3 ms·

I don't see anyone mentioning this so I'll take a gander with my "modern jackass" [1] solution based on my own personal observations of the reasons why I don't

I don't see anyone mentioning this so I'll take a gander with my "modern jackass" [1] solution based on my own personal observations of the reasons why I don't want kids: I have so much I still want to do with my life and I want to sink what time free from work into dinners and trips with my wife. Given the extant threat modern nations face, why aren't they offering to care for and raise our children? They'd be raised by professional caregivers with educations in pedagogy, surely an in-aggregate higher quality of childcare than that given by stressed out, first-time parents. Mine did a terrible job of raising me. I think if Denmark or South Korea wants a higher birthrate they should offer to step in. I've been around my friends' kids, it's not pleasant. There's a very "big ego thing" going on and sudden tantrums that threaten to topple the softest evening. Just my 2 cents but I have a hard time understanding why none of these governments have proposed such a system. I'm sure there'd be a big uptake. Open to being schooled here but please be nice. [1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/293/a-little-bit-of-knowledge https://www.thisamericanlife.org/293/a-little-bit-of-knowled...

jbluepolarbear 5y ago
I love my kids, it’s everyone else’s I can’t stand. :)
Tade0 5y ago
> why aren't they offering to care for and raise our children? But they do. You'd be surprised how many crucial skills are taught in kindergarten. But there's also the question of scale - for certain things infants and children need their caregivers' undivided attention. Otherwise you end up with something akin to an orphanage, and there are plenty of data points suggesting that going in this direction is a very bad idea. Overall some things are already being done, other don't scale, so it's up to the parents to do that and the government's role to make it as easy as possible.
asoneth 5y ago
Many countries already invest substantial resources towards caring for children in the form of subsidized daycares, public schooling, subsidized food, etc. I expect demographics will force many countries to become even more generous in this regard. If you're referring to the government or other entity taking primary guardianship of children that does already occur in the foster/adoption system, but I don't understand why you think that would boost the birth rate. Would it motivate you to have children if the government offered to take them off your hands after they're born? I suppose the closest example I can think of to something like that would be joining a commune or kibbutz and avoiding the childcare chores, but I understand that most of those groups have a whole other set of demographic/retention issues.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response. > Would it motivate you to have children if the government offered to take them off your hands after they're born? Yes, I'd give them all the babies int the world if they offered to take them off my hands after they were born. "Kibbutz" was the word that sprang to my mind when I wrote my first comment. I'm curious, too, if the state could professionalize birthing: a woman would be paid a hefty sum to bear a child to term and the child's care would be taken over by an intimately sized kibbutz. My understanding of the failure of orphanages is that it is both the origin of trauma that haunts its orphans and the poverty of resources and caregivers allocated to them.
  - asoneth 5y ago
    > I'd give them all the babies in the world if they offered to take them off my hands after they were born Assuming you have not already done so, perhaps becoming a surrogate or donating sperm would be an option for you? While it's not exactly handing a baby to the state, there are many couples who would be interested in raising children but are not biologically capable. At least of the parents I know, I am skeptical that simply offering to take additional children off their hands would incentivize them to continue giving birth to more children. > a woman would be paid a hefty sum to bear a child to term In the US the market has determined that sum to be $25,000 on average.[1] I don't know whether you would consider that hefty, but it's at least an order of magnitude lower than what it would take to incentivize me to bear a child. [1] https://surrogate.com/surrogates/becoming-a-surrogate/being-compensated-as-a-surrogate/ https://surrogate.com/surrogates/becoming-a-surrogate/being-...

jbluepolarbear 5y ago

I love my kids, it’s everyone else’s I can’t stand. :)

Tade0 5y ago

> why aren't they offering to care for and raise our children? But they do. You'd be surprised how many crucial skills are taught in kindergarten. But there's also the question of scale - for certain things infants and children need their caregivers' undivided attention. Otherwise you end up with something akin to an orphanage, and there are plenty of data points suggesting that going in this direction is a very bad idea. Overall some things are already being done, other don't scale, so it's up to the parents to do that and the government's role to make it as easy as possible.

asoneth 5y ago

Many countries already invest substantial resources towards caring for children in the form of subsidized daycares, public schooling, subsidized food, etc. I expect demographics will force many countries to become even more generous in this regard. If you're referring to the government or other entity taking primary guardianship of children that does already occur in the foster/adoption system, but I don't understand why you think that would boost the birth rate. Would it motivate you to have children if the government offered to take them off your hands after they're born? I suppose the closest example I can think of to something like that would be joining a commune or kibbutz and avoiding the childcare chores, but I understand that most of those groups have a whole other set of demographic/retention issues.

emptysongglass 5y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response. > Would it motivate you to have children if the government offered to take them off your hands after they're born? Yes, I'd give them all the babies int the world if they offered to take them off my hands after they were born. "Kibbutz" was the word that sprang to my mind when I wrote my first comment. I'm curious, too, if the state could professionalize birthing: a woman would be paid a hefty sum to bear a child to term and the child's care would be taken over by an intimately sized kibbutz. My understanding of the failure of orphanages is that it is both the origin of trauma that haunts its orphans and the poverty of resources and caregivers allocated to them.
- asoneth 5y ago
  > I'd give them all the babies in the world if they offered to take them off my hands after they were born Assuming you have not already done so, perhaps becoming a surrogate or donating sperm would be an option for you? While it's not exactly handing a baby to the state, there are many couples who would be interested in raising children but are not biologically capable. At least of the parents I know, I am skeptical that simply offering to take additional children off their hands would incentivize them to continue giving birth to more children. > a woman would be paid a hefty sum to bear a child to term In the US the market has determined that sum to be $25,000 on average.[1] I don't know whether you would consider that hefty, but it's at least an order of magnitude lower than what it would take to incentivize me to bear a child. [1] https://surrogate.com/surrogates/becoming-a-surrogate/being-compensated-as-a-surrogate/ https://surrogate.com/surrogates/becoming-a-surrogate/being-...