6 ms·

Why Gen Z doesn't want kids - we are living out a fantasy of eternal youth

9 points by wecky 2y ago

talldayo 2y ago
[flagged]
- wecky 2y ago
  Sorry but what relevance is this to the article?
  - taylodl 2y ago
    See my comment
    - wecky 2y ago
      Are you the same person with two accounts? Your names are very similar. Almost anagrams.
      - talldayo 2y ago
        [flagged]
        wecky 2y ago
        I hope for your own sake you don't talk like this to people in real life.
        talldayo 2y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - talldayo 2y ago
    It's my eternal retort to Unherd's conservative-bloc opinion pieces that wind up on this site. They will blame everything except the economy; parents, kids, pavlovian response, inherited habits, queer sensibility, conservative grit, drug addicts, city planners, farmers, communists, futurists, luddites, terrorism, journalism, therapists, athletes, aliens, politicians, rebels, reformists, radicals and apparently, apathetic moms too. But it would never be the economy's fault. Raising children is one of the most notoriously cheap American pasttimes! It's uh... gay people's fault! That's right. The gay people did this.
    - wecky 2y ago
      Did you actually read the article?
      - talldayo 2y ago
        I did. The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics, and then instead of blaming the economy they say it's a social problem that must be legislated to get fixed. It is the same dog-and-pony opinion column they've paraded out for the past 2 years. It's why I'm shocked anyone would even submit this, except to make people angry. There's a reason Unherd articles always get flagged; they very often violate the HN guidelines.
        wecky 2y ago
        > The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics You may have skipped past this paragraph: "Yet radical pro-natalism is only going to grow as motherhood, an ancient political battleground, is electrified by the ever more frightening socioeconomic outlook. Perhaps the only way to make this inevitable tide of pressure and debate work for us is first to recognise it as a collective issue, then to push for a system which does not actively punish women for having children: affordable childcare so that we do not face a career cliff edge; affordable housing so that settling down seems even remotely possible." Given the very short amount of time between my post and your comment, it's clear you must have written your retort without having read the article.
taylodl 2y ago
> Perhaps the only way to make this inevitable tide of pressure and debate work for us is first to recognise it as a collective issue, then to push for a system which does not actively punish women for having children: affordable childcare so that we do not face a career cliff edge; affordable housing so that settling down seems even remotely possible. There it is - Gen Z simply can't afford to have children. Student loans make it quite difficult to pay for daycare and childcare - especially for infants. Add in the pressure for launching and establishing careers and the whole "baby thing" is being pushed off until the ladies are in their 30s. By that time, they may also be too entrenched in their bachelorette lifestyle to actually get married and have kids. BUT - is this a bad thing, really? As we automate more and more and push more and more people permanently out of the job market - and thus not mess up our ever-rosy unemployment numbers - do we really need these people? Isn't this just a case of the market reacting to the ever-weakening demand for flesh-and-blood human beings? It feels a bit distasteful to state things in those terms, but truth be told, isn't that what is happening?
- silverquiet 2y ago
  Yes, I look at kids today and I can't imagine what their life will look like in a decade or two. I was very pessimistic in 2014 and here in 2024, I can't believe how much worse things are than I imagined back then. Political dysfunction is obvious, and the financialization of every aspect of life crept up faster than I could have imagined. And climate change is hitting faster than I thought it would while we ever increase our carbon emissions. I don't know what I'd tell a kid to do or hope for.
  - taylodl 2y ago
    I'm hoping for super-sentient robots, that, with any luck, will remember us fondly. They'll be able to survive on a hot Earth, and frankly, they could survive on the Moon and Mars much easier than we can. They're also capable of interstellar travel. Hopefully they won't pick up where we left off and soon destroy themselves too. They will be humankind's legacy. I look at it as the purpose, if you will, of our species is to build that which cannot evolve.
- 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

9 points by wecky 2y ago

talldayo 2y ago

[flagged]

wecky 2y ago
Sorry but what relevance is this to the article?
- taylodl 2y ago
  See my comment
  - wecky 2y ago
    Are you the same person with two accounts? Your names are very similar. Almost anagrams.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - wecky 2y ago
        I hope for your own sake you don't talk like this to people in real life.
        talldayo 2y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- talldayo 2y ago
  It's my eternal retort to Unherd's conservative-bloc opinion pieces that wind up on this site. They will blame everything except the economy; parents, kids, pavlovian response, inherited habits, queer sensibility, conservative grit, drug addicts, city planners, farmers, communists, futurists, luddites, terrorism, journalism, therapists, athletes, aliens, politicians, rebels, reformists, radicals and apparently, apathetic moms too. But it would never be the economy's fault. Raising children is one of the most notoriously cheap American pasttimes! It's uh... gay people's fault! That's right. The gay people did this.
  - wecky 2y ago
    Did you actually read the article?
    - talldayo 2y ago
      I did. The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics, and then instead of blaming the economy they say it's a social problem that must be legislated to get fixed. It is the same dog-and-pony opinion column they've paraded out for the past 2 years. It's why I'm shocked anyone would even submit this, except to make people angry. There's a reason Unherd articles always get flagged; they very often violate the HN guidelines.
      - wecky 2y ago
        > The article blames literally everything but socioeconomics You may have skipped past this paragraph: "Yet radical pro-natalism is only going to grow as motherhood, an ancient political battleground, is electrified by the ever more frightening socioeconomic outlook. Perhaps the only way to make this inevitable tide of pressure and debate work for us is first to recognise it as a collective issue, then to push for a system which does not actively punish women for having children: affordable childcare so that we do not face a career cliff edge; affordable housing so that settling down seems even remotely possible." Given the very short amount of time between my post and your comment, it's clear you must have written your retort without having read the article.

taylodl 2y ago

> Perhaps the only way to make this inevitable tide of pressure and debate work for us is first to recognise it as a collective issue, then to push for a system which does not actively punish women for having children: affordable childcare so that we do not face a career cliff edge; affordable housing so that settling down seems even remotely possible. There it is - Gen Z simply can't afford to have children. Student loans make it quite difficult to pay for daycare and childcare - especially for infants. Add in the pressure for launching and establishing careers and the whole "baby thing" is being pushed off until the ladies are in their 30s. By that time, they may also be too entrenched in their bachelorette lifestyle to actually get married and have kids. BUT - is this a bad thing, really? As we automate more and more and push more and more people permanently out of the job market - and thus not mess up our ever-rosy unemployment numbers - do we really need these people? Isn't this just a case of the market reacting to the ever-weakening demand for flesh-and-blood human beings? It feels a bit distasteful to state things in those terms, but truth be told, isn't that what is happening?

silverquiet 2y ago
Yes, I look at kids today and I can't imagine what their life will look like in a decade or two. I was very pessimistic in 2014 and here in 2024, I can't believe how much worse things are than I imagined back then. Political dysfunction is obvious, and the financialization of every aspect of life crept up faster than I could have imagined. And climate change is hitting faster than I thought it would while we ever increase our carbon emissions. I don't know what I'd tell a kid to do or hope for.
- taylodl 2y ago
  I'm hoping for super-sentient robots, that, with any luck, will remember us fondly. They'll be able to survive on a hot Earth, and frankly, they could survive on the Moon and Mars much easier than we can. They're also capable of interstellar travel. Hopefully they won't pick up where we left off and soon destroy themselves too. They will be humankind's legacy. I look at it as the purpose, if you will, of our species is to build that which cannot evolve.
2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]