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

The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

aaronrenn.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#31

Post by unethical_ban »

badloginagain wrote: post #18

Peter Zeihan's take is that urbanization leads to less children because there's less space, you don't need the free labor kids provides on the farm, and children are very expensive in the city. This is coupled with the speed of urbanization for countries that industrialized after the second world war- the later you industrialize, the faster that industrialization happens, the more stark the transition to a childless…

>there isn't enough children to keep the country functioning

I wonder if some kind of mandatory civil service will become necessary. I feel in the US that many people are disengaged from the rest of their communities for numerous reasons, and it would be both a direct public service and a benefit to societal cohesion for all people to experience being a servant to their cities via public works.

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#32

Post by wing-_-nuts »

tptacek wrote: post #14

This is a take from a gender-essentialist who ardently believes fixed roles for men and women are established by the bible. Their other publication: https://americanreformer.org/

I guess the question is, can you objectively evaluate the ideas of someone you disagree with?

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#33

Post by pphysch »

ericmay wrote: post #29
pphysch wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean philosophically liberal in the original meaning of the term. In that sense, it is tightly linked with individualism. This has nothing to do with current American politics.

Then this comment doesn't make any sense > > The DPRK is probably the most collectivist (least individualistic) large society on the planet, so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals.

I'll break it down for you.

Liberals are individualists. It's at the foundation of their worldview and philosophy. This is basic stuff.

DPRK is highly illiberal, un-individualistic. Engaging with DPRK culture in good faith means questioning the universality of the Western, liberal worldview. For most people, this is a non-starter (just look at this thread).

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#34

Post by wing-_-nuts »

MilStdJunkie wrote: post #21

Whew, boy. There's a ton of loaded phrases in this piece . . which, well, I'll let others do the googling. Anyway. Ideologies (Evangelicals, Feminists, Transsexuals, Insert-Your-Evil-Genius-Here) don't shunt people's life decisions around willy nilly like this. Money does. People don't have kids in industrialized countries because children rapidly transform from a net investment to a net burden. Thus, ideal industria…

Yep, people's behavior respond to incentives, and in most developed economies, each kid represents a major sacrifice instead of the 'investment' they used to be.

If you want more kids, you have to make the cost of having them lower. This means building more housing, subsidizing childcare like france and sweden, but stronger, and making higher ed affordable.

Now all that costs a lot of money. To do that, we'd need to cut spending on other things, and raise taxes. I don't buy the assertion from Zeihan and others that it's impossible though.

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#35

Post by gilmore606 »

nostrademons wrote: post #2

The article makes an interesting case for the possibility that South Korea's military dictatorship intentionally created low-fertility policies that can't be reversed. But reading the description of what's going on, I can't help be reminded of John B. Calhoun's work on the "behavioral sink" [1], where he basically created a utopia where rats had everything they needed for survival, they multiplied exponentially, but…

Calhoun's rat paradise experiment doesn't replicate, as Gwern helpfully discovered for us:

https://www.gwern.net/Mouse-Utopia

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#36

Post by unethical_ban »

bluGill wrote: post #27
pm90 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe its density as much as costs and impact on lifestyle. Make daycare, child health services and great schools universally available and cheap/free. Make it feasible and safe to get kids around dense cities quickly (excellent transit options). I suspect under these circumstances more people would be open to the idea of children. As it stands today, having children places an unbearably high social and fin…

> As it stands today, having children places an unbearably high social and financial strain on people. Suburbs have been just one solution to the problem but there are others. Yet Suburbs are the only ones I see that work. If you are thinking about having kids in the US move to the suburbs soon. Cities are not setup for you. Schools in the city are considered bad for a reason. Even if you can afford private schools,…

> the big car won't fit in the city well, and your other options is paying a lot more on public transit because odds are there isn't a family pass, so the big car is probably cheaper.

The TCO for a car is thousands of dollars per year. Granted the US only has three or four cities that come close to facilitating carless society, but in those cities, I doubt public transit costs $5000 a year or more.

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#37

Post by ericmay »

pphysch wrote: post #33
ericmay wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then this comment doesn't make any sense > > The DPRK is probably the most collectivist (least individualistic) large society on the planet, so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals.

I'll break it down for you. Liberals are individualists. It's at the foundation of their worldview and philosophy. This is basic stuff. DPRK is highly illiberal, un-individualistic. Engaging with DPRK culture in good faith means questioning the universality of the Western, liberal worldview. For most people, this is a non-starter (just look at this thread).

> so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals

Can you break this term down for me then?

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#38

Post by pphysch »

ericmay wrote: post #37
pphysch wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll break it down for you. Liberals are individualists. It's at the foundation of their worldview and philosophy. This is basic stuff. DPRK is highly illiberal, un-individualistic. Engaging with DPRK culture in good faith means questioning the universality of the Western, liberal worldview. For most people, this is a non-starter (just look at this thread).

> so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals Can you break this term down for me then?

"bleeding heart" wasn't the best choice of adjective there, I meant "passionate".

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#39

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pphysch wrote: post #38
ericmay wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals Can you break this term down for me then?

"bleeding heart" wasn't the best choice of adjective there, I meant "passionate".

Yeah, not the best choice, then. "Bleeding heart" has been used as a slur by (US political) conservatives[1] to attack (US political) liberals. It implied that the liberals suffer from an excess of empathy to the point that it clouds their judgment, or something. Nowadays it's just a slur.

You're using "liberal" in a way that differs from standard US political usage, which is all right, especially since you clearly defined what you meant by the term. But "bleeding heart" sounds very US-politics, and seems really weird with your not using liberal in the US politics sense.

[1] These "conservatives" would count as liberals by your definition - they still believe in individual rights.

Re: The Toxic Reality of a Post-Familial Society

#40

Post by ericmay »

pphysch wrote: post #38
ericmay wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so much so that it terrifies bleeding heart liberals Can you break this term down for me then?

"bleeding heart" wasn't the best choice of adjective there, I meant "passionate".

Sure, but you have to be careful with the terms you use! :)

AnimalMuppet gave a good explanation there IMO.

Post reply on HN