4 ms·

Sorry if I'm missing something here. Maybe it is just too obvious and doesn't need to be stated? Maybe. I don't know but I don't see how we can avoid the elepha

• next_xibalba 3y ago
  Ah, yes. Just like the thousands of generations of humanity who begat us, we should strike until our elders pay us to reproduce. Else, who is this "society" of which you write? Surely it's not those younger than us. So it must be us and our elders. And since we aren't going to pay ourselves to reproduce, I guess the bill then slides to our elders. Perhaps this is the Great Filter–conscious species become so entitled, effete, and apathetic that they refuse to reproduce until they either fall back into the dark ages or go extinct.
  • ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    I mean, yeah, the previous generation had it easier, and society provided them with a reality in which they could buy a home for a family on a single income, for example Now, the same people are buying up multiple properties that the next generation would otherwise live in, so they can rent-seek instead of earning the money improving society. Indeed, the previous generation claiming the current generation is "entitled" is a story as old and boring as time, but the ones now obliviously claiming it without realizing they had it better, pretending they were "roughing it" with their 1-income mortgages, are truly the most entitled of all.
  • pupppet 3y ago
    It’s not paying if they stole it from you.
  • rpgwaiter 3y ago
    "We" aren't a single unit. Some of "us" could lose billions of dollars and still never have to worry about money
    • indecisive_user 3y ago
      How many billions are you talking here? A billion dollars split evenly over the US population nets around $2.98 per person, so we're gonna need a lot to really make any appreciable difference.
      • morsch 3y ago
        About 41000 billions. > The wealthiest 1% of Americans controlled about $41.52 trillion in the first quarter, according to Federal Reserve data released Monday. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/how-much-wealth-top-1percent-of-americans-have.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/how-much-wealth-top-1percent...
    • chickenfeed 3y ago
      It's always weird reading HN with over inflated egos, and those on good salaries. I've been in debt for over a decade. For some that money would be chicken feed, but for me it has ensured I'm in perpetual debt. I never have spending money. Wear clothes until they totally fall apart. Found a pair of shoes that I have repurposed. And sometimes have barely anything to eat for weeks. If I'm lucky I get to the pub once a year. Can't afford Christmas presents etc. Then I read that Boris Johnson will struggle for a place to live when he retreats from being a prime minister where he struggles to live on his 200k salary. And in the following months earns 5 million for doing a a few speeches. Some of us indeed can have nothing but never have to worry.
  • zlg_codes 3y ago
    I'm getting some conservative vibes from the rhetoric about 'entitlement' and calling people overly feminine, as if the caricature we call 'manhood' has a real solution to today's issues. I don't know what to tell you, none of us asked to be here. When someone uses the entitlement angle, they try to push an idea that everyone deserves less than what is being proposed. What exactly is entitled about requiring stability before having children? If society cannot provide enough opportunity to sustain stability, then they have failed the people. Society's not entitled to a working population, or a population at all. People are more than a means to an end, and if we have to burn down capitalism to prove it, I'll get my torch! Otherwise, why should I have children? As a man, I stand only to lose from marriage and children. The legal and social atmosphere is all responsibility, no power or freedom.
    • throw170923 3y ago
      I'm "conservative" and for the most part I agree. Another angle could be: most states have resorted to immigrarion to fix this and maybe encourage this. Perhaps that's the problem? A counterexample to my point would be Japan.
  • OrderlyTiamat 3y ago
    I think it's perfectly possible to follow your comment 100% and still expect "payment" to happen. In what sense is it a problem for the "us" group if society is doomed because the "us" group gets the short end of the stick compared to the "elders" group? You seem to be calling the "us" group entitled, but that's a matter of perspective. The "elders" group can perfectly well be called entitled if they don't want to chip in for continued survival. Sounds to me like "us" and "elders" should get round the table and figure out a way to make having children more palatable.
  • rewmie 3y ago
    > So it must be us and our elders. And since we aren't going to pay ourselves to reproduce, I guess the bill then slides to our elders. I think it is pretty clear that employers must pay a fair wage. If you work for a living but your income does not allow you to survive, let alone support kids, then your employer is failing to meet his end of the social contract. It's entirely stupid how minimum wage simply does not cover the cost of existing, specially in times of record profits.
  • bowsamic 3y ago
    It's more like this: educated people don't have children for multiple reasons, because they can control their emotions enough to not succumb to them regarding the huge downsides of having them, because they are smart enough to have such existential questions that encourage nihilism and anti-natalism, and simply because they are better at using contraception. Being smart has negative evolutionary pressure: natural selection selects for animals that do not question whether or not they should have children.
    • DonHopkins 3y ago
      At least RMS proudly announced he doesn't plan on reproducing himself. http://www.art.net/studios/hackers/hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-doctor.html http://www.art.net/studios/hackers/hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-d...
• joshuahutt 3y ago
  Disagree. Unless we can create incentives for everyone to abstain, the poor and third-world countries are going to continue to reproduce at the same rates. The distribution will only get more skewed, and the deal will only get worse.
  • sharts 3y ago
    The incentive already exists and that is to become a modern society. The poor countries will reach the same when they develop.
  • cyberax 3y ago
    Most of the third world countries already have started the birth rate decline. They will likely stop growing around 2050.
• morkalork 3y ago
  Aside from all the sugar, carbs and being overpriced, consuming milk like that as an adult is just weird. Since I don't have kids, I only have a small carton for coffee and the occasional bechamel sauce or baking.
• ezequiel-garzon 3y ago
  Paying you to have children seems a bit much, potentially creating dangerous incentives. On the other hand, figuring out a way for people to be better off and not think about it so much due to basic responsibility sounds way better. Of course, good luck to policymakers with that one.
• sharts 3y ago
  Why does the fertility rate even matter? The world seems to have far more people than it can reliably sustain. If we reach 1/10th the size of the current population, then we can start to wonder about fertility rate if it drops further.
  • ffhhttt 3y ago
    Because the population will get much older (i.e. much less productive) before it gets much smaller. That going to cause all kinds of massive issues.
    • tonyedgecombe 3y ago
      They aren’t insurmountable though. Let’s not pretend the world is going to end because the birth rate is low.
• _dain_ 3y ago
  >I think millennials and younger people should continue to hold out and have fewer (preferably zero) children until we get a more favorable deal from society. Your gametes are accumulating mutations every year you get older. If you actually want kids at some point, and you're in a position to have them, then you should do it soon, for the sake of their health.
• silisili 3y ago
  I think it's a combination of that, and the general lack of latchkey kids in general. Cereal was a completely safe thing for kids to prepare and eat themselves when you left for work before them, and got home after them. It's what we all ate every morning before school. For a variety of reasons, such lifestyles seem way less common today.
  • chickenfeed 3y ago
    I don't know, there's many people with dairy intolerance. A bit off puffed grain draped in sugar with a sprinkle of vitamins, in a headache inducing substance doesn't sound like the best start for any kid. But agree that it was a go to for me when getting back from school. But then again we starved ourselves to keep our dinner money when we were kids. And barely ate well at all. Pretty envious of those kids that had parents that cooked for them. My second school had good food. If I had spent the money on a dinner I would have done much better than eating at home. My third school had crap food. Envious looking back on those that had free school meals. This is in the UK. But this is years back, and I wouldn't be surprised if the quality of lunches has dwindled to nothing, or even if schools have canteens. I visited a hospital a decade or so back, and it had a KFC on the concourse.
• bluescrn 3y ago
  The current trend is to financially punish people, particularly the poor, for their impact on the environment/climate. By that logic, having kids should be brutally expensive, as it's the absolute worst thing you could do for the environment. If we're seriously talking about 'degrowth' at this point, a managed decline of human economic activity, then population degrowth - significantly reduced breeding - should be the top priority?
• chickenfeed 3y ago
  Never mind being paid to have children. I'd just like to have the means to support a dog. It's bizarre to think that in a nation like the UK we'd struggle so much. We have put off having kids and now have probably missed the fertility window, because we have never been financially in a position to support some. And it's a horrible pain for the pair of us.
• Hendrikto 3y ago
  > people like me refuse to have any children because society refuses to pay us to have children If you see it as a financial transaction, it’s probably better to not have children.
  • lotsofpulp 3y ago
    One can look through multiple lens to view something.