3 ms·

So people will inevitably postpone having children due to this (in addition to all the other reasons that may exist for you).

by sgt 3y ago

mnky9800n 3y ago
Or just not have them at all. Children are expensive and postdoc salaries suck.
- vt85 3y ago
  [dead]
BenoitP 3y ago
Indeed. This coupled to the fact that female fertility is easier when younger (easier to become pregnant, fewer complications, better physical shape, not menopaused, etc.), is IMHO the number one factor in a lot of male/female statistical discrepancies. My wife studied law, and we saw every single one of her female friends abandon or pause a successful career in order to have children. Just like academia, careers in law often tend to invade nights and weekends; and that's just not compatible with having children.
- escapedmoose 3y ago
  Fertility doesn’t have much to do with it after the kid is already born, and that’s when parental leave becomes relevant. The fact that women are still seen as the de facto parent responsible for childcare for all those nights and weekends is more a cultural thing than biological.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    In my experience, for at least the first year, there is no replacing women as the de facto parent responsible for childcare due to breastfeeding, and the child’s emotional needs. Well into the post breastfeeding toddler years, no one but my wife would have been able to satisfy the needs of my kids, and I feel like that is probably nature more than nurture. Mothers should be given at least a year of bonding leave, and fathers too just so the market does not reward men over women.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    Well there's one massive factor, at least until the kid is weaned, the mom is the easiest food supply for the kid. It's vastly easier than pump and bottle or even formula and bottle. Beyond that phase though it's true it's mostly societal, once the kid is eating real food there's little reason for a particular parent to be the primary care giver.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    True, but fertility will still matter if they decide to have another. Decide you want four kids at age 20? No problem. Start at age 33, though? I hope you weren't planning to drink beer for the next decade.
  - sgt 3y ago
    I can't explain it, but there's definitely a biological aspect too that matters a lot. The mother understands deeper things about the bond with the baby that us dads don't have a clue about.
- cge 3y ago
  Academia often involves a lot of time, but often in informal and flexible ways, with relatively little inflexible time (eg, lectures), and campuses that are not necessarily child-unfriendly. Unlike law, most likely, it isn't necessarily incompatible with having children if the university accommodates it. In some ways universities can even have particular advantages in accommodating children: they may well have entire departments of students being taught to educate and care for children (this can also include both educators and medical students), and spaces and resources that can be useful, especially for older children, like libraries. They might already manage things like housing, and can help with some worries, like trying to look forward to college tuition. Neither my parents nor most of the academic parents I knew growing up paused or abandoned their academic careers. We just spent a lot of time on university campuses. Departments were often fine with even infants being brought to offices, and classes their parents were teaching, as long as they weren't too disruptive. Quite a bit of work could be done at home, and home was often quite close to campus. While I was usually was with my mother, I think there was also easily accessible childcare. By the time I was an undergraduate, I knew the campus and library very well, and many faculty and staff knew me.
fsflover 3y ago
Sounds like a good thing to me in terms of the climate emergency.
- vt85 3y ago
  [dead]
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  I don't like this line of thinking. Climate change isn't caused by population, but by industry, corporations and capitalism. Individuals and their choices are the least impactful pieces when it comes to reducing emissions and the like.
  - greedo 3y ago
    The world's population has more grown by 4.5B since I was born. The idea that this hasn't impacted climate change is naive at best.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      If those 4.5B lived like Americans, yeah, that'd be the cause of all of our problems. Luckily they don't. But if you want to cull population based on carbon footprint, you should start with the billionaire class, then work your way down the income brackets of the US and then the rest of the West. The Earth's resources could comfortably sustain the current population. In terms of resources we could also feed and provide shelter to every single person alive today, which would reduce population growth as child mortality, lack of access to reproductive care (including safe and legal abortions) and parental socio-economic distress are the biggest contributors to high birth rates. But we can't do all of that AND run the Global North's economy the way we do AND afford a billionaire class. Alas that seems to be what we are currently doing.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >If those 4.5B lived like Americans, yeah, that'd be the cause of all of our problems Good luck convincing everyone on earth to downgrade their lifestyles. The amount of people who are committed to living a ascetic lifestyle to save the planet is negligible. >The Earth's resources could comfortably sustain the current population Without lifestyle downgrades? Given how much environmental problems we're running into already I find this to be unlikely. >But we can't do all of that AND run the Global North's economy the way we do AND afford a billionaire class. Alas that seems to be what we are currently doing. How much is the "billionaire class"'s contribution to global warming?

So people will inevitably postpone having children due to this (in addition to all the other reasons that may exist for you).

by sgt 3y ago

So people will inevitably postpone having children due to this (in addition to all the other reasons that may exist for you).

mnky9800n 3y ago

Or just not have them at all. Children are expensive and postdoc salaries suck.

vt85 3y ago
[dead]

BenoitP 3y ago

Indeed. This coupled to the fact that female fertility is easier when younger (easier to become pregnant, fewer complications, better physical shape, not menopaused, etc.), is IMHO the number one factor in a lot of male/female statistical discrepancies. My wife studied law, and we saw every single one of her female friends abandon or pause a successful career in order to have children. Just like academia, careers in law often tend to invade nights and weekends; and that's just not compatible with having children.

escapedmoose 3y ago
Fertility doesn’t have much to do with it after the kid is already born, and that’s when parental leave becomes relevant. The fact that women are still seen as the de facto parent responsible for childcare for all those nights and weekends is more a cultural thing than biological.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  In my experience, for at least the first year, there is no replacing women as the de facto parent responsible for childcare due to breastfeeding, and the child’s emotional needs. Well into the post breastfeeding toddler years, no one but my wife would have been able to satisfy the needs of my kids, and I feel like that is probably nature more than nurture. Mothers should be given at least a year of bonding leave, and fathers too just so the market does not reward men over women.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  Well there's one massive factor, at least until the kid is weaned, the mom is the easiest food supply for the kid. It's vastly easier than pump and bottle or even formula and bottle. Beyond that phase though it's true it's mostly societal, once the kid is eating real food there's little reason for a particular parent to be the primary care giver.
- michaelt 3y ago
  True, but fertility will still matter if they decide to have another. Decide you want four kids at age 20? No problem. Start at age 33, though? I hope you weren't planning to drink beer for the next decade.
- sgt 3y ago
  I can't explain it, but there's definitely a biological aspect too that matters a lot. The mother understands deeper things about the bond with the baby that us dads don't have a clue about.
cge 3y ago
Academia often involves a lot of time, but often in informal and flexible ways, with relatively little inflexible time (eg, lectures), and campuses that are not necessarily child-unfriendly. Unlike law, most likely, it isn't necessarily incompatible with having children if the university accommodates it. In some ways universities can even have particular advantages in accommodating children: they may well have entire departments of students being taught to educate and care for children (this can also include both educators and medical students), and spaces and resources that can be useful, especially for older children, like libraries. They might already manage things like housing, and can help with some worries, like trying to look forward to college tuition. Neither my parents nor most of the academic parents I knew growing up paused or abandoned their academic careers. We just spent a lot of time on university campuses. Departments were often fine with even infants being brought to offices, and classes their parents were teaching, as long as they weren't too disruptive. Quite a bit of work could be done at home, and home was often quite close to campus. While I was usually was with my mother, I think there was also easily accessible childcare. By the time I was an undergraduate, I knew the campus and library very well, and many faculty and staff knew me.

fsflover 3y ago

Sounds like a good thing to me in terms of the climate emergency.

vt85 3y ago
[dead]
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
I don't like this line of thinking. Climate change isn't caused by population, but by industry, corporations and capitalism. Individuals and their choices are the least impactful pieces when it comes to reducing emissions and the like.
- greedo 3y ago
  The world's population has more grown by 4.5B since I was born. The idea that this hasn't impacted climate change is naive at best.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    If those 4.5B lived like Americans, yeah, that'd be the cause of all of our problems. Luckily they don't. But if you want to cull population based on carbon footprint, you should start with the billionaire class, then work your way down the income brackets of the US and then the rest of the West. The Earth's resources could comfortably sustain the current population. In terms of resources we could also feed and provide shelter to every single person alive today, which would reduce population growth as child mortality, lack of access to reproductive care (including safe and legal abortions) and parental socio-economic distress are the biggest contributors to high birth rates. But we can't do all of that AND run the Global North's economy the way we do AND afford a billionaire class. Alas that seems to be what we are currently doing.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >If those 4.5B lived like Americans, yeah, that'd be the cause of all of our problems Good luck convincing everyone on earth to downgrade their lifestyles. The amount of people who are committed to living a ascetic lifestyle to save the planet is negligible. >The Earth's resources could comfortably sustain the current population Without lifestyle downgrades? Given how much environmental problems we're running into already I find this to be unlikely. >But we can't do all of that AND run the Global North's economy the way we do AND afford a billionaire class. Alas that seems to be what we are currently doing. How much is the "billionaire class"'s contribution to global warming?