India's surprise baby bust • Hacker News Board

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#161

Post by martythemaniak » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

Am I the only one that doesn't with about this "crisis". The world's population isn't going to fall, it'll level off around 2100, nobody is enough to read this will be around, our kids and grandkids can decide for themselves.

Local populations will see very different trajectories, yes. Africa will see population growth and many other places will see steep decline. Societies can choose to keep their current system and take in immigrants, or choose to keep their "national character" (or whatever) and rejig their societies so the remaining productive parts pay for increasing numbers of old people. Grifters (Brexiters, MAGA, Le Pen, etc) will attempt to sidestep such obvious tradeoffs, but they will fail, hastening the decline of these societies.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#162

Post by somewhatgoated » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

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…

I don’t buy that having children is the only really rewarding thing you could do as a human.

Like the only reasons you can come up with is mystery chemicals or soyboys - seriously?

I think it’s vastly more complex than “insert my favourite political reason” and includes many different factors.

Personally I think it’s telling that only the Orthodox Jews don’t seem to have that problem - with an extremely rigid, strict and misogynistic religion as their primary purpose.

Personally as a male I don’t mind having kids but if I were a woman no way in hell would I have one.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#163

Post by BigTTYGothGF » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:29 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #71

vachina wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top 1% is freaking out at the thought of population shrinking because the cogs of the machine won’t turn itself.

The other 99% is even more dependent on the machine than the top 1%. They can build themselves reinforced bunkers, just in case. What is your plan if, say, the food distribution infrastructure breaks down? Does that sound like an extremely unlikely outcome? Back in 2008, we came within hours of credit cards stopping working. Projections say that if credit cards stop working, food distribution breaks down. Mass hunger…

> if credit cards stop working, food distribution breaks down

Except for the very last step in the chain I find it hard to believe that credit cards play much of a role.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#164

Post by ndiddy » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #130

ndiddy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't if the population gradually shrinks, it's if there's an uncontrolled downward spiral in fertility. If the birthrate gets below a certain point, then most people won't have any experience whatsoever interacting with babies or young children in their day-to-day life, and cultural norms will shift to make childlessness the default option. This marginalizes people who choose to have children, which push…

Is the concern that we'd marginalize parents and kids? As a parent of little kids, that's a concern that wasn't even on my radar. I had no idea that that was a major concern of people. Wild. I'm not saying it is a fabricated or unfounded fear, I just don't have that concern at all for myself. As a parent of little kids, I worry much more about them living fulfilling lives as they grow up in the future. I'm concerned…

The concern is that if the birthrate drops low enough that having kids becomes unusual, it causes societal changes that create a negative feedback loop that will continue pushing the birthrate lower and lower. If the number of elderly far exceeds the number of working people (which is already locked in for South Korea), you then have to figure out how to restructure society around this while maintaining social order.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#165

Post by jacobgkau » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:31 PM UTC

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #31

staminade wrote: post #11

Unless they roll-back women's rights and improvements in child mortality, societies will need to radically overhaul their entire relationship to supporting parenthood in order to reverse this trend. The economic costs of having children at a replacement rate are simply too high. We need universal childcare services, provided by the state and available to all, and other childcare-enabling reforms like automatic right…

> We need universal childcare services Birth rates have been falling worldwide, regardless of the level of government support. It's much more a matter of attitudes about having children. > The economic costs of having children at a replacement rate are simply too high Nope. My wife and I have 4 children, on a lower-middle-class income in the US. Your lifestyle choices matter a lot. If you want to have children, you c…

Sounds more like it's a matter of attitudes about personal economics than attitudes about having children. If you want to wallow in poverty (and don't mind if your children do as well), then of course you can "find a way."

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#166

Post by Arodex » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:31 PM UTC

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…

One could make the point this is less about industrialization causing a change in behavior, and more chemical pollution destroying fertility. Of which we have plenty of concrete evidence.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#167

Post by AndrewKemendo » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:33 PM UTC

calepayson wrote: post #98

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you can always be a farrier, lineman, septic sumper, cobbler etc… What’s stopping you from being a welder or dentist?

I feel like this is a joke but honest answer: I worked ocean rescue for 4 years then lived with some tech folks in sf who were making literally 5-10x my salary. What’s stopping me? Probably some combo of wanting to one day afford a home and a family without having to move to Memphis and the a sense that I’d get bored as a welder and therefore be a bad one. Man, septic pumper tho…

Not a joke, I tried to start a trash company and be a handler on the back, but unfortunately my epilepsy got in the way

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#168

Post by aurareturn » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:34 PM UTC

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…

Part of it is activities but I think the majority is that if you want a good living, you have to work in cities. But cities are very expensive to live in due to unaffordable housing. Not to mention people don’t feel secured when employment is so unstable. People don’t want to take the risk to have kids if they can’t afford a permanent home and stable employment.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#169

Post by Supernaut » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:34 PM UTC

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #124

happytoexplain wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unclear what you're saying. Obviously it's not hedonistic to " want " those things, as you say. You might use the term if they try to have their cake and eat it too, irresponsibly. Hedonism has negative connotations, colloquially (and colloquially is how we are speaking).

As I wrote in another reply, I meant “hedonism” in its non-colloquial, neutral sense, i.e. the pursuit of individual pleasure and happiness above all else, which was a mistake on my part. My general point is that all the activities I listed (which only become abundantly available in rich, industrialized societies) yield more individual pleasure than having children.

I've heard a lot of vox pops in recent years on the subject of why young couples where I live are not starting families, and by far the most common reason given is that the cost of living has risen to such an extent that they feel that rearing children has become unaffordable. It's not a yearning for hedonism that's dissuading them, it's the fact that they can't even afford to buy somewhere to live.

I won't comment on your assertion that the freedom to watch "adult-appropriate movies on a big TV in the living room" is a more fulfilling state of being than parenthood, except to say that I'm very grateful that I'm not that shallow.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#170

Post by ninininino » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 6:34 PM UTC

trgn wrote: post #154

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…

Respectfully, you don't know why you put off children. You may tell yourself a story of why you have, but for example if there was an environmental contaminant shaping population level stats on endocrines and hormones that reduced human sex drive and desire for children, you wouldn't necessarily be conscious of that.