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

The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#551

Post by anal_reactor »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #336

This is happening everywhere , including nations with great social systems/healthcare/parental leave/etc. And it happens even when nations try throwing money at the problem. While economic concerns may be worsening the issue - I don't think they're the root cause as many would like to say. I think the root cause is that we have outsmarted our biology. Once you give people education on the risks of sex and pregnancy,…

Yes, exactly. I think the real reason why we don't see aliens is that once the population reaches certain level of intelligence and awareness, it takes only one generation thinking "this is not worth it" to cause dramatic population collapse which might wipe out entire species. And the thing is, "life isn't worth it" might actually be true, as much as evolution does everything to convince us otherwise.

But now that I think of it, there might be solutions. The problem is, they're incompatible with individualism. Imagine passing a law that everyone is obliged to take care of a child. Sure, this would cause issues, but would instantly solve the population crisis. The problem is, such a law will never be passed in a democratic society, because everyone votes according to what they believe is their own best interest, not the best interest of the group. But an absolute regime could potentially do this.

Now that I think of it, maybe the problem is that human societies grew too big too fast and our brains didn't adapt. We're capable of self-sacrifice, just in a group of max 20, not 20 million. We need a completely new paradigm of organizing the society.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#552

Post by anthonypasq »

mullingitover wrote: post #523
anthonypasq wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah and? i thought it was generally agreed that the best things worth doing in life are hard? a life of comfort and hedonism isnt fulfilling. We've known this for thousands of year.

Having children itself can often be a form of hedonism. Let's face it: for many, the decision to have a child is very similar to the decision to have an exotic pet. People frequently/usually do it just for the social status boost they expect to receive. And if we're talking about having children in the context of history: for basically all of history except the rounding error of the past century, children were your s…

> Having children itself can often be a form of hedonism. Let's face it: for many, the decision to have a child is very similar to the decision to have an exotic pet. People frequently/usually do it just for the social status boost they expect to receive.

I actually don't think I've ever read anything that made as little contact with reality as this. Its actually impressive. If you actually think this is in any way true, you need to deeply deeply reevaluate the way you perceive the world.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#553

Post by tastyface »

rjbwork wrote: post #143
ryandrake wrote: post #102

If the US wants to increase its population, maybe it should stop sending masked agents out to kick in doors, directly reducing the population.

The US doesn't want indiscriminate population growth. It wants white people that were born here to reproduce more.

"The US" as a whole definitely does not want that, just the deeply unpopular white nationalists who have their hands on the levers of power at the moment.

As an aside, it's hilarious that they try to brand themselves as "Heritage Americans" since "Native American" is already taken.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#554

Post by tshaddox »

notpachet wrote: post #447
tshaddox wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some might say this is selfish, but on the other hand it’s kind of weird to expect anybody to commit to that for the sake of some other party, whether that be society, the government, peers, or parents, particularly when none of them are doing anything of substance to help mitigate those impacts in exchange. Nah, I think that it is just selfish, and that it’s the least weird thing in the world to expect people to c…

You're saying it's de facto selfish to not have kids? What if someone can't have kids? In reality everyone who's thinking about having kids exists on a spectrum of what's possible: either it's going to be really easy for you (because you're Elon Musk and you don't give a fuck) or it's going to be borderline impossible (because you're infertile, or you're broke, or whatever). Just because someone looked at the odds an…

Productive conversation is infeasible with someone who interprets my position to be that it’s selfish to be unable to have children.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#555

Post by shipman05 »

mwillis wrote: post #503

I truly believe psychology is at the root of this. People start families when the optimism they feel about the future outweighs the pessimism. Even if this evaluation is done subconsciously. At some point, in first-world society - averaging across different societies and social support systems, and considering the numbers in aggregate - we flipped. Pessimism about the future outweighs optimism. Downstream of that fli…

Hard to believe that people who suffered the atrocities of the first half of the 20th Century were tremendously optimistic about the future, yet birthrates were MUCH higher across the world.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#556

Post by 01284a7e »

Balgair wrote: post #207

I like to hang out on fertility twitter. It's a strange place. Since the fertility problem is worldwide, you get a lot of ideologies mixing about. There's hardcore CCP folks, free market Mormons, radical Imams, universalist preachers, the whole lot of them. They're all trying to share ideas and jumping on the latest research findings from reputable and crackpot sources. They're all looking for the recipe to get peopl…

RE: My take on it is: you have to make your country/society a place where people will want to have children and feel/know that their children's lives will be good ones.

---

"Every healthy creature tends to multiply himself." - Albert Camus, "The Myth of Sisyphus"

People aren't "healthy" (happy, secure, etc.) in America...

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#557

Post by philipwhiuk »

charcircuit wrote: post #509

Arranging society in such a way that women would rather have a career than be a mother will have profound consequences. The value of motherhood needs to be properly valued in society's collective mind.

No view on fatherhood? Quelle surprise

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#558

Post by bluGill »

dh2022 wrote: post #349
bluGill wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we had 2 kids in daycare my wife would have been better off staying at home (which we could not afford and she did not want to do anyway). Why the sexist idea that only your wife you could stay home? There are a growing number of men who are staying home to raise their kids - still a minority, but a good trend to encourage. Of course I have no idea what your personal situation is. You may have made the best choi…

Because I was making more money than my wife. Get it?

So? money is nice, but it isn't everything. many people have demoted themselves because something other than money was important to them.

Re: The US is flirting with its first-ever population decline

#560

Post by nickjj »

neogodless wrote: post #157
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is housing really that expensive? When you price out a loan on a starter house it really ain't that bad. I'm a recent first time homebuyer and I don't understand why people think they aren't affordable. There were plenty of cheaper homes that I looked at and even with rates at their highest would be cheaper than my rent. Do people expect a palace? Are there more unmarried people today who can't afford it alone?

Based on your lower comment, Rhode Island. Median family income $87k Cost-of-living ~$36k excluding housing With your example of a $350K home, someone making the median (presumably not 20-30 year olds but more like 40-45 year olds...) they could save up the $70k down payment in under 2 years. P & I payment of ~$2k / month. Maybe $1k more for escrow of taxes and insurance. So $72k total cost of living on $87k, assumin…

> Cost-of-living ~$36k excluding housing

When you say housing, are you excluding utilities or just not direct rent / mortgage / property taxes?

Either way, that's a good example of how different things are without kids and maybe why folks are choosing not to have them.

As someone without kids who lives in NY (not NYC), I couldn't even imagine spending 36k / year (minus rent). Even if I took a 3 week international vacation every quarter I wouldn't come close to that amount after factoring in my normal costs.

Post reply on HN