5 ms·

I agree with you but I do think it is valid, from a scientific point of view, to test this hypothesis and to answer the "why" behind changing preferences. It is

I agree with you but I do think it is valid, from a scientific point of view, to test this hypothesis and to answer the "why" behind changing preferences. It is also possible that overall desire has remained constant but lack of access to contraception, or increased family pressure or other factors contributed to higher birthrates in the past. I'm not sure what you mean by "even raising the question in the first place is overreach." On an individual and personal level, it may be inappropriate or rude to ask the question. On a government level it is more complicated as I think that while government has no place in interfering with an individual's personal choice, I think there may be utility in understanding changing social trends over time, as a government that is "by the people, for the people" can better represent its constituents and form policies that its constituents want when it understands them, demographically. But most important to me is that, on a scientific level, it is just data and knowledge. And in my opinion there is never such a thing as "too much knowledge."

matrix87 2y ago
I didn't specifically mention government when I was referring to overreach. But in some cases there is government overreach involved regarding family planning. At least in the USA, trust is very low regarding this atm There's a difference between government disinterestedly researching social trends and having (particularly right wing) news media shoveling out these alarmist articles that do a lot of stereotyping The tone of this article, coupled with recent political changes regarding family planning, reeks of overreach into people's private lives
- infotapeworm 2y ago
  First off, the WSJ is leftist, not right wing. The very mention of "climate change" as being a factor for reducing offspring and second guessing kids is certainly not a right wing idea. Secondly, anything from mainstream media outlets projects an alarmist tone. They operate on the basic impulse of fear. While I'd rather not have the state involved in any sort of family planning, the topic is interesting to delve in.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has owned the WSJ for more than a decade now .. the family will be tickled to hear you describe them as leftist. Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low-biased news reporting combined with a strong right-biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to anti-climate, anti-science views, and occasional misleading editorials. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ Plenty of (US) right wing media sources accept climate change during the day and rubbish it after dark during peak red in the face angry host times.
  - matrix87 2y ago
    > The very mention of "climate change" as being a factor for reducing offspring and second guessing kids is certainly not a right wing idea. I mean, they aren't saying that idea because they agree with it. They could be saying it to paint a negative caricature

matrix87 2y ago

I didn't specifically mention government when I was referring to overreach. But in some cases there is government overreach involved regarding family planning. At least in the USA, trust is very low regarding this atm There's a difference between government disinterestedly researching social trends and having (particularly right wing) news media shoveling out these alarmist articles that do a lot of stereotyping The tone of this article, coupled with recent political changes regarding family planning, reeks of overreach into people's private lives

infotapeworm 2y ago
First off, the WSJ is leftist, not right wing. The very mention of "climate change" as being a factor for reducing offspring and second guessing kids is certainly not a right wing idea. Secondly, anything from mainstream media outlets projects an alarmist tone. They operate on the basic impulse of fear. While I'd rather not have the state involved in any sort of family planning, the topic is interesting to delve in.
- defrost 2y ago
  Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has owned the WSJ for more than a decade now .. the family will be tickled to hear you describe them as leftist. Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low-biased news reporting combined with a strong right-biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to anti-climate, anti-science views, and occasional misleading editorials. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ Plenty of (US) right wing media sources accept climate change during the day and rubbish it after dark during peak red in the face angry host times.
- matrix87 2y ago
  > The very mention of "climate change" as being a factor for reducing offspring and second guessing kids is certainly not a right wing idea. I mean, they aren't saying that idea because they agree with it. They could be saying it to paint a negative caricature