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

India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 427 posts

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#271

Post by sterlind »

8note wrote: post #202
tharne wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say this. We have this weird habit in the West of trivializing raising one's own children, as if that's not "real work". A lot folks would rather raise their children instead of outsourcing it to strangers just to work a job they hate.

Raising children might not be what people are best at, and it's more efficient to work a job that can pay for this stranger, and to have money left over.

you can't pay someone to love your child. only you and your partner can love your child. love is nearly as important as food to them. and you have to show that love in the attention you give them - tucking them into bed at night isn't enough.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#273

Post by curtainsforus »

akudha wrote: post #211
mastax wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates - with the possible exception of the Czech Republic. I agree though that governments are going to try, and they may find a way to do it. There was a good episode of The Weeds podcast, "Baby making vibes," which talked about this. Some of it is focused on the American political lens…

Today we are at over 7 Billion. Suppose the population falls to say, 2 Billion or something like that. Is that a big problem? Like, what is the optimal number of people that this planet can support, without wreaking havoc on other species that also live here? 2 Billion is still a very large number... This might sound cruel, but the less humans the better.

>Suppose the population falls to say, 2 Billion or something like that. Is that a big problem?

There are problems with that, yes. That's fewer geniuses, who are in short supply. I like humans. The more humans, the better, quality of life being equal.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#274

Post by jpgvm »

no1lives4ever wrote: post #234
rep_movsd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Gandhi family was all about total control and megalomania Sikh genocide in 1984 Putting the opposition in jail and declaring an emergency Ass kissing USSR and adopting "socialist" ideals - in the 60s you needed licenses to own things like radios and bicycles - till the 1990s there were only 3 to 4 brands of cars you could buy in India without being a millionaire The Congress party was so hated for so many decades…

So you have replaced one over the top megalomaniac with another?

Increasing political polarisation seems to be a worldwide problem at this point. Precious few regions seem (currently) exempt from this most dangerous path.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#275

Post by notsureaboutpg »

8note wrote: post #202
tharne wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say this. We have this weird habit in the West of trivializing raising one's own children, as if that's not "real work". A lot folks would rather raise their children instead of outsourcing it to strangers just to work a job they hate.

Raising children might not be what people are best at, and it's more efficient to work a job that can pay for this stranger, and to have money left over.

Something that's more efficient can be disastrous to society. I was shocked in the us by how common it is for people to estrange their parents over trivial things and essentially leave them alone in old age to work at Walmart to be able to afford a place to die in

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#276

Post by ffwszgf »

Hernanpm wrote: post #272

I agree it is happening globally, I'm from South America and there are statistics of birthrate fall as well in my country. As personal experience in my company ~90% are single childless and we are in ours 30s 40s.

Latin Americans are a lot more receptive to birth control and sterilization compared to Africans/Arabs/central Asians

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#277

Post by woodruffw »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #239
woodruffw wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given Orban's other political proclivities, enforcing traditional gender roles is likely an intentional outcome of this policy.

What? This policy should incentivize stay-at-home mothers to re-enter the workforce after their children are grown, because no income tax is essentially a pay raise compared to people who aren't eligible.

An incentive that is completely offset by the professional and career consequences of leaving one's industry for nearly two decades. Many women struggle to resume their careers after just a year or two of absence -- are we supposed to seriously believe that Hungarian employers will shrug off an entire child's development worth of absence?

There is always an incentive to re-enter the workforce, in the sense that you (hopefully) get paid to work. But the existence of an incentive doesn't mean that incentive is sufficient. In the absence of other incentives and the presence of Orban's reactionary social politics, it's unlikely that this one is sufficient.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#278

Post by paxys »

naruvimama wrote: post #83
Callmenorm wrote: post #2

Isn't this going to create another problem. Where the country gets old before it gets rich?

The cost of living in India is going to be pretty low compared to colder countries, so it shouldn't cost a lot to provide a decent lifestyle. With accelerating automation, most people are going to have to depend on a much smaller set of people/industries. A shrinking population is not bad given we make plans for the future.

Cost of living in India is low because of the large population. A generation or two from now things will look very different when there's no more dirt cheap labor to go around.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#279

Post by ffwszgf »

sildur wrote: post #82

> When famine struck, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson initially refused to deliver food aid, citing the country’s high birth rate. I hope there is more context with that statement, because it sounds downright evil.

He might have said as much publicly but the reality is that India was a lot closer to the USSR so LBJ thought it was despicable that they were coming to the US asking THEM for help

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#280

Post by paxys »

sildur wrote: post #82

> When famine struck, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson initially refused to deliver food aid, citing the country’s high birth rate. I hope there is more context with that statement, because it sounds downright evil.

Wait till you read up on Churchill's involvement with India. Some of it puts the Nazis he famously fought to shame.
Post reply on HN