India's surprise baby bust • Hacker News Board

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#911

Post by RadiozRadioz » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

matchbok3 wrote: post #574

voiceofchoice wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 enou…

1. Climate change is most certainly not an extinction level event. 2. I spend many days with kids. They are great. I suggest you do the same and experience the human experience. Someone had to deal with the piece of crap you were when you were 2 years old, after all. 3. You'll stop praising the lack of children when you are 80 and nobody young wants to take care of you. You will have a lonely, lonely existence.

> You'll stop praising the lack of children when you are 80 and nobody young wants to take care of you. You will have a lonely, lonely existence.

I have always considered this to be a selfish sentiment. Wanting children so that you yourself are less lonely. That isn't to say it's a bad thing, mind you.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#912

Post by b65e8bee43c2ed0 » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

trumpdong wrote: post #868

b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think even totalitarian governments can do anything about it now. with few exceptions, the only places on Earth with TFR above replacement are undeveloped countries or underdeveloped areas within developed countries. what could China or Russia even do, undeveloped themselves? dismantle their cities and uneducate their people?

Communist Romania did it simply by outlawing all forms of contraception. TFR jumped from 1.9 to 3.7, nurseries were very busy, and the rivers were full of dead unwanted babies (as that is the thing humans seem to be hardwired to want to do with unwanted babies). It didn't last as people found ways to get contraception anyway within a few years.

banning contraception in the present time would have even less impact. the percentage of single/never married fertile age adults today is much higher than it was in communist-era Romania. "NCFMR analyses of ASEC Current Population Survey, 2022" says 73% of men and 65% of women among 18-29 in the US.

it is however one of those "stick" things both totalitarian and non-totalitarian countries will inevitably attempt at some point in near future, now that it's clear that none of the "carrot" things make any fucking difference. likely not with outright bans, not even in China, but by artificially limiting availability and raising prices of condoms and pills with tax. like the rest of those things, it will predictably have little to no positive effect.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#913

Post by bombcar » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:24 PM UTC

trumpdong wrote: post #847

bombcar wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There existed ways to build a family/home/retire before the financialization of everything - those ways still exist and still work, even if disadvantaged.

Do they? Is there a way to get land without buying it from someone who currently owns it? I'm totally fine with building supplies costing money since you can scale that from a tiny shack to a mansion (or a sleeping bag in the dirt) based on your wealth, but the price of the smallest parcel of land seems to be a lower bound on how much you can spend.

Yes, depending on what you consider "buying" and perhaps what you consider "owns", and it varies by country.

The practicalities are that the places you can use the "tricks" (like homesteading still being valid, or mining claims, etc) are places where the land is so cheap as to be free (or nearly so, eBay has "land" available for a few dollars, because you pay lawyers $500 for the transfer and the land is somewhere in the Nevada desert).

Practical usable land (for some value of "you could grow things on it, and it's not a desert") seems to put a lower bound in the USA of about $1,000 an acre.

The problem is most people want said land to be within commuting distance of a job, where it jumps to $5-15,000 an acre.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#914

Post by bombcar » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:26 PM UTC

antasvara wrote: post #836

bombcar wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small towns survived for millennia before industrialization; and they could likely survive again, if anyone wanted that life.

The Venn diagram of "people that want traditional small town life" and "people that currently live in a small town" has a smaller overlap than you'd think. The small towns in my area are desirable not just because they're small, but because they're small and have the same amenities as a bigger town. These towns are also increasingly relying on debt to fund decades of deferred maintenance just to keep the amenities th…

This is oft repeated, though examining the small town budget (though perhaps I'm not in a "small" town at 10k residents) shows that the vast majority of the property tax goes to the schools, roads et al are a rounding error.

In a future with few or no kids, schools won't be needed.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#915

Post by bombcar » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:28 PM UTC

sudosteph wrote: post #808

bombcar wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real interesting question isn't "why don't people have children" but more "why do those who have one or two kids not have more?" It seems everyone around came from a family of 6+ or knew those who did, yet everyone has 1 or 2 kids, three if the first two were both the same sex.

I didn't choose to have kids, but I have a friend who prioritized doing so, and she talked about hoping to have a larger family. She got married and had her first child not long after graduating from college. So biologically a very healthy age. She ended up with two. Pregnancy sounds nice and well until your teeth start falling out. Some women just have a really rough time of it - so doing it while also being the pri…

The familial support really is key - it is possible to have a large family "on your own" but it's significantly harder than if you have cooperative family in the area, or are already in multi-generational living situations.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#916

Post by obscurette » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:33 PM UTC

karakoram wrote: post #899

sensanaty wrote: post #783

I'm in the Netherlands, and my partner and I don't want kids for a multitude of reasons, but the biggest one for us and many other friends of ours is the obscene costs of having a child. Even the ones that really want kids simply cannot afford to have one, because the price of living is simply absurd. I'm extremely fortunate to be working at a large tech company and I have good money, but even with my income having a…

> Daycare costs alone are ludicrous, somewhere in the region of 2000-3000 euros PER MONTH. Very attractive numbers. I should look into the daycare business. I am guessing the people running daycare centers probably have several tax incentives too.

You probably don't. Although I'm not from Netherland and can't say for sure, but it probably means that regulation and expenses are also ludicrous.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#917

Post by abc123abc123 » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:42 PM UTC

nrclark wrote: post #468

happytoexplain wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely. I agreed with the parent too, but I think your explanation is not as different as it seems. I think your framing is just more direct and correct. However, one big caveat: "If you want a secured dignified life and basic prerequisites to starting a family" What you're saying is more relevant to the state of already-developed nations, that are now all in a slow decline. Not so much to newly developed na…

> Children are expensive, but highly subsidized, and just not expensive enough to explain the whole picture. Highly subsidized? I have to assume you're not talking about America. I pay $3200/mo to send my kids to a very middle-of-the-road preschool. That's almost $40k/year just in childcare costs so that my wife and I can go to work. The difference between a 1-bedroom apartment and a 3-bedroom apartment is an extra $…

Jesus Christ! I don't have children, but if that is what it would cost, then I would definitely never have a child. It would feel like sacrificing my entire life, just to produce another generation. No, then I'd much rather just enjoy life, and melancholically look at the families who have to struggle every day to make ends meet due to their children. It is really quite sad. But I guess nature in its wisdom, transforms a person who has a child, so that that child becomes the only meaning in life for that person. If not, there simply would be no children and we would not be able to write this.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#918

Post by abc123abc123 » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:53 PM UTC

matchbok3 wrote: post #631

Daishiman wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is hard to explain to 20 year olds that bragging about their trip to Europe means nothing when you are 45.

How strange. My experiences when I was young mean way more to me, than say, a trip to the US now. Now it's just boring routine, back then, everything was new and fresh.

You must have had a very boring time when you were young. It is very sad.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#919

Post by globnomulous » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:54 PM UTC

voiceofchoice wrote: post #905

matchbok3 wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Climate change is most certainly not an extinction level event. 2. I spend many days with kids. They are great. I suggest you do the same and experience the human experience. Someone had to deal with the piece of crap you were when you were 2 years old, after all. 3. You'll stop praising the lack of children when you are 80 and nobody young wants to take care of you. You will have a lonely, lonely existence.

Some of us like alone time, just saying. I have daily reminders that validate my choice. The fact that it's finally something people can choose is a major factor in the downtrend.

Yeah, I don't agree with the guy you're answering. I know plenty of great people who just don't want kids and don't find time with them to be rewarding or gratifying, and there's nothing wrong with that. Having kids most definitely doesn't guarantee that old age will be any better either. Even if it did, it's not worth decades of labor and costs that you don't want. Saving for retirement/end of life care is much easier when you don't have kids, too. If you don't want kids, more power to you.

Re: India's surprise baby bust

#920

Post by abc123abc123 » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

laughing_man wrote: post #229

m_fayer wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've gotten smarter, to our detriment.

[flagged]

Natural selection does not care one bit about the individual, to the question is completely meaningless. Add to that, that we share 99.9% of our DNA, so you passing it on, means I'm passing it on for free, while you sit there with all the cost. Who's the fool now?! ;)