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

What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 927 posts

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#861

Post by crtified »

rsync wrote: post #376
crtified wrote: post #178

My anecdotal experience, which illustrates how changing societal norms may be contributing. Around 1960, my grandmother scandalously fell pregnant with my mother in her late teens. The child was adopted out - well, not out - in. To her own grandmother, to be raised as a "younger sister" to her own mother. Around 1980, my mother scandalously fell pregnant with me, in her late teens. Despite family disapproval, the chi…

I thought your anecdote was interesting and thought provoking and I appreciate that you posted it. Thank you. I am disappointed at the hostile reaction it provoked in some others ... as if you, or your anecdote, reminded them of something that angered them and they lost track of the difference.

Thank you! I have taken any off-tone responses in stride, on the understanding that child-bearing is a very contentious and emotional issue for many.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#862

Post by Larrikin »

coldtea wrote: post #688
Larrikin wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human biology allows your body to get sick and die from bacteria and viruses, sometimes floating in the air. Human biology let's you get a cut on your hand and die from infection. That was a thing for most of history. Do you think it's weird we don't just let people suffer from those things as well?

Yes, I think our cavalier use of antibiotics is a real problem, that could wipe a huge number of people out through the development of populations with huge immune deficiencies and uber-bacteria. Similarly for antiviral resistance. Plus the need for such drugs itself is overplayed, most of the time the human body can take care of an infection itself. Things like clean water, hand washing, etc, helped for the rest man…

Have you documented your turning down of antibiotics, vaccines, and other medicines so that others can see how tough you are and how modern medicine isn't needed? Have you encouraged your parents and grandparents to do the same? Have you denied your children modern healthcare as well?

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#863

Post by jalapenos »

pjc50 wrote: post #739
jalapenos wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simpler than this: how long does an unwanted pregnancy remain unwanted? Basically 9 months tops. After than it's automatically into rearing mode and don't have time to mull such crap. Then as the shock peters off after a year or so, any original thoughts or utterings of "unwanted" get code-of-silence buried til the end of days, and don't ever come back.

> how long does an unwanted pregnancy remain unwanted? Basically 9 months tops An unwanted pregnancy can remain unwanted for the rest of your life. (everyone then walks back to "oh I didn't mean abortion should be banned in cases of rape or medical risk to the mother", at which point we have to point out that the religious conservatives very much do want that.)

Only if you're sick in the head. Can you imagine? Little girl or boy running around and all you can think is "damn birth control didn't work". Monsters maybe are like that

The religious conservatives can think whatever crank nonsense they want, the rest of us can comfortably separate out the 99% elective killing case, and leave the remaining 1% cases for the controversy.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#864

Post by sebmellen »

doublerabbit wrote: post #777
sebmellen wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an unbroken evolutionary thread of more than 4.5 billion years of evolution from the very first organism to you. Every one of our ancestors made it, and chances are they did so in more difficult and perilous circumstances than we can imagine. You can as well. This kind of doomerism is only accessible because you have social media and global news networks that expose you to the negativity bias of humanity. Th…

> This kind of doomerism is only accessible because you have social media and global news networks that expose you to the negativity bias of humanity. I have zero social media, don't read the news, and have a happy stable lifestyle. I can afford to raise kids and ten years ago, yeah go for it. I wanted to have children. Now? no way. My generation stops with me and many others my age (36) echo the same statement. I do…

I’m sorry that you feel this way and I hope that you can get help. I don’t say this to be mean or sarcastic — I would seriously advise that you screen yourself for some form of depressive disorder. Life can be better.

My email is in my HN bio if I can be of any help.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#865

Post by sebmellen »

watwut wrote: post #772
sebmellen wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an unbroken evolutionary thread of more than 4.5 billion years of evolution from the very first organism to you. Every one of our ancestors made it, and chances are they did so in more difficult and perilous circumstances than we can imagine. You can as well. This kind of doomerism is only accessible because you have social media and global news networks that expose you to the negativity bias of humanity. Th…

> Child care is accessible and affordable if you look in the right places and are willing to be creative. That is really not the case. > And children do not meaningfully detract from any other positive sides of life. Honestly, they actually quite often do. You are not allowed to talk about it, but reality of it is that you loose a lot.

Well, it depends on where you live. It’s certainly the case in Texas and much of the southern United States in my experience. San Francisco — yes, unlikely.

And it depends on what you think you are losing (FYI loose = not tight, lose = opposite of win). I think I have gained far more than I have lost.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#866

Post by [deleted] »

redeeman wrote: post #831
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #446

Earlier 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.

are you saying that everyone in poor countries barely making it by are being "just irresponsible" when they decide they want to have kids? this seems very elitist, possibly racist, and certainly could indicate that your view might be wrong, given the literal billions chosing to do this.

[deleted]

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#867

Post by al_borland »

vjulian wrote: post #760
al_borland wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’ve used the word “great” and “pleasure”, however you’re not specific about what you’re talking about. I’m having to guess at what you mean, and you keep telling me I’m guessing wrong, without clarifying your point. This isn’t productive.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#868

Post by lurking_swe »

crtified wrote: post #858
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the late 90's, my late-teens girlfriend scandalously fell pregnant. And whose fault was that, eh?

Partly her parents, for refusing to allow her to go on birth control as a preventative in advance. She did ask. Back then, in my country, parental approval was required by law for people under a certain age. That has since changed. Unfortunately it took a lot more than asking (i.e. it took "a pregnancy") before they took her seriously. But primarily, yes, my fault and her fault.

Actually i think it’s mostly the parents fault. Sure you physically played a part but teens in general are dumb. That’s just how most teens act…no shame in that. Very little impulse control and lots of hormones.

A parents job is to TEACH their child how to navigate the world safely, and that includes how to not have an unwanted pregnancy. One can encourage abstinence, but it’s also important to realize that kids are not property. They will do what they want, and only follow abstinence if they want to. If you child refuses to follow your advice, at least help them practice safe sex. Safe sex is better than unsafe sex.

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#869

Post by sebmellen »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #808
sebmellen wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Why is it irresponsible to have a child when you're young and financially not established? Just imagine being the kid in that situation. Your parents are still almost kids themselves, they are working min wage jobs and had to drop out of college. Seriously, this isn't rocket science: we are having kids older because growing up in a financial stable household is just good for kids. If you have a trust fund or are so…

Had first kid at 24 on a shoestring budget in a small apartment with very minimal family support and we handled it. Kids are not that hard or expensive!

Re: What caused the 'baby boom'? What would it take to have another?

#870

Post by sebmellen »

holy_eggplants wrote: post #788
sebmellen wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had my first child at 24 on a shoestring budget in a 700 sq. ft. apartment and it has been completely manageable. Children are way less expensive than you might think (definitely cheaper than an adult) and if you’re creative you can find good quality, full-time daycare or childcare for $10-15k/yr. Does this add extra work? Oh yes, absolutely it does. But while having children means you sacrifice certain things, the…

I think one problem is that it's difficult to share with non-parents that the sacrifice is worth it. It's easier to understand the pain of losing opportunities, losing freedom, losing hobbies, losing sleep, or downsizing living space. How do you explain that you miss your newborn so much, that when the baby is asleep all you do is look through pictures of him/her? i almost cried the first time my toddler ran up to me…

You completely nailed it. I hope to teach my children the same. And thank you for your beautiful comment.
Post reply on HN