new | show | ask | jobs Github

baxtr 3 hours ago

Let’s consider this logically:

What kind of people will not wanting children likely select for?

At least two kinds come to mind:

1) People who love children and are willing to have them regardless of the impact on their financial situation.

2) People living in societies where women (and likely some men) lack a say in whether or not to have children.

The first kind could be very good.

The second is definitely not something we should look forward to.

▲

pstuart 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If things don't change, those in power in the US will succeed in making the second a reality.

There is a "replacement" crisis but it's being addressed by pearl clutching and those advocating for forced birth.

Having children is expensive all the way around. And women's reproductive rights have enabled them to (rightfully) make their own choices about motherhood.

To state the obvious: children literally are the future of humanity and we need to address the issue accordingly. A lot of it would be via changing the economics of having a child, and the rest would be by making the world a "village to raise a child".

This is all eminently doable. We just need to agree on what that looks like and how to best invest in it.

▲

iamnothere an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A people that will not or cannot reproduce itself must eventually step aside for a people that will.

Those who govern us see us as an economic zone to exploit, so perpetuating core social values isn’t really a concern. Although even countries who recognize this problem are having trouble finding a solution.

It may simply be that the future doesn’t look very much like the “developed world”. The only nations (or large subcultures like the Amish) that still have high fertility rates also have values and lifestyles that appear very foreign to us.

I’m not passing judgement, it’s just Darwin in action.

	▲	pstuart 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Your assessment is depressingly reasonable. I have a thesis that people need stories to inform and inspire them. I also believe that this problem is technically solvable, and that the stories we have today are either backwards (the woman belongs at home making babies and taking care of daddy), or too hand-wavy (we just need to fund Head Start and make schools free). I'm all for the latter approach but it doesn't address the fact that children are money, time, and energy vampires (albeit lovable and worthy of those things). We need more than that. Programs that augment school itself (the arts, scouting, DIY/maker stuff, etc). Those exist but are not evenly distributed and we need way more of it. Lastly, the "village" part of encouraging communities to help families thrive instead of struggle; to make sure that kids have the options they need rather than turning to drugs, gangs, etc. C'mon everybody, let's kumbaya!

▲

toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Based on all available evidence, there is no will to implement or change the necessary policies, nor is it likely there will there be in the next 5-10 years (affordable housing, better working conditions, universal healthcare, robust support systems for parents, etc), locking in the fertility trap trajectory.

Even Scandinavian countries and France, with generous parental benefits, have not materially increased their fertility rates.

At least in the US, protecting agency and autonomy that might be challenged is easily solved with the second amendment for defense, as well as long term and permanent birth control for those who would not like to have any children or more children. The potentially vulnerable reproductive age population shrinks perpetually year after year, continuously reducing potential attack surface.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48733976 (citations)

▲

roysting an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]