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

We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 461 posts

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#101

Post by beaconstudios »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #87
beaconstudios wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe rather than expanding your assumptions one checked privilege at a time, just drop your assumptions altogether? You simply can't know the experiences of others; even direct communication only transfers a very loose approximation of experience, and that's if both sides are both communicating earnestly and are skilled communicators. So if you can't know the experience of just one person then you certainly can't gr…

The entire point is that people are inherently unaware of many of assumptions or personal "theories of the world" they are applying to their evaluations of people, places, and things. Asking people to "drop their assumptions altogether" is like asking people "just don't behavior with any cognitive biases." You may as well punch the ocean for all the good it will do. People, like the OP, just will not be self-aware en…

I totally agree that fully breaking down your own assumptions is very, very hard, and basically an impossible ideal. But the great thing about impossible ideals is that they give you a goal to strive towards where the closer you get, the better you get.

The end goal is replaced with the process of gradually increasing mindful self-awareness of your biases and generalisations.

> And I do not degree, nor do I really understand (which is likely the issue) the idea that trying to become aware of your own privileges that you take for granted others don't have is somehow tied to a moral judgment of others.

My apologies, I'm still trying to formulate my thinking in this area. I think it's because considering people from the dichotomy of privilege/underprivilege leads to empathy with the less privileged but not the more privileged, which implies that people who are more privileged are less deserving of empathy. Saying that one person is more deserving of empathy than another is what I mean by a moral judgement. And while people who are less fortunate are in need of more support (inherently), failure to empathise with the privileged (key here being empathise, NOT sympathise) can lead to the bad things associated with dehumanisation - scapegoating, us vs them narratives, that sort of thing. I think this is a major failing of the progressive movement that is so very close to being a powerhouse for positive change. It's inches away from being both postmodern and system-oriented, so I'm liable to focus on its failings as a critic who wants it to improve.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#102

Post by frockington1 »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #86
NDizzle wrote: post #4

Sorry for letting you down, everyone. Three is our limit!

Most middle class homes in our suburbs only have 3 bedrooms so that sort of caps kids to 2 or less. While we have a public schooling system if you want you kid into the "better" schools you need to pay extra for additional teachers to reduce the classroom ratio and facilities.

When you factor in taxes, the math can change. Sometimes 12 years of private school is cheaper than municipal income and property taxes

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#104

Post by ldbooth »

jasode wrote: post #17
Scandiravian wrote: post #3

I'm surprised by this, as I had expected the opposite. Couples are spending a lot of time together being confined to their home without much entertainment, so I'd expected that to result in more baby making I guess the stress from the uncertainty of the future and lack of personal space more than countered that Time for me to adjust my assumptions about the world... And probably check my privilege, since I'm massivel…

>Couples are spending a lot of time together [...], so I'd expected that to result in more baby making But a counteracting force is that some couples think 9 months ahead and are afraid of delivering their baby in a COVID-overloaded hospital. COVID makes the opportunities for conception easier but adds to the stress and uncertainties of delivery and postnatal care. (So maybe more sex activity but also more contra cep…

Outside the couples though, there's a lot less mingling going on. Dating during Covid... Awkward.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#105

Post by ed25519FUUU »

Teever wrote: post #76
gadders wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a valid perspective, but times have been a lot worse in the past. It's a good job our ancestors didn't think like this.

It's not that they didn't think like this but that they couldn't. Thanks to readily available and affordable birth control individuals have much more freedom to make reproductive choices that benefit themselves. What those individual freedoms do to society as a whole is another issue but it is entirely within the ability of western governments to increase birthrates through policy. The fact that they don't is most in…

There’s plenty of counterpoints to this around the world and including in the USA today. Our ancestors just thought differently about family, progeny, and themselves than we do, and that’s fine.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#106

Post by rocgf »

neogodless wrote: post #40
chriskanan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend David Attenborough's 2020 Netflix documentary "A Life on Our Planet." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough:_A_Life_on_ ... https://www.netflix.com/title/80216393 It is his "witness statement" on how he has personally observed enormous environmental damage over his ~70 year career documenting wildlife throughout the world. He argues that the solution is to reduce our population growth wo…

It's really odd to me. 200 years ago, the population was about one billion. Now it approaches eight billion. If the trend really is lower over the next 100 years and it drops... don't we think it would eventually reverse again? Why do we want the population to be stable or always growing? Why would it be bad for it to be going down for a while?

Because our economy is somewhat of a Ponzi scheme, in which everything needs to keep growing forever. We are perpetually borrowing from the future, with the assumption that everything will be growing forever.

As people get older, they start getting more expensive. If you don't have a larger generation coming from behind to provide for that ever-increasing older generation, then the costs have to be spread among fewer people.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#107

Post by sn41 »

yortpyperty wrote: post #97
motohagiography wrote: post #64

Birthrates are a powerful, but lagging/post-hoc indicator of public policy effects. It's worth noting that we tend to associate high birthrates with poverty and negative social outcomes. Except, when rates are low we (western countries) use immigration from high-birthrate societies to shore up the population replacement rate, as the article notes. When you look at who is having kids in the US and Canada, the families…

As a new father, I share this perspective. To get an anecdotal sense of our financial struggle, we have 2-4x the net worth that my parents when they were our age, but cannot afford the same house that I grew up in and doubt we ever will.

Yup. This is the same phenomenon in India as well - the salary is "high", so you can splurge on furniture, buy reasonably priced cars etc. much easier than earlier generations. But we cannot afford to buy the same house my parents lived in at our income level.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#108

Post by ed25519FUUU »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #29

I wonder if there's a good way to model the cost of children over the last 100 years? My guess is fewer people are having children due to the financial costs rising considerably.

The clearest impact is has is on accounting for our social safety nets. For example the Social Security program is solvent to 2035, and that will probably come down quite a bit in the short term even with increased immigration.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#109

Post by rocgf »

jfk13 wrote: post #82
adrianN wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many parts of our economy assume perpetual growth. The easiest way to ensure growth is to increase the number of humans. Look at countries with shrinking birth rates for a glimpse of the problems an aging population can cause.

Perpetual growth based on an ever-increasing population is a recipe for eventual disaster. The earth's resources are not infinite. We may not be able to say precisely what its carrying capacity for humans is (and the answer would depend to some extent on the conditions in which the humans are prepared to live), but I am entirely confident that there is a limit.

It definitely is, and believing anything else is delusional.

With that said, would you like to be the politician to stop the madness, if that's even possible? Things will not change until we have a crisis.

Re: We Expect 300k Fewer Births Than Usual This Year in the US

#110

Post by nathancahill »

motohagiography wrote: post #64

Birthrates are a powerful, but lagging/post-hoc indicator of public policy effects. It's worth noting that we tend to associate high birthrates with poverty and negative social outcomes. Except, when rates are low we (western countries) use immigration from high-birthrate societies to shore up the population replacement rate, as the article notes. When you look at who is having kids in the US and Canada, the families…

A different environmentalist worldview that I was raised with (as one of four kids of environmentalist parents):

Kids raised with an environmental mindset will have a larger positive impact than having fewer or no children. Their impact will outweigh their environmental footprint.

Post reply on HN