The Off Topic Topic

[Threviel]

I read somewhere that French population stabilisation, which happened in the early 19th century IIRC was due to inheritance laws changing which made it preferable to have fewer kids.

The peasant population of France managed to lower birth rate without prophylactics, abortions or especially educated women in a time well before modern trends with algorithmic dating and healthy non-alcoholic living.

[Valmy]

What probably inherently wrong is having children with the explicit purpose of having somebody take care of us in old age.

Please list the acceptable reasons for having kids then. I was told it was irrational to have kids, I gave a rational reason I thought it was a good idea based on my own fucking real life experience.

But that was inherently wrong I guess? It isn't like I was only relying on rationality here, that was only a small percentage of my reasoning, but if the obvious rational benefit is inherently wrong I would be interested in learning more.

[Jacob]

What probably inherently wrong is having children with the explicit purpose of having somebody take care of us in old age.

Please list the acceptable reasons for having kids then. I was told it was irrational to have kids, I gave a rational reason I thought it was a good idea based on my own fucking real life experience.

But that was inherently wrong I guess? It isn't like I was only relying on rationality here, that was only a small percentage of my reasoning, but if the obvious rational benefit is inherently wrong I would be interested in learning more.

There's nothing wrong with having kids to take care of you in old age. In fact, I expect it's probably the number one reason for having kids through humanity's existence if we look beyond "I want to have sex and I guess that'll result in children" and "it's just what you do, isn't it?"

Certainly I hope that my kids will take care of me in old age, much like we've been taking care of the older generation as adults - and much like we're taking care of the kids in childhood.

I'm not sure why Tamas would think it's a bad thing?

[garbon]

Perhaps he's angling on it being selfish.

Anyway, I would say it is risky given the number of kids estranged from their parents (even when decent). Might be more reliable (though lonelier) to save all that child rearing money and pay for help.

[Valmy]

Perhaps he's angling on it being selfish.

Anyway, I would say it is risky given the number of kids estranged from their parents (even when decent). Might be more reliable (though lonelier) to save all that child rearing money and pay for help.

I have three. One of them is bound to stay liking me 

But they see me working hard to take care of my Mom. I hope they are taking notes.

[Jacob]

Perhaps he's angling on it being selfish.

Anyway, I would say it is risky given the number of kids estranged from their parents (even when decent). Might be more reliable (though lonelier) to save all that child rearing money and pay for help.

Oh it's not a slam dunk, that's for sure.

The risk with the "save your money and pay" approach is twofold, I think:

1) If the proportion of old people to young people is too high, there may not be any takers for the job.

2) You are at risk of beiling taken advantage of.

Of course, there's no guarantee that your kid(s) will take the job either as you say, and kids have exploited their own parents too     

[crazy canuck]

There is also the bit about being around people who love you in your older years.

[Josquius]

There's definitely some factor in having kids to look after you when you're old.
With the way the pension system is going this seems particularly wise.

On the other hand I knew several people in Japan who had to stay trapped in their crappy hometown for this reason. This obligation to have to care for their parents.
It's an unpleasant millstone to force on somebody.

[Sheilbh]

There's an interesting book recently on the huge role of the "bank of mum and dad" for many young people now (I think starting with my generation). And one of the arguments that's been made recently is that in many ways Britain is perhaps becoming less purely nuclear family and a bit more "Asian" in some respects - in that a lot of what's happening is a norm in many Asian cultures (and a criticism of Britain by British Asians). Namely parents support their kids more (financially getting a deposit for a property, looking after kids - and in at least one case I know moving house to be closer to look after grandkids) than used to be the case and increasingly kids then care for or pay for care for their elders.

But maybe the post-war autonomous nuclear family is kind of on its way out.

[crazy canuck]

Family members living near and
Looking after each other is part of what I have thought of what a "nuclear family" is.

Although I have to admit, I have not heard that phrase in some time.

[Sheilbh]

Oh interesting I'd consider that more extended family with multiple generations involved.

What I'd understood by nuclear was kind of the 60s/70s (North Euro/Atlantic) model of 2.4 kids who more or less leave home at 18 and aren't really expected/likely to return or need significant support from their parents. A bit more atomised, suburban - and very mid-century modern in terms of the material factors that create it (affordable housing, stable work etc).

[Tamas]

What I meant is that it can be considered selfish. And while I hope most children have happy enough family lives to feel obliged to help their parents (like I feel, even though my distance will make that challenging), I don't like it when some parents (a small minority I believe, granted) expect that as some kind of repayment of debt.

[Tamas]

Oh interesting I'd consider that more extended family with multiple generations involved.

What I'd understood by nuclear was kind of the 60s/70s (North Euro/Atlantic) model of 2.4 kids who more or less leave home at 18 and aren't really expected/likely to return or need significant support from their parents. A bit more atomised, suburban - and very mid-century modern in terms of the material factors that create it (affordable housing, stable work etc).

I remember reading a take on this in Hungary, on the apropos of my parents generation (baby boomers I guess) there often building fairly large houses that could serve as multi-generational (obviously in a more rural context where this option was open for the non-rich)
. This, the article argued, was because of how they grew up - 3 generations living maybe not in the same house but close proximity and in daily contact.

Reality of course has been that their kids (my generation) adopted the model of moving away either by choice or by necessity.

And I was thinking, we may be witnessing in the near future the reversal of this everywhere: the emerging neo-feudalism together with the fascist dismantling of the welfare state forcing the return of multi-generational households. I think that's already the case with the poorer immigrant families anyhow.

[Sheilbh]

I think wealth is playing a role in the way it's emerging. To an extent I think this is actually exactly because the welfare state isn't being dismantled - it is being absolutely slashed for working age people and children but expanded for the elderly (who are also significantly more likely to vote - and I think there is an open question of what a democracy looks like if the most reliable voters are effectively "post-economic").

But I also think culture plays a part and Western individualism is quite odd. I think there's definitely a bit to do with wealth but I don't think that's the only thing - I think there's other stuff going on around a consumer/individualist society.

[Razgovory]

I wish the Matrix was never made.  All these extremists can't shut the fuck up about the Matrix and it's getting annoying.