6 ms·

There are basically two reasons. The first one: > A combination of rapid economic development, very high levels of education among young adults, very competiti

There are basically two reasons. The first one: > A combination of rapid economic development, very high levels of education among young adults, very competitive labor market, long work hours, unaffordable housing, traditional gender norms and persistent gender inequalities in work and family life have created a perfect storm — conditions that make it very difficult for young people to marry and pursue their fertility plans and the second one: > The research I have been conducting with my colleagues shows that the appeal of marriage and having children has been vanishing among the young adults and many of them are likely to stay unmarried, childfree and without a partner. And this is very real. Men increasingly don't want to marry because they perceive the current system as unfair. Women increasingly don't want to marry because they don't want to settle for anything less than a certain threshold that is increasingly difficult to find. This trend is clear everywhere in the West.

sillywalk 3y ago
Having children is crazy expensive. Also in a world of climate chaos and ecological collapse, a lot of younger people don't want to bring kids into the world.
keyle 3y ago
As a father of 2, my fate is sealed. But I can totally understand the above points as being true. Being a parent is the most difficult, most expensive and longest job I've ever taken on. And I've moved around the world by myself, which is a joke in comparison. On paper, children do not make sense what-so-ever. Thankfully, in reality, I cannot imagine living one day without my kids. They give me life, strength and purpose like nothing ever has. Having kids is playing life in hard mode.
- kbenson 3y ago
  Having kids is actually playing rather than being a bystander for the vast majority of people. How many people actually have an impact that actually means anything to the future otherwise? Vanishingly few.
  - seydor 3y ago
    That's interesting. Yet encyclopedias record billions of achievements, but almost never "having children"
    - nickpp 3y ago
      Every single human being alive today owes his/her very existence to an uninterrupted chain of such achievements going back to the beginning of life on this planet. Do we need to record these in encyclopedias? That would be silly. Are they extremely important for us? No kidding. Is failing to "continue the habit" exiting the long game and electing not to play any more? I would say so.
      - seydor 3y ago
        I think it's because having children, as necessary and rewarding it is, is trivial.
        nickpp 3y ago
        > trivial Quite the opposite of that, IMHO. I would regard my having children as both the most challenging and most fulfilling thing I ever did in my life - way above what I thought would take that spot for me (things like business ventures, career, adventures, extreme endeavors and achievements).
        red-iron-pine 3y ago
        ain't nothin trivial about having a kid unless you're a deadbeat dad and can just walkaway.
    - Ygg2 3y ago
      Sure it does. All biographies mention spouse and children.
      - defrost 3y ago
        All biographies ?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan Not even a picture.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  The thing is it's a hard mode that's gotten harder. All my family in the generations above me had way more kids than me. Maybe it's an anomaly due to survival rates jumping, but even my aunt has six kids. It didn't seem to be such a burden until very recently. Even cousins who are older than me and make less money seem to be able to have more kids. You're right about purpose though. I don't know what I'd do without them. I have a number of friends who are just straight up single, never had a girlfriend (or boyfriend, friends are both genders), never even tried, live alone despite having plenty of means. It's like a sort of secular monk. So in a way I get it, but also in a way I could never do it.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  > They give me life, strength and purpose like nothing ever has. Congratulations! You've discovered the meaning of life, ie reproduction. It's so fulfilling because it's what you're programmed to do, as an organism. Living things (as a group) exist only to reproduce, nothing else matters, and everything they do is geared to toward it. If an individual doesn't follow that goal, it is removed from the gene pool, and those that reproduce fill the vacuum. Of course human vanity and ego will insist there is something higher (thus things like religion), but there isn't.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - benterix 3y ago
    I only partly agree with your comment, because the dilemma is false. All living organisms reproduce and humans as mammals are no exception. At the same time, you can almost feel it's not all. If you stop to think about the original cause, things get very complicated (if you adopt Penrose's thesis regarding Big Bangs, there is no original cause). If you start to analyse the macro- (dark energy and maybe dark matter) and especially microcosm (all things quantum), suddenly ordinary perception collapses. Even plain old relativity with time-space curvature seems at odds with what we are used to perceive. So maybe, just maybe, it's not so far-stretched to think the so-called objective reality is a kind of hologram or whatever we call it. I'd say it's far more probable than just believing everything is accidental and has little purpose (e.g. just reproducing and that's all).
  - RetroTechie 3y ago
    It is survival of the species that counts, and the 'geological' timescales over which it does. Some individuals from that species reproducing is obviously a requirement - but only as a means to an end. Whether individuals reproduce or not, usually doesn't matter much unless you have really small # of individuals left and it's "have babies or go extinct". At this point, one could well argue that our species has a better shot at (longterm) survival when fewer individuals reproduce, vs. when our numbers keep increasing. If so, depopulation would enhance chance of our species' survival.
konschubert 3y ago
How is the current system unfair towards men? As a married man, I feel that anything that is unfair between me and my wife is totally up to us - I don’t feel that the system itself puts me at a disadvantage.
- nickpp 3y ago
  > How is the current system unfair towards men? The marriage institution in most countries puts men at serious disadvantage in case of divorce - which is where a pretty large chunk of marriages end up. A (free) book on the subject: http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ http://www.realworlddivorce.com/
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - konschubert 3y ago
    Hmm, okay. Can you give an example or two how the US divorce law puts men at a disadvantage?
    - benterix 3y ago
      There are two aspects here. One is child care, although here I think the USA does much better than many other countries where the judge simply gives the children to the mother by default, and often even very strong arguments don't help. The other issue, probably more relevant, is that you split all you have in half (roughly). In theory, it is to make up for the fact that the woman has to deal with childbirth and all the consequences, including missed opportunities. In practice it means that even if you don't have any children, you need to give her half of everything if she decides so. Some people consider it very unfair, but of course every situation is different. The fact is, women file for divorce more often than men, and not everybody is comfortable with a prenuptial agreement arguing that marriage is based on trust, and if you don't have that trust at the beginning, why to marry at all? EDIT: Theory aside, when you read about particular cases like this one, they are depressingly sobering: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-women-have-the-advantage-during-get-so-much-after-a-divorce https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-women-have-the-advantage-d...

sillywalk 3y ago

Having children is crazy expensive. Also in a world of climate chaos and ecological collapse, a lot of younger people don't want to bring kids into the world.

keyle 3y ago

As a father of 2, my fate is sealed. But I can totally understand the above points as being true. Being a parent is the most difficult, most expensive and longest job I've ever taken on. And I've moved around the world by myself, which is a joke in comparison. On paper, children do not make sense what-so-ever. Thankfully, in reality, I cannot imagine living one day without my kids. They give me life, strength and purpose like nothing ever has. Having kids is playing life in hard mode.

kbenson 3y ago
Having kids is actually playing rather than being a bystander for the vast majority of people. How many people actually have an impact that actually means anything to the future otherwise? Vanishingly few.
- seydor 3y ago
  That's interesting. Yet encyclopedias record billions of achievements, but almost never "having children"
  - nickpp 3y ago
    Every single human being alive today owes his/her very existence to an uninterrupted chain of such achievements going back to the beginning of life on this planet. Do we need to record these in encyclopedias? That would be silly. Are they extremely important for us? No kidding. Is failing to "continue the habit" exiting the long game and electing not to play any more? I would say so.
    - seydor 3y ago
      I think it's because having children, as necessary and rewarding it is, is trivial.
      - nickpp 3y ago
        > trivial Quite the opposite of that, IMHO. I would regard my having children as both the most challenging and most fulfilling thing I ever did in my life - way above what I thought would take that spot for me (things like business ventures, career, adventures, extreme endeavors and achievements).
      - red-iron-pine 3y ago
        ain't nothin trivial about having a kid unless you're a deadbeat dad and can just walkaway.
  - Ygg2 3y ago
    Sure it does. All biographies mention spouse and children.
    - defrost 3y ago
      All biographies ?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan Not even a picture.
lordnacho 3y ago
The thing is it's a hard mode that's gotten harder. All my family in the generations above me had way more kids than me. Maybe it's an anomaly due to survival rates jumping, but even my aunt has six kids. It didn't seem to be such a burden until very recently. Even cousins who are older than me and make less money seem to be able to have more kids. You're right about purpose though. I don't know what I'd do without them. I have a number of friends who are just straight up single, never had a girlfriend (or boyfriend, friends are both genders), never even tried, live alone despite having plenty of means. It's like a sort of secular monk. So in a way I get it, but also in a way I could never do it.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
> They give me life, strength and purpose like nothing ever has. Congratulations! You've discovered the meaning of life, ie reproduction. It's so fulfilling because it's what you're programmed to do, as an organism. Living things (as a group) exist only to reproduce, nothing else matters, and everything they do is geared to toward it. If an individual doesn't follow that goal, it is removed from the gene pool, and those that reproduce fill the vacuum. Of course human vanity and ego will insist there is something higher (thus things like religion), but there isn't.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- benterix 3y ago
  I only partly agree with your comment, because the dilemma is false. All living organisms reproduce and humans as mammals are no exception. At the same time, you can almost feel it's not all. If you stop to think about the original cause, things get very complicated (if you adopt Penrose's thesis regarding Big Bangs, there is no original cause). If you start to analyse the macro- (dark energy and maybe dark matter) and especially microcosm (all things quantum), suddenly ordinary perception collapses. Even plain old relativity with time-space curvature seems at odds with what we are used to perceive. So maybe, just maybe, it's not so far-stretched to think the so-called objective reality is a kind of hologram or whatever we call it. I'd say it's far more probable than just believing everything is accidental and has little purpose (e.g. just reproducing and that's all).
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  It is survival of the species that counts, and the 'geological' timescales over which it does. Some individuals from that species reproducing is obviously a requirement - but only as a means to an end. Whether individuals reproduce or not, usually doesn't matter much unless you have really small # of individuals left and it's "have babies or go extinct". At this point, one could well argue that our species has a better shot at (longterm) survival when fewer individuals reproduce, vs. when our numbers keep increasing. If so, depopulation would enhance chance of our species' survival.

konschubert 3y ago

How is the current system unfair towards men? As a married man, I feel that anything that is unfair between me and my wife is totally up to us - I don’t feel that the system itself puts me at a disadvantage.

nickpp 3y ago
> How is the current system unfair towards men? The marriage institution in most countries puts men at serious disadvantage in case of divorce - which is where a pretty large chunk of marriages end up. A (free) book on the subject: http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ http://www.realworlddivorce.com/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- konschubert 3y ago
  Hmm, okay. Can you give an example or two how the US divorce law puts men at a disadvantage?
  - benterix 3y ago
    There are two aspects here. One is child care, although here I think the USA does much better than many other countries where the judge simply gives the children to the mother by default, and often even very strong arguments don't help. The other issue, probably more relevant, is that you split all you have in half (roughly). In theory, it is to make up for the fact that the woman has to deal with childbirth and all the consequences, including missed opportunities. In practice it means that even if you don't have any children, you need to give her half of everything if she decides so. Some people consider it very unfair, but of course every situation is different. The fact is, women file for divorce more often than men, and not everybody is comfortable with a prenuptial agreement arguing that marriage is based on trust, and if you don't have that trust at the beginning, why to marry at all? EDIT: Theory aside, when you read about particular cases like this one, they are depressingly sobering: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-women-have-the-advantage-during-get-so-much-after-a-divorce https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-women-have-the-advantage-d...