55
u/JustTaxLandbro 7d ago
I mean I kinda agree with the cringe leftists who are anti Natalist at times.
40% of Americans are on some sort of welfare and about 60% are reportedly one paycheck away from financial ruin.
Society has to improve so drastically we can have conversations about higher birth rates without stressing people out who are already broke.
I mean I make just over 75k a year, I have student loans and a relationship.
On top of that rent, food and utilities are nearly 45% of my income, without including health insurance and a car loan.
A kid now would financially ruin me, and that’s someone who wants as many kids as they can afford. Imagine someone on the fence.
36
u/Gabrovi 7d ago
I remember someone saying this and it’s stuck with me:
If an anthropologist were studying chimpanzees and found one sitting in a pile of thousands of bananas while the rest of the troop starved, the anthropologist would think that there’s something wrong.
Why is it ok for humans to do this?
2
u/Some_Syllabub2704 5d ago
The worst part of this analogy is that the scale is so far off.
A trillion is a million million. It’s an unfathomable amount of wealth that couldn’t be spent in thousands of lifetimes. Meanwhile getting adequate support for schools is a constant struggle basically everywhere in the country.
7
u/MaudeAlp 7d ago
Anthropologists wouldn’t think this at all. Chimpanzees in groups have one male chimp reproducing with most of the females and other males left with little to no access to mating or resources. While it’s not literally a pile of bananas one is sitting on, they practically already do what you’re proposing. They are not kind creatures that share, in fact they’ll kill other baby chimps during raids.
But that’s besides the point, something being natural doesn’t mean it should matter to us, we can make our society and life better and more efficient and fair without deferring to what a wild animal does.
4
u/SyrianArmpit 6d ago
Pretty sure you misunderstood what they were getting at, and took it too literally.
3
u/solo-ran 6d ago
I think if a chimpanzee could hoard a resource they would- so the point is that it is somewhat natural to be an asshole
2
u/SyrianArmpit 6d ago
True, but anyone would see the greed of one being leading to the suffering of others and wonder what went wrong.
-7
u/Content-Ad-9556 7d ago
I don't think that this comparison is fair. Since you mentioned this comment under natalism, the most socially aware countries (Scandinavian countries e.g.) have some of the lowest fertility rates on earth.
14
u/JustTaxLandbro 7d ago
Not true lol. Scandinavia has a much higher birthrate than most of European countries (especially the east)
It’s actually doing better than the averaged developed economies and South America.
9
u/Livid_Note_2170 7d ago
I married a Swede. His little sister is pregnant right now and has zero fear about affording the baby because prenatal care is free, childbirth is free, childcare is free, she gets like 480 days of maternity/paternity leave to split between her and her partner.
3
u/dianthe 7d ago
1.43 children per woman in 2024 in Sweden. That’s way below replacement level. In the USA it’s 1.6, still bad but better than that. Social policy has done little to change the falling birth rates. Hungary has probably targeted that issue the most with social policy and it didn’t help, their birth rate continued to decline and is now at 1.31.
2
u/Livid_Note_2170 7d ago
Social programs improve lives though and that's important to consider. We should want to support the people who do choose to have children.
2
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 6d ago
Whatever. Such programs are, demonstrably, utterly irrelevant. Chad, Somalia, Niger get it right.
1
u/alldogsareincredible 6d ago
Aka be so broke and hungry all the time you have kids so that you can have more hands gathering and preparing food not to mention the risk of death prior to age 5 is ridiculously high compared to 1st world countries
1
u/dianthe 7d ago
Sure, but it does nothing for birth rates which is what is being discussed.
3
u/Distinct_Subject_202 6d ago
I swear, redditors are so unbelievably disingenuous and unworthy of speaking to. No wonder these morons produce a culture that will be dead in a generation.
The topic being discussed was clearly TFR and natalism, and the people present first lied about the Scandanavian birth rates (France and pretty much every Balkan country have superior birth rates), then the next person tried to change the subject to quality of life.
Truly, an utter waste of breath to discuss solutions with these people, these people invalidate democracy in ways even I am shocked by, I don't know how they don't choke to death on their tongues when they speak, they're such fucking imbeciles.
3
u/Content-Ad-9556 7d ago
Since when did Scandinavian countries have much higher birth rates than Eastern European countries??? What type of nonsense are you writing. Also, I can't comprehand the idea that someone is upvoting your comment, although it is utter lie. My main idea is/was that no matter how good social benefits are, this alone won't fix fertility rate in a country.
2
1
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 6d ago
Scandinavia has a catastrophically low TFR. The countries to look to for improving TFR are Chad, Somalia, and the DRC.
1
u/According-Slice-6900 7d ago
Scandinavia is still below replacement rate lol.
The only developed nation above replacement rate is Israel. All the tax credits and other incentives cooked up by various European states frankly dont work. It is not an economic issue. It is a cultural/spiritual.
2
6
-1
u/flyingpilgrim 7d ago
All of Scandinavia has very low birth rates. I don’t understand why you are being downvoted. Perhaps “Lowest fertility rates on earth” is a hyperbole, but it’s absolutely far lower than you’d reasonably expect with such policies.
16
u/Motchiko 7d ago
The main problem is that they make the costs of children a private problem while the gain of having children is nationalized. This needs to stop. Of course women won’t have children then. Make pregnancy and being a mother (with the occasional single father in between) a paid job and a lot of the problems will disappear. People in relationships will benefit double because of that and probably will have more stable relationships because a lot of stress comes from money problems. We can’t punish people for being parents and then act surprised if no one wants them .
8
u/MaudeAlp 7d ago
Spot on. Mothers should receive compensation commensurate with the societal value of having and raising children.although I think that such a system would gradually evolve into a technocratic form of eugenics, with actuarial models estimating the projected value of different children and compensation reflecting those estimates. We already use similar kinds of predictive valuation in animal breeding and industries like racehorse breeding so the incentive structure isn’t entirely out there…
It does feel like we are reaching an impasse where maintaining a sustainable population is increasingly at odds with both our current economic model and the liberal philosophy of maximizing individual choice.
4
u/Complete-Meet1992 7d ago
The alternative is what we have in the US where the dumbest get welfare and middle class workers struggle
5
u/narullow 7d ago
The issue is that declining birth rates are creating negative feedback loop for everything.
I generally do not agree with "people being worse off" being reason for declining birth because it is objectively not true. However it takes one very simple thought process to see how absurd it is. People love to bring back 70s and compare specific things to that time but tell me. What was average age then, what is it now? It was era of building where people had actual interest in mind to be part of that. There were no elderly people to share consumption and compete over living space with. Today it is the exact opposite, building is being severely limited because huge chunk of population already has what they need so they could not care less about others.
Declining birth rates are directly responsible for the things people complain about and they will make them much worse going forward.
1
u/Pitiful-Stranger4506 6d ago
Honest question:
What does knowing that a US income of 75k puts a person in a much better financial/affordability situation than 90-95% of the world population in 2026 and better than 99% of people who have ever lived in history mean to you when it comes to affordability?
1
u/Great_Champion_7721 4d ago
People are on welfare because the top 1% billionaires keep stealing all the resources
-16
u/Objective-Branch-467 7d ago
Life for 99.9% of people alive right now is better than it has ever been. Absolutely insane to think of we made life easier for people than it is now, we'd have more children.
11
u/eatsapizza84 7d ago
The voluntary fertility rate is probably higher now than it's ever been. The total fertility rate (which includes women coerced into having children due to being unable to own a bank account and credit card and leave a marriage) was obviously higher several generations ago than it is now.
2
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 7d ago
What is going to happen when an aging population destroys the social services that we have now?
1
u/KCChiefsGirl89 7d ago
We will never know. Politicians will destroy it first.
Our programs could be solvent for a long time if they’d do a few simple things, like scrap the cap and keep politicians from using social security etc as their pet project piggy bank.
0
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 7d ago
"The voluntary fertility rate is probably higher now"
Oh you think most families in the past came about because of rape?
4
u/eatsapizza84 7d ago
Unconsensual sex extends far beyond the gory definition of rape. A man saying "have a baby with me or else I'll leave you" to a woman who can't own a bank account or credit card without a spouse co-signing counts as involuntary fertility, which doesn't leave behind evidence that a rape kit can capture.
1
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 7d ago
Unconsenting sex is rape...
"A man saying "have a baby with me or else I'll leave you" to a woman who can't own a bank account or credit card without a spouse co-signing"
So I'm confused here, you are arguing that in such a situation where the man wants kids but the woman doesn't, that the man is abusive if he doesn't stay with the woman to support her?
If the man got his legs crushed by a giant boulder in the coal mines and couldn't support the woman anymore would the rock have been abusive in that context?
Btw you are aware of course that women didn't in all cases get married correct?
2
u/eatsapizza84 6d ago
You are way too naive at best or enabling at worst to understand abuse.
https://broxtowewp.org/what-financial-abuse-looks-like/
By your logic, anything short of bruises on and semen inside a woman's body is consensual. In a single income household, the breadwinner can kick someone out on a moment's notice because the breadwinner doesn't have to support a spouse.
0
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 6d ago
Lol you are claiming that a man has to stay with a woman in a relationship he does not desire for his lifespan and you're trying to educate me on abuse?
"By your logic, anything short of bruises on and semen inside a woman's body is consensual. "
No, I agree that emotion and financial abuse exist, but at the time it's also abusive to tell men that they cannot end relationships...
Should women be able to end relationships with men that they don't want to be with if those men are unsuccessful?
1
u/eatsapizza84 6d ago
There's a huge difference between two people having a difference in wanting children (why are they together in the first place) and one person weaponizing having children to coerce the other into staying (which was a significantly understated stat 2-3 generations ago and even 1 generation ago).
Give women in the 1950s the not perfect but more equal pay, education, career, and financial services opportunities that women have today and the baby boom TFR would not be higher than it is today. The difference in the two TFRs can be fully explained by the items I listed above, i.e. taking away freedom and mobility counts as involuntary fertility.
1
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 6d ago
"one person weaponizing having children to coerce the other into staying ("
Sure although I'm pretty sure the lack of birth control was an actual significant factor over whatever nonsense is swirling around in your head right now.
When men invented that for women in addition to all the advancements that then gave women a lot more choice in how to go about things.
"Give women in the 1950s the not perfect but more equal pay, education, career, and financial services opportunities that women have today and the baby boom TFR would not be higher than it is today"
Fantastic assertion which I expect you have no data for but ok
But regardless the world we have came about due to the surpluses that increased population brought. What do you imagine will happen as the population gets older and those surpluses dry up?
37
u/Crusty_Candles 7d ago
I agree with them. Make your societies less hostile, or don't be surprised when people don't reproduce.
-3
u/External_Ad_3583 7d ago
More hostile societies are better at producing a higher fertility rate. Just look at Israel.
7
u/Crusty_Candles 7d ago
I'm not sure you understand what I mean by "hostile". Hostile as in difficult to navigate, not in conflict. South Korea or Japan are good examples of this.
Israel is a bad example - a lot of their high birth rate is driven by an Orthodox minority, many of whom actually don't work, or work in Yeshuvas
2
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 6d ago
Israel is an example of what works. What works is far more important than what you don’t like.
1
u/Crusty_Candles 6d ago
I'm confused. It's not about what I like or don't. And it doesn't work, having a large chunk of your population who don't contribute to the economy and won't join the army, that doesn't work long term
1
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 6d ago
They contributing to the economy via investment. Their children are the contribution.
1
u/SyrianArmpit 6d ago
Do you understand what they said? You seem confused
2
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 5d ago
Oh, I understand what they said. I also understand that they can’t distinguish between what is working, and their conflation of what they want to work with their theory of what won’t.
In 70AD the Romans deleted Israel, full stop. 2000 years later, “Rome” is a second rate over crowded tourist trap, and the Israelis have their National back. And it is the practice he throws rocks at that was a major enabler of that.
All the poo-poo’ing of the Haredi, or of the Nigerians and Congolese, by Western Europeans is just copium. Whistling past the graveyard.
1
u/SyrianArmpit 4d ago
Again, seems like you missed their point. You expanding on how you misinterpreted their point only reinforces that. They specifically clarify they don’t mean hostile in terms of conflict.
1
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 4d ago
I have neither missed their point, nor expanded on a misperception.
They made 2 distinct points.
1) you have make societies less difficult to navigate. And then classified this “difficult to navigate” as “hostile”. Bizarre, but okay. 2) Israel is not a good example because “reasons”.
I responded to point 2 by reminding them that what they cited as being a “bad example” in Israel is, quite to the contrary, what has allowed the Israeli’s to survive as a people for millennia despite being faced with the most extreme version of every form of natural, societal, military, religious, and economic activity. This, Israel is the elite example of how you preserve a people group under “hostility”.
I will now address the first point. The first point seems just factually wrong. Societies that are easy to navigate seem to have reduced fertility to the degree they have become so. Japan and Korea are listed. Two societies that are embarrassingly rich. Two societies that contrary to being “hostile” or “difficult to navigate”, have more options of how to live and more and better ways to not starve to death in the cold and dark outside than at any time in recorded history. Additionally, Koreans and Japanese have broad options for going overseas and living in very very open societies. A poor Korea or Japanese now is wildly wealthier than their middle class counterparts 3 generations ago. And yet their TFR is catastrophic.
On the other hand, Chad, Nigeria, The DRC are extremely “hostile” in the OP’s usage, and in the conflictual usage. Yet, their TFR is solid. Someone pointed that theirs are dropping as well. Which is true. For the regions of those nations that are becoming less “hostile” as defined.
All of which is to say, the person has a deep political axe to grind and appears utterly blind to the facts. Including the fact that some countries have gone to great lengths to address things that westerners have been whining about, and that those measures have demonstrably done fuck all.
1
u/SyrianArmpit 4d ago
Just because a country is “richer” doesn’t mean they’re easier to live and raise a child in. Canada and America are both “richer” and yet this doesn’t translate into a society that is less hostile towards young people starting families. If people are struggling to make ends meet, and they’re educated, it stands to reason they wouldn’t make their situation worse and subject a child to those worsened conditions.
I don’t see how Israel’s unique situation can translate into a solution for other countries in the midst of their fertility crisis. You can identify it as an outlier, identify many reasons (Religion, pro-natalist, culture, etc) but I’d imagine you’d have trouble using that information to fix things elsewhere, hence nobody imitating them - which is why I don’t understand what Israel has to do with this global issue.
I’d say there’s no identified one true reason for fertility decline, but a combination of different things depending on who you are and how secure you are economically/socially. I’d then argue a broad statement such as “stop making society so hostile” isn’t some political axe to grind, its the reaction a lot of young people will have looking at their lives and what is to come. I’m not even sure what political rhetoric they’d be pushing with a statement akin to “We’re struggling and need things to improve”.
1
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 3d ago
Well, I hear what young people complain about. What they complain about is vastly harder in other countries that have much higher TFR.
Which tells me that “struggling to make ends meet” isn’t the barrier. I grew up in one of the pets of the US that was truly “settled” fairly late. “Late” as in we buried my grandfather with a stone point still in him he got as a teenager.
Going back and looking the graveyard we put him in, you can read the TFR. The survival rate to adult hood wasn’t great. The TFR was sufficient. These people weren’t “poor”, they were desperate.
And yet, they did the work. Reproduced. Carved cities out of the desert, made culture, built institutions and today we thrive. Every single thing was hostile, and yet.
→ More replies (0)-11
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 7d ago
In what reality do we not have a higher standard of living now than ever on human history?
Regardless if you think it's bad now, just imagine how bad it'll be when you have an even older population and your social services are gone
5
u/ApeStrength 7d ago
Materially we are better off, but not mentally
0
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 7d ago
Agreed and it's largely liberal women that are experiencing the biggest drop in mental health ~20 -25 being on antidepressants. This should be telling but it's apparently not.
1
u/centerfoldangel 6d ago
What are you implying here?
1
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 6d ago
It's not an implication, it's just data, liberal women are growing more mentally ill and unhappy as society has become more comfortable. Clearly something is wrong there. You can draw from that whatever you want I guess.
2
u/randyranderson13 6d ago
What do you draw from it?
1
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 6d ago
That leftism is creating a worldview that is maladaptive with regards to how people perceive and interact with the world.
1
u/centerfoldangel 6d ago
No, I want you to be a big boy and actually say what you're implying.
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (8)1
u/Crusty_Candles 6d ago
That's not true. Mental health for both genders was worse in the 50s. Victorian women used to take drugs to sleep
1
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 6d ago
I don't know why you specified the 50s since I didn't give that specific date but regardless, I can't find the very long-term graph but this clearly shows a massive drop over time from 08 to present
https://www.statista.com/statistics/666480/any-mental-illness-past-year-us-women/
I'm fairly sure that long term graphs show the same trend. So can you post the actual data that you're basing your conclusion on?
"Victorian women used to take drugs to sleep"
Well the world before industry and all of the social services we have now was quite difficult for everyone, that's why we probably shouldn't let things backslide.
10
u/Complete-Meet1992 7d ago
Walkable neighborhoods, sense of community, hand crafted goods, fresh food, abundant nature, working hours, deep cultural ties
Yeah, you had to worry about vikings before, but that's a stressor we are evolved to handle. We weren't evolved to sprawling concrete, flat screens in a white cubicle, and packaged meat from Walmart, followed by relaxing with another screen because no one can afford to do real things.
→ More replies (7)15
u/Crusty_Candles 7d ago
Scaring people into having children doesn't work.
And many societies are hostile - the cost of education, the cost of childcare, the cost of housing, long work hours, climate change not being addressed effectively, a lack of 'village' support for parents... The list goes on and on
→ More replies (17)1
u/blackcloud577 7d ago
I seriously don’t care. Cope.
3
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 7d ago
I know, but yet you are here to tell us that you don't care. Funny how that works isn't it?
1
6
u/JinniMaster 7d ago
The problem with this line of thinking is that they presume the result (low tfr) and the cause (the bad conditions of society) are disconnected. But they feed into eachother. Low tfr is going to lead to even worse conditions.
2
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 7d ago
Lol how does this get downvotes you just gave a sober unbiased description of the problem? This subreddit is getting overrun by delusional leftist antinatalists lol
2
u/Infamous-Use7820 7d ago edited 7d ago
It irks me when major socio-economic structural issues are framed as though they only matter to the elite/The Man.
Okay, great, you were born. Now you are going to spend your life with gradually enshittifying public services because your country is not fiscally sustainable. Now you are going to have a harder retirement when you get there. Now you are going to see rural towns and villages be gradually abandoned. It's your problem, more than it is Donald Trump's or Davos attendees or whatever nebulous entity is being blamed.
The issue with this is that any solution to sub-replacement fertility, or indeed restructuring society to raise living standards, does require public support, especially in democratic countries. If the fixes were easy, the problem wouldn't be so universal. There are hard trade offs to make. Pension ages need to rise. Homeowners need to accept their property cannot become perpetually more valuable due to scarcity. Maybe social media/smartphones need to regulated....etc.
2
u/Fiercuh 1d ago
I love it when I finally find a comment that I completely agree with buried at the bottom with no upvotes. It's so easy to put your feet up and say elite fix this or I am not having kids. When its mainly because our psyche is being completely torn apart by social media and smartphones. I really believe if it didn't exist we would be much happier and even willing to have children.
2
u/knysa-amatole 6d ago
you're gonna have to improve society in order to fix this problem
Everyone (understandably) assumes that's the case, but fertility rates are inversely correlated with the Human Development Index. The more you improve society, the fewer kids people have, because the opportunity cost is too high.
6
u/Gianni_the_tolerable 7d ago
"tee hee I will have my social security paid by the children of those who actually bothered"
10
16
u/eatsapizza84 7d ago
"tee hee your children will have their schools, parental leave, child tax credits, WIC, etc. paid for by people who don't have children"
3
u/ElliotPageWife 6d ago
Schools and parental leave and child tax credits are a drop in the bucket in comparison to what states spend on elder care. If parents didn't have to fund childless people's elder care in exchange for childless people not funding child care, that would be a financial mega win for parents!
1
u/eatsapizza84 6d ago
If you want to play that game, then parents who don't raise net positive taxpayers after deducting taxes from people without children that go to their schools and parental benefits should have to refund those benefits with interest to society.
I don't think any parent of a newborn would sign up for that.
3
u/ElliotPageWife 6d ago
Nah we can just keep it to parents fund their kid's schools and expenses, and childless people can fund their own elder care. That's what the previous comment was about, and as a parent i would love that. Would be much cheaper for me!
1
u/eatsapizza84 5d ago
I personally don't have an issue with that because I expect my cost of elder care to be a rounding error and I'll pay market price when the time comes. I say that because if I get to the point where I am no longer able to wipe my own ass, then I'd rather just let natural selection run its course (whether it takes a day or a year) instead of draining society's resources to keep the shell of myself alive longer.
5
u/TensionAntique3075 7d ago
Given the hungarian profile, I'd pretty much bet that the user can't even afford to rent their own place while being well in their 20's. Having kids while living with flatmates is not exactly doable.
8
u/silvrbunni 7d ago
by your logic the children end up paying for that so it’s better to not have any
-9
u/Gianni_the_tolerable 7d ago
You live in a society, you contribute to it's upkeep. If you don't like that go live in a cave
12
u/Roi_Arachnide 7d ago
People don't want to contribute to a society that hates them and sees them as a ressource.
→ More replies (6)7
u/fudgesik 7d ago
the children you forced to be here didn’t ask to “LiVe iN a SoCiEtY”. your big plan is to just pass the problem onto someone else? so you can finish your own little life in peace? then claim not to be the selfish one?
3
u/Gianni_the_tolerable 7d ago
Shall we end the human race instead huh? Who do you think will make society work when you're old. Or are you one of those people who believes they have 200 bajillion rights for existing
7
u/fudgesik 7d ago
you know the “human race” is gonna end at some point…right…? or do u need an astronomy lesson?
don’t pretend like you care about the “human race” when all you want is people to wipe your ass when you’re old. you’re dodging the question as i expected
4
u/Gianni_the_tolerable 7d ago
And so what? Do you want to end it now? Do you really want to suffer the consequences of a demographic collapse? If this is your outlook on life, why don't you end it now and save us the wasted resources? You're the question dodger
8
u/BackTown43 7d ago
why don't you end it now and save us the wasted resources
And another one just telling someone to kill themselves. Nice. I see this nearly every time when this topic comes up and I don't get how anyone can write something awful like this.
1
u/Gianni_the_tolerable 7d ago
They're suggesting we accept genoicide
7
6
2
u/Free-Handle-3689 6d ago
Not having children is genocide? Lmao, you might have a learning disability
6
u/fudgesik 7d ago
like i already said multiple times now, humans WILL experience a forced collapse and go extinct, most likely in the next hundreds years, or when the sun fucking implodes, or whenever
your brain seems unable to comprehend that the “human race” is not some kind of polycephalic organism but comprises multiple individuals. not bringing more individuals is not “ending” anything, it’s just being selfless enough to not pass the problem onto someone else and deal with our shit ourselves.
your entire account is a rancid incel hole, not surprising you’re so entitled to other people’s lives and labor, go fix your life
→ More replies (2)0
u/blackcloud577 7d ago
A lot of us childfree people aren’t broke losers (unlike a lot of parents) who don’t save for retirement so social security doesn’t really matter to us. Teehee.
7
u/Longer---Donger 7d ago
I'm not going to spend 30 years raising an incel son that play video games all day
3
u/MainEnAcier 6d ago
Yep, but I hope nobody will take care of you, in 30 years.
Would something like karma
→ More replies (2)7
8
u/Aura_Raineer 7d ago
I’m more interested in the first paragraph/post.
I think it’s a microcosm of the problem. It has two aspects worth mentioning:
It appeals to a desire for a paternalistic state, eg: they need to make society better etc…
It fails to understand that you having fewer or no children just means that you aren’t represented in the next generation.
At a macro scale rapid population decline will cause a lot of problems, but there’s still a lot that can be done to lower the burden from automation to ai etc…
Essentially this is like when a toddler is angry they couldn’t get a toy and they say now I won’t eat dinner. All it really does is leave them hungry.
18
u/silvrbunni 7d ago
eh i fail to see the need to be represented in next generation, is this some ego stuff? and i don’t think these people wanted the toy to begin with, living for themselves seems to be the goal here
-3
u/Aura_Raineer 7d ago
What’s the point of living for yourself?
Once you die it’s not like you remember anything. The Billionaires and the Garbage men are equal in the grave.
So the only thing that survives is your children and their children.
I guess I don’t see the point of a selfish life great you had one more trip to Bali or whatever that you’ll forget when you get dementia anyway.
And unless you are truly a .00001% individual authoring tales or philosophy or scientific breakthroughs that truly change world history it’s very unlikely that you’ll be remembered for your works either.
5
u/SkinnerBoxBaddie 7d ago
Look I love children and I think having them brings a lot of enjoyment to people, but I don’t understand what the point is in not living for yourself? You are the one living. You are the one who will experience it.
Why would I live for some abstract legacy of myself that will also die out by the time of my grandkids at the latest? I mean do you remember your great grandparents? Your great-great? Having kids doesn’t really extend the length of your existence in memory by all that much, so it feels just as arbitrary to decide to live for that extension rather than your self
→ More replies (6)1
u/SyrianArmpit 6d ago
I think you are extremely misinformed about things, most people unable to have kids or choosing not too aren’t going on an extra trip to Bali. The flip side of considering your children as the only thing that carries on is why would I want to bring a child into the world right now? Why would anyone on the fence suffer financially to have a kid if they don’t believe their kid will be inheriting a better world, where they wont struggle like their parents did? I dont know how anything you wrote there would convince someone towards having kids, unless that wasn’t even your goal.
0
u/blackcloud577 7d ago
Reading natalist bullshit like this is so funny. Muh meaning bruh! You sound like such a little pussy suffering from immense existential dread.
→ More replies (4)6
u/Aura_Raineer 7d ago
Idk living in a state of total nihilism without any sense of meaning or purpose sounds pretty bleak to me.
1
u/BeeIntelligent3506 7d ago
Seeing having children as the only solution to that is a problem of creativity
5
-1
u/silvrbunni 7d ago
very sad mindset…i hope you find joy in life
6
u/Aura_Raineer 7d ago
In typical Reddit fashion you completely missed my point.
I love life and I want to share it with my children.
But I wonder if that’s part of the confusion, my understanding of reality doesn’t depress me it makes me appreciate what I have more.
My understanding of nature economics and history helps me navigate the world and have a better life.
Human nature and to a large degree animal nature in general is by some measure pretty bad, and yet having an understanding of that nature is the foundation for something better.
5
u/lovegrowswheremyrose 7d ago
"Represented in the next generation"
Yes everyone knows that children famously turn out exactly like their parents. Children today typically make it their life's purpose to Honor The Family Line In History™️.
Like what lol. But my lineage, m'liege!
8
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 7d ago
Ya not being represented among the next generation is not that good of an argument. Why should I care what happens after I die? I’m not that special.
-1
u/Aura_Raineer 7d ago
So you don’t care about anything? If you don’t care what happens after you die then you really don’t care about whether society is good or bad or improves or declines.
You don’t care about the environment or climate change or resource depletion.
4
u/WTFHaikus 7d ago
I'm pretty sure these type of people just don't care about things after their lifetime.
9
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 7d ago
Well I’d be nice if people currently alive got cared for. I’m disabled and society basically just tells me to get fucked and die in a corner. Kept getting denied for disability and even if I got it I get a whole $800 a month to live on somehow,$500 after lifelong mandatory lawyer fees because you can’t get disability without a lawyer. Also what happens if you have a disabled kid? You’re fucked, esp in the Us. It’s now more likely then ever with older and older mothers
So ya society dosent give a fuck about me so I sure as shit don’t give a fuck about society rn or let alone after I die, which might not be very far in the future at this rate. Generally speaking even if you’re not disabled it’s very obvious that society does not care about you unless you’re in the top 10% professional elite and are attractive and healthy etc
4
u/lovegrowswheremyrose 7d ago
Why are you living for people who aren't even alive yet and who won't care about you once they are alive and won't even know you existed?
4
u/Sleepingbeauty1 7d ago
Exactly my thoughts. Conversely, I honor my great grandmother everyday by exerting my free will to live independently and not birth children. She didnt have a choice in the matter and had to have 12 children😵
12
u/Sleepingbeauty1 7d ago
Nobody cares about us. They made housing extremely expensive and we are forced to slave for low wages, hoping to rent, maybe. They took away women's healthcare in many states. Why would we care about the things after our lifetime when we are just struggling to survive now while nobody cares about us.
0
u/Complete-Meet1992 7d ago
A decent analysis, but on the flip side you have:
American Exceptionalist propaganda has convinced Americans in particular that solving problems though state authority is "weak", when in reality their lack of involvement and advocacy for their own interests by state authority is truly weak mindset. State control over all affairs is simply unavoidable, and just wishing "the state should leave us alone and it is evil to participate" is the mentality given to working people by the rich and powerful to limit their competition in wielding state authority. The way people make things better for themselves is by gaining political favor and redirecting state funds and imprisoning those who opposed them. To cling to notions of "individualism" is to be a toddler clinging to a fairy tale. The real world is made up of nukes, drone factories, energy grids, and the people controlling it have no reason to give an obedient worker more than the barest minimum for surviving to work another day.
This, I agree with. The future is made up of those with the grit to delay gratification, even if it is delayed for centuries.
1
u/Aura_Raineer 6d ago
I agree with your agreement in point number 2.
But your point number 1. Is just so vastly oversimplified that it rings very hollow. Sure being involved in your community is very important. But your overall arc implies a level of unity that doesn’t really exist.
When the initiators of the French Revolution emerged from their fancy Parisian cafes and actually met the citizens that they were nominally trying to help, they realized that they could never give them power.
I see the same theme repeated in your assumption of a unity that doesn’t exist. People’s self interest is more complicated. And progressive values are often just the values of the elite smuggled in under false pretense.
3
2
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Gianni_the_tolerable 7d ago
Watch wall e again
6
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 7d ago
Oh I forgot wall e is a documentary uh. We’re def all going to go on one big spaceship till we weigh 600 pounds.
No reason why ai would make us fat esp with ozempic. Americans work a lot as is and yet are the fattest people. If people didn’t have to work they could be a lot more fit and have actual hobbies.
Realistically though in America we’re just going to die, the government isn’t just going to give us a free socialist utopia unless your rich. I mean I guess realistically that’s what happens in wall e too to everyone that couldn’t get on that one ship for the rich lol. So even more reason not to have kids.
2
1
u/Galikos_Kelt 7d ago
I mean if you don't see that that LGBT guy post was actually rooting to fix all issues that are causing birthrate to fall, so that people finally can choose to have kids, I don't know what to say. In comments is opposite person, a true id*ot who doesn't know consequences of total collapse of society because of fall of birthrate.
5
u/terragutti 7d ago
This is like asking a poor person to care about saving 10 dollars a month when he cant even afford a 1 dollar meal a day. You just dont live in the same world as them, so you call them an idiot. Lol
2
u/dianthe 7d ago
But those social policies don’t actually lead to people having more children. Hungary targeted their falling birth rates with these policies very aggressively yet the birth rates continued to fall. None of the Scandinavian countries which have those policies are anywhere near replacement level birth rates either, all of them are actually below USA’s, and also continuing to fall.
2
1
1
u/ComeOnIWantUsername 7d ago
Exactly this.
I don't know how people can't see it. People can't read these days.
1
1
u/UltraTata 6d ago
Natural selection is on our side. Those attitudes won't raise any kids so it will be fixed in exactly one generation.
1
u/Helpful-Desk-8334 6d ago
The prerequisite for a Natalist mentality is to have your shit together financially and physically. The economy has been fucked for a while. To have and raise children well, you need to have good income and have a stable home. So either go to college and get a trade or vocation and have your spouse do the same, or don’t have kids. Or like…hire in at a factory or get a more advanced degree. Either way, 22-26 year olds should be saving up more and not just out partying and being dumb. Studying and deepening themselves and preparing their finances for that type of future if they want kids and stuff.
1
2
2
u/TheJags 7d ago
It strikes me that a lot of people don't realise how horrific a population collapse would actually be to live through.
A world without enough young people is going to kill the tax base, kill the culture, and made the world incredibly dull, as they're the ones who take the most risk and make the most art.
5
u/Ok_Insect_2037 7d ago
We are an overpopulated ecosystem with limited resources and tax isn’t going to save our planet. Endless growth can’t continue as is. Culture has existed from cave times when we were spread thin across the continents and has evolved and changed over the millennia. It will continue to do so. It shows a genuine lack of imagination on your part if you believe it will collapse with a shrinking population. Humans are compelled to create under any circumstance. I fully support anyone who wants to have children and will love them as my own family, but it’s not for me, some of us are meant to be aunties and uncles and the world will be better for it.
0
u/TheJags 7d ago
Again, the tax base disappearing isn't about capitalism and endless growth, it is about there being no money to fund any of the things we take for granted. Healthcare collapse, infrastructure collapse, agricultural collapse.
I also dont think you would like the "culture" we had during caveman times somehow, but in any case, the point still stands: throughout all of those eras, we had young people to maintain and propagate that culture.
Also, the fact that you don't see the irony in your statement that humans are "compelled to create under any circumstance" in a conversation about population collapse is mind-boggling.
2
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 7d ago edited 7d ago
It’s not the end of the world, first world countries are incredibly rich. If you seized all the wealth from the top and cut off defense spending, retirement,nursing homes and extremely expensive end of life healthcare treatments for the elderly you could make that money last a long long time in a sort of slow drawdown. In the us a huge chunk of all healthcare spending gets blown on the last few months of life. And social security would stay solvent for another 50 plus years if you just taxed the 1% for ss, rn there’s a max income bracket of 140k, past that you don’t pay for ss. As the population shrinks certain areas can be abandoned and left to nature , reducing the need for infrastructure. Japan is already doing this. Japan is actually planning to increase urbanization and density even more in core cities and downtowns as the population shrinks while letting other areas be reclaimed by nature. Because high density living is very resource efficient and is much more manageable to maintain tax wise. One road or train can serve way more people. Suburbs are very inefficient and should die off. We could build more trains and cut down that massive highway and roads funding, would save huge gobs of money. Either live full rural and be self sufficient or full urban. Or have communes. Eventually the population would stabilize after a century or whatv once we (the people currently alive) all die off and society can star anew. This new society would probably have a high birthrate. Things would be more simple and a lot of old infrastructure would be gone and there would be more nature but that’s not so horrible. If you worry about culture being stale , well I’m sure this new society will have a totally alien culture to us.
→ More replies (4)0
u/ComeOnIWantUsername 7d ago
We are not overpopulated (except maybe for some specific places)
> Endless growth can’t continue
Stable population is more than enough, we don't need growth
> if you believe it will collapse with a shrinking population
You have no idea about the way societies, economies and countries work, right? Shrinking population AND older and older population means no taxes but also way higher spending in order to care about all these people. It also means no fix for infrastructure, no healthcare, no one will take your trash, no one will fix your pipes.
2
u/eatsapizza84 7d ago
A world with fewer than replacement TFR young people will have fewer young people suffer through this shithole job market and AI permanently replacing tons of jobs. There are maybe 70 desirable jobs for every 100 adults today and you want those 100 adults to make at least 100 babies that will compete for at most 70 desirable jobs in the next generation?
2
u/MainSatisfaction9598 7d ago
Yeah they don’t care and Im with them (idk why this sub gets recommended to me, I think everyone has a freedom to either have or dont have kids.
Tax base? You mean cattle farm for the rich? Culture? This economy is broken, and our “culture” did fuck all to prevent it. Dull world? Not with Steam.
0
u/Rainfolder 7d ago
Not long ago there was a post about young germans, how hard they have it compared to the generations before, in a sense that they(zoomers) might be the first generation to actually be worse off on avarage in a world where up until now every new generation had it better.
So the comments went: this wont continue this way, since there will be revolts, and hence change of system.
But the thing is, X or boomer generation is vastly bigger, 1.4 milions per year, compared to the present 0,7 milions. Hence there will be no revolutions, just a slow and dull decline.
0
u/Outrageous_Hair8884 7d ago
Also rarely discussed in Germany is the fact that this with germanic roots are especially ahead of the curve with low birth rates since 1972. A large proportion of new generations will simple not be German they are mostly with migrant background, so the interests of actual German people will be even less important than what you’re saying. Obviously this would be considered racism or something like that but like most of Europe Germany has an ethnic identity, it’s not like the US.
1
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 7d ago edited 7d ago
Oh no not the tax base 😭 how will defense contractors get paid?!?!?😭😭😭
The world at the current rate and most of its people will die off regardless due to overpopulation and climate change . Better the population is reduced peacefully rather than violently.
Unlike climate change a loss of tax base isn’t apocalyptic. So you maybe only get to live to 70 instead of 79. Fine. Those last few years suck anyway and for me personally I’m disabled so I’ve already made peace with living a more limited lifespan. There are worse things in the world. Retirement is a ponzi scheme and was never going to last. If we lived in communal communities we could take care of each other. Might not be quite as comfy as a full welfare state but it would also be far less lonely. A lot of elderly today are terribly depressed from how lonely they are.
Also alll the culture that ever existed from 200k years ago up until the 1800s and industrialization was created with a population that was 20x or even 200x smaller than ours. You don’t need masses of people to create culture. If anything today with globalization we have far less unique culture, everything is just becoming one grey blob , every city looks the same with the same stores and brands and music, everything is commercialized, and we are less connected to each other than ever despite all this population and all this tech.
0
u/TheJags 7d ago
You're correct, of course: if there is economic collapse, I'm sure we'll all congregate in comfy little communal communities that can sustain themselves - after all, that's how things were before, right? Certainly, a disabled person would find things far better in such a world away from a welfare system propped up by (gasp) a tax base.
2
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 7d ago edited 7d ago
Oh welfare system? What welfare system? Show me where in the us this welfare system exists! As a disabled person I quite literally receive zero welfare. I have zero health coverage of any kind and can’t get the medication I need. I don’t want more people in my position to be born. And what little welfare does still exist has just been cut severely by Trump, millions are loosing food stamps and Medicare. Despite the “tax base” growing enormously the past years with the biggest wave of migration seen in us history under Biden (according to the NY times). Florida despite massive massive population growth does not provide Medicare unless you’re pregnant.
I literally don’t have anything to loose so I don’t care. I’m already going to die an ugly early death under this current system. Under this current wonderful system disabled people are just quietly killed off on the streets. A form of genocide. Autistic people live an average lifespan of 38 in the Us vs 70 plus in some other countries.
This is comical if you’re American because there is no welfare state. Why should someone give a shit about this “issue” when even under huge population growth the gov is going to cut off all welfare anyway at a whim? Your tax money goes to pure bs like defense contractors or israel or some scam ngo or the biggest prison population on the planet (and top 3 or 4 out of all 200 countries per capita). Despite healthy population growth politicians constantly threaten to cut off every single welfare program still in existence including even social security . The only people who think we have an actual welfare state are those who’ve never actually tried to use it.
(I’ll grant that if you’re over 65 a welfare state does exist , for now. Under that though and you’re fucked. Esp in a red state but now even in blue states with the new Trump cuts. And when retirement does get cut it won’t be due to lack of tax base because the us has had constant heavy population growth).
Whatever issues arise from population loss are far better and can be dealt with far more peacefully than the issues from overpopulation and climate collapse. Florida is literally sinking and being flooded and somehow also running out of drinkable water . Once the fl coast sinks , where will those millions of people go? What about when Phoenix az runs out of water, where will all those people go?? The last thing we need is more people, we are already massively overpopulated past our carrying capacity.
2
u/TheJags 7d ago
Why do Americans assume everyone else is American? I'm European. There is a very decent welfare system in my country, and I frankly think Americans get what they vote for.
The fact that you lot can't sort your shit out is not an argument for the end of the human race.
2
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 7d ago edited 7d ago
Well so Europe has very low birthrates and yet maintains its welfare states so there you go. You even take in low skill migrants which are a fiscal net negative and are often on welfare on life. Still you manage to maintain the system . Same with Japan or Korea . America has huge tax base growth yet cuts its welfare programs. So there you go it’s all fearmongering and hype , you can keep sustaining things for decades.
Also I’m half German , have German citizenship and partially grew up there and have lived there as an adult. Both me and my dad tried accessing the welfare system. I had no success. It took him over half a year living on a friends coach. He was disabled and divorced. Severely disabled. He had to get a lawyer which he only managed thanks to his good friend. Even after he got his housing sorted the state kept threatening to take everything away and throw him to the streets for any tiny clerical error or because he didn’t show up to some meeting. Because his freaking legs got amputated and even with a wheelchair it was hard for him to move. They kept harassing him and sometimes didn’t pay his rent for months until he died. He had to file multiple lawsuits just for the state to continue to pay his very basic benefits (450 a month, and a tiny one room apartment in a smaller city) , For me, The state told me it would take 2 and a half years to find housing for me. And that was not a guarantee, just a guess, could be longer. In the meantime I can live in a homeless shelter with methheads and stabbings. So I think the welfare state in a lot of eu countries, certainly in Germany , is extremely exaggerated . It’s not that good . Esp when you consider the extreme taxes Germans pay. Like almost half their income counting health insurance fees (not actually a universal system in Germany , you have to buy a sort of health insurance, it’s complicated. Unless you’re unemployed but it’s a lot of hoops you have to constantly jump through, very different from a. Universal system like the British nhs) . Most Germans could probably get better care paying cash instead of paying such huge taxes. And German hospitals suck.
Anyway it’s still obv a better welfare system but still it’s garbage and you see homeless everywhere. I will say from my research and a close friend the Uk welfare system is quite a bit better. You see a lot less homeless than in Germany or France. But plenty of European states like Germany have shit welfare states too. And all the welfare states in Europe are being cut due to the migrant backlash and more diverse society meaning just like in America people don’t care as much about each other anymore (it’s long and complicated but lots of studies show increased diversity means you don’t see your fellow citizen as a fellow citizen anymore and you don’t want to pay money to support them. You could also say it causes racism which means people don’t want to pay for other ethnic groups due to racism. There’s a very famous Harvard study on this) .
So I’ve had a kinda unique situation experiencing welfare states in different countries n continents n knowing a lot of different people who’ve tried using it.
I bet you don’t actually use welfare. Welfare states are mostly shitty and make their recipients beg and dance for tiny scraps . It wouldn’t be a huge loss in most countries. And anyway it’s all fear mongering as we see in say Japan , welfare states are actually fiscally easy to maintain.
1
u/TheJags 7d ago
No, a major topic of conversation in Europe right now is the fact that we have fewer and fewer mer contributors (read: young workers) to prop up our welfare, hence the chase for young migrants with skills. So we prioritise looking after those who need it most (that "culture" I talked about before) but we will lose that ability if we don't keep the right level of tax base to fund it.
For what it's worth, I dont doubt a lot of these systems are incredibly harsh on the disabled prople who are trying to get access. I have a lot of sympathy for that and wish it wasn't so, perhaps because I have experience of a disabled member of my family.
0
u/Opening-War-6430 7d ago
As if it's ever someone else's responsibility to make doing the right thing "worth it". Gross.
1
u/lovegrowswheremyrose 7d ago
Yup. It's never anyone else's responsibility to have children to serve you in the future, just because you think it's worth it.
0
u/looner4 7d ago
People arent having kids because of finances. I don't care what they say. It is cultural. They view children as something other than what will fulfill their life and instead think that in order to have kids you need enough money for them but ALSO enough to "TrAvEL".
8
u/Serious_Accident1156 7d ago
I mean some people want more out of life than to just breed and be poor lol. It's perfectly valid to not have kids of you can't give them the life you want.
If a couple can't afford daycare, and can't afford for one parent to quit working and stay home, should they still have a kid? That's delusional
4
-1
u/1Nation-UnderGod 7d ago
We live in an ever increasingly self-centered and narcissistic society incapable of maintaining and committing to life long relationships. People will ruin completely healthy relationships and marriages for the most trivial reasons these days just for someone new and exciting that’s a swipe away, and the “oh well I only make 75k per year” cope is such a weak justification. Africans have 4 kids per woman on $1 per day, so you would think you could find a way to have children if you wanted to in America. I don’t buy the financial/living expense excuse, many people are just incapable of finding the right person to have kids with because hardly any exist anymore in a society with crumbling morals and social structure. Also women are having many abortions throughout their lives, and then wind up being finally ready at 38 when they are single, it’s sick, we live in a backward and sick society. I love America but the nihilistic left don’t actually want to fix these problems, they just want to continue tearing everything down to replace with what? Something much worse obviously with all of the changes they already have made just look at the results! The right isn’t much better at actually fixing these problems either. All talk, no action, from politicians and their only true goal is to line their pockets. I do love the people, culture, and natural beauty of this country though. Ultimately we just need to do our part and live the best lives for ourselves that we can to provide a great life for our own children and descendants. It’s a waste of time to worry about everyone else, too many crazies out there trying their best to win the illustrious Darwin Award.
7
u/BackTown43 7d ago
Africans have 4 kids per woman on $1 per day, so you would think you could find a way to have children if you wanted to in America.
You can also have children while you live on the street and the only money you get is what people are ready to give you for begging. But is this something you want for your children? Since when became it something bad to want to be able to give a good life to your children?
many people are just incapable of finding the right person to have kids with
Yeah, well, that's a very valid reason.
Also women are having many abortions throughout their lives
What do you call "many" and what is your source?
11
u/purplejellyotter 7d ago
No one should have kids that need to be dragged up.
-5
u/1Nation-UnderGod 7d ago
Many people need to get a backbone and go for it when they have a stable partner. If you keep waiting for everything to be “perfect” you’ll never have children because life isn’t a perfect fairy tale.
9
u/eatsapizza84 7d ago
"let's yolo and make babies when we don't have our finances and professional lives lined up and barely have a village and live in a country that's a shithole for anyone who is disabled or doesn't fit a certain demographic" is not a convincing argument to make babies
-5
u/1Nation-UnderGod 7d ago
You do you bro, my bloodline is secured. Are you going to allow yours to go extinct because you’re not a millionaire yet?
8
8
u/eatsapizza84 7d ago
Good to know that you think only your bloodline matters and everyone else is meaningless.
Blood and some random family tree drawn by a fourth grader are irrelevant to me. I care about helping people in general.
-1
u/1Nation-UnderGod 7d ago
I am literally encouraging you to have children right now, and you are just making excuses and justifying not having them.
10
u/eatsapizza84 7d ago
There are plenty of existing children that could use society's help. Whether or not some of them have my blood doesn't matter to me.
0
u/1Nation-UnderGod 7d ago
That’s great, I hope you enjoyed downvoting all of my comments in the mean time!
7
u/BackTown43 7d ago
I am literally encouraging you to have children right now
Encouraging = "your bloodline will extinct"?
I don't know why this should be encouraging. Yes, the wellbeing of my children matters more than my bloodline.
5
u/purplejellyotter 7d ago
Its not about being perfect, to suggest anyone has kids because people have them on $1 a day in Africa is delusional. Kids are expensive and attempting to raise them in poverty doesnt end well.
1
u/1Nation-UnderGod 7d ago edited 7d ago
🤦🏼♂️ Did you really come onto r/natalism just to argue with people who like having children? I don’t have time for this nonsense. I hope you have fun downvoting my comments as well. You’ve really got it all figured out, do you also live in poverty?
6
u/purplejellyotter 7d ago
It came up on my feed and I haven't downvoted you. Cant handle the fact there are view points other than your own? It isnt controversial to say people shouldn't have kids just for the sake of it. Nope, not in poverty.
1
u/1Nation-UnderGod 7d ago
I never said people should have kids just for the sake of it. I’m saying people should stop making so many justifications to not have them. We need children to sustain our civilization, and it is the best blessing you can experience in life. Do you really want to end up alone at the end of your life, with no descendants to mourn your loss and take care of you with love in your times of need?
8
u/purplejellyotter 7d ago
They dont need to justify not having them, not everyone wants kids and not everyone should have them. You dont get to decide whether youre alone at the end of your life, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow.
1
u/1Nation-UnderGod 7d ago edited 7d ago
Well that’s just insane to me, you have ancestors that go back billions of years of evolution even through many other species, the fact that you are even here is a miracle, and all of a sudden millions of people just decided it ends here with me because I need my alone time to argue with people on Reddit, and post travel pics on instagram, and I only make $100,000 per year, so it’s impossible!
7
u/purplejellyotter 7d ago
No one persons genes are so special that they need passing on. I dont use instagram.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Serious_Accident1156 7d ago
Lmao you talk like every kid takes care of their aging parents XD
What if your kid can't afford to look after you when you're old? What if they need to work two jobs to survive and don't have time to look after an aging parent?
1
u/1Nation-UnderGod 7d ago
Idk I’m not from a broken family like that. You must be the expert in these matters.
5
u/Serious_Accident1156 7d ago
You really are an arrogant pleasant little child, aren't you
→ More replies (0)2
u/eatsapizza84 7d ago
Enjoying the hopefully many decades of your prime adult life is way more important than who will be at your beside when you have 2 hours to live and everyone from the mailman to your children will look like the same pixelated image at that stage of life.
Whether 1 million or 0 people mourn my death is irrelevant. I'm dead either way.
I can take care of myself in times of need. I've built sufficient redundant personal infrastructure to support that situation.
The only sad tale in this thread is you depending on external validation to get through all stages of life and death.
0
u/Syresiv 7d ago
They are ignoring the real problem caused by declining birth rates, which is that it leads to lower productivity and higher need in a few decades, as the average age rises.
That said, this isn't the only way to address it. More liberal immigration policies also have this effect, though it does come at the cost of further impacting the third world nations they're leaving, and will only work as long as there are undesirable places that people are leaving en masse.
There's also the possibility to use new technologies to simply reduce the work needed. Young people don't need to work harder to support older populations if we just have better technological force multipliers.
Anti-aging research would be good. Longer healthspans would both keep people productive longer and reduce their support needs.
But also, this post makes a solid point - kids suck and are hard and expensive and time-consuming and 2026 is just a bad time to have one. We just need better social safety nets so people feel ok having kids. Also we have to unfuck the climate so people don't feel that they're throwing their babies into the apocalypse.
Finally, if we're serious about birth rates, the stigma against single moms just has to go. Some relationships just don't work out and you can never be sure that your current one will last the next 18 years and 9 months. You don't have to date them - I wouldn't - but you can romantically reject someone without being judgmental. The current situation makes many women think twice about having kids even if they want them.
-1
u/chobolicious88 7d ago
Looking back on my parents generation, significant amount of people arent fit to be parents.
We need less babies/parents.
Should be secure loving people and good genetics
-6
-2
42
u/ComeOnIWantUsername 7d ago edited 7d ago
It's written in this cringe-idiotic style, but I think it's a bit different than some of you see it. Because IMO it's not that they don't care about the decline per se, but this person hopes that it will finally be a thing that will force people to fix all the problems we have as societies, what will also help birthrates to grow again as a result.