3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
missedthecue 2y ago
Everyone says money is the reason other people won't have kids. When I ask them what % raise they'd need before they have one themselves, I tend to get either ridiculous numbers ($500k a year!!!) or non-monetary reasons why they won't/can't have them. More money makes life more easy, but I get the sense that money has little to do with birth rates. After all, the poorest people in your city, state, country, and planet are the ones having the most children.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- taylodl 2y ago
  > After all, the poorest people in your city, state, country, and planet are the ones having the most children. That's because the poorest people are also the ones having the most sex, because sex is a cheap form of entertainment. Poor people are also the least able to afford birth control. More sex plus less birth control equals more children. No one, however, would argue that these children have the brightest future with the most opportunities ahead of them.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    Right. Richer people have better stuff to do than have kids. Poor people are too uneducated and out of it to control how many kids they have. It's kind of like wondering why people don't want to fall into puddles. And you notice that poor people who walk to work in the rain are the ones falling into puddles the most. It's not about money. No one in history has ever had kids because they suddenly felt financially secure enough to. No one wants kids. Across the globe, when the standard of living rises, fertility goes down. Reproduction is a biological Ponzi scheme. When you're given an out, you take it.
eadmund 2y ago
> 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. There are so many assumptions baked into that: that infants and children should be in daycare; that every citizen should go to college (and borrow to pay for it!); that every citizen should have a career; that the single lifestyle is more appealing than marriage and parenthood. But are those necessarily true?

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.

missedthecue 2y ago

Everyone says money is the reason other people won't have kids. When I ask them what % raise they'd need before they have one themselves, I tend to get either ridiculous numbers ($500k a year!!!) or non-monetary reasons why they won't/can't have them. More money makes life more easy, but I get the sense that money has little to do with birth rates. After all, the poorest people in your city, state, country, and planet are the ones having the most children.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
taylodl 2y ago
> After all, the poorest people in your city, state, country, and planet are the ones having the most children. That's because the poorest people are also the ones having the most sex, because sex is a cheap form of entertainment. Poor people are also the least able to afford birth control. More sex plus less birth control equals more children. No one, however, would argue that these children have the brightest future with the most opportunities ahead of them.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  Right. Richer people have better stuff to do than have kids. Poor people are too uneducated and out of it to control how many kids they have. It's kind of like wondering why people don't want to fall into puddles. And you notice that poor people who walk to work in the rain are the ones falling into puddles the most. It's not about money. No one in history has ever had kids because they suddenly felt financially secure enough to. No one wants kids. Across the globe, when the standard of living rises, fertility goes down. Reproduction is a biological Ponzi scheme. When you're given an out, you take it.

eadmund 2y ago

> 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. There are so many assumptions baked into that: that infants and children should be in daycare; that every citizen should go to college (and borrow to pay for it!); that every citizen should have a career; that the single lifestyle is more appealing than marriage and parenthood. But are those necessarily true?