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

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#91

Post by pdimitar »

watwut wrote: post #81
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…

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…

I agree it wasn't the best example. I was aiming at something that you would buy your kid twice a year... and even though that expense is pretty rare, the parents still don't have the money.

I failed to convey the message. Sorry.

My overall point is there are quite a bit of things the kids need outside of immediate survival. For example, between ages 1 and 10 you basically have to buy them new shoes twice a year... And not having the money for that would suck a lot.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#92

Post by jdbernard »

Shaddox wrote: post #54
lev99 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an agricultural society children are an asset. In an industrial or service based economy children are a sacrifice. This has always been my view on why birthrates are declining.

I share your view. I believe it was during the industrial revolution where the family was redefined from an economic unit to a loving unit. Kind of strange how nowadays it feels like it has always been this way.

It reminds me of the fact that despite how permanent our life patterns feel, we're never more than two or three generations from completely changing our social norms and life patterns.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#93

Post by bwood »

lev99 wrote: post #58
bwood wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most developed countries there is no easy way for man to "opt out" of responsibility for an existing pregnancy. The argument goes that women can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption if the pregnancy is unwanted, but men have no guaranteed say in what happens. One slip up and they are on the hook for child support, etc. Basically, some people think men should have a right to abdicate responsibility fo…

> Basically, some people think men should have a right to abdicate responsibility for a pregnancy at least up to a certain point. Are there any specific plans for this that are not harmful to the child or society?

I'm not sure that's a constructive way to look at it. Arguably both adoption and abortion are harmful to the child. Arguably reducing taxes on a particular group is harmful to society at large. Both are done frequently, so I think there's probably more nuance than you imply.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#94

Post by zepto »

ethbro wrote: post #22
Rinzler89 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Among other things. Ability to "provide for children" seems highly subjective, according to our surrounding conditions. Having 2 goats in a town with no goats = able to provide. Having a McMansion in a town with bigger McMansions = worried about ability to provide.

Depends if you took out a mortgage for the goats.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#95

Post by baud147258 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #79
baud147258 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

From what I've read (mostly here), Amish still use some tech. But I agree with you on renouncing some tech might be necessary to survive.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#96

Post by YinglingLight »

mercutio2 wrote: post #55
YinglingLight wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The higher degree of responsibility you voluntarily choose to bear, the richer your life will become. ...You have a complicated job, you try to solve problems, to aid suffering, and there's weight to that. There's deep meaning in that." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg7NhHJsGq0

You might be shocked to learn that many people do not consider Jordan Peterson an authority on philosophical questions like what the good life consists of. Also, minor etiquette point, many of us block YouTube, so for people like us, providing a link that forces us to open a separate browser that doesn’t block YouTube so that we can figure out who you’re quoting isn’t the ideal way to convey your point.

Beautiful example of an ad hominem! I'd love to discuss what you disagree with in Peterson's view on responsibility.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#97

Post by mercutio2 »

YinglingLight wrote: post #96
mercutio2 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be shocked to learn that many people do not consider Jordan Peterson an authority on philosophical questions like what the good life consists of. Also, minor etiquette point, many of us block YouTube, so for people like us, providing a link that forces us to open a separate browser that doesn’t block YouTube so that we can figure out who you’re quoting isn’t the ideal way to convey your point.

Beautiful example of an ad hominem! I'd love to discuss what you disagree with in Peterson's view on responsibility.

Someone disagreed with the notion that responsibility is intrinsically useful.

In response, you posted an opaque quote from some random person without any relevance to any moral framework I’m culturally connected to who thinks responsibility is awesome in and of itself.

I don’t know or care about Jordan Peterson, so I don’t think I’ve made an ad hominem; rather, I think you’re attempting to make an argument from authority, which isn’t very convincing.

I’d feel similarly about a biblical argument, except in the case of the bible, I’d at least acknowledge that while I don’t consider it a moral authority, it has significant cultural heft and is thus worth wrestling with occasionally.

I personally am happy to have most of the responsibilities I’ve gathered in my life, with child rearing high on that list. But I don’t resonate with the idea that it’s the responsibility itself that gives meaning to my life.

Post reply on HN