41–50 of 172 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Oedipalizing them into the world as linguistic subject I don’t think this means what you think it means
I mean that in the Lacanian sense. This is the symbolic Oedipal, not the Freudian familial romance. Reductively, transistion through the Lacanian Oedpial creates the linguistic subject, structuring the unconscious as a language with a relation to the master signifier. Entry into the symbolic register provides the semiotic pathway for linguistic media to be effectuating.
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…
For example, Israel has universal fertility benefiots and this is predicted to contribute ~0.03 TFR. The US and would need a an effect 2,000% (20x) larger to reach replacment. Many EU countries would need an effect 30X stronger.
The bigger challenge is the people wanting to have children in the first place. This is driven by social values, preceived preconditions, and when in life those conditions are met.
I was just hanging out with some friends for the 4th of July. Their immigrant parents chose to have a child while in college working on their Phds and residing in the US on student visas.
I dont know any of my peers that would intentionally make that choice due to the percarious and unstable position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Oedipalizing them into the world as linguistic subject I don’t think this means what you think it means
I mean that in the Lacanian sense. This is the symbolic Oedipal, not the Freudian familial romance. Reductively, transistion through the Lacanian Oedpial creates the linguistic subject, structuring the unconscious as a language with a relation to the master signifier. Entry into the symbolic register provides the semiotic pathway for linguistic media to be effectuating.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Ahh. Brood parasitism. Very tricky.
[flagged]
A lot of their kids (my peers) ended up unmarried and childless as per this article. So in a way those parents got punished by evolutionary forces for not being careful enough about their kids. I can guarantee you that those of my generation who "made it" through that filter are vigilant to ensure it doesn't happen to our kids.
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…
[flagged]
[flagged]
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.
There's something beyond idiotic about a society that frames it's own reproduction as a negative.