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

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#71

Post by Sharlin »

daxorid wrote: post #37
Sharlin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What? Take even a cursory glance at any IVF, PCOS, or infertility support group, and observe the outpouring of fundamental NEED and the grief of unfulfilling that need. Humans absolutely have a drive to have children, not simply sex. Sure, there are some people who lack this desire. Usually men, sometimes women, almost always young. The childfree movement (of which I was once a p…

Granted, I oversimplified. On the other hand it’s not even exactly clear as to when early humans figured out the causation between sex and pregnancy. But my point was more about an evolutionary drive for not having children when resources are scarce. That’s group selection, something whose mere existence is rather controversial. On the other hand, kin selection has probably played a part in prehistoric human communities, so I guess it’s complicated.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#72

Post by Sharlin »

rayiner wrote: post #69
Sharlin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 h…

Yes, I oversimplified. But see my reply to a sibling post.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#73

Post by annabellish »

belorn wrote: post #67
annabellish wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

It's a... difficult area, for sure. The scenario where some guy and some girl have a one night stand and then nine months later he's on the hook for a whole tonne of money is a Very Bad scenario, because obviously there's no promise of support inherent in that, and I'm not gonna pretend that scenario has never happened, and in cases where it has it's difficult to suggest that more nuance shouldn't have been taken.

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that "paper abortion" is a workable concept in the general case, though. If a couple is a couple and they break up eight months into the pregnancy, then suddenly you have one person who is about to lose their financial support _and_ their ability to financially provide for themselves, but "Child Support" as a concept isn't there for the parent, but the child.

The main difference between actual abortion in this case and paper abortion is that paper abortion still involves a child, and you can't get away from that. That child needs supporting, and permitting the "provider" member of a traditional "provider/childbearer" childbearing couple to vanish late in the process totally screws over the child, and that's what child support laws are there to avoid. There's definitely cases where this goes wrong, but I don't think I've seen much evidence that those are anything but a tiny minority.

>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.

I think that's probably true, unfortunately, and I think that's very silly and needs fixing. A two-woman pair is effectively identical to a man-woman pair (save obviously for usually requiring artificial insemination).

>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.

This, though, I can agree with wholeheartedly. I would be 100% behind abolishing child support as the current concept in order to replace it with a general child support system not dependant on the financial situation of either parent - kind of like UBI but for the child. We don't have that yet, though, so we're just kind of working with what we have, and what we have is a very imperfect system that prioritises the child above the parents, because the child has no choices in anything and is in need of far more protection.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#74

Post by toasterlovin »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #9
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…

> families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in the world, both past and present, yet we are having less children than we want. Answer in 3 words: Real estate prices. If you're a couple in the developed world you probably want to give your kids living standards to match. Fat chance doing that unless you and your partner aren't high earners

That ain’t it. Until you get to the 1%, families who make more money have less kids. This holds true even if you cut upper middle class incomes in half (to simulate stay at home mom) and compare to lower class.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#75

Post by toasterlovin »

pdimitar wrote: post #64
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…

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 o…

> 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.

What I'm saying is that "subpar" is not an absolute measure. Its meaning is constantly being revised according to what other people are doing. Is life in Eastern Europe today, in 2018, worse than it was 100 years ago (well, not exactly 100 years ago, since that was around WWI, but you get the idea)? And yet the birth rates are way lower. So clearly our conception about whether having children is viable is being scrambled by something in the modern environment. My hunch is that it's constant exposure to media and, with it, the constant sense that we are doing poorly (because the media primarily portrays fantasy lifestyles).

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#76

Post by toasterlovin »

daxorid wrote: post #37
Sharlin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What? Take even a cursory glance at any IVF, PCOS, or infertility support group, and observe the outpouring of fundamental NEED and the grief of unfulfilling that need. Humans absolutely have a drive to have children, not simply sex. Sure, there are some people who lack this desire. Usually men, sometimes women, almost always young. The childfree movement (of which I was once a p…

> The childfree movement (of which I was once a part)

Glad to have you back from the dark side! I jest, but what changed your mind and/or how do you feel about things now?

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#77

Post by toasterlovin »

Sharlin wrote: post #71
daxorid wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We simply have a drive to have sex. What? Take even a cursory glance at any IVF, PCOS, or infertility support group, and observe the outpouring of fundamental NEED and the grief of unfulfilling that need. Humans absolutely have a drive to have children, not simply sex. Sure, there are some people who lack this desire. Usually men, sometimes women, almost always young. The childfree movement (of which I was once a p…

Granted, I oversimplified. On the other hand it’s not even exactly clear as to when early humans figured out the causation between sex and pregnancy. But my point was more about an evolutionary drive for not having children when resources are scarce. That’s group selection, something whose mere existence is rather controversial. On the other hand, kin selection has probably played a part in prehistoric human communit…

No, deciding not to have children when resources are scarce is not group selection. Parents have limited resources to invest in offspring. Yet offspring need a certain minimum amount of resources to be viable. If parents are not in a position to provide that level of resources, it is better for their own genes that they wait until resources are more plentiful, otherwise they risk wasting resources on an unviable child.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#78

Post by toasterlovin »

cynicalkane wrote: post #36
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…

I think it's the contrast between what people want for themselves and what brings status. Maintaining status while raising kids--and having status for the kid you're raising, like sports teams or good schools--is expensive. Status is how society signals you should do something, so it's a strong incentive. The situation, at least in NYC where I live, seems reversed for the very rich, where more kids is a clear signal…

Fertility by socio-economic status is a U shaped curve. The poor and very wealthy (top 1%, basically) have the same number of kids. Middle to upper-middle class people have significantly fewer.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#79

Post by toasterlovin »

baud147258 wrote: post #25
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…

> My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life Or modern life is not adapted to humans

I am actually in full agreement with you. It is my personal opinion that any way of life and/or system of belief that wants to survive into the future needs to start thinking about partial technological renunciation. Key word being partial, since you can't run a modern nation state with the Amish way of life.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#80

Post by toasterlovin »

21 wrote: post #10
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…

Conventional Explanations of Changes in Fertility: Mortality decline has meant that most children survive, so that families do not need to have large numbers of children to ensure one or two survivors. In addition, in modern, urban, industrial society, children have turned from being an asset to constituting a financial liability. Children cost more to raise and support in cities, child labour is not acceptable, and…

IMO that's all bullshit. There are plenty of immigrants and highly religious people who have large families in the developed world.
Post reply on HN