like anyone else has answered: Your cousins' kids would be your kids' second cousins; and your first cousins once removed.
The rule is that if the closest common ancestor is N generations away from one person and M generations away from the other, with N >= M, they are (M-1)th cousins (N-M) times removed.
I've been doing this math frequently of late. I'm 35, have one child and of my high school class ... maybe 25% have children? there is certainly a bias from polling social media. But the anecdata would say that we're closing on the point where millenials have chosen to simply not have children.
Kids aren't expensive. They're a distraction from dopamine and career advancement.
My peers are all wealthy and they'd rather jet set than settle down. By all means they could raise families of two to four kids and still be incredibly comfortable. Vacation home comfortable.
Instagram is the anti-child. Instagram and the endless feed of social media, internet, and things to do.
Once you have children, the dopamine ends and the self-directed path takes a backseat. Nobody I know wants to give that up.
It's not just the wealthy. I know upper middle class people in their 40s who are partying on the weekends and taking trips all over the world. It's the life they want for themselves, and children put an end to that.
> Kids aren't expensive. They're a distraction from dopamine and career advancement.
They really are.
You can pay for some of it by letting your and their quality of life suffer, instead of with money (cram 3 kids into the 2-bedroom you already own; don’t worry that the schools are bad and dangerous and that’s why the place was cheap; that kind of thing) but not all of it, and most people don’t find making those compromises acceptable either, if they have the means not to.
The main costs are lost income OR childcare; housing; and healthcare. The rest isn’t exactly cheap (man they eat a lot as they get older) but those are the worst bits, and they’re very expensive.
I have four kids in one room and it's a blast. After family prayers we turn off the lights and tell stories and their imaginations go wild! The joy is palpable.
Bedrooms are for sleeping, there is other space to spread out :)
I can't imagine what puberty would've been like if I'd not had a room of my own. Even just experimenting with goth aesthetics would've been so different.
> cram 3 kids into the 2-bedroom you already own; don’t worry that the schools are bad and dangerous and that’s why the place was cheap; that kind of thing
I'm 50 this year. I've been an avid reader all my life, and back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I'd read the newspapers my grandfather would bring home. I would've still been in highschool (at the latest), so call this 1990 +/- 1 year. Even then I remember the classic newspaper article, claiming how much it'd cost to raise a child to age 18. I think back then they were calling that number $250,000. Now days, I think they set it at $1 million even.
For the longest time, they'd reprint that article every 2-4 years, just changing up one or another factoid. The logic was always specious. Every single thing anyone ever believed anyone needed for a baby/toddler/kid was always priced brand new and name brand. From dressers and chest of drawers, to baby strollers (this was even past the point where most people would ever use the damned thing).
They told the lie so often and from so many direction, ever since you were a child yourself, that you can't help but believe it. You're even telling it for whoever it is that wants that lie told.
I have three kids. I reckon the first cost more than $200,000 by age 5. No major medical problems (kids are also a reverse lottery ticket, in that regard—sometimes they just take all your money indefinitely because they’ve got a serious chronic illness). And we were far from extravagant in our spending. The bulk of it was in the three categories I listed.
[edit] I agree with you, actually, that there are a lot of dumb ways to spend extra money on kids. Dressers? Used. Clothes? Cheap, garage sales and thrift stores. Toys? Ditto. Half the “new parent” shit is useless. Changing table? ROFLMAO you have a floor, unless you’re infirm in some way that makes it hard to get down there, just throw a little blanket down and use that—they can’t roll off the floor!
You can drop costs by having a parent stay home in the early years (math only works out if that parent earned very low wages and you have at least two kids in quick succession—then, yes, it saves money).
More efficient may be living near non-working family and having them take care of the kids, but that can mean compromising on school quality (unless you move again) and probably salary. Plus it requires a kind of capital that not everyone has.
You can drop costs by skipping medical check-ups and care. Not uncommon.
It can be done cheaper if the circumstances are right and you’re ok with some compromises that most people can’t stomach unless they absolutely cannot afford it.
One parent staying home for about two years, who had a low salary, factoring in lost retirement contributions, is about half of that, we could have cut that part to $30,000 or so if not for that, true. That’d drop my (conservative!) napkin math to more like $130,000.
About $15,000 for the pregnancy and birth (we split it over two deductible years—whoops, didn’t make that mistake again). Daycare costs for the rest of that time, tens of thousands more. Probably $3,000ish a year (maybe a bit more) in extra medical spending on average (copays on check-up visits, added insurance costs, medicine occasionally, a couple visits that involved stitches or an x-ray over that time span)
That’s before food, clothing, furniture (you do kinda need a bed at some point—we go pretty cheap on furniture and clothes, but it’s still probably $3-4k over that five years, mostly clothes). Diapers (or a lot of extra power use, though sure, cloth diapers would have been net-cheaper anyway). Adds up.
So yeah, it was certainly over $200k for us (conservative estimate). Could have gotten it down to merely over-$130k by putting a weeks-old to 2-year-old kid in daycare, but we didn’t, maybe we should have.
[edit] I should add that it does get better after the first one; there are efficiencies and shared costs (daycare may give you a discount, even!). Getting all three to age 5 wasn’t $600k, probably closer to $400k. You also can do it cheaper, yes, but our choices were ones that nearly anyone who can at-all afford it is gonna make, like having one parent stay home the first year or two, going to all the medical check-ups, moving to an area with good schools (if you don’t already live in one), et c.
No that would have been raw spending. The difference was about $70k in imputed wages because of what we chose to do (which, again, I think almost anyone who can remotely afford not to send a kid to daycare in that first year or two, will have trouble not making that choice).
Because these costs are so front-loaded, so tend to hit earlier in one’s life, you really don’t want to start doing a more-expansive opportunity cost accounting, unless you want to get depressed (I have. Trust me, don’t—sigh, so long very-comfortable-retirement-at-55!).
And that's the most expensive place in the country, no? Most people don't live in the Bay area and if you need daycare, it's presumably because you have a well paying job and it's a tax deduction.
It's not even the schools that have that dynamic first. Lots of daycares are sketchy as
hell and they also charge crazy high prices so you can't just pay for better. You have to take time out of your day and go suss them out and dig up inspection reports.
Availability is another big issue. You find a daycare that's great for your kid and safe. Then some staff turnover and you're not thrilled with it anymore.
In my area, the wait is around 18 months for a slot in a different daycare center. In-home daycare offers a lower price and some better availability, but are often unlicensed. You are best off signing up for a couple waitlists before you plan to have a kid and hope the one you choose works out well.
And of course, switching childcare providers is way harder than switching grocery stores. Your kid has feelings, grows attached to the caregivers, and make friends. There's a huge risk making a switch, and you most likely can't undo it if the new provider isn't a good fit.
> In-home daycare offers a lower price and some better availability, but are often unlicensed.
This is the problem. You're wanting a first class experience for your kid, and this probably causes you to overlook other viable options that are less expensive.
> In my area, the wait is around 18 months for a slot in a different daycare center.
Wait lists? There's likely service available, you're just setting a quality threshold.
> And of course, switching childcare providers is way harder than switching grocery stores. Your kid has feelings, grows attached to the caregivers, and make friends.
We have de-risked our species so much that we now care about children's daycare preferences.
Some other commenter mentioned spending $200,000 on their five year old kid. This is not typical.
As a species, we used to have multiple kids because we just accepted that some of them would die. We are so far on the other end of the spectrum now that children are being treated as princes and princesses.
Kids can be as expensive as you want them to be. People are buying their dogs and cats ridiculous things like treadmills these days, so of course it figures that some parents must be doing even crazier stuff for their human children.
This is learned consumer behavior.
Children are being over-invested in to a degree that some would-be interested people just aren't even bothering to get started (one of several reasons this is happening). I'm not saying don't love your kids, but it looks like having them has become a perfectionist goal that can't be reached.
Yes. This. People are insane around their kids and the de-risking etc. We've gone with a childminer (in-home childcare, but is govt. registered here in the UK) and local school-attached daycare for two days a week each. Saving us hundreds of £'s over the coprorate daycare we were with otherwise and giving him more! The childminder is a husband and wife duo, they love all their kids so much. It's like dropping him with grandparents and cousins/friends for a couple of days a week. He reaches out to be picked up by them when I drop him in off in the morning (traitor, but I digress...)!
In most other OECD states the actual and risk-factor costs of child and maternal healthcare are a ton lower than ours, too. Mine is a US perspective. Healthcare for kids eats a lot of money, here, and exposes you to a ton of risk of very-high medical spending.
I'm not even a parent and I have to deal with this shit. You can't be around adults with kids in daycare for more than an evening in a ventilated space and not immediately get sick. I kinda doubt it but I sincerely hope other places are better. It's easier to count the days my in-laws aren't sick.
It's probably just the reality of lots of really young germ factories in a confined space together but I count my blessings that my mom was out of work until I was in 3rd-4th grade because I got to avoid daycare.
You know what is also anti-child? Having parents that were completely unprepared to be parents. Stop with this dopamine epidemic nonsense excuse for everything that isn't working the way you want
Recorded history you mean the history of domestic and emotional abuse, alcoholism, family disputes, lying and nromalised cheating? Then we are doing fine.
Congratulations on your millions. My dad beat and cheat on my mother, and his dad beat and probably cheat my grandmother.
> My adoptive father shared an apartment with a roommate when I was in elementary school. Here I am, just fine
My wife's mother beat and choked her from childhood. She was regularly told she was worthless and unwanted. Her father abandoned them, and her stepfather would whip her with clothes hangers for imagined infractions.
Many people are in similar situations. The abuse may not always be physical or as extreme as what she endured, but many parents are unfit for parenthood, and their children suffer from the trauma or neglect or religious extremism for the rest of their lives to a greater or lesser degree.
We don't always hear these stories because our social bubbles may comprise people who are more well adjusted, or at least present so. But abuse, infidelity, narcissism and so on are not new, and they aren't as rare as we might feel. And if those kinds of people didn't reproduce, that would be a good thing.
Are you saying it would have been a good thing for your wife's parents not to reproduce? Where would that leave her and you?
(noted that childhood you described sounds awful, i agree)
While my wife and I love each other, yes, it would have been better had they not had children -- for her sake, and this is her own feeling. Her trauma from childhood and young adulthood continues to affect her deeply and daily even now, decades later, in manifold ways, from complicated health issues to self-efficacy beliefs to frequent nightmares and constant fear about the future. When your own parent refuses to give you food, faith that everything will work out in the end can be hard to cultivate.
Personally, selfishly, the thought of my life without her is depressing, absolutely. But I can love her and yet -- or more precisely, "and so," because it's out of empathy that I feel this way -- I can understand and support her desire never to have existed.
That's a philosophical question, but I would say probably better off. If that wouldn't have taken place, it means a lot of abuse around the world wouldn't either.
Are you aware that other people have provided everything you have in life, or have you really drunk the "self-made" Koolaid. Work the farm? Excellent, now one must purchase and run a farm in order to have children. How much do those cost? Oh, millions you say!? Wonderful.
> Here I am, just fine, a self-made millionaire today.
That says everything about how you view the world. "self-made". Nothing about how your adoptive father contributed, your peers or the entire society you grew up in.
Something else I'd love to get away from is that having money != being a well adjusted individual.
Ah yes, what I said was toxic because I would have to thank a lot of things for any success I had. Frankly, above a certain amount of income, no one has earned it. That's not toxic, it's just fact. You are welcome, my tax dollars have allowed you to become rich. I'm very glad you were as fortunate as you were, just remember to give back to the society which enabled your wealth!
> You are welcome, my tax dollars have allowed you to become rich.
This has to be one of the most entitled things I've ever read.
If you pick me out of this society and tax base and drop me into another, I will still be trying and working my ass off to accomplish my goals. That's my character.
You have nothing to do with my success. Jupiter clearing our orbit, the evolution of Eukaryotes, capitalism, post-WWII tailwinds, and my hard work have more to do with my success than your tax dollars.
Have you ever thanked your ancestors for eradicating Neanderthal, your mother for not sticking to her first dating prospects, or all those who died in wars so you can live in peace and comfort?
Sometimes when I notice a streetlamp come on in the afternoon, the complexity of it dawns on me. It's sturdy, well made. How would I ever roll that material up that way? How could I plant it into the ground so it stays standing? The material of it, where would I ever get the metal? The electricity, surely I would never have figured out how to make that, much less create whatever gargantuan distribution system that was required to turn the light on. And that it came on by itself at night: Is that a timer? A light sensor? Either way, were it up to me to make the thing from complete scratch, I doubt I would be able to crack it. The intellect of those that came before me gets almost overwhelming. How many lifetimes did it take to come up with all of this? How many to build it? And then I look down the street and see dozens more, so common that they are hardly noticed, and realize that I am in a world built on incomprehensible amounts of human ingenuity. I think about how if I were born even just a few decades sooner the world would be nearly unrecognizable to me. Once my mind hits this point, I find it impossible to feel anything but gratitude for the lifetimes laid before me to create the world I now inhabit.
I'll start by saying this isn't really directed at you.
> Have you ever thanked your ancestors for eradicating Neanderthal, your mother for not sticking to her first dating prospects, or all those who died in wars so you can live in peace and comfort?
More people should make it a practice to be grateful for the things that allow us to be successful, they'd be more content.
I've never thanked Neanderthals but I do think about the choices and risks my ancestors took to ensure _they_ were successful.
Personally I try to semi-regularly reflect on how I got to where I am and the factors that went into that.
That includes thanking my mom and dad for their fuck ups as well as their good choices. It's been a humbling experience and long term day to day I'm happier and less isolated from the world.
> Maybe it'd thrill you to know I haven't heard or spoken to that person in over twenty years, and that he abused me?
You being a millionaire doesn't mean you aren't still dealing with that trauma. Some people internalize their abuse, forcing themselves to ever-higher levels of achievement to try to be worthy of the love they never received.
Your dismissals of parenting concerns are borderline emotionally abusive in themselves, gaslighting others' experiences by repeatedly claiming that things are "just fine" on the whole. For many people, things are not just fine, and not having children is a valid response to that, and an empathetic one.
Man this is so true, not sure why this is getting downvoted? Most people without kids just don’t want to change their (very fun) lifestyles and commit to something with a very long and uncertain but (hopefully) rewarding payout. It’s certainly scary.
That said the amount of dopamine/happiness I get playing with my child is more than any social media feed could ever provide. But in between those moments there’s a lot of work and sleepless nights for sure.
Yep, people don't realize how much of a bubble they might be in. I grew up in a relatively wealthy/very high education suburb so all of my friends from high school are just barely settling down (getting married, no kids yet) after finishing PhDs/MDs etc. When I lived in the bay area, it was super common to be single or partnered but no kids (in my friend group, in our mid-late 20s). It really never occurred to me that there were other 'timelines'.
I moved out to Salt Lake City in the pandemic and now at 30 I'm very rare to be both single and have no kids. It's very common for people to have started having kids at age ~22 or so, even amongst the non-LDS crowd. I suspect San Francisco and Utah are polar opposite ends of the "having kids or not"-spectrum, so it does make sense in hindsight but it's still surprising to me
Nah, cultures that don’t have kids will just be replaced by ones that do. This process is already will underway in America, with WASPs (who have a strong anti-natal streak) being replaced by Hispanics.
Interestingly, in the US, you find that the birth rate of all races converge. Why? Educated, empowered women have less children or no children, and in general delay childbearing. Immigrant fertility is higher, but settles back down after a generation or two.
> Interestingly, in the US, you find that the birth rate of all races converge.
Because white (European) American individualist culture is inexorable in America. It’s in the water, you can’t avoid it. But the question is, as the white population collapses, will that continue to be true?
> Why? Educated, empowered women have less children or no children, and in general delay childbearing.
Why do you assume it has to do with education rather than other cultural traits? Muslim American women for example are more educated than white women, but have more kids.
At least in that culture, the difference isn’t education, it’s that having children is necessary for acceptance and respectability in Muslim society, and moreover children are socialized to care very much about those things. It’s not like with white Americans who are islands to themselves and don’t play by anyone’s rules.
> Why do you assume it has to do with education rather than other cultural traits? Muslim American women for example are more educated than white women, but have more kids.
Education and empowerment overrides cultural pressure.
> As in the rest of the world, fertility rates in countries with Muslim-majority populations are directly related to educational attainment. Women tend to delay childbearing when they attain higher levels of education.
You’re mixing up becoming more culturally white/westernized with education. There’s often a correlation, both in immigrant groups and abroad, but the two things are distinct. Among the asian immigrants I know, for example, the kids aren’t any more educated than the parents (because skilled immigration already filters for people with graduate degrees, etc.) But they’re much less likely to conform to social structures.
You and rayiner are sort of in agreement, although I also disagree with the labeling of “white (European) American individualist culture is inexorable in America.”
Specifically,
> it’s that having children is necessary for acceptance and respectability in Muslim society, and moreover children are socialized to care very much about those things.
Replace Muslim with “more orthodox or cultish Muslims/Jews/Christians/Mormoms/etc”
In any case, the current and previous older generations that had fewer kids will not feel the consequences, due to the momentum of population growth, but all these social safety net and retirement benefits like pensions and healthcare don’t come from thin air.
While one way to incentivize having kids is belonging to a tribe like rayiner described, the other could be removing those old age benefits so that the cost of not having kids is (potentially) higher. Obviously, governments can promise all the benefits they want, but there is no delivering them if there are no hands to do the work (and I doubt innovation in automation will outpace declines in labor force).
Amartya Sen, "Human Rights and Asian Values," The New Republic, July 14-July 21, 1997
> In Buddhist tradition, great importance is attached to freedom, and the traditions of earlier Indian thinking to which Buddhist thoughts relate allow much room for volition and free choice. Nobility of conduct has to be achieved in freedom, and even the ideas of liberation (such as moksha) include this feature. The presence of these elements in Buddhist thought does not obliterate the importance of the discipline emphasized by Confucianism, but it would be a mistake to take Confucianism to be the only tradition in Asia-or in China. Since so much of the contemporary authoritarian interpretation of Asian values concentrates on Confucianism, this diversity is particularly worth emphasizing.
Indeed, the reading of Confucianism that is now standard among authoritarian champions of Asian values does less than justice to Confucius's own teachings, to which Simon Leys has recently drawn attention. Confucius did not recommend blind allegiance to the state. When Zilu asks him "how to serve a prince," Confucius replies: "Tell him the truth even if it offends him." The censors in Singapore or Beijing would take a very different view. Confucius is not averse to practical caution and tact, but he does not forgo the recommendation to oppose a bad government. "When the [good] way prevails in the state, speak boldly and act boldly. When the state has lost the way, act boldly and speak softly."
Indeed, Confucius clearly points to the fact that the two pillars of the imagined edifice of Asian values, loyalty to family and obedience to the state, can be severely in conflict with each other. The Governor of She told Confucius, "Among my people, there is a man of unbending integrity: when his father stole a sheep, he denounced him." To this, Confucius replied: "Among my people, men of integrity do things differently: a father covers up for his son, a son covers up for his father-and there is integrity in what they do."
> In many ways, the most interesting articulation of the need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the writings of the emperor Ashoka in the third century B.C. Ashoka commanded a larger Indian empire than any other Indian king (including the Moghuls, and even the Raj, if we omit the native states that the British let be). He turned his attention to public ethics and enlightened politics after being horrified by the carnage that he witnessed in his own victorious battle against the king of Kalinga, in what is now Orissa.
The emperor converted to Buddhism. He helped to make it a world religion by sending emissaries abroad with the Buddhist message to East and West, and he covered the country with stone inscriptions describing forms of good life and the nature of good government. The inscriptions give a special importance to tolerance of diversity. The edict (now numbered XII) at Erragudi, for example, puts the issue thus: ... a man must not do reverence to his own sect or disparage that of another man without reason. Depreciation should be for specific reason only, because the sects of other people all deserve reverence for one reason or another.
By thus acting, a man exalts his own sect, and at the same time does service to the sects of other people. By acting contrariwise, a man hurts his own sect, and does disservice to the sects of other people. For he who does reverence to his own sect while disparaging the sects of others wholly from attachment to his own, with intent to enhance the splendour of his own sect, in reality by such conduct inflicts the severest injury on his own sect.
The importance of tolerance is emphasized in these edicts from the third century B.C.-their importance as public policy by the government and as advice for the behavior of citizens toward each other.
About the domain and the jurisdiction of tolerance, Ashoka was a universalist. He demanded this for all, including those whom he described as "forest people," the tribal population living in pre-agricultural economic formations. Condemning his own conduct before his conversion, Ashoka notes that in the war in Kalinga "men and animals numbering one hundred and fifty thousands were carried away [captive] from that [defeated] kingdom." He goes on to state that the slaughter or the taking of prisoners "of even a hundredth or thousandth part of all those people who were slain or died or were carried away [captive] at that time in Kalinga is now considered very deplorable" by him. Indeed, he proceeds to assert that now he believes that "even if [a person] should wrong him, that [offense] would be forgiven if it is possible to forgive it." The object of his government is described as "non-injury, restraint, impartiality, and mild behavior" applied "to all creatures."
Ashoka's championing of egalitarianism and universal tolerance may appear un-Asian to some commentators, but his views are firmly rooted in lines of analysis already in vogue in intellectual Buddhist circles in India in the preceding centuries.
> As the year 1000 in the Muslim Hijra calendar was reached in 1591-92, there was excitement about it in Delhi and Agra (not unlike what is happening now, as the Christian year 2000 approaches). Akbar issued various enactments at this juncture of history, and these focused inter alia on religious tolerance, including the following:
No man should be interfered with on account of religion, and anyone [is] to be allowed to go over to a religion he pleased. If a Hindu, when a child or otherwise, had been made a Muslim against his will, he is to be allowed, if he pleased, to go back to the religion of his fathers.
Dag Herbjørnsrud, "The African Enlightenment", Aeon
> For two years, until the death of the king in September 1632, Yacob remained in the cave as a hermit, visiting only the nearby market to get food. In the cave, he developed his new, rationalist philosophy. He believed in the supremacy of reason, and that all humans – male and female – are created equal. He argued against slavery, critiqued all established religions and doctrines, and combined these views with a personal belief in a theistic Creator, reasoning that the world’s order makes that the most rational option.
In short: many of the highest ideals of the later European Enlightenment had been conceived and summarised by one man, working in an Ethiopian cave from 1630 to 1632. Yacob’s reason-based philosophy is presented in his main work, Hatäta (meaning ‘the enquiry’). The book was written down in 1667 on the insistence of his student, Walda Heywat, who himself wrote a more practically oriented Hatäta. Today, 350 years later, it’s hard to find a copy of Yacob’s book. The only translation into English was done in 1976, by the Canadian professor and priest Claude Sumner. He published it as part of a five-volume work on Ethiopian philosophy, with the far-from-commercial Commercial Printing Press in Addis Ababa. The book has been translated into German, and last year into Norwegian, but an English version is still basically unavailable.
> Yacob is also more enlightened than his Enlightenment peers when it comes to slavery. In chapter five, he argues against the idea that one can ‘go and buy a man as if he were an animal’. That is because all humans are created equal and with the capacity to reason. Hence, he also puts forward a universal argument against discrimination based on reason:
>> All men are equal in the presence of God; and all are intelligent, since they are his creatures; he did not assign one people for life, another for death, one for mercy, another for judgment. Our reason teaches us that this sort of discrimination cannot exist.
Massive family planning campaigns, heavily funded by western countries, to change the culture around having children. (My dad does exactly that for a living.) In Asia you now have multiple generations of people who associate having big families with poverty and backwardness.
Sounds like culture doesn't mean much when even the lands where the culture originated from willingly discard the cultural elements that lead to more children and larger families, even while preserving other elements.
Consider the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
Technically, it is lack of women's independence and rights that cause the higher fertility rates. This is often correlated with societal poverty, but not a necessary condition.
I doubt it will. Infact, I would be willing to bet good money that china is going to start factory farming the next generation within the next 20 years, using artificial wombs & in vitro fertilization.
> china is going to start factory farming the next generation within the next 20 years, using artificial wombs & in vitro fertilization
Enormously more expensive than producing children the natural way. Given the CCP’s history of using coercion to make people have less kids (forced sterilisation, forced abortion, some even allege infanticide), I would not be surprised if they start coercing people to have more. From an ethical perspective that’s terrible, but why expect a government which hasn’t cared about ethics in the past to start caring about it now or in the future? Coerced natural reproduction is massively cheaper than artificial wombs
Me too! Among my cohort of friends that I grew up with, all of us in our early 30's, around 10 people, I'm the only one who is having kids. None of them are even trying to get married. The vast majority of people my age that I meet are not planning to have kids. I can't stop noticing it, and even my wife has started remarking about it now. It honestly does seem like an entire generation has chosen not to have kids..
> But the anecdata would say that we're closing on the point where millenials have chosen to simply not have children.
I'd bet that that isn't a "choice" so much as it is that millennials are prevented by their circumstances from having the children they'd want to otherwise. If more people could actually afford to have kids and were more optimistic about the future I imagine we'd have a lot more babies around
> I'd bet that that isn't a "choice" so much as it is that millennials are prevented by their circumstances from having the children they'd want to otherwise
Taking a look at median incomes and housing costs across the US, I'd bet that millennials have become forward-thinking enough to plan for kids, but have gotten themselves worked up into thinking they must spend millions on getting into the best daycares, have separate rooms for each of their children, a guaranteed spot at university, etc.
Genuinely seems to me the decently well-off "involuntarily-childless" folks are worried to be committing a human rights violation by bringing a child into this world where they go to the public school they're zoned for. Or it's just cope and they are worried about reducing their living standards even just a little.
This also may be a wise reaction to the observation that the middle class is vanishing. My father started his career as a decently paid factory worker, he moved into corporate as factories were going away. My parents emphasized college as the alternatives did not look like viable careers to their eyes.
Is it surprising that a generation who saw college graduates struggle emphasizes going to Harvard etc. for their own children? I’d be skeptical that the path I took will be open for my daughter in 20 years.
Members of the tech community were never driving the decline in cousins or the population generally. Most of us here are wealthy and wealthy people tend of have fewer kids already. Even people here could reasonably have concerns about the future of the environment, our democracy, etc that might make having children seem unwise.
Most millennials, in fact most Americans, are not experiencing a period of abundance and prosperity. Their standard of living is in decline, their household debt is at record highs, and they still can't afford to buy the same groceries they normally would.
I think the better educated our species is thinking too much before having kids where as our parents and their ancestors kind of had kids and rolled with it. But even as a well earning tech guy, i can't help feel that being unemployed and being hit with one medical emergency can put my family on the street. In this time of abundance, i still feel like i'm being ground to dust by the man.
It’s absolutely a choice. That’s obvious because the millennials with the most money and education are the ones having the fewest kids. It’s downtown SF that’s childless. Working class parts of Dallas are bustling with kids.
It’s not that millennials can’t afford to have kids. It’s that they’re too self-centered and unwilling to endure the lifestyle hit for doing so.
I'm willing to accept that they feel like their situation is precarious when it actually isn't, because I've certainly been there. But I also overcame it when I realized I wasn't actually thinking everything through.
Might be due to some of us growing up really poor. I’m from a third world and I remember lack of water and electricity, five plus people crammed into a home the size of my current apartments living room. We used to use kerosene lamps and heat water and I grew up in the 90s. Even today my parents don’t own a home yet and they have rented their whole lives. They still work. It’s really up to me to resolve all our issues. And that’s my duty as their child, everyone has their circumstances.
My parents pushed me to get educated. Now I’m in my early 30s and honestly I’m not in a rush to have kids. Do I want kids? Definitely. But right now I’m trying to build family wealth so I can give my kids a great childhood. I’m on track to meet my goals in the next 5 years or so.
Most of the people my age who are situated with kids and family are well to do. They have well off parents who own at least one home. Somehow these people send their kids to private school or can afford to buy homes in great public school districts.
I’ve noticed the people in my situation more often than not are from a similar background. We grew up poor and we are trying to build our wealth. I work in tech so I can’t speak for people from other socioeconomic backgrounds. But this is what I experience.
Most of my friends are other Asians. I don’t know it seems like Americans are mostly well off.
I promise circumstances are not going to get better. Many individuals who eventually become parents wouldn't have taken the leap if they had waited indefinitely for what they deemed as "perfect circumstances." It's perfectly acceptable if you choose not to have children; after all, it's your decision. However, and Frankly speaking, it becomes tiresome to hear the implication that parents who took that leap have a more privileged situation than the tech community on platforms like Hacker News.
fwiw every 40yo I know who had kids at that age wish they did it earlier when they had more energy. Wealth building is easier in your 40s however for most
Hold a 10lbs weight on your arm for three hours (simulates an infant trying to fall asleep in your arms). Do this for six months, three times a day.
Lift a 20lbs bag of rice off the floor to your hips once every 20 seconds for two hours (simulates a toddling-walking child wanting up). Do this for a three years, six times a day.
Get up off the floor in a hurry once every five minutes for two hours (simulates the toddler-child doing something they shouldn't). Do this, I dunno, forever.
Lift a 40lbs bag of dog food over your head every five minutes for 4 hours (simulates an older child wanting to play). Do this for 10 years, five times a day.
There is a lot of other 'cardio' like things mixed in too. But the above should give a sample of the physicality of child rearing. It's a lot of low weight, very high rep, long workout, long interval, isostatic exercise. You're mostly holding things near your center of mass for very long times, adjusting between arms. And you have to get up off the floor a lot in a big hurry.
For those who want kiddos sometime in the future, maybe about 2 years from now - this won't change, 2 years from now you'll still think 2 years from then is going to be the time. Just stop and have one. It'll turn out ok, probably - and the sooner you get one, the easier you'll handle the toil, 1% of which is described by the parent post ;)
> Most of the people my age who are situated with kids and family are well to do.
Same here, but looking back to my hometown and how it is now, it wasn't this way even just 20 years ago. Now even well-to-do doesn't guarantee kids, and lower and middle class folks have simply stopped.
Which bothers me a lot. I think many people are catastrophizing themselves into thinking they can't afford it, and in a few decades we'll all be worse off. I'm especially tired of couples making more than $200k/year talking about how it's effectively child abuse to send their kids to public school, or if they can't somehow guarantee an Ivy League golden path then it just isn't worth it.
The truth is we've been so 'scared straight' about the difficulty of parenthood that many of us want nothing to do with it. Life is easier without them.. not as fulfilling sure, yadda yadda
But saying we can't afford it sounds a lot better. In most places in the world, and through time, less money corresponds to more kids. So it's easy to see though this excuse.
> My parents pushed me to get educated. Now I’m in my early 30s and honestly I’m not in a rush to have kids. Do I want kids? Definitely. But right now I’m trying to build family wealth so I can give my kids a great childhood. I’m on track to meet my goals in the next 5 years or so.
There's a chance you won't make it, though. And at some point, it does become too late.
I have two siblings, but most likely will be the only one with kids, as we're in our mid to late 30s and I'm already a parent.
Me and my SO made it happen by moving to a much smaller (albeit still 500k+ inhabitants) city, where real estate isn't as stupidly expensive as where we grew up in.
My co-worker has six children and all the people I've met who have four or more follow the same pattern: living in the middle of nowhere on a single income working remotely.
It appears that real estate is the biggest concern, because I've also settled on having two instead of three, since my daughters will be sharing a room anyway.
Anecdata: I am 33 and have 0 kids. I make good money but, due to poor financial literacy at a young age, I am shackled with a hefty amount of student loan debt well into my 30s. My 20s were financially precarious and it would've been irresponsible to bring a child into the mix. Would've been nice, but it just wasn't going to happen.
I don't think that my specific situation applies to everyone, but I also don't expect I'm alone on this one.
My hypothesis, which I rarely hear anyone else mention, is that we no longer look to our children for entertainment. Life used to be really boring. Kids are excited by things adults find painfully dull. Having a weird little person around who is overjoyed playing with a stick is a pretty great thing in a world where there isn't much else to do.
Today people often seem to regard interacting with children to be a form of work. I don't think that our ancestors saw it that way. The kids certainly don't seem to see it that way; they're confused and disappointed when their parents don't want to play with them.
Many of the sociopolitical explanations of falling birth rates have been refuted by the present trends. Birth rates are now below replacement in most of Latin America and Asia, even where economic development is well below the level it was when they started falling in the rich world, and in spite of the persistence of traditional gender roles. Only Africa and the poorest parts of Asia are above replacement, and even then much less than before. Some of the highest birth rates today are in Afghanistan and Palestine. Not exactly paradise.
My hypothesis, which I rarely hear anyone else mention, is that we no longer look to our children for entertainment. Life used to be really boring.
while there is some truth to that with stories of a sudden baby boom 9 months after a significant power outage, i'd rather rephrase that as
"we no longer look to our children as the only thing we care about"
there are now so many other things (hobbies, causes) that we can put our energy into that they take away the focus from having kids. after all, once you have kids you will have to put aside some of your other activities for some years.
sociopolitical explanations of falling birth rates have been refuted by the present trends
i think birthrates don't so much correlate with wealth but with education. my guess is that education improves faster than wealth, so this could explain the development better.
I mean, you can try to be appealing to a higher ideal here, but all the people who make children (myself included) do it for themselves (the parents of the child). So yeah, entertainment might not be the exact word, but for a broad enough meaning of it, that's probably the reason for a good chunk of children.
My own personal situation on why I don't have kids - to have kids, I'd have to find someone to have kids with. Dating is completed screwed, and that's not for lack of trying on my end. It's an absolute shshow out there. It's like no one could be bothered to get themselves out of bed to follow through on plans to meet up. I'm not sure if it's suburbanization, or if it's everyone is feeling overworked, or... what...
Nearly all of my male friends are noticing the same things. Locale, age, career... no change of circumstances seem to change the really poor outcomes. It's like the options on today's menu are: be solo and happy with it, or go do the passport bro thing.
We must live in different areas because I’m the only one without kids on my team of 8. I also kind of resent the implication that pops up in these threads that people without kids are living some kind of immoral, selfish life. Not everyone without kids is just out partying all the time. I would love to have kids, but fate it seems has different plans for me.
with 3 kids at 31 you would most likely be the outlier in many countries. all the rest you said resonates - so many people do not want to have kids at all anymore, and it’s not difficult to understand why (socioeconomic uncertainty, environmental issues, a lot of places are not “child friendly”, and there’s more). having kids today seems to be an even more difficult undertaking than in the past; and in my opinion there is a lot less peer pressure pushing to procreate
No, it is tangibly more difficult. There’s a complete lack of other children in many cities. We live directly next to my oldest kid’s school, and we have no other kids within a mile. The nearest park has no regular group of kids who show up.
I live in one of the largest metro areas in the U.S.
It isn't a more difficult undertaking. It was never easy, we've just been raised softly and do not value children the same way previous generations did.
An outlier in many places, but not most. Only in the Western first world is this now normal.
> Only in the Western first world is this now normal
It ain't just us, my friend. Births Per Woman:
1.64 USA
1.34 Japan
1.28 China
0.84 Korea
> we've just been raised softly and do not value children
Now that women are part of the formal economy and everyone has options for entertainment other than unprotected sex, the mechanism by which the formal economy used to offload the entire cost of child rearing while reaping all of the benefits no longer functions.
We have two paths: dust off the shitty exploitative playbook of yesterday, or build a new playbook for tomorrow.
Seems like you are claiming women being part of the formal economy is exploitation, and preventing women from being part of the formal economy is exploitation?
It is - in the generation of my grandparents one income could feed an entire family AND lead to a house (no vacations though, and not much luxury)
Nowadays even if you have good jobs it really depends on a lot of circumstances if you can afford such a life (albeit mostly with more luxury and vacations) with two incomes.
Same here. To be sure, those women (i.e. my grandmothers) were definitely hard working. Raising lots of children, without "modern" appliances like dishwashers etc. in the household. But the money that came from one income was enough.
> Effectively the worth of income nearly halved.
At least the worth that reaches the worker after taxes etc.
Not really - there are various self-correction mechanisms which simply aren't active (yet?) because the low birth rate isn't actually resulting in a shrinking population (due to immigration) so there is not problem to fix (yet).
Many people mention housing and real estate as a problem, well, if there was a population problem, we'd see loads of available empty homes and falling prices of real estate - we're not, so this is a clear signal from the society truthfully voting with their wallets (no matter what they misleadingly signal verbally) that we have more than enough people.
It's similar to some industries saying that there aren't enough workers - if there was an actual shortage, we'd see loads of unfilled vacancies together with noticably rising salary offers for these positions, and if we aren't, that's a clear signal from that industry truthfully voting with their wallets (no matter what they misleadingly signal verbally) that they actually do have more than enough potential workers.
In North America / Europe, you’re correct. In Japan, China, South Korea, they’re losing population, everyone knows they’re losing population, but self-correction mechanisms aren’t working or not working fast enough. Japan been trying to throw random stuff on the wall to see if anyone sticks, but the birth rate only keeps dropping. And well, young people really don’t want children.
It all depends on what do you mean by "fast enough" - the self-correction mechanisms would trigger after the population has shrunk, not when it starts shrinking; and it would apply to the generation after that. Also, we might consider the pressure from housing and jobs as a correction mechanism for overpopulation, so it would likely stabilize somewhere much lower than the peak.
While "everybody knows that they're losing population", South Korea and China haven't even started shrinking (they've stopped growing, and have been at approximately 0 population change for the last few years, it's technically negative but the change is insignificantly tiny) so obviously any self-correction mechanisms wouldn't apply at all yet.
Japan's population reached its peak in 2010 and as of 2016 the shrinking was quite low - so we're talking about just like 7 years of actual shrinking and that's not that much time to cause any socioeconomic changes triggered by population reduction, it would seem reasonable to look at the generation which grows up in a shrinking-population regime to see how it affects them, when they actually have real estate that gets significantly cheaper due to lack of population and scarcity of workers pushing up the bargaining position of labor; Japan's demographics is "leading the world" in this regard, but even they aren't there yet. And they have time to see how it works out - Japan's population is still far above its e.g. 1950 population, and continuing the current population trends it would be as long as 2075 to reach the 1950 level (which isn't bad!) again.
I agree with you about how we probably haven’t reached the point where the governments are supposed to worry, but I don’t think looking at a point in time in the past is right. Even though we have a long way to go for the decline to reach the population levels of 1950s, the demographic pyramid is pretty much inverted. Same applies to China and South Korea in some degree. Most of the women after the age of 40 aren’t going to have a kid, yet alone 2.1+ to revert the population decline.
But you’re right, more drastic measures will be taken in political and economical senses once absolute numbers start ramping up. It’s fairly obvious our current system isn’t the best for aging population with not as many children. Unfortunately, we just haven’t come up with anything better that gives some sort of stability and peace.
For liberalism, perhaps. If the capitalists can't figure out how to grow new worker-slaves in vats or perfect AGI, future society will be very different. Might be mostly Amish and Orthodox Jews, etc. after the population crash.
I will admit that I was a bit off-the-cuff in terms of the Western aspect of my comment.
There are lots of factors, of course, and the trend isn't limited to only the west. Though it has certainly become a more normal trend in developed and developing countries than those with a higher level of poverty and poor.
I still contend however that it has never been easy. My grandparents had four children starting at age 20. My grandfather's first job was sweeping floors in a factory at age 13, making $0.30 an hour. When he asked for a raise, he was fired. He said he didn't have two nickels to rub between his fingers.
His father before him went into World War 1 at 15 years old. And his father (my great-great grandfather) falsely signed the documents affirming that he was 18 years old, to allow his own 15 year old son to go to war.
They struggled, but didn't complain. Some part of it is cultural expectation, and that has changed greatly over time. In spite of all odds my grandparents raised four fairly middle class children in these circumstances, but had a good few decades of strife. Whether or not they would create a family and procreate was taken for granted. It was assumed, at their own economic expense. But long-term family wise, today my grandfather has a tree of descendants who love him.
I think today we are more conscious of the economic equation. We ask whether or not we can afford to provide for children, rather than letting them exist and then asking how we can provide for them. There is an aspect of this that I appreciate, but I worry that it's mixed with some amount of narcissism. Though I am an atheist, there is some unreason to our existence in the first place, and there is hope in the continuance of ourselves that we should value beyond economics. There is a romance and some type of spiritual value in being able to put aside the cost-benefit analysis and simply bear new life that is part you, to have and to hold, to love, teach, and reciprocally learn from.
We have so much bounty today that the idea of "sacrificing" ourselves for something that only has potential value is an alien concept. As our material wealth has increased, and as our understanding of personal economy has evolved, I think we've lost a bit of our primal, but beautiful, nature that wants ourselves to persist at a biological, cosmic level.
You, here, right now reading this are the absolute last leaf, the most extended branch, the most outstretched and sun-bleached arm of a tree of life that has been proceeding for four billion years. You are the last link in a chain that has not been broken for four billion years. Can you believe that? Every time I consider that, I think of my parents. And I ask, who am I to be so conceited that all of that history, that fourth of a fraction of the universe, should end with me?
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, and, I will confess that I got a little tipsy for the super bowl. Don't judge me too harshly. But life is beautiful, and beauty is always difficult to sustain. We do it because beauty contains a truth and a promise for the future. And I think that's something we need to put effort into re-evaluating, and re-valuing, in our current world.
One line of inquiry might be why there is a correlation between bounty and the general wealth of an economy, and the fertility rate. Many parts of the world that are poorer are more fertile, and reproduce more unquestionably. Korea is rich and the rate is 0.84. In the Congo the rate is 6.21. It is not about economics. And if you counter that it is about poor education or care, I don't believe that's the reason either. It's culture, and values.
Paul Revere had 15 children. 5 of them died young, and he still had 10. He had a horse and a rifle and a small wooden house you can still tour in Boston. Today we have DINKs, and people who are in what is considered to be the low-income range with multiple rooms in big cities, an education, and combustion-engine vehicles who say it's too expensive to have children. Maybe your tastes are too expensive. Maybe you've been raised softly, and don't know how to set yourself aside to rear and participate in a family that is spiritually worth more than just yourself.
One of the other comments said I ranted so I thought I'd actually provide one. Sorry HN, I hope I made some sense here.
> And I ask, who am I to be so conceited that all of that history, that fourth of a fraction of the universe, should end with me?
Nobody will remember us in just 100 years. Nobody.
> Maybe you've been raised softly, and don't know how to set yourself aside to rear and participate in a family that is spiritually worth more than just yourself.
Is it really worth more, though? I always wondered if having kids is just so that somebody finally listens to you at an age where your peers really only listen if they're deep friends, or if you have something actually exceptional to say. And to relive childhood, and then again when you have grandchildren. You don't get these two things if you don't have children. But they're not that deep, you can e.g. teach to actually intelligent peers, research deep topics, and relive childhood curiosity in different ways. For the benefit of all of society, not just your little gang.
The human population is expected to peak at ten billion, and that's in the latter half of his century. We have no reason to fear declining birth rates in an existential sense.
I think this is probably true. Historically children would provide for their elders, but that role is fulfilled now more by technology, so in practical terms, they are less needed. It's an emergent trend of humans+technology that acts as a natural limit to our growth, so that as a species we don't just eat all the carrots and die like the rabbits would.
I do fear that Idiocracy might be a little accurate though. The people reproducing currently are the ones who do not consider their future or economics, while the smart ones who do, have less children.
> Historically children would provide for their elders, but that role is fulfilled now more by technology, so in practical terms, they are less needed.
You weren't watching the magician's hands closely enough.
The role is fulfilled by tax dollars that come from the youngest working generation. Might be tech involved, but the revenue still pays for the tech.
It's the machines that actually pay for most things we enjoy today.
The keyboard you're typing your responses on, display you're reading this message from and virtually everything else in our silicon worlds* were not touched by human hands during production.
Money is just an accounting method to allocate the production output.
Interestingly even the keyboards don't need that much of a human touch to type these days.
* other notable examples are almost 100% of the energy we use (electricity, hydrocarbons), majority of the global human caloric intake (grains, fats, sugars, potatoes, etc.), most raw materials (metals, fibers, hydrocarbons again, etc.), tools
And for the remainder, at this point it's just a matter of time before Humans Need Not Apply
The country you live in doesn't have the machines to make those goods.
The country that has the machines, wants cash. Where will you tax the revenue from? Are you hoping for some sort of technological charity? The Chinese will just ship us 10 million ass-wiping robots for the nursing homes for free, because they're a kind and benevolent people?
"Organization" won't make them give you the machines for free. And your tax base eroded out from under you.
If the country isn't self-reliant, no big deal... as long as they can pony up the cash. And your country can't do that either. Do you have any arguments that aren't pure sophistry?
Which countries did you have in mind? The countries with the highest population decline are not the countries with the lowest birth rate. People emigrate from the former, and choose not to reproduce in the latter.
The places with above-replacement fertility are seeing theirs decline too.
We convert them to childlessness faster than they can replace the children we're not having. Less than 25 years away from universal below-replacement fertility.
> You, here, right now reading this are the absolute last leaf, the most extended branch, the most outstretched and sun-bleached arm of a tree of life that has been proceeding for four billion years. You are the last link in a chain that has not been broken for four billion years.
It's 3.7 billion, not four.
More importantly it's a vast tree of life, not a chain and not a hierarchy with humans at an upper lever with only royalty, priests, and God above.
If the sapiens go the stromatolites will still remain, with a lineage far older than apes.
Humans aren't about to go extinct but it's high time their population numbers stabilised, perhaps even reduced a bit.
The case can certainly be made by those that care that should the human branch be pruned the remaining mass of the tree of life on earth might very well thrive and surge in breadth and depth after a rather large number of other prunings at the hands of humankind.
4 was rounding from 3.7, so I think that seems like a bit of a petty correction.
Humans will not go extinct (I hope), but HN is full of some of the smartest people and these are their trends, and I hope that of the people who do reproduce, the techno nerds are among them. The future will need them.
I worry that the Great Filter is not about technology at all, but that in every planet with a species that has evolved into a higher intelligence, that at the cusp of being able to seed their galaxy, they willingly do not pursue it, because the level of analytical thinking required to achieve it also leads them to disinterest and abstinence.
In regards to your last sentence, that is true. But I would ask, who would be around to appreciate that fact?
> Humans aren't about to go extinct but it's high time their population numbers stabilised, perhaps even reduced a bit.
There's little evidence to support the theory that at some point in the future, little girls will all suddenly decide to buck the trend set by their mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, and all the adult women they see around them in the world, and have 2.1 children themselves.
But, if they do not all do this, if only some of them decide to buck the trend, they those girls would need to have 3 or 5 or 8 to make up for those who do not.
If neither of these things happen, population cannot stabilize. Mathematically, there has to be an average of 2.1.
Fertility rate declines are future extinction. They've run the experiments, and the results are always the same... despite having all the food and water and entertainment they might want, the mice either do not fuck or they just murder whatever offspring they do (rarely) have. And it happens more quickly than one might expect, because the rate of decline increases with each generation.
> the human branch be pruned the remaining mass of the tree of life on earth might very well thrive and surge in breadth and depth after a rather large number of other prunings at the hands of humankind.
And why should any human ever give a shit about whether these non-human organisms thrive, especially when hypothesizing a future where humans no longer exist? Sounds like some death cult nonsense. Will you be one of those lamenting how you think the most beautiful planets of all are those with no life whatsoever to "mar their beauty"?
> There's little evidence to support the theory that at some point in the future, little girls will all suddenly decide to buck the trend set by their mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, and all the adult women they see around them in the world, and have 2.1 children themselves.
There is some speculation - and some data which may or may not support it - that fertility may follow a "J" curve where it declines sharply with increased development and then slowly rises again above a certain level.
There is also some data to suggest that within a population, if a subset sees an increase in wealth, it can predict an increase in fertility within that subset.
Combined, a suggestion that does not seem unreasonable is that we develop certain expectations based on societal expectations, and as they increase it becomes harder and harder to justify additional children, but when people find themselves able to meet those expectations, the number of children goes up.
If that holds, then that would suggest the rate can be brought back up with sufficient societal assistance, which may or may not come as fertility rates becomes enough of a political issue. Whether that will actually work remains to be seen - we've already of course seen some pretty significant attempts, such as the escalating Hungarian family support scheme (total support for 3+ children amounts to over 300k Euro, of which about 1/3 is a non-refundable grant and the rest subsidized house loans), so we should start to get an idea of what a realistic cost to drive the rates back up will be, if it is viable, over the coming couple of decades as more countries experiment.
> There's little evidence to support the theory that at some point in the future, little girls will all suddenly decide to buck the trend set by their mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, and all the adult women they see around them in the world, ..
What nonsense.
The very evidence you seek is right here, right now, all about us - a world in which men and women have a reproduction rate lower than than their grandparents and great grandparents. They have clearly bucked the trend of those in times past. Q.E.D.
BTW, this focus you have on breeding "little girls" is distasteful to say the least.
> those girls would need to have 3 or 5 or 8 to make up for those who do not.
Only if the world is to return to the present 8+ billion after a fall below.
Should numbers slowly decline down to, say, 1950s world population levels and mean reproduction rates go to 2.1 then things will stabilise.
> If neither of these things happen, population cannot stabilize.
Faulty logic, as already explained.
> And why should any human ever give a shit about whether these non-human organisms thrive
My response was to a human who was waxing lyrical about 3.7 billion years of life, an infintesimal number and tonnage of which was actual humn life ... you should ask them why they care about other lifeforms.
>The very evidence you seek is right here, right now, all about us - a world in which men and women have a reproduction rate lower than than their grandparents and great grandparents. They have clearly bucked the trend of those in times past. Q.E.D.
From the graph I saw the total fertility rate in the US has been falling since 1800 (start of the graph). It briefly improved after WW2 for a bit and then started falling again. There was another brief increase at the end of the 90s and it's been dropping to historical lows ever since. It's not just two generations - it's 200 years and possibly longer.
It would appear that we both agree that population changes rates can alter over time and that it's happened in the past and can happen in the future then.
Unlike the other commenter who has claimed that once a rate has been set it cannot change.
> he very evidence you seek is right here, right now, all about us - a world in which men and women have a reproduction rate lower than than their grandparents and great grandparents. They have clearly bucked the trend of those in times past. Q.E.D.
Are you daft? If fertility rates were high in the past, if they were 6 or 8 or 9.7... they could fall for a long time with no decline in population.
But once they dip below the magic number of 2.1, then population declines. That's how this works. That's the number of children a woman (every woman, on average) must have for population to remain the same from one generation to the next.
I don't know any other way to explain it. You probably think you're intelligent. You followed the teacher's instructions and got an A on math, but you never really understood it. If you follow the recipe, it just poops out correct answers... but here we have a novel problem, and you just can't get it.
> Only if the world is to return to the present 8+ billion after a fall below.
No. For the population to plateau out and stay the same, they'd need that many. It's how fucking averages work.
Either all of them have 2.1, or if only half have children, then they need to have 4.2.
And this isn't for the population to grow again. It's for it to plateau out and remain the same as it is.
> Should numbers slowly decline down to, say, 1950s world population levels and mean reproduction rates go to 2.1 then things will stabilise.
That's the fucking point. If population declines, it's already below 2.1
And if it's below 2.1, that becomes the norm and it never goes back above 2.1. No little girl grows up in a world of childless adults, of the rare "only child", and "only child" herself and says "I think I will do what ever woman I ever knew wouldn't do, and have 2.1".
It's a simple fucking idea.
> You might perhaps ask yourself why you do not.
Because I don't belong to a death cult that hates humanity. I mean, I shouldn't have to say it out loud, but there it is.
No. I still recall studying population dynamics, predator | prey cycles, etc as part of non linear dynamics in mathematics classes back in the 1980s.
> But once they dip below the magic number of 2.1, then population declines.
That magic number can change.
It's relatively easy for anyone to find observational examples of populations with adaptive reproductive rates.
> I don't know any other way to explain it.
Perhaps you might try studying mathematics.
> Because I don't belong to a death cult that hates humanity.
The question was about life on earth, not specifically humanity, the notion that you belong to a humanity hating death cult is frankly one that would not occur to most people .. but here you are going straight there.
Which goes back to my original comment, where I talk about for it to change, the little girls of the youngest generation have to grow up and choose to have more children than their parents. They all have to choose this simultaneously, or the few that do choose it have to choose to have far, far more than 2.1 themselves.
Both of these scenarios are so outlandish, that you keep dancing around it, pretending that I'm describing it incorrectly. You don't want to think about it, or don't want others to think about it, or you just aren't capable... I can't tell which.
It'd be laughable, if I didn't think you were an enemy of humanity.
Sub-Saharan Africa is the only part of the world where the fertility rate is still over replacement (~2.1 children per woman), and it's rapidly dropping there too. The first African country has dropped below replacement (Mauritius), with 10 more (of 55) having dropped below 3 already as of 2020.
China is seeing a population decline not caused by famine for the first time in modern history.
India's fertility rate is at or below replacement at this point, and India is a couple of decades from population contraction unless they increase immigration.
Having 3 children at a young age is an outlier in the vast majority of the world at this point.
Scroll down the World Bank's fertility numbers on this page [1] to get to data by region. You can add the entire Arab World, Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia as having sustainable fertility rates. And places like Latin America are in decline, but still in the realm of realm of being saved at ~1.9. The only places currently in catastrophic collapse at the EU (1.5), North America (1.6), and East Asia (1.5).
For those who don't understand why 1.5 is so much worse than 1.9, it's because fertility is an exponential system. Every generation's (~20 years) size is (fertility_rate / 2) times as large as the one prior that gave birth to them. So after 5 generations (~1 century), a fertility rate of 1.9 would see the next generation's size go from 100 to 77 (100 * (1.9/2)^5). A fertility rate of 1.5 would go from 100 to 23. South Korea, at 0.78, would go from 100 to 0 - extinct, in a century.
And most people, across the world, do have children at what you'd call "young" ages. Female fertility rates start to decline rapidly as they age, obviously hitting zero at menopause which tends to happen in their 40s. Even when successful, an older parent results faces exponentially increased odds of seeing a variety of issues with the child, such as Down Syndrome.
> Scroll down the World Bank's fertility numbers on this page [1] to get to data by region. You can add the entire Arab World, Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia as having sustainable fertility rates.
You can use metrics from different groups and slice and dice sections and find ways of getting above 2.1 (replacement), sure, but it's not affecting my main point at all, which was that it's not contained to the Western world, and that 3 kids is now an outlier in most of the world.
To your specifics:
South Asia is listed as 2.2. But India has hit 2.1 and is declining, and Bangladesh and Nepal are even further below replacement - the World Bank metric is I presume buoyed by Pakistan, which has hit 3.1 (3.47 in the 2021 numbers on Wiipedia), and is declining, and Afghanistan, which is in even steeper decline - the other countries in the region are mostly rounding errors in terms of population.
It's a difference of whether it's already hit replacement as a region already, or will within 2-3 years at most. I'm perfectly happy to accept the World Bank numbers for the sake of this argument, as it's not relevant to the argument.
With respect to MENA and the Arab World, you're double-counting. The bulk of the countries that are part of the Arab World vs Middle East /North Africa are the same.
The largest non-Arab MENA countries are Iran, which is well below replacement (1.7) and Turkey, at 1.9.
The Arab World also includes several countries considered sub-Sarahan by some or all of other groups (Somalia, Mauritania, Sudan) which pulls it up, and MENA curiously includes Sudan in some statistics, even though it's considered sub-Saharan and/or East Africa by other groupings.
Once you actually exclude the sub-Saharan countries from those groups, the rate lowers significantly. Taking Sudan alone out of MENA brings MENA close to replacement. If you choose to look at the Arab World alone, then, sure, even excluding the sub-Saharan countries they're still above replacement. I'm again, fine with choosing to slice the numbers that way - they do not affect the argument I was making in any meaningful way, because then the remaining MENA countries are below instead.
What we're left with no matter how we slice it, is that roughly half the worlds countries are below replacement, accounting for well above half the worlds current population (but that balance will shift rapidly), and leaving the world average at ~2.3 and declining even by World Bank numbers.
> And places like Latin America are in decline, but still in the realm of realm of being saved at ~1.9.
There's no "being saved" here. Short of economic collapse, we don't know of any reliable measure to drive these numbers back up again, and they've been consistently trending down since the 1960's. China appears to be poised to be the country likely go hardest in trying, now recommending 3 children per family, and given an extremely restrictive immigration policy. That's fine - they don't need to be "saved".
> The only places currently in catastrophic collapse at the EU (1.5), North America (1.6), and East Asia (1.5).
I was not, and is not, and will not be, arguing any "catastrophic collapse" - to me at least that notion is meaningless to most people other than "great replacement" type people.
The world as a whole is headed for a relatively gentle flattening of population growth, and a period of decline, but no "catastrophic collapse" in population. But we are headed for a fairly dramatic shift in politics and economic development as this happens and the countries facing the steepest drops become more dependent on actually courting immigration as a consequence. There will still be enough growth to do that for decades to come.
> "The world as a whole is headed for a relatively gentle flattening of population growth"
You know something that's really weird to think about? In 1950 Africa's population was 227m! [1] The US at the time had about 160m, nearly as many people as the entire African continent! Fertility rates are hard to intuit because they're not only exponential, but systems where the effect is delayed from the cause by several decades, but then once it starts - it starts rocketing off uncontrollably, be that in loss or gain of population.
The world's population may start to level off at some point, but sub-replacement rates will cause Western nations to start losing population at an exponential rate. It will be the equal but opposite of what happened to Africa over the past century. And this doesn't level out or even slow down, except when people start having children again. So for instance many people know Japan now has > 10% of its population over 80, but I think a lot of us have this sort of concept that 'Well sure, but as they start to die off - then things will probably start to look a bit more sane.'
In reality, it's the exact opposite. As this group dies off, they're going to be replaced by an even larger group of 80+ year olds, leaving Japan in an even worse state, as one can immediately see just glancing at Japan's population pyramid. [2] Right now Japan's losing about 1 in 200 people per year, and this will never stop until either they go extinct or they start having children again. And it will actually get substantially worse until they hit their 'fertility equilibrium point' where all living generations have/had comparable fertility rates (picture the sides of the population pyramid having a constant slope). And that's what's waiting for the entirety of the Western world, if we don't turn things around.
And this is also likely a vicious cycle because as age ratios and demographics get all screwed up, economies will start to collapse, which will make it even more uncomfortable to have children.
Fertility rates do indeed have that effect, but it's buffeted most places by immigration that will continue to soften the effect for decades to come, so I think it'll be hard to predict how that exactly will play out.
We can already see some differences quite starkly.
E.g. Italy's fertility rate hasn't been above replacement since ca. 1975, and started seeing population decline a few years ago and is already back at the population level it was at around 2007, because it struggles to attract (and want to attract) enough immigration.
Meanwhile, the UK dropped below replacement in 1972, and yet UN projections suggest the population is unlikely to decline until the 2050's at the earliest, and isn't projected to drop down to present-day levels at any point this century, largely buffeted by a far more aggressive immigration policy (including by politicians claiming to want the opposite - neither of the major party in the UK believes in reducing immigration, but some of their voters do, and that is likely to become a rising conflict).
So while I agree some nations probably will see rapid falls, it really comes down to in part to what extent they are able to open their doors and find means of becoming attractive to immigrants fast enough while finding ways of integrating them in a working way.
And this will reshape the political and cultural landscapes both within countries, and international influence.
(one minor example, since we've discussed the UK and Africa: The UK is likely to soon drop from the 2nd to 3rd largest native English-speaking population worldwide - both India and Nigeria already have far more people speaking English as their 2nd or 3rd language, but Nigeria seems to be more rapidly closing the gap to have more people who speak English as their 1st...)
> And this is also likely a vicious cycle because as age ratios and demographics get all screwed up, economies will start to collapse, which will make it even more uncomfortable to have children.
Well, we may unfortunately in that case get to test whether fertility is inexorably linked to poverty or whether once it's declined it won't rise again.
The other option is that as fertility becomes even more of an issue, we'll see a significant escalation in measures like the Hungarian (ramping up grants and subsidised house loans for families that get more children), but of course we don't yet know whether - or at what level - that will work... But I suspect many desperate attempts.
Also, expect reproductive rights to become an issue, with more countries seeming movements to push back on abortion rights etc. using fertility rates as a reason.
Earlier you expressed skepticism about the ability of nations to carry out actions to get their fertility numbers back up. And I agree with you. There's quite a lot of evidence, historical and present, that it's really not so easy. And especially for nations that only act once a problem becomes catastrophic, or politically convenient, we'll probably be well into a death spiral before we start acting. So the most probable outcomes aren't looking very hot.
But I'd say here that you're not carrying forward that same reasoned skepticism when offering immigration as a solution. Because the exact same holds true. There are countless examples of mass migration throughout history, and they generally don't come with a happy ending. Rome, over the centuries, became an empire of immigrants, in some ways akin to the United States. Yet it was also ultimately destroyed by immigration. The Goths, fleeing the Huns, were take in as refugees by the Roman Empire. Those same refugees would ultimately go on to destroy the Roman Empire.
In the present day, mass migration doesn't seem to be fairing much better. Prior to the migrant crisis throughout Europe, many expected that the migrants would integrate, become part of the normal mass of people, and it'd ultimately be a win-win situation for everybody. That belief was not well supported by history, and ultimately proved to be false. And in the US today, cities that express an extremely positive attitude towards immigration tend to rapidly express a different view once faced with large numbers of immigrants.
And immigration on the scale we're talking about would be absolutely massive, and never-ending. And I'm not even getting into the countless social/cultural/political problems this would all entail. I'm merely focusing on the most extreme - would this destroy the countries engaging in such? And it seems to me that the most probable answer is simply yes. Well actually in modern times I don't think it'd destroy them. The most likely outcome is what we're seeing happen in much of Europe - parties that oppose the immigration would rapidly come to power, and end up working to mitigate the damage, and end such a population strategy.
The destruction of the Roman Empire isn't something I lament, and yet if present nation-states survive as long as the Roman Empire they will have done exceptionally well. At the same time I don't buy the narrative. It's a bizarre thing to compare modern migration with fleeing armed groups seeking conquest to replace the places they were fleeing.
It's like comparing the average migrant or refugee with ISIS.
> Prior to the migrant crisis throughout Europe, many expected that the migrants would integrate, become part of the normal mass of people, and it'd ultimately be a win-win situation for everybody. That belief was not well supported by history, and ultimately proved to be false.
I've seen nothing to "prove it false", but there's also a very significant difference a rushed an chaotic acceptance of refugees vs. planned migration programs, and either takes time to shake out.
> And in the US today, cities that express an extremely positive attitude towards immigration tend to rapidly express a different view once faced with large numbers of immigrants.
And yet the US managed to successfully do it before. Several of my own ancestors families lived in Brooklyn at a time where it was so full of Scandinavian migrants that it had several Norwegian language newspapers, and my great grandmother lived there a decade without ever learning English because all her neighbours and shopkeepers etc. spoke Norwegian. I've spent a lot of time looking at US censuses because for the sake of genealogy, and the US censuses of that era are astounding for the way whole streets were nothing but immigrants.
Somehow the US is still there, as much as one might joke about the state it is in.
> The most likely outcome is what we're seeing happen in much of Europe - parties that oppose the immigration would rapidly come to power, and end up working to mitigate the damage, and end such a population strategy.
Then they will crater their economies, and soon enough get thrown out of office. People are quick to support anti-immigran rhetoric until it starts hitting their wallet when eg. employers struggle to hire. These anti-immigration parties fortunes tends to be tightly linked to unemployment levels.
Compare Italy to e.g. the UK, where despite the anti refugee rhetoric and historically high immigration, people fleeing the Tory party are not going to the anti-immigrant right-wing parties but to Labour - the UK, unlike Italy, has low unemployment and regular newspaper stories about employers struggling to find workers. Once Italy's population decline bites a bit more, this will change rapidly.
The Goths were not seeking conquest, and were mostly unarmed; the Romans invited them in happily, the political leaders thinking they'd be able to exploit the migrants to their benefit. And both sides actually got along quite well for a while. The problem is that the Romans took in more refugees than the State could sustain, and when Rome found itself unable to continue supplying the Goths, conflict began. Wiki has a summary, at least somewhat reasonable, here. [1]
But you know, I'm not sure this line of discussion is even meaningful. If I convince you the Goths were nothing even remotely like like ISIS, is that going to change your mind on anything? Obviously not. So why bother? What I am curious is what would change your mind.
So if you look at this from my perspective, you're talking about a scenario where a government of a country would be basically endeavoring to replace its own domestic population, with a foreign one, all while somehow presumably trying to maintain some of the value that makes people want to migrate to the country in the first place. I think we could both agree that there's no historic precedent for this, immigration on a far smaller scale has shown a tendency to result in problems, and so on. Yet you seem confident enough in assuming that it might work, to simply assume it. This, to me, is pretty weird!
What, if anything, could ever possibly convince you that such a scenario might not be particularly likely to succeed in anything like a desirable fashion? And, vice versa, how could you sell somebody like me, who is skeptical of such, on it? I'm more than open to the concept, but you'd need a pretty solid argument.
The very start of the background section there points out the inclusion of soldiers. They may not have set out for conquest from the start, but the article you link to go on to point out that the Romans would have been aware that they were taking a significant risk from the outset in allowing a group of that size to enter and stay concentrated, and go on to point out that a lot of them were allowed to or managed to keep their weapons despite not being meant to, and then put in a situation where they starved. To try to compare that to a modern government taking in a number of refugees it can trivially feed, and to then further draw a parallel between a rapid influx of refugees like that with immigration is fundamentally flawed.
> What I am curious is what would change your mind.
A line of argumentation that isn't based in tropes usually used by far-right extremist racists. I'm not saying that is your motivation, because I can not tell, but what I can tell is that those are the circles I see these arguments used by. When they are then further based in characterisations about failure I don't recognise from what I have seen myself, then you have provided nothing to give me any reason to trust any of what you've said.
When you now start talking about replacement, you're playing further into that.
I'm an immigrant myself, and I've seen enough variety between immigrant groups that the moment someone starts treating all immigration the same, and conflating handling of refugees and immigrants, that suggests to me someone who has preconceived notions and is coming at it with an agenda.
> I think we could both agree that there's no historic precedent for this
No, we most certainly would not. I pointed out the US to you as an obvious example. I find it funny that you flat out ignored that I've already pointed it out.
> Yet you seem confident enough in assuming that it might work, to simply assume it. This, to me, is pretty weird!
Define "work". I'm confident there will be all kinds of problems. I'm also confident it will happen, because, I'm even more confident that the alternative is a level of economic and societal collapse that will lead to violently overthrown governments, so I see it as entirely moot whether it will go smoothly or not. People will make it happen and manage the results because the alternative is turning into a third-world country.
So you're just not only going to double down the Goth's "setting out for conquest", but now also starting to add in a healthy sprinkling of ad hominem? Ok.
Part of this is that South Korea was practically closed to immigration until around 2004 outside of the "usual" workarounds (marrying a local, or significant investment), and so it's become increasingly urgent.
They've liberalised a lot since, but it'll take a long time for them to develop a reputation as somewhere people will think of as a destination to migrate to.
I’m fairly certain this is just misaligned expectations. You can absolutely live in a 30sqm (or less) space with 5 children, raising them on plain rice, and send them to whatever public school you can get for free. And they’d very likely still have a better life than just 100 years ago. It’s just that nobody wants to do so because the standards are so much higher.
i agree with this. in a world where everyone (except a very few) has the same kind of life, it all just seems normal so you would not consider changing that. but as some people have less kids, more and more people learn from that, so the idea spreads (as does the education around how to avoid having kids).
Let’s be a little charitable here- having and raising children has been a much, much more dangerous proposition health wise even at your parents generation to say nothing of your grandparents generation.
Expensive relative to expectations. Not in terms of what most people could provide.
That's not bad. It's fine that people expect more and want to be able to provide more before having children (and I do agree the commenter who argued this is somehow confined to the Western world is way out there).
But we need to understand that across most of the developed world - there will be exceptions in pockets here and there - it is not the ability to afford children that has dropped, but that we're not willing to give up what we have to have children at a living standard that was considered good before.
E.g. when I grew up we always had food, but the food we had was dictated by cost in a way I never think about, and wouldn't want to deal with. We lived in less space, and I want more space, not less. Our living standard when I was a kid was fine; far above average for most of the world, about average for where I grew up. But if what it took to have more kids was to go back to that, I wouldn't.
The commenter above can call that soft all they want - I don't feel bad for wanting to enjoy life more than I want more children (I have one son; I might well have another child, but because I'm at a stage where my girlfriend and I can afford it without sacrificing our standard of living and that does place me in a privileged position)
First generation immigrants (in Europe) have higher birth rates than second generation immigrants despite being poorer. It's not just about costs - it's about cultural expectations.
In the past, if you could not afford to feed your family, you could literally starve to death. And people saved money by doing things like crafting clothes out of feed sacks. [1] It became common enough that companies would start selling their feed in sacks with floral designs, specifically with the intent of then being reused as clothing.
And that's just one among a vast array of lifestyle differences. Now a days the worst case scenario is that you end up on government assistance and have a less pleasant life. As for Asia, don't make the mistake of conflating Asia with just China/Hong Kong/Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Asia's big, and those places are outliers in terms of fertility, with China's issues being entirely self inflicted. The average fertility rate across Asia is 2.3 [2], which is not great - but at least sustainable.
2019 data is fairly out of date. 2023 shows India is below replacement now (2.1 and dropping). china drastically so (1.2 and dropping). Those are the biggest populations by a large margin. Projections
for the region show continued declines, not sustainable at all.
Where do you live? I'm a bit older but pretty much all of mine and my wife's friends have kids.
I'm actually really curious about the childless older people. Like I have a couple friends without kids but it's not like that because they are too busy doing fun awesome things. They are more of the ill adjusted habitually complaining types where they themselves can't form bonds because of a tumultuous childhood.
I feel like this is location dependent. My wife and I are in our mid 30s with two kids (13 and 9). Most of our friends are in roughly the same situation. I’m the oldest of 6 (by quite a few years) and only the youngest (age 21) of my siblings is childless. My kids have 9 first cousins so far. But we all live in rural parts of eastern Canada. I can honestly say, I don’t know many couples without kids. However, being a family with kids attracts families with kids. So it’s hard to say.
I couldn’t imagine bringing a child into this messed up world. I really feel we are at the beginning of a mass extinction and future generations, no matter how rich and well off physically, will be destined to a life of suffering.
> I really feel we are at the beginning of a mass extinction
Presumably that extinction would take place several generations from now? One great way to avoid or slow extinction would be to procreate.
> this messed up world
As bad as things might be, aren't they way way way way better than they were in previous generations? Before Russia invaded Ukraine we were on a really great streak of very little warfare on Earth (relative to decades and centuries before). Fewer people are facing malnutrition and disease from centuries before. Many countries are much more egalitarian and less corrupt than they were centuries before.
I think maybe you are taking too many things for granted that are really quite good in modern times.
> I think maybe you are taking too many things for granted that are really quite good in modern times.
The facts that (a) the world is better than it has ever been and (b) the world is currently awful and (c) we can make the world much better, are all true statements. This good article was recently discussed on HN: https://ourworldindata.org/much-better-awful-can-be-better
> Presumably that extinction would take place several generations from now? One great way to avoid or slow extinction would be to procreate.
... is that necessarily true? If our current population is well above the long-term carrying capacity, in terms of maximizing 'time there are humans on the planet', could the best course involve letting the population decrease for an extended period, and then aiming for a steady population only after we're near that carrying capacity.
A yeast cell in a wine bottle can reproduce while sugar is plentiful, but the increased population leads to more rapid sugar consumption and eventually fermentation stops.
IMO the world might be messed up compared to the 80's or 90's, but take a broader look and we have never had it better than today. The average person living in the western world today has a standard of living high above what even nobility or kings would have in the middle ages and I would venture to say even a higher standard of living than the Vanderbilts or Rockerfellers did during the gilded age.
> I really feel we are at the beginning of a mass extinction
Yes, because of you. Go have kids. Ethiopians continued to have children during a decade-long famine and their population still increased. Stop making excuses for your own selfishness.
>it makes me feel bad (though not too bad at this point) that I have to log off at quittin' time, sharp, to go relieve my wife of some childcare and make a family dinner.
Nah, this part shouldn't be related to having kids or not. Even as a single person I have to log off to live my life, and overworking is not cool or hip.
Well, I have had jobs that have paid well, but not for long. If you're not working backwards from an accidental pregnancy, you just have to consider the volatility of your life, and the prospects for the future. My dad had me when he was 21, accidentally, in a time not so long ago where various alternatives weren't super available, and made it work (horribly) until they divorced, in one of the poorest and most isolated cities in Canada. He has however managed to work the same job for 30 years, and bought a house (with help from both sets of grandparents financially. Now, he does have the house, but he's had more kids in that time, and still works at the same company, but doesn't make enough to keep anything for later; it all goes to childcare and life.
In order to make something of what was an incredibly volatile childhood and an interest in computers, I eventually moved to a much more appealing and more expensive but larger pond that I could pay for at the time; my hometown just didn't really have a market. I'm also 31 now, nearly 32, and have only managed to bring in an income for a maximum of a year and a half since 18, have ended up without a stable housing situation for quite some time, and that's really difficult to pivot from if you consider that the bet you made on the thing you were capable of, just hasn't really panned out (frontend development apparently). What's next now that that the hypothetical prospects I'd have had in previous years have functionally evaporated? I'm not sure, but I'll pay for this basement apartment and drain my savings as I figure it out, going into my second year with no job of any kind.
Ironically, the people who got into trades that they had no prior knowledge of, and that didn't pursue the ambition to explore beyond the confines of their hometown, have the most stability. Me the idiot picked the computer thing and nobody taught me how to be sufficiently obedient or whatever.
So although I've been in positions where my salary was relatively higher than I could have ever imagined as a kid, I've always known it was going to disappear the next year in a layoff or a firing or a pandemic, and prospects for the future would always be just tenuous enough to barely be able to get by on my own or even with a partner. I don't take out debt, and all my money which stays liquid eventually goes to rent. I'm always in risk mitigation mode, because there's always been risk, and although I've never been compelled to have kids, some amount of that is predicated on the knowledge that it doesn't seem right to bring a kid up if I can't even figure out how to hold a job for 2 damn years.
It's something to consider. Tricky thing is, I think a lot of people already did that, and kind of feel like whichever one I do will already be saturated.
Second cousins would be your cousin's cousins. It basically comes down to which level of grandparent you have in common. Grandparents = cousins, great-grandparents = second cousins, great-great-grandparents = third cousins.
The "removed" refers to differences in generational cohort. So if you are connected to the person by your grandparent but that same person is a great-grandparent to the relative, that relative is once removed from you. So your first cousins' children are first cousins once removed. Their grandchildren would be your first cousins twice-removed.
I think it's a mix of many things with the cost of living be number one and way down list or in the middle it could be...
- social media (want beautiful family to post n get likes)
- online dating want the most attractive I can get so I can get likes for who I'm with and kids i made
- thus everyone is pursuing a certain types/groups who they interact with and get burned by cause they have so much choice ..then get jaded about dating.
Again those reasons are by far not on the top of list reasons why but are on the list.
Maybe Hollywood needs to start reshaping our beauty standards for the sake of the human race ;-)
Seen via Google News which could be creating a Truman Show type of life for me and others ... Google knows what i talk about online and shows me articles about possibly CNN gets this data and AI articles are created that are super targeted at me. YEAH (sarcasm) if true.
I feel obligated to share my counter example of anecdata.
Current team of 12, 9 are young parents, other 3 in committed relationships (international team based in North America + EU).
Previous team was around 50% parents, but people went on parental leave all the time, so the number kept increasing (company based in Germany, and basically the German half of the team had all the babies, the immigrant half almost none which is interesting).
And my brother and I got our first kids the same year, so the cousin bit is also covered.
> it makes me feel bad (though not too bad at this point) that I have to log off at quittin' time, sharp, to go relieve my wife of some childcare and make a family dinner.
Don't feel bad! I don't have kids and I always appreciate the example set by my coworkers and manager who mostly all have kids. They're very good about having an "end" to their day which makes me feel like it's ok to also call it an end to my day.
I used to work on a team where we were all young & partner-less, including my manager, and everyone just worked "constantly"-ish (like breaks for sleep or errands so it wasn't super intense), but it just felt like a 24/7 slow marathon instead of M-F 9-5-type work. It was absolutely awful. They were all so intelligent too so I felt like I had to do that just to try to keep up and never wanted to be the first one to log off early. We were at a giant company and not scrapping to survive or anything, that was just the micro-culture within the ~10 of us.
Yesterday's divorce thread quickly disappeared off the front page but it's the taboo topic you must understand if you want to understand why family formation in the western aligned world has declined so rapidly. As long as we have certain truths that cannot be questioned and blackhole any attempts to discuss them, confusion will prevail.
> And it's also a bit inconvenient that nobody else at work has such pressing obligations, it makes me feel bad...
I hope your peers ambivalence (educated guess here) towards your other responsibilities make your priorities obvious. Having been in a similar situation, I "lost" the corporate battle (was laid off) but as soon as I had kids I knew my priorities needed to change. I literally worked 8:30 - 5. That was it. I wasn't going to lose missing even the most mundane of times with my kids for some after hours "retro" or some early morning "pointing" session. Thats me tho, thats my deal.
Being a good parent is a hard job and yet if you want to be one, you're expected to pay for it with both your money and your time.
No wonder the middle class people don't want to have kids. The poorest think differently - they treat kids as an investment because that's the only investment they can have at all. The richest also treat kids as investment, for different reasons. The middle class is childless - can't afford to have the best standard of raising children, so they think they shouldn't have any - and they don't.
Added anecdata: A lot of my direct colleagues are getting married and having kids at the moment, often a bit later in life (in their and their partners 30's) than the preceding generation, but still.
Me and my siblings, none of us seem to have any inclination; combination of just not wanting them, having neurodiverse conditions that seem more debilitating than my parents' generation, and finances like only becoming homeowners in our mid 30's (and my younger sibling cannot afford a home)
There is never a good time to have kids, and so any time is a good time to have kids.
Maybe I'm a lucky one, but we took the plunge right at the end of biological possibility since we're old, and I only wish I had done this 20 years ago. It's such a wonderful experience and believe me I never would have guessed that.
There's nothing I was doing back then that mattered at all. And now I'll be lucky to see my kids graduate college because I waited so long.
In hindsight, the high school years would have been the perfect time to have children. No responsibilities, doing nothing of value, biology in its optimal state, and the greatest support network you're going to have. But at the same time I feel for those who did because I know they felt the terrible social scorn.
You spend all those years being told that having children is the worst mistake of your life, until you're in your 30s, and then all of sudden the same people are "What's your problem? Why haven't you had children already?" It's bizarre.
I have another anecdata for you. As a gay man living in a country that has very few children for adoption and bans surrogacy, I have given up on having kids.
First off, you shouldn't ever feel guilty about prioritizing your family over work. Please, never do that. I say that as a single 35 year old male. Secondly, I want you to understand that, though you may not realize it, you are in an extremely enviable position. To understand why people are not having children, you need to understand that in many places, it's not easy or convenient to have children.
I get the feeling these anecdotes are (unsurprisingly) biased towards young SF tech crowds.
My own experiences of being in my early 30s, born and raised on Long Island and now living in Boston, my circle of friends, relatives, and coworkers from both areas are having kids all over the place.
When my wife first became pregnant last year, it was actually a bit difficult finding openings with OBGYN offices in the general Boston area.
I had the same experience working for SF bay area tech companies, mid-size teams of high income 30 year olds and only a few people had kids.
Got a job with a company in the midwest, complete opposite. Almost everyone on my team has kids. That might suggest a lower cost of living is correlated with kids, but I think it is more of a cultural thing.
It's not that uncommon for women to have kids in their early 40s, though it certainly does start getting more difficult/sometimes impossible at that point.
It shouldn't. Life is pretty miserable for most people. Everyone is too busy to hang out and be relaxed. Having kids makes it even more so. Why do we want our kis to grow up like that too?
this is objectively untrue with respect to almost every single piece of data we have on this subject. Just because youre a misanthrope doesnt mean everyone else is.
I wonder - do you think the drop in fertility represents a rise in overall life satisfaction or a fall? I hadn't thought about it much myself, but it seems like it could go either way.
The drop in fertility represents a rise in endocrine-disrupting chemicals like microplastics. Lower testosterone makes one less horny and more neurotic -- so we get cities of insane people worrying about completely nonsensical made-up risks. This is the face of every conceivable metric that we live in the best time to live -- ever. Never before in human history have we been richer, more peaceful, more equal than we do today.
A lot of 27 year old women 50 years ago had a kid and another on the way.
A lot of 27 year old women I know today are planning trips to Europe next year. Are they more unhappy than previous generations? I don't see it. There's a lot of interesting things competing today with being a parent.
definitely a fall i would say. 80% of women who do not have children, either actually wanted children but couldnt have them, or regret not having them. the fertility crisis is a complete disaster on an incredible amount of levels for people and society. The fact governments arent doing more to address this is mind boggling
If so, then it's sort of strange to think that everything else in their lives is going so well then, isn't it? Perhaps your KPIs aren't telling you the full story or maybe happy people want fewer children?
>this is objectively untrue with respect to almost every single piece of data we have on this subject. Just because youre a misanthrope doesnt mean everyone else is.
Regret implies you wouldn't have regretted the other option, which is often not the case. It is entirely possible, and sometimes likely that you will regret your decision no matter which decision you make.
are hackernews commenters legally obligated to chime in with intense pedantry that is completely irrelevant to the larger point in order to feel like they are smarter than the person theyre responding to?
Look up the distribution of happiness in the US and other developed nations. Happiness is often lowest during childbearing years. Happiness in the US has been declining for about a decade.
Cousins once removed. Second cousins are your parent's cousins. And your cousin situation sounds a lot like mine and my children - not a lot of cousins happening.
If two people have the same grandparents, then they are cousins. If they have the same great grandparents, then they are second cousins. atomicnumber3 was referring to what atomicnumber3's kids would call atomicnumber3's cousin's kids.
Honestly, I appreciated "you" at my last job - I don't have kids, but work is not my life either, especially if I have to be in the office. I worked at a place where it was awkward to leave before 6:30pm, and the one person who always left around then was the guy with kids.
You're baffled people don't want kids? You couldn't pay me 3-10x to be 31 with 3 kids, lmao. And I'm almost 10 years older. I'm aging like fine wine with cool cars and vacations and obscene lofts downtown and you're going to be a turnip in 12 years with no savings because of college and child care fees.
I'm baffled people want kids, especially THREE. You have NO reason to have 3 kids.
And yeah, us child-free people absolutely know when you kid-poppers are constantly leaving work and can't be assed to take on priority projects because you've got to take Tommy and Madelyn to soccer and gymnastics at 3pm.
People value family differently. For some, their dream life is to have sick cars and a sweet loft, for others, it's to raise other humans to be good. You should probably understand that there are some that read your perspective on life as equally puzzling.
I agree that childcare and college is mad expensive. It's why people complain about these things as much as they do!
What I've always thought, as a parent: those without kids don't know what they're missing, and those with them know what they have.
I'm not saying this to try to brag about how I have some special thing in my life that you'll never understand. I'm saying it because it feels like a perfect system in a way - you simply don't miss what you don't have.
And lastly, those some sort of information bias at play. Non-parents hear all the time about how parents don't have time for this or that, or they hear them talk about how annoying their child is being. But most people have the self-awareness to not just sit and gush over how great their kid is to their non-parents friends, and even when they do, it's just obnoxious.
Oh I love parents and I don't have any problems with kids. Still consider them sometimes.
I was just bothered by the "I'm baffled by.." part of this specific post.
And you're 100% on the "don't know what we're missing," part. I haven't been married either, so no wedding, no births, no kids, it's an entire other lifestyle I basically won't have any interaction with if it doesn't happen, and it's a weird/scary thing because who knows which is better? Or what we're happier with in the end if we couldn't try both?
I'm straight but I kind of tell myself nowadays that all my gay friends are living that lifestyle and they're very happy from what I can tell so .. maybe it's not bad. But there are gay couples with kids, I don't know any. I haven't had the nerve to ask my good friend if he wanted/wants kids. Never know if thats a tough subject or not.
My only major parent pet peeve... is the word kiddos. And doggos. You can bring your screaming kids over to my pool to destroy my backyard and let all the bugs in cause they dont close doors while you get high and drunk but don't call them kiddos to me. I cannot deal with the mom forum abbreviations like DH (dear husband) and all that.. stuff. When it bleeds over to reddit etc, thankfully rarely, it hurts me to read.
I don't even care that parent coworkers leave to deal with parent stuff, at all. It actually makes ME feel less bad about leaving to do my personal stuff. I'm REALLY bad about being too anxious to leave. A lot better later in my career but early on I would never leave.
On my team of 15 only 3 don’t have kids, though there is a wide age range (24-55) the ones without kids are in their 30s but have indicated no interest. But only 2 have more than 2 kids (3). One has two of her own and now that they’re grown up she just adopted 2 high school age kids, which is very commendable, (and a huge undertaking) but I don’t really count it in terms of procreation.
I've worked with plenty of people who have no visible significant other, even. It's fucking weird. Thirty+ (40+) year old guys living alone in huge houses, never married. I'm guessing they are just hitting up sex workers. These are smart, well adjusted people who would have made good fathers.
Maybe they just never met the right lady. Calling it "fucking weird" seems a bit over the top, and contradictory to your statement about working with plenty of them.
I guess the older I get, the more unclear I am on what normal is supposed to be or what it ever was. What percentage of men historically even had children? My impression is that it has always been significantly less than the percentage of women who do.
Historically as in recent history or more distant?
In more distant history, yes most women had children and many men did not.
In recent history (in the west), I believe the ratio was much more equal due to culturally enforced monogamy. Obviously it was never 100% followed but I believe it made a very large impact on this metric.
if you don't meet the right lady by 40 then you haven't been looking hard enough. meaning, you were not really interested or focused on getting married. i am the only male among all my cousins that i know of to be married with children. and i am your proverbial geek who has a hard time meeting women. which my cousins or brothers are not. they had more opportunities to meet women than me (as far as i can tell), but for me, getting married and having children was one of my life goals. i achieved my goal. my brothers or cousins simply didn't even have that goal.
Maybe they're just not into it? Some people enjoy living alone without a committed relationship.
A lot of users in this thread assume that everyone's goal is to marry and have children. A lot of people are not interested in that, partly because they have other interests, and partly because the social pressure is not as strong as before.
It is wrong that our society rewards drinking beers with tech bros and “skydiving” hobbies and what not fucking weird stuff.
And doesn’t reward that much investments of money and parental time into having healthy and educated kids.
Educated and well rounded kids, teenagers and adults don’t come free for society. It requires a lot of work, money, time and love. Ridiculous amounts.
To a degree this resource can be stolen from other countries, via immigration. But this only works to a degree and at a larger scale it is still a zero sum game.
From experience, I can tell you that women are far more attracted to the beer-swilling bros who jump out of airplanes than the quiet, introverted engineers who retire each night to their homes to relax while cooking dinner and watching TV. That doesn't make for a particularly interesting date. So it goes.
As a quiet introverted engineer who went out on many dates and got married I couldn’t disagree more. Maybe it depends on age. What you say is probably true at age 21, by 29 most of the women I met were very set on meeting a serious life partner, not a bro. I found that actually talking to them about their interests and engaging with that did wonders, even if my introverted instincts didn’t tell me to.
As a quiet introverted engineer who went out on many dates
as a quiet introverted engineer who almost never went out on dates i have to agree with GP ;-)
actually talking to them about their interests and engaging with that did wonders
completely aside from the topic, this is very important relationship advice.
love means to care about your partner and their interests and goals.
finding a compatible partner means to look for someone whose goals and interests do not conflict with yours. (the need or should not be the same, but it should be possible for each partner to continue to pursue their goals with the strong support of the other partner.)
As an introvert, I feel I had to work harder to compensate for the fact that I didn't naturally find myself in environments where I'd meet people and engage with them, but I've also found that the attraction I've gotten from women has steading increased over time. I've found it far easier to date in my 40's than in my 20's. Not just people who wanted a serious life partner. Some of it does seem to be women equating older men with more maturity, some of it hopefully reflects actual maturity...
I don't know if you had to learn how to do this, but for me I think a large part of it is also the same thing you mention - it took a lot of effort for me to figure out, but the same parts of my nature that was a disadvantage for me when younger drove me to experiment, even take notes, until I figured out what I got wrong and how to improve myself.
Ironically I've found one of my best assets when dating in my 40's was my past struggles. Particularly recognising them and being able to use them to give observations about how clueless men tend to be about dating based on the mistakes I used to make myself.
> To a degree this resource can be stolen from other countries, via immigration. But this only works to a degree and at a larger scale it is still a zero sum game.
It's going to increasingly become a challenge. China's population is contracting. India has hit replacement and will start to see decline barring immigration over the next 20-30 years. Only sub-Saharan Africa is left with above replacement birth rates.
We're about to hit increasingly aggressive competition both to hold on to people, and to attract immigrants as more and more countries start getting bitten by demographic shifts.
At the same time it's going to have significant economic ramifications when more and more market categories stop getting "free growth" from growing population sizes.
> We're about to hit increasingly aggressive competition both to hold on to people, and to attract immigrants as more and more countries start getting bitten by demographic shifts.
This has an implied assumption that either more population is always better or that for all of the countries the current population is below the optimum level.
What if for some countries the best population size - the one that provides the best quality of life for its citizens - is close to the current one, not larger? What if for some countries the most favorable population size is below the one they currently have?
It has the implied assumption that a functioning economy is linked strongly to the number of people of working age relative to the number of people outside it, and part of the population decline comes with an inversion of the population pyramid where an increasing proportion of the population is retired.
As such, even if there is a "best" population size below the current population size, you will face massive upheaval if the decline toward that size isn't happening slowly enough that you can offset that either with technology, temporary workers, or just grit.
You also have no reason to assume the drop will stop at whatever level you want, and so you will see even countries where people do think some reduction is fine start to aggressively compete to hold on people or attract immigrants at whatever level they feel will give them a soft-enough landing and then stabilization.
E.g. you can look to Italy over the coming years. Italy is already in population decline, yet has a government many consider far-right and anti-immigrant - clearly, Italy is not ready to loosen up immigration to stem it yet, and is willing to accept even increasing the rate of its population decline while trying to address the underlying fertility rate.
Personally, I expect to see a major change in policy from Italy once this really starts to bite, but their current unemployment rate will still buffer them for a few more years (and once it drops, it might well create a slight rebound, but even if that happens, it's unlikely to do more than slow the decline slightly, and won't address the labour market for more than two decades).
If I'm right, you should start to see the tone change once the unemployment rate drops a bit further and pressure from businesses in need of labour starts affecting Italian politics more, followed first by increased attempts at appealing to European migrants first, with e.g. tax breaks and the like, before they eventually give in and start rolling back the restrictions on non-EU migration.
> We're about to hit increasingly aggressive competition both to hold on to people, and to attract immigrants as more and more countries start getting bitten by demographic shifts.
And yet we are seeing more and more walls (literally and figuratively) that rich countries put in the way. Even for "desirable" people immigrating and naturalizing in a western country the whole process is quite degrading, all the quotas and queues for H1B/Green cards, constant threat of deportation if person lost a job and couldn't find another one in very short time period, arbitrary delays and constrains on getting citizenship, etc.
Because it hasn't started to bite enough yet for the most desirable targets, coupled with politicians that have painted themselves into corners and are struggling to find ways out.
E.g. in the UK, the last several Conservative governments have on one hand presented themselves as tough on immigration, with deals to send asylum seekers to Rwanda (a few hours worth of applicants is all the deal can accommodate), putting them on barges (another few hours worth), turning back boat refugees, etc., while at the same time presiding over the largest increase in net migration in British history.
Predictably the conflict between that image and reality is starting to cause problems for them, and while immigration numbers are still high enough despite a process that is intentionally hostile, eventually the supply of people wanting to come will dip below the numbers that still allow the UK to be selective about whom to accept.
We've already gotten a slight taste of that with the sharp dip in EU/EEA migrants, who, as it turns out don't feel the UK is worth it enough to go through the immigration process vs. just showing up the way we could before (I'm in the UK with EU/EEA Settled status), and it's caused assorted groups complaining..
It will take until you have broader labour shortages before you see the real pressure though - especially countries buffered by unemployment will be able to put it off a bit longer, but when it hits, it will hit hard and just raising fertility rates won't be sufficient, because it has a lag of 2 decades of worsening conditions before it even starts reversing the drop in the labour supply.
It's going to increasingly become a challenge. China's population is contracting.
i think the economic differences and the population density still make immigration a viable strategy for some time to come, despite contracting population everywhere.
the future will be that the population in every larger city will consists of least a quarter chinese and indian (and eventually african as well).
It will be a viable strategy for decades, you're right, in as much as UN population projections don't show an actual global population decline until around 2100 or so.
The challenges that will bring, though, is policy, and which countries are attractive enough to "sit back" vs. being forced to offer increasingly attractive incentives, and where it will cause substantial political complications.
E.g. China is notorious for it being near impossible to permanently settle as an immigrant. I expect that aside from increasingly drastic measures to try to bring the fertility rate back up you'll see their first attempts be to entice the diaspora back to China, secondly an increase in rhetoric about One China towards Taiwan, and only well after those attempts to loosen up visa requirements for foreigners with no ancestral ties to China.
We'll see the return of diasporas increasingly becoming a problem for countries that has come to rely on certain immigrant flows.
A lot of countries will find political tension between forces wanting to more actively court immigrants vs. anti-immigrant groups becoming increasingly challenging and a major economic issue.
> To a degree this resource can be stolen from other countries, via immigration. But this only works to a degree and at a larger scale it is still a zero sum game
It can actually be a net negative for both the home country and host country of the immigrants. The home country may lose some of their more ambitious members. And there is a significant cost to a host country that is now accommodating a potentially large number of people from faraway places with vastly different cultures. (Some may ignore or deny these costs, but they're real and being felt in many ways e.g. in the US right now.)
> And there is a significant cost to a host country that is now accommodating a potentially large number of people from faraway places with vastly different cultures. (Some may ignore or deny these costs, but they're real and being felt in many ways e.g. in the US right now.)
You are being down-voted, but I'm curious what are the costs of having _legal, desirable_ immigrants in the US in your opinion? (because I would assume that OP meant specifically that group when writing "this resource can be stolen from other countries, via immigration").
I also worked with a 60+ woman who once said at the lunch table "if you're a 35 year old guy and single there's something seriously wrong with you". Maybe you would have hit it off with her.
I'm one of those. Very shy even into my late 20s. Then my Dad got sick so I was his support for nearly 20 years. Life went by and now it's too late to have kids. No woman of child bearing age wants to date a middle-aged man 10 years her senior. So really why bother even trying to have a relationship at this point?
Plenty of women wants to date a guy 10, 20 or even 30 years her senior. Especially if he's financially secure, wants a stable relationship, is reasonably healthy and treats her well.
If you have your life in order, all you have to do is to look in the right places. Those places exist in any country, but if you're a man like that and look on dating sites for Thailand or the Philippines, you will find 10 women that want to marry you within an hour or two.
However, if you're broke, don't have a decent job and have serious health problems, you may indeed by out of luck.
Not to give OP fuel for his fire, but just to be real because I am so sick of seeing these misleading comments all over the internet:
It's not just finding a woman who is willing. It's finding a woman who is a quality person that you have an attraction to that is willing.
When you are a woman who is sane, smart, have your life together, and is decent looking, you have many choices for a partner. Many of these woman can easily find high quality men who are their own age and have the same life situation.
So while yes, it does happen that the 50 yr old guy meets the amazing 33 yr old woman. Far more often than not, the amazing 33 yr old woman meets to amazing 33 yr old guy.
Unless you are down with divorced w/kids. Then it gets much easier. But you will be second to her kids.
> So while yes, it does happen that the 50 yr old guy meets the amazing 33 yr old woman. Far more often than not, the amazing 33 yr old woman meets to amazing 33 yr old guy.
This is absolutely true, well at least if you include those amazing people who met even earlier than 33. Amazing people tend to have options whether they are male, female or even other.
Those less amazing (the remaining 60-80%, depending on who's counting), often have to lower their standards or expectations in some way, unless they're lucky and find a special soulmate. Indeed, if someone is 35+ and still single, chances are their expectations are not aligned with what they themselves have to offer.
I've been there myself. Only when I decided that I did NOT want to remain single for the rest of my life and became serious about finding a partner did that change. And it changed virtually overnight.
Maybe just having a friend; as I've said elsewhere in the thread, I never really got the whole marriage/kids idea myself, but perhaps now that I'm also aging out of childbearing age, dating will be less complicated once any expectation of children are out of the picture.
Maybe They haven't found the one who they want and or wants them ..too maybe they aren't into women. With society being more accepting of same sex situations I'm pretty sure I read the number of those who identify something other then straight has increased.
Frankly, I never really got why people wanted children in the first place, so this turnabout is amusing. Perhaps you can ask some of these people that you are close with as to their reasoning.
It's the simplest answer. I find life to be worth living, I am grateful I have life and it's the most meaningful to me to be able to give life to someone else and try to make it as good and meaningful for them as possible.
And it can be so fun. I just taught my 3 year old to ride a bike and for the first time today we went for a bike ride along the boardwalk, each on our bikes. I had a pretty amazing single life but I would be hard-pressed to think of anything that matched how much fun this was for me.
I suppose we come at life from very different perspectives, shaped by our culture and our family. It is very hard for me imagine how someone must feel about their life and the world to say "nope, it ends with me." I know people do it but... I don't envy that starting point.
When it ends, it ends, and that's it regardless of how many others you created who will now go on to face their own ends. I get that somehow people are able to live in denial of the ultimate extinction of their being, but I never really seemed to be able to get the hang of that. To each their own.
This sounds familiar, perhaps you and I have discussed it before.
My life matters to me as a vehicle for what truly matters: if my descendants are thriving, and my values are upheld, whether I am physically here once I've contributed to it, is completely irrelevant to me.
I will fight to live as long and as well as I can, but only because that increases my opportunity to contribute what I want. Merely "existing" is not my highest value and therefore is not the thing I worry about solely.
It's certainly possible, but I've seen others here express the same sentiment. Another poster once posted a quite insightful comment about Nietzsche that really described a lot of the problems of nihilism that captured the feelings that I've had since realizing the unreality of religion at a young age, so I'm not exactly alone even if I am a bit of an outlier.
It goes back further than that. "To be or not to be" is indeed THE question, or rather THE choice, especially if you have the type of personality that tends to lead to an existential crisis at some point in your life.
In the end, as far as I can tell, there is no obvious "meaning" in life beyond what we decide to attach meaning to. And "to be" is a prerequisite for most objectives we may attach it to.
Having offspring can be seen as an extension to this. It is to decide that "beeing" will go on even after you as an individual dies.
I mean, I'm not trying to be bleak, but do you have any evidence that any of the religions out there can deliver on their promises? Like I'd be somewhat inclined to listen, but extraordinary claims and all that...
I am not the one you're asking but I was born an atheist and discovered religion as an adult, through intellect. Here's my answer from that background.
Ready? The answer is "we don't know." There may be a Gd, there may not be. There may be meaning, there may not be. You can't really know either way.
The answer is that it doesn't matter. The question is what kind of life do you want to live. One that lives as if there's meaning or one that lives as if there isn't? I know my answer. If I get to the end and turns out the meaning was just something I made for myself, and that there's nothing special about my children and my values other than my deep affinity for them... that'd still be a pretty great life.
Evolution has equipped us with a pretty generous frontal cortex so we have a sort of escape hatch to reflect and decide on whether to act on our biological imperatives. Reduction of human beings to 'biological organisms' as if we're humping rabbits is no less weird.
We haven't escaped any biological imperative. We still have sex. The desire to have sex is the biological imperative that produces offspring, and we haven't lost that. It's because we invented birth control that now the desire to have sex is not enough. We need a desire to have kids. Natural selection will make that desire stronger over time.
> Natural selection will make that desire stronger over time.
Natural selection doesn't work like that.
There is no guarantee that traits appear because they are needed ; only that traits that somehow appear may spread if they are useful or associated with something else that is useful.
But don't we have that trait already in some form? Some people want kids, others don't. The traits that make a person more likely to want kids will become more common.
If we don't have such a trait and the decision to have kids is based entirely on the environment, then this evolution will be cultural instead of biological. Cultures that have more kids will replace those that don't.
My point is more theoretic that an actual reflection on what will actually happen, because I'm not better than the next person at predictions. Simply put: just because a species needs to change in order to adapt, doesn't mean they do. Geologic strata are littered with species that no longer exists.
As for culture, it is not a static thing, or indissociable from individuals. My grandmothers had 6 and 8 kids, most of my cousins have 0-2 kids. So considering my grandmothers' behaviour and my cousins', Are they from the same culture? Will people that reproduce more today convince their children to do the same?
In either analysis, it's really hard to use natural selection as a predictive tool.
We, or at least some of us, most definitely have such traits.
Holding newborn babies tend to have a quite obvious and equally instant hormonal effect on a lot of people. For some people, even a few such encounters may be enough to induce baby fever.
And there are other factors at play, too, that are also inheritable. Factors like impulse control, introversion / shyness, ambitiousness drive and tendency to magical /religious thinking may all affect the number of offspring one way or the other.
So all that is needed is a few generation of strong selection pressure for such traits, and we're back to overpopulation again being a much bigger threat than population collapse.
Even better, invent tools so we can still hump like rabbits but not be burdened with the results. Good stuff. Evolution gonna take a while to figure out a response.
Unless it already figured it out, and placed the solution in the gene pool. In that case, a few generations of natural selection is all that will be needed.
Does it not strike you as strange though that so many different nations / cultures are all seeing the same downward trend at the same time? There is something about it that feels like a biological imperative.
We have better things to do than hump like rabbits? We don’t need kids to work the farm, or to provide net positive muscle power input to the economy. We have machines for that.
>higher rates than before (welcome hookup culture)
Got any source to back that up? All surveys I have seen point to younger generations having less sex, fewer relationships, and even just drinking less than their ancestors. Remember, the boomers were the "free love" hippies and then STDs became a serious concern, and we decided we should warn kids about consequences of sex.
A fire has no cortex whatsoever, and yet if fire did not continue doing what fire does in order to stay fire - turn things that are "not fire" into itself- it would cease to exist altogether. That's all there is to it. There is no big picture.
edit: I expected apathy at best from a comment this deep in a thread. Now, granted, HN does not stand for Hard Nihilism, but four downvotes with zero explanations in under an hour suggests there is an incurious hostility toward the view that people (myself included) are, like fire, essentially just echoes of thermodynamics.
> That's all there is to it. There is no big picture.
Even if it is correct (which you haven’t tried to support, just claiming that you know best), how is it relevant? If there’s no bigger picture then what’s wrong with going extinct which should push us to procreate? The comparison to fire - the human population is the highest it’s ever been and still increasing so it doesn’t seem like we are “going out“, and if that was happening the collapse of civilisation would lead to the loss of the ability to mass manufacture birth control and loss of the medical systems supporting them at some point, and the population would go up again after that, wouldn’t it? Fire runs out of fuel, but human food grows on trees - less humans leads to more ecosystem regeneration which could support more humans.
> "an incurious hostility toward the view that people (myself included) are, like fire, essentially just echoes of thermodynamics."
I thought we were “just“ hydraulic systems? Just LLMs? Just clockwork? Humans are just {recent scientific discovery of the era} is an interesting view on its own but is it relevant to the thread? "We are just thermodynamic systems ... so we should reproduce"?
OP is saying that we have a complex brain which allows us to reflect on our biological impulses and choose whether or not to answer the instinct to reproduce. I'm arguing instead that we - as complex frontal-cortex-having organisms - have no more choice than fire does whether to make more of ourselves. And abstractly our existence follows the same flowchart as that of a fire but, as the kids say these days, "with extra steps." Our integrity and thus identity floats upon a process of degrading complex configurations of energy into simpler, uniform ones.
If fire were to gain sentience and therefore know what it was up to, this would not change its essential prerogative to keep doing it, in order to be able to keep doing it.
I'm older and also never wanted kids. There was a brief moment in my 20s where I would have been ok with it, but the relationship I was in didn't workout and that was that. Now I've been married a long time, and we had the no kid conversation on date one. Instead we rescue dogs and are in the process of moving and semi-retiring in a small coastal town in Italy.
My desire for not having kids is rooted in my own childhood. My parents had me at 19, we were poor and struggled for much of my early life. My mom used to say, "don't have kids until after college unless you want to work at McDonalds". And, for better or worse, my drive became for financial security above all else.
I dunno, I grew up in a family of 5 kids, and it just never really occurred to me to not have them. I think my greatest regret in life is going to be having only one :/
However, I have no issues with people that don’t want them. To each their own.
Honestly, it’s a relief when there’s other kids to play with him. I love having 3 kids in the house at the same time and to just guide them in their play, instead of having to _be_ the playmate. I’m pretty young, but I do not have the kind of imagination required to keep that up for a day :P
If he’s been outside running around the street with his friends all day it hasn’t cost me anything and the evenings are so much easier/relaxed.
I remember that being the same for me, except that I always had people to play with around, because they were living in the same house.
For me, I consider bringing a new human life into existence to be one of the most net positive things a human being can do. It's also one of the most reliably net positive things.
Economists have very roughly estimated the value of a human life at around $10,000,000 these days, and there are reasons to suspect this is a vast underestimate for my kids in particular. The total cost to me as a parent to rear this golden goose? Somewhere around $100,000 total, spread over the course of 18 years. What a bargain!
There are of course things one can do which are worth even more, but it's exceedingly hard to reliably become a billionaire, or even to found a billion dollar company. But any old schmuck can nut inside a woman and force push eight figures worth of bliss into the source code of reality!
People nowadays focus on career till 30 and after 30 (when you loose that naive optimistic outlook on life) realize that having kids is too much of a risky obligation - you don't have any guarantee that you will remain healthy enough to sustain family till they grow up and that your kids will be born healthy. Also, life has gotten quite expensive.
On top of that, at my last job, on my team of 15, I was the only one with kids, and only 1 of those 15 engineers were under the age of 30. At my current job, my team is 8, and again we're all about 30, and nobody is even thinking about kids at all.
It baffles me. And it's also a bit inconvenient that nobody else at work has such pressing obligations, it makes me feel bad (though not too bad at this point) that I *have* to log off at quittin' time, sharp, to go relieve my wife of some childcare and make a family dinner.