• tomiant@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Also, maybe 8 billion is “enough”. Not breeding is only a problem for the economy. Capitalism needs perpetual growth, there is no end game, just more, of everything, forever.

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    The birth rate moral panic is 100% manufactured by neoliberal capitalists who simultaneously want high consumption and low wages, which is a logical impossibilty. You cannot have a consumerist society where the average consumer lives paycheck to paycheck

    • tomiant@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s only because capitalism demands it. I am tired of people who think we need more people on this planet, we most certainly do not. There is nothing we can’t do with 8 billion of us that we can do with 8 billion plus 1.

    • AlexLost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      If it’s neoliberalism, why is the right always clamouring about it? I think you are misguided on your aim my friend. You are also right, the time of us having things and enjoying our leisure are in the process of being erased for the good old days of company towns and food lines.

      • DrivebyHaiku@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        The “right” shy of outright fascists are neoliberals. The term was coined in the eighties and describes a system that like Liberalism classic works primarily off of an idea of a protected class of citizen (as opposed to lesser protected classes of non-citizen) with a series of fundemental “rights” to basic protected freedoms from government interference and choice of “style of life” based around a personal property centric system.

        Where Neo-liberalism differs is it detests the welfare state, seeks widespread government deregulation as they see it as an economic deficit, practice widespread government austerity in public programs and seeks to privatize swaths of government services to create new market sectors.

        Neo doesn’t mean new in a “of the minute” kind of way. The people who came up with the distinction between liberal branches were describing the likes of Ronald Regan and Margret Thatcher.

  • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    6 days ago

    I mean you’re half right. In a zoo, the keepers care for their animals, making sure they’re well fed, enriched, and healthy.

    We’re being farmed. They are using us to make money from our produce (labour). They’re using us to make money. We’re so over exploited we simply cannot afford to have children.

      • Grostleton@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Yeah, then child labor laws came and ruined that for everyone.

        But don’t worry, soon those too will be a thing of the past!

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          This, but also retirement being a thing.

          100 years ago, kids were much less of an investment than today (they’d start pulling their own financial weight at like age 6-12, not at age 20-30 like today) and they’d be the only thing making the difference between being able to retire to one of your kids’ home or the poor house.

          Nowadays kids take much more money and time to get ready, and if you have no kids you can still retire and have your retirement financed by other peoples’ kids. And then you even get to keep all the money you would have spent on getting your kids ready for the world, and you can spend it on yourself.

          Financially speaking, having kids used to be a necessity and now it’s a pretty bad choice.

          • Patches@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            if you have no kids you can still retire and have your retirement financed by other peoples’ kids.

            Don’t worry. They are working on getting rid of this.

  • droans@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 days ago

    A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation…

    Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilised society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.

    The liberal reward of labour, by enabling them to provide better for their children, and consequently to bring up a greater number, naturally tends to widen and extend those limits. It deserves to be remarked, too, that it necessarily does this as nearly as possible in the proportion which the demand for labour requires. If this demand is continually increasing, the reward of labour must necessarily encourage in such a manner the marriage and multiplication of labourers, as may enable them to supply that continually increasing demand by a continually increasing population.

    • Adam Smith, the father of capitalism
  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    I want biological kids, and I’m right about the point in my life where it would make the most sense to have them. But whenever family asks about it, I tell them I’m not raising children in this kind of administration. They try to suggest that it’s not that bad and I stand firm that they’re not seeing grandbabies until the government stops being so fashy.

    Actually, millennials could probably hold our hypothetical babies hostage, see what’s more important to them.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Actually, millennials could probably hold our hypothetical babies hostage

      Given how many kids are in some combination of foster systems, detention centers, corrections programs, or concentration camps, maybe millennials need to start finding the actual babies and liberating them.

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 days ago

        I directly know multiple people who had to get what were effectively late term abortions due to pregnancy complications that would’ve put their lives at risk otherwise. We don’t live in the US, so they were fortunate to be able to get the medical care they needed, but it underscores the scariness of the situation in the US; these risks mean that becoming pregnant in the wrong place could literally be a life or death matter. If treatment is received, even people who experience severe complications may be able to have a successful pregnancy in future. Not having access to these things risks breaking the biological clock anyway, so waiting is not unreasonable.

      • PastafARRian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Not disagreeing with your point, but women can have children until menopause. It gets riskier and harder but not as much as most people commonly believe. “Biological clock” is a largely made up concept.

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          The biological clock exists, and it is real. But it ends at a time where no reasonable person should seriously consider having a first child.

          For most women menopause starts around 45 and the last period happens around 49-55. That’s the hard limit.

          Between 30-45 having kids is most often possible, though it’s getting more difficult and the chance for things like trisomy 21 is increasing exponentially with increasing age.

  • oppy1984@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 days ago

    Born in 84, I’ve noticed something of a trend in my area. Late gen X and late millennials are having children, most are having two or three, but a lot of people like me born in the mid 80’s aren’t. While this is by no means universal, there does seem to be more people within five years of my age going without kids.

  • toad31@lemmy.cif.su
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I don’t want to bring kids in this world that will inevitably grow up with a father when I take out all my frustration and grievances on members of the ruling class.

    They’re gonna wish I used a guillotine.

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’m genuinely afraid to get vasectomy, thinking “this is just a phase and l might change my mind later”

      • pr0sp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        I suffer post vasectomy pain syndrome that comes and goes randomly over the pass of months, and still, it worth.

  • chaogomu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    220
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Want higher birthrates? Just convince people that tomorrow will be better than today.

    That’s how you see a spike in birth rates.

    To maintain a steady birthrate, just convince potential parents that the world will not be any worse for their children than it is today.

    See, easy.

    • Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 days ago

      They’re taking the opposite approach.

      In the past families had a bunch of kids because they needed extra laborers to stay afloat, plus childhood mortality rates were so dire they needed spares to cover for the ones who wouldn’t make it.

      We’re already seeing pushes towards removing child labor laws, and RFK Jr is well on his way to ensuring death from easily preventable diseases makes a comeback.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      85
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Capitalist Corporations: … hmmmm … I guess there’s no choice … artificial human breeding it is!

      • x4740N@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        I feel like this is a plot of a dystopian movie somewhere where they breed artificial humans to make into slaves

      • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        7 days ago

        Capitalism would also charge for every part of the process, raising the price as some techno feudal lord thinks they can find the right balance between extinction pricing and maximum shareholder value.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 days ago

          It’s always economically viable, just a matter of tracking all the expenses and adding it to the child’s debt. As soon as it’s old enough to work you can garnish it’s wages for all that unpaid debt

        • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          It would be economically viable up to a certain age. And if you maintained a certain age average, costs could be easily maintained to sustainable levels.

          When you start analyzing the world and people as a series of costs and expenses, it’s very easy to find solutions.

          As humans, we’ve already done that many times before … most recently in the 1940s on an industrial scale … we are capable of doing it again.

    • borth@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 days ago

      I mean… Shiiii. That sounds easy as hell! Jerry! Why didn’t you tell us about this idea before??? You have??? We’d have to give them HOW much to do that?? Nevermind then.