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

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#81

Post by watwut »

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…

The lego set example strikes me as odd, because lego is optional and I grew without such toys bc parents could not buy them. I am well off as parent, but 50$ toys are something that I don't buy. And I am no rare, it is just normal not to buy expensive toys. No matter how rich you are, the kid is going to cry at some point or the other due to inability to buy toy.

Where it gets bad is when you can't buy something all the other kids have. I understand that there is such a thing as poverty and it sux, but 50$ lego set is not that example.

It is when you can't afford schools supply and such.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#82

Post by kazinator »

The problem is that this slowing of birth rates due to the improvement in women's status will basically destroy those societies. Those societies where women have low status shall inherit the Earth while the rest peter out. Too bad that a good thing has to be self-defeating.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#83

Post by kazinator »

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

It's not just real estate prices. It's also that grown-ups basically continue to be children; they want to just play with more expensive toys. Or chase after other things like careers. Some people still don't have children, though well past the point of being able to afford them.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#84

Post by belorn »

annabellish wrote: post #73
belorn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If a couple is a couple and they break up eight months into the pregnancy

Since a woman is not allowed to wait eight months and then decide to have an abortion there is a argument to make that men should have to follow the same time limit. This is not about giving men more rights then women, but rather equal reproductive rights.

> 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.

Here in Sweden I would claim that we have such support system already but the political climate is as hostile to giving men reproductive right as it is in countries without it. Every child is guarantied housing, food, school and about 125$ per month as a form of UBI until the age of 18 that by law must exclusively go to support the individual childs needs for everyday items like clothing. There is also an addition to the UBI per child if a family has multiple children.

> 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

The concept that children is at risk or worse when they only have a single parent is not very consistent in political discussions. In the last years the support grown very large that single women should be allowed to start a family through artificial insemination (paid by the government), and I have not seen any political opposition that talks about the child must have two parents. The outcome for the child is identical to that of paper abortion, but politically it is very different.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#85

Post by daxorid »

toasterlovin wrote: post #76
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…

> 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?

What changed my mind was holding my (unplanned) daughter in my arms for the first time. I've posted a little about this before:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17473013

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#86

Post by toasterlovin »

daxorid wrote: post #85
toasterlovin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

What changed my mind was holding my (unplanned) daughter in my arms for the first time. I've posted a little about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17473013

Children are a hell of a thing. We have three and will start working on a fourth soon (and hopefully continue beyond that).

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#87

Post by OctoberThoughts »

toasterlovin wrote: post #75
pdimitar wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Our concept of whether having children is viable also carries a lot more weight, since contraception is now available and effective.

You can think it's a terrible idea, but when the only way to prevent it is abstinence...

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#88

Post by toasterlovin »

OctoberThoughts wrote: post #87
toasterlovin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

Our concept of whether having children is viable also carries a lot more weight, since contraception is now available and effective. You can think it's a terrible idea, but when the only way to prevent it is abstinence...

> Our concept of whether having children is viable also carries a lot more weight

I'm in total agreement. The plummeting birth rates speak to that. I'm taking a biological viewpoint. If a biologist were examining human natural history, the single most peculiar feature would be how birth rates became disconnected from material wealth in the last 100 years.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#89

Post by pdimitar »

toasterlovin wrote: post #75
pdimitar wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Your questions are valid but I cannot agree with their premise. Yeah, life in Eastern Europe is very definitely much better compared to, say, 1900, but it's not that simple; back then they didn't have 10 bills to pay a month nor did they have to do grocery shopping. People lived on the farm and produced food and whatever they didn't have, they bartered their extra goods for it. Pretty simple and overall easy life (although working on the farm can be quite exhausting and consume 16+ hours a day sometimes). All balanced out with bad healthcare for example: chances were much higher you could die of a disease that's trivial to cure today.

I mean, it's apples to oranges. Many things are objectively better... and many others are objectively worse.

There's nothing scrambling our concept about whether we should have children. As several people in this discussion pointed out, having children was linked to benefits down the line back in the past, and nowadays they are mostly only a cost center. And finally, whether we compare 2018 with 1900 or not, life in many places of the world is hard and many people don't want to raise a child in very uncertain conditions. You don't care if 1900 was worse; you only suffer because you cannot buy your kid a toy -- or even their favourite food.

Comparing to the past in such a situation is quite pointless.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#90

Post by pdimitar »

toasterlovin wrote: post #88
OctoberThoughts wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our concept of whether having children is viable also carries a lot more weight, since contraception is now available and effective. You can think it's a terrible idea, but when the only way to prevent it is abstinence...

> Our concept of whether having children is viable also carries a lot more weight I'm in total agreement. The plummeting birth rates speak to that. I'm taking a biological viewpoint. If a biologist were examining human natural history, the single most peculiar feature would be how birth rates became disconnected from material wealth in the last 100 years.

It is very much connected. Many people don't have the necessary stability to raise kids, so they don't. And no small amount of rich people don't want kids because they don't want to dedicate that much attention to something else but themselves -- egotism is not illegal after all. But I think this second example amounts to much smaller contribution to the birth rate decline.
Post reply on HN