Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 461 posts

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#51

Post by auganov »

sandworm101 wrote: post #6
Scandiravian wrote: post #3

I'm surprised by this, as I had expected the opposite. Couples are spending a lot of time together being confined to their home without much entertainment, so I'd expected that to result in more baby making I guess the stress from the uncertainty of the future and lack of personal space more than countered that Time for me to adjust my assumptions about the world... And probably check my privilege, since I'm massivel…

We are no longer purely instinctual animals unable to control our drive towards reproduction. Oppertunity for sex is no longer the controlling factor. Economic realities now dictates when and where we choose to reproduce. But after seeing footage of a highschool prom where, because covid, the kids were only allowed to dance back-to-back, and the health advice about having sex through walls, maybe we are soon going to…

No idea what it really is but it would make sense for the instinct to be quite the opposite to prevent inbreeding.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#52

Post by kmlx »

adrianN wrote: post #48
kmlx wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on the other hand our planet has seen 5 mass extinction events. at the same time, 56 millions years ago the planet was extremely hot: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... and, to top it off, all we're doing is prolonging the inevitable warming of the planet. things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately.

There were no humans 56 millions years ago. I'd like the planet to remain in a state that is good for humans for at least a few more millennia.

“a few more millennia” is basically nothing in terms of the planet’s history.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#53

Post by leesalminen »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #49
kmlx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not overpopulated. this is a myth that has been going on since the 1970s: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpop...

700 million people in the world face food scarcity at any one time. The world is overpopulated and its resources strained by the existing 7.4 billion humans (CO2 budget, natural resources reserves, etc).

It seems like that’s artificially constrained food supply though. There’s plenty of land to grow crops on the planet. It’s not like there’s not enough seeds or dirt to grow food.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#54

Post by adrianN »

kmlx wrote: post #52
adrianN wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were no humans 56 millions years ago. I'd like the planet to remain in a state that is good for humans for at least a few more millennia.

“a few more millennia” is basically nothing in terms of the planet’s history.

The entirety of human civilization is basically nothing in terms of the planet's history. That doesn't make it less important to me though.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#55

Post by kmlx »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #49
kmlx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not overpopulated. this is a myth that has been going on since the 1970s: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpop...

700 million people in the world face food scarcity at any one time. The world is overpopulated and its resources strained by the existing 7.4 billion humans (CO2 budget, natural resources reserves, etc).

those are two unrelated ideas.

again, overpopulation is a myth. a convenient and lazy one. but still a myth.

there are too many resources on the web explaining this.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#56

Post by neogodless »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #45
neogodless wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really odd to me. 200 years ago, the population was about one billion. Now it approaches eight billion. If the trend really is lower over the next 100 years and it drops... don't we think it would eventually reverse again? Why do we want the population to be stable or always growing? Why would it be bad for it to be going down for a while?

It would not reverse if woman have universal access to contraceptives and are empowered and educated. It’s a one way ratchet. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-...

That's an assumption though, based on the current conditions and population. You can't extrapolate that same assumption to a future modernized world that has returned to one or two billion humans. Perhaps in that world, women happily choose to have more children than they are having now, for a variety of unforeseen reasons. Perhaps the world is just so great for everyone that women choose to bring additional children into the world, knowing just how much joy that children will experience. Perhaps children become a new popular hobby or some entertainment scheme we would find abhorrent in today's world.

I don't believe there's anyway to know today that it's a one way ratchet forever.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#57

Post by pjc50 »

andi999 wrote: post #19
Scandiravian wrote: post #3

I'm surprised by this, as I had expected the opposite. Couples are spending a lot of time together being confined to their home without much entertainment, so I'd expected that to result in more baby making I guess the stress from the uncertainty of the future and lack of personal space more than countered that Time for me to adjust my assumptions about the world... And probably check my privilege, since I'm massivel…

Actually how does one actually do that 'check your privilege'? Is it like a checklist for takeoff:'privilege on? check!'

A couple of easy wins:

- are you describing what you'd do in a situation without considering that other people are in different situations with different constraints, both external and of human fallibility?

- have you said "why don't they just" or a similar form of words, without at least coming up with your own potential reasons why that might not be easy?

(This is like writing "works on my machine" on a bug report. You know not to do that, so don't write "works on my lifestyle and background" on other people's bug reports about life)

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#58

Post by tremon »

kmlx wrote: post #24
rocgf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very hard to understand why your comment was downvoted this badly. I thought everyone understands that the planet is overpopulated as it is and that bringing as many children into the world as possible is not a net positive.

it's not overpopulated. this is a myth that has been going on since the 1970s: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpop...

The earth is not overpopulated in the same sense that Covid is just a flu: people argue their position with anecdata instead of statistical trends.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#59

Post by [deleted] »

kmlx wrote: post #55
toomuchtodo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

700 million people in the world face food scarcity at any one time. The world is overpopulated and its resources strained by the existing 7.4 billion humans (CO2 budget, natural resources reserves, etc).

those are two unrelated ideas. again, overpopulation is a myth. a convenient and lazy one. but still a myth. there are too many resources on the web explaining this.

[deleted]

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#60

Post by adrianN »

leesalminen wrote: post #38
kmlx wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on the other hand our planet has seen 5 mass extinction events. at the same time, 56 millions years ago the planet was extremely hot: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... and, to top it off, all we're doing is prolonging the inevitable warming of the planet. things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately.

> things aren't so clear as that documentary makes it unfortunately. I’ve been wondering lately what happened to the documentary genre. When was the turning point where they started becoming political in nature, driving an ideology based off FUD and pseudo-science? Or have they always been this way and I’m just realizing it now?

I suppose the turning point was when we stopped living in a shared reality where scientific consensus was worth something.
Post reply on HN