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

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#251

Post by voiceofchoice »

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…

For the first time ever people can finally choose not to have kids.

Is it really any surprise people would opt out?

Go spend a day with kids and you'll see why people would rather not deal with the mess.

Especially women who actually end up doing the majority of the work.

Add to that the extinction level pressures like climate change and the absolute lack of any benefit whatsoever in being a parent, who is crazy enough to willingly sign up for this if you actually put any thought into it instead of just "that's the way things are though!!!"

Every day I praise the man who did my vasectomy lol

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#253

Post by Spooky23 »

Daishiman wrote: post #233
SoftTalker wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people think they need to do this but it's really not true. You don't need to have life all figured out before you have kids. And in terms of avoiding complications and having energy, 18-25 years old is probably the best time.

> You don't need to have life all figured out before you have kids. Sure, you just need to do away with international trips, going out, losing your group of friends, losing your chances for higher education and career progression and all of the associated prestige.

The only thing you lose there are the trips. If anything your social life can blossom.

My wife was a city treasurer and had a masters. I was a .gov and later a tech executive.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#254

Post by Daishiman »

ianm218 wrote: post #157
pelotron wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Helium? Rare earth minerals? Having to mine ever deeper because there are essentially no easily accessible mineral deposits? The fact that mining has enormous costs and the potential to permanently destroy sources of fresh water?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#255

Post by Henchman21 »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #163
btilly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don’t think goods are acquired on credit?

Or are you focused pedantically on credit cards?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#257

Post by Noumenon72 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #132
mekdoonggi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do you think this is bad?

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…

Happiness is the emotional reward for eudaimonia. Since I mostly reject eudaimonia as people and genes offering you carrots for doing what they want, not what you want, I naturally don't feel happiness like someone who's like "I'm winning, life is meaningful, others think well of me". I seek out hedonic pleasure because I think it's more real than happiness.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#258

Post by jacobgkau »

9cb14c1ec0 wrote: post #228
jacobgkau wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

As per usual arrangement, the internet can't stand a nuanced opinion, but instead jumps straight to extreme conclusions. Nowhere did I say anything about wallowing in poverty.

Of course, "If you want to have children, you can find a way to afford them." is a very nuanced statement for you to have made.

4 kids on a lower-middle-class income in the US makes me picture poverty, as someone on a lower-middle-class income whose girlfriend is legally in poverty (and with that being the primary reason we haven't gotten married and had kids yet). If you disagree, feel free to describe your circumstances in more nuanced detail. I wonder if it will really end up being a description of lower-middle-class.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#259

Post by wtetzner »

boelboel wrote: post #203
FeteCommuniste wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Once you have a cellphone to amuse yourself, perpetuating the species is just too much bother?

Phone + PC/TV probably takes an hour or two of people their day on average. If they didn't have access to it I assume they'd be meeting up with other people out of boredom and that'd lead to sex, doesn't seem too strange.

I suspect on average it's much higher than an hour or two.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#260

Post by Spooky23 »

everdrive wrote: post #189
trgn wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everyone claims it's the cost, but poor people used to have kids constantly. When I lived in Baltimore the guy on my block grew up there. They had 12 kids in a ~1100 sq foot row home with two bedrooms and 1 (or no?) bathroom. You can find similar stories everywhere.

Kids are cheap when you are poor because you aren’t seeking status. A home in a highly desirable suburban school district won’t support 12 kids in the lifestyle that people demand in those places.

Whoever has custody of the kids is fine. The social services benefits scale. They won’t get rich, but they’ll eat. People will be OK. The only people who lose are stupid men who have multiple children with multiple women.

Once you have a little cash, the formula changes completely.

Post reply on HN