this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
578 points (94.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
635 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] sndrtj@feddit.nl 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

People should have more children in the West. Especially Europe is demographically killing itself by decades of low birth rates.

[โ€“] Vulwsztyn@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And who is to sacrifice years of their lives to raise those kids?

[โ€“] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Me literally right now it's awesome.

[โ€“] Vulwsztyn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I'm glad you like it :)

[โ€“] rurb@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ordinary, well-adjusted people.

[โ€“] IGuessThisIsForNSFW@yiffit.net 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ordinary well-adjusted people with wealth and belief that the world that you bring your children into isn't a doomed from the start. A lot of 'well-adjusted' people can't afford to have kids, or they don't believe that their kids will have anything to aspire to. I don't want to be rude, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this comes of as any old Dick or Harry should have kids. For a lot of people in the west kids are simply out of the question if you plan to keep your current quality of life. Which is to say nice job! An actually unpopular opinion!

[โ€“] socsa@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Do you believe everyone who doesn't want kids isn't well adjusted?

[โ€“] zecg@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

sacrifice years of their lives to raise those kids?

Sitcoms sold people a bleak view of parenthood.

[โ€“] Mordenacus@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"sacrifice years of their lives to raise those kids" is an accurate description, and sitcoms had nothing to do with it.

[โ€“] zecg@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I found it's something that enriches you and provides a strong sense of purpose and so from my viewpoint it's nowhere near an accurate description.

[โ€“] socsa@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nah, that was my childhood.

Also, this is the exact attitude a lot of us have an issue with. If you want to be a parent then that's great! I fully support you in that decision and will do everything I can to help. So why can't you support my individual decision to not have children?

[โ€“] zecg@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

My observation you're responding to is neutral as regards providing support. I didn't know that a) you need support, b) that you were looking here nor c) that a sentence with what amounts to a shower thought can so efficiently deprive you of some. I certainly support everyone's decision to not have children while reserving the right to say they're a great source of happiness and meaning in my life.

[โ€“] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

While you might be right about that, there's probably a few good reasons why people don't want kids anymore.

[โ€“] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[โ€“] sndrtj@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago

For a whole host of reasons. In summary, quality of life for those remaining is going to crater, together with some form of social collapse.

  1. Most social insurances (e.g. pensions and welfare) depend on young, healthy, working people paying for those in need. As the population pyramid gets inverted, eventually this will become completely unsustainable. Meaning those who are young now will not be able to benefit from a pension in the future.
  2. Health care costs are going to soar to unsustainable levels. To some extend, this has already happened. Again, old people tend to require health care a lot more frequently - even permanently, usually- than young people. As the population pyramid gets inverted, this means ever fewer young people have to care for ever more sick people. As an example, my country estimates that by 2050 we'll need to spend 40% of GDP and 1 in 3 working people on health care if we want to keep the service level at today's standards. That's of course completely unrealistic. To some extent this is already starting to deteriorate.
  3. Ever fewer people will have to maintain essential services. Think sanitation, sewage, construction, rail services and so on. Again, unsustainable.
  4. The gerontocracy will mean society will become increasingly inflexible, rigid, and stuck in the past. Young people drive change, old people like to keep things as they are. Opinions don't usually change. Instead, they die one funeral at a time.
  5. The economic challenges caused by an aging population will require tough choices. But with the gerontocracy, such choices will likely not be made. Or they will only be passed on to next generations (who get no say in the matter, as they will be too small a voting bloc). Ultimately this will necessarily lead to some form of social collapse.