Excellent Reads

1909 readers

17 users here now

Are you tired of clickbait and the current state of journalism? This community is meant to remind you that excellent journalism still happens. While not sticking to a specific topic, the focus will be on high-quality articles and discussion around their topics.

Politics is allowed, but should not be the main focus of the community.

Submissions should be articles of medium length or longer. As in, it should take you 5 minutes or more to read it. Article series’ would also qualify.

Rules:

Common Sense. Civility, etc.
Server rules.
Please either submit an archive link, or include it in your summary.

Other comms that might be of interest:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Iliveonsaturdays

[email protected]

AwesomeLowlander

The End of Children - The New Yorker (archive.ph)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/longreads

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AwesomeLowlander 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The most sophisticated liberal arguments interpret fertility decline as a symptom of more serious underlying problems—economic precarity and an “incomplete” gender revolution. Men and women alike struggle to provide for their families, but the participation of fathers at home has not caught up to the participation of mothers at work. A more generous welfare state, and a more equitable culture, should therefore produce more children. This does not seem to be the case. Finland famously provides all new parents with “baby boxes” full of useful, high-quality products, and Sweden has normalized extended parental leave, especially for fathers, and flexible work hours. The Nordic countries are wonderful places to be parents, but their fertility rates are lower than our own. These trends are not reducible to budgetary concerns. Child care is virtually free in Vienna and extremely expensive in Zurich, but the Austrians and the Swiss have the same fertility rate.

So? It does not change the fact that to be a parent requires you to sacrifice and carry greater expenses than if you were child free. The sacrifice and expense may be smaller in the Nordics, but the equation remains fundamentally the same. Nor is it very practical to raise a family on a single income. I have yet to see anybody actually address this issue instead of simply brushing it off.

The world’s most lavishly pro-natalist governments spend a fortune on incentives and services, and have increased the fertility rate by approximately a fifth of a baby per woman. Some observers believe that subsidies could succeed, but they would have to be on the order of three hundred thousand dollars per child.

Sounds like a reasonable price, and a small fraction of the lifetime productivity of a person.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There are a few areas to look at other than precarity and incentives.

National and global sustainability: That governments move towards evil and oligarchy, nowhere as dominant as South Korea, and US/CIA control, inescapable decline of society and democracy. Governments immune to "CIA democracy" still have liberal influences, and fear of future CIA successes. Global warming, and hegemony of oil oligarchy protecting their profits, and certainty of controlling power, makes doom the rational expectation for children. Technology may produce future employment fears.

Feminist supremacy: Higher education being biased to women, and favoritism in earlier education, despite underrepresentation in higher IQ levels, opposes the higher sexual value of women that lets them date up. Institutional/judicial bias to protect women for sexual grievances, empowers their toxicity. Supremacy for privileges while protection traditional alimony/child support systems, and strong independence to leave/profit from divorce, makes men irrational to engage in family aspirations.

Pornography and internet: Men/people have easier access to orgasms. Internet cultural discussions that seem to be feminism vs incels distracts from reality that when you go out, women are much sluttier and aggressive/seductive than they once were. Mostly because fewer men bother. But cultural narratives on the internet encourage divisiveness and disengagement.

very high fertility: ultra-Orthodox Jews and some Anabaptist sects.

Jews in general are a very loyal in group that celebrates Jewish weddings more supportively that other groups. There is a supremacist dominance overlap in Judaism more than other creeds, where children are an asset. They may feel more job security for in group loyalty of hiring.

Ammish/Menonites need child/manual labour. The historical motivation for children.

Liberalism and humanism simply don't have loyalty to indoctrination into the evil militancy of other groups. Corrupting democracies for 51% support of evil is divisive to national unity.