Women have multiple ways to avoid pregnancy. Men have multiple ways to avoid pregnancy. People who are educated about their options exercise those options like all the time, which is why so many of us don’t have kids at all. Myself very much included. Thats why birth rates are declining so drastically.
I mean, its kinda a boomer take. But what they are saying is that a lot of people reach a certain point in life where they change their minds and decide to have kids even though they didnt want them or thought they werent ready yet. The person who says “ugh, no, there is no way I would ever have kids” and then 3 years later rolls over in bed with their partner and says “yaknow… what if…?”
Which, really this shouldn’t be surprising. As a biological organism, essentially all your drives are oriented around survival and reproduction.
Of course, declining birth rates around the world push back against this theory… But with a wider view, we expect evolution to take its course, and for traits that encourage greater reproduction to be selected for.
One of the tiresome elements of Reddit was always this childrfree tribalism that seemed to span thousands of subs. Have kids, don’t have kids. Entirely your own business and nobody else’s. Neither decision should be worn as some sort of badge of honour.
It’s not biological evolution but social evolution that’ll happen. Right now you have immigrants coming from a family with 7 siblings. They move to a Western country. The second generation immigrant will be at the same 1.x reproduction number as the rest of that country. It’s the environment, the social arrangement.
It means that the countries supporting of children in the long term will survive and pressure cooker ones with very child unfriendly traditions and policies will slowly fade away.
I have to say, this feels like a take that I’d like to see some evidence for. Because often those immigrants are coming from countries with essentially no social safety net and very regressive social customs. They have 7 kids because the mom was raised in a tight knit religious community where it was made very clear that her worth as a person was dependent on birthing and raising many children, and she carried that belief into adulthood. When these nations gain access to birth control, better education and autonomy for women, and more knowledge of the outside world, birth rates drop.
On the other hand, I have yet to hear of any developed nation successfully reversing declining birth rates via social welfare programs. I’m not saying that a properly executed program couldn’t work - I’m just saying I haven’t seen one yet.
If anything, based on the evidence I can see, we should expect the exact opposite effect. Welfare states will need to import population from more virile regressive states
The only real counterexample at the moment is Israel. It’s maybe not the most promising example for the future but they do have the culture and policies in a modern nation that promotes more children.
I did a quick google search and found this article. It seems like it is a conservative news source, so I am skeptical of the bent - but the facts seem to support my view:
Israeli Jewish parents and particularly mothers deserve recognition. Raising children requires sacrifice, patience, and devotion. These mothers achieve this with just 14 weeks of paid maternity leave per child—less than the OECD average of 19 weeks and far less than many European nations. Israeli mothers return to work earlier yet still have more children.
This growth comes overwhelmingly from those closest to Jewish traditional values. Haredi families lead with an average of over six children. Religious families have nearly four, and traditional Jews exceed the replacement rate with almost three children, while secular Israelis fall short with just two children. Those who preserve tradition are building the future.
The narrative I see here is that Israel has moderate support for families, and the reversal of birth rates is being driven by religious conservatives responding to a call to outcompete Palestinian birth rates. I’m open to other interpretations of the phenomenon from other sources, or your own interpretation of the article - but I feel like this matches up with my prior assumptions.
The driving force in low birth rates is emancipation and secularization of women. Providing more maternity leave, more child-rearing stipends, better health care, etc, simply won’t sway women who take a rational look at the process of birthing and raising children - destroying your body to be chained to a thankless responsibility for 18 years - and decide that they would rather have more money and free time instead. I will say my personal opinion on this descision is “that makes a lot of sense to me, good for you, snowboarding does sound a lot more fun than trying to control a child’s temper tantrum in a starbucks.” Of course, there are people on the margins, who would have a child if their economic conditions were better - but my feeling here is that this is a moving target. What counts as “ready” has less to do with actual physical needs, and more to do with being able to essentially keep up with the Joneses. Ie, the prospective secular mother wrings her hands, worrying that if her child can’t get into an Ivy League college then they will be miserable and so what is the point of giving them life in the first place? The religious mother, on the other hand, has absolute clarity (as reinforced weekly at her religious services) that motherhood is the greatest honor and responsibility she will have in her life, and that every life she gives birth to is a fantastic gift, regardless of how miserable it might be, and so gives birth while deeply in debt and living in a trailer park.
Men and women in developed countries have had multiple ways to avoid pregnancy for decades, but it’s only recently that birth rates have fallen below replacement in most of those countries. So there’s something missing from your story, at least.
Yeah, so this post is POV North American per title, the problem of selfish boomers is one that afaik only developed countries even have, so while you are correct, its entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand, which is why I didn’t say anything about it.
On re-read I think I may have misread what you wrote but ima leave this up anyway.
People used to have like… hopes that they could support their kids… we haven’t had that for a while now so birth rates are falling faster than they would otherwise. That’s all thats missing from my story above.
——
The post title is “point of view: you are a 4th generation North American” thus it’s specifically about North Americans to begin with.
Baby boomers are a thing that really only exist (at least to my knowledge) in developed/western nations, due to them being a post-war cohort. Basically countries involved in WW2, after the war killed off millions of young men, saw a surge in births to recover population. Baby boomers. Countries not involved in the war didn’t have the baby boom the way western countries did, because why would they? There was no pressure to restore their population numbers.
Since the meme is about baby boomers, specifically, being selfish, which is inherently a developed-country problem, as well as specifically about being a north American, people in developing countries having less access to family planning is entirely irrelevant, even if it is true.
That helps. I think you misunderstood - what I was trying to say was something quite similar: the person I replied to (who I think wasn’t you) was talking about access to family planning, and I was saying this has been available in developed countries for a long time. So although it did lead to a decrease in birth rate decades ago, it’s only recently that we see sub-replacement rates, so that latter effect specifically is likely not to do with access to family planning.
Women have multiple ways to avoid pregnancy. Men have multiple ways to avoid pregnancy. People who are educated about their options exercise those options like all the time, which is why so many of us don’t have kids at all. Myself very much included. Thats why birth rates are declining so drastically.
Unless you are saying women can’t use birth control or get abortions for some reason…? Or abstain entirely as young people seem to be doing in surprisingly large numbers?
“Kids have a way of happening” is basically saying other people don’t or shouldn’t have bodily autonomy… kinda fucked up.
I mean, its kinda a boomer take. But what they are saying is that a lot of people reach a certain point in life where they change their minds and decide to have kids even though they didnt want them or thought they werent ready yet. The person who says “ugh, no, there is no way I would ever have kids” and then 3 years later rolls over in bed with their partner and says “yaknow… what if…?”
Which, really this shouldn’t be surprising. As a biological organism, essentially all your drives are oriented around survival and reproduction.
Of course, declining birth rates around the world push back against this theory… But with a wider view, we expect evolution to take its course, and for traits that encourage greater reproduction to be selected for.
One of the tiresome elements of Reddit was always this childrfree tribalism that seemed to span thousands of subs. Have kids, don’t have kids. Entirely your own business and nobody else’s. Neither decision should be worn as some sort of badge of honour.
It’s not biological evolution but social evolution that’ll happen. Right now you have immigrants coming from a family with 7 siblings. They move to a Western country. The second generation immigrant will be at the same 1.x reproduction number as the rest of that country. It’s the environment, the social arrangement.
It means that the countries supporting of children in the long term will survive and pressure cooker ones with very child unfriendly traditions and policies will slowly fade away.
I have to say, this feels like a take that I’d like to see some evidence for. Because often those immigrants are coming from countries with essentially no social safety net and very regressive social customs. They have 7 kids because the mom was raised in a tight knit religious community where it was made very clear that her worth as a person was dependent on birthing and raising many children, and she carried that belief into adulthood. When these nations gain access to birth control, better education and autonomy for women, and more knowledge of the outside world, birth rates drop.
On the other hand, I have yet to hear of any developed nation successfully reversing declining birth rates via social welfare programs. I’m not saying that a properly executed program couldn’t work - I’m just saying I haven’t seen one yet.
If anything, based on the evidence I can see, we should expect the exact opposite effect. Welfare states will need to import population from more virile regressive states
The only real counterexample at the moment is Israel. It’s maybe not the most promising example for the future but they do have the culture and policies in a modern nation that promotes more children.
I did a quick google search and found this article. It seems like it is a conservative news source, so I am skeptical of the bent - but the facts seem to support my view:
The narrative I see here is that Israel has moderate support for families, and the reversal of birth rates is being driven by religious conservatives responding to a call to outcompete Palestinian birth rates. I’m open to other interpretations of the phenomenon from other sources, or your own interpretation of the article - but I feel like this matches up with my prior assumptions.
The driving force in low birth rates is emancipation and secularization of women. Providing more maternity leave, more child-rearing stipends, better health care, etc, simply won’t sway women who take a rational look at the process of birthing and raising children - destroying your body to be chained to a thankless responsibility for 18 years - and decide that they would rather have more money and free time instead. I will say my personal opinion on this descision is “that makes a lot of sense to me, good for you, snowboarding does sound a lot more fun than trying to control a child’s temper tantrum in a starbucks.” Of course, there are people on the margins, who would have a child if their economic conditions were better - but my feeling here is that this is a moving target. What counts as “ready” has less to do with actual physical needs, and more to do with being able to essentially keep up with the Joneses. Ie, the prospective secular mother wrings her hands, worrying that if her child can’t get into an Ivy League college then they will be miserable and so what is the point of giving them life in the first place? The religious mother, on the other hand, has absolute clarity (as reinforced weekly at her religious services) that motherhood is the greatest honor and responsibility she will have in her life, and that every life she gives birth to is a fantastic gift, regardless of how miserable it might be, and so gives birth while deeply in debt and living in a trailer park.
Men and women in developed countries have had multiple ways to avoid pregnancy for decades, but it’s only recently that birth rates have fallen below replacement in most of those countries. So there’s something missing from your story, at least.
Yeah, so this post is POV North American per title, the problem of selfish boomers is one that afaik only developed countries even have, so while you are correct, its entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand, which is why I didn’t say anything about it.
I don’t understand this, sorry
On re-read I think I may have misread what you wrote but ima leave this up anyway.
People used to have like… hopes that they could support their kids… we haven’t had that for a while now so birth rates are falling faster than they would otherwise. That’s all thats missing from my story above.
——
The post title is “point of view: you are a 4th generation North American” thus it’s specifically about North Americans to begin with.
Baby boomers are a thing that really only exist (at least to my knowledge) in developed/western nations, due to them being a post-war cohort. Basically countries involved in WW2, after the war killed off millions of young men, saw a surge in births to recover population. Baby boomers. Countries not involved in the war didn’t have the baby boom the way western countries did, because why would they? There was no pressure to restore their population numbers.
Since the meme is about baby boomers, specifically, being selfish, which is inherently a developed-country problem, as well as specifically about being a north American, people in developing countries having less access to family planning is entirely irrelevant, even if it is true.
Hope that helps :) if not I can try again.
That helps. I think you misunderstood - what I was trying to say was something quite similar: the person I replied to (who I think wasn’t you) was talking about access to family planning, and I was saying this has been available in developed countries for a long time. So although it did lead to a decrease in birth rate decades ago, it’s only recently that we see sub-replacement rates, so that latter effect specifically is likely not to do with access to family planning.
Hope that also helps, haha!