The global population pyramid • Hacker News Board

Re: The global population pyramid

#91

Post by c0vfefe » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:29 PM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #27

bhouston wrote: post #25

My concern is that population will shrink after 2100 globally but it will already be shrinking in the rich countries long before that. And all indicators right now is that shrinkage will speed up. There is something wrong with rich modern secular society here or anywhere (it happens to all societies right now whether they are European, Japanese, Chinese, etc) in that it currently leads to sub replacement reproduction…

I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…

Perhaps the convenience of modern life discourages having lots of kids. Since they're no longer needed to work the family farm, and are more likely to live past infancy, and will almost always function as a huge liability of time & money, why would a modern couple try to have more kids than are necessary for their own emotional fulfillment? That seems to be most people's unconscious driving factor in reproduction.

Re: The global population pyramid

#92

Post by pabl0rg » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #54

koonsolo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…

> A family is made up of a man and a women, who support each other in their strengths and interests, and raise children together. So why not focus on the "together" part instead of trying to force partners into segregated roles? As you note yourself, stay at home mothers are in a precarious position (and, curiously, enthusiasm among males for traditional motherhood is NOT correlated with enthusiasm for lifelong alimo…

As a recent parent, view makes a lot of sense to me. Two weeks of parental leave is absolutely insufficient. There are probably a lot of other variables at play but Norway, which I’m sure encourages women to enter ‘male’ lines of work has a more sustainable population than Italy, which has a weaker social net.

https://www.populationpyramid.net/norway/2017/

https://www.populationpyramid.net/italy/2017/

Re: The global population pyramid

#93

Post by collyw » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

theandrewbailey wrote: post #63

patentatt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I got two weeks parental leave when my child was born. Civilized nations provide 6 months or more for both mother and father. My wife could take a couple years off of work, but then her career would be set back to square one. I elected to seriously downshift my own career just so I could see my kids on a daily basis. By that I m…

> I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I don't understand how supporting families means devaluing women. What exactly do you mean by "devalue"? If motherhood is the stated goal of a woman, and she achieves it, how/why is she "devalued"? If it brings her meaning and fulfillment, isn't that something to be celebrated and respected? I'm also bothered by your swipe aga…

From a purely economic perspective, staying at home raising kids isn't going to generate you any income. We should perhaps value mothers in other ways, but money is the principal indicator of value in our current society.

Re: The global population pyramid

#94

Post by mr_overalls » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

trabant00 wrote: post #46

threeseed wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words fail me reading comments like this. To say that "women" should be "women" and not do "men" things is an attitude that belongs in the dark ages. It's sexist. It's degrading. It treats women like mindless children who can't make their own choices about what work they want to do. Nobody is forcing women to go into STEM. We are encouraging them because unfortunately they have to deal with toxic attitudes all the ti…

We should support any woman that wants to work in STEM. We should NOT encourage anybody to work in STEM. Women are more likely to want to work with people, not sit in a chair looking at a screen, droning for the corporation 8 hours per day. The "toxic environment" is just what the field is. Dehumanizing by definition. It's got nothing to do with patriarchy or whatever else trending buzzword corporations push promotin…

People should be free to do what interests them, and should be encouraged to follow careers that benefit society and themselves.

Maybe we need _fewer_ people - men and women - giving each other head injuries in combat sports. Fewer people fighting in senseless wars.

Maybe we need safer worksites, so that people - men and women - can work in construction or mining if it appeals to them.

Re: The global population pyramid

#95

Post by c0vfefe » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #54

koonsolo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…

> A family is made up of a man and a women, who support each other in their strengths and interests, and raise children together. So why not focus on the "together" part instead of trying to force partners into segregated roles? As you note yourself, stay at home mothers are in a precarious position (and, curiously, enthusiasm among males for traditional motherhood is NOT correlated with enthusiasm for lifelong alimo…

> being raised almost exclusively by one parent, and having the other confine themselves to cutting checks.

If that's how you see the environment that a stay-at-home parent produces, with a full-time employed parent functioning only as a vending machine, then how could two working parents be an improvement?

Re: The global population pyramid

#96

Post by selimthegrim » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #27

bhouston wrote: post #25

My concern is that population will shrink after 2100 globally but it will already be shrinking in the rich countries long before that. And all indicators right now is that shrinkage will speed up. There is something wrong with rich modern secular society here or anywhere (it happens to all societies right now whether they are European, Japanese, Chinese, etc) in that it currently leads to sub replacement reproduction…

I'm going to give my not so popular answer for this. Western society is moving away from traditional families. When I ask my son what he wants to become when he's older, he says he wants to be a police officer. When I ask my 2 girls, they both want to become a mom. My social engineered response to this was "maybe you should become a school teacher, that way you can work with kids and be home when your kids are home".…

If all we encourage is for them to become mothers, then unfortunately in America some ethnic groups are judged for that choice and some aren’t. Source: Call in to any talk radio station in LA and listen

Re: The global population pyramid

#97

Post by mr_overalls » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #76

threeseed wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words fail me reading comments like this. To say that "women" should be "women" and not do "men" things is an attitude that belongs in the dark ages. It's sexist. It's degrading. It treats women like mindless children who can't make their own choices about what work they want to do. Nobody is forcing women to go into STEM. We are encouraging them because unfortunately they have to deal with toxic attitudes all the ti…

I know it comes across as very sexist, but let me try to explain my own problem a bit further. You could say I have a split view on things. I grew up in the western world with all of it's values. I greatly appreciate individuals being equal, etc. I myself am a father very involved with my kids, I take parental leave, and my wife has a career. I work in the tech field with the majority of men, but still a lot of great…

May I ask what country you live in? And does your country have laws for sufficient maternity/paternity leave?

Re: The global population pyramid

#98

Post by c0vfefe » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #93

theandrewbailey wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I don't understand how supporting families means devaluing women. What exactly do you mean by "devalue"? If motherhood is the stated goal of a woman, and she achieves it, how/why is she "devalued"? If it brings her meaning and fulfillment, isn't that something to be celebrated and respected? I'm also bothered by your swipe aga…

From a purely economic perspective, staying at home raising kids isn't going to generate you any income. We should perhaps value mothers in other ways, but money is the principal indicator of value in our current society.

Is our culture so blind as to see no distinction between moral value and economic value? This doesn't make sense on an intuitive human level, which is why people will often help out their fellow man without being motivated by profit. Similarly, a stay-at-home parent is (most often) working for the good of their children at the expense of creating economic value, and we as a society need to recognize the moral value of that.

Re: The global population pyramid

#99

Post by trabant00 » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:41 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #59

trabant00 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I see it, in the complexity of modern life a family would greatly benefit from a dedicated administrator. There is simply no time after work to keep a grip on all the developing situations regarding issues that greatly impact us like: health, finances, laws rules and regulations, family ties, housing, etc, etc. In practice we seem to sacrifice everything for work. I made up my mind a long time ago about "more wome…

You mean like your stereotypical 1950s head of household who receives information from all the other family members and decides on a course of action which is mostly non-negotiable?

Not everything old is bad and not everything new is good. Secondly I think that women are better at this thing, so no, not like 1950. And thirdly an administrator isn't even a boss, let alone a dictator. It's quite a hands on, pay attention to everything, balance opposites kind of thing. I am one professionally.

Re: The global population pyramid

#100

Post by c0vfefe » Mon, Apr 22, 2019, 1:42 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #50

patentatt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I got two weeks parental leave when my child was born. Civilized nations provide 6 months or more for both mother and father. My wife could take a couple years off of work, but then her career would be set back to square one. I elected to seriously downshift my own career just so I could see my kids on a daily basis. By that I m…

I'd be curious to hear more precisely what you'd propose here. My impression that, unfortunately, many such attempts to (essentially) make life better for working mothers appear to have pushed us away from families-with-kids, and towards ever more singletons (including single mothers). They tend, I think, to move us from a system in which the family is the economic unit, to one in which its personal compromises are n…

This is true especially regarding divorce. Biasing divorce renumerations overwhelmingly towards one gender has greatly weakened the shared financial incentive to keep families intact.