6 ms·

Is the problem in the west due to westerners prefer to not have any children and enjoy their riches or is it because the society is very top heavy and that the

Is the problem in the west due to westerners prefer to not have any children and enjoy their riches or is it because the society is very top heavy and that the a lot of financially challenged westerners opt not to have children? It's both in my opinion but with a heavier weight for financial struggle. I'm an immigrant and other immigrants from my generation are having less children than their parents and are not doing as well financially (includes housing, Canaduh). Immigration does not answer the question of why people are not having more children.

IggleSniggle 3y ago
My spouse and I struggled with whether it was ethical to have children. It was a financial burden of course but one we felt capable of meeting. I don't think it's really a question of "enjoy your riches," because no matter what your status, nobody can "afford" children, not even the ultra high net worth individuals. It's a burden regardless. But I think therein lies the answer. There was a time not all that long ago that not having children was a burden. Who was going to bring in the harvest, or at the very least supervise bringing in the harvest? Who could you really trust to take care of you properly when you got old? And of course, there's a biological compulsion as well, but that's much easier to sidestep only in the last couple generations.
- neap24 3y ago
  Just what exactly about having kids is not ethical? If ethics is a human construct-and you are contributing to having no more humans around…I don’t know, it just seems like a strange way of framing it. As for the burden of having kids, I think it’s way too simplistic to say it was a burden NOT to have them in the past. There were different cultural dynamics, for sure, but kids have always been a mixed blessing—both difficult and extremely rewarding. Having kids has historically forced adults to face their own shortcomings. Not an easy thing to do in any era.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    No child can consent to being born.
    - gaganyaan 3y ago
      Sure, but if you were to poll everyone on if they were happy to be born, it'd be overwhelmingly yes. Your odds are pretty good of having a kid that was happy that you doinked.
      - catlover76 3y ago
        > Sure, but if you were to poll everyone on if they were happy to be born, it'd be overwhelmingly yes ...why do you assume it would be yes?
        gaganyaan 3y ago
        There'd be a lot fewer people, otherwise. From a pragmatic point of view, we've likely evolved to answer yes to that question, otherwise we would've been outcompeted by another species with a thirst to live and reproduce.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        Not necessarily, there are a lot of species that are functional no-ops, such as the Luna moths that grow up to be unable to eat anything as they have no mouths. They can only procreate, continuing the cycle. They are no-ops because there is nothing they can do besides procreate, they cannot even obtain sustenance. So, they might say that it was not worth being born, had they been able to be polled.
        catlover76 3y ago
        The survival instinct is still active if someone would rather not have been born, as is the instinct and desire to reproduce.
      - voluntaryeuth 3y ago
  - IggleSniggle 3y ago
    The burden it places on yourself, your child, and the incremental burden it places on everyone else living on the planet? If the ethical thing to do is increase the total happiness (or perhaps contentedness, or satisfaction) of all humans...well it's just not really clear that adding a statistically average human is the way to increase human prosperity / reduce human suffering. To your other point, now that I'm a parent, it's easy to see that becoming a parent made me into a better person, but there was no way I could have known that that would happen before becoming one.
    - wesapien 3y ago
      You couldn't observe that around you growing up? It's was clear to me growing up that big families and children with siblings were mostly happier. It didn't matter if the family was rich or barely getting by.
    - tom-_- 3y ago
      Increasing human prosperity/reducing human suffering is largely a function of technological advancement, wealth distribution and avoiding wars. All of these require a large population of educated humans to drive forward and since yours will likely be educated, probably net positive.
    - parineum 3y ago
      > well it's just not really clear that adding a statistically average human is the way to increase human prosperity / reduce human suffering. All of history has been an steady march forward of more prosperity and less suffering accomplished by an entire population of, on average, average people.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    > Just what exactly about having kids is not ethical? If ethics is a human construct-and you are contributing to having no more humans around… We're really really far from extinction. That's just simply not an issue at all.
    - _TwoFinger 3y ago
      Ah, we are really just one smart kid away from extinction. Something something boson something neutron, and the Earth goes kaboom. Children can be very dangerous.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        True, don't let your kid play with the large hadron collider at work!
- wesapien 3y ago
  If finances weren't an issue most couples would have more children. It's very practical to have them. I had an an awesome childhood because holidays were so much fun because my parents generation were so many and had lots of children too. We have a huge extended family. It's great/practical to have a huge family / clan regardless if its the 1800s or now.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    Why do rich countries have fewer children than poor countries? Why do rich people in rich countries have fewer children than poor people in rich countries? Nowhere is it seen that more money correlates to more children.
katbyte 3y ago
Prefer? It’s more cannot afford to have kids
tuatoru 3y ago
It's essentially because of western individualism, de-emphasizing the family unit and prioritizing individual fulfilment. Especially with women, if you believe the doctrine of female choice operates in the world. Second generation and later of immigrants very rapidly adopt the social customs of the country they live in. This is seen everywhere. Vietnamese to Australia. Filipinas to the US. Congolese to Nigeria. Marocs to Spain.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Lots of countries outside the west are not having kids, especially the collectivist cultures of Asia which directly contradicts your "western individualism" view.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    If you look at the actual countries, it is obvious that the young people not having kids are also relatively individualistic.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      How is that obvious? Where are the statistics to show that they are individualistic?
      - pphysch 3y ago
        I'm not going to spend a bunch of time digging up statistics for you, because I think it is obvious for anyone who has spent significant time in urban areas of developed countries. The youth are obviously individualistic, focused on short-term personal fulfillment, and building a family is the opposite of that. There just aren't throngs of young people living "traditionally" (non-individualistically) yet not having kids.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        There's nothing "obvious" about that. If it's so obvious, you should be able to "dig up statistics." Otherwise, you're just using your anecdotes as some statement of fact. I could do the same and you would be unable to refute them, but I don't think that makes for very engaging discussion on this forum, then.
gofixurcode 3y ago
I think there are a number of factors at play here. I think a large part of it is that having children is extremely expensive. You need a bigger house, a bigger car, need to buy more food and then pay for their entire life for about 20 years or so. Given the cost to just sustain one’s self these days I think it is not a surprise that many people opt to have fewer children or none at all. I think that also there is a culture shift that has taken place, there is less pressure to create a traditional family unit. More virtue is given to autonomy and following your dreams than settling down. In addition to this, contraceptives such as IUDs have become much more socially accepted, so less people are getting pregnant. Naturally all of this adds up to a drastically lower average fertility rate than a few decades ago. In summary, it’s a bit of culture shift, economics and science which has led us to where we are today. The result is that in the next few decades we will either have to start having more children again, or rework the way our economies are structured to account for less growth in exchange for a focus on sustainability and providing a livable wage for all people. Its likely that if we keep with the status quo, quality of life will keep going down until we hit a breaking point.
charlie0 3y ago
For me it's definitely about the money. It's not that I can't afford children, it's that I can't afford them AND also do things like stop working while giving my family the lifestyle I want. Ultimately, it boils down to financials. Boomer parents aren't willing to help either nor have they asked for grandchildren. Seems to be working out alright for now.

IggleSniggle 3y ago

My spouse and I struggled with whether it was ethical to have children. It was a financial burden of course but one we felt capable of meeting. I don't think it's really a question of "enjoy your riches," because no matter what your status, nobody can "afford" children, not even the ultra high net worth individuals. It's a burden regardless. But I think therein lies the answer. There was a time not all that long ago that not having children was a burden. Who was going to bring in the harvest, or at the very least supervise bringing in the harvest? Who could you really trust to take care of you properly when you got old? And of course, there's a biological compulsion as well, but that's much easier to sidestep only in the last couple generations.

neap24 3y ago
Just what exactly about having kids is not ethical? If ethics is a human construct-and you are contributing to having no more humans around…I don’t know, it just seems like a strange way of framing it. As for the burden of having kids, I think it’s way too simplistic to say it was a burden NOT to have them in the past. There were different cultural dynamics, for sure, but kids have always been a mixed blessing—both difficult and extremely rewarding. Having kids has historically forced adults to face their own shortcomings. Not an easy thing to do in any era.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  No child can consent to being born.
  - gaganyaan 3y ago
    Sure, but if you were to poll everyone on if they were happy to be born, it'd be overwhelmingly yes. Your odds are pretty good of having a kid that was happy that you doinked.
    - catlover76 3y ago
      > Sure, but if you were to poll everyone on if they were happy to be born, it'd be overwhelmingly yes ...why do you assume it would be yes?
      - gaganyaan 3y ago
        There'd be a lot fewer people, otherwise. From a pragmatic point of view, we've likely evolved to answer yes to that question, otherwise we would've been outcompeted by another species with a thirst to live and reproduce.
        satvikpendem 3y ago
        Not necessarily, there are a lot of species that are functional no-ops, such as the Luna moths that grow up to be unable to eat anything as they have no mouths. They can only procreate, continuing the cycle. They are no-ops because there is nothing they can do besides procreate, they cannot even obtain sustenance. So, they might say that it was not worth being born, had they been able to be polled.
        catlover76 3y ago
        The survival instinct is still active if someone would rather not have been born, as is the instinct and desire to reproduce.
    - voluntaryeuth 3y ago
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  The burden it places on yourself, your child, and the incremental burden it places on everyone else living on the planet? If the ethical thing to do is increase the total happiness (or perhaps contentedness, or satisfaction) of all humans...well it's just not really clear that adding a statistically average human is the way to increase human prosperity / reduce human suffering. To your other point, now that I'm a parent, it's easy to see that becoming a parent made me into a better person, but there was no way I could have known that that would happen before becoming one.
  - wesapien 3y ago
    You couldn't observe that around you growing up? It's was clear to me growing up that big families and children with siblings were mostly happier. It didn't matter if the family was rich or barely getting by.
  - tom-_- 3y ago
    Increasing human prosperity/reducing human suffering is largely a function of technological advancement, wealth distribution and avoiding wars. All of these require a large population of educated humans to drive forward and since yours will likely be educated, probably net positive.
  - parineum 3y ago
    > well it's just not really clear that adding a statistically average human is the way to increase human prosperity / reduce human suffering. All of history has been an steady march forward of more prosperity and less suffering accomplished by an entire population of, on average, average people.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > Just what exactly about having kids is not ethical? If ethics is a human construct-and you are contributing to having no more humans around… We're really really far from extinction. That's just simply not an issue at all.
  - _TwoFinger 3y ago
    Ah, we are really just one smart kid away from extinction. Something something boson something neutron, and the Earth goes kaboom. Children can be very dangerous.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      True, don't let your kid play with the large hadron collider at work!
wesapien 3y ago
If finances weren't an issue most couples would have more children. It's very practical to have them. I had an an awesome childhood because holidays were so much fun because my parents generation were so many and had lots of children too. We have a huge extended family. It's great/practical to have a huge family / clan regardless if its the 1800s or now.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  Why do rich countries have fewer children than poor countries? Why do rich people in rich countries have fewer children than poor people in rich countries? Nowhere is it seen that more money correlates to more children.

katbyte 3y ago

Prefer? It’s more cannot afford to have kids

tuatoru 3y ago

It's essentially because of western individualism, de-emphasizing the family unit and prioritizing individual fulfilment. Especially with women, if you believe the doctrine of female choice operates in the world. Second generation and later of immigrants very rapidly adopt the social customs of the country they live in. This is seen everywhere. Vietnamese to Australia. Filipinas to the US. Congolese to Nigeria. Marocs to Spain.

satvikpendem 3y ago
Lots of countries outside the west are not having kids, especially the collectivist cultures of Asia which directly contradicts your "western individualism" view.
- pphysch 3y ago
  If you look at the actual countries, it is obvious that the young people not having kids are also relatively individualistic.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    How is that obvious? Where are the statistics to show that they are individualistic?
    - pphysch 3y ago
      I'm not going to spend a bunch of time digging up statistics for you, because I think it is obvious for anyone who has spent significant time in urban areas of developed countries. The youth are obviously individualistic, focused on short-term personal fulfillment, and building a family is the opposite of that. There just aren't throngs of young people living "traditionally" (non-individualistically) yet not having kids.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        There's nothing "obvious" about that. If it's so obvious, you should be able to "dig up statistics." Otherwise, you're just using your anecdotes as some statement of fact. I could do the same and you would be unable to refute them, but I don't think that makes for very engaging discussion on this forum, then.

gofixurcode 3y ago

I think there are a number of factors at play here. I think a large part of it is that having children is extremely expensive. You need a bigger house, a bigger car, need to buy more food and then pay for their entire life for about 20 years or so. Given the cost to just sustain one’s self these days I think it is not a surprise that many people opt to have fewer children or none at all. I think that also there is a culture shift that has taken place, there is less pressure to create a traditional family unit. More virtue is given to autonomy and following your dreams than settling down. In addition to this, contraceptives such as IUDs have become much more socially accepted, so less people are getting pregnant. Naturally all of this adds up to a drastically lower average fertility rate than a few decades ago. In summary, it’s a bit of culture shift, economics and science which has led us to where we are today. The result is that in the next few decades we will either have to start having more children again, or rework the way our economies are structured to account for less growth in exchange for a focus on sustainability and providing a livable wage for all people. Its likely that if we keep with the status quo, quality of life will keep going down until we hit a breaking point.

charlie0 3y ago

For me it's definitely about the money. It's not that I can't afford children, it's that I can't afford them AND also do things like stop working while giving my family the lifestyle I want. Ultimately, it boils down to financials. Boomer parents aren't willing to help either nor have they asked for grandchildren. Seems to be working out alright for now.