4 ms·

While I found things to like in the article, the comparison to ‘Children of Men’ is very strained. In the book women couldn’t get pregnant for unspecified reaso

by bwanab 5y ago

While I found things to like in the article, the comparison to ‘Children of Men’ is very strained. In the book women couldn’t get pregnant for unspecified reasons, but they desperately wanted to. The world the article refers to is one in which people choose not to have children generally for economic reasons.

hedgehog 5y ago
I'm not sure the two motivations are that different in effect. If you can't have kids for medical reasons vs you can't because it's ruinously expensive what really is the difference?
- unmole 5y ago
  > you can't because it's ruinously expensive Crudely speaking, birth rates in poor countries are higher than in rich countries. An within countries, birth rates amongst the poor tend to be higher than the rich.
  - hedgehog 5y ago
    A country having high GDP or personal income doesn't mean that things like housing, healthcare, childcare, or education are more affordable. For things like that where the buyer tends to have low leverage in the transaction costs tend to climb with ability to pay. In countries with strong lending infrastructure that goes past the limits of cash and into what buyers can borrow. This decomposes to local communities too, in my city incomes are high relative to most of the US but cost of labor and all of the above services are also expensive. Median household income isn't enough to afford a 3 bedroom place to live so you can imagine that's causing some problems.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      That's not really the point the parent is making. People who are infertile do not bear children, period. People who are poor often do have children, and in greater numbers, due to a variety of factors. The fact that they have trouble supporting those children is besides the point. The children are still born. This is where the Children of Men analogy gets a bit strained. Today, fewer people have children because fewer people want to, not because they're biologically unable.
- _3u10 5y ago
  It’s not that expensive. To be honest having kids make you make a lot of fiscally responsible decisions. It separates the wheat from the chaff. That said as soon as my kids are 18 I’m getting a really expensive sports car, but maybe a used one because years of parenting have ruined my ability to wastefully spend money.
  - orangecat 5y ago
    It doesn't have to be that expensive in terms of dollars (although there's often strong social pressure to spend all your disposable income on private preschools/travel soccer/expensive colleges), but it's very expensive in terms of time. And for higher income people, that time commitment has a much higher opportunity cost.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - hedgehog 5y ago
    If you can afford a "really expensive" sports car then I'm not sure your reference on fiscal responsibility is comparable to what most people experience. Assuming you're talking about a non-special used Ferrari or something, that's $200k + $20k a year. Most people have trouble coming up with $200k for a down payment and are nowhere near dropping that on a car. Preschool is $25k a year though, so in a sense the upkeep there is higher.
    - cyberpunk 5y ago
      Why would you live anywhere that preschool is $25k a year? I'm happy to pay a little more tax so that all children in my country (Germany) get exactly the same chance.
      - hedgehog 5y ago
        It's where I grew up so density of family is a big reason not to move. Social policy in places like Germany does sound like a better overall deal than what we have in the US, hopefully we can shore things up here because most people don't even really have the option to move even if they wanted to.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  The book is tragic in a different way - it’s our inevitable extinction being portrayed. In real life we may see some of the nasty sociopolitical consequences of that, but they aren’t irreversible. We can repopulate the depopulated regions, we can restart farming there (now with more automation and better quality of life). We don’t necessarily share the fate of the humanity of the book.

by bwanab 5y ago

hedgehog 5y ago

I'm not sure the two motivations are that different in effect. If you can't have kids for medical reasons vs you can't because it's ruinously expensive what really is the difference?

unmole 5y ago
> you can't because it's ruinously expensive Crudely speaking, birth rates in poor countries are higher than in rich countries. An within countries, birth rates amongst the poor tend to be higher than the rich.
- hedgehog 5y ago
  A country having high GDP or personal income doesn't mean that things like housing, healthcare, childcare, or education are more affordable. For things like that where the buyer tends to have low leverage in the transaction costs tend to climb with ability to pay. In countries with strong lending infrastructure that goes past the limits of cash and into what buyers can borrow. This decomposes to local communities too, in my city incomes are high relative to most of the US but cost of labor and all of the above services are also expensive. Median household income isn't enough to afford a 3 bedroom place to live so you can imagine that's causing some problems.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    That's not really the point the parent is making. People who are infertile do not bear children, period. People who are poor often do have children, and in greater numbers, due to a variety of factors. The fact that they have trouble supporting those children is besides the point. The children are still born. This is where the Children of Men analogy gets a bit strained. Today, fewer people have children because fewer people want to, not because they're biologically unable.
_3u10 5y ago
It’s not that expensive. To be honest having kids make you make a lot of fiscally responsible decisions. It separates the wheat from the chaff. That said as soon as my kids are 18 I’m getting a really expensive sports car, but maybe a used one because years of parenting have ruined my ability to wastefully spend money.
- orangecat 5y ago
  It doesn't have to be that expensive in terms of dollars (although there's often strong social pressure to spend all your disposable income on private preschools/travel soccer/expensive colleges), but it's very expensive in terms of time. And for higher income people, that time commitment has a much higher opportunity cost.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- hedgehog 5y ago
  If you can afford a "really expensive" sports car then I'm not sure your reference on fiscal responsibility is comparable to what most people experience. Assuming you're talking about a non-special used Ferrari or something, that's $200k + $20k a year. Most people have trouble coming up with $200k for a down payment and are nowhere near dropping that on a car. Preschool is $25k a year though, so in a sense the upkeep there is higher.
  - cyberpunk 5y ago
    Why would you live anywhere that preschool is $25k a year? I'm happy to pay a little more tax so that all children in my country (Germany) get exactly the same chance.
    - hedgehog 5y ago
      It's where I grew up so density of family is a big reason not to move. Social policy in places like Germany does sound like a better overall deal than what we have in the US, hopefully we can shore things up here because most people don't even really have the option to move even if they wanted to.
rbanffy 5y ago
The book is tragic in a different way - it’s our inevitable extinction being portrayed. In real life we may see some of the nasty sociopolitical consequences of that, but they aren’t irreversible. We can repopulate the depopulated regions, we can restart farming there (now with more automation and better quality of life). We don’t necessarily share the fate of the humanity of the book.