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

Women and the slowing global population

pursuit.unimelb.edu.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#61

Post by belorn »

lev99 wrote: post #58
bwood wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most developed countries there is no easy way for man to "opt out" of responsibility for an existing pregnancy. The argument goes that women can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption if the pregnancy is unwanted, but men have no guaranteed say in what happens. One slip up and they are on the hook for child support, etc. Basically, some people think men should have a right to abdicate responsibility fo…

> Basically, some people think men should have a right to abdicate responsibility for a pregnancy at least up to a certain point. Are there any specific plans for this that are not harmful to the child or society?

Depend if society provide any social support to single parents. Here in Sweden I think there is a strong argument to say that children here are not worse off if they happen to have a single parent that get support from the state compared to a child that have single parent with support from the state and child support from a second parent. The point of the Swedish social welfare model is that all children has the same possibility in life regardless of the wealth of the parents, which mostly seems to be true for the less wealthy half of the population.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#62

Post by tzs »

gottebp wrote: post #35

A wise person here once suggested viewing the world population as a parallel computer, with each human mind working to move us forward. With this view in mind, as soon as space travel opens the solar system Malthusian philosophy dies forever -- we are going to need as many people as possible both to colonize and to discover answers to all the new problems that will arise. What would technological growth look like wit…

Even with space travel and even assuming an infinite universe there exists no growth rate R > 0 such that human population can grow at that rate or higher indefinitely, unless we get faster than light space travel, so it is not going to be as easy as you think to entirely eliminate Malthusian concerns.

Exponential growth, even with a small exponent, is astounding.

Suppose, for instance, we squeeze all of humanity into one densely populated volume. Let's give each person just one cubic meter. As population grows, we expand that volume, maintaining the density of one person per cubic meter. With all of space at our disposal, we are now set for a very long time, right?

Right, we are, but probably not as long as most people would guess. Let's say that the humans of Densopolis have a growth rate of 0.01%. Each year the population is 1.0001 times the year before.

After 900k years of that growth, the frontier of Densopolis needs to be expanding faster than the speed of light to make room.

If they grow at 0.1%, or 1.001x per year, it only takes 84k years to hit the speed of light limit. At 1%, or 1.01x per year, they hit it in under 8k years.

Another neat illustration. Instead of packing densely, let's say humanity spreads throughout the Milky Way. If they maintain a growth rate of 1.0001x per year, after 940k years all the mass of the Milky Way will have been used to make human bodies. There will be none left for stars, interstellar dust, planets, or any other life forms.

At 1.001x, we need all the mass after 94k years. 1.01x does it in under 10k years.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#63

Post by annabellish »

belorn wrote: post #60
annabellish wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a fair analysis of either current feminist thought or the current state of affairs. The reproductive rights of men are important and there's no suggestion any should be removed, but that doesn't mean that in a sexually dimorphic society both members of a childbearing couple (or more generally, all members of a childbearing group) have the same _options_. Men and women both have the right of bodi…

Talking about bodily autonomy to be the start and end of reproductive rights is a bit unfair to the concept at large. Planned parenthood is not "planned bodily autonomy", except given a different name. Planned parenthood, pro-choice, and similar initiatives talk about the choice to be a parent and the benefit in society where children are born from adults that want to have children. There is no physical reason why a…

Making that about women vs men is missing the point entirely, which is part of why i was explicit about alternate childbearing groups. If you have two woman in a childbearing group, then the one who is pregnant has the option to terminate or continue the pregnancy, while the one who is not pregnant does not have these options. It is entirely about bodily autonomy - you cannot force anybody to either undergo an abortion or not undergo an abortion. It is a medical process with side effects, effects on one's mood and mind, deeply personal implications depending on how "human" exactly you feel a fetus is, et cetera.

Drawing that as "men have no rights" is deeply reductive, because it isn't about men vs women, it's about the childbearing person vs the non childbearing person(s), and fundamentally does come down to that the same rights have very different implications depending on a person's position.

You have the old joke, "this law isn't discriminatory, both rich and poor are banned from sleeping on the streets!", and in this case it essentially holds true. What you're seeing isn't discrimination, both the childbearing person and the non-childbearing person(s) have the same right to not be compelled into or out of an abortion, it just isn't a right which helps very much if you aren't pregnant.

It does work out that the average man in a childbearing couple doesn't have an "out", but there's no way to implement that "out" without imposing on the rights of somebody else, whether it be by compelling action, or by suddenly threatening to revoke a promise of support that a new childbearing parent desperately needs for them and their child.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#64

Post by pdimitar »

toasterlovin wrote: post #4
rayiner wrote: post #2

> Although fertility has stabilised at levels above two children per woman in some countries, in the countries of Central Asia, the fertility rate (which had been close to two) has risen to around three children per woman. This is linked to the fact that many women there are having the number of children they want to have. That last fact is interesting. The average ideal family size reported by adults in the US is 2.…

My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life. More specifically, there is something about the information environment that scrambles whatever mechanism we have for determining if we are doing well enough to bring more children into the world. I mean, it has to be that, since objectively speaking families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in…

As a guy living in Eastern Europe: definitely not the case around here.

It's just that life is way too uncertain and everybody is fighting for scraps. Many couples either decide they don't want to bring a child in such uncertain conditions -- like me and my wife -- or they risk it and end up providing very subpar support for their kids. You should see two parents crying and hugging each other and their kid in front of a store because they cannot afford to buy it a $50 LEGO set... It can break your heart and give you a new perspective on the perceived notion of "the world, globally speaking, gets better".

We the people adapt quite well to basically everything, I'd say. But the developed world you speak of is basically the smaller part of the civilized territory on the planet. Go ask people in Nepal, my country Bulgaria, or Hungaria, or Serbia, or Brazil about the average living standard and what miracles many parents achieve just so their kids get decent education, are well-fed and have some small entertainment budget on top of that.

I mean we are most certainly both correct for the respective filter bubbles we are living in. But I still wanted to offer you another perspective.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#65

Post by pdimitar »

YinglingLight wrote: post #29
PunchTornado wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the ideal is 3 kids, but I don't want to raise 3 kids.

Even though responsibility is what gives life meaning. I feel like many men are 'checking out' of society's responsibilities (which need not be related to raising children) for a number of factors.

> Even though responsibility is what gives life meaning.

This is only true until a certain point is reached and it plateaus and even declines after.

Personal character development -- gaining more courage, finding strength within oneself in the face of extreme adversity (example: "pay mortgage installment in the next 2 weeks or end up on the street"), managing to stay optimistic even when everything seems to go wrong, getting outside your comfort zone to find unconventional solutions to immediate problems, learning to sell yourself without humiliating yourself... all of these things are extremely valuable and end up making you a beautiful person who can handle a lot.

But this piques. From one point and on you just collapse and if you haven't invented some sort of a safety net for yourself a this point in your life, then what follows can only be described as a band of vandals kicking you and beating you up while you are down on the ground and are desperately trying to defend yourself.

Everybody has a breaking point. I found several of mine. Now I can handle almost anything life throws at me and I like myself MUCH more compared to even 2-3 short years ago. You learn your lessons and you don't make the same mistakes anymore. But if you don't get some stroke of luck or drastically change the way you make money and move to a higher economical class, then it's only gonna go downhill for you from then on.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#66

Post by pdimitar »

jatsign wrote: post #17

Ethical question - is it unethical to contribute to a charity/foundation/whatnot that works towards people having fewer children, given that such would inevitably be most effective in third-world countries where the birth rate is highest? Or would that be western imperialism pushing our values on the less developed world?

Many women in developing countries only have kids as a side effect of unprotected sex. They didn't want the children but adapted and made it work.

Nothing unethical about supporting a cause where such women can protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy until they feel they are really ready for children.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#67

Post by belorn »

annabellish wrote: post #63
belorn wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking about bodily autonomy to be the start and end of reproductive rights is a bit unfair to the concept at large. Planned parenthood is not "planned bodily autonomy", except given a different name. Planned parenthood, pro-choice, and similar initiatives talk about the choice to be a parent and the benefit in society where children are born from adults that want to have children. There is no physical reason why a…

Making that about women vs men is missing the point entirely, which is part of why i was explicit about alternate childbearing groups. If you have two woman in a childbearing group, then the one who is pregnant has the option to terminate or continue the pregnancy, while the one who is not pregnant does not have these options. It is entirely about bodily autonomy - you cannot force anybody to either undergo an aborti…

> you cannot force anybody to either undergo an abortion or not undergo an abortion

No one is arguing for forcing someone to do anything. Forced abortion or non-abortion would be the opposite of having reproductive rights and bodily autonomy as human rights. Every human rights advocate are against this and rightly so.

> but there's no way to implement that "out" without imposing on the rights of somebody else

There is. It is called paper abortion, or simply the concept that naming yourself as a parent to a child should be a voluntary act by an adult. Conception is no more a promise of support than conception is the promise to give birth to a child. We don't say that women have made a promise to give birth to a child just because they had sex, so it seem strange to say men in contrast does make such promise. The only promise of support should come from society at large to give every child the same possibility in life regardless of how much money their parent or parents has.

Human rights. Human liberty. Choice and freedom. Not about forcing someone to do something against their will. The benefit of adults that want to bring a child into the world compared to adults that are forced by culture or law is very striking and as the article points out essential progress in society.

> If you have two woman in a childbearing group, then the one who is pregnant has the option to terminate or continue the pregnancy, while the one who is not pregnant does not have these options

Just a side note, but I don't think there is a legal system that I know which would force the other woman to pay child-support against her will. The child-bearing mother can't write on the paper that the other woman is the child's second parent, and instead the law forces the non-bearing woman to voluntary request to be the second parent. It is indistinguishable from the process that reproductive rights for men would be, and operates as a clear example of how it would work in practice.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#68

Post by pdimitar »

OctoberThoughts wrote: post #56

Posting from a throwaway account for privacy on this one. For me personally it's never seemed worth it, even though I am well off and healthy. I've never been with a man I trusted enough to feel safe with, like he could protect me or take care of me while I was in the vulnerable state of pregnancy / early motherhood. Partly this is emotional and not rational, I'm capable of taking of myself. The men, on the other han…

You have a lot of respect from me and all men who appreciate honesty! There's a lot of us out there, trust me -- and we are able to handle ourselves and aging parents quite adequately as well.

I was also very open with my wife when we sat and discussed whether we should live together (4-5 months into a very successful and passionate relationship where absolutely nothing was ever wrong -- that was 4 years ago). I told her in very plain terms that since she is yet to invent herself -- she is still very young -- and since only I provide the money, then I am not willing to increase the stress and responsibilities on myself just because. I was very upfront and told her outright that if her plans include kids then we should just remain casual passtionate lovers and not seek a deeper relationship.

She agreed with me on the no-kids policy -- and we started living together -- because she feels that where we live (Eastern Europe) life is way too hard and economically unstable to bring a kid into. She is quite a bit younger than myself but already suffered a lot and our relationship naturally evolved into this sacred island where we both find comfort, love, passion, friendship and time for ourselves. We feel ZERO desire to have kids even 4.5 years into the relationship.

My wife, like your partner, is also a brilliant and loving person but I don't know how much more years I can provide for both of us (and my widowed mother) before I collapse. We are both well aware that the modern civilization is as unnatural and hostile to the human soul as it can get and that many people simply cannot adapt and end up being an endless drag on somebody else... but she knows that she eventually has to adapt. I take a lot of bullets for her in the hopes of her repaying the favor one day but if it doesn't happen then we could eventually part ways.

...I am way too chatty these days. Sorry.

What I am getting at is this: IMO your partner should have some direction and goal. It's a very good strategy against depression and is recommended in many therapies. Receiving a soft ultimatum from your loved one -- "I am giving you 5 years to reinvent yourself and start participating in the family's finances" -- might sound harsh but definitely lands people right back in reality. Money does not grow on trees. Depression is a b1tch but you need a strong partner standing right beside you and not always behind you. Your partner must be aware of that.

Don't take this as an unsolicited advice. I am mostly saying that I strongly relate with you and I am sharing my thoughts on the topic. Keep going!

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#69

Post by rayiner »

Sharlin wrote: post #11
toasterlovin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life. More specifically, there is something about the information environment that scrambles whatever mechanism we have for determining if we are doing well enough to bring more children into the world. I mean, it has to be that, since objectively speaking families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in…

> yet we are having less children than we want. How so? Evolution has not programmed into us any sort of drive for careful family planning to optimized the number of offspring. We simply have a drive to have sex. For the vast majority of human (pre)history, optimization of offspring number occurred the same way as with all sexually reproducing species: natural miscarriage and child mortality. Now that we have control…

> We simply have a drive to have sex.

People want kids, not just sex. Among the 14% of Americans over 45 who never had children, 47% would have preferred to have two or more children, and only 44% would have preferred to not have had children. Among the 86% of adults over 45 who do have children, just 7% would have preferred not to have children. Put differently 12% either didn't have kids and are happy with it, or had kids and regret it. 85% are either happy they had kids, or regret not having them.

People want to have a certain number of kids. It may be aspirational--like the weight they want to be or how often they want to go to the gym--but it's a real desire, quite independent of sex.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#70

Post by pdimitar »

epx wrote: post #40
beerlord wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly intelligent and conscientious people (which I presume as a HN reader you are) having fewer children leads merely to Idiocracy :-( Look up the work of Richard Lynn, get that reversal, and do it for civilisation :-)

Yeah, I have heard that argument from many friends. This is the failure mode of current civilization - child rearing has been made too damn expensive and even a legal liability for responsible people, while irresponsible people reproduce like rats and that's ok then. I see that happening, but I won't change the tide and I won't pey the personal cost.

Agreed. Our local gypsies exchange the same babies on queues for social help and never have to be worried about not having money for food while I have to bust my health and reduce my life expectancy to not be thrown out of my rented flat and have food in the fridge. And I have to produce kids so I can help the world?

No.

I refuse to bring kids in such an uncertainty. I don't "owe" our civilization nothing. I can die tomorrow and it never did anything for me except demand more and more bills and trying to scam me into yet another loan or an expensive buy that I don't need. That civilization is not entitled to dictate anything personal in my life.

Post reply on HN