7 ms·

My wife and I have opted not to have children for reasons* and it's really sad how the conversation with the in-laws has moved from "you should have children be

• seanw444 3y ago
  My outlook is that the world certainly isn't getting better any time soon. It'll get a lot worse first. And who knows how long that will take. And I want to be young enough to enjoy time with my kids when they're adults. The complications and difficulties are worth it, I figure. I say this as an American glossing through this comment thread though, so I don't know your circumstances.
• Hitton 3y ago
  I wouldn't worry to much about climate change, humanity overcame bigger problems. And if your in-laws want children so much, just tell them your concerns, they might be willing to chip in financially.
  • Daishiman 3y ago
    I think you are seriously underestimating the impacts that worldwide crop failures in the next 20 years are going to have as far as global human catastrophes go.
    • johngladtj 3y ago
      Are you serious about this? This climate doomerism is frankly ridiculous. Do you have any genuine studies that show such impactful effects?
      • wing-_-nuts 3y ago
        There's a certain group of people that take the absolute worst predictions of climate science and just runs with it. Granted, there's a far larger group of people that think we'll be ok with business as usual. Neither is true.
        • Daishiman 3y ago
          I'm not sure if you're aware that 3-5C is perfectly within the business-as-usual scenarios and 5C is easily a civilization-ending trend.
          • wing-_-nuts 3y ago
            I'm using BAU loosely here. I'm not referring to RCP 8.5. I have my own issues with the IPCC's estimates relying to much on direct air capture, but I don't think 5-6c is likely unless there's an unforseen feedback loop we haven't factored in. I'd almost bet money on the eventual use of stratospheric sulfide injection to cool the planet. It's cheap enough that even a third world country could conceivably pay for it. We have no idea what the side effects will be, but it may well be worth the risk to avoid 3-4c of warming.
            • Daishiman 3y ago
              The IPCC reports don’t really factor in the dramatic acceleration of methane emissions from bogs and Siberian wetlands.
      • Daishiman 3y ago
        I work with climatologists in the development of AI models that improve over the climatology. The amount of arable land that will be lost in the tropics is going to dramatically impact all countries around the Equator. Some areas simply will not support human life without air conditioning with a 2 degree increase in wet bulb temperature and +3C increase in extreme weather events. Crop failures are linked to many historically extreme events. A 15%-30% in staple foods has _massive_ impacts in the poorest 20% of the population. In poor democracies it leads to people voting for demagogues and autocrats; in other places it's much worse. The cascade of these events with ever increasing temperature is exponential.
    • wholien 3y ago
      What percentage of crops will fail in 20 years?
      • Daishiman 3y ago
        See https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-imp... Some crops like coffee, chocolate and grapes are going to see an extremely dramatic reduction in arable surface
    • bryanlarsen 3y ago
      Significant crop failures will cause prices to rise, which will enable the wider use of refrigerated storage, fertilizer, new crop varietals, desalinated water, greenhouses, etc. This will bring supply and demand back into balance at a higher price. The higher price for food will cause millions of deaths, an impact comparable to COVID or to the Ukraine and Ethiopian wars combined. It will pale in comparison to the impact of WW2, the black plague or the Chinese cultural revolution.
      • waveBidder 3y ago
        it's difficult to articulate the (IMO correct) position that climate change is horrible but still totally solvable. somehow people hear "we can solve this" as " there's no reason to be concerned"
        • bryanlarsen 3y ago
          I agree with the gist of your argument, but I wouldn't phrase it as "totally solvable". Limiting it to 2 degrees is possible, limiting it to 3 is likely. Both are bad, both are locally catastrophic but neither are globally catastrophic. I like my phrasing "millions will die". That works on numerate people, but most people can't really conceptualize the difference between a million and a billion. Any other suggestions?
    • rendang 3y ago
      There's a great deal of land in the very cold part of the N hemisphere that may become more agriculturally productive with warming.
      • Daishiman 3y ago
        Those area are limited by the number of hours of sunlight and the number of growing seasons. Reductions in 20-30% are expected, but this doesn't really capture the increase in extreme weather events that can lead to total crop loss.
      • wing-_-nuts 3y ago
        The soil quality there is very low. Also, large parts of canada are covered by the 'canadian shield' which is basically where glaciers have scraped down to bare granite bedrock. If we had thousands of years to adjust, I'm sure we could manage but you're not planting huge fields of wheat, corn or soybean in that soil.
  • mupuff1234 3y ago
    > humanity overcame bigger problems Like? I tend to agree that humanity will eventually overcome but the question is also when and at what cost?
    • Georgelemental 3y ago
      Climate change (ice age), epidemics, war, famine…
      • mupuff1234 3y ago
        Various problems yes, but not necessarily bigger (or even same size/complexity).
      • n4r9 3y ago
        https://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc/elevator/elevator43.html https://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc/elevator/elevator43.html
    • jjcon 3y ago
      Bubonic plague, supereruptions, ice ages, malaria, smallpox, ozone deterioration - lots of these seem small now but that’s only because we’ve already overcome them
      • amrocha 3y ago
        That's post facto logic. Obviously you and your ancestors have overcome those things, because the millions that didn't are dead. Statistically someone was going to survive, you're lucky it was your ancestors, but it doesn't mean you will be lucky again.
        • jjcon 3y ago
          That’s the whole point that is being made… we’re talking about humanity - Yeah lots of individuals will die due to climate change, particularly in 3rd world countries but humanity will be just fine overall, just as it was with all those disasters.
  • malauxyeux 3y ago
    For me, the question isn't "Will humanity overcome?" I don't have a doubt about that. Instead it's "What are the chances my kid – the individual – will lead a relatively peaceful, fulfilling life for the next 70-90 years?" I don't know the answer.
    • giantg2 3y ago
      "What are the chances my kid – the individual – will lead a relatively peaceful, fulfilling life for the next 70-90 years?" Did your parents know the answer to that? Did your grandparents? Etc What gives you fulfillment varies based on perspective. Peace is fragile and basically non-existent across one's entire lifespan.
      • malauxyeux 3y ago
        > Did your parents know the answer to that? Did your grandparents? No. But it's not really relevant to me. My grandparents' generation was largely motivated by religious faith (and lack of birth control) to have a bunch of kids. My parents' generation mostly lost the religious motivation, but inherited the inertia without questioning it. It's not to say they didn't want their kids, but having kids was just "what you did". None of that's the case for me.
        • giantg2 3y ago
          Sorry, I'll be more specific - do you wish you were never born?
          • malauxyeux 3y ago
            I think the closest I come to a "yes" would be a sort of underlying feeling of nihilism. The universe is big; life is short. That kind of thing. But if I had a kid and e.g., watched that kid become a climate refugee, I think I'd regret my decision to make that kid.
    • googlryas 3y ago
      It seems like now, more than any time in recorded history, the answer is "yes".
• yoyohello13 3y ago
  My wife and I have definitely noticed a trend of “you’re not doing your civic duty” and we don’t even live in SK.
• fsloth 3y ago
  If you really want to have children but are worried about climate change and cost - may I suggest you look moving to norhern europe. The region will survive most predicted outcomes and childcare is heavily state subsidized. That is if you would love to have a family but can’t for the stated reasons. It’s totally fine not to want children as personal choice without any rationalization as well!
  • neom 3y ago
    It's slightly more than I explained. My wife worked her way up from a rural farming town here in Korea, basically taught herself English (and 18th century English), went to the states and got her PhD in American History (something she worked 2 jobs to do + we have debt) and became one of the few Korean born American History professors in the country. We'd both really like to stay in Korea, and we'd like to have kids, but these things seem at odds in SK these days, maybe things will change for us, maybe we'll move one day, we'll see. As it stands today, caring for aging parents on both sides, giving our kids a better life than ours, seems... challenging. (Thanks for the positive and helpful comment, btw :)
  • kjkjadksj 3y ago
    It would be better to move to the midwestern US honestly. Housing and childcare is super affordable out there and wages will probably still work out better than in europe. I expect when shit hits the fan you’d rather be in wisconson with american citizenship than on the proverbial maginot line. Civilians don’t often fare well in european continental conflicts.
    • fsloth 3y ago
      Yes! And No! Yes: US will continue being an economic powerhouse, and a very rare geopolitical entity that can source all of it’s inputs and can grow it’s own food. I would definitely think about really hard moving my family to US if our kids were 10 years younger mainly because I’ve realised how it geopolitically speaking outclasses anyplace else on earth. No: Please do better research. Civilian population in North Europe will do quite well compared to planetary alternatives. Yes: But safety wise US still wins if one is worried of foreign invasion.
• nradov 3y ago
  There are a lot of people who have children even though they can't afford it. Most of them muddle through somehow.
  • biohax2015 3y ago
    Nobody has any desire to muddle through life
    • giantg2 3y ago
      Seems like the best option from a limited selection for most of us.
    • nradov 3y ago
      Mostly life is what happens to us regardless of what we desire.
• wholien 3y ago
  Is there an fertility rates published by income/wealth levels? Does the U-shaped fertility graph show up in SK? As in, poorest people have more kids, middle class have fewest kids, and richest have more kids.
• wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  I'm not arguing your decision to not have children. I've made the same decision myself, but the 'can't afford to have children' has always confused me. Even after the point where contraception became readily available, people were having children with far fewer resources than anyone alive today. What I hear when people say 'We can't afford to have children' is an additional '...and maintain our current standard of living'. It seems there's a lot of expectations that we heap on parents. My kids must have their own room. Must go to a prestigous private school. Must participate in expensive sports. Must travel. Must attend a top university, on and on. Kids don't have to have any of that (ok, own room is pretty important after a certain age). The truth is parents need to chill out of this evolutionary arms race to make sure little timmy has every possible advantage even if they run themselves ragged getting there.
  • boeingUH60 3y ago
    I think the reason is that people feel guilty if they can't provide their kids equal or better lifestyles than they got.
    • goethes_kind 3y ago
      Yes, but at the same time you also don't want to rob a child of their childhood and adolescence. Who cares if by age 20 they aren't a virtuoso in violin and who cares if they haven't already won 5 random bogus academic awards?
  • nine_zeros 3y ago
    > I'm not arguing your decision to not have children. I've made the same decision myself, but the 'can't afford to have children' has always confused me. To add to your list of reasons, for me, I feel like I am bringing a child only to feed the capitalist system - saddled with debt, and living with less freedoms than me. I feel like my dearest loved one will not be able to thrive in this world. They could, sure, but the chances of thriving are low. And that thought pains me deeply.
  • nemothekid 3y ago
    It might be fair to assume that you are relatively upperclass tech worker; I think your perceptions of what people can do is colored by your social circle. For many people they aren't worried about kids going to a private school, it's whether they can afford to feed someone else. I'm surprised none of your expectations include basic child care - food, shelter, care. If you are just scraping by on two incomes how do you expect someone to feed another human on one income? For many young adults that still live with their own parents, they aren't worried about their kids having their own room, they are worried about having their own place to stay. It's very pompous to assume that most people aren't having kids because they won't be able to afford to send them to Phillips Exeter when a record number of single people in South Korea live with their parents because they can't afford homes. Sure, the people in your social circle may be eschewing having kids because they can't afford to give their kids the same lifestyle they grew up with, in private schools or don't want to give up traveling, but people who can afford those luxuries in the first place aren't representative of the broader population.
• carlosjobim 3y ago
  You write that you have "opted" and then that you can't afford having children. That sounds more like childlessness was forced upon you - unless you've explicitly decided to be poor (such as for example monks do). Many cultures value independence, so when people are forced to things, they tend to twist it around by saying it was their decision. That's why important issues get swept under the rug.
• ericmcer 3y ago
  I dunno about SK but in the USA the road to kids was: partner up, get a stable income, find a home, start a family. The second and third links in that chain are broken for most people. The older generation wants to work into their 70s and own a bunch of rental properties so… no grandkids.
  • giantg2 3y ago
    The first link has some problems too. Even with the second two fulfilled, the fist is a real blocker for many.
    • spacebanana7 3y ago
      At macro level, incomes are rising but marriage rates are falling (even with adding in cohabitation).
      • giantg2 3y ago
        Real wages are largely flat for the past 50 years (in the US) as in equality increases. I think thats a big part of the U shaped birth to income graph.
  • spacemadness 3y ago
    And your kids stand a chance to be poorer than you if you can’t support their education and devote time to care for them. If you can’t afford a home that’s the path you are on. It’s pathetic how people want folks to sacrifice themselves to create more workerbees for society while they demand their housing “investment(s)” continue to blast upward and vote for less housing.
• spaniard89277 3y ago
  In Spain there's no institutional pressure, but peer pressure. I'm expected to have children and pay +1/2 of my income in rent, have little savings, etc. I'm pretty much an average spaniard in financial terms. Climate change frightens me too. I mean, If I had children I would have fear for their future and I would be completely ruined financially. But it seems this is completely incomprehensible to older generations that wonder why youngster complain about getting hands in their pocket trough rent, pensions, debt, etc.
  • kjkjadksj 3y ago
    Older generations want you to have kids because in their mind they or their parents had kids through even worse things. Wars, famine, and crippling global economic decline are the cultural memory of our older generation. Existential things like affordability or an impending climate crisis pale in comparison to the village being bombed and seeing the affects of famine in front of you. The fact you are able to have an expensive apartment for yourself at all and be safe in it for the last several decades is a historical anomaly for most people especially on the european continent.
    • toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Excellent comment. The desire to have children being generationally transmitted has inertia that doesn't account for a landscape that has changed much more rapidly.
  • googlryas 3y ago
    How exactly does that expectation work? What happens if you only pay 30% of your income to rent? Will you get passed over for a promotion if your boss sees you live slightly below what he is paying you, or something?
• Jcampuzano2 3y ago
  I'm not in SK but in the US. I decided long ago to not have children (I'm a man) along with my wife. Maybe we'll change our mind one day, but more than likely it won't. I honestly just don't think its my responsibility to contribute to some "greater good" of continuing to populate the earth. Humans survived just fine when the population of the Earth was half the size of now. This is extremely selfish and probably not seen in a good light, but since I don't have children nor do I plan to, I honestly don't really care that much what happens after I pass when it comes to the population, etc. Not to be mistaken though, while I live I won't try to actively make things worse for anybody.
  • bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Just as long as you recognize that if the worker/retiree ratio gets significantly out of whack, the demand for services needed by retirees is going to massively outstrip supply supply so inflation is going to kill any retirement savings you're planning on. If you're directly or indirectly working on that problem somehow, you're probably doing far more good for future humans than you would just by having kids.
    • dougmwne 3y ago
      Rich countries will just keep importing labor. The large aged population will throw out any government that threatens their quality of life in retirement. Middle income and poor countries with low birth rates may suffer greatly from having their working aged populations poached.
      • bryanlarsen 3y ago
        This is an article about Korea, a country which is not doing so, and is quite likely incapable of doing so in the quantities needed to offset a 0.7 TFR.
      • pixl97 3y ago
        >Rich countries will just keep importing labor. This only works so long.... We are running into the issue where almost no rich countries are producing excess population. Couple that with the countries we think of as excess population producers have massively reduced their own birth rates, then one day those rich countries will start having to pay very large amounts for imports, hence threatening the quality of life by increase costs.
• caskstrength 3y ago
  I don't think shaming young people into having children will work (for SK or any other country). Eventually they will have to adjust their culture and immigration policies to be more welcoming to outsiders.
  • anthonypasq 3y ago
    theres only so many outsiders and much of the west is already gobbling them up
• aa1234556 3y ago
  [dead]
• hcks 3y ago
  Maybe you’d change your mind about affordability if you actually had to pay the externalities of your childlessness and didn’t hope to be subsidised by others
• shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  There's only one reason, and it's that you don't really want children.
• thriftwy 3y ago
  I wonder why your in-laws won't provide you with means to have children if they want you to have children. In Russia it is customary to provide children with some kind of housing ("granny's flat") either for living or for renting out, even without any expectations.