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

The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–325 of 325 posts

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#321

Post by falserum »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #317
falserum wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All stereotypes grow from a kernel of some truth. Lets calculate. - 80-90% of child abusers are male. (Lets use 90% further on). - Us population is 330 million. (So half will be 165m male). - It has 750 thousand registered sex offenders Calculations: - 750t * 0.9 = 675t male offenders; 675t / 165000t = 0.4% of male population in us are registered sex offenders. (1 out of 243 males). - 750t * 0.1 = 75t female offender…

I wonder what kind of impact removing priests from the statistics would have

37 thousand priests in us.

(675t-37t) / 165000t = 0.386% (1 out of 259)

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#322

Post by mcny »

em-bee wrote: post #316
mcny wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the problem though. If you had your kids at about age thirty five and they do the same, you’re seventy when your grandchildren are born. How much can you realistically expect to help raise a child at seventy plus? I think we should teach young people that it is ok to not have children. There is nothing wrong being child free and it ought to be the default for most people.

if not having children is the default, then population will decrease and eventually die out, or the burden of keeping the population stable rests on those few who need to have lots of children. if the replacement rate today is 2,3 children per couple, then when half of couples don't have children the others need to have more than 4 children. in an environment that is not supportive of having children this is going to…

> if not having children is the default, then population will decrease and eventually die out, or the burden of keeping the population stable rests on those few who need to have lots of children.

oh, no. I want the population to decrease. Please do not have more children to "offset" me not having any children. That defeats the point.

I want fewer people to have children. I also want the people who have children to have fewer children. In fact, I am against this whole idea of "reproductive rights". Nobody should have a right to have as many children as they want. There should be a cap in the number of biological children a human can have.

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#323

Post by seec »

Apocryphon wrote: post #198
seec wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I know people try very hard to not understand. So, they don't have to feel concerned and actually do stuff to fix it. That's how people are generally, let's just ignore everything until the house is on fire... But that doesn't make it much less frustrating. And to be honest there are more and more people understanding my view in between words telling me their stories and ultimately agreeing. I have to say that…

Is single motherhood still the bogeyman as during the era of 90s entitlement reform? In these times when the younger generations are having less and less sex, much less getting pregnant? You might as well be complaining about Cadillac driving welfare queens.

[flagged]

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#324

Post by seec »

saiya-jin wrote: post #302
seec wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would also be true if every family had a parent that mostly had free time. Then you just need to know more than one family in the world et voilà! It would cost way less money to everyone, while allowing more diversity and more actual ressource to be used for the child instead of stupid bureaucracy... But it looks like you are deep into communist propaganda, as if a third-party institution run by a government wou…

No need for baseless insults, that's primitive behavior. I actually grew up under communism and hate it with passion since I saw first hand how it destroyed lives of my parents and grandparents. Something spoiled western kids with unbelievably easy life like apparently you will never comprehend. Rest of your post doesn't make much sense, you clearly have no clue about topic discussed.

So, you actually admit that your viewpoint is clearly corrupted by communism! No matter how much you say you hate it, it is bound to leave marks in how you think.

So now that we have determined that I was actually spot on and that it wasn't an insult at all, we can deal with your insult; ironically you accuse me of insulting you and in the same sentence call me a primitive. Then you follow with insults on spoiled westen kid, yet you have no clue how much I had to work in my youth nor have any idea of how much collectivism I had to suffer. It turns out you do not need to live in a fully declared communist country to have a similar experience but since you do not want to understand and instead let your emotions talk, you cannot make that realization.

If there is primitive behavior in this conversation, it is you unable to handle the emotions caused by the truth.

I am sorry you were hurt by my words but it doesn't seem like you are still defending communist ideals even though you are out of it. Not surprising, Stockholm syndrome and all that...

Re: The key to mother and child well-being may be many caregivers

#325

Post by 7thaccount »

mcny wrote: post #322
em-bee wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if not having children is the default, then population will decrease and eventually die out, or the burden of keeping the population stable rests on those few who need to have lots of children. if the replacement rate today is 2,3 children per couple, then when half of couples don't have children the others need to have more than 4 children. in an environment that is not supportive of having children this is going to…

> if not having children is the default, then population will decrease and eventually die out, or the burden of keeping the population stable rests on those few who need to have lots of children. oh, no. I want the population to decrease. Please do not have more children to "offset" me not having any children. That defeats the point. I want fewer people to have children. I also want the people who have children to ha…

That sounds pretty tyrannical.

If you want to see what that policy leads to, look no further than China's one child policy and the horrors that came with enforcing it and what is now occuring to their economy.

If you're concerned about population control, you'll see that it naturally goes down with industrialization like what is occuring all over Europe right now. There's no need to move to a forced system that will lead to human rights abuses.

Post reply on HN