9 ms·
Harried South Koreans pamper pets instead of having kids
- aaronbrethorst 8y agoPlus the world is going to shit. How do you justify having a child who could expect to live to about 2100 when there’s no clear guarantee that the earth will be inhabitable then? (n.b. Of course I hope I’m wrong, and I’m doing what I can to make sure I am, buti it is a truly monstrous challenge.)
- flexie 8y agoOur kids’ chance of survival and of having a peaceful life with full stomachs has never been better. That is true in South Korea as well.
- Phenix88be 8y agoAnd the planet has never been so close to destruction...
- speedplane 8y ago> How do you justify having a child who could expect to live to about 2100 when there’s no clear guarantee that the earth will be inhabitable then? How do you justify your own existence if you "know" the earth eventually won't be habitable. I have the answer for you: you hope. There's plenty of that left, it's what keeps us all going.
- aaronbrethorst 8y agoRead my full comment.
- speedplane 8y agoI did, but you discounted hope far to much, putting it in a parenthetical at the end. Hope is what keeps everyone going.
- mcv 8y ago> How do you justify your own existence You don't justify your own existence; that was never your own decision. You justify your decisions, and having children is a decision. Just picking that one nit. I do agree with the importance of hope, and I chose to have children. Though I totally respect people who make a different decision.
- ionised 8y agoNo, survival instinct is what keeps people going.
- speedplane 8y agoSurvival instinct is related to hope, but it isn't the same thing. Survival instinct prevents me from putting my hand in a blender, because I know it'll hurt. Hope makes me work harder in my job, care for those that I love, and look forward to tomorrow. Those things don't neatly boil down to survival instinct.
- fipple 8y agoThe same way that tens of billions of people have had kids for millennia with an almost clear guarantee that half of them would die before age 5.
- samcday 8y agoHigh infant mortality rates / Tuberculosis / Spanish flu / AIDS, Malaria, or any other fun epidemics / Large segments of the world completely uninhabitable. Extreme social unrest due to massive influxes of "climate refugees". Worldwide food shortages. Constant war between neighboring countries. Rampant societal collapse. One of these things is not like the others. Can you spot it? EDIT: formatting
- fhhhhfhfgggggg 8y agoActually, no, I can't? You mean uninhabitable segments of the world? As long as there are inhabitable places left, what is the difference to the survivors? People in Europe lived happily for millennia without even knowing other continents exist (and vice versa). So "amount of inhabitable space on the planet" does not seem to be an essential part of achieving human happiness.
- black-tea 8y agoAccidentally because they didn't have access to contraception? That's not the world we live in today.
- jobigoud 8y agoWe have ubiquitous contraception now. The default stance is to not have kids until you actively decide to have one.
- bildung 8y agoIn a few countries, yes, but sadly not for the majority of the world population.
- black-tea 8y agoYes, this is one of many reasons I won't be having children. Couldn't live with myself knowing that they're going to have a worse life than I've had. Reproducing is also the worst possible thing you could do given our current situation anyway so I won't be part of it. I feel better knowing that even if I am living an unsustainable life (which I certainly am despite being very frugal) at least it ends with me.
- icelancer 8y ago> Reproducing is also the worst possible thing you could do given our current situation anyway This is absolutely false if you live north of the poverty line and are educated and wealthy (by world standards), which if you're commenting here, you probably are. Have kids or not, but don't delude yourself into thinking that it's bad. Rich people not having kids is literally the worst thing you can do with regards to children-based decisions on the effect of the state of the world.
- vasco 8y agoRich or not they'll still make traffic worse and I'll have to wait in line longer at shops.
- adwhit 8y agoHow can I bring a child into the world when it appears likely that the child will suffer greatly? The West hasn't really grappled with this question yet, but give it 15 years - when climate breakdown starts seriously affecting quality of life - and I expect the birthrate to crash.
- coconut_crab 8y ago> How can I bring a child into the world when it appears likely that the child will suffer greatly? Suffer from what exactly? In my family, half of my father's siblings and cousins died from war and hunger, the rest also had to hide from constant bombing and assaults, in fact my grandmother's village was wiped completely from the map. Yet they have tried their best to build the country so that now I can type this comment, safe from any kinds of harm. I consider it is my duty to do the same for the next generation. IMO the society should support families with kids more, as they are nurturing the future of mankind, literally.
- lazyjones 8y agoPerhaps it's the other way round and the world is going to shit because so many people don't have kids and don't care what happens in the future... Giving voters with kids additional votes for every child might be worth considering.
- supermatt 8y agoSounds like a sure-fire way to accelerate idiocracy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E "Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most - and left the intelligent to become an endangered species" Edit: For those that seem to think I'm calling people who have children stupid - idiocracy is a satirical movie. I would suggest you actually watch the link i posted (i.e. at least "read" the comment before you reply to it...)
- pertymcpert 8y agoWhy? Are you implying that people with kids are less intelligent?
- supermatt 8y agoDid you even watch the video link?
- ovi256 8y agoIf you're confident you're smart, why not fight idiocracy by having kids ?
- ahje 8y agoHumans breeding like rabbits is a _really_ bad thing in the long run. Contributing to that will only make the problem worse, and most intelligent people realise that. The solution is to discourage the "idiots" from having kids in the first place -- not to compete with them.
- coldtea 8y ago>Plus the world is going to shit. How do you justify having a child who could expect to live to about 2100 when there’s no clear guarantee that the earth will be inhabitable then? People had kids all through the worse times -- not just accidentally as some implied here, they actively wanted and had kids. The "climate change" etc excuses are just excuses (the same could have been said in the 10s after the Spanish flu toll, in the 30s about the unstable world politics, in the 50s to 80s about the possible "nuclear holocaust", and so on). Or does somebody believe the billions having kids today are "bad people" and they're some kind of enlightened figure?
- fhhhhfhfgggggg 8y agoMy personal way to deal with the question is that I decided that my kids deserve their own chance to try to survive and make a living. Also, when I was a kid I believed I would die within 20 years because of some natural disaster (hole in the ozone layer, nuclear war where the fears of the day). People at all times seem to believe that the end of the world is just around the corner. I know, I know - this time it is for real... Ultimately, we all die no matter what we do, so why do anything at all?
- andyonthewings 8y agoWe have the same trend in Hong Kong, where it was estimated in 2014 to cost $700,000 (USD) to raise a kid [1]. I've several married friends (all Hong Kong locals) chose to have pets over kids, and that's also my preference - except I don't want to have pets either. By the way, there are 150 mainland Chinese migrating to Hong Kong, daily [2]. That means "original" Hong Kongers will be rare eventually. [1]: https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/09/04/want-to-raise-a-kid-in-hong-kong-youll-need-700000/ https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/09/04/want-to-raise... [2]: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/08/15/41000-one-way-permit-holders-moved-mainland-hong-kong-past-year/ https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/08/15/41000-one-way-permit-h...
- godzillabrennus 8y agoMy takeaway is that its a good time to launch a pet business in Hong Kong.
- coldtea 8y agoAnd a bad time to bet on Hong Kong's long term future.
- omeid2 8y agoWhy?
- coldtea 8y agoReproducing your population is the lowest bar and requirement for a society to have a future.
- omeid2 8y agoI am not convinced that biological-continuation is fundamental to a society's sustenance. As long as people are willing to move into HK or any other place, it will remain a hustling and bustling city, at least for the economic purposes.
- analognoise 8y agoChrist that seems so sad. I know I'm projecting from my life, and having kids, and all that, but holy shit.
- GreeniFi 8y agoI agree. Our generation must begin to question how a world has been created where increasingly the cost benefit analysis favours not having children. I acknowledge there’s more to it than the financial case, but the whole set of reasons needs to be factored in.
- analognoise 8y agoYeah. There's a number of things that make me think we need to desperately re-evaluate things, as a species. Like hunger - we're the most advanced species on the planet, by far. World conquering, right? We've literally been to space. But hunger still exists? How? I mean, I don't really understand how we got to this point, but now that we're here we really need to take a look around and go "Hey, is this what we're really an about?"
- Killes 8y agoAnd the answer to that, is a good dose of misanthropy ;) "People are shit", well, you see, not all, of course not, but a majority of shitty, poorly educated, selfish, "dishonest by default"(constantly lie to themselves and others) people are reproducing at great rate, raising further awful human beings. Sadly at a greater rate than families to be composed of empathic people with innate positive moral bend in them are. And such people are already largely outnumbered, raising their reproductive rate will not allow outpacing the others. They would bring positive influence to the world through their children, assuming the general ambient corruptions/experiences around them do not overpower the parents influence (do these parents even have time to impart enough of "them" to their children to make "good" people ?) A lot of terms in "" by which I wish to indicate these are massively grey concepts that can be debated at length, but I hope to convey my general gist. And then, maybe some people are getting put off by the exposure to negative human behavior around them and wish to surround themselves with purer creatures they cannot fault - a popular one of these beings being dogs among other pets :D The more familiar one gets with them the more one is struck in awe at the absolute sweetness and "goodness" present in many creatures of the animal kingdom, a concentration of which through breeding is highly present in pets)
- polskibus 8y agoIsn't that out of pure convenience? It's just convenient not to have kids and adapt your lifestyle, because entire economy is parasitic on people having kids. Families with kids have to spend a lot more than those without (cost to parent), kids become workers and tax payers (benefit to economy). I know that in some countries there are measures to counter this imbalance, but they are a rarity.
- lazyjones 8y agoThis seems to happen in developed countries where having kids is no longer necessary to ensure one's own well-being after retirement. It might also have something to do with common lack of self-appreciation, when proud parents see their children as better versions of themselves and other people don't want any...
- baybal2 8y agoHardly an Asian only thing. When I lived in Vancouver, I was frequently noticing that some people were spending more money and affection on their pets than on their own children. Seeing that made me rather uncomfortable, and contributed to my doubt of the West.
- ahje 8y agoSame in Finland, and from what I've heard, in most of the developed world. Many young people simply don't want to get kids, and there's probably a demographic crisis looming over the horizon. Migration will probably be used to keep increasing the population initially, but at some point we will run out of immigrants. The way I see it, there are two ways out: 1) We accept that the population cannot keep growing forever, and prepare ourselves for a society where older people are going to be increasingly common. 2) We coerce, or force young people start breeding. I don't really know how that could be done without massive human rights violations. There is, of course, the idea of vat-grown children, but that seems somewhat far-fetched.
- mcv 8y agoI'm used to people worrying about overpopulation and too much immigration. The opposite is rather refreshing. A lot of countries subsidise child care to some extent. That seems reasonable way to enable people to have children despite having jobs. Although obviously jobs shouldn't take up too much time either; 40 hour work weeks should be the max, and I'd really prefer to move to shorter work weeks. Otherwise what's the point of our increased productivity? But beyond that, I think it's a good idea to prepare for a smaller population; the world population is pretty big. Figuring out a way to live here with less people doesn't seem so bad, it's just the transition we need to get used to.
- throwaway24301 8y agoSure, maybe if you are Finland or Sweden you might be fine with your population being replaced. Countries without a strong culture have little to lose. As a Southern European, it gives me shivers to think of a Mosque being built in the middle of Rome or Salamanca.
- unmole 8y agoIs your culture really 'strong' if a new mosque scares you?
- 8y ago
- mcny 8y agoI think this ought to be the default. If you don't have children, consider not having any children. If you do have children, consider not having any more. Let's pool our resources and try to give the best opportunities for the children in our communities rather than everyone trying to have children. No, I'm not being funny or sarcastic. Humans pollute a lot. Also for the 99%, it doesn't so much matter if the world GDP continues to skyrocket. As long as we can keep productivity going up (no idea how), the 99% should be ok. No, I'm not talking about a ban on having children or a lottery system or a qualification/licensing (at least not yet). If voluntary restraint works (and so far it looks like it), there won't be any need for coercive action.
- smileysteve 8y ago> Let's pool our resources and try to give the best opportunities for the children in our communities rather than everyone trying to have children. What's good for the macro is not good for the micro. For communities, we need a strong work force that enjoys entertainment, that takes care of their elders, and raises the next generation to do the same. If you bring macro policy to the micro, you end up with desolation, a shrinking economy, decreasing home values, and nobody to do anything.
- vibrato 8y agoGetting people who are willing and able to act in the long term best interest of the community to avoid propagating their genetics might have some downsides...