5 ms·

What is the point of having a civilization if we can't afford kids? Sure, if it was this or that couple, maybe it could be mere irresponsibility, but now the en

by blfr 11mo ago

What is the point of having a civilization if we can't afford kids? Sure, if it was this or that couple, maybe it could be mere irresponsibility, but now the entire west (and plenty of non-western countries) is below replacement.

bluescrn 11mo ago
> What is the point of having a civilization if we can't afford kids? It's not 'can't afford kids', it's 'don't prioritise having kids'. And IMHO, they've been taught to think this way. To put career and materialism above family. There's also the constant messaging about an impending climate apocalypse or the rise of new fascism/nazism - which helps justify 'I don't want to bring new life into this world' logic. Other cultures continue to have kids even in relative poverty, they don't choose to stop having families because times are tough.
- blfr 11mo ago
  Which cultures still have kids? India is now below replacement as well. SE Asia is doing worse than the west. There's Africa, sure, and maybe Mongolia. But it's not clear that it will hold or that they have any secret sauce beyond just not having been yet hit with the full blown modernity.
  - api 11mo ago
    African birth rates are falling faster than projected.
- api 11mo ago
  I’m just going to throw this out there. What if reducing birth rates at this point in time is rational? On the employment side, we have rapidly advancing automation and AI that are dramatically reducing the work force required to maintain society. On the ecological side we have a combination of climate change, soil depletion, and many other factors that at least threaten to impose a bottleneck on us. We are smart and adaptive but adapting takes time and energy. During the transition it may be harder for us to support vastly huge populations. Put those things together and… are we, in fact, doing the rational thing here? Keep in mind that no trend is forever. In the 1970s people predicted global Malthusian collapse in part by extrapolating past birth rates infinitely far into the future. Seems to me that population collapse alarmists are doing the same thing. “If this trend continues forever there will be nobody left!”
  - docdeek 11mo ago
    This runs into trouble when the older people rely on the younger ones to pay for their retirement and government services. Having fewer children means fewer people to pay taxes, so while a lower birth rate might address environmental and automation/AI challenges, it creates significant headaches elsewhere and requires a society-wide shift in expectations and responsibilities.
    - bluescrn 11mo ago
      Young people can't pay for their own retirements, as they're effectively funding their parents retirements.
    - anon191928 11mo ago
      social welfare in almost any nation (excl. energy rich countries) is not sustaniable long term. maybe we can start with ack. that fact? Sure retired people can get some amounts and free food but bigger amounts in budget just don't make sense? I mean calculate and see it. Countries literally pay these with DEBT. How hard it is for avg people to get this? It is such a simple thing to calculate too. When debt gets too big for so many countries, entire thing collapses? we know that already
      - Nursie 11mo ago
        This has been a refrain of the political right for several decades now, particularly in the US, and appears to be ideological rather than factual.
        anon191928 11mo ago
        I dont support right, just search for countries by gdp/debt %. It's been just incresing for decades, that is not sustanaible + welfare + any govern. service that relies on that debt. More simple , it's not sustainable because new workers dont earn much, people live longer and % from the state budget just keeps growing. Think of it as income growth getting slower and liabilities growing just bigger with more old people in terms of %. how can you or we fix that?
- mindslight 11mo ago
  > constant messaging about an impending climate apocalypse or the rise of new fascism/nazism Or perhaps, and I know this is a wild idea, we could attempt to address these problems instead of complaining about the "messaging" ?

by blfr 11mo ago

bluescrn 11mo ago

> What is the point of having a civilization if we can't afford kids? It's not 'can't afford kids', it's 'don't prioritise having kids'. And IMHO, they've been taught to think this way. To put career and materialism above family. There's also the constant messaging about an impending climate apocalypse or the rise of new fascism/nazism - which helps justify 'I don't want to bring new life into this world' logic. Other cultures continue to have kids even in relative poverty, they don't choose to stop having families because times are tough.

blfr 11mo ago
Which cultures still have kids? India is now below replacement as well. SE Asia is doing worse than the west. There's Africa, sure, and maybe Mongolia. But it's not clear that it will hold or that they have any secret sauce beyond just not having been yet hit with the full blown modernity.
- api 11mo ago
  African birth rates are falling faster than projected.
api 11mo ago
I’m just going to throw this out there. What if reducing birth rates at this point in time is rational? On the employment side, we have rapidly advancing automation and AI that are dramatically reducing the work force required to maintain society. On the ecological side we have a combination of climate change, soil depletion, and many other factors that at least threaten to impose a bottleneck on us. We are smart and adaptive but adapting takes time and energy. During the transition it may be harder for us to support vastly huge populations. Put those things together and… are we, in fact, doing the rational thing here? Keep in mind that no trend is forever. In the 1970s people predicted global Malthusian collapse in part by extrapolating past birth rates infinitely far into the future. Seems to me that population collapse alarmists are doing the same thing. “If this trend continues forever there will be nobody left!”
- docdeek 11mo ago
  This runs into trouble when the older people rely on the younger ones to pay for their retirement and government services. Having fewer children means fewer people to pay taxes, so while a lower birth rate might address environmental and automation/AI challenges, it creates significant headaches elsewhere and requires a society-wide shift in expectations and responsibilities.
  - bluescrn 11mo ago
    Young people can't pay for their own retirements, as they're effectively funding their parents retirements.
  - anon191928 11mo ago
    social welfare in almost any nation (excl. energy rich countries) is not sustaniable long term. maybe we can start with ack. that fact? Sure retired people can get some amounts and free food but bigger amounts in budget just don't make sense? I mean calculate and see it. Countries literally pay these with DEBT. How hard it is for avg people to get this? It is such a simple thing to calculate too. When debt gets too big for so many countries, entire thing collapses? we know that already
    - Nursie 11mo ago
      This has been a refrain of the political right for several decades now, particularly in the US, and appears to be ideological rather than factual.
      - anon191928 11mo ago
        I dont support right, just search for countries by gdp/debt %. It's been just incresing for decades, that is not sustanaible + welfare + any govern. service that relies on that debt. More simple , it's not sustainable because new workers dont earn much, people live longer and % from the state budget just keeps growing. Think of it as income growth getting slower and liabilities growing just bigger with more old people in terms of %. how can you or we fix that?
mindslight 11mo ago
> constant messaging about an impending climate apocalypse or the rise of new fascism/nazism Or perhaps, and I know this is a wild idea, we could attempt to address these problems instead of complaining about the "messaging" ?