3 ms·

I think OP is focusing on a different core thesis — that moving in with parents is not conducive to having babies. But what you describe definitely rings true.

I think OP is focusing on a different core thesis — that moving in with parents is not conducive to having babies. But what you describe definitely rings true. Many of my friends grew up with two working parents in a nuclear family and didn’t realize how incredibly tough that is until they started having kids themselves.

hunglee2 4y ago
yes you might be right, I may have rushed to a conclusion. Multi-generational is clearly our natural state, our evolved state. Only last hundred years since we atomised the family, begins to make sense why we are dying out
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  What is an evolved state? I assume almost all people live in multi generational households because they cannot afford not to. My ideal is grandparents a few houses down, within a couple minutes walking distance.
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    Evolved as in the true meaning of the term - Darwinian evolution. Homo Sapiens have live and grow and die in extended kinship groups, this has been the case for 99.9% of the time we have been around - and if we go further back to pre-human times, we likely lived in those kinship groups too. We only collapsed this structure since industrialisation / urbanisation - last hundred, maybe two hundred years
- cs137 4y ago
  Cities have always been population reducers: below replacement fertility, with migrants from the countryside increasing the population. This was true 2000 years ago and it's true now. It's hard to say for sure why this is, but I'd imagine it's that urban people have more awareness of economic inequality. Rural people suffer from it, but they don't see it on a daily basis, so they aren't constantly reminded of the disadvantages that 99% of them will inherit in the way urban people are. These days, not only is the world population more urban, but people are also more consistently aware of the inequality problem. People are realizing they have no hope of providing the best opportunities for their children, and are deciding not to have them. I don't see that as a bad thing. Voluntary population decline might be the best outcome for humanity at this point, at least until we get our political, economic, and ecological shit together. We don't need 10 billion humans to be on the planet; we need to get through this era of war and capitalism without making ourselves extinct.
mattgreenrocks 4y ago
I'll go further and say the nuclear family as a default is harmful. A few years into raising my kid (who has no health issues) convinced me of this. It can be quite isolating and lonely. I cannot imagine what it is like for parents of children who have more significant needs to both work and try to run a nuclear family.
- corrral 4y ago
  There's a lot of tension between an economic environment that rewards high levels of mobility, and desire to live near/in a strong local web of friends and relatives who can help support you.

hunglee2 4y ago

yes you might be right, I may have rushed to a conclusion. Multi-generational is clearly our natural state, our evolved state. Only last hundred years since we atomised the family, begins to make sense why we are dying out

lotsofpulp 4y ago
What is an evolved state? I assume almost all people live in multi generational households because they cannot afford not to. My ideal is grandparents a few houses down, within a couple minutes walking distance.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  Evolved as in the true meaning of the term - Darwinian evolution. Homo Sapiens have live and grow and die in extended kinship groups, this has been the case for 99.9% of the time we have been around - and if we go further back to pre-human times, we likely lived in those kinship groups too. We only collapsed this structure since industrialisation / urbanisation - last hundred, maybe two hundred years
cs137 4y ago
Cities have always been population reducers: below replacement fertility, with migrants from the countryside increasing the population. This was true 2000 years ago and it's true now. It's hard to say for sure why this is, but I'd imagine it's that urban people have more awareness of economic inequality. Rural people suffer from it, but they don't see it on a daily basis, so they aren't constantly reminded of the disadvantages that 99% of them will inherit in the way urban people are. These days, not only is the world population more urban, but people are also more consistently aware of the inequality problem. People are realizing they have no hope of providing the best opportunities for their children, and are deciding not to have them. I don't see that as a bad thing. Voluntary population decline might be the best outcome for humanity at this point, at least until we get our political, economic, and ecological shit together. We don't need 10 billion humans to be on the planet; we need to get through this era of war and capitalism without making ourselves extinct.

mattgreenrocks 4y ago

I'll go further and say the nuclear family as a default is harmful. A few years into raising my kid (who has no health issues) convinced me of this. It can be quite isolating and lonely. I cannot imagine what it is like for parents of children who have more significant needs to both work and try to run a nuclear family.

corrral 4y ago
There's a lot of tension between an economic environment that rewards high levels of mobility, and desire to live near/in a strong local web of friends and relatives who can help support you.