India's surprise baby bust • Hacker News Board

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#481

Post by trumpdong » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:00 PM UTC

spullara wrote: post #345

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…

There are so many factors. I think the biggest one is that the developed world looked at women and said "hey, they are just as smart and capable as men and if they work at companies we have 2x the workers" which is obviously true but what it leads to is a DINK society - and it locks you in. It is just much, much harder to raise children when both parents work and they don't live near their parents and other familial…

Fortunately this exponential decay is very unlikely to continue forever. The present structure of society will not survive a 90% reduction in population. Abundant resources (especially housing) and insufficient humans to run a tight bureaucracy will probably lead back to people having babies for fun again and not coddling them to the extreme detriment of their own lives, and human population will stabilise.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#482

Post by trumpdong » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:01 PM UTC

FeteCommuniste wrote: post #181

boelboel wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some evidence that mobile phone access is one of the biggest drivers in this. This talks about teen fertility but I'd imagine it's similar in other age categories as well. https://homepages.uc.edu/~moscoshn/Personal_webpage/papers/S...

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

Maybe people don't meet in person any more because they call each other = less teen pregnancy instincts.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#483

Post by messh » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:01 PM UTC

We're becoming people that care only about money and career, and kids are not exactly helping...

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#484

Post by trumpdong » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:01 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #190

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…

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.

If you have kids and don't have life stability, everyone will call you irresponsible and the government may take your kids away, right?

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#485

Post by wonderwonder » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:03 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…

My theory is different. Decades of officials telling people that the world was overpopulated. That global warming was going to kill us all and any children born would be subjected to horrific conditions.

Well mission accomplished.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#486

Post by trumpdong » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:03 PM UTC

saintvlad wrote: post #463

autoexec wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need to have life all figured out before you have kids. You do need to be able to afford to care for them and be reasonably capable of providing them with a stable and healthy environment to grow up in though. People who are one or two missed paychecks away from homelessness probably shouldn't be thinking about having children, and sadly that's a whole lot of people.

> You do need to be able to afford to care for them and be reasonably capable of providing them with a stable and healthy environment to grow up in though. You kinda don't though? The government won't let you starve to death. Surprised there aren't more people welfaremaxxing, TBH.

The government absolutely lets people starve to death. Have you ever tried to get any welfare? It's gatekept to hell.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#487

Post by jiggawatts » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:05 PM UTC

scoofy wrote: post #388

m_fayer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a different pet explanation from the other replies here, and I honestly don't get why it's not talked about more. Basically, our economic reality and expectations have come into conflict with biology and human lifespan. If you want a secured dignified life and basic prerequisites to starting a family, every year that takes a little longer. And these days, almost everyone wants that dignified middle class life…

This is really the message of Abundance . If you want people to have kids, you need to make sure they are economically secure by the time they are of childbearing age... which means before they are 30. To do that, you cannot have supply constrained zero-sum shortage anywhere in society. It means that the cost of an apartment needs to be at-or-below the cost to build that apartment so people can just save up and buy o…

I’m in my fourties’ unable to afford a three bedroom apartment in my city with an income in the top two or three percentile. I’ve had boomers tell me with a straight face that “they did it” so it can’t be that hard despite a 5x increase in housing costs relative to income.

I’d have to spend every single post tax dollar for two decades to afford an actual house. Not counting interest and other taxes and council rates. I’d have to work for 70+ years to afford a nice house in a nice suburb!

“Have more children!”

“Make housing affordable!”

“My retirement fund is all in property and banks!”

There’s your problem.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#488

Post by trumpdong » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:05 PM UTC

laughing_man wrote: post #229

m_fayer wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've gotten smarter, to our detriment.

[flagged]

If you fail to achieve goals, you're not smarter.

But passing on genes is a pretty arbitrary goal. It's the one encoded in our genes, but (looks around at random object) passing on teacup design is encoded in a teacup. The most teacups are the ones that make people look at them and say "I want a copy of that cup". It's just statistics, not the ultimate meaning of the universe. The humans who think it's the ultimate meaning of the universe may be more likely to replicate - but that's a genetically inherited delusion, not a fact. You can pass on your editor choice just as well as you can pass on your genes.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#489

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:06 PM UTC

forlorn_mammoth wrote: post #342

rekabis wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your plan if, say, the food distribution infrastructure breaks down? 300 acres on the westward-facing slope of the interior cascade temperate rainforest. Even if the entire region sees extended drying over the next 50, there will still be sufficient rainfall for crops. All it will need are a few holding pools to reliably produce a year-round supply. It’s also reasonably remote, difficult to reach unless you…

Great idea! Let's scale this out so that everyone can have this same basic security!

[deleted]

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#490

Post by jmyeet » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 11:06 PM UTC

myth_drannon wrote: post #191

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…

[*] All parts of the Israeli population have high birth rates, even the secular Jews. I find it misleading to single out Orthodox Jews as the main contributor. You don't do that to Evangelical Christians or Mormons, or some other groups in US. I don't think the religion is the driver here.

Here are the figures by group in Israel [1]:

- As of 2022, the fertility rates in Israeli cities dominated by specific demographic groups were: Haredi 6.1, Bedouin 4.4, Jewish non-Haredi 2.4, Arab 2.2, Druze 1.8

So the GP's characterization is correct.

Yes, non-Haredi Jewish Israelis have a higher fertility rate than in Western nations. There seems to be a variety of reasons for this including cultural/religious pressure, institutional support and selection bias (in terms of who chooses to immigrate/emigrate).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel