12 ms·

I talk about this topic with my (childless) wife quite a bit. Reasons we postulate: The rent is too damn high It takes longer into adulthood to achieve stabil

I talk about this topic with my (childless) wife quite a bit. Reasons we postulate: The rent is too damn high It takes longer into adulthood to achieve stability Porn brain Phone brain (24/7 infinite entertainment) Dating apps are not delightful The pandemic led some people to stay in for good Loss of third places (rent too damn high again) Tight job markets lead to reluctance to bring kids into the picture Healthcare is more expensive every year American individualism diminishes multi generational family support structures after a generation A long tail of other causes: drugs, gun violence, obesity, losing one's religion, growing up with divorced parents

xyzelement 1y ago
I used to kinda buy these things until I started getting to know religious people in the last few years. An average secular couple living in Brooklyn has all the problems you're describing, and then their religious Jewish neighbor lives in the same world but has 6.6 kids on average. The thing that I think is different - even when I was an atheist, I had the value of "children" very strongly - that they are my way to bring life and perpetuate my ideas and contribute to the world. This was always strong with me, and I see similar concepts strong with my religious friends. Meanwhile my secular friends are much weaker on their motivation "oh... yeah maybe I'll be OK with kids if it happens" - because the value is not there, they aren't motivated to deal with the things you're listing - even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids.
- kashunstva 1y ago
  > even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids Until recent human history, though, humans had far less control over childbearing than now. And children in the past were relied on to provide supplemental labour to maintain the household which was, much more often than now, a farm. So at times there were very practical reasons for childbearing. But agree, deeply held values enable some to overcome obstacles.
  - xyzelement 1y ago
    I realize these arguments are very common but I think they are more than likely bullshit. Again, I think religious people today are a good proxy for how people were "back then" especially since faith was almost universal. For example, religious people don't use birth control and have more kids - but it's because that's what they want. To believe that someone has the discipline to adhere to the tenets of religion (eg respecting the sabbath, dietary laws) but keeps having unwanted kids due to uncontrolled lust for his wife, seems bullshit on its face. The "farm help" thing... I think most people then and now see kids primarily as another mouth to feed in perpetuity, and not some sort of revenue generating asset. Certainly people who have a lot of kids today, aren't doing it for financial reasons. And when I think back on my grandmother who was one of 5 or my wife's grandparents who were one of 10, it wasn't because their parents were harnessing them to a plow. People today have kids because they love them, and because they want to cast a vote of influence into the future. I think people in the past primarily had similar motivations. The "farm help/birth control thing" is cope for the childless primarily, no parent actually thinks this way.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      > Certainly people who have a lot of kids today, aren't doing it for financial reasons. Because its illegal, people did certainly use kids as financial assets back then. Your kids was what took care of you when you grew old, there were no pensions or old folk homes, it was just your kids.
- andrewmcwatters 1y ago
  Yeah, every time I read people saying stuff like the OP, I’m like, “Yeah, sure if you’re an atheist.” The religious world is chugging along just fine. All of my religious friends have two, three kids, perfectly fine or above average incomes. It’s just not a priority for non-religious people, and there was never a loss of third spaces. Church hopping to date is a thing. People share values. Congregations celebrate new babies and chip in. Community exists. It’s a comparatively bad experience for those without that support. The secular world has none of this except maybe immediate family, and even then I don’t see support from non-religious parents to their non-religious children. So of course these people think these things. They’re basically thrown into the world with no social net.
  - xyzelement 1y ago
    Really sad - it's a sort of tangible vision of what it means to have forsaken Gd and be forsaken by him.
    - andrewmcwatters 1y ago
      Yeah, I think that’s a fair argument. It’s easily been the most clear indicator of social connective health I’ve seen over the course of my life regardless of faith background.
      - whatajoke69420 1y ago
        Nah, I think that's a really inane argument. Religious fervor (loosely defined as "Religion is a good thing") is the most clear indicator I've seen of social decay over the course of my life, regardless of which particular faith it is.
      - dh2022 1y ago
        I think you need to go out more often:). But seriously: this type of social connection works for some people and does not work for others. At church you are not allowed to question. When people pray you are supposed to bow your head. You are supposed to be quiet. I went to a few church services when a few of my friends invited me. I stuck out like a sore thumb. At the door on my way out the church greeters wished me well-while avoiding any eye contact. To each his own, I guess.
m463 1y ago
that's a pretty comprehensive list... and pretty thought provoking. maybe just understanding the list might help to conquer it, at least on a personal level. There's something I've been thinking about. Might be too general for your list: lack of connections.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > lack of connections Belongs on the list right next to "loss of third places".
arresin 1y ago
Yes that’s everything.

xyzelement 1y ago

I used to kinda buy these things until I started getting to know religious people in the last few years. An average secular couple living in Brooklyn has all the problems you're describing, and then their religious Jewish neighbor lives in the same world but has 6.6 kids on average. The thing that I think is different - even when I was an atheist, I had the value of "children" very strongly - that they are my way to bring life and perpetuate my ideas and contribute to the world. This was always strong with me, and I see similar concepts strong with my religious friends. Meanwhile my secular friends are much weaker on their motivation "oh... yeah maybe I'll be OK with kids if it happens" - because the value is not there, they aren't motivated to deal with the things you're listing - even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids.

kashunstva 1y ago
> even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids Until recent human history, though, humans had far less control over childbearing than now. And children in the past were relied on to provide supplemental labour to maintain the household which was, much more often than now, a farm. So at times there were very practical reasons for childbearing. But agree, deeply held values enable some to overcome obstacles.
- xyzelement 1y ago
  I realize these arguments are very common but I think they are more than likely bullshit. Again, I think religious people today are a good proxy for how people were "back then" especially since faith was almost universal. For example, religious people don't use birth control and have more kids - but it's because that's what they want. To believe that someone has the discipline to adhere to the tenets of religion (eg respecting the sabbath, dietary laws) but keeps having unwanted kids due to uncontrolled lust for his wife, seems bullshit on its face. The "farm help" thing... I think most people then and now see kids primarily as another mouth to feed in perpetuity, and not some sort of revenue generating asset. Certainly people who have a lot of kids today, aren't doing it for financial reasons. And when I think back on my grandmother who was one of 5 or my wife's grandparents who were one of 10, it wasn't because their parents were harnessing them to a plow. People today have kids because they love them, and because they want to cast a vote of influence into the future. I think people in the past primarily had similar motivations. The "farm help/birth control thing" is cope for the childless primarily, no parent actually thinks this way.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > Certainly people who have a lot of kids today, aren't doing it for financial reasons. Because its illegal, people did certainly use kids as financial assets back then. Your kids was what took care of you when you grew old, there were no pensions or old folk homes, it was just your kids.
andrewmcwatters 1y ago
Yeah, every time I read people saying stuff like the OP, I’m like, “Yeah, sure if you’re an atheist.” The religious world is chugging along just fine. All of my religious friends have two, three kids, perfectly fine or above average incomes. It’s just not a priority for non-religious people, and there was never a loss of third spaces. Church hopping to date is a thing. People share values. Congregations celebrate new babies and chip in. Community exists. It’s a comparatively bad experience for those without that support. The secular world has none of this except maybe immediate family, and even then I don’t see support from non-religious parents to their non-religious children. So of course these people think these things. They’re basically thrown into the world with no social net.
- xyzelement 1y ago
  Really sad - it's a sort of tangible vision of what it means to have forsaken Gd and be forsaken by him.
  - andrewmcwatters 1y ago
    Yeah, I think that’s a fair argument. It’s easily been the most clear indicator of social connective health I’ve seen over the course of my life regardless of faith background.
    - whatajoke69420 1y ago
      Nah, I think that's a really inane argument. Religious fervor (loosely defined as "Religion is a good thing") is the most clear indicator I've seen of social decay over the course of my life, regardless of which particular faith it is.
    - dh2022 1y ago
      I think you need to go out more often:). But seriously: this type of social connection works for some people and does not work for others. At church you are not allowed to question. When people pray you are supposed to bow your head. You are supposed to be quiet. I went to a few church services when a few of my friends invited me. I stuck out like a sore thumb. At the door on my way out the church greeters wished me well-while avoiding any eye contact. To each his own, I guess.

m463 1y ago

that's a pretty comprehensive list... and pretty thought provoking. maybe just understanding the list might help to conquer it, at least on a personal level. There's something I've been thinking about. Might be too general for your list: lack of connections.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> lack of connections Belongs on the list right next to "loss of third places".

arresin 1y ago

Yes that’s everything.