The Middle Child Is Going Extinct • Hacker News Board

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#31

Post by wool_gather » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:12 PM UTC

squarefoot wrote: post #17

Robotbeat wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. There’s so many people who cannot have biological children (for many reasons), so practically speaking a large percentage of those who can should have at least 3 or the population will decline.

Many of us, including the planet under our feet, don't see it as a problem. https://www.populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03... I don't think there was anyone in the 1960s screaming "oh crap... there's only 3 billions of us around here!". We're so used to think the now and here as normal conditions that we lose focus on the global trend which is absolutely disastrous.

It is a bit of a problem inasmuch as core values/ideas are often (not always, but often) transmitted by family connections. So paradoxically, concern for the planet leading you to not have children could reduce the relative number of people who share your concern.

Then again, there are other memes that lead not just to lack of reproduction, but directly to the death of the memeholder, so maybe it's not such a big deal. Still, just another thing to wonder/worry about.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#32

Post by craftyguy » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

cncrnd wrote: post #16

What a shame, back in the day people used to have odd numbers of children.

Interestingly enough, both of my parents came from families with even numbers of children, and it was a lot.

BTW, 1 is also odd, so I'm not sure if you're just trying to say "used to have 3 children" or literally an odd number (1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 23, etc)

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#33

Post by zasz » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

phamilton wrote: post #30

kaycebasques wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems implicitly related to reducing population. E.g. I’ve heard that hunter-gatherers adjusted their populations depending on whether there was lean or bountiful food. What you’re mentioning seems to be the modern equivalent of that.

> hunter-gatherers adjusted their populations depending on whether there was lean or bountiful food I almost feel like that's self regulating. Scarcity of food results in malnourishment which if it doesn't kill anyone directly, will result in other sickness being more likely to kill people. Same with children surviving to adulthood.

It is, but some foraging societies used infanticide as well.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#34

Post by danieltillett » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #24

danieltillett wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is natural selection in action. Those that have children are of the future, those that don't are of the past. There is a huge shortage of smart people on the planet to solve the many problems that exist. The best way we know to create more smart people is to encourage smart people to have more children. Unfortunately we seem especially good as a society at identifying smart people and discouraging them from hav…

Children per couple goes down as quality of life goes up. All developed countries see birthrates decrease. No one is actively discouraging smart people from reproducing -- they're just better off and don't need children as a safety net for retirement, and they can access good birth control. The idea that smart people are only produced by other smart people is nonsense. Genes regress to the mean, so most smart people…

Yes nobody is activily discouraging smart people directly from having children (this is why it natural and not artificial selection), but it is still selection.

Where did I say smart people having children is the only way to create smart people or that intelligence is only affected by genes? Please read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Smart people are the people that have the ability to solve the hard problems we face. We have a huge number of very hard problems in the world and not enough smart people to solve them all. We need more smart people.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#35

Post by kaycebasques » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:19 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #25

kaycebasques wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of responses disagreeing with this idea. I’ll lend some balance and mention that I’ve had the exact same reasoning in my own plans for the future. I won’t pretend to argue that I’m normal or abnormal, though. Haven’t done any research on the topic.

I can totally see that you are voting on that issue with your choice, however, does that mean that everyone else is doing the same?

Like I said, I’m not claiming to be normal or abnormal, meaning I don’t know if it extends to others. You’re not providing evidence to the contrary, either, so you’re word is as good as mine.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#36

Post by codingdave » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:21 PM UTC

polarix wrote: post #3

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth. With that context, I can clearly see why no…

Are you under the impression that all families exactly hit their target number of children? Some people cannot have any children, but desperately want them. Some have one or two, but want more. Some people... well, not everything is planned. I know a woman who wanted one more child, and had triplets. And that isn't even getting into people who foster and adopt children.

In short, while I can see the logic in your stance... it has little bearing on the reality of creating a family.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#37

Post by phkahler » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:22 PM UTC

polarix wrote: post #3

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth. With that context, I can clearly see why no…

I like the idea of SJWs voluntarily halting their genetic lines.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#38

Post by dabbledash » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:28 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #19

polarix wrote: post #3

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth. With that context, I can clearly see why no…

No it is natural selection in action. Those that have children are of the future, those that don't are of the past. There is a huge shortage of smart people on the planet to solve the many problems that exist. The best way we know to create more smart people is to encourage smart people to have more children. Unfortunately we seem especially good as a society at identifying smart people and discouraging them from hav…

I’m not sure that is the best way we know.

There are already many smart people who aren’t helping to solve those problems because they haven’t received the necessary education. I’d go so far as to say we’re probably missing out on the potential contributions of most smart people now.

What we need to do is figure out a way to radically increase access to education worldwide.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#39

Post by danieltillett » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:28 PM UTC

wool_gather wrote: post #28

danieltillett wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is natural selection in action. Those that have children are of the future, those that don't are of the past. There is a huge shortage of smart people on the planet to solve the many problems that exist. The best way we know to create more smart people is to encourage smart people to have more children. Unfortunately we seem especially good as a society at identifying smart people and discouraging them from hav…

It's not very clear what the connection is between your two paragraphs. In fact, they seem contradictory; why does natural selection lead to fewer smart people having children?

It is just a consequence of the human environment changing. Birth control and the modern education system disproportionally effect the number of children smart people have. The end result is the smarter you are the less children you will have all other factors being equal.

Another major factor contributing is children are very expensive and smart children are much more expensive to raise than the average child.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#40

Post by greglindahl » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:29 PM UTC

kaycebasques wrote: post #35

greglindahl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can totally see that you are voting on that issue with your choice, however, does that mean that everyone else is doing the same?

Like I said, I’m not claiming to be normal or abnormal, meaning I don’t know if it extends to others. You’re not providing evidence to the contrary, either, so you’re word is as good as mine.

"This idea" is that everyone is voting, not that you personally were voting, or that I personally was voting.

If you instead wanted to provide yourself as an anecdote, that's different.

Sorry that I was unclear. Personal anecdotes are quite different from claiming something is a global rule. I was just trying to double-check that you were giving an anecdote.