Live data from Hacker News

The Price of a Child (2013)

priceonomics.com

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: The Price of a Child (2013)

#11

I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.

Also reproduction rates. From what I understand, in hunter-gatherer societies, children were breast-fed for a number of years, and, since women generally are infertile when nursing, children were spaced out. With agriculture infants came to be fed on porridge, goats milk, etc, and so the size of families increased greatly. And this made sense economically, since children can't hunt and are of limited use gathering, but even a very young one can pull weeds.

Re: The Price of a Child (2013)

#12

I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.

You can't seriously think mother's have not mourned a dead child at all times.

Even from the logical point of view of if they don't love and miss why care for the child at all.

Re: The Price of a Child (2013)

#13

I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.

You can't seriously think mother's have not mourned a dead child at all times. Even from the logical point of view of if they don't love and miss why care for the child at all.

Of course they did, but there's still a big difference between a society where child death is a rare tragedy and one where child death is unavoidable and common.

Re: The Price of a Child (2013)

#14

I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.

You can't seriously think mother's have not mourned a dead child at all times. Even from the logical point of view of if they don't love and miss why care for the child at all.

Yes, and another key difference between 17th and 21st century Europe is the status of women. Starting with literacy; we can record our sorrows now.

I wonder whether contemporary societies with less status for women and lower female literacy also have less formal/legal value on children. (India?)

Re: The Price of a Child (2013)

#15

I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.

Also reproduction rates. From what I understand, in hunter-gatherer societies, children were breast-fed for a number of years, and, since women generally are infertile when nursing, children were spaced out. With agriculture infants came to be fed on porridge, goats milk, etc, and so the size of families increased greatly. And this made sense economically, since children can't hunt and are of limited use gathering, b…

>since women generally are infertile when nursing

Fertility may be reduced but they are absolutely not infertile.

Source: a friend of my wife who got pregnant while breastfeeding and various doctors and midwives who repeated "you can get pregnant while breastfeeding" like some sort of chant in the weeks following the birth of our child.

Re: The Price of a Child (2013)

#16
post #5
post #2

boy for sale, https://frinkiac.com/caption/S08E13/800415

A real family, sold in Chicago in 1948: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/hammond/sold-off-sib...

Site required me to answer survey questions before revealing the text of the article.

Re: The Price of a Child (2013)

#17
post #8

I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.

Maybe not. Listening to the History of England podcast, was pointed to the poem "Pearl" https://interestingliterature.com/2016/02/03/a-short-summary... and http://www.billstanton.co.uk/pearl/pearl_new.htm which includes a father's grieving for his lost two year old daughter. So some evidence that these losses were keenly felt.

Another famous example is Wordsworth's "Suprised by joy - impatient as the wind", c. 1800. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2008/sep/22/poem... for the poem and exposition.

Re: The Price of a Child (2013)

#18
post #10
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not. Listening to the History of England podcast, was pointed to the poem "Pearl" https://interestingliterature.com/2016/02/03/a-short-summary... and http://www.billstanton.co.uk/pearl/pearl_new.htm which includes a father's grieving for his lost two year old daughter. So some evidence that these losses were keenly felt.

Another example are Laments by a great Polish 16th century poet (Kochanowski). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laments_(Kochanowski)

Also from the American tradition I wish my baby was born. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sFpU3zslpHw

Re: The Price of a Child (2013)

#20

I imagine that people were largely indifferent to the loss of a child in "ye olden times" because it was expected, and they hardened themselves to the probability. Childhood mortality was atrocious back in the day.

Are we indifferent to our parents dying later in life as we're hardened to the probability?

It might make it slightly easier having an expectation. But indifferent seems a massive stretch.

Post reply on HN