5 ms·
Yes we're still the same evolutionary humans, but you can't set up a subsistence farm with your 8 children as free labour and go hunting in lower Manhattan. Un
by Havoc 1y ago
Yes we're still the same evolutionary humans, but you can't set up a subsistence farm with your 8 children as free labour and go hunting in lower Manhattan.
Unless you're proposing mass de-urbanization and rolling back 100+ years of societal evolution it's practically just not all that relevant that this worked fine in an earlier era and humans could hypothetically just go back to slumming it medieval style.
> It isn't the lack of a house that is causing the drop in fertility
Find some 20 somethings in a major 1st world metro and ask them.
- roenxi 1y agoI'd propose that if you can't give your children a good life you shouldn't have them. It seems a comfortingly large chunk of the world agrees to some degree.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Havoc 1y ago>if you can't give your children a good life you shouldn't have them Which brings us neatly back to dropping fertility is driven by the divergence between salary and cost of housing. Bunch of young people looking at their budget and concluding society has made it impossible for them to provide said good life to a potential offspring
- roenxi 1y agoIf you want the thread to do a couple of laps I'm game - this is the point where I point out homelessness was the normal standard of living for most of humanities evolutionary history. People are demanding a standard for their children that only the tinyest of slivers of prior generation has been capable of providing. If any were at all, after accounting for standards of medical care. Being unable to afford a home isn't the major factor here, that has pretty much always been a factor. It is standards, priorities and options changing.
- salawat 1y agoYou seem dense and fairly committed to not seeing the fact that we've pretty much tapped the developable wilds, and set bars so high in terms of barriers of economic entry you can't just plop out a kid and rely on opportunity existing anymore. My grandmother was one of 13 children reared on a farm. Each of them could meaningfully contribute to the operation of the farm back then in ways that would be non-starters today, and for a myriad of good reasons. There was a smaller population to carry, higher attrition rates, more and deadlier wars, and many other factors. Also, ffs, it's called resource crunch and wealth centralization, and I'm not entirely convinced we aren't staring down the smoldering barrel of some serious shit Stateside over the next decade.
- surgical_fire 1y agoBe the change you want to see. Have 12 children in homelessness and prove to us that it is a better way to live life. If you want it for others but not for yourself, you are just being hypocritical.
- roenxi 1y agoWell, you might think that is an acceptable standard of living. I don't.
- surgical_fire 1y agoGreat counter argument to GP: > this is the point where I point out homelessness was the normal standard of living for most of humanities evolutionary history. Oh wait, that was you.
- roenxi 1y agoYeah. I can repeat the same point a 3rd time if you think that will help? I haven't changed my mind.
- surgical_fire 1y ago