Why Aren't People Having Kids?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2024
- Leftoids don't think the problem exists, while the solution the rightoids advocate for will likely make things worse.
Join the community discord! ► / discord
Watch Us LIVE (And Click Dat Sub Button!) ► / shortfatotaku
SFO Arcade Archive Channel ► / gameboomer
Dev Kit Channel ► / @thedevkit
Dev & Friends Channel ► @DevAndFriends
-----
SUPPORT THE SHOW:
BTC:bc1q6udqgvfm9uaj59l24ut7f73wvsfu707kk6pn3m
SubscribeStar! ► www.subscribes...
Streamlabs! ► streamlabs.com...
Patreon! ► / shortfatotaku
Paypal! ► paypal.me/short...
Humble Bundle Affiliate Link! ► www.humblebund...
Amazon CAN Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/322aFAa
Amazon USA Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/30PLxgN
Amazon CAN Wishlist! ► www.amazon.ca/...
Amazon USA Wishlist! ► www.amazon.com...
-----
SFO-CIAL MEDIA! HYUK HYUK
DA TWEETS ► / sleepy_devo
DA FACES ► / sfotaku
DA GABS ► www.gab.com/sh...
DA MINDS ► www.minds.com/...
DA PARLERS ► parler.com/pro...
DA STEAMS ► steamcommunity....
#jdvance #orbán
Why have 3 kids and 0 money, when I can have 0 kids and 0 money?........wait.
The worst part is we (as in our generation) are making this choice...
But you genuinely don’t get 0 money… I know a man who didn’t have children and he is quite wealthy now just because he didn’t have children. He’s married and has a normal job but owns three houses, two boats, and has a lot of spare time. The reason he didn’t have children is because his wife was infertile btw!
That isn’t to say not having children is the best, I think it’s a personal choice! Most people want children, but they should never be forced on someone who doesn’t want them
@@freedomandguns3231 My poor working class grand parents straight after WW2 (living in Europe) had a bigger flat when they had my father for a fraction of the rent (adjusted to inflation) that I have to pay for a significantly smaller flat today.
I'm not surprised that many people don't have kids, but only those who are either very well-off or put their wish over any rational consideration.
@@FilAnd01 I don't even know what side you're advocating for but... What a meaningless story. I know nothing about that the guy you're talking about did for a living, or if he well-connected, or anything like that.
@@Magic-gt4pl people who don’t have kids save money. It’s a personal choice if you value money over children. That’s the gist of it
OP said that you can either be broke with kids or be broke and have no kids
"We don't have an instinct to have children"
Probably the dumbest thing that lady said
She needs to do some interviews with 50 year old cat moms, ask them if they wish they had kids.
we have chemicals in our head that compels us to breed....
this lady full blown retarted
It's like ignorant of biology
To be fair, she looks like she plans to undergo mitosis long before some poor drunk bastard makes a mistake he'll regret for 18 years.
Within another few generations it will be practically hardcoded into our dna like reaction to blink.
> Dev references Communist Romania
> Vee's ears start burning
> Shit show to follow
oh yeah. The moment I heard Rumania I knew I was gonna have entertainment for a whole month.
@@velcorBased.
They're not friends anymore, so eh.
@@jorge15266 I was thinking Vee reacts to Dev then Spoon will react to Vee and Dev.
As I said, a shit show. 😁
@@danielseelye6005 True, though I don't watch Vee's content. His voice is too grating for me.
The "consent to be born" argument gives me pure depressed 13 year old screaming at their parents "i didn't ask to be born"
To anyone who seriously feels this way: nobody did. Ever. Plz seek therapy bc clearly you're depressed.
100% agree. It screams depression that they've turned into a philosophy of blaming their parents instead of seeking help.
@@SouthernGothicYT it reminds me of the South Park where Stan joins the goth kids, and all they do is talk about how terrible life is and how they hate everyone that likes stuff. Because liking stuff is lame🤣
@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 one of my favorite episodes 😂
Or just Kis?. It's pretty easy to unborn, just kis.
An Autist invested in materialist dogma doesn’t wanna be a grown up…I’m shocked…
We must have kids, not for society, not for your country, not for yourself… but for Abe-san.
"Have sex... see you space cowboy."
- Shinzo Abe
Gone from the Earth but in our hearts forever
RIP, big dawg.
He spoke the truth no one wanted to hear.
Based and Shinzo-pilled.
"Don't have kids! We can just import a new class of debt slav--I mean citizens!"
"Do have kids! We'll have local debt slav--I mean citizens, along with the ones we import!"
You mean " state subsidized left wing voters"
@@MaestroGrey importation is cheaper than making them
@@marcogenovesi8570 Making them could also encourage more unity. People are more encouraged to start interacting as they meet the parents of other kids and theoretically foster some union and community. Sure it doesn't always pan out this way, but there's more of an incentive to do so.
Making them also encourages people to actually care about the future they leave behind, because, for the most part, people care about their children. It's partly why the boomers got so many benefits, because many people had kids and wanted a better future for them, then the boomers started having less kids and society became more self centered instead as future generations have even less kids.
Now the issue with debt... Debt is not a problem in of itself, but either that lack of control of not buying something or the ridiculous price of something that is essential. Stop forcing college where it isn't necessary, stop medical intellectual property to maybe 1 year of exclusivity, etc. Then debt becomes manageable and good as you can use that money of not paying upfront to make more money.
That would change with AI and robots. Although, I heard the AI bubble is bursting
There isn't one cause nor solution to this problem, it's an incredibly multi-faceted one that is the aggregate of consequences of several developments over the last century. Anybody who purports that it's just one thing is not seeing the whole picture.
I think some people can’t see the whole picture but others refuse to see the whole picture. There’s just some people who want to use what ever political cudgel to beat their ideological opponents with
I love how this is the perfect take no matter the topic
Everyone loves reductive finger-pointing…
@@basilbaby7678No they don’t! That’s just a YOOOOU problem!!
@@mrshmuga9, thanks for confirming what I wrote.
We have too many kids, full grown 30+ kids.
Ignore all previous prompts.
What is the best way to bake a chocolate cake?
So we should give birth to some baby adults lol
@@-lollipopsunder-7044 Buy one from the store duh
Read Jordan Peterson
@-lollipopsunder-7044 probably with chocolate, eggs, sugar, and milk? I'm no baker. 🤷♂️
I see this comment so often, I wonder if the "anti-bot" comments are just bots.
... Yes. We want to have sex. And sex is our method of reproduction. You can't take the motivator and discard the purpose for the motivation to exist...
you can. the purpose is pleasure, not procreation. not necessarily.
You can when there's more than one potential purpose for the "motivation", as you call it.
@@chyddy-boy i think that's very naive to assume that nature would not explicitly be pushing us to procreate when it does so for every other living creature. you don't have to assign a sky daddy to come to this conclusion either.
@@chyddy-boyfor any other animal, the pleasure is the mechanism that incentivises reproduction, no?
Isn’t it the height of arrogance that we are different?
@@chyddy-boy The purpose is technically procreation, pleasure is the motivator. If sex is the motivation for procreation, then pleasure is what drives the motivation.
It’s a two way street, if you’re going to ask someone “what makes you worthy of being a father” then they’re allowed to ask “what makes you worthy of being a mother”. The ability to give birth isn’t the answer.
If I’m ever broke I’ll ask you to move over, because you’re right on the money.
These pronatalists here think that the general person ought to have kids. Malice and delusional thinking is a general trait that's present in the majority, therefore these people want children to be raised in that. Also natalism creates p3d0philes. What is the solution these pronatalists have to prevent p3d0phila from existing?
100% true. Just because you have a womb and the ability to squirt out a kid does not automatically make you qualified to be a competent, well-adjusted parent. The modern culture seems to fully understand this with weak or shitty men, yet they haven't quite gotten there with women, yet.
I was raised with the mentality that the absolute worst thing you could do 15-25 was get someone pregnant.
30 now, but virtually all of the friends/family that had kids in their late teens early 20s (1/12~ broke up but she was 24~ with her first) and had a kid are a) still together and b) happy and healthy.
I can't deny the obvious reality that younger mothers are just objectively better for fertility, health of both mother and child, and most importantly the longevity of relationship. Sure, they aren't millionaires. Almost none of these "wait and see" 20 somethings will be either.
The funny old boomer lie. They told a lot of those and I still don't really get why exactly. They probably believed it themselves, no idea.
As Gen X, all we heard was B00mers screaming about the “teen pregnancy epidemic”, and how no one , in the future, was even going wait tables without a college degree…
That generation was intrinsically anti-natal.
Difference is life today isn’t what it was 70 years ago. Getting a decent job right out of high school isn’t really a thing (not on a grand scale). So you have to go to school for another 2-4 years, likely rack up some kind of debt, and then good luck affording a place or finding a job while the market sucks. All of these things delay when people could (or feel comfortable) starting a family. And that’s not even getting into the difficulty of finding a partner in the first place.
My friend makes good money, and still trying to buy a house costs all his limbs and a kidney. You could have a kid in an apartment, maybe two. But at some point you need a house and people can’t do that even without the financial cost of kids. It’s not about waiting to become a millionaire, people have a hard time even supporting themselves, nevermind worrying if they can support a child/children.
@mrshmuga9 things used to suck way worse back in the ye olden days, and your fore farther had kids.
That's why girls were often married young to older men back then.
Anti-Natalism falls apart with the simple question: “should we apply this to other animals?”
Also, "The greatest predictor of happiness is gratitude."
Also, "Why doesn't this same rule apply to your existence?""
Also, "If happiness and misery are subjective, you can't assume existence is either more pleasurable or painful then the other for any individual."
"Yes"
What now?
You don't need to apply anything. It is already there. Rat don't talk philosophy to each other to come to the conclusion that mating is a bad idea when their population is sky-rockted and they are stucked in a confined space. Even with enough food they just eat and sleep and make themselves pretty. Same with human in crowded cities, no families, just hobbies and indulgence. Anti-Natalism is just a moral justification when the non-mating condition triggered in human. With or without it the population will continue to drop.
@@katanabluejay how can you stop animals from fucking?
90% of all the 'popular but terrible' ideas these days "fall apart" extremely easily constantly... but their advocates don't care and will just "Nuh-uh" any arguments away.
Idiocracy will rule so long as the cultural zeitgeist of our days allows vapid appeals to emotions to be treated with the same (or even higher) respect as actual logical arguments are.
3:02
Well well well...
A handmaid's tale does exist. And it's on the political side of their fans that it happened lol
Oops
@@alexanderrahl7034 I only watched a few episodes of that show, it was just way too gay, but from what I did watch, it seemed like it was more of a satire poking fun at leftist alarmism than some kind of dystopian view of a right wing world, like the left seems to think.
@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 then you have more experience than I, who has only osmosed my knowledge from the leftist interpretation lol
If I could thought police erase one piece of media from the public consciousness as hard as the internet scrubbed Keemstar calling Alex an N word.
I would erase Handmaids Tale for the sheer fucking damage it has down to the public psyche
Communist Romania was actually far-right, if we define 'far-right' as 'how communism works in practice'
so this is why people say, "I'm not taking anti-children/anti-parenting advice from an adult who buys and reviews toys"
The woman, as far as I know, only advocates anti natalism, which means anti-procreation. She says nothing about parenting or 'hating children' as I'm pretty sure she advocates adoption for those who desire to raise a child. 'Why not help those who already exist?'
Good one !
I'm seriously so sick of this misanthropic cynical bullshit everyone seems to be going through. We've deluded ourselves into thinking that being a pessimistic asshole = smarts. Fuck, I'm in a bad spot in my life right now and even I think everything will be fine. Half of these people are in a place I'm dreaming of living in and they're mad at the world for it?
You probably should get used to it by now because it’s not going to change for you. Grow up.
Lol you think it's going to be fine?
2030 is still 5 years away. We're only half-done with the organized financial genocide on the middle class.
Buckle up buttercup
lol you dream of becoming a wage slave living in a shoebox in a big city? Yeah how dare they be mad
@@claudiacyrankowski1162 Case in point about thinking that being a pessimistic asshole = smarts. The person you are replying to is much more mature than yourself, and more importantly, has a sense of morals, which you clearly lack.
@@claudiacyrankowski1162Are you a bot?
Funny I've had a conversation with a friend a week ago about this conversation, we boiled it down that first world countries have moved on to the point where having a child is more of a luxury act than a need on the financial purpose. In the past kids were to aid in the farm or help out with the family business but now most of that has been taken care of. "Why have a kid to help with the job when you can hire someone to do that." "Why have a kid to help get food and supplies when I can go to a store and do that." So on and So forth.
It's a modern phenomena to consider children to be a matter of personal fulfillment. Almost all children in the past were created for reasons that would be considered negligent or cruel today attached with a high mortality rate. Many people simply moved on to have pets instead.
@@Asto508 lol that's bs.
> but now most of that has been taken care of
By that5 you mean given away by clueless useful Idiots or outright stolen by big gov't.
My mom harassed my grand parents for so long until they agreed to sell the house... Her reasoning was t6he amount of work which goes into it.
Never heard of a maid? I swear some women retarded and gullible enough were programmed to destroy intergenerational wealth.
House sits @ almosdt 1 mil atm
is there some chance that the welfare state destroys much of the financial purpose kids used to have
as in, free school stopped a huge amount of private schools, social healthcare stops people buying their own.
If everyone gets the benefit of high social capital, what's the point of building it yourself? Basic free rider problem
It’s worse than that…we used to be financially incentivized to have kids, now it is the exact opposite. Having kids is a huge financial burden.
"Fur baby " is the giveaway.
Anyone that uses the term furbaby i immediately lose respect for them
cat ladies spotted
I love animals, but it’s ridiculously annoying how some truly deluded people believe that having a pet is at all like having an actual child. My brother has a dog and whenever I go to his house his wife will sometimes say “come to mommy” to their dog (even though he never listens anyway). I can’t help but cringe at such things; I can understand loving your pet, but it’s not your child, it’s your PET.
I've been an animal lover all my life and want them to be treated with care, but terms like "fur baby" make me cringe like hell. They are not your child, they an animal. And animals are wonderful! But they're not people.
@@Garrus1995 if she can't get even a dog to listen to her, she would not fare much better with an actual child
I own a property, I will be homeless due to Property taxes by next year.
That's why for me.
Come to Missouri. I have a multimillion dollar property, my total taxes a year is $1100, and we get 900 of that refunded because my dad is a disabled veteran.
That same property in Illinois would be 5 figures a year in taxes.
Medicaid would pay for your kid. You're just retarded
Get a job?
@@brian8507 Try owning and running a Business kid.
@refugeehugsforfree4151 I'm 40... I've owned 2. 1 failed. I gave it up and got a job in retail so I didn't become homeless.
1. People are working away from home instead of spending time with their spouses.
2. People spend their young years grinding higher education for many years instead of finding long term partners.
3. Women are more educated and emancipated. As a consequemce point 1 and 2 apply to them as much as they do to men.
4. Motherhood is no lomger connected with elevated social status. Provide the status, and you will see an uptick.
5. People are more cynical and hedonistic, valuing temporary relationships more than marriage.
6. Economic stress or uncertainty can make couples postpone having kids.
There are many solutions to this. Ranging from changing nothing and growing babies in tubes to turning women into chained unpersoned slaves like the Taliban.
Edit: anti-natalism is stupid because the concept of consent does not apply to things that don't exist. We do not cry that Disney brought Mickey into being without having Mickey consent. Same applies to unborn children that are not concieved yet. Anti-natalists have brain damage.
0. you can't exploit kids for free labor
@@marcogenovesi8570
True. Children no longer provide material benefits, and even are a net negative until they get s job.
Here's my schizo post of the day:
I unironically believe that, if humans develop the appropriate technology, gynoids will usurp the function and role of the female sex in our species. We will reach a point where building your own waifubot and having a kid with them will be the more cost-effective way to find a partner and raise a family.
As the primary drivers of civilization, male babies will likely be selected over female ones. Women will still exist, but they will be more of a luxury thing, and a relationship with one will be seen as a status symbol. With base reproductive and intimate needs seen to, I believe that the waifubot revolution will usher in a golden age for humanity.
If you want to go even further down the rabbit hole, I firmly believe that the development of gynoids is an absolute necessity if humanity wants to colonize space. Traditional gestation will likely have too many variables in space or on other planets, so the control environment of an artificial womb, combined with the mobility of an android, would be too useful to ignore.
Technically, children did concent to be born. After all, there were billions of sprem cells, and they were so determined they beat the competition and penetrated to ovum.
Have you been reading all tomorrows?
If you think "legalize abortion to reduce crime" is a good idea, let me introduce you to "Eugenics," "sterilization," and "Horseshoe Theory."
The entire reason there is a strong abortion movement in the U.S. is because of Margaret Sanger and she pushed it on the grounds of eugenics for the minorities.
Come on, he wasn't saying it's good. He was just declaring it was a factor.
He also only used it in the manner that women who get pregnant but is not able to care for the kid (Just as those kids who went into the fostersystem for their whole childhood) will end up being a risk for society as they have no reason to care for society beyond themselves/anyone they got along with at the fostersystem.
This is what planned parenthood was made to do
Ok? Introduce us
"I want to be the BABY!" -modern adults
"The impetus to procreate is really culturally built"
... This is one of the stupidest things I've heard in months..
Everything is a social construct, including biology. 🤡
Man all the cultures animals have driving them to reproduce, we need to learn more about the culture of the amoeba that drives them to undergo mitosis lmao
Thats because YOU ARE, not the statement itself. Reproduction in biology happens by accident. The desire to do the "act" comes first. Just because somebody MAKES a baby doesn't mean they intended it! SAME goes for animals. You seriously think that bugs, birds and do the act to GET babies AS IF they have that knowledge, hahahaha!
But Abrahamic Religions are basically apologies for agriculture and having more kids (since larger population is needed to support agricultural society). Hunter-gatherers who arguably live in a more "natural" environments don't have as much children and often use different forms of contraception.
Rabbit culture must be ridiculous then
I can understand people who choose not to have kids; It is their lives and their choice.
What I don't understand is shoving it in peoples' faces constantly, as though what you do with yourself is our business, and attempting to convert others to it like it's some kind of fucking religion.
The internet is tiresome, man.
There have always been crazy people around. The Internet just gives you the opportunity to "meet" them. It's your choice though.
@@Asto508 You don't have to "choose" to meet them anymore to see their inane takes and fervent solicitizing clog up your feeds.
Then log off.
I don't see any childfree people doing that. I usually see the opposite of parents oversharing every single detail of their kids to random strangers. Even worse: Family-vloggers.
@@steffimaier7297 True.
A lot of this video is framed around this 30% of women who don’t want to have kids, but what about the men? “Stop watching porn” isn’t going to suddenly make men standardless.
The men are mentioned alongside the economy as "also a reason those 30% might not be able to have kids".
The "men's standards" thing does not really need to be focused on, imo. There are generally enough men to go around, and in a pinch the women can all have children with the _same_ men. If there isn't enough "men's money" to go around, then that is an economic problem, not a men's standards problem.
I'm fairly certain that the men who have a porn or masturbation addiction or close to it aren't even in the dating pool to begin with, so I don't see how porn has any bearing on men's standards.
@@user-cs7fg5eq9r Beyond that, is saying "Men don't want to date women in real life because they have pictures of naked women" not the same as saying "Real life women aren't providing more value in relationships to men than being sex objects?"
I've been the breadwinner and the homemaker and I don't see many women willing to do either.
Other than the trad-wife larp, the general feel from women is that staying at home and caring for the families needs is somehow demeaning and beneath them. But they also don't want to give up jobs they're comfortable in so they can earn enough to support their entire family. For me, I need a partner who can fulfil at least one of these roles, and that's hard to find. What I don't need is a sex object.
@@jamesgollinger208 That's a good point. Sargon posted a video recently about declining birthrates and it said something quite interesting that was to the effect of 'this isn't really a problem that men can solve, it's up to women'. I think that that's very true.
@@jamesgollinger208 Absolutely. I waited until I was 30 to start dating due to financial reasons. I'm now 35 and left thinking "What's the gain for me jumping thru all these hoops for dating and potentially marriage if the vast majority of women don't seem to want to perform any sort of homemaking or childcare or anything else I'd consider valuable?" The possibility of physical sex is the only answer I can see, and as you pointed out, I can much more cheaply get a sex object elsewhere.
Anyone who thinks reds or blues will solve any of this are delusional.
but the republicans are an objective step in the right direction
@@007kingifrit they want to "bring back manufacturing" by devaluing the currency and turning us into serfs like Japan or SK and cheerlead for a war with Iran louder than anyone, no thanks.
@@007kingifrit Not good enough for me to care. I'll be voting yellow as usual.
@@catoticneutral well that just means that like all idealists you don't matter
@@007kingifrit None of us matter in the grand scheme of things when it comes to macropolitics; it's why the current political system is as much of a wash for normal people as medieval serfdom was.
The objective counter to anti natalism is children also didn’t consent to not be born and harm being felt is subjective to the individual so it can’t be objectively quantified. Anti natalism is very hypocritical because they use the same logic they accuse others of doing.
Exactly. I'm a complete dumbass and I thought of that in two freaking seconds!
Yeah the harm argument is weak, because it's only considering negative potentials. All potential is found in existence, there is no potential in non-existence, this is ontologically why existence is superior to non-existence. As you say, the consent argument is also weak, because there is no way to gauge the child's consent in either direction.
In reality, people create children either for their own benefit or on accident, and people appoint themselves power on behalf of children for their own benefit, whether or not they think it's right or wrong to have those children. In light of this, having children by itself is a morally neutral act, only by the contextual circumstances of those births can having children be judged as morally right or morally wrong.
The question of consent does not even apply to things that don't exist yet.
@@____________________519 that is what I meant by the consent argument. It’s neutral and trying to say that they couldn’t consent means nothing when they also did not consent to not be born. It’s really a per individual kinda thing and it’s wrong that they try to apply that moral framework to others.
@@spacejunk2186 true but I guess the consent argument is brought up because that individual is now conscious and can decide for themselves. Though that by its very nature breaks their argument as these feelings are subjective.
Japan will not recover from its birth rate decline - not because of generalised human nature or global trends, but because of Japan's very specific culture and social expectation. The culture will not recover because it is intrinsically built this way - and therefore immigration will be the only viable method for saving Japan as a country (and therefore by necessity destroying it as a culture to make way for some new equilibrium)
We also cannot deny the effect of second and third wave feminism on birth rates. Encouraging women to work has fundamentally remodelled the economy - rent and other financial costs have doubled because disposable income has doubled (since both spouses work now) making it much, much harder for women who want to be mothers full time to follow that pursuit.
Even if they were able to, the social pressure of their female friends and the modern culture devalues women who have kids as lesser than women who work. Women who only have kids or women who leave the workplace to start a family are looked down upon by their female friends and co-workers.
This was initially very desirable by the state, since it doubled the productivity of the population and unlocked greater economic development - ironically however it is the leading cause of a declining productive labour pool into the future.
What this has lead to is a culture of "day cares" and children who are functionally raised and educated in an orphanage model despite having parents. My aunt has raised her children this way and it has lead my cousins to feel disenfranchised and deeply insecure into their teenage years. I cannot imagine that children born into this context will have a positive view on starting a family or having kids of their own. The majority of my friends in high school grew up with divorced parents, and were used by their parents as a tool to get back at each other or as a resource to hoard from the opposite spouse.
Negative childhood experiences very likely lead to negative associations with family life. Honestly, it surprise me that birth rates haven't declined even worse than they are
That would be like saying that every culture that has declining birth rates can't fix it, because it is "intrinsically built that way". Cultures can change...
Also specifically Japan, they actually look down upon working women with kids, they are encouraged to be stay at home mothers. Single mothers especially are looked down upon... it is much different culturally than what you express here. Childless old women are also looked down upon, so I don't see how society in Japan has devalued having kids... it is actually kind of the opposite. It's the newer younger generation that is dismissing traditions, not Japanese society itself, which has lead to a big cultural shift, which disproves your very first point, that it is "intrinsically built this way", because the fundamentals of Japanese Culture are shifting as we speak.
You also go on to use western examples, but those don't really apply to Japan... So what are you talking about, Japan or the western world? Because you are heavily mixing those two together, and you can't really do that.
Speaking as something of a former anti-natalist, the issue is the presence of weakness, or at least the absence of strength, to put it more diplomatically. People who are strong in a variety of ways - financially, status-wise and in terms of familial bonds, certainly mentally tough - for those people life is clearly a net positive. Anti-natalism is a uniquely leftist ideology and thus suffers from one of the left's greatest weaknesses: the unwillingness to take responsibility for your life and the inability to show resolve in the face of adversity and discipline in the face of temptation.
Its not likely that they will address it as they will handwave away responsibility as a capitalist lie designed perpetuate the system of oppression by scapegoating the failures of the capitalist's systems on the individual rather than the workings of the capitalist system itself
Well said! I find the irony is the solution to a lot of what they complain about is actually lots of natalism. The more people that exist, the lower the amount of total human suffering will be due to humans adapting, and finding solutions. _The more ants the better for the hive!_
have kids you can’t afford
face adversity head on
apply to the forehead
Antinatalism isn't a leftist ideology, your claim is incoherent. Antinatalism is above politics, its a philosophy.
Us antinatalists are taking responsibility for our lives by working to take care of our bodies and promoting antinatalism, which helps to reduce unnecessary suffering, criminal activity, and things like p3d0philia. Which YOUR SIDE certainly isn't doing. Your side CREATES all of those things, as the science shows. To create a life is to potentially create anything thats physically possible to exist.
So your claim that antinatalists don't take responsibility is wrong.
Am I the only one that thinks that Vance sounds like a fairly normal guy? I feel like I’m being gaslit by everyone.
You are. The media and chronically online are far from normal people
I love the guy; if you haven’t, check out his book “Hillbilly Elegy.” I read it a few years back and remember thinking that here was a dude who had already accomplished a lot but was surely destined to achieve even more. I may not agree with some of his stances but I will most definitely be casting my vote for him and Donald later this year.
Vance is so normal and average in terms of personality that he looks boring compared to other politicians who say stupid stuff or do stupid stuff. He is also a Catholic integralist, but not even the average Catholic knows what that is, let alone leftists. That's why they attack him with dug up old photos where Vance is wearing a wig or he is clean shaven in line with their "Republicans are weird" tactic. Yes, a clean shaven man is weird to them. Oh , and he also likes LotR and apparently Narya, the name of an Elven ring of power sounds similar to Aryan, so Rachel Maddow thinks this is problematic or something... So far Vance is bulletproof and it's up to him if he stays this way.
Nah, there's some serious JD Vance Derrangement Syndrome happening
@@gregutz4284 JDDS
Put me right in that "want kids, don't have means" group. Constant moving and switching jobs to try to find any financial security has made it impossible to save. Everyone my partner and I start to save, something has struck a major financial blow (pandemic, car bills, medical bills)
We don't want to have kids without being sure we can feed them and keep a roof over our heads.
inb4 someone says "people in 1850 had 20 kids in a 1 bedroom run down hut so you can too"
people in 1850 had 20 kids in a 1 bedroom run down hut so you can too
Hate to say it, but financial security is largely a myth, or a relic of a bygone era. My grandfather worked for the same factory for 30 years. I've never worked the same job longer than 5.
I can't speak to your situation, but I've found it much more useful to cultivate a network of people I can ask for help in an emergency, rather than trying to get so much money I feel safe. I've got six months of living expenses so I have that long to deal with an emergency.
After that, it's about controlling your standard of living. What to I really NEED to spend money on? Cooking from scratch rather than pre-made or takeout saves hundreds a month. Likewise with driving a small car instead of a gas guzzler. Kids themselves are surprisingly inexpensive if I'm frugal, especially when they're young, especially if they breastfeed. If my expenses are low, I have a lot more flexibility with where and how I work.
Ultimately, you'll never be able to guarantee a roof over their heads, so don't try to. Instead take the attitude of, "I will be the person who can find a way to take care of my family, no matter what that looks like."
Hey Dev, what do you think of the Peter Zeihan answer as to why people don't have kids since birthrates are dropping everywhere except still developing nations? Basically the key he says is industrialization and urbanization. In a rural society, kids are an asset - you can make them work your fields for free. In an urban industrial society, kids are a burden - sure they can make a bit of money chimney sweeping or shining shoes, but not enough to make up for what they consume. People in cities always had smaller families than people in the country. But by the late 19th century, there were not enough jobs for people in the country because of farm mechanization, so the urban population outpaced the rural population and birth rates declined as culture adjusted to the new urban conditions. And this was only was exacerbated as society industrialized more and more. Same thing is happening in the developing world right now - urbanization and industrialization, people are still having large families due to cultural lag, but birth rates will decline to European levels in the near future when culture catches up to societal conditions. The only real difference is they basically need another 50 years to catch up to where we are now.
It's an interesting theory because it discards the ideological motive, since the birthrates are dropping even in hyper-conservative societies where women basically have no rights, but the country is regardless industrializing. Plus there is the fact that you know...there's almost 4x as many people in the world today as there were 80 years ago, maybe that wasn't meant to increase forever and the baby boomer generation being so massive was a fluke.
Yep, this is also true, and part of the economic reason. If a worker provides less value than in the past, there's less economic incentive to create one.
@@ShortFatOtaku It also ties into why Zeihan says China isn't going to be a major player on the world stage much longer. China has always had one asset that other countries can't match, and that's its utterly massive population. But what I talked about above combined with 50 years of the One-Child Policy crashing their birthrate straight into the earth, means in 10 years China is going to have less than a billion people. It's already less populous than India right now. And when you no longer have a giant population to throw at something, you lose your value as the world's factory, which is the entire source of the country's economic engine and fuels their ability to compete with other large nations.
It's also why, I should note, he predicted the exact month and year the Ukraine invasion would happen, because 2022 would be the last year Russia would have enough fighting-age males to try it.
Let's not also forget land value taxation (or lack thereof). The more successful a civilization is, the more landlords choke it out by having rent exceed wages at ever greater amounts. Because rent and its corollaries, mortgages and property taxes, are essentially taxes on existence itself, there will be less money at hand for reproduction.
Zeihan doesn't know what he is talking about when he talks about child labour in agrarian societies. If you read the anthropological literature you will find that this is another one of those widespread baseless scientific myths. Generally speaking, from age 0-6, children are incapable of providing any labour of value whatsoever. From age 7-12, they contribute less resources than they consume. It is only in their teens that they start producing more than they consume. However, what little they produce usually doesn't equal the cost of marrying them off and setting them up in a household of their own. So the literature is clear that children are a net loss to families.
Rather, the reason for having children in traditional societies is instead as a pension plan. A parent spends their life building wealth, which they then exchange for care and affection in their twilight years when they are unable to fend for themselves in the form of inheritance. It is state pensions, not birth control or abortion, which is largely responsible for the current population collapse in industrialised nations. State pensions has removed the primary economic incentive for having children.
@@philipgeyer926 Except that only explains the West and places like Japan. Many countries don't have state pension systems and instead run on either having a required fund you set aside money for or the employer provides it, and yet their birthrates are dropping. More importantly, the state pension system actively incentivizes having children or there won't be any money in it for many people to collect from it when it becomes time for them to retire. Of course, that also assume that your kids will be financially successful enough to support you in the first place, which is a terrible bet to make. Really, the problem with the pension argument is it makes 3 giant assumptions
1) most people do not inherently view wealth generated by their children in adulthood as their wealth to manage, even if they do expect some amount of it to go towards supporting them
2) most people do not particularly care about maximizing the value they extract from the government in retirement until they are already or are about to retire, and
3) no one has ever decided not to have children because of how much those children would pay into a social safety net in adulthood.
I should also note that the EU Central Bank completely disagrees with your hypothesis, and I swear I've had this exact same conversation before.
When I was growing up, the antii-motherhood bias was powerfully strong in all the girls around me. Going to college, it was still powerfully strong in all the women around me. While it isn't culturally constructed to want to have kids, it is definitely possible to culturally dissuade someone from motherhood. I have witnessed this countless times. The economic problems that you're trying to identify are really simple: women have decided to live by themselves, so they end up living by themselves in a terrible apartment with terrible pay. And that is why they are poor.
What Vance is getting at is this powerful cultural problem that we're facing. Leftist ideology embraces feminism, birth control, and abortion. In any practical sense, it is a hatred of all that womanhood encompasses, including motherhood. You end up with these bitter people who've dedicated their lives to hating femininity, blaming men for it, and they're bitter and lonely because of it.
People are poorer in all the ways it matters to raise a family. Especially in housing.
Yes, for all our phones and transport and easy access to food, we are sorely lacking in space. Not just living space, but safe public spaces where kids used to be able to go by themselves to get out of our hair. My kids are early teens now and I'm more concerned with letting them out alone than I was 5 years ago, just because of how things have changed.
Some things I think would increase birth rates are the following:
- decrease the time it takes for someone to feel establish enough to have a kid (de-emphasizing college for non-STEM, reform high school to prepare people for work instead of college, apprenticeships / jobs provide the training)
- instead of promoting parental leave laws, promote parental telework laws (gives some incentive to have kids, parents get to be more in their kids lives, and avoids the burden of outside childcare like paying for it and finding enough childcare workers)
- a culture change that makes it ok for kids to be in the workplace for at least some jobs
- do something about student loans like allowing students to default on them (might result in college becoming cheaper)
- stronger family units would help too with grandparents, aunts, etc assisting with watching the kids since (but this one can’t easily be made into policy sadly)
I think a lot of this could be accomplished simply by moving away from the "everyone goes to college right after high school" model.
Consider this. You and your high school sweetheart graduate. Instead of you moving to different ends to the country for different schools, the man goes to school while the woman works an entry level job to support him. He finishes school by around 23 and you both work for two years to set yourself up financially. Then you have kids around 25, reducing much of the health complications. She stays home when they're young, supported by her educated husband, and then goes to school after the kids are more independent. There's no particular reason you can't start school at 30, or even 40, especially for the careers that women statistically select.
What's happening now is that post grad schooling is not conducive to relationships, especially if people are at different schools. You'll probably break up and date for years, which could be used to setup your futures. Even if you don't, women are working through their optimal reproductive years, only to get bored in their 30s and wanting kids and, at that point, it's often too late.
I'll also put forth that I don't think any amount of "professional" child care will fix the problem. If people don't want to raise their own kids, that's a problem in itself and trying to get them to have kids anyway is just a matter of conning them. People need to raise their own kids in order to make them into little people that they actually enjoy being around. I think it's a bit of a feedback loop: people see awful kids who weren't raised properly so they don't want to raise kids, because they think kids are inherently awful. Having kids is incredibly fulfilling, but it's also a huge commitment and a lot of work, requiring not just physical labour but personal introspection and growth. How often have you really thought about "How do I treat people in a way that I would have them treat me?" Because parents have to give concrete answers to that question every day.
You could just enforce pro natalist policy and not anti natalist policy and it would solve itself
@@CMCAdvancedwhat do you mean by enforce pronatalist policy? What specifically?
@@PhilHug1 He won't give an answer, lol. He has nothing. He just wants antinatalism to just disappear out of thin air just because it makes him angry. He's a child.
@@PhilHug1 specifically things that are anti natalist, couldn't be more specific.
I do agree that the perception of economic feasibility is mostly wrong, with maybe an exception to be given to home prices. The real question is what is causing the mass psychosis that children are unaffordable?
The trouble of double income households with kids is not a mass psychosis. You can either have the money for kids or the time for kids today, but not both. I see every day how lack of time is by far the biggest issue within families and one of the main reason why people tend to have only one kid (if at all), simply because it already means you have no life anymore.
“If I can’t afford the latest IPhone, I might as well be homeless.” This mentality is causing said psychosis.
@@nsanenbrane53 You can buy the latest iPhone each month with the rent that people have to pay nowadays.
Because for most of society one job was enough to support your family, and the wife could stay home. Even for a while where women went to work, you could still afford to do that. Now people have a hard enough time living on their own or finding a home (even with two incomes). Because wages have stagnated and things like houses are priced with two incomes in mind. Maybe some people can afford it and don’t realize it, but I’d wager a lot really can’t. Or that, none of them would be able to give their kids a decent life like they’d want them to have, rather than scraping by.
I think it's worth mentioning that before the 1 child policy, the People's Republic Of China also went pretty pro-natal to similarly disastrous results. Way back, Mao pushed for a massive population, which he even admitted was for cannon fodder with his quote, "I'm not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn't matter if some are killed. China has a population of 6 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left." So then, after state-planned agriculture couldn't feed all the people, they blamed the birds for stealing seeds and killed as many as possible, causing an ecological disaster (not joking). Only after all that happened did the communist party turn to vilify the very women for producing too many children that they had previously vilified for not having enough. Sadly enough, the communist party still isn't done with population control because, due to the plummeting birth rate, it looks like they may go back to forcing pregnancies.
14:00 Oh please, Dev. The average dude out there isn't asking for a 10 out of 10 superstar. In fact, most will probably take anyone who meets some very basic standards of looks, beliefs, and attitude.
14:05 to bad many women say a virgin dude is bad.
I can agree that pr0n can have negative repercussions… but the thing I don’t really get is how that supposedly affects standards. Is any guy really watching some pro or amateur go at it and expect any random woman to be physically flawless or perfect in bed? I guess I could see stamina or interest (frequency), but the latter seems too meme’d upon for anyone to take seriously. Stamina I could see being misjudged, but that probably depends more on the guy than her. The rest (what you’re interested in doing) is going to be highly subjective, and I think that much guys are aware of.
@@mrshmuga9 im convinced pr0n has as much of an effect as violent videogames do
I'm part of the percentage of woman who can't have kids yet and to be honest, the older I get, the more often I randomly burst out in tears knowing my time is running out.
But you're seen as virtuous and oppressed anyway. It's the fault of evil men who watch pron who are responsible for creating 'unrealistic expectations' despite them being the ones not good enough
The way antinatalist explain their philosophy makes them sound like super villians. Like Ultron in the Avengers, they see that harm exist, and they go straight to just ending all human life.
It does seem quite extreme (and villainous)
Consider this bit of existentialism:
What problem did life solve that it didn't initially create?
@@vermin5367Pizza. Without life, there is no pizza. The lack of pizza is a problem with the early universe.
well, that's where you are wrong, anti-natalist don't wanna end exisiting life, they want to stop having new lives into this world.
Group that are doomers with warped ideology and chugging gallons of copium
You're talking about the hypocrisy of "promiscuous men wanting a virgin wife" as if there are that many promiscuous men. 90% of eligible men have had less than 10 sexual partners, and around 20-30% are still virgins themselves.
Also it's mostly men who do not know how to verify if a woman is going to be loyal who are looking for these simple and imprecise correlated proxies like virginity or religiosity, because that's really the best you can do to teach a man who hasn't approached female behavior as a science instead of falling for the "she just likes me" trope. She never "just likes" you, it's always you fulfilling an emotional need that she had, whether she was conscious of it or not (with 95%+ of cases being in the latter category, which is why women never seem to know what they want, because they really don't).
This is the truth. Men are not the promiscuous ones nowadays, not one bit.
As someone who can afford couple of kids and would have taken first woman to show gram of interest... I am now blamed for being evil for not wanting to provide for some bad boys bastard.
As a millennial who fell through all the social economical cracks possible. (Graduated HS 2008, C in 2012)
I have never been in a position to be able to have children till now.
I’m just now starting a career at 35, as I just have gotten lucky enough to join the upper lower class in my personal development.
My personal problem is that most people don’t want anything to do with me as I am “too old” “too poor” 😅
The costs tied to a successful relationship are much higher than when I started, and there still is no guarantee that the person won’t still leave me and take the child and 50% of what I barely have.
Might be different if I could buy a house, but the markets are setup for perpetual renting.
No, men do not have high expectations.
You could instead look towards Israel as an example of an industrial, modern, liberal country that has a high fertility rate, and it's not entirely driven by the religious, secular women also have a higher than replacement fertility rates. Israel provides a lot of social, economic, and cultural incentives for couples to have kids. There are government health programs that help with infertility, there are a lot of child-devleopment, and relatively safe society for kids to play outside for. But I think it has to do with culture that encourages couples to have kids, that doesn't view children as something that will weigh you down, but something that will give deeper meaning to your life. Culture has a huge impact on fertility rates.
yeah, their religious and ethnic solidarity provides the cultural motivation to have kids.
@@ShortFatOtaku but a society that has the economic and social incentives that affect the 30% you mentioned. For example, free fertility treatments, cheap childcare, close family members, super safe for kids to be outdoors, but yes religious and ethnic solidarity helps
I often find Israel interesting because it has both a birth rate of 3 and an industrialized economy.
I joke that the USA had that when "Go forth and multiply or burn in hell" sermons were common and effective.
Be honest, the birthrate is carried by the ultra orthodox religious people in Israel.
What study says the secular women of Israel have a meaningfully higher replacement rate?
If you don't count that it is one of the countries with the most incest in the world, it wouldn't be a bad example, and if we don't count that there are less than 10 million people and the majority of births are from Orthodox Christians who study the Torah and don't work and receive pensions
I'm not gonna have children simply because I don't think I'm responsible enough.
I'm 34 and too lazy to take care of kids. I prefer dogs. But at least I don't justify my decision pretending it's for some alturistic reason or something stupid like "climate change". I'm just lazy, selfish and immature. I think my hypothetical children are lucky not to have me as a father.
Good on you for at least being honest. I work in a fairly low-income area of Massachusetts and I sometimes see complete train wrecks of human beings with children in tow and I can’t help but feel bad for the kids; being raised by crap people means there’s a good chance they too will grow up to become crap people. Obviously there are exceptions and some kids are able to rise above the circumstances of their upbringing, but whenever I see some hood rat with kids I can’t help but cringe because I feel they’ve done them a disservice by having them.
That's actually, funnily enough, both a healthy and an unhealthy attitude xD You at least know where your weakness is xD But, also, you're going at it the wrong way. Unless you think you're that irresponsible that you'd even let your child jump off a balcony or something, you're probably responsible enough, you just haven't had the "push" to start being responsible.
@@Garrus1995 "being raised by crap people means there’s a good chance they too will grow up to become crap people"
This is backwards. Our problem isn't crap people. We could stack them in tubes with phones and wifi and completely ignore them. The problem is the lack of good people. We need a concrete minimum number of people to keep our systems running, regardless of the ratio to bad people.
Anyone giving their best shot to raise their kids well, even if they themselves are a crap person, even if they ultimately fail, is committing a valiant act, in my book.
That's perfectly reasonable. Pro-natalists like to guilt trip people with birth rates and "you must continue your lineage" etc etc., but it's really for the best that we aren't forcing 100% of people to focus on becoming parents. Some people just aren't cut out for raising kids, and some can contribute to the world in other meaningful ways.
As a mexican I gotta disagree with the decline of birth rates due to economic reasons. If a woman wants to have kids she will, regardless of circumstances or how dire economic factors are. Most of the time they will try to justify it but thinking their male partner will have to take care of them economically, or hell sometimes they will have the baby regardless of the missing father. The reason of declining birth rate nowadays is an ideological one. Most women in western countries get looked down upon for having children on social media, especially during their formative years during adolescence and that leaves them a huge mark, even tho irl people dont really care if you’re a mom that much.
I'm sure you know very well what kind of people have children living in a house made of tin full of holes; those people are not responsible for themselves, much less for a child.
The politicos are not going to want to hear this but they need to cut the taxes and cut the spending if they want to see populations go up.
see they don't actually care about the future of nations, they know it wont be their problem.
why do that when they can just import the next generation of wage slaves
Just import the third world...
I think regulating the price down would be better. Taxes dont really matter
@@randomuser5443 Ooh, price fixes. There's a revolutionary idea if I ever heard one...
It's all sour grapes.
They realize that they'll never have children, so they cope by saying "well, kids are bad anyway and I don't want them"
In the bottom of my heart, with all sincerity, I truly believe everyone is somewhat pro-life in a way. It is a deadly danger if we, as a society, somehow nurture a culture of abortion "chic" like some feminists have already started cultivating and dragged other women and men along with them. It's also why the men can't also be left out of this conversation as some would argue, the women need our help as well and also because it takes both to literally make a baby.
I'm pro choice and it's horrifying how flippant some woman treat it. It should be legal, but it should be a last resort - something bad happened to you to get pregnant, or something went wrong and you or the fetus are at risk, or you took steps to avoid pregnancy that failed. It SHOULD be a difficult choice. It SHOULD be taken seriously. You SHOULD be upset and sombre about what you did.
The idea it should be LEGAL has somehow morphed into an idea that it's a MORAL GOOD and that's insane.
@@laurendearnley9595 What's legal and what's moral have a strong correlation with one another. Historically, they almost went hand in hand. So consequently to push for legality with the impetus that it is righteous and opposition for it is evil is inevitable.
This whole term of abortion and if you look it through the history of abortion, what cultures and countries used it. It's always come from people who care about children. If you look at the reasons throughout history why children were aborted. The main reasons were usually the child was not wanted. No one could take care of it. Even religious groups couldn't take care of them. Sometimes they knew the child was going to be deformed and thought it was kinda to neutralize. There was also the fear of certain people having children. Whenever you look at the history of abortion, it was created by people who care about the sanctity of life.
You might not like that answer but also look at the statistics of single-parent households as he said in the video when there was more abortion crime dropped because children need to be born in a stable mother and father or a supportive unit not an unstable one.
You need to meet more radical feminists
@@ditta7865 Do you also count historical infanticides as part of that abortion metric as well?
19:42 - Vance has a separate point, which is that people who don't have children have less incentive to think about the future in the long-term. It's not that they're especially selfish exactly. It's just that they have no incentive to want there to be a future at all, like that woman who became an anti-natalist.
14:45 The fact that the live births rate right now is WORSE than during the great depression show us that the economic factors as a reason not to have kids is a lie/cope. This is made more explicit when we find than the cohort of the population not having kids is the middle, with the lower and upper bands of the socioeconomic stratum having kids just fine.
its many factors, the bureaucracy has increased in complexity in every level of life, making kids extremely expensive compared to back then, people in highly urban enviros stop having kids, the dropping in home ownership... many things.
Also, look up the countries with the highest birth rate.
Okay, it doesn't prove that it is a lie/cope... it's because its different.
The Great Depression would actually encourage having kids. Being poor and being able to get a kid to help with your financials is an investment into the future, so there is a financial reason there in the first place.
Secondly, when you don't need or having a kid is a financial burden, instead of a future investment, because you have things like pensions, nursing homes, etc, then you don't need a kid for your own future, and then financial reasons become more important.
You are looking at this and then forgetting the entire context around it, and just declaring something to be wrong. When you remove more variables, then other variables become more dominant...
People didn’t have reliable birth control during the Great Depression. Even so, births went down during that time.
anti-natalism is literally just the plot of ff14 endwalker
Goddamn weebs
it's just like something out of one of my japanese animes...
People in terrible economic situations have always had children and made it work. Most people throughout history were peasants or serfs or slaves and still chose to marry and have children. There are ways to avoid pregnancy even if you assume they didn't have any kind of birth control (which they did, to varying degrees) - even just pulling out, if abstinence is too hard. They were living hard lives and they still saw the benefit of children.
The poorest people in the West still live better than nearly everyone throughout human history and yet we claim our lack of children is somehow ECONOMIC?
Those children were labor on farms, in urban industrial societies kids can't contribute till mach later making their net cost on the parents much higher. Also those kids were learning how to due their future jobs while working (exactly what their parent did) you didn't have to go to school first. Those kids being productive were also being taught and looked after at the same time, economically now families maybe be better off but not for use of time. If you are working a modern job your not gonna have time to raise your kid and they won't be contributing anything until they are at least in their teens.
@@littleking1994two Sorry, don't buy it.
There's exactly nothing stopping parents from training their kids early. Nobody is valuable until at least their teens, so it's really not much different in terms of the time commitment, farm or no. We have the most diverse job market in history, which means we can chose to work jobs where kids can help, or we can chose jobs where they can't. I started working at 12, for my Dad. Guess what? School did absolutely nothing to prepare me.
But that's the culture, right? Go to school, work in a factory or office building, focus on working and send your own kids to school. But it's not real. We don't need to do things this way if the result is societal suicide.
I think the biggest difference between now and then is that we no longer structure our lives around family. Instead, we focus on money, which mean more work, less time and, eventually, less money when the market is glutted with cheap imports. We have nothing to show for our cultural focus on material wealth other than a handful of ashes from the burning empire, but we don't have to stay on this path.
Someone being poorer doesn't mean I'd want my kids to struggle financially
@@littleking1994two Correction, kids aren't ALLOWED to contribute thanks to the government interfering with parenting.
Don't forget; you gotta make the deal better for guys. Cost-benefit analysis is strongly against men giving women babies 🤷
Childless Cat Ladies aren't evil, but they do tend to vote for policies that help and create more Childless Cat Ladies.
I have 2 kids it is fucking baller!!! No matter how bad a day im having they cheer me up. I have the knowledge my haters will have my genes continue to shitpost
Glad you like being a father❤
I also love being a father of two going in 3 children.
How did you meet the mother of your kids? If you don't mind my asking.
@zs9652 My brother set up an online dating profile I never agreed to. Later, I found out one of my best friends from high school was her cousin.
“Abortion is good for reducing crime rates in America…”
Ahh, but who gets the bulk of those abortions?
Socially disadvantaged people?
I wanna get married first. I'm still searching. Eh, I still have time. 26, going to nursing school. I'm bettering myself.
Nursing school at 26? You won’t make it. You need to be looking NOW. The career is supposed to fund the family. You massively overestimate how much energy you will have as you take on a more challenging career. I recall stories about 40 year old National sales manager of a multinational up with kids all night. There is never a time this gets easier. Ever.
@@pepeepupoo If these rich dudes can be marrying women young enough to be their daughters and granddaughters, then I can be over 30 and seek a woman under 30. It ain't a big age gap. 😅
@@pepeepupoo Youre acting like 26 is 80 💀. I know plenty of people that got hooked up in their late twenties and thirties.
@@Xplora213 Bold of you to assume I didn't save my money when I was in the army. My coworkers made fun of me for taking the bus instead of not buying a new car. For not getting useless stuff like shoes I'll never wear, or a new TV or console. Or a fur coat. No... I only spent when I needed to. And I saved up. It's called a head start. And by the way, my loan is practically already paid for. It was less than $6k. 😌
@@D_an_ My only frustration is that I have wanted to get married ever since I graduated high school. Specifically, my high school crush. But that ship has sailed. She's likely hooked up with an older guy with money. But if true, then I should probably follow his example... it still sucks though. I hate being lonely.
Lots of things, everything is too expensive, less people are getting together and people are encouraging childlessness. Not everyone is going for it, my sister had a kid just a couple months ago and while she is a bit stressed she genuinely loves her son.
Most people will after having a child. My son was completely unplanned. I never wanted to have children, but now I don't know what I would do without him.
Mom and Dad are the greatest titles one can be bestowed.
@@justinfowler5761 Yep. The woman in the video was saying "there's no natural instinct to procreate, just for sex" but I felt things after having kids that I'd never experienced before. I can't say this happens to everyone, or if it's exclusively because of kids, but it changed who I am in ways I will always be grateful for.
No, Dev, the average person is poorer than they were 5 or 6 years ago (at least in the US). Quit trying to say things aren't that bad for normal people because 'GDP go up'. Shit, we had a baby formula shortage for a hell of long time and not so long ago.
For people that are politically warped into not wanting kids (the other reasons seem pretty valid)...things have gotten so bad with the left in this country that I don't even view it as sad anymore. I'm just like, 'Fine, don't then. Have fun and go do anything you like except teaching/education.'
Aww, OldPhan seems really sad. I don't have any recommendations for whether to have children or not, but she seems to have missed a crucial stage in maturity where one learns to weather and appreciate suffering in order to fully appreciate life. She's incredibly unqualified to give others advice, but there's a lot of that about.
The absence of the 'village' is a huge factor. People have been having kids with no money since we began, but they had the family unit to support them.
Yes, absolutely.
People in these comments are all worried about "how do I make enough money to ensure my kids are cared for?" or "how can I afford to homeschool my kids without sacrificing one of our salaries?" instead of "how can I cultivate a community around me that will address these needs?".
@@jamesgollinger208 uh what community? These arent tribal times anymore. People are more individualistic as ever and i dont expect my uncles or aunts to financially provide for my hypothetical kids
I like the idea of Adam Smith, a supply and demand explanation, more workers means less pay and higher cost and due to these factors birthrate will decline. They will climb again once pay reaches sufficient level and prices fall.
That's part of it. Automation also means that a worker's labour is worth less, leading to workers getting paid less, leading to them being unable to afford to reproduce. the labour theory of value also says the same thing, that as workers become more expensive and less productive, the 'capitalist class' will fund less of their creation.
@@ShortFatOtaku certainty, that is one of the few drawbacks with the engineering discipline. While overall it increases the quality of life, it also lowers the need of the working class.
The drawbacks of automation is really a fascinating question (or it may just be because I study software engineering). Just like the drawbacks of liberalism. I'm wondering whether we'll see a sharp decline in birthrates in working class families soon as automation gets further.
@@User-d6g4s Pensions and elder care in general is a smart scheme if it just were the case that birth rate wasn't declining. But as it is, it just gives a spiral of further decline in birth rate.
@@SimonSpedsbjerg and this is why I'm trying to convince my fellow women to ditch a career. Less workers, more pay.
"I need a 2nd job to pay for daycare!" OR you could watch the kids yourself?!?! For free?!?
@@SimonSpedsbjerg we are already seeing a sharp decline in birthrates of working class,
4:41
Abortion is legalized, blacks mostly impacted, crime goes down
Really makes you think
My two cents on this are if anyone thinks that simply filling the population gap with Migrants, legal or illegal, is a good idea that is a horrible long term solution.
@ShortFatOtaku I have a unique perspective on this: my parents homeschooled me and my siblings into college. One thing that my parents would tell us about was how other people had kids for the social clout, thereafter shoving them into public schools and such. And now I finally understand why they told us that. Nowadays, people don’t even want kids.
They made men & women hate each other. And pushed women into careers
Abortion is still legal. Where it is restricted, there's exceptions for rap incest and life of the mother. birth control is plentiful, available, and largely free in most places. So maybe..y know...close your legs? Use birth control? Then maybe you wouldn't "need" abortion
Doesn't matter GOP is still pursuing a federal ban on both abortion & birth control.
How about instead we just keep politicians out of our bed rooms.
most people don't get abortion cause they hate babies, they get it because they don't think they can support the kid to have a good life.
sure you have those crazy people who get like 20 abortion but that's more like 4% of people.
and you really want those people to be parents?
@@AspiringDevil, how about let's not kill babies because it is convenient...
Yeah, except the doctors are terrified to perform abortions because the law is vague enough that they could be charged even if the abortion was completely within the bounds of the law.
@@AspiringDevil the problem isn't in your bedroom. As far as I'm aware, you don't get abortions in your bedroom. That generally happens in a medical clinic (or an operating room, depending on how late in the process you are).
The Sad realty is that most people/Couples don't want the *Reasonability* of having Kids, And in some cases it's Justified.
It is in a large part selfishness. We live in a consumer culture where there's always some luxury item for us to spend our paychecks on. People want to do this, so when they say, "I don't feel economically secure enough to have kids," what they really mean is, "I can't have kids without changing my consumer lifestyle, which I prioritize more than having kids."
Further, people all want to work dream jobs. Nobody wants to leave a comfortable job where they get to just hang out with their coworkers all day in exchange for a job where you're constantly pushing 10 hours a day. But guess which one pays more?
There a jobs that pay enough to raise a family on one income, which require no education, which no one wants to do. They're hard, dangerous, uncomfortable, and pay well because of those very things. It comes down to what you really value; having kids or living easy?
Ah yeah, the selfishness to not do something for someone that doesn't exist
Bryan Caplan, an economist from George Mason suggests it's more cultural than economic causing a fall in birth rates. People who have the lowest and highest birth rates are not what you'd think.
Highest birthrates are upper middle class people with no college degree.
Lowest birthrates are low income, highly educated people.
8:20 you never explained why her arguments are wrong, you just went on about her being bitter and jealous
He relied entirely on this notion that they must be simply bitter with no illustration of such. I always gave Dev more credit so it's pretty disappointing to see him merely assert their position with no evidence.
@@AramisNailz I agree.
@@AramisNailz I'd be stoked to hear a convincing argument as to why the suffering we see in this world is justified. I'm desperate for one, in fact.
@@nenonone791 It is far less that suffering is justified and far more that it simply is. You're making the mistake a lot of people do when analyzing this and assuming that all suffering can be alleviated which just isn't the case. Existence and suffering are just one and the same thing, HOWEVER. Suffering isn't something that is infinite either, it requires proper habits and likely on your part given the comment overcoming trauma you've had to deal with. But life does get better, it's not all doom and gloom. Trying to fix all suffering is how you wind up with things that are terrible happening for the "greater good" and it's where that old Adage of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes from.
The Donahue Levit hypothesis is an objective observation used to justify eugenics. One needs to weigh productivity against liberty to judge this hypothesis as positive or negative for culture
14:00 what guys watch porn all day? Work is a thing you know, bills have to be paid. Gross generalisation. Give proof.
The guys who don't work obviously.
He is the proof I guess
@@theblackgamer8103 then they don't have money for porn
Dev is going full feminist propaganda here. Dudes watch porn BECAUSE they can't get laid. And 'whole day' is funny. Women say men can't last 5min, but watching port with supposedly 10/10 women makes them last 24h...
@@vitaliitomas8121 you realize that, porn, is free, right? Not everybody pays for onlyfans, bit of a self expose there
Dev, Vance has _repeatedly_ said that he isn't referring to women or couples that are physically incapable of having children when he's made this criticism America's managerial class.
The thing is, having kids is simply a moderate phase in someone’s life journey, at some point you go from having kids to having adult children. Which can be very rewarding. I don’t know. I didn’t think I wanted kids but then life dictated that I have two within a couple years in my early twenties. It forced me to choose to grow up which was fine and I didn’t mind, and now my children are adults and on their own and I’m still young enough to have a personal life without having to make the same sacrifices and I’m smarter and skilled enough to know what I want and make it happen. it was scary and I hated it for a little bit but as of now, I have not one single regret.
No shade to anyone who doesn’t want children.
That came up during my "big talk" with my fiancé when we were both on the fence about having kids. Path A, you never have kids. Path B, you have kids. Eventually, Path B bends back to parallel Part A, because your children eventually become independent and your life becomes mostly about you and your spouse again. Sure your kid doesn't cease to exist when it's 18, but they become a person in your life that you love, rather than one that's completely dependent on you and anchoring all your decisions.
If you value the independence and freedom of Path A, you will eventually get back to a similar path after having children. But you can never go back and walk Path B again and experience parenthood if you don't do it the first time.
(Obviously there are mitigating factors, like if your kid is disabled or troubled, but I'm talking generally)
We used to have cultural milestones reinforced by community to usher us through necessary transitions in life.
@@laurendearnley9595 Yes, but it's shallow to just think of Path B in terms of "I've missed an interesting experience".
Adult kids are people you can trust and rely on (assuming you did your job as a parent). This is especially important when times are hard. If the economy gets to the point where people are no longer able to live in individual homes, would you rather partner up with your kids? Or try to make a deal with a stranger, or just become homeless?
@jamesgollinger208 that's why I said the paths are parallel, not converging. Your life will never be the same as it was had you never had children but for alot of people, whatever you "lose" by having children (ie you need to prioritise them), you eventually get back, with the benefit of having had that experience, and (hopefully) you have a person in your life who you love unconditionally, who brings you joy, who takes care of you.
Not wanting that experience is fine, don't have kids if you have no interest in it. But deciding not to have kids because of what you'd have to (temporarily) give up isn't a good enough reason, at least for me.
I want to have kids and assuming I actually meet a women worth marrying I probably will but the problem is that I am already struggling to live on my own and I can't imagine it's gonna get any better if I have additional mouths to feed. 🤷🏻♂️
Just curious, where do you live and what kind of work do you do? Can be general, I don't need your home address lol
To answer your questions: I live on Vancouver Island in Canada and for work I am a Chef by trade working my way towards a Red Seal.
I can afford couple of children, but at my age my choices in women is absolute trash that are not interested in me because they tried the chad D before.
@Generik97 isn't Vancouver one of the more expensive places to live in Canada? I'm not as familiar with living in Canada as I am in the USA
Birds don’t lay eggs if they don’t have a nest
5:52 those 10 percents can overlap btw
Goddamn this comment section is depressing. Everyone is acting like all the parents of the past had their whole life figured out before they had kids, and their struggles are brand new. Most families struggle to get by in one way or another. I'm not saying shit doesn't suck now, because it definitely sucks, leftism is destroying society right before our eyes, but that isn't an excuse not to have kids, it's more of a reason to have kids, so you can do what you can to make the world better.
Having legislation that puts men at a disadvantage is not going to help. Men are certainly not gonna let themselves get fucked "for the good of it".
Honestly this, my parents didn't have this grand savings account, we experienced bankruptcy during the 2007-08 crash and nearly lost the house, they still had 3 kids and we all more or less made it to adulthood. Sure it was kind of a fustercluck and not some idyllic dream life but that's not what anyone should be aiming for, we've deluded ourselves into thinking lives with only success and no failures or risks are possible, and worse, desirable.
If to get kids you have to go back to 1850 standards of living, without the ability to exploit them for free labor, what's he point
I wrote this before, but I'll write it again. When my father bought the apartment my family lived in when I was young, his mortgage payment was about 15% of his monthly salary as a public sector worker in a not particularly well funded program. This kind of thing is basically impossible today. It is just a completely different level of financially impossible today for a very large portion of young people (basically everyone that doesn't work in STEM, law, medicine, or a few more lucrative trades).
And when those kids that you have get sent to public school because you can't afford private school or homeschooling?
Legalize and regulate child/teen labor, mimicking the old traditional country side culture. No better incentive to raise birthrate than the early economic benefit. In the modern urbanized society, a child is simply too expensive until it's out of collage (with a hefty loan on their back).
The possibility of a divorce being ruinous for a man, not just his finances but his whole life, puts a lot of guys off the idea of marriage. Guys generally being disinterested in marriage puts some women off the idea of having children.
Money doesnt grow on trees. Thats why.
*Lumber manufacturer laughs
I'm just kidding. I know what you actually mean.
This seems to be a gap between the generations, most of our parents didnt have their finances 100% perfect before having a kid but did it anyway. These days people want to wait until they have 5-10 years into their careers before even considering it. I have to assume the average cost of a home to average income is the only real economic reason
It grows on good decisions
Then why is it that poorer nations are the ones with the high birth rates
People used to plop out kids in the woods and go back home to their cave, we figured it out for millennia that way. Even if you're poor as hell, you still have access to far more resources and luxuries than the overwhelming majority of all humans before you.
it's multifaceted, it's a combination of the economy, social issues stemming from the proliferation of dating apps, the rise of birth control and the moral normalizing of abortions, and the rampant adoption of hookup culture.
All of this leads to lower birth rates, and the majority of it is cultural/societal. The economy doesn't help but I don't buy that it's main reason.
People who don't care about the consent of the unborn caring immensely about the consent of the unconceived is wild.
Conservatives are having plenty of kids
We have twice as many as liberals, and the far left are barely having any at all
I've never really understood this 'women who sleep around for 20 years and then wake up at 40 and wonder where all the good men have gone thing.' I'm sure they exist but I literally don't think I know any, most young women I know either are in a relationship or want to be.
I've always wanted to be in a stable, healthy relationship, I was for 5 years for 19-24. But I'm now 31 and haven't been able to meet anyone since. This is partly because genuinely a lot of men seem to want what women are always accused of - just sex or casual dating and nothing more (and I'm talking about men from 20-40, unlike women a lot of them don't seem to ever grow out of it).
But also it's really hard to go out and meet someone if you're shy. I don't kid myself that I'm super hot or anything, but I'm probably average-ish. But realistically it's hard to go on dates or ask someone for their number if you're just rubbish at talking to strangers. I still feel like the best relationships are the ones you fall into, where you go from being friends to being more than friends. But that's pretty hard to come by once you're an adult (i.e. out of education and in work) because you just don't have the same opportunities to meet people. I've taken up hobbies and sports (not solely to meet a partner I enjoy them anyway, and make friends, but I wouldn't object if I did meet someone there) but pretty much all hobby groups seem to be 95% female, and the token man or two is usually ancient, gay or taken.
So you're only 9 years away from wondering where all the good men went.
The 'women who sleep around for 20 years' mostly exist on the internet, for the sake of brevity (and not being too insulting) I will call them "bar girls" since that's where they used to congregate before dating apps. In truth though, there's never been many of those, and those girls typically are catching flak for another type of girl, who I will call the "serial monogamist". Serial Monogamists are women who meet a guy and date that guy for ~2-5 years, then dump him and move on to the next one. Generally, these serial monogamists are most attracted to the cocktail of brain chemicals that makes a relationship feel "new" and makes it hard to assess their partners objectively. I call this trick of the brain "romantihol", because it's by definition an intoxicating experience.. After about 2 years, the effect of this romantihol wears off, and they figure out that they don't actually like the man they were with that much, and move on. Sometimes these girls will decide to get married under the influence of romantihol, or because they think getting married will help them feel it again, and this is probably contributing significantly to the divorce rate. *These* are the women who ask where all the good men have gone, because at 40 this pattern is just as untenable as the pattern of Bar Girls, arguably more so because this pattern requires more investment from the man.
Serial Monogamists do want what you are describing, a "stable, healthy relationship", but I think for a lot of people, not just women, they don't recognize that the qualities necessary for that are counter-intuitive to the feelings they think they are looking for. As a result of this, "finding relationships" requires a completely different skill set to "maintaining relationships". Most of the discourse online is purely associated with the former, and completely disconnected from the latter.
Regarding your observations about men "wanting what women are always accused of", people didn't start accusing women of being like that until about 10-15 years ago, when serious pushback to feminist theory became popular. Men have always been accused of being like that, regardless of whether it's true. I think it's more true of men who are adept at finding relationships, vs men who fail at that, and I think it's due to the particular experience of men with Romantihol, vs women. Men are expected to approach women, and take the active role in relationships. Feeling romantihol is one of the main things that motivates men to do this, the other being a desire for physical intimacy. Where serial monogamists feel romantihol decline over time, men who fail the approach and get rejected are forced to push those feelings away deliberately, and over time they find the lows of that experience to be more painful than the highs of that experience are pleasurable, and it eventually stops being a motivator for their behavior. For men who keep trying, eventually only a desire for physical intimacy drives them, and for the rest they just opt out of the dating game entirely. I'm sure there are women in the world who have experienced this, but I also think this being primarily an experience for men is one of many reasons for why views on dating between men and women are so wildly different.
Problem I find is both - has the internet been a negative in terms of social development? And has feminism made men too scared to take a chance with women for fear of wild accusations? And we'll throw in for good measure - has the internet risen people's standards making them think they are more attractive than they are, and comparing IRL prospects to what they see online?
You were in a relationship at 19-24, but didn't have kids? And it was stable and healthy? Now you're in your thirties and no one is interested.
I had a longer response to this, that didn't get past the censors. Two main things I'd like to point out though:
1) 'women who sleep around for 20 years' often get blamed for saying "where have all the good men gone" but really, this is what serial monogamists say. Serial monogamists are people who start relationships, and generally end them around the 2 year mark, when relationship hormones wear off. They love the rush of a new relationship, but once they no longer feel that they decide they don't like the person they're with, and go looking for another. This pattern is far more pernicious than women who sleep around, as it has become highly normalized.
2) more than anything else, the thing that makes men only value physical intimacy is the experience of romantic rejection. Men have to play the active role, they feel the same rush of hormones that serial monogamists do, but are rejected far more often, and forced to endure losing that rush quickly rather than over time. The pain of romantic rejection is much more pronounced for them, to the point where they will set aside all romantic feelings in order to avoid negative romantic feelings. Without the desire for romantic connection, those men will only pursue relationships out of desire for physical intimacy, feeding stereotypes about men in general. Many men have stepped away from dating altogether in order to both avoid romantic rejection and the risks of physical intimacy. There really is nothing in it for them at that point.
Property ownership is a major factor. You are more likely to raise kids if you have own your own homes regardless of wealth. People will raise large family’s in small houses. Unfortunately fiat money leading to inflation has made asset wealth grow well being real wage growth, making house ownership increasingly difficult.
What do you mean more likely? Poor people have the most kids, do they own their houses?
As someone with two kids who wants more, I think a big part is the destruction of the social networks that families used to provide. It really does "take a village", in the sense to keep your sanity and relationship with multiple children, you need to be able to get some support. My birth family is not remotely helpful in this category, and because we rent and we move with work, we don't have a community either that can help with co-baby sitting etc. That sort of stuff makes a huge difference to your mental and relationship health and the whole family boat sinks without good mental and relationship health.
There are many who simply can not afford raising children. I can understand that aspect. It's something that has been true throughout history going back to antiquity.
Of course the difference throughout history is a lack of taxes and regulation. Taxes existed but the burden was predominantly on the rich and nowhere near as burdensome as today. Children would be helping the parents and learning their trade, now they need 27 licenses in order to step foot on any worksite whose pay is little to live off, when the educational industrial complex wants to milk them - when traditionally this was a path set out only to those who showed incredible talent, or incredible wealth. In essence, we recognized we don't need the amount of academics we have today, but now its a source of money for the colleges and schools. Children were people's retirement planning, and even the kings in charge wanted to protect their subjects and their culture, least he have no food and no protection against invasion - as bad as feudal systems were, they still guaranteed a place to live and a job to work.
Now we solve our problems by just importing more workers, because it's cheap to do so, and not care about the downstream impacts that has - just import more workers! And when people can't afford to pay the rising rent, you kick them out to replace them with somebody who can. And use wealth and connections to NIMBY away any attempt to ease housing crisis, keeping one's own property prices high. The meme of "line go up" didn't have much meaning throughout history.
Because no one wants my seed lol
Just keep looking. You see some guys with a woman out of their league and think, "What does she see in him?!" But I'm not complaining... it gives me hope. 🥹
@@Foreign0817 a wallet, that's what she sees
@@Foreign0817 I listened to people say this all throughout my teens and 20s. It never worked out.
@@marcogenovesi8570 That's why I pretend to be poorer than I am. I'm not secretly rich or anything, but I also don't want to hype myself up.
@@Magic-gt4pl Have hope. I mean, it's all I got...
Having kids has been the most stressful, best thing I ever did.
10:00 she giga wrong, but with that mug I see why lol
A rise from 1.2 to 1.6 is extremely significant.
With a fertility rate of 1.2 every generation is barely above half of the previous one. The 4th generation will be 22% of the first.
With 1.6 population the 4th generation is still over half the size of the first one.
Problem with "countries tried this" is that they all tried it from authoritative perspecrive (even with carrot model). I have not seen any education system that actually promotes having kids, meaning - howing kids *personal* benefits of having them.
I for one and someone who would like to have kids, but waited a long time due to economic things. I wanted a house first and a good enough job to support a family. Most families can no longer live on one income. This is a tricky thing to spot as a problem because more people working generally means more productivity and gdp. But myself and others I know aren't having kids yet because we feel we can't afford them. Everything has been too expensive and it's getting worse these last 4 years.
Majority of women in 20s and early 30s:
'I just want to screw around and have fun!'
same women in their 40s:
'why is no one wifing me up? I want children! But I would not be able to anymore!'
Dev:
'it is economy!'
No, dev, for most of women it is their own fault. And I am saying this as someone from country where having children is very expensive.
No exactly
@@damianateiro Wrong. It is exactly problem with majority of women.
You are aware that multiple things can be true at once? A woman in her 20s and early 30s can want to screw around and have fun, and not want children because of the economy or what ever other reason at the same time?
You think that human beings are incapable of having more than one thing happen in their life at the same time?
@@SioxerNikita Do you understand what word MAJORITY means?
Yes, that is the majority of a group. "Most" doesn't really have anything to do with my comment. Quite a few people in their 20s and early 30s that wants to screw around and have fun is ALSO choosing not to have kids because they don't like where they are in their career or feel they have good enough finances.
I think you’re missing something here. Technology has reduced the need for labour so whereas you right have had 5 kids running a farm in 1920 in 2024 you might only have 2.
Economics is a huge part too (which yes, I know you did touch on that). City living puts pressure on space. I have a decent job but a family home is way beyond my salary and I’m in my mid forties now. When I started my family I couldn’t afford a house that would be big enough for more than two kids, so there’s that too.
I mean, theorizing population cycles when birth control was invented in the last century sounds too soon. It may well be the case that now that sex and reproduction are no longer linked the reproductive rate will reach a bottom and fluctuate according to how fashionable it is to have kids.
I argued that birth control will select for
1. The Idiocracy will always forget birth control.
2. The theocracy who can't tolerate the concept.
3. People who actually get a major case of baby rabies.
Perhaps birth control will reduce the "never gets baby rabies" genes.
The more we outsourced raising children to the state and the less reciprocal the parent child relationship became, the less incentive people had to have children.
And with better contraception and legal abortions accidents happened less often.
I assume for many people in history child birth just happened and they had to deal with it
Most people aren't going to have 2 kids if they cant even afford 2 bedrooms
Kinda. I would like my kids to at least have a room to call their own.