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

India's surprise baby bust

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#151

Post by porridgeraisin »

I have written about this before here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44098431

BTW, the fertility rate is _increasing_ now (granted from an existing base of 1.2TFR) in the richer states of india, due to better availability of IVF and in general healthcare.

The combination of lack of prosperity as well as the effect of nuclearisation that I mentioned above was what made it go weirdly low. It's not that low if you exclude unintentionally non-reproducing couples. I'm not saying its replacement rate, but its also not 1.2.

Many poorer states of india will face the same nuclearisation of the family unit, but crucially when healthcare is more generally available, so you won't see those parts go as low as 1.2. Again, replacement rate is almost impossible in a nuclear family unit, unless you manage to substitute something else that contributes the benefits, i.e reinvent joint families from first principles (and maybe it will be better!)

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#152

Post by porridgeraisin »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

I would argue it is due to nuclearisation of families, that has always accompanied industrialisation. See my other comment on this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48416228

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#153

Post by Supernaut »

lukeschlather wrote: post #147
bryanlarsen wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hedonism is bad because: - hedonic pleasures are adaptive. The first time you experience them is incredible. The 1000th time, much less so. - chasing hedonic pleasures is counter-productive. Studies show that people who actively seek out hedonic pleasure are less happy than those that don't. OTOH, eudaimonic pleasure (aka fulfilment, satisfaction) is much more durable. Work, hobbies, charity work, and children are av…

I wonder how those who have experienced the pleasure of having 1000 children experience that compared to the first one.

It's a shame we can't ask Genghis Khan for his thoughts on the matter.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#154

Post by trgn »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

i put off children because it takes longer to establish a foothold. not because i loved to travel or eat out necessarily, or felt i needed to prioritize hedonistic activities over building a family. but, during that time of getting my degree, figuring out my career, get some savings, etc.. those were the things to fill up time with.

i'd trade it all for having kids younger though. it's just that they would have come at a time that any kind of grip on my future was still tenuous.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#155

Post by Auracle »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point, but for some reason at least in US society you’re no longer allowed to broadly talk having kids like you used to be able to. Let me break that norm for a second.

So, are other activities more fun than child rearing? Often, yeah. Definitely less stressful. Rewarding? Not in a million goddamned years. Nothing, absolutely nothing, compares to when your kid first walks, talks, tackles a problem they had a hard time doing before, or tells you that they love spending time with you completely unprompted.

For what it’s worth, I personally think a good portion of the birth rate dropping is environmental. Maybe it’s plastics, pfas, or something else nobody is looking at. Some people still have an urge to have kids, completely separate from the urge to have sex. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that testosterone and sperm counts have been dropping among humans and dogs, and that the deliberately child free people I know all veer on the (forgive the derisive slang term, but I don’t know how else to get the point across) “soyboy” type of person - both male and female.

That potential pollution aspect also explains this happening to industrial societies.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#156

Post by throwagyhv6886 »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

India has barely industrialized though.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#157

Post by ianm218 »

pelotron wrote: post #149
ianm218 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your case at all? AI could usher in a post scarcity world so why not have more humans who can enjoy better lives? You just said AI Armageddon as if there is an already predetermined ending that is widely agreed upon.

I love how "post scarcity world" is tossed around as if the earth has infinite natural resources.

With renewables and nuclear we have basically unlimited energy, which can solve a lot of resource related issues.

What are you concerned we would run out of?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#158

Post by toast0 »

kuhsaft wrote: post #46
wolfi1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when there is a power outage it is most likely that the cell towers are down, too

Cell phone towers and communication systems have backup power for emergency communication during power outages. If you have backup power for your router and ONT/Modem, you should also still have internet service during a power outage. The ISP-owned ONT for a place I lived had a little lead-acid battery attached to it, and during power outages I still had internet service.

I live somewhere with two nines of utility power reliability, I mention that to say everybody's backup (or lack thereof) is well tested. I've got UPSes on most of my computers and a standby generator that pops on after about 10 seconds. DSL from my ILEC has zero backup power; sync drops when the power drops. I don't know about the cable. Municipal fiber doesn't drop so far, but I haven't had a long outage since I got it; my ISP has a generator where they route customer packets. We get cell coverage for about 4-8 hours, depending on which network you're on and if the outage started overnight coverage usually lasts until people wake up.

After that, communicating with the outside world is hard for most people. Time to make babies ... anyway it's often cold, so snuggling is likely.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#159

Post by bobson381 »

tavavex wrote: post #113
calepayson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly great question. I think of it as: I invest my wages to take advantage of compound interest. It’s kind of my only hope of having a family / owning a home / retiring. If stuff stops compounding, I’m fucked. Multiply by however many millions of people are on the same position. I don’t necessarily think the theories are making any assumption about what is good (except for the “greed is good dicks”)but more ackno…

But isn't this just a more abstract example of the 'circular explanations' thing that OP mentioned? The reason why we need compound interest on our savings accounts instead of just being able to put away some money every year is a product of having to counteract inflation, which is the result of policies trying to induce growth by making saving less appealing than putting the money into more companies making more thi…

We are going to find out. See Limits to Growth.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#160

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

Auracle wrote: post #155
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #69

This has happened to every single society [*] as it industrializes [0], and offering extensive support and incentives to parents (e.g. as has been tried in Scandinavian countries) does very little to reverse this trend [1, 2]. My hypothesis is that as societies industrialize, they afford their population more and more activities that are simply more fun and rewarding than having children. So many people I know put of…

I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point, but for some reason at least in US society you’re no longer allowed to broadly talk having kids like you used to be able to. Let me break that norm for a second. So, are other activities more fun than child rearing? Often, yeah. Definitely less stressful. Rewarding? Not in a million goddamned years. Nothing, absolutely nothing, compares to when your kid first walk…

> you’re no longer allowed to broadly talk having kids like you used to be able to

I'm not sure that this is the case, could you expand?

Post reply on HN