4 ms·

If a society structures itself in such a way that no one wants (or is able) to continue it, then it will die and others may arise in its place. For myself I do

If a society structures itself in such a way that no one wants (or is able) to continue it, then it will die and others may arise in its place. For myself I don't believe I have the wherewithal for it regardless of my view on the matter of selfishness. >The recent proliferation of studies examining cross-national variation in the association between parenthood and happiness reveal accumulating evidence of lower levels of happiness among parents than nonparents in most advanced industrialized societies. Conceptualizing parenting as a stressor buffered by institutional support, we hypothesize that parental status differences in happiness are smaller in countries providing more resources and support to families. Our analyses of the European Social Surveys (ESS) and International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) reveal considerable variation in the parenthood gap in happiness across countries, with the U.S. showing the largest disadvantage of parenthood. [0] [0]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28082749/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28082749/

rayiner 2y ago
I agree with your first point. Societies that socialize people to prioritize individual “happiness” over fulfilling social obligations will die out and better societies will take their place.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  I don't think it's about happiness (scare quotes or otherwise), I think it's about avoiding ruin. In a society where you have to run as fast as you can to keep up, children will slow you down and you might end up consumed by the predators that surround you. That's why the line from the abstract "Conceptualizing parenting as a stressor buffered by institutional support" rings so true to me. The response to the above tends to be something like, it's not so bad, kids don't really need that much anyway. Which always leaves me with the question - how much money do you make? Could it be expressed as "several times the median US household income"?
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Sure—but that just means I get to indulge my kids with private school and trips to Japan. By contrast our neighbors are probably right around the median, and had kids in their 20s like we did, and their kids are just as happy. (At the end of the day—both sets of kids value the fact that the respective grandparents live nearby more than anything money can buy.) The point you’re trying to make is contradicted by the demographics of who is having kids. My friends from law school are the ones who disproportionally aren’t having kids. Meanwhile my wife’s step mom’s rural Idaho family is bursting at the seams with kids.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      It doesn't actually seem contradictory; not that I know much about law (hell, I think I lost my belief in it sometime in the last decade or so), but my impression is that it's a fairly all-consuming profession between school and a very grinding early career and very competitive; taking time out to raise children could be very costly. And I bet a lot are coupled with other lawyers so there's not much likelihood of one being a homemaker. For those without good career prospects, ruin is not such a big deal. I looked it up, and no surprise that medicaid pays for a huge share of births in rural Idaho; if anything, 48% is lower than I'd expect. > Medicaid coverage is even higher for births in rural Idaho. For instance, 48% of births in Lemhi County involved mothers covered by Medicaid. [0] [0]https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2023/11/28/idahos-infant-mother-death-rate-is-rising-new-report-finds/ https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2023/11/28/idahos-infant...
      - rayiner 2y ago
        But that’s the selfishness I’m talking about. If a professional career is even in the cards for someone, then they started with a huge (and unearned) cognitive advantage over others. But they’re not going to have kids because they might have to compromise their lifestyle? (Or regard living like a normal person equivalent to “ruin?”) That’s what I’m calling selfish. These people could have kids. They just choose to prioritize their lifestyle, and the pursuit of their individual career. They forgo the fundamental pillar of the human experience for marginally better odds at a career that makes some giant corporation marginally more money.
- abenga 2y ago
  I think Asian societies have a higher collectivist "the collective over the individual" culture than others, and their populations are the fastest declining currently.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    That’s because Asian societies spent the last several generations harnessing that collectivist impulse to socialize people into not having kids. The idea that limiting reproduction was essential to lifting society out of poverty was drummed into generations of Asians: https://www.prb.org/resources/did-south-koreas-population-policy-work-too-well/ https://www.prb.org/resources/did-south-koreas-population-po... Family planning was one of my dad’s specialities in public health, and most of our family friends are in that field. At a party a few years ago, someone jokingly asked if my wife and I planned to have a fourth kid, and someone reflexively interjected “nobody needs four kids.” Arguably it was a necessary policy at the time, but has probably doomed countries like Korea and Japan to extinction.

rayiner 2y ago

I agree with your first point. Societies that socialize people to prioritize individual “happiness” over fulfilling social obligations will die out and better societies will take their place.

silverquiet 2y ago
I don't think it's about happiness (scare quotes or otherwise), I think it's about avoiding ruin. In a society where you have to run as fast as you can to keep up, children will slow you down and you might end up consumed by the predators that surround you. That's why the line from the abstract "Conceptualizing parenting as a stressor buffered by institutional support" rings so true to me. The response to the above tends to be something like, it's not so bad, kids don't really need that much anyway. Which always leaves me with the question - how much money do you make? Could it be expressed as "several times the median US household income"?
- rayiner 2y ago
  Sure—but that just means I get to indulge my kids with private school and trips to Japan. By contrast our neighbors are probably right around the median, and had kids in their 20s like we did, and their kids are just as happy. (At the end of the day—both sets of kids value the fact that the respective grandparents live nearby more than anything money can buy.) The point you’re trying to make is contradicted by the demographics of who is having kids. My friends from law school are the ones who disproportionally aren’t having kids. Meanwhile my wife’s step mom’s rural Idaho family is bursting at the seams with kids.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    It doesn't actually seem contradictory; not that I know much about law (hell, I think I lost my belief in it sometime in the last decade or so), but my impression is that it's a fairly all-consuming profession between school and a very grinding early career and very competitive; taking time out to raise children could be very costly. And I bet a lot are coupled with other lawyers so there's not much likelihood of one being a homemaker. For those without good career prospects, ruin is not such a big deal. I looked it up, and no surprise that medicaid pays for a huge share of births in rural Idaho; if anything, 48% is lower than I'd expect. > Medicaid coverage is even higher for births in rural Idaho. For instance, 48% of births in Lemhi County involved mothers covered by Medicaid. [0] [0]https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2023/11/28/idahos-infant-mother-death-rate-is-rising-new-report-finds/ https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2023/11/28/idahos-infant...
    - rayiner 2y ago
      But that’s the selfishness I’m talking about. If a professional career is even in the cards for someone, then they started with a huge (and unearned) cognitive advantage over others. But they’re not going to have kids because they might have to compromise their lifestyle? (Or regard living like a normal person equivalent to “ruin?”) That’s what I’m calling selfish. These people could have kids. They just choose to prioritize their lifestyle, and the pursuit of their individual career. They forgo the fundamental pillar of the human experience for marginally better odds at a career that makes some giant corporation marginally more money.
abenga 2y ago
I think Asian societies have a higher collectivist "the collective over the individual" culture than others, and their populations are the fastest declining currently.
- rayiner 2y ago
  That’s because Asian societies spent the last several generations harnessing that collectivist impulse to socialize people into not having kids. The idea that limiting reproduction was essential to lifting society out of poverty was drummed into generations of Asians: https://www.prb.org/resources/did-south-koreas-population-policy-work-too-well/ https://www.prb.org/resources/did-south-koreas-population-po... Family planning was one of my dad’s specialities in public health, and most of our family friends are in that field. At a party a few years ago, someone jokingly asked if my wife and I planned to have a fourth kid, and someone reflexively interjected “nobody needs four kids.” Arguably it was a necessary policy at the time, but has probably doomed countries like Korea and Japan to extinction.