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

US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 434 posts

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#351

Post by mmt »

krapp wrote: post #339
user5994461 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, try talking to your grandparents or beyond. It was a different time. Try to imagine. There is no google search to find out how to make children. The closest library is far away and it's not that common to go to school and learn to read. That leaves you with the opinions of the family, the neighbors and the priest, who don't know much either and offer contradictory explanations.

>Try to imagine. There is no google search to find out how to make children. The closest library is far away and it's not that common to go to school and learn to read. That leaves you with the opinions of the family, the neighbors and the priest, who may not know much either and offer different tales. I have to assume you're trolling, but to be charitable, here[0] is the Wikipedia article on the history of birth con…

> People knew where babies came from way before the internet.

I think you missed the GP's primary point. Just because someone in the entire world had the requisite knowledge might mean nothing at all to another someone a mere few hours of travel away, let alone on the other side of the world.

That's why written language was such a huge invention[1]. Then the printing press. Then the telegraph, radio, and telephone. Finally, the Internet. I'm sure I missed a few, but you get the idea.

[1] A moment of silence for the Libary at Alexandria, please

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#352

Post by loggedinmyphone »

dragonwriter wrote: post #329
loggedinmyphone wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting but I thought the Donatist decision only applied to people who wanted to be part of the Roman Catholic church but their baptising priest had at some point lapsed. Generally Protestants don't recognize the authority of the church at all (i.e. Sola scriptura).

The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize, in a doctrinal sense (obviously, it does in a secular material sense) the existence of any other Christian Churches [0]; it takes the “Catholic” in its name quite seriously. From the doctrinal point of view, there are no non-Catholic Christians, just Catholics of various degrees of imperfection, is and everyone who intends to join Christianity, or to join someone else to…

It's not clear to me whether Rome accepts Christians who completely reject its authority. The central point of Lutheran Protestantism is that it's open source: anybody with a Bible can decide for themselves how to implement it without asking for permission. Of course there's value in a community of believers but the requirement is just to gather "two or more".

I guess Protestants have a harder time deciding who's a Christian; probably acceptance of the Nicean Creed is a popular standard, though I prefer "anyone who seeks to imitate Christ".

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#353

Post by adamsea »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #98
dv_dt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America integrated large immigrant waves in it's past, and I doubt anyone would say the Italians, or Irish, or other minorities were not integrated today. Time bridges cultures, and we're the better for it.

Italians, Irish, and most of the other immigrants from that time were Europeans who had a lot in common with Americans culturally.

Almost every single movie by Martin Scorsese would say otherwise.

Seriously, though, Catholics and Protestants? There was a reason it was a big deal that Kennedy was the first Catholic president.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#354

Post by loggedinmyphone »

mmt wrote: post #351
krapp wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Try to imagine. There is no google search to find out how to make children. The closest library is far away and it's not that common to go to school and learn to read. That leaves you with the opinions of the family, the neighbors and the priest, who may not know much either and offer different tales. I have to assume you're trolling, but to be charitable, here[0] is the Wikipedia article on the history of birth con…

> People knew where babies came from way before the internet. I think you missed the GP's primary point. Just because someone in the entire world had the requisite knowledge might mean nothing at all to another someone a mere few hours of travel away, let alone on the other side of the world. That's why written language was such a huge invention[1]. Then the printing press. Then the telegraph, radio, and telephone. F…

Right, just because some proto-scientist in a primitive ivory tower had observed two goats fucking, doesn't mean the common person had access to that kind of knowledge.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#355

Post by adamsea »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #127
dv_dt wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're thinking of the historical details to say that in such a blase manner. The path to integration went through periods much more violent and contentious than anything we see today.

I'm aware of how immigrants were treated back then and I'm not condoning it. That still doesn't change the fact that they came from cultures that IMO were quite compatible with the USAs considering their common origin and values. I think the current situation in Europe, and other instances of mass migration in history, demonstrate that not all cultures are compatible with each other

> I think the current situation in Europe, and other instances of mass migration in history, demonstrate that not all cultures are compatible with each other.

Japanese Americans? Chinese Americans? Indian Americans?

Plus, the very concept of some sort of empirical “cultural incompatibility” seems highly questionable. I mean, it’s not like cultures change over time or anything like that.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#356

Post by adamsea »

magduf wrote: post #195
jaredklewis wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese immigrated to the US at a similar time as the Irish and Italians. The more than 3 million Chinese living in the US today seem plenty well integrated and I don’t think China and America are particular close in terms of culture.

The Chinese immigrants were not (and still are not) particularly religious, and certainly didn't have a religion that promoted extremism and placed them at odds with the existing inhabitants. Other Asian immigrants in the US were also either not religious, or (like with Koreans and Filipinos) adopted the same religion as the dominant culture. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is religion.

> didn't have a religion that promoted extremism and placed them at odds with the existing inhabitants.

You mean like European Christian colonizers and the indigenous peoples of North and South America?

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#357

Post by mmt »

sp527 wrote: post #287
hueving wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(including total private college costs If your kids are too stupid to get tuition assistance, private college isn't going to do any more good for them than a regular local uni.

I'm not sure if you're being serious here. The bulk of available tuition assistance comes from financial aid, which usually isn't offered to families at or above roughly upper middle. I also assume you'd only go to a private college that ranks highly, which means low access to meaningful amounts of income/wealth-independent scholarship money. A low-ranked private college is usually no better than many public ones.

> The bulk of available tuition assistance comes from financial aid, which usually isn't offered to families at or above roughly upper middle.

Is that true, though? A few months ago, I was reading a few articles about more competitive (highly-ranked) universities directing significant portion of their own aid dollars to wealthier students in order to lure them in.

Now, much of these schools' motivation for doing so is that those aid dollars spread more thinly among more (wealthy) students means more revenue than focusing those dollars on "need based" (poor) students, especially if the poor students don't stay the whole 4 years because they can't afford even the subsidized tuition. That may not mean much for your ultimate calculation, since it could be as little as 10% discount, but it's still something.

There is likely also merit-based money out there, which may be what the parent comment was referring to, but I have no idea if that's anything but trivial in amount.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#358

Post by Andre_Wanglin »

iandanforth wrote: post #220
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a debt-based growth-dependent (to repay ever the increasing debts) economy, it crashes everything. Turns out assuming infinite growth does not produce a stable civilization. This is why there are concomitantly erstwhile calls for people to both reduce their "footprint" by not reproducing and also that immigration is crucial to every (western) society's survival.

Do you know of any good example steady state economies for contrast?

Why does criticizing an impossible assumption put the onus on me to identify economies that do not make that assumption or to envision what such a state of things might look like? Is it not sufficient to refrain from obvious error?

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#359

Post by duderific »

pixl97 wrote: post #175
Karishma1234 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more grandmas alive than ever in past. What is stopping you from doing it now ? Go live with grandma.

How many grandma's live in retirement homes? Back then: Have kid when 18-24, Grandma is 36-42. Now: Have kid when 35, Grandma is 70.

Of course, 70 now is like 50 back in the day. My kid's grammy is 76 and she still takes care of business.

Re: US Births Dip to 30-yr Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

#360

Post by Andre_Wanglin »

jacquesm wrote: post #171
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Populations can grow geometrically at any time. What matters to a particular "branch" is that it remains a cohesive and clearly demarcated appendage while it weathers hostile conditions. Grafting on another branch is what ensures its demise as a distinct entity.

Hehe, there is no society on earth right now that never incorporated substantial numbers of outsiders. The relatively placid world that we live in today is in no way the historical norm. Hostile conditions are the norm. Ask the Palestinians, the Iraqi, the Iranians, the Panamanians, the Native Americans and Native Canadians and lots of people living elsewhere in Europe and the world (or anybody else for that matter,…

It is interesting that you listed a number of peoples who have at various times been subjected to genocide because of their initial accommodation of outside populations in your rebuttal of my affirmation that Japan refusing to compromise its stance on immigration is vital to its survival as a cohesive and distinct nation.

>you use it or you lose it

Please explain in direct language the point your deployment of this aphorism was intended to convey as I find it wholly inapplicable.

Post reply on HN