5 ms·
Society has lost its way if arguably one of our most fundamental, carnal functions is too burdensome to carry out. Whether the burden is monetary (day care, cos
by jbob2000 9y ago
Society has lost its way if arguably one of our most fundamental, carnal functions is too burdensome to carry out. Whether the burden is monetary (day care, cost of goods) or social (sports, parties), there's got to be a reckoning coming. There's no way we can sustain this way of life.
- AlexandrB 9y agoOn the contrary, this is probably good news as we are nearing the carrying capacity of our planet. I don't think birth rates will ever decline to the extent that the global population collapses but a declining birth rate is really something to celebrate.
- mrdodge 9y agoIt's only declining in the places where people give a shit about the Planet in these terms.
- lumberjack 9y agoThey "give a shit" but at the same time pollute a thousand times more (per capita). So one less American and one more Indian is a net positive for our green earth.
- thriftwy 9y agoI'm not sure about that. USA has a lot of nature preserves and strict environment laws. 3rd world countries may experience runaway population growth where no land left undisturbed and nothing is preserved. If we take CO2 it's another thing, but low emissions won't save you once all the biosphere is literally eaten.
- dominotw 9y agoThat has nothing to do with cost to earth. We just export our pollution to seas and china. If all countries start living like americans we'd need 5 times the surfaces area of earth.
- thriftwy 9y agoPreserving biosphere is precious. "Cost to earth" is meaningless by itself - the planet isn't going anywhere. The only fragile thing here is biosphere. I can see that you don't actually value Earth, just pity that it's so small you have to ration it.
- z0r 9y agoOne of the funnier aspects of the stereotypical basket of progressive views is that they end up holding their own societies to high standards and criticize qualities of those societies that were necessary for the fostering of their own worldview.
- thriftwy 9y agoThe main problem there, the elephant in the room, is that we live till 85 but the decision about having each and every child has to be carried before 45, and 'soft limit' is a decade lower. Subtract your own childhood, education and getting some money and experiences, and you can see it becomes very very narrow. Demographics will shift dramatically if we are to prolong youth instead of prolonging old age.
- tr0ut 9y agoI agree. This may be one of the most deranged articles I've read on HN. One thing to decide not to have children for a number of reasons. To go forth and regret it after the fact and use a bunch of complacent excuses is rather sickening. These people need to really do some soul searching.
- dominotw 9y agoDamn.
- tr0ut 9y agoWhy "damn"? And why the downvotes? You have children to have/start a family. Nothing to do with difficulty, that is relative. Life is difficult, get over yourself. I can't image a friend, partner, colleague, family member..whatever. With such little heart they regret their own children. This is the kind of person that believes in "shithole" countries because they lack all the qualities that make up compassion.