Hacker News Reader

I don't think they're opting out of companionship as much as opting out of the brutal game of Top Trumps that is modern dating, where the decks seemed stacked against them.

If they feel they're never going to succeed in that competition, then why put themselves through that heartache and financial burden?

Maybe WOPR was right, the only way to win is not to play.

>with even more devastating effects due to the very bad ratio of retirees to workers.

But with great effects on reducing carbon emissions and other waste products in the environment.

I see you're among the group I was referring to which feels that the entire human race dying out or descending into stone-age collapse is a W as long as 'carbon number go down.'

There is absolutely no reason we need to continue increasing the human population when we clearly have trouble using and allocating the limited resources we have now. Doesn't concern me one bit if birthrates are falling. I might start to look into it if population falls below a couple billion, which it was for all but the last 100 years. But population is project to continue rising until 2084 anyway, which means I don't need to think about this problem at all for the remainder of my life.

> clearly have trouble using and allocating the limited resources we have now

> But population is project to continue rising until 2084 anyway, which means I don't need to think about this problem at all for the remainder of my life.

Your first point sounds like you are probably the kind of responsible person who is pretty concerned about climate, emissions, wealth inequality, etc. Which implies that you consider it a duty to not just do whatever is convenient in the now, but to act in a sustainable way that doesn't screw future generations.

Then you drop that second bomb, which implies maybe you don't give a crap if today's teenagers will inhabit a horrific world with twice as many old people as society can afford to support. You'll be gone after all, so you "don't need to think about it." If you are that callous to the plight of generations that come after you, I guess you have more in common than you think with those people who are supposedly doing such a bad job with the "resources we have now."

Sure, it's hard to imagine any solution where someone doesn't get screwed, but I think I'd rather be screwed by underpopulation than over population. I just happen to live in the timeline which I think is much closer to overpopulation. Alas, I consider my opinion to be much less valuable in such a world with so many more voices.

I dare say I think I have plenty in common with those other people, as I do care a little, but maybe not as much as I could or should. I think this is how we got to this point in the first place.

> maybe you don't give a crap if today's teenagers will inhabit a horrific world with twice as many old people as society can afford to support

I wouldn't say that a lower population needs to result in a horrific world.

I assume standards of living would change. What other choice is there, given the change in the ratio of workers to retirees? Not everyone could afford a big house of their own, a car, and tech toys and other possessions, but we are productive enough as a society to feed, cloth and shelter everyone, including a bunch of retired people. We could still afford the really important benifits of modernity. And we keep getting more productive, finding easier ways to do more, so who knows?

The Ahmish wouldn't describe a simplier way of life as as horrific. Nor people born a hundred years ago. Nor people living like that in many countries today. Change society like that and, who knows, young people might be more open to having kids again.

Why do you think things would end up being horrific?

The Amish have tons of kids and are one of the fastest growing groups you could think of. It's because of this high birth rate that they're easily able to care for their elders, even though they are IIRC legally allowed to opt out of Social Security.

Having a very inverted population pyramid, where the old vastly outnumber the working age, and the working age outnumber the children, isn't something that would be a minor inconvenience. Our economic system will collapse because it takes a lot of people creating value to pay for the needs of the elderly (remember, there isn't some big trust fund set aside for them -- it's only through the wages of the currently-working that we can pay the benefits for them, and if I'm not mistaken, public pensions in other Western countries are exactly the same in that way). And setting aside the money abstraction, which is just how we organize things, the elderly need a lot of medical care and they consume food, water, need housing to live in, and they can't contribute much to the work of making those things. So they need there to be enough younger, working people that there's a big surplus of stuff not needed to keep the young fed, clothed, and housed, and a surplus of young people to work to take care of them.

I'm not one who insists on some unsustainable growth or even any growth at all. A 0 growth rate would be fine. But the nihilism in the West (coupled with too many economic incentives to not have kids) that has killed off our birthrate is going to make the decline in living standards that's been seen between the boomers and our generation (you know, all those think pieces about the "Death of the American Dream") look like a joke. And economic collapse doesn't mean we just shift to living like the Amish. It looks more like Haiti.

So does that mean our social/political/economic system (culture) is a failure - having created the conditions for population decline (including industrialization and urbanization), but unable to survive the consequences (shrinking birthrates)?

Lots of the world gets by on a fraction of US per-capita GDP, and isn't as screwed up as Haiti. Countries like Japan, Korea, Italy and others in Europe are blazing trails with this problem, a generation of aging (no millenials) ahead of the US (assuming no more immigration). We'll see how that works out.

Scary to back-slide on standards of living, but it's happened before in history. Best not to get too comfortable with the idea of the American Dream. Stay flexible. Stay healthy. Good luck!

> So does that mean our social/political/economic system (culture) is a failure

American culture is absolutely a failure, yes

> So does that mean our social/political/economic system (culture) is a failure

Post-2005 or so culture? I'd say probably... yes? Though it's far from an American thing, most of the issues I'm concerned with are worse in Europe.

The failures are:

1. Nihilism and hedonism as a substitute for moral values

- This is what signals to young people (even including many millennials) that life has no particular meaning so do whatever feels good, rather than seeing yourself as having a responsibility to raise the next generation of people, to do good things and to live good lives. Note that we're equally a failure here in a Star Trek Humanist lens or a religious moral lens.

2. Militarized gender war

- Driven by visual social media and as an immune overreaction to the real sins of past generations, men and women have normalized hating the opposite sex. For women the "Man or the bear" meme really sums it up. For men, it's exemplified by many men having zero interest in even being with women. This is mainly driven by this graph [1] - the "bottom 80%" of men in 'attractiveness,' when they realize that women judge them as a "4" or under, feel the game is unwinnable so they simply drop out. Women compete for the tiny population of "high value men," who don't value them (and won't even settle down) because they have too many options, and grow more and more frustrated.

3. Economic disorder

- In the pursuit of a virtuous cause -- allowing women to have career ambitions -- we've accidentally built a world where both parents have to work to compete with other families for scarce necessities like housing, but even having two working adults doesn't magically give most families enough resources to pay for proper childcare. Women are put in an impossible situation: Staying home to care for kids is seen as basically degrading among other women and it puts the family in a financial disadvantage, but working means both parents are stretched to find enough time to care for children, and that the children will probably suffer from the lack of your time and attention. You can't win.

4. Militarized culture war

- In every Western country we have elites who identify as "left" with a set of values that sees their political "enemies" as despicable scum, and an opposite group of mostly less educated and less wealthy people that identifies as "right" that feels the same way about the left. (Amusingly the "Left" usually claims to be For The Common Man, but that's fair-ish since all the less famous billionaires are indeed card-carrying conservatives.) They've both polarized so much that it's impossible to see how we can have a government run by either faction that isn't considered evil and fascist, or even outright illegitimate, by the other side.

5. Everything to do with social media, of course, and the worst uses of AI. (Needs no explanation I assume)

So yes, Western culture has dramatically failed. I'm trying to advocate that we improve it rather than commit cultural suicide, which is the current plan we're on.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1alibge/oc...

I'm not sure about some of the things you mentioned. Stuff like this is food for social media algorithms - "the world is ending!" But they are interesting points to think about.

How much of what you said holds true in other cultures with plumetting birth rates? Japan, Mexico and India for example? Russia? Seems to be quite a few exceptions.

Quick comments on your post: 1) I'm impressed by the young, they're trying, maybe more so than gen-x and boomers, who went from lazy-as-anybody to mucho reactionary, 2) That graph doesn't say that 80% of men drop out of the dating pool, 3) I agree that affordibility is a problem, but I'd question both sides of the supply/demand curve, and (in the U.S.) Reaganomics, 4) how does partisanship relate to birth rates? For example, Congo is divided, but birth rate is high, 5) I agree that algorithmic profit seeking social media is a huge problem, but those who rule us like to push their propaganda, and they are doing a good job.

I've always heard that lower birth rates were correlated with urbanization and educating women. Always and everywhere. That having kids in the city costs too much, compared to on farms, and that women want to avoid a bad situation if they can.

How to make things better?

I think that there is a lot we can do to make life more social and affordable, for example imagine a world with more cheaper housing options, no need for a car, no need to wage-slave full time, less mercenarial, less scams, less manipulating people to buy things they don't need, etc. Better living for less money. Easier to have kids. In aggregate we are plenty productive enough. It'll take time to unwind so many decades going in the other direction. And we haven't even started. Because the people capturing all that wealth don't want to make those changes.

I assume that kids will figure it out eventually. This is self correcting. The world will go on :-)

> I want to see humanity live and thrive

Me too. It would be nice if we, as a society, did more to prioritize that.

Letting big tech psycholocally pollute everyone for profit is not helping.