Wow, this reads like dystopian science fiction. As I celebrate the holidays with my newly born human, I sure hope that more people start wanting to bet on brighter tomorrows and actually put some skin in the game.
My kiddo is celebrating their second set of holidays this year. I have many friends who espouse some variant of “I don’t want to have kids because I don’t want to pass on my ‘messed up’ genes/the world doesn’t need more people/some other sad excuse”. It makes me wonder what their lives will look like then they’re 40-80 years old.
Sad thing is, it’s affecting not just their lives when they are 80 years old, but ours too! Every childless old person is a person for which someone needs to take care of who isn’t family.
That’s not to imply people don’t have the right to choose if they have kids or not — but let’s not pretend that we are not all paying the price for that decision.
Plus most of what needs to be done is highly informal and unstructured. Money can only buy so much. It can't buy someone who is going to actually represent your interests, rather than charging gobs of money for the illusion.
We live in such a capitalistic world by now, that most people’s happiness is, if they want it or not, tied to money. And I think society is moving further towards this.
Having kids would be a large financial burden and given my projection, would mean I wouldn’t be able to guarantee a decent living and the mental stability, because kids are brutal and societal pressures are very hard to free yourself from.
I grew up very poor and only very recently I was able to get out of debt i racked up just to survive (and sheer ignorance/living above my means, because I had nothing to lose and no perspective). I would hate myself of putting a child in that position myself.
If money wouldn’t be such a dominant force in current society, I’d very much consider having children.
>We live in such a capitalistic world by now, that most people’s happiness is, if they want it or not, tied to money.
This is how people feel, but that feeling has to be wrong. We know from history that people lived with much less and they were much more mentally stable than we are today. To be fair, if everyone is poor, it's probably very different than just you being poor in a rich society.
social media means people have realized how poor they are relatively. otherwise we are not in a substantially more capitalist world in the west and people are only more affluent than in the past.
obviously social media cannot explain everything about fertility, but i suspect it explains a significant portion of modern economic discontent among the professional/middle+ classes
I tend to disagree, I think a lot more in our society has changed due to the commodification of basically everything combined with the capitalist tendencies to pervert and corrupt anything, as there is no limit to greed. I think the housing market, food pricing and many more aspects of live have started to outpace the average workers wage to a point where it’s hard to be optimistic about a brighter future. The dream of ownership, a car, a family has gotten significantly more expensive in relation to incomes. At least from the POV of an European
Do you mean poor countries? I believe fertility is most closely related to education of women. If they have other options, many choose not to have a dozen kids like our ancestors. It's both hard on their bodies, and they typically get stuck with almost all the domestic and child care duties.
>I sure hope that more people start wanting to bet on brighter tomorrows and actually put some skin in the game.
I'm optimistic about the future but I can't see how's that related to have children. In any case, having children is putting someone else skin in the game, not mine.
We improve fiber optic connectivity in rural communities
We incentivize young families to move to rural communities
---
The main thing here is we break the unnecessary chains of offices and commuting and allow families to build where they have the space and want for them.
Cities are inherently isolating - space is at a premium - which means there is constant pressure to not expand in many different ways.
You need schools, pediatricians, daycare, other kids, etc. Cities (and suburbs) have those, not sure about every rural area. Certainly not the village in the article.
I doubt it would make much of a difference. Children growing up in rural communities typically move to a bigger city as soon as they can, which is where they then find mates and start their own families. I suspect not many young people are going to give up the social opportunities to stay in a small town or move back there.
But when they want the family, they have the option to go someplace to build it. That's the point. Right now the people meet in the city and stay in the city because they're tethered there.
Normally there should be higher taxes for companies that force work from office when there is no need for that. That is if we really want to be green and also care about the people.
Wow, this reads like dystopian science fiction. As I celebrate the holidays with my newly born human, I sure hope that more people start wanting to bet on brighter tomorrows and actually put some skin in the game.
My kiddo is celebrating their second set of holidays this year. I have many friends who espouse some variant of “I don’t want to have kids because I don’t want to pass on my ‘messed up’ genes/the world doesn’t need more people/some other sad excuse”. It makes me wonder what their lives will look like then they’re 40-80 years old.
Sad thing is, it’s affecting not just their lives when they are 80 years old, but ours too! Every childless old person is a person for which someone needs to take care of who isn’t family.
That’s not to imply people don’t have the right to choose if they have kids or not — but let’s not pretend that we are not all paying the price for that decision.
I’d argue childless couples/people will have saved enough money to pay for their care.
If other people didn't have children who grew up to be doctors, nurses, etc, there would be nobody to pay.
Looking at those in my extended family that have reached retirement, this does not appear to be a given.
End of life care* is highly variable in duration and costs and many people do not adequately prepare for expensive endings.
* this is true of more than just care post retirement
Plus most of what needs to be done is highly informal and unstructured. Money can only buy so much. It can't buy someone who is going to actually represent your interests, rather than charging gobs of money for the illusion.
At least in Poland, the societal attitude for having a child when you're poor is that you're "stupid" for doing so and a burden for society.
You can't win either way...
My first thought was about Children Of Men
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/
(Which is a harrowing, yet brilliant, film)
Don't you think this is due to economical reasons and not necessarily pessimism?
No, poor people have more kids (I'm guessing you implied the opposite).
I guess a bit of both?
We live in such a capitalistic world by now, that most people’s happiness is, if they want it or not, tied to money. And I think society is moving further towards this.
Having kids would be a large financial burden and given my projection, would mean I wouldn’t be able to guarantee a decent living and the mental stability, because kids are brutal and societal pressures are very hard to free yourself from.
I grew up very poor and only very recently I was able to get out of debt i racked up just to survive (and sheer ignorance/living above my means, because I had nothing to lose and no perspective). I would hate myself of putting a child in that position myself.
If money wouldn’t be such a dominant force in current society, I’d very much consider having children.
>We live in such a capitalistic world by now, that most people’s happiness is, if they want it or not, tied to money.
This is how people feel, but that feeling has to be wrong. We know from history that people lived with much less and they were much more mentally stable than we are today. To be fair, if everyone is poor, it's probably very different than just you being poor in a rich society.
social media means people have realized how poor they are relatively. otherwise we are not in a substantially more capitalist world in the west and people are only more affluent than in the past.
obviously social media cannot explain everything about fertility, but i suspect it explains a significant portion of modern economic discontent among the professional/middle+ classes
I tend to disagree, I think a lot more in our society has changed due to the commodification of basically everything combined with the capitalist tendencies to pervert and corrupt anything, as there is no limit to greed. I think the housing market, food pricing and many more aspects of live have started to outpace the average workers wage to a point where it’s hard to be optimistic about a brighter future. The dream of ownership, a car, a family has gotten significantly more expensive in relation to incomes. At least from the POV of an European
Poor people tend to not understand the economical consequences of having kids. This and lack of contraceptive methods.
on the other hand, poor people don't fully understand their situation.
Do you mean poor countries? I believe fertility is most closely related to education of women. If they have other options, many choose not to have a dozen kids like our ancestors. It's both hard on their bodies, and they typically get stuck with almost all the domestic and child care duties.
>I sure hope that more people start wanting to bet on brighter tomorrows and actually put some skin in the game.
I'm optimistic about the future but I can't see how's that related to have children. In any case, having children is putting someone else skin in the game, not mine.
Here me out here:
We make wfh a right for all appropriate jobs
We improve fiber optic connectivity in rural communities
We incentivize young families to move to rural communities
---
The main thing here is we break the unnecessary chains of offices and commuting and allow families to build where they have the space and want for them.
Cities are inherently isolating - space is at a premium - which means there is constant pressure to not expand in many different ways.
You need schools, pediatricians, daycare, other kids, etc. Cities (and suburbs) have those, not sure about every rural area. Certainly not the village in the article.
An unfortunate reality is that you're never going to have such services until there are children for them to service.
Decline like this is difficult to reverse, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I doubt it would make much of a difference. Children growing up in rural communities typically move to a bigger city as soon as they can, which is where they then find mates and start their own families. I suspect not many young people are going to give up the social opportunities to stay in a small town or move back there.
But when they want the family, they have the option to go someplace to build it. That's the point. Right now the people meet in the city and stay in the city because they're tethered there.
Normally there should be higher taxes for companies that force work from office when there is no need for that. That is if we really want to be green and also care about the people.