What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another? • Hacker News Board

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#581

Post by Larrikin » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:02 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #539

UncleMeat wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abortions are not the primary reason why teen pregnancy is way down. There's actual data, you know. Fewer teen pregnancies is a reason why birth rates in the US are declining. But it isn't driven by abortion. And it is insane to me that I'm now seeing this "oh actually teen pregnancy wasn't so bad" thing pop up all over the place.

> actually teen pregnancy wasn't so bad I mean, it was a thing for most of human history. There’s a reason biology makes you capable of having children at a young age. Isn’t it kinda bizarre that we think it’s weird?

Human biology allows your body to get sick and die from bacteria and viruses, sometimes floating in the air. Human biology let's you get a cut on your hand and die from infection. That was a thing for most of history. Do you think it's weird we don't just let people suffer from those things as well?

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#582

Post by lucyjojo » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:05 AM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #456

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it is insane to me that I'm now seeing this "oh actually teen pregnancy wasn't so bad" thing pop up all over the place. The other side of this is insane to me... the "oh actually looming human extinction won't be so bad" thing. Sub-replacement fertility rates are slow-motion extinction. Animal models where they "bounce back" is irrelevant, those animals have their extremely high above-replacement fertility all…

Looming human extinction? The population is still growing .

imminent crash? the wall is still 5 meters away!

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#583

Post by itake » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:16 AM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #417

giantg2 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument works both ways - many men can't find women they feel are qualified to be mothers.

+1. I'm 38 and the overwhelming majority of women I had relationships with had the maturity of a teenager well in their 30s. Barely able to take care of themselves financially, mentally, physically, let alone of a family. I seriously felt, except once, I had daughters rather than significant others. Mind you, I might've been unlucky, but the narrative that women are more mature than men, might be true on large statis…

I wont disclose the country, but basically every girl I dated in this place had this problem.

My last gf had a really high IQ and a very low EQ. I wish someone warned me about being single in your 30s.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#584

Post by itake » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:18 AM UTC

nothercastle wrote: post #547

itake wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, many of the traditional unpaid labor tasks go towards maintaining the home (repairs, landscaping, car repairs, etc)z In 2025, some of that labor is recaptured by the man, as that improves the value of the family home or cars. Also, if your family chooses to rent (which seems to be a trend now for millennials), the man doesn’t have a lawn to cut or a car to fix.

Almost all the traditional male tasks got automated or delegated away for your 30 yo male. Live in an apartment, no maintenance take the car to a mechanic if it even breaks anymore, all that’s left is work and earn money.

yeah, so instead of stepping up around the house with this extra 'free time', they either worker longer hours at their job or relax watching tv/sports/games.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#585

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:23 AM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #521

teitoklien wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things should be made better I agree, But at the same time. Every single generation before ours had worse life outcomes in everyway than us. They had lower lifespans, struggled with food insecurity, Lack of travel accomodations, no access to education for the majority, nothing. Yet if you speak to anyone from those generation or even from our generation who have lives similar to them, they have far more positivity an…

Empirically, how well does the "we have it better off now" response work against feelings of an unfair system. Does it tend to change perspective in your experience?

A little. The real perspective shift happens when people learn how to stop comparing their lives to stories about other people they’ll never meet, but that’s a harder and more general lesson. The idea that medieval peasants had more free time than me comes from the same place as the idea that everyone could afford a house in the 1950s, or the idea that everyone I see on Instagram is living more vibrant lives than me.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#586

Post by sapphicsnail » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:25 AM UTC

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #413

lisbbb wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What loss? It was not her but her "girlfriend" which I don't even know how to correctly interpret these days. Is she saying it was her love interest or just a friend who is female? Heaven knows! Kids aren't even dating anymore hardly. My son (15) is having a horrible time navigating social interactions. The girls at his school are all horrible people, it seems (not true, I'm sure, but I constantly have to hear about…

It goes both ways. Add to this that boys today have been raised on a steady diet of pornography on their smartphones from a young age and never taught to master their impulses and learn genuinely masculine virtue. What do you think this does to their perception and treatment of women? And women are taught to view sex as an instrument of power and control (look at the number of young women with OnlyFans accounts), and…

It's not like younger men are great but older men say the grossest things and tend to he way more patronizing.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#587

Post by socceroos » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:29 AM UTC

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #560

socceroos wrote: post #312

I find the repeated comments of how much parenting 'sucks' and how much childbearing 'sucks' to be distasteful. It has been the single most incredible experience I've had (5 times over). I feel like, primarily, the reason why our society isn't having children is because of a growing selfishness and entitlement; which happens to be the very thing that Rome was suffering from when their society was collapsing too. No,…

> I find the repeated comments of how much parenting 'sucks' and how much childbearing 'sucks' to be distasteful. Shouldn't people who think that parenting is not a glamorous job be allowed to express their thoughts on this subject? > It has been the single most incredible experience I've had (5 times over). So other people's feelings and experiences are according to you distasteful but yours should be accepted as so…

I'm certainly not denying them their right to express their thoughts; I'm not sure where you've got that notion from.

Are you suggesting I should not have the right to express my thoughts about their thoughts?

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#588

Post by spwa4 » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:32 AM UTC

IAmBroom wrote: post #100

spwa4 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words: it's quite famous for how absurdly enormous swings in birth rate can be. It's famous for how critical it is for a species to have a stable birth rate.

I don't know where you got that idea. Some species critically depend on wildly unstable birth rates (grasshoppers and cicadas, but probably also deer and many other prey populations). Stable populations are completely irrelevant at the microscopic levels; InBev would fold within a week if yeast populations were stable.

And both grasshoppers and cicadas are famous for suddenly disappearing across enormous areas. Which is a situation only very rarely referred to as "stable".

I know there's a joke in here about this being literally in the bible, with God using such an insect birth rate swing as a punishment for an entire state. That's how "stable" it is.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#589

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:36 AM UTC

ambicapter wrote: post #430

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it is insane to me that I'm now seeing this "oh actually teen pregnancy wasn't so bad" thing pop up all over the place. The other side of this is insane to me... the "oh actually looming human extinction won't be so bad" thing. Sub-replacement fertility rates are slow-motion extinction. Animal models where they "bounce back" is irrelevant, those animals have their extremely high above-replacement fertility all…

You don't have to be an "extinction apologist" or whatever to think that we'll probably solve the problem before we go from 7 BILLION people to not enough humans for healthy genetic diversity. We've rescued animal species from extinction with populations of <100.

>that we'll probably solve the problem before we go from 7 BILLION people to not enough humans for

This just goes to show how little you've ever considered the problem. I don't think you're stupid (probably), so let me get you started...

It's not "from 7 billion to not enough", because right now we don't have 7 billion. We only have the generation(s) that are from 0 to 40 years old... everyone older doesn't even count. 80 yr olds and 55 yr olds aren't potential parents.

We will still have many billions of people even once we become functionally extinct, because you were counting everyone even the octogenarians, when you should've been counting the people who mattered in this regard.

>We've rescued animal species from extinction with populations of But there's no "us" to rescue us in that manner, and we can't do it ourselves. Why? Because doddering senile geezers don't have the ambition, marbles, or energy to do such a thing and those are the only people who would be left at that point. Not to mention that any such rescue would turn us into franken-people, no thanks. We should all be terrified of the science fiction dreams of artificial wombs and gestation chambers and so forth because just as those might be used for good things, the CCP and North Korea will use them to churn out armies of replicants.

You really are the extinction apologist you think you're not.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#590

Post by k__ » Wed, Jul 16, 2025, 6:38 AM UTC

giingyui wrote: post #577

standardUser wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard work had little to do with it. A unique set of factors generated a historic economic boom that was briefly able to sustain a uniquely prosperous lifestyle for some Westerners. It came unwound because it was never sustainable.

It came unwound when we allowed mass immigration to destroy the wages of the lower end and stopped building to respond to the housing demand. That can be easily undone, if the powers to be allowed it.

It came unwound when we allowed enterprises to destroy the wages of the lower end and stopped building to respond to the housing demand. That can be easily undone, if the powers to be allowed it.