3 ms·

Again, if every couple only had one child, we still would be having this issue, albeit slower. There’s no point in time we’ve had disproportionately high percen

by kredd 2y ago

Again, if every couple only had one child, we still would be having this issue, albeit slower. There’s no point in time we’ve had disproportionately high percentage older people either. Theoretically the issue might be resolved by itself, but it would be an incredibly tough road for everyone involved. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people who don’t want children right now. They don’t want it, again, because given current paradigm, it’s just a net negative for a young couple to have a kid. We can preach “no equity in the future” as much as we want, but in the real world, you don’t need it unless you’re subscribed to a specific cultural or moral belief. Also, the more childless people live through their lives and pave the way to emotional fulfilment, the more likely for others to follow.

randomdata 2y ago
> it’s just a net negative for a young couple to have a kid. Funnily enough, that fact alone might be enough to reverse course! What we see over and over and over and over again throughout history is that the rich will do something that stands out and then the poor will try their best to emulate it; seemingly stemming from a subconscious (and perhaps sometimes conscious) "That must be why they are rich. If I do the same, I will become rich too!" In fact, I would argue that the fertility situation is just another example of that. When the rich were able to start choosing to not have children, they did, and the poor have been trying to do the same ever since. As suggested in earlier comments, it is quite clear that the no children/few children movement started with the rich, and now is working its way through the entire population. Like you imply, perhaps unintentionally, it has become assumed in our culture that the rich are rich because they don't have children. To the point that we see a lot of messaging towards our youth along the lines of "What about your education? Having children is throwing your future away." However, as we reach the long tail of the poor no longer having children, there is a pretty good chance that the rich will start having children again because they can – as a display of their opulence. Should that take hold, the poor will try everything they can to follow suit. They always do. And then... Problem solved.

by kredd 2y ago

randomdata 2y ago

> it’s just a net negative for a young couple to have a kid. Funnily enough, that fact alone might be enough to reverse course! What we see over and over and over and over again throughout history is that the rich will do something that stands out and then the poor will try their best to emulate it; seemingly stemming from a subconscious (and perhaps sometimes conscious) "That must be why they are rich. If I do the same, I will become rich too!" In fact, I would argue that the fertility situation is just another example of that. When the rich were able to start choosing to not have children, they did, and the poor have been trying to do the same ever since. As suggested in earlier comments, it is quite clear that the no children/few children movement started with the rich, and now is working its way through the entire population. Like you imply, perhaps unintentionally, it has become assumed in our culture that the rich are rich because they don't have children. To the point that we see a lot of messaging towards our youth along the lines of "What about your education? Having children is throwing your future away." However, as we reach the long tail of the poor no longer having children, there is a pretty good chance that the rich will start having children again because they can – as a display of their opulence. Should that take hold, the poor will try everything they can to follow suit. They always do. And then... Problem solved.