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

Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 172 posts

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#31

Post by zdragnar »

julianlam wrote: post #19

Every time this sort of news pops up, I think "why aren't they incentivising and subsidizing fertility treatment"? You want to raise the fertility rate, yes? You could convince an entire population to have more babies the hard way (social or economic pressure). Or literally just let the people who are already trying, but can't for some physiological reason, have one. They already want children, if they're pursuing fe…

Fertility treatment isn't a guarantee. My brother and his wife ended up adopting after treatment failed.

The government paying for it also doesn't make it cheaper, it just moves the costs around.

A fairer, more effective strategy would be subsidizing the first year or so of the child's care- diapers, food, clothes, cribs, vaccines and such. That would benefit a lot more people.

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#32

Post by coliveira »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #25
Ysx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The environment is doomed either way without action. Is the issue that some demographics will become more dominant?

Is it not an issue if your group becomes less powerful than other groups? You are then putting yourself at their mercy, and we cannot assume that everyone has the same values (they don't).

A group having more power has little to do with numbers. If that was the case the rich would be more numerous than the poor, and India would be the most powerful country in the world.

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#33

Post by bdangubic »

thegrim33 wrote: post #28
julianlam wrote: post #19

Every time this sort of news pops up, I think "why aren't they incentivising and subsidizing fertility treatment"? You want to raise the fertility rate, yes? You could convince an entire population to have more babies the hard way (social or economic pressure). Or literally just let the people who are already trying, but can't for some physiological reason, have one. They already want children, if they're pursuing fe…

It makes sense, but it's probably pretty far down on the list of "what could we put money towards in order to increase birthrate". Could probably get a lot more result for the money by funding efforts to pair people together, make them want to have kids, make them more financially equipped to have kids, etc.

thats the problem, it should be at the top of the list (all the way at the top) and nothing else should be close 100th

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#34

Post by throw-the-towel »

coliveira wrote: post #32
pfannkuchen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not an issue if your group becomes less powerful than other groups? You are then putting yourself at their mercy, and we cannot assume that everyone has the same values (they don't).

A group having more power has little to do with numbers. If that was the case the rich would be more numerous than the poor, and India would be the most powerful country in the world.

The "power" of a country, however you define it, lags the population growth. China was the biggest country for decades, its power only really started exploding some 10 or 15 years ago.

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#35

Post by bdangubic »

zdragnar wrote: post #31
julianlam wrote: post #19

Every time this sort of news pops up, I think "why aren't they incentivising and subsidizing fertility treatment"? You want to raise the fertility rate, yes? You could convince an entire population to have more babies the hard way (social or economic pressure). Or literally just let the people who are already trying, but can't for some physiological reason, have one. They already want children, if they're pursuing fe…

Fertility treatment isn't a guarantee. My brother and his wife ended up adopting after treatment failed. The government paying for it also doesn't make it cheaper, it just moves the costs around. A fairer, more effective strategy would be subsidizing the first year or so of the child's care- diapers, food, clothes, cribs, vaccines and such. That would benefit a lot more people.

no one (I mean this, not one person on Earth) will be swayed to have a baby given your offer.

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#36

Post by xyzelement »

comrade1234 wrote: post #22

Just like there's a natural selection to those with religious beliefs (and active killing of those without) there's probably active selection to those with conservative beliefs like raiding a family, a desire to teach their values to their children, producing as many children as possible - values that correlate with conservatives.

I think the atheist experiment of the last century or so is starting to yield clear evidence of what is and isn't "fit" in the Darwinian sense. Exactly as you are saying.

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#37

Post by xyzelement »

homeonthemtn wrote: post #10

Everything about this thread is weird and woefully online. As an n of 1, we are surrounded by so many births that we just trade baby gear since we are either a handful of months ahead or behind many other parents. Our assumption was that we were in a stealth baby boom. Truly everyone we know has a minimum of one very young child with a high number of parents with between 2 and 4. It certainly runs counter to many onl…

Where are you and what percentage of your neighbors go to church and similar.

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#38

Post by coldtea »

novia wrote: post #3

Captain Planet literally told children who cared about environmentalism to "keep families small" to save our planet. https://youtu.be/tZCg9HsDntY It's not difficult to take that to the next logical conclusion, no children means less resources used.

That's why people shouldn't take life advice from cartoons and celebrities

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#39

Post by bad_haircut72 »

homeonthemtn wrote: post #10

Everything about this thread is weird and woefully online. As an n of 1, we are surrounded by so many births that we just trade baby gear since we are either a handful of months ahead or behind many other parents. Our assumption was that we were in a stealth baby boom. Truly everyone we know has a minimum of one very young child with a high number of parents with between 2 and 4. It certainly runs counter to many onl…

After putting it off for many years, many millenials are finally settling down and starting the families that perhaps more traditionally we began 15 years earlier - but outside ones with fertility issues, we are getting on with it. Im in the same boat as you, left leaning with left leaning friends, mostly late 30s and we're all getting on with having or raising young kids at this point - so n=2 from real life observations

Re: Falling fertility on the left as key driver of US birth decline

#40

Post by coldtea »

Gualdrapo wrote: post #29
pfannkuchen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not an issue if your group becomes less powerful than other groups? You are then putting yourself at their mercy, and we cannot assume that everyone has the same values (they don't).

We can't also assume that your offspring will have the same values as you.

You shouldn't be OK with them having any random values, either.

If you have a civilization, you have a vision about life, and what's good and what's bad, and you want to see it to continue.

That some of them will inevitable change over time is not the same as you preactively having no preference and guidance for your offspring whatsoever, and thinking "no problem, anything goes".

Post reply on HN