Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have an office? They closed mine and told me I’m remote now.
That's even better than a cubicle
Yes. The next step down from an open office is hot swapping available desks each day you're required to show up.
What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
751–760 of 927 posts
Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
#752Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by “great”? It was successful in reproduction. That’s what we’re talking about here. People were having families and raising children that went out to have families and raise children. Gay couples can’t have children (outside of adoption or surrogacy), so I’m not sure how that is relevant to the topic at hand. Gay couples will not be helping with the next baby boom. We made a change in the culture, f…
That you’re focusing on “reproduction” and factoring out the pleasure of sex is a vestige of religion and speaks to the very heart of the problem.
This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with not having the population collapse, because we've become so focused on pleasure that we forgot why there is a biological advantage to it being pleasureful... to do it more and reproduce more. But modern technology has eliminated that pesky side effect of children.
The pleasure can and does still exist. It's not like it gets removed when sex is ends in a pregnancy. It doesn't have to be some mechanical act, the way you seem to be framing it.
Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
#753Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 20 years, with more women than men going to college, a lot of women aren’t going to find partners if they want someone that matched or exceeds their education level.
There have been more women than men in college for 40 years — and this is already a problem, because women don’t date down.
No one tell my wife please.
Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
#754Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would take a TFR of 2.1, so depending where you live, a 40-250% increase in fertility. There is no form of civilization that works with an imploding population and inverted demographic pyramid. Not even hunter gatherers could function like that
> There is no form of civilization that works with an imploding population and inverted demographic pyramid. No form of civilization has ever had the access to automation we have today. And in another 20 years, I suspect that'll be even more clear.
I also suspect that the value of automation will be captured by the top, leaving the majority with the same need to work.
Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
#755Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Relative stability, focus on family, growth, men as head of household, minimal single parent families, women spending time with their kids. This reads as deeply obnoxious sexism. Man as head of the household, sounds like religious fundamentalism.
Can behavioral evolution be sexist?
I'm going to bet that 'behaviour evolution' doesn't diminishes women into a role as subjugated to their husband.
The idea that women are their own person with their own agency and desires seems foreign to you.
Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
#756Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Relative stability, focus on family, growth, men as head of household, minimal single parent families, women spending time with their kids. This reads as deeply obnoxious sexism. Man as head of the household, sounds like religious fundamentalism.
Typical liberal talk rather than solving the problem. It worked for centuries. No one is stopping women from working or doing anything. But, making whole world gynocentric and policies around it is how you get mass inequality. For a societal change, things have to change at fundamental level. Are you aware that below $120k - $150k it is impossible to raise two kids, mortgage, healthcare, and live in a no-drug ridden…
> For a societal change, things have to change at fundamental level. Are you aware that below $120k - $150k it is impossible to raise two kids, mortgage, healthcare, and live in a no-drug ridden neighborhood?
Your solution is to enslave women again so they become baby incubators, exactly as right-wing theocrats want. The real solution is ofcourse 'socialism' and a rampant curtailment of capitalism, that is currently accelerating the migration of money from poor to rich.
Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
#757Earlier quoted context omitted.
People today think a 18-19 year old (which is still a legal adult in most places and for most purposes, can drive, go to war, live alone, work, and was always considered an adult throughout history) is "a child". Of course kind of makes sense when 30 and 40 year olds also behave and live like children and find "adulting" out of their capabilities.
I can't tell you how strange it is to have become a parent at 24. It anecdotally feels like the average parents my wife and I meet (with similarly-aged kids) are about ten years older than us. Making life is a normal part of life, and it's quite sad that we don't acknowledge the capacity of young adults.
Once people take responsibility for their lives and other people's lives, lots of things change. Perhaps the zeitgeist of behaving like a child in your 20s is just an emergent behaviour coming out of a consumerist economy?
Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
#758Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having kids when you are young and financially not established is just irresponsible, but particularly female bodies don’t do well having kids older when you are established enough to do so responsibly. I’m having this problem right now with my spouse (we have a kid, but are thinking about another), it’s just super hard to get pregnant without medical help.
Why? Can you defend this for me? I'm genuinely asking. Why is it irresponsible to have a child when you're young and financially not established? Why is it any more irresponsible to do that than to have children at a geriatric age? Children are resilient, and so are parents. In my opinion, this idea that you have to have everything perfectly set up in life before you can contemplate having a child is ridiculous.
If you have a child, but don't have a house, you'll probably stay with your parents. They probably would rather you have your own house so they can have privacy and such.
A lot of the "multiple generations of families under one roof" type thinking are only practical if you have a large property, which was more common and much cheaper before the industrial revolution, tract housing, high rise apartments, and $2000/mo. rent for 500 square feet. Even if you think it's OK for 3 generations and 20 children to live in a 500 square foot apartment, most others don't want that.
When you have people with more money than they could possibly spend in their entire lives who wouldn't have to work a day in their life if they didn't want to, telling you that people need to start having babies and oh, also they need to work 80 hours a week and "sacrifice" to pay for them as well, lol no thanks.
Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
#759Earlier quoted context omitted.
The electrical grid collapses in a couple weeks if not for constant maintenance by thousands of individuals. Many parts of our technology society are like that, it will be interesting to see how the system decays. Automation would need some breakthrough as profound as life itself to be useful without the millions of people behind the scenes making automation possible.
Based on unemployment rates, wages, and profits, we have a long way to go before labor for infrastructure maintenance is so scarce it cannot be maintained.
But the point is that you must begin poaching people from other parts of the economy to keep the essentials going, and therefore begin to chip away at our standard of living.
Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?
#760Earlier quoted context omitted.
That you’re focusing on “reproduction” and factoring out the pleasure of sex is a vestige of religion and speaks to the very heart of the problem.
This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with not having the population collapse, because we've become so focused on pleasure that we forgot why there is a biological advantage to it being pleasureful... to do it more and reproduce more. But modern technology has eliminated that pesky side effect of children. The pleasure can and does still exist. It's not like it gets removed when sex is ends in a…
I get the sense that by pleasure you’re referring simply to orgasm during sex itself? Again, that is part of the problem. As for religion, I believe your view is in fact rooted in religion which strategically and historically segmented the sexual experience; not that you’re explicitly espousing a religious view but that it is implicit in what you’re suggesting.