Politics And Current Events

[shmenguin]

Worth a reminder that AOC is unelectable at the state-level or above, so she still only represents a minority opinion on many topics - like this one.

I think, though, we've properly closed this trouble ticket. Things are generally back to the Obama level of closed borders, where we aren't using the word "criminal" so liberally when talking about a mom nursing her baby in the wrong GPS coordinates, for example.

But thanks for pointing out that our borders are still no longer open Freddy.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/declining- ... ns-crisis/

For Laura Lindberg, who tracks reproductive data for the Guttmacher Institute, the decrease in births could be a sign of progress — a marker of women's equality and freedom of choice.

"So it's a shift to later in life. In that shift comes more education, more career, more employment. So it's a reordering of how people engage in adulthood," Lindberg explained.

I have very mixed feelings about this. My wife and I did not have our first child until she was 30 (fertility issues)--in hindsight, it allowed us to do more in our 20s. That said, I'm not a big fan of women deliberately waiting until they are pushing 40 (or beyond) to have children. The risk of birth defects rises rapidly once you hit 35, and skyrockets even more once you hit 40.

If you don't want to have children--fine. You don't have to. But if you *do* want to have children, do not purposely wait until you are approaching middle age just so you can party it up through your 30s. It's not fair to your children, who will have an inherently higher risk of health issues, not to mention having a higher risk of losing their parent(s) at a much younger age than normal. It's the epitome of selfishness.

This statement obviously does not apply to people that have a hard time conceiving, haven't met the right person yet, etc.

the exciting thing is how technology might be able to alleviate birth defects


for example, freezing eggs...if you freeze an egg before 35 but wait until 40+ to have a child, the biological issues aren't present I'm guessing right?

though I agree with the older parents thing. it'd be weird to have parents that are at retirement age by the time you're graduating high school

[nocera]

Didn't everybody have that one classmate in high school whose dad was in his 80s?

[shafnutz05]

Didn't everybody have that one classmate in high school whose dad was in his 80s?

Yup.

My case was...interesting. My mom was 23 when I was born...my dad was 40.



To no surprise, they divorced when I was 8.

[shmenguin]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/declining- ... ns-crisis/

For Laura Lindberg, who tracks reproductive data for the Guttmacher Institute, the decrease in births could be a sign of progress — a marker of women's equality and freedom of choice.

"So it's a shift to later in life. In that shift comes more education, more career, more employment. So it's a reordering of how people engage in adulthood," Lindberg explained.

I have very mixed feelings about this. My wife and I did not have our first child until she was 30 (fertility issues)--in hindsight, it allowed us to do more in our 20s. That said, I'm not a big fan of women deliberately waiting until they are pushing 40 (or beyond) to have children. The risk of birth defects rises rapidly once you hit 35, and skyrockets even more once you hit 40.

If you don't want to have children--fine. You don't have to. But if you *do* want to have children, do not purposely wait until you are approaching middle age just so you can party it up through your 30s. It's not fair to your children, who will have an inherently higher risk of health issues, not to mention having a higher risk of losing their parent(s) at a much younger age than normal. It's the epitome of selfishness.

This statement obviously does not apply to people that have a hard time conceiving, haven't met the right person yet, etc.

You're absolutely right that geriatric pregnancies and beyond are ripe with complications. But I'm not sure what your take is...just that it's a disturbing trend? I mean, there's no real action on this.

I just moved out of a town where the median age for first time moms was almost certainly late 30's. And it's because of work. Always. If you're a doctor, there's a good chance that you waited until you were established to reproduce. Same if you have a lot of education debt or a defined career path with a major corporation. The people who don't get pregnant because they want to party doesn't really track. Except in cases where you're unlucky in love, and then meet someone when you're 34. It's reasonable to want to spend time together as a couple before having a kid.

So this is just one of those things where there needs to be a different way women establish their careers if you wanna crack this nut.

[robbiestoupe]

it'd be weird to have parents that are at retirement age by the time you're graduating high school

If my 401k does well enough, I may retire right when my daughter graduates high school. I'd be 61.

[tifosi77]

One of Mrs Tif's best friends had three kids with her first husband (divorced, he then died unexpectedly of a heart attack). She remarried and they have since had two kids. The three oldest are 30, 28, and 25; the two youngest are 10 and 6, the mom just turned 50 in May. The math of all that is just.... I don't know, man. I wouldn't want to be on the verge of collecting Social Security at my youngest kid's high school graduation.

[shmenguin]

Just saw the article...jesus christ. The premise is that it's better to doom the planet through over population than to re-tool our social security system to account for population decline.

There's so much benefit to come with birthrates falling. I for one don't picture myself panicking over this "crisis", as the article puts it.

[shmenguin]

the nazis on the supreme court look to be headed in the direction of making it easier for the nazis in state legislatures to subvert voting rights. depressing as hell.

i haven't been tracking closely, but it does seem that Justice Covid Barrett is actually not super hacky yet. she's gonna whiff on any social issue put in front of her, but seems like she possibly is going to stay out of the underlying politics more than her hack peers.

[MWB]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/declining- ... ns-crisis/

For Laura Lindberg, who tracks reproductive data for the Guttmacher Institute, the decrease in births could be a sign of progress — a marker of women's equality and freedom of choice.

"So it's a shift to later in life. In that shift comes more education, more career, more employment. So it's a reordering of how people engage in adulthood," Lindberg explained.

I have very mixed feelings about this. My wife and I did not have our first child until she was 30 (fertility issues)--in hindsight, it allowed us to do more in our 20s. That said, I'm not a big fan of women deliberately waiting until they are pushing 40 (or beyond) to have children. The risk of birth defects rises rapidly once you hit 35, and skyrockets even more once you hit 40.

If you don't want to have children--fine. You don't have to. But if you *do* want to have children, do not purposely wait until you are approaching middle age just so you can party it up through your 30s. It's not fair to your children, who will have an inherently higher risk of health issues, not to mention having a higher risk of losing their parent(s) at a much younger age than normal. It's the epitome of selfishness.

This statement obviously does not apply to people that have a hard time conceiving, haven't met the right person yet, etc.

The risks of birth defects are certainly higher. However, the quality of like would also be higher for the child as the parents get older when you factor in income and maturity of the parents. Older parents are probably a lot more sure about having a child than younger parents. The sweet spot is probably 30 in terms of established career, maturity, and health risk all being balanced.

Personally, I'm happy I was younger when I had kids. I like being in my 40's and being able to not worry about diapers and playdates anymore.

[shafnutz05]

Just saw the article...jesus christ. The premise is that it's better to doom the planet through over population than to re-tool our social security system to account for population decline.

There's so much benefit to come with birthrates falling. I for one don't picture myself panicking over this "crisis", as the article puts it.

I actually agree with you 100% on this. I am all for living in a less crowded country/world.

That said, the next two centuries of human history are going to be very interesting. I am not portraying this as "scary", but the world demographic shifts over this time period will be wild. In much of the Third World/developing world/Islamic world, women are still cranking out babies like it's 1600 and obviously there is no end in sight to this trend (in terms of equal rights for women, career opportunities, etc.)

Contrast that with the West having children below replacement level....you have to imagine mass migration is going to be a catastrophic issue as you move later through the 21st century.

[shmenguin]

At age 40, my body is crumbling. It’s really physical to deal with little kids. They’re horrible for spine health.

I’m glad I started at 32 and that my wife was 27. Very blessed.

[shafnutz05]

The risks of birth defects are certainly higher. However, the quality of like would also be higher for the child as the parents get older when you factor in income and maturity of the parents. Older parents are probably a lot more sure about having a child than younger parents. The sweet spot is probably 30 in terms of established career, maturity, and health risk all being balanced.

Personally, I'm happy I was younger when I had kids. I like being in my 40's and being able to not worry about diapers and playdates anymore.

This is definitely fair. I agree with you, being in that 28-35ish range, being married, having steady employment...that's your magic ticket. Living out here in Lancaster County, I definitely cringe a bit when I see "kids" getting married at 19 and having children at 21. That's crazy to me.

I will be 52 when our youngest graduates high school. That's good with me.

[shafnutz05]

At age 40, my body is crumbling. It’s really physical to deal with little kids. They’re horrible for spine health.

I’m glad I started at 32 and that my wife was 27. Very blessed.

Rocking our son to sleep last year did a number on my lower back. Not to mention my 7 year old still wanting to play horse.

[shmenguin]

Just saw the article...jesus christ. The premise is that it's better to doom the planet through over population than to re-tool our social security system to account for population decline.

There's so much benefit to come with birthrates falling. I for one don't picture myself panicking over this "crisis", as the article puts it.

I actually agree with you 100% on this. I am all for living in a less crowded country/world.

That said, the next two centuries of human history are going to be very interesting. I am not portraying this as "scary", but the world demographic shifts over this time period will be wild. In much of the Third World/developing world/Islamic world, women are still cranking out babies like it's 1600 and obviously there is no end in sight to this trend (in terms of equal rights for women, career opportunities, etc.)

Contrast that with the West having children below replacement level....you have to imagine mass migration is going to be a catastrophic issue as you move later through the 21st century.

There's a micro issue in the west, though. The first few minutes of Idiocracy are playing out now. The least educated with greatest propensity towards all kinds of ickiness are reproducing at a greater rate than white collar folk.

...nothing inherently icky about working with your hands, but we see where folks are settling, at scale, socially and politically right now.

[Pavel Bure]

At age 40, my body is crumbling. It’s really physical to deal with little kids. They’re horrible for spine health.

I’m glad I started at 32 and that my wife was 27. Very blessed.

Rocking our son to sleep last year did a number on my lower back. Not to mention my 7 year old still wanting to play horse.

I third this. It doesn’t help that between my job and family stuff, working out does not happen. I know for sure that if I was back working out 3-4 times a week I wouldn’t feel nearly as broken down.

[Pavel Bure]

Just saw the article...jesus christ. The premise is that it's better to doom the planet through over population than to re-tool our social security system to account for population decline.

There's so much benefit to come with birthrates falling. I for one don't picture myself panicking over this "crisis", as the article puts it.

I actually agree with you 100% on this. I am all for living in a less crowded country/world.

That said, the next two centuries of human history are going to be very interesting. I am not portraying this as "scary", but the world demographic shifts over this time period will be wild. In much of the Third World/developing world/Islamic world, women are still cranking out babies like it's 1600 and obviously there is no end in sight to this trend (in terms of equal rights for women, career opportunities, etc.)

Contrast that with the West having children below replacement level....you have to imagine mass migration is going to be a catastrophic issue as you move later through the 21st century.

There's a micro issue in the west, though. The first few minutes of Idiocracy are playing out now. The least educated with greatest propensity towards all kinds of ickiness are reproducing at a greater rate than white collar folk.

...nothing inherently icky about working with your hands, but we see where folks are settling, at scale, socially and politically right now.

Well survival of the fittest doesn’t mean the smartest and strongest. It comes down to who reproduces the most.

[PFiDC]

My dad turned 61 the year I graduated high school and I turned out fine....

[Kane]

Y'all need to do some yoga or pilates.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

My dad turned 61 the year I graduated high school and I turned out fine....

unfortunately I don't think anyone in this thread can claim they turned out "fine"

[shmenguin]

Just saw the article...jesus christ. The premise is that it's better to doom the planet through over population than to re-tool our social security system to account for population decline.

There's so much benefit to come with birthrates falling. I for one don't picture myself panicking over this "crisis", as the article puts it.

I actually agree with you 100% on this. I am all for living in a less crowded country/world.

That said, the next two centuries of human history are going to be very interesting. I am not portraying this as "scary", but the world demographic shifts over this time period will be wild. In much of the Third World/developing world/Islamic world, women are still cranking out babies like it's 1600 and obviously there is no end in sight to this trend (in terms of equal rights for women, career opportunities, etc.)

Contrast that with the West having children below replacement level....you have to imagine mass migration is going to be a catastrophic issue as you move later through the 21st century.

There's a micro issue in the west, though. The first few minutes of Idiocracy are playing out now. The least educated with greatest propensity towards all kinds of ickiness are reproducing at a greater rate than white collar folk.

...nothing inherently icky about working with your hands, but we see where folks are settling, at scale, socially and politically right now.

Well survival of the fittest doesn’t mean the smartest and strongest. It comes down to who reproduces the most.

Darwinism hasn't applied to humans in a while. Physical prowess and survival ability are secondary characteristics over lifestyle compatibility and money. And the DNA mashup of successful ugly person and hot trophy wife doesn't lead to the same genetic masterpiece that you get when the alpha dogs mate in the wild.

as for reproductive rates in the middle of the country, i've probably been pejorative enough for one day.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Just saw the article...jesus christ. The premise is that it's better to doom the planet through over population than to re-tool our social security system to account for population decline.

There's so much benefit to come with birthrates falling. I for one don't picture myself panicking over this "crisis", as the article puts it.

I actually agree with you 100% on this. I am all for living in a less crowded country/world.

That said, the next two centuries of human history are going to be very interesting. I am not portraying this as "scary", but the world demographic shifts over this time period will be wild. In much of the Third World/developing world/Islamic world, women are still cranking out babies like it's 1600 and obviously there is no end in sight to this trend (in terms of equal rights for women, career opportunities, etc.)

Contrast that with the West having children below replacement level....you have to imagine mass migration is going to be a catastrophic issue as you move later through the 21st century.

Actually falling birth-rates is the norm in almost every country.

[shmenguin]

JackNicholsonNodding.gif

[count2infinity]

My and my wife's family are doing our part... I'm one of 6, she's one of 2. Between the 8 of us there are 2 kids.

[dodint]

That chart overlayed on the decline of Catholicism might be telling.