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

921–927 of 927 posts

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

#921

Post by lo_zamoyski »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #668
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catholics certainly were having more kids than Protestants at the time, who had by then been normalizing contraception (following the Lambeth Conference of 1930). But eventually Catholics drank the Koolaid like everyone else, so it's less about "cultural confidence" and more about "cultural detox".

Catholics are the only world religious group that rejected the pill. Currently, actual Catholics (who believe and practice the defining doctrine) are the only group above replacement rate. Cultural Catholics in the United States mostly aligned with Protestant secular world views.

> Catholics are the only world religious group that rejected the pill.

Or rather, the Church has steadfastly refused to sacrifice moral principle to drift downstream along with everyone else. Sure. And it never will go along. But a good fraction of the Catholic laity has.

> actual Catholics (who believe and practice the defining doctrine) are the only group above replacement

With all those qualifiers, the point becomes comical. Obviously, Catholics who actually live in accord with sexual ethics will have above replacement fertility. But a good fraction of those still in the pews are not procreating at above replacement, at least in the developed world. Many use contraception.

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

#922

Post by emseetech »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #69

What caused the baby boom was post-war catholics. What would cause another baby boom would be a recovery of catholic cultural confidence.

If that were the case, wouldn't the trendlines for Protestant vs Catholic as percentage of population move considerably closer to each other?

https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2014/02/04/50-...

Re: Figure 1. Trends in American Religious Affiliation, 1957-1971

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

#923

Post by sparklingmango »

MisterTea wrote: post #889
sparklingmango wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a lot to ask grandparents to take care of an infant full time during the work week. Here and there, on occasion, that is a completely reasonable thing to ask for. It helps strengthen family bonds. But I would never ask my parents or my in-laws to care for my toddler 8-5 M-F. They already raised kids.

> But I would never ask my parents or my in-laws to care for my toddler 8-5 M-F. They already raised kids. This is disheartening to hear. You should not have to ask, like ever. My mother would KILL to have grandchildren and would absolutely love to repeat what she calls the best time of her life. She nags me for not having kids and I feel bad because she sees other grandparents and is saddened she is missing out. I r…

No, my parents and in-laws have routinely expressed how much they love to watch and spend time with my kid. But they're also retired and have lots of trips and hobbies going on. They're getting older and aren't as physically able as I am in regards to picking up and chasing after a highly mobile toddler. My husband and I aren't their only kids either. They also spend time helping out our siblings.

So it's really more of a me thing why I don't ask them to take care of him "full time". If I really needed them to, they would (and happily).

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

#924

Post by nervousvarun »

octopoc wrote: post #281
red-iron-pine wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same here. not near her parents but close enough to both hers and mine that we can effectively have them rotate through consistently (got a spare room and king sized bed for the g-parents). even just 2-3 days a week is huge from a mental health / down time / get things done around the house.

I think one dynamic going on here is there is more animosity between generations now than there used to be. Many people get hyped up about their beliefs on social media, and when they go out into the real world they take some of that divisive thinking with them.

Apologies I'm really late replying to this...hope you see it.

I think this is an insightful comment with an element of truth and it's really, really sad. Yet another example of the net negative societal impact of social media.

Convenience/economic context aside, the grandparent/grandchild relationship/dynamic is incredibly important to a developing psyche.

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

#925

Post by tstrimple »

Aeolun wrote: post #878
tstrimple wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a child under a certain age has all the health risks of a serious disease putting the life of the mother and child at much higher risks. Why shouldn't it be treated as such? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5965834/

A 5% chance of your child dying when you give birth at age 15 and lower seems pretty reasonable to me? At least I’d have expected those number to be far higher. At 16-17 it’s 4% and at 18-19 it’s 3%, which makes it even better, but 19 out of every 20 children surviving longer than 28 days is pretty good.

> A 5% chance of your child dying when you give birth at age 15 and lower seems pretty reasonable to me?

You're fucking insane if you'd sign your child up for something that has a 5% chance of death. Literally insane. Gross. Disgusting.

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

#926

Post by kazinator »

Aeolun wrote: post #672
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?

You say that as if having children is a disease. If you are old enough to have a child, you are very likely old enough to successfully raise one. Otherwise the human race wouldn’t exist.

I smell an evolutionary argument here that is fallacious.

For eons, tribes/villages raised children; it was not left entirely to the young mothers.

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

#927

Post by electricboots »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #487
bethekidyouwant wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People just figured out how to pull out?

Pulling out is not birth control. Good Lord.

In my experience it’s 100% effective over a couple longterm(ish) relationships that total to about 4 years in my early 30s. Average around 3 to 4 times a week after accounting for time apart. I guess I could be sterile in my older age?
Post reply on HN