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

891–900 of 927 posts

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

#891

Post by MarkusWandel »

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 like this. It has nothing to do with the "big picture" in birth rates, but it's a personal story. Mine is simpler. My dad had a societal expectation to be married - a position he was eyeing was only open to married men. My mom was the best bet at the time. Here I am. This, too is a scenario that is no longer applicable.

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

#892

Post by sebmellen »

sjw987 wrote: post #886
sebmellen wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your point on the word “doomerism” and I should have quoted it. Later in my comment I said “prophecy of economic or climactic doom,” which is more reflective of how I see it. Go back through history and you will see time and time again that the world was due to end, but did not. Bayesian probability says we’re probably not headed for a world-ending outcome. But I suppose I also take issue with your claim…

We needn't jump to the end of the world or human extinction, hence why I didn't understand the need for finalistic terms like doom. What many people believe is that life simply isn't going to be as good for the next generation(s). You can already see the downward trend from our parents generation to ours, the downward trend (economically, politically and socially) within our own lifetimes and project that to the next…

Fair points, I wasn’t trying to be condescending. You’re right about the UK. That is a different context than the US and the trends you mention are perhaps more economically “real” there than here.

But I still think the core question matters: what do we do about it? History shows decline isn’t always permanent. Rome fell and the Black Death killed a third of Europe. But we still ended up with the fruits of the Renaissance and Enlightenment because people kept making people and working for the betterment of the world.

You mention antibiotics becoming redundant. This is true. But we’re also developing phage therapy, CRISPR antimicrobials, and new drug classes. We’re figuring out protein folding at scale for the first time. Every one of these problems eventually leads to some kind of solution so long as there are smart people paying attention to what needs to be done.

The dodo couldn’t adapt but, as humans, we can. I’m not saying ignore the problems. I’m saying don’t let them paralyze you. To solve problems, we need more smart people — someone has to keep making them!

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

#893

Post by redeeman »

ponector wrote: post #840
redeeman wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also luckily there are mandatory public schools starting from the age of 3 wtf... let the kids be kids. this is totally gross and government violation of families

You say to let moms be forced to stay at home as daycare is expensive?

im saying dont force anyone to do anything, let alone force 3 year old kids to go to school.

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

#894

Post by sjw987 »

sebmellen wrote: post #892
sjw987 wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We needn't jump to the end of the world or human extinction, hence why I didn't understand the need for finalistic terms like doom. What many people believe is that life simply isn't going to be as good for the next generation(s). You can already see the downward trend from our parents generation to ours, the downward trend (economically, politically and socially) within our own lifetimes and project that to the next…

Fair points, I wasn’t trying to be condescending. You’re right about the UK. That is a different context than the US and the trends you mention are perhaps more economically “real” there than here. But I still think the core question matters: what do we do about it? History shows decline isn’t always permanent. Rome fell and the Black Death killed a third of Europe. But we still ended up with the fruits of the Renais…

I think, as an outsider, the US faces most of the same problems, but I believe you do have a better starting position and extra cards in your hand than we do.

Personally I cannot see how the UK is going to steady declining living standards. I see the same from my reading in a lot of Europe, and many countries have a much lower starting point (Africa, Asia exc. China), or are accelerating their decline even faster by their actions (Russia). I don't envy any political party that comes to power because truthfully I doubt any of them can solve any of the problems we're facing, even with deeply unpopular changes and the stubbornness to see them through.

We don't have globalised tech companies, any real production basis, or energy/mineral wealth. We largely provide services which are going to be hit hardest by even basic LLM, and domestic services which are gradually being priced out of business by rent and energy price hikes. It's a small island with too many people living on it, fighting for scraps while whatever is left of the economy is sold off for the benefit of very few people (who will eventually emigrate when the fan is hit).

I strongly believe within my lifetime (early 30s) I will be living in a third-world country, and that global problems and events will be piled on top of that. Slow but steady social breakdown is very clear on a day-to-day basis (theft up to £200 is basically legalised, insufficient employment, large amounts of people out of work due to mental health issues).

Many of my friends in late 20s and 30s have a similar view, hence the no kids. At the minimum, I would only have children if the pretext was emigrating from the UK first.

When Rome fell, it was bad news for the citizens of the Western Roman Empire. We're gradually going through the same thing. If you have the ability to control birth and are acutely aware of these issues and the negative trends, it's many peoples opinion that its better to save the next generation the trouble of potentially being the ones to be holding the bomb when it goes off.

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

#895

Post by antisthenes »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #482
antisthenes wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then we haven't had a stable population in several centuries, because it was rapidly growing. Yet we have made (hopefully this is not contentious) great strides in technology, human rights, and general quality of life. Certainly there were some stable societies in that timeframe?

"great strides in technology, human rights, and general quality of life." is growth, not stability.

Congratulations, you have taken the argument so far from the original point as to make it useless.

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

#896

Post by aaomidi »

arp242 wrote: post #373
aaomidi wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean we know how to solve it. Increase/Apply taxation on wealth.

It's not just a money issue. You need medical and other care staff. You need appropriate places to house people. Things like that. None of this is really a "we can just pay for it" thing. But yes, obviously something will have to be done about taxation on wealth. But simply "tax wealth" doesn't really solve anything here on its own.

I agree.

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

#897

Post by imtringued »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #616
zmgsabst wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to how we talk about the Wage Gap but not the Death Gap, ie, that men do an order of magnitude more dying in the workplace.

And after. Women live on average 3 years longer than men, at least in the U.K. In theory male retirement age should thus be 3 years lower, but until very recently in the U.K. female retirement age was 5 years lower, meaning women had 8 more years of claiming a pension. When this was equalised there were massive protests.

A properly thought out retirement system should reward those who have children, take care of step children or pay child support with retirement benefits based on the number of years of child care. This would give women a few extra years of retirement in line with their longer lifespan without artificially subsidizing them (child care is a form of labor that should be directly depositable in exchange for a pension).

That would align the incentives for fathers to stay with children or pay child support and for unlucky men to at least have an economic legacy that will work in exchange for their pension money, which would otherwise be worthless.

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

#898

Post by imtringued »

like_any_other wrote: post #278
itake wrote: post #161

My $0.02 is being a mom sucks. In modern relationships, men just want to work and come home to a cooked meal and clean house, but their wives are working just as many hours the men are. Having kids means tension in relationship, unpaid labor by the woman, and stress parenting kids. Even if the husband steps up, he still can't breast feed for 3 hours per day. Pregnancy is really terrible on the woman's body. Post-part…

A generation looking for fulfillment in cubicles... let me show you how that works out: In early 2017, with her 45th birthday looming and no sign of Mr. Right, she decided to start a family on her own. She excitedly unfroze the 11 eggs she had stored and selected a sperm donor. Two eggs failed to survive the thawing process. Three more failed to fertilize. That left six embryos, of which five appeared to be abnormal.…

I consider this medical malpractice. Freezing eggs in your late 30s is way too late. You're taking an almost infertile woman and subjecting her to unnecessary complications while taking her money even though the staff should be fully aware that this is going to end in failure.

In vitro fertilization simply does not worth reliably beyond 35. You need eggs from your early 20s.

After 35 your last option is natural conception, because multiple passes of IVF are incredibly expensive. It's like a lottery at that point. Natural conception is worse, but you have 12 free tickets every year for five years. That will get you two children if you are lucky.

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

#899

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

Fade_Dance wrote: post #443
stevula wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Developed countries have reduced population growth” is a far cry from “looming human extinction”.

Pro-natal cultures have thrived vs less-natal cultures for literally thousands of years. That's how we got here. I also don't see the problem. (I strictly used the word culture and not anything biological or genetic since I'm not aiming at that line of talk in the slightest, to be clear)

This world doesn't have the 500 cultures/civilizations that it had circa 3000 BC. It only has the one culture, it's global, dominant, and ubiquitous. It is the "less natal" culture, it is the only culture. It assimilates any subculture that dares raise its head. When it dies, there won't be another to fill the niche.

This is why, for instance, when immigrants from high-fertility countries (all in central Africa) come here, our culture assimilates them and they're back to low fertility within 2 generations. Not only that, but our culture slowly creeps inward towards the epicenter of that high fertility, damping it down even at its source. The Chinese belt-and-road initiative is likely to murder it entirely within our own lifetime.

This is something different, never seen before. Saying "oh gosh shucks, it happened back in eleventy-twenty-fourven and we survived fine then!" is dismissal, not contemplation. Never before in human history has actual fertility sunk this low (or even really sunk). People didn't ever stop fucking, and they didn't have birth control, or abortion, or a dozen other factors. When population declined historically, it was due to war, disease, and famine. But because fertility remained high, just as soon as those pressures relented, population recovered. When fertility goes below replacement, population can never recover, it can only continue to shrink. When it goes below replacement, every girl growing up learns from the adults around her that low fertility is "normal", and she's not going to grow up and decide to have 8 herself (or even 2). She'll have as many as she saw those adults around her having, or maybe fewer (it acts as a ceiling, but not a floor).

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

#900

Post by 0xffff2 »

mulmen wrote: post #828
0xffff2 wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, we categorically lack the technology for wide-scale colonization of space or other planets. Second, no matter how much people like to deny it, the Earth does have some finite carrying capacity. We can argue indefinitely about what exactly that carrying capacity is, but it exists. It follows from those two facts that unbounded population growth is not possible. A continually shrinking population eventually lead…

> It's not really clear to me what the point of this question is. Are you advocating for infinite growth? For eventual extinction? Am I allowed to ask a question without having an agenda? What’s with the hostility?

No hostility intended. No human being is a completely blank slate. Asking such an open ended question on an internet forum strongly implies that you disagree with the premise of the person you're responding to. Explaining if/how/why you disagree can lead to a more productive conversation.
Post reply on HN