5 ms·

Yes, predicting the future was never possible. In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak. Yet I am immensely grateful t

by lqet 4mo ago

Yes, predicting the future was never possible. In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak. Yet I am immensely grateful that my ancestors chose to build homes and marry and have children and live life through the great plague, through middle ages in which most of the population expected the apocalypse to be just around the corner, the 30 years war with up to 70% of the population dead in some areas, two world wars, a time in which nuclear annihilation of mankind seemed just one false push of a button away, and a time when large parts of Europe were covered in radioactive substances following the Chernobyl disaster. End times are nothing new, it's the historic default mode.

mothballed 4mo ago
A lot of those people were able to do it without debt which made it far less precarious. I have equally pessimistic view of the future so I built my house one piece of wood at a time with cash. I bought a piece of shit car with cash. I've never used debt, I just got all the things I have by buying shit cars and shit land and slowly slowly making things better until I have nice things. For much of the youth, this is impossible. The permitting and regulatory process for houses is hostile to slow and DIY building so even if you can get cheap land near jobs (you can) you can't do it without predicting 30 years of mortgage payments. The pandemic monetary policy (more recently) and cash-for-clunkers(longer ago) trashed the used car markets. Increased regulation, licensing, insurance requirements and liability made childcare far less affordable. Also in the old days "neglect" was stuff like actually starving your kids to death so if you were broke you could work or do domestic stuff to save money and leave them home or to run around outside without Karen having them snatched by CPS. Annihilation isn't so worrying, it's the surviving that's scary.
- bluGill 4mo ago
  Their existence was even more precarious because they were one crop failure from starvation. They couldn't save food for long, and even if they tried an army is likely to come and take it all (if mice didn't get it first). Dept is bad, but it isn't nearly as bad as the things they dealt with.
  - mothballed 4mo ago
    Most people worry more about what they'll do if they survive than what they'll do if they die to the point I don't think "what if we all die" even barely registers in the calculation of whether to have kids. IF you all starve it's all a moot point. In even an African village everyone who wanted a house could just build it on the copious land available with whatever materials you could find-- I would assert having a home is more precarious now than even medieval or even pre-historic times as the regulations and law will banish you to the street today if you just build whatever you can afford to build as was done in practically all times before. I don't spend much time worrying about what I'll do for my kids if the nuclear apocalypse happens. I would still have kids if it was 90% chance of the apocolypse, whereas I'd probably not have kids if there were a 30% chance I make just enough to survive but not so much I can pay child support and I sit in a jail cell while everyone around me does nothing but rags on me for being a deadbeat and failure of a father. Note: Also, except for the first few years, having kids made your situation less rather than more precarious in the agrarian age
  - doctorwho42 4mo ago
    Umm, have you ever heard of pickling? Root cellars? Canning? I hate this fake idea that everyone in the past was one bad harvest from starvation. They could survive a bad harvest every so often, its when the weather changed due to drought/etc. that caused famine.
    - mothballed 4mo ago
      Everything about being a male parent was far less precarious, and being a female parent was less precarious after childbirth. There was literally basically no liability if the children died, and not only that, the people around you would likely understand and sympathize with you. You could just make a best effort and if you failed, chalk it up to bad luck and try again. And if you died of starvation, welp your responsibilities in life have ended. That's a lot more inviting to having children than the current status quo. Society today still doesn't really do dick to help parents but not only that they've built unprecedented apparatus around jailing, ridiculing, condemning, and harassing parents for any perceived weaknesses in their strategy including failing to foresee their financial situation decades into the future.
- trevithick 4mo ago
  I'm glad you addressed that your house-building strategy isn't feasible almost anywhere. There was an interesting article posted to HN on this topic a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31470400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31470400
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
golddust-gecko 4mo ago
> Yet I am immensely grateful that my ancestors chose to build homes and marry and have children I think this premise is questionable. I double that choice had much to do with it, for most of our ancestors. In particular a large fraction of children (majority?) born were not born out the free choice of the parents, but rather as a result of accident, social pressure/expectation, economic necessity etc. Given a free choice, the same uncertain and/or bleak future produces the rational outcome that it does not seem prudent to have children.
InsideOutSanta 4mo ago
> In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak In the past, this was a reason to have children, because you needed somebody to help out and look after you when you were old. Now, it's a reason not to have children, because you're putting people into a world knowing that there is a non-trivial probability that they will suffer all their lives through wars, famine, social unrest, and other man-made disasters.
- cm2012 4mo ago
  But a lower probability than ever before in human history of those things
  - devin 4mo ago
    Climate change would like a word.
    - cm2012 4mo ago
      If you think that you're simply incorrect. For the average person in a Western country, life is dramatically better anytime in the next hundred years, including the worst possible outcomes of climate change. Not to mention that the exponential growth of solar panels is basically stabilized in climate right now.
      - ben_w 4mo ago
        Mostly agree, but: > Not to mention that the exponential growth of solar panels is basically stabilized in climate right now. Sadly, growth of PV can only deal with part of the problem. We're making PV fast enough now that, given panel lifetimes, in 30 years 100% of current electricity demand will be met with specifically PV, and we're also making wind turbines and nuclear reactors and stuff. The "and also" means we'll probably also be fine electrifying land transport. Air transport (also fast-and-reliable sea transport) is somewhat harder to make renewable, but theoretically possible. Metal extraction from ore can be done electrolytically. Concrete's not limited by electricity, it's an independent thing to be solved. So is meat farming. Progress exists on these, yes, but my point is they're not solved just by us being on the home stretch for electricity.
thatfrenchguy 4mo ago
Folks did not have kids during WW1 though: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalité_en_France#/media/Fichier:FR-Naissances-FR_métro.svg https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalité_en_France#/media/Fich... :)
- jon-wood 4mo ago
  Was that out of choice or because all the men were at the front, far from the people they might otherwise have been having kids with?
  - red-iron-pine 4mo ago
    don't forget all of the rationing, and disease, and terrifying uncertainty there is always uncertainty, but not in the 60k people are going to die in a battle tomorrow level of uncertainty.
palmotea 4mo ago
> Yes, predicting the future was never possible. True, but... > In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak. No, the rate of change was slow enough that you could probably make a good-enough prediction: your life would be similar to that of your father's or grandfathers'. The problem is that nowadays, some foolish technology-worshiping assholes have pushed the rate of change faster than almost anyone can handle: before we've started to learn to deal with the problems of one technology, another technology disrupts everything again. Society needs to operate at a human scale, and a human speed, or it will kill itself.
- bad_haircut72 4mo ago
  You might like this - Future Shock (1972) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUwXenBokU&pp=ygUMZnV0dXJlIHNob2Nr&ra=m https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUwXenBokU&pp=ygUMZnV0dXJlIHN...
  - palmotea 4mo ago
    Yeah. And it's worth noting (because I'm sure some "clever" software engineer is going to quote Socrates thinking its some kind of mic drop or something), that I'm not saying change all the sudden got too fast just recently. It's probably been like that for awhile (e.g. since the 70s or before).
    - bad_haircut72 4mo ago
      I thi k the 70s was when they saw "oh hey this is gonna be bad" and now we're there.
- ben_w 4mo ago
  > > In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak. > No, the rate of change was slow enough that you could probably make a good-enough prediction: your life would be similar to that of your father's or grandfathers'. You are not contradicting the quotation. You could, as you say, probably make a good-enough prediction: your life would be similar to that of your father's or grandfathers'. That prediction would be "Just like my parents and grandparents, I live in a cold rotting wooden shack, my entire family have to share a single bed to stay warm, I am only one step up from being my landlord's slave, and this will also be the life of my kids and grandkids".
bluejay2387 4mo ago
"End times are nothing new, it's the historic default mode." -- might be the smartest thing I have read in many weeks.

by lqet 4mo ago

mothballed 4mo ago

A lot of those people were able to do it without debt which made it far less precarious. I have equally pessimistic view of the future so I built my house one piece of wood at a time with cash. I bought a piece of shit car with cash. I've never used debt, I just got all the things I have by buying shit cars and shit land and slowly slowly making things better until I have nice things. For much of the youth, this is impossible. The permitting and regulatory process for houses is hostile to slow and DIY building so even if you can get cheap land near jobs (you can) you can't do it without predicting 30 years of mortgage payments. The pandemic monetary policy (more recently) and cash-for-clunkers(longer ago) trashed the used car markets. Increased regulation, licensing, insurance requirements and liability made childcare far less affordable. Also in the old days "neglect" was stuff like actually starving your kids to death so if you were broke you could work or do domestic stuff to save money and leave them home or to run around outside without Karen having them snatched by CPS. Annihilation isn't so worrying, it's the surviving that's scary.

bluGill 4mo ago
Their existence was even more precarious because they were one crop failure from starvation. They couldn't save food for long, and even if they tried an army is likely to come and take it all (if mice didn't get it first). Dept is bad, but it isn't nearly as bad as the things they dealt with.
- mothballed 4mo ago
  Most people worry more about what they'll do if they survive than what they'll do if they die to the point I don't think "what if we all die" even barely registers in the calculation of whether to have kids. IF you all starve it's all a moot point. In even an African village everyone who wanted a house could just build it on the copious land available with whatever materials you could find-- I would assert having a home is more precarious now than even medieval or even pre-historic times as the regulations and law will banish you to the street today if you just build whatever you can afford to build as was done in practically all times before. I don't spend much time worrying about what I'll do for my kids if the nuclear apocalypse happens. I would still have kids if it was 90% chance of the apocolypse, whereas I'd probably not have kids if there were a 30% chance I make just enough to survive but not so much I can pay child support and I sit in a jail cell while everyone around me does nothing but rags on me for being a deadbeat and failure of a father. Note: Also, except for the first few years, having kids made your situation less rather than more precarious in the agrarian age
- doctorwho42 4mo ago
  Umm, have you ever heard of pickling? Root cellars? Canning? I hate this fake idea that everyone in the past was one bad harvest from starvation. They could survive a bad harvest every so often, its when the weather changed due to drought/etc. that caused famine.
  - mothballed 4mo ago
    Everything about being a male parent was far less precarious, and being a female parent was less precarious after childbirth. There was literally basically no liability if the children died, and not only that, the people around you would likely understand and sympathize with you. You could just make a best effort and if you failed, chalk it up to bad luck and try again. And if you died of starvation, welp your responsibilities in life have ended. That's a lot more inviting to having children than the current status quo. Society today still doesn't really do dick to help parents but not only that they've built unprecedented apparatus around jailing, ridiculing, condemning, and harassing parents for any perceived weaknesses in their strategy including failing to foresee their financial situation decades into the future.
trevithick 4mo ago
I'm glad you addressed that your house-building strategy isn't feasible almost anywhere. There was an interesting article posted to HN on this topic a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31470400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31470400

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

golddust-gecko 4mo ago

> Yet I am immensely grateful that my ancestors chose to build homes and marry and have children I think this premise is questionable. I double that choice had much to do with it, for most of our ancestors. In particular a large fraction of children (majority?) born were not born out the free choice of the parents, but rather as a result of accident, social pressure/expectation, economic necessity etc. Given a free choice, the same uncertain and/or bleak future produces the rational outcome that it does not seem prudent to have children.

InsideOutSanta 4mo ago

> In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak In the past, this was a reason to have children, because you needed somebody to help out and look after you when you were old. Now, it's a reason not to have children, because you're putting people into a world knowing that there is a non-trivial probability that they will suffer all their lives through wars, famine, social unrest, and other man-made disasters.

cm2012 4mo ago
But a lower probability than ever before in human history of those things
- devin 4mo ago
  Climate change would like a word.
  - cm2012 4mo ago
    If you think that you're simply incorrect. For the average person in a Western country, life is dramatically better anytime in the next hundred years, including the worst possible outcomes of climate change. Not to mention that the exponential growth of solar panels is basically stabilized in climate right now.
    - ben_w 4mo ago
      Mostly agree, but: > Not to mention that the exponential growth of solar panels is basically stabilized in climate right now. Sadly, growth of PV can only deal with part of the problem. We're making PV fast enough now that, given panel lifetimes, in 30 years 100% of current electricity demand will be met with specifically PV, and we're also making wind turbines and nuclear reactors and stuff. The "and also" means we'll probably also be fine electrifying land transport. Air transport (also fast-and-reliable sea transport) is somewhat harder to make renewable, but theoretically possible. Metal extraction from ore can be done electrolytically. Concrete's not limited by electricity, it's an independent thing to be solved. So is meat farming. Progress exists on these, yes, but my point is they're not solved just by us being on the home stretch for electricity.

thatfrenchguy 4mo ago

Folks did not have kids during WW1 though: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalité_en_France#/media/Fichier:FR-Naissances-FR_métro.svg https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalité_en_France#/media/Fich... :)

jon-wood 4mo ago
Was that out of choice or because all the men were at the front, far from the people they might otherwise have been having kids with?
- red-iron-pine 4mo ago
  don't forget all of the rationing, and disease, and terrifying uncertainty there is always uncertainty, but not in the 60k people are going to die in a battle tomorrow level of uncertainty.

palmotea 4mo ago

> Yes, predicting the future was never possible. True, but... > In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak. No, the rate of change was slow enough that you could probably make a good-enough prediction: your life would be similar to that of your father's or grandfathers'. The problem is that nowadays, some foolish technology-worshiping assholes have pushed the rate of change faster than almost anyone can handle: before we've started to learn to deal with the problems of one technology, another technology disrupts everything again. Society needs to operate at a human scale, and a human speed, or it will kill itself.

bad_haircut72 4mo ago
You might like this - Future Shock (1972) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUwXenBokU&pp=ygUMZnV0dXJlIHNob2Nr&ra=m https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUwXenBokU&pp=ygUMZnV0dXJlIHN...
- palmotea 4mo ago
  Yeah. And it's worth noting (because I'm sure some "clever" software engineer is going to quote Socrates thinking its some kind of mic drop or something), that I'm not saying change all the sudden got too fast just recently. It's probably been like that for awhile (e.g. since the 70s or before).
  - bad_haircut72 4mo ago
    I thi k the 70s was when they saw "oh hey this is gonna be bad" and now we're there.
ben_w 4mo ago
> > In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak. > No, the rate of change was slow enough that you could probably make a good-enough prediction: your life would be similar to that of your father's or grandfathers'. You are not contradicting the quotation. You could, as you say, probably make a good-enough prediction: your life would be similar to that of your father's or grandfathers'. That prediction would be "Just like my parents and grandparents, I live in a cold rotting wooden shack, my entire family have to share a single bed to stay warm, I am only one step up from being my landlord's slave, and this will also be the life of my kids and grandkids".

bluejay2387 4mo ago

"End times are nothing new, it's the historic default mode." -- might be the smartest thing I have read in many weeks.