14 ms·

I have a different pet explanation from the other replies here, and I honestly don't get why it's not talked about more. Basically, our economic reality and ex

• xeonmc 3mo ago
  So support should be provided for incentivizing younger parenthood then, like guaranteed tuition assistance per children born?
  • Daishiman 3mo ago
    More like guaranteed housing because not even having a college degree is a sufficient condition to enter the middle class in this day and age.
  • Henchman21 3mo ago
    Right why would we change the behavior that got us here? Just provide some incentives and problem solved right? How about we undo the mess we’ve created through industrialization? Change the world so people WANT to have kids again?
    • nemomarx 3mo ago
      Why did people want to have them in the past, and what shifts do you think could undo industrialization enough to return to that? The economic value of kids and the relative surety that kids will provide for you in your old age are I think very hard to reclaim now, and that was a pretty strong motivator for most of history. You could end all retirement funds and pension systems and so on, maybe?
      • em-bee 3mo ago
        how about making your pension depend on the number of kids? take an average pension now: X=100%, take half of it as a base, and then add a quarter or one fifth per child. so a childless person gets half the current pension, 1 child gives you 75% or 70%, 2 children 100% or 90%, 3 children 125% or 110%, etc...
        • trumpdong 3mo ago
          We don't have pensions any more
        • ezst 3mo ago
          Sounds good, until you start arbitrarily punishing people who, for one reason or another, just can't have kids (reasons can be many, for one, biology is a bitch).
          • em-bee 3mo ago
            that's a defeatist attitude. it's not like we can't make exceptions. or arrange for other ways to earn your pension. besides, if you don't have children you get more time to work, so you pay more, which means, the benefit for parents is actually offsetting lost work time. which is another approach. how about for each child you get automatically accounted a number of years of payments as if you had earned money. if it takes 30 years of work to earn enough for a decent pension, and every child counts for 5 years then 3 children would allow you to get the same pension with only 15 years of work. how is that? btw, the global infertility rate is 5%. the global disability rate is 10%. those people are also affected by not being able to work. in other words, 15% of the population are unable to fully contribute to pension funds. where a full contribution means work and having children. but making children a pension contribution actually helps a number of disabled who are still able to have children. so now they are able to contribute more than they would if we ignored children as a contribution. seriously, this constant shooting down of ideas just because it appears that one group is disadvantaged is tiring. try thinking a bit more creatively and help come up with a solution.
  • thewebguyd 3mo ago
    Tuition assistance per kid isn't going to cut it. That doesn't solve any other problem of: unaffordable housing, unaffordable child care, a hustle culture that mandates people be productive and climb the career ladder to barely get ahead, the loss of complete freedom and free time, etc. The incentives just aren't there.
    • em-bee 3mo ago
      both parents having to work fulltime, and the severe hit to your career if you pause working while the children are young is the primary hindrance in my view.
      • thewebguyd 3mo ago
        Yeah the career thing is huge, and also just a general lack of flexibility at a lot of companies. Expectations to be in-office, butt in chair for 8 hours a day, etc. When you have kids, you need the freedom to just get up and leave at any time to respond to things. School calls cause your kid is sick, emergencies, you name it. You gotta be there and be available for them, and we need a culture to where that doesn't become damaging to your career, and enough worker protections in place to where you cannot face disciplinary action for that.
        • em-bee 3mo ago
          we need a culture to where that doesn't become damaging to your career this is what i keep repeating over and over again.
  • em-bee 3mo ago
    in germany education is free, and some places also offer free childcare. parents get $300 per child per month in financial support regardless of income. and yet all that is still not enough.
    • throwaway85825 3mo ago
      Costs more than that.
      • deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      • em-bee 3mo ago
        well, i did say it's not enough, but i disagree, if you assume free childcare, then the real cost according to statistics is not much higher than that because the bulk of the cost in those statistics comes from expensive childcare, yet, even free childcare does not help to motivate people to have more children.
  • submain 3mo ago
    Is that enough though? Women change their entire bodies, sacrifice years of their lives, and go through considerable stress to have a baby. And at the end, the benefits of that ordeal are not clear. Society would need to offer something to offset all those costs.
    • bluescrn 3mo ago
      'The benefits of continuing the existence of the species are not clear'
      • none2585 3mo ago
        Unironically why care if this species continues?
        • saintvlad 3mo ago
          That's the neat part! You don't have to care. It will either way. But it's not looking great for liberalism (and that's good thing).
        • pixl97 3mo ago
          Because it will be very messy and involve a lot of suffering if unmanaged. The population just doesn't disappear, it can pretty quickly shrink in just a generation or two leaving huge amounts of infrastructure unmaintained and falling apart with huge amounts of debt that will ensure what remains of society ends up in chaos. That and the most likely part of the population to shrink is the ones we consider more stable and rational. Cults and religious breeding groups will increasing become the majority of the population leading to some 'interesting fun times'.
        • incompatible 3mo ago
          The impact of humans on most other species, and the environment in general, isn't exactly positive.
        • sieabahlpark 3mo ago
          [dead]
  • happytoexplain 3mo ago
    Right train of thought, but as others have pointed out, this is spitting on a fire.
  • thijson 3mo ago
    Giving birth to future tax payers should confer sizable tax deductions for the parents. I'm not sure that's enough to reverse the demographic slide though, it's been tried. For our ancestors, they married young, and didn't have access to birth control. Babies weren't really planned, they just happened.
    • em-bee 3mo ago
      they didn't just happen, they were expected and demanded. there was social pressure to have children. that's still true in china today. some not yet grandparents put a lot of pressure on their children to give them grandchildren (sometimes very violently too), and i remember a comment in an earlier thread where someone told about the experience of their parents or grandparents where the local pastor was having a concerned talk with a childless couple.
    • obezyian 3mo ago
      > didn't have access to birth control. Babies weren't really planned, they just happened. An early form of birth control in my home country was naming your baby Enough (Dosta). Not very efficient, obviously. edit: it seems this was mostly used for breaking a streak of female babies (the name is feminine). but also in general.
  • JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    > like guaranteed tuition assistance per children born? It needs to be a massive package of subsidies. Children used to be a private good. Child-labor laws and the cost of raising kids flipped that. Children remain a public benefit, but that benefit is realized without paying for the cost. In essence, the cost of all prenatal, neonatal and pediatric healthcare; schooling; the opportunity cost in career and recreation the parents incur from having to raise kids; and the direct costs of feeding, clothing, nannying, et cetera children need to be directly subsidized, probably with a cash bonus on top. In America this would probably be a ca. $50k/child benefit at the low end.
  • pjc50 3mo ago
    We spent decades fighting teen pregnancy for this?
    • em-bee 3mo ago
      the reason we have been fighting teen pregnancy is because as a society we decided not to support young parents, and because teen pregnancy happens out of wedlock with the fathers usually disappearing. i believe historically this comes from the fact that mothers used to stay at home, so as soon as you had a child you would not go to school anymore. we could decide otherwise and create structures where young people, still in highschool or studying, are at the same time able to live together and have children.
      • Qem 3mo ago
        > because teen pregnancy happens out of wedlock with the fathers usually disappearing Usually disappeared. Once DNA tests were invented, it became straighforward to go after them. Underrated breakthrough to support children and single mothers.
        • em-bee 3mo ago
          yes, but what would be the point? they are still in school too, have no work and no income, so they are not going to pay child support either. the girl is better off without such a guy. my point is to support couples who actually want to be together to build a family. getting pregnant from a guy you messed around with is not a family. the goal is to prevent unwanted pregnancies by making it easier to have wanted ones in a supportive environment. hunting down a guy who didn't mean to get you pregnant after it happens unintentionally doesn't accomplish that.
          • trumpdong 3mo ago
            In some tribal societies, everyone fucks everyone, whatever children are born are born, and since nobody knows who the father is they all care for all of them collectively. Is it possible this is actually a better model than the nuclear family?
• conductr 3mo ago
  This is a real thought process people are contending with. There's also just the simple fact that kids are liabilities more so than assets. That's not been the case through most of human civilization. I wouldn't limit it to economics either. Socially children are restricting. If you want to be free to travel, move, leave the house on a whim, etc. then kids will interrupt your plans/logistics.
  • forlorn_mammoth 3mo ago
    Appreciate you putting it bluntly. I've found having children the most rewarding thing to have done with my life. And even so, you are right about the costs. "Million dollar baby" is not just a catch-phrase.
    • conductr 3mo ago
      Same. I contended with having children at all because I enjoyed my freedom. As much as I enjoy it and find it inspiring and rewarding, there’s a part of me that’s counting down to independence again. I was fortunate enough economically it doesn’t require sacrifices but I still see the tally and it’s enormous. When I see median numbers on common stats like home prices, incomes, groceries, etc. there’s no way I would have taken it on if that was my reality.
  • GeekyBear 3mo ago
    It's worth remembering that schools in American farming regions would shut down during planting and harvest seasons just 100 years ago. Large families were your source of farm labor.
    • shimman 3mo ago
      Reminder that universal public high school education wasn't obtained in the US until the 1940s. Large families were your source of labor because you never given a chance to make a better life for yourself.
  • Gibbon1 3mo ago
• submain 3mo ago
  I agree. It comes down to the opportunity cost for women to have babies. On pre-industrialized societies, women have barely a choice. On industrialized ones they do. And it turns out that, when given the choice, they choose not to have babies.
  • hamdingers 3mo ago
    While none of this is wrong, men are also choosing not to have babies, which points to a broader root cause.
    • trumpdong 3mo ago
      [dead]
  • happytoexplain 3mo ago
    The implication of "and it turns out..." is that all else is equal, but clearly it's not. Would women still choose to have babies if they didn't have to work also? I admit that it's basically moot - we can't seem to figure out how to have a society where both members of a couple are free to choose whether or not to work. I'm only pointing out that this trend doesn't mean what you're implying about women's desires.
    • voiceofchoice 3mo ago
      If you don't think child rearing is work then you won't understand why women choose not to have kids in the first place. You cannot be a parent and choose not to work, period. Just because you're not getting paid and ordered around by an adult boss doesn't mean being a trad wife is magically somehow not work. In fact, at least with a regular 9-5 you get PTO and time off. If you scoff at the idea of flipping burgers your whole life then just imagine it's changing diapers instead.
      • yoyohello13 3mo ago
        It should be framed as “taking a second job” rather than “not working”
• everdrive 3mo ago
  Also, women's overall fertility drops off a cliff after 30, but this is downplayed because the extreme sensitivity of the issue.
  • happytoexplain 3mo ago
    True - but, honest question that I've always wondered: Do we know the degree of this problem as it relates to whether or not people have kids? I.e. yes, it takes longer to get pregnant, but how much less likely does it become to get pregnant at all?
    • everdrive 3mo ago
      Nearly every metric gets worse - likelihood to get pregnant - likelihood to bring child to term - health risk to mother during pregnancy and child birth - health risk to baby during pregnancy and child birth - increased likelihood of multiple birth defects - increased likelihood of genetic abnormalities I'm not casting aspersions. My wife and I had kids when she was 38 and 40 respectively. But, the numbers for the risks are stark.
      • happytoexplain 3mo ago
        So even if it takes a year instead of one night to get pregnant, which wouldn't really affect long-scale statistics that much, more pregnancies fail, and more people may choose not to try at all because of the risks. That makes sense.
        • everdrive 3mo ago
          It's got an effect but agreed it's not the biggest effect given what else is going on. I think time might be the bigger factor here when simply discussing biology. If you have kids every ~3 years and don't start until you're 35, you have maybe 1.75 years of kids left in you before it starts getting tenuous. (ie, before the woman is over 40) That same math works out differently if your first kid is at 20. None of this touches on industrialization and higher education, which seem to be the more universal effects, even if one of their bigger effects is merely to delay motherhood.
• happytoexplain 3mo ago
  Yes, absolutely. I agreed with the parent too, but I think your explanation is not as different as it seems. I think your framing is just more direct and correct. However, one big caveat: "If you want a secured dignified life and basic prerequisites to starting a family" What you're saying is more relevant to the state of already-developed nations, that are now all in a slow decline. Not so much to newly developed nations, slowly on the rise. That context established: The common "we can't afford children" explanation is certainly a significant part of the equation, but I have never bought that it is the biggest reason. Children are expensive, but highly subsidized, and just not expensive enough to explain the whole picture. Your explanation is, I think, the One Big Thing. So many adults today grew up seeing middle-class life as very attainable with a college education and a work ethic. Then, as they became adults, that "attainable" reality inched away as fast as they progressed toward that goal. The big, tough thing to discuss (tough because of the modern obsession with attacking "entitlement"), is that humans react much more strongly to change in state than to the state itself. E.g. if Alice grows up in a local culture where most people are poor, and Bob grows up in a local culture where most people have little houses and little yards and low crime, and then Alice and Bob both end up poor, then Bob is a lot angrier than Alice. Bob shakes his fist at the world more, and is more likely than Alice to choose to delay having children until he attains what he thought was a totally reasonable American aspiration. This is highly parallel to the parent's notion of "not having children in order to pursue other things". It's not just that people don't want children - it's that they want children and middle-class lives, and feel uneasy choosing children when it feels like one more bump on the path to a middle-class life.
  • zabriel_goss 3mo ago
    Well put. Adding that for those who are looking to have kids, there are generational considerations. It's not only the parents wanting the middle-class life for themselves, but it's also understanding that raising a child with that level of access to resources is what ideally sets the child up for a better life onward. The impact is exponential down the line, and no one wants to be responsible for a move in the opposite direction generationally.
  • _DeadFred_ 3mo ago
• bluescrn 3mo ago
  We're also teaching the younger generation imminent climate apocalypse is coming, and therefore bringing kids into this dying world would be cruel, or at best contributing to the problem. (And now there's also an AI apocalypse of some kind on the way even if the climate situation can be resolved/survived. And the ever-present threat of WW3 seems closer now than ever)
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • trumpdong 3mo ago
    actually we've been closer to WW3 in the past. Remember that Russian false sensor that almost caused them to launch a nuclear first strike but the guy whose finger was on the button felt something was off?
• niemandhier 3mo ago
  There is the idea floating around in Europe, to nullify people’s student debts if they have children. So two kids during university would mean even the measly amount you have to pay back for an European subsided degree would be gone. I do hope that will be put into effect. I also believe that this will be better for gender equality than all the other measures taken so far. I was in too many meetings, where the CV of a young woman was critically evaluated for her propensity to get pregnant as soon as the probationary period was over.
  • hobo_mark 3mo ago
    What are these European student debts you speak of, outside of the UK (which emphatically does not want to be considered part of Europe)?
    • niemandhier 3mo ago
      In Germany the government pays your university time. You get about 800€ per month for housing and basic needs. At least if your family is not too well off. 50% of this have to be paid back, free of interest and capped at 10k€. That is not much, but keep in mind that we earn much less than Americans and have much higher taxes.
      • magicalhippo 3mo ago
        Similar in Norway. Except you have to pass exams to get part of it written off, if not you have to pay back 100%.
      • em-bee 3mo ago
        but this is support for living expenses, not tuition. if you are frugal you can get by not spending all of it. that's what i did. when it was time to pay, i was able to pay off all of it at once which afforded me another discount.
  • pjc50 3mo ago
    > was in too many meetings, where the CV of a young woman was critically evaluated for her propensity to get pregnant as soon as the probationary period was over When was this? In much of Europe that's been illegal employment discrimination for decades. But I suppose employers are less worried if they can be confident that it's unlikely that any of their employees will have children.
• alongson 3mo ago
  This is exactly it. It’s simply the biological clock running out due to convenience and security. It’ll require a huge culture shift to make kids convenient.
• scoofy 3mo ago
  This is really the message of Abundance. If you want people to have kids, you need to make sure they are economically secure by the time they are of childbearing age... which means before they are 30. To do that, you cannot have supply constrained zero-sum shortage anywhere in society. It means that the cost of an apartment needs to be at-or-below the cost to build that apartment so people can just save up and buy one early on in their career. We need to not just allowing housing to get built, but actually we need to go as far as subsiding housing that nobody needs so that it's built before that need ever arises. This is effectively impossible in a democratic society, and we are going to learn just how impossible it is as western society slowly collapses under the weight of its own social programs. It's honestly horrifying to watch.
  • rluna828 3mo ago
    Some mathematicians ran some numbers and diferent societies have different lowlying fruit. None of his improvements get societies to 2.1, but will theoretically move them to ~1.8. I'll find the source if people ask. 1. End toxic masculinity (machismo) in middle east and LatAM. No woman who knows how to read want to beaten or enslaved. 2. Jobs and Housing: Europe and America respectively. More three bed-room houses would add kids in California for example. Jobs for young people would children in Spain. 3. End afterschool tutoring and add spaces at universities. In Japan, Korea, China having more than one child means less money for tutors for the first kid (boy or girl). This is the easy stuff. For the extreme right, male literacy is inversely proportional with fertility too. lol! For my lefty friends, women are currently having as many kids as they would like, that's a oppression or tragedy or unfair.
    • em-bee 3mo ago
      incidentally a few years ago china banned tutoring, but to my understanding it was mainly because most tutoring places were scams, and maybe also because mostly rich parents would spend the money, thus giving them an advantage.
    • alehlopeh 3mo ago
      How is machismo causing women in Latin America to not know how to read? And which ones are enslaved exactly? This is a ridiculous assertion.
• onetimeusename 3mo ago
  I was surprised to find that just as recently as 1970 the median age of first marriage for men was ~23 and ~21 for women.[1] The average age at first child birth for women in 1970 was ~22.[2] There was a change that took place in the late 70s it looks like, probably acquiring education, that started to pretty dramatically raise the age of first marriage and first childbirth. So for me this was realizing that there was nothing natural or inevitable about postponing children. People back then probably would think delaying it was unnatural and this really wasn't that long ago. [1]: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat... [2]: https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/guzzo-payne-age-first-birth-fp-18-25.html https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/gu...
  • deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  • hactually 3mo ago
    house prices
  • thanhhaimai 3mo ago
    In 1970, a single minimum wage income can raise a family and save up for extra. In 2026, a single minimum wage income can barely survive by themselves with no saving in most part of the US.
    • rluna828 3mo ago
      as professional with a professional salary, wages are not enough. we need abundant housing. Imagine taking a year or two dedicate to helping your mate through pregnancy and early childcare? Or, taking a year or two get your dating life in order. This second one might be important in city with bad traffic or for demanding jobs. This is not possible right now for 99% of people because housing is too expensive.
    • SoftTalker 3mo ago
      > In 1970, a single minimum wage income can raise a family and save up for extra Absolutely not true. Minimum wage has never been sufficient to raise a family. It is (was) sufficient to keep one person out of poverty.
• 01100011 3mo ago
  Agree and there are many reasons more. I'll add religion to the mix. We're less religious now. Even folks who are religious now(at least in the Christian West) seem to practice a different religion than we did 50 years ago. Religion does many things, good and bad, but it definitely prizes children and reproduction. If it didn't, it would quickly get replaced by a mode of thought/belief which did. I'm not advocating for religion here, just stating that it likely plays a large role in reproduction.
  • chubs 3mo ago
    I go to church. Everyone has 3 kids. Thanks for bringing it up!
  • Rury 3mo ago
    Yes, I don't think this is a single faceted issue. I've yet to see anyone here mention animals yet... but numerous animals in captivity have also been shown to have far lower breeding/fertility rates. Factors like restricted space, lack of mate choice, and disrupted natural instincts can all influence animal behavior, and I see no reason why the same can't apply to us? I know for me personally, it's not economic reasons as to why I have not had children, but more a problem of finding the right mate at the right time. Some people just aren't socially fit for each other...
    • bombcar 3mo ago
      I think the real interesting question isn't "why don't people have children" but more "why do those who have one or two kids not have more?" It seems everyone around came from a family of 6+ or knew those who did, yet everyone has 1 or 2 kids, three if the first two were both the same sex.
      • sudosteph 3mo ago
        I didn't choose to have kids, but I have a friend who prioritized doing so, and she talked about hoping to have a larger family. She got married and had her first child not long after graduating from college. So biologically a very healthy age. She ended up with two. Pregnancy sounds nice and well until your teeth start falling out. Some women just have a really rough time of it - so doing it while also being the primary caregiver for 1 or more other young child... yeah, even if you're financially stable and supported from your spouse's job, that is really a hard thing to manage. In her case, it seems extra hard because neither her parents nor her husband's have helped with caring for the kids. Meanwhile, my step-sister (who is less financially well-off than my friend) has 3, but they are constantly hanging out at my parents place or with extended family. Having nearby family that wants to help makes such a huge difference.
• nikanj 3mo ago
  Take an average 22-year old. Tell them they just won the lottery, and never have to worry about money ever again. Do you think they'll be interested in starting a family?
  • asdff 3mo ago
    Yup. People want a bit of hedonism. Who doesn't really? And society paints engaging in hedonism as fine in your 20s and evil for parents. Have kids? Goodbye partying. Goodbye hobbies. Goodbye a sense of agency. It doesn't have to be this way, but this is how it is framed both internally and externally.
  • G3nD 3mo ago
    This routinely happens for professional athletes. Don't have any stats, but American professional athletes seem well known for having many children (with many people).
  • theshackleford 3mo ago
    This absolutely would have sealed it for me. It would still seal it for me now. Being disabled, and having AI be a risk to the only work I can perform means financial concerns are at the heart of everything. There is simply too much financial risk even without children.
  • missedthecue 3mo ago
    There are studies on this in both Sweden and the US. Young men who win the lottery have children at higher rates than the control group. Young women who in the lottery have children at equal or lower rates than the control group.
• asdff 3mo ago
  Even wealthy nepo people wait until then to have kids. A big part of it is also societal expectations. Going out every weekend clubbing is seen as fine in your 20s. Even if that specifically isn't your thing, you probably are filling your time with something personally gratifying. Meanwhile the narrative around having kids is that your life is over after you have them. Partying? Irresponsible parent! Round of golf? You must hate your kids. Triathlon training? Better happen before dawn. Hiking and camping trip? Absolutely not. There is this sense in society that hedonism is something to be frowned upon, when by definition it is kind of what everyone is after at the end of the day. Pleasurable activities, how awful to engage in them, so the rhetoric goes. I think we'd see people having kids earlier if there was more acknowledgement that a balance can be successfully struck. That you won't get CPS called if you uber home drunk. Unfortunately in a lot of ways we are still living under the shadow of the puritan society and it has created not only a mental health crisis, but a reproductive crisis.
• snowwrestler 3mo ago
  In the U.S., birth rates fell pretty much continuously for at least 150 years until WWII and the Baby Boom. Now they are slightly declining again. Many industrialized nations have a similar graph. So that pretty much kills any explanation that depends on our recent experience, like pressure to get a degree, good job, etc. Seems like there is probably something far more fundamental at work to create a 200+ year trend with a one brief interruption for a couple decades.
• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• unmole 3mo ago
  This narrative simply doesn't hold up at the population level. If you just look at India, richer and more developed states have lower fertility compared to poorer, less developed states. Within states, richer and more educated couples have fewer children compared to poorer less educated children. These patterns are pretty much universal.
• chrsw 3mo ago
  It's not talked about more because it's very uncomfortable to talk about.
• bfeynman 3mo ago
  This is talked about all the time in the US as a huge impending problem with articles about all the time. You have segment of population with higher education and higher wealth that are having fewer children and later in life as it takes more time to get secured financially and also children are very expensive in terms of maintaining what used to be a middle class life style.
• nazgul17 3mo ago
  Just thinking aloud. Could it be that the "stories" we consume (books, movies, TV, games) fill our heads (as in, focus our attention) with ideas that don't overlap much with family life? It's all about single people doing cool or fun stuff, with the occasional tired parents. I wonder how hard it would be to give credibility to the hypothesis (yeah, "verifying" it would be much harder). What's the correlation between "percentage of time spent on non family focused stories" and "children per woman born in the following 5 years"? Sounds like a super noisy signal. Maybe averaging by country or even city could strengthen the data.
  • fc417fc802 3mo ago
    That seems like unnecessary complexity (and also doesn't match my own observations). You're replying here to a theory that it seems to me is sufficient on its own to explain the phenomenon, unless you see some issue with it? I'm not certain the theory is correct but I think it's entirely plausible and more importantly I've yet to encounter a better one.
• Gud 3mo ago
  Or perhaps a small percentage(<1%) of the human race has 90% of the resources ? You are only explaining half of the equation.
• noosphr 3mo ago
  I'm going to get flagged to hell but 'we' do not. Women do. Men can happily wait till their 80s to have three children. We need to get over the fantasy that biology doesn't drive survival. If anyone is upset by that please help fund artificial womb research. There isn't nearly enough money in the space for the sole thing that can prevent human extinction at worst or soylent green at best.
  • trumpdong 3mo ago
    Men's rate of having children with genetic defects rises with age, just not as sharply as women's.
    • noosphr 3mo ago
      Womens ability to have children drops to zero, mens does not.
• Earw0rm 3mo ago
  So I think you're right, but my diagnosis of the problem is a little different. As in: _why_ does everyone want a middle class life? _why_ is only a middle class life that's seen as being dignified? I've friends across a wide range of ages, from late 50s to mid 20s, and it's notable that the older ones have stories of some incredibly grimy circumstances from their 20s which today's 20somethings would be unwilling to endure, they'd rather stay at home with their parents. Living in squats, bedsits or mobile homes, sofa surfing for extended periods, etc. Lots of people in previous times started families when they were flat broke. Some out of choice, some it just happened. Granted that's not ideal, but they made it work.
• ricardobayes 3mo ago
  In my opinion, it's not even about having a dignified middle-class life, more about being optimistic about the future.