Hacker News Reader

Comment by audunw | Hacker News Reader

I can sympathise with the author, would be nice to get a more streamlined experience for those without kids, but:

> The world doesn't revolve around children.

Well, that’s the thing. It kind of does. And these days there’s an argument to be made that the world doesn’t value children enough. As long as fertility is below 2.1 that’s objectively true. It means we’re dying out.

If the author wants to be able to retire, there needs to be kids, and the industrialised world has made that too undesirable.

Honestly this feels like a trifle compared to the many UX atrocities out there. Sometimes you have to make the UI more inconvenient for some to make it more convenient for others

View on HN

The instantaneous fertility rate dipping below replacement level does not mean humanity dying out. It might mean that this particular civilization with this particular population level is. Infinite growth ad infinitum leads to an inevitable (and likely catastrophic) collapse. No one can say with certainty what the "correct" fertility rate is. That being said, if a society is set up as a pyramid scheme, it must have infinite growth to sustain itself so I won't argue that this way of life is likely dying.

We've already passed several Malthusian moments because we invent stuff that allows growth to continue. 50% of all nitrogen in human tissue came from a process we invented like 70 years ago. And we're nowhere near fundamental constraints like energy absorption of the sun onto the earth, and sqft of land per human.

The world revolves around children because without children we cease to exist as a species. Common sense, for some people, is very hard to grasp.

Certainly we also need adults to exist? Kill off everyone over the age of 14 and humanity will come to a halt really quick...

We don’t need adults to exist to carry on as a species. Civilization would certainly come to a halt, but not humanity.

How does fertility dropping below 2.1 have anything to do with not valuing kids? I'd say its because we do value kids and don't value the adults that are choosing not to bring more kids into the world.

No, if we truly valued children, we would seek to make more children, and devote substantial portions of our lives and resources to raising children.

But increasingly, society doesn’t give a shit about children. People value more their own individual autonomy, their vacations, their luxury goods, their comfort, over the responsibility and work involved in raising children. Children have lower value than ever in this world, reduced to units of potential future economic output, or accessories for your next instagram reel or photo.

Valuing them as in being enthusiastic about making more is different from valuing them as in caring for them. Few of them these days get sick and die in infancy, and it's no longer legal to send them to work. These factors have reduced enthusiasm. But the notion of being responsible about them is modern, and is a sign of increased care, or anyway social pressure to care.

I don’t know about valuing kids - maybe they are valued enough, in a very direct sense.

But, as a parent of three kids, it’s very very obvious that modern western society is not really made for bringing up children in a good way. I could list multiple reasons, but IMO the most important one is that raising children with 1-2 parents, and not as a tribe or colocated big family, is super hard and a non-stop grind. It’s not possible to retrofit this kind of support with government mediated interventions, like gratis kindergarten, financial support, etc. You are always the first and last in line, as a typical, western parent. I can totally understand anyone who doesn’t want that kind of constant stress and often unhappiness in their lives.

> Well, that’s the thing. It kind of does. And these days there’s an argument to be made that the world doesn’t value children enough. As long as fertility is below 2.1 that’s objectively true. It means we’re dying out.

We, as in humanity, are not dying out. While statisticians observe sinking fertility rates globally [1], reproduction is still going strong. In fact, humanity is still growing.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

Global fertility seems to be at 2.3. We are in no danger of dying out, at least on the basis of fertility.

It was 4.9 in the 50's. Projected to be 1.8 by 2100.

2.1 is considered to be replacement level.

The parts of the world that hold this number up don't produce people productive enough to support the social programs elderly people rely on in the west.

That old 4.9 is THE problem not the new 2.1. The old generation popped more, now needing more new generation to care for them in elderly age. It's their own fault.

The kids should not have jobs of caring old generation lined up even before birth. My child is not going to born to take care for these olds.

How long before we die out with a fertility rating of 1.0? 30 generations? That's a thousand years. Surely something will pop up in the mean time.

How does pinning a “create/edit profile” button on the homescreen make things more convenient for parents?

Who’s watching TV? “Doodiehead” “Irrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr:7:?@“ “cars 3” or “+ New User”?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com