News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by willcipriano on Thursday January 06, 2022 @09:03AM (#29823616)
> My kids are 17/18 now, while I was the same age back in the early 80s. There's no comparison. The quality of life available on even a modest salary nowadays is far, far better.

Most people aren't having children[0], largely because they can't afford them. This is probably selection bias. My kid has a better life than I did, but that's mainly because I have avoided the addictions my parents had.

[0]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/us-population...

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by reissbaker on Thursday January 06, 2022 @09:27AM (#29823883)
Largely because they can't afford them.

Number of children inversely correlates to income [1], with the poorest families having the most children and the richest families having the fewest. You're right that birth rates are falling, but I don't think you're right about largely why.

1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by flerchin on Thursday January 06, 2022 @09:40AM (#29824036)
This is an interesting point.

You seem to be implying that rising incomes are causing people to choose to have fewer children. However, it could just as easily be that having children is a drag on people's incomes.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by reissbaker on Thursday January 06, 2022 @09:51AM (#29824174)
It's probably too much of a broad trend for that to be the case. As entire countries get wealthier, their birth rates drop: it's true in the US, Japan, Germany, Sweden, wherever. If you see a GDP per capita line going up, you will also see a birth rate line going down in nearly all cases. I suspect it's more likely something else: for example, access to and usage of birth control, access to other family planning controls, abortion, etc.

Edit: or even just access to entertainment that isn't "having sex." I remember a conversation with a (very) old woman who'd had many, many children; she said that... well, there wasn't much else to do back then...

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by lotsofpulp on Thursday January 06, 2022 @10:16AM (#29824518)
And the old woman did not have access to IUDs.

Nowadays, you can have sex with zero risk of pregnancy.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by giantg2 on Thursday January 06, 2022 @10:29AM (#29824758)
No, no, no. There's a low risk. The risk is not "zero".
Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by lotsofpulp on Thursday January 06, 2022 @10:32AM (#29824790)
The point is it is so low, that combined with access to abortion, sex and having children are effectively decoupled.
Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by giantg2 on Thursday January 06, 2022 @10:46AM (#29825001)
Yet that is not what was stated. The risk of pregnancy is not zero. If we really want to get into it, abortions are not 100% effective either. So yeah, extremely unlikely, but still a possibility that one has a child.
Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by lotsofpulp on Thursday January 06, 2022 @12:19PM (#29826432)
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.

The context of the conversation, however, was that people had children as a non intentional byproduct of having sex, which presumably people had more of due to lack of other entertainment options.

To which I thought it was noteworthy to point out that children are effectively no longer a byproduct of just having sex, especially for the demographics in which birthrates are declining. Hence, regardless of the amount of sex people are having, I would expect the birthrate to still decline.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by giantg2 on Thursday January 06, 2022 @12:37PM (#29826708)
That does make sense. It's just dangerous to say the chance of getting pregnant is zero, since that could influence someone's decision/understanding and lead to an undesired shock of an outcome.
Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by willcipriano on Thursday January 06, 2022 @09:44AM (#29824091)
Maybe the people with the high incomes live in areas where the cost of having children is higher? You often hear about people making 200k at Google on here sharing a two bedroom apartment with a roommate. Personally lack of a additional bedroom in my home prevents me from having another child, and home prices prevent me from moving.
Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by telotortium on Thursday January 06, 2022 @11:54PM (#29835091)
Nobody at Google making $200k has to share a two-bedroom apartment, even in the Bay Area. I was easily able to afford a $2000/month 1-bedroom in Mountain View in 2014 on a salary around $110k, and the same apartment today has only increased in price by 30%, whereas starting salaries have increased much more.

Is it more economical to share a 2-bedroom apartment when you're starting out? Of course, and many new grads share apartments both for money and, just as importantly, social benefits in a place where you might not know anyone else.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by hooande on Thursday January 06, 2022 @11:42AM (#29825849)
No. Declines in fertility are correlated with increasing incomes. Broadly (not uniformly), in all cultures through out time.

It's a thing, look it up.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by flerchin on Thursday January 06, 2022 @02:10PM (#29828336)
Definitely true. But the causation may be backwards. Perhaps people are making the decision not to have kids based on how expensive it would be, the expense in opportunity cost and career advancement is higher with the more income you have.
Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by giantg2 on Thursday January 06, 2022 @10:28AM (#29824734)
I don't know. Better how? Bigger houses, fancier possessions, etc? Sure.

It seems there's less freedom, and less exploration by kids today. Everything is recorded and documented. It's too expensive or too dangerous for kids to go do stuff. If you make a mistake today, it will follow you forever - little chance to apologize and fix whatever broke (seems more people want to use full force of law to press charges or sue over minor issues even when the person wants to make it right).

I wasn't in the early 80s and didn't have complete free run, but the independence and responsibilities that came with it seem far better than the digital nightmare kids are living in these days. Just my opinion.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by nostrademons on Thursday January 06, 2022 @04:11PM (#29830221)
Not sure the age group of the kids you have / hang out with, but I get the sense that this is changing with the kids who are preschoolers today.

I see a lot of kids out on balance bikes. My kid was playing with his stomp rocket in the local elementary school playground, and a little girl (about 5) - unattended, on a bike, I assume her mom was a couple hundred yards behind - came up to him and said "I've got a stomp rocket at home too, but my house is being renovated so we're living in a hotel." Playgrounds today are made to be much more about sensory experiences - there's a lot more water play, and places for free play like castle theaters, and plain logs or rocks or other obstacles to climb on. It's more typical for parents to go sit on a bench 50 feet away rather than hovering right over the kid.

Much of this is a very deliberate rejection of post-9/11 parenting standards, and may be generational as well. I think it started to change around 2015-2017; I remember there were articles on HN about a free-range parenting movement in Salt Lake City, or new playgrounds specifically designed to be dangerous in NYC. Also the people having kids now are early/mid-Millenials, while the parents of Zoomers are generally Gen-Xers, who were themselves termed the latchkey/TV-dinner generation. There may also be some survivorship bias where all the kids whose parents never let them do anything themselves failed to launch and have kids of their own, while those who did have kids often had fond memories of independent free play.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by colinmhayes on Thursday January 06, 2022 @12:00PM (#29826119)
> less exploration by kids today.

I don't see how this can be true. By the time I started high school a decade ago I realized that 90% of human knowledge was freely available to me on the internet. And I explored every crevice of it. The world is at our fingertips in a way it never was before.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by giantg2 on Thursday January 06, 2022 @12:46PM (#29826873)
Yes, information is accessible. I don't really call that exploration unless they are doing something with it for real. You can watch all the YouTube videos or read Wikipedia articles, but that's lacking if there's no real world experience/implementation. Watch a video with a science experiment? Great, now try it.

It also can't teach how to be independent, interact with friends, or what to do if you get lost (without having your cell phone solve it for you).

My friends and I would ride our bikes around the neighborhood and on trails, go fishing, build lean-tos or whatever in the woods, shoot model rockets, play sports, etc. Sure, some TV and video games too. We even had dial-up later on. But we were out in the world, being active, and thinking for ourselves. Those experiences are much more formative than consuming content created by someone else.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by colinmhayes on Thursday January 06, 2022 @01:23PM (#29827571)
I think this is a lot of nostalgia talking. Learning things through the internet absolutely forced me to be independent. If I wanted to find something all I needed was to look for it. Instant messaging made it easier to interact with friends, not harder.

I can't deny that the experiences youth have today are different than those that were had pre-internet, but I will absolutely push back against the notion that they are worse. Building stuff with your hands is undoubtedly a cherished childhood experience for many, but just because kids are interacting over the internet doesn't mean they're not thinking for themselves. In fact, I would say they're thinking for themselves even more since the options are so much vaster. Is building an elaborate world in minecraft or roblox really that different from building lean-tos or model rockets?

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by novok on Thursday January 06, 2022 @09:42PM (#29834119)
The big issue is you can't let your kids go outside, unsupervised, and go make friends with other kids in the neighborhood until about 12, which by that point they're basically teens and in a completely different stage of life. Before the 80s, you were able to do that. If you do, there is a chance that you get stressful CPS visits, criminal charges or your child taken away from you. And because nobody else is doing it, if you decide to be a rebel the kid will have nobody to play with anyway.

Kids used to be way less of a time investment. There were more around, and they very easily latched on to playing with other neighborhood kids all day which acted like free daycare. You could send them out and tell them to be back before dark, feed them food, have family dinners, fix their boo boos and not much else. Now in today's limited age, kids can only play with their literal line of sight neighbors unsupervised and are mostly stuck inside, dependent on a parent to become a playmate because they eventually get bored of the video games. Or they get obsessed to an unhealthy degree.

The independence you talk about is another kind, but still a dependent kind on the parents. I think a cell phone coordinated childhood with the permissiveness of the 70s is the ideal + all the info of the internet, but it's not something you can do in english countries.

There is also a curse-of-knowledge aspect to today's age. The average teen does not seem to deal well with instagram and cell phones, especially girls. It's unique. I think society will eventually create an immune system to universal cellphones and social media, much like we did with TV, but until then we are dealing with it downside more than we should.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by giantg2 on Thursday January 06, 2022 @01:38PM (#29827836)
"Is building an elaborate world in minecraft or roblox really that different from building lean-tos or model rockets?"

Is building software that much different from construction? I think so.

"If I wanted to find something all I needed was to look for it."

True, but most of the content is just someone else's. If you wanted to find something out when I was a kid, you formed a hypothesis and tested it - not just taking the word of someone on the internet. The internet can be useful for information, but not as much for knowledge and possibly even less for wisdom.

"Instant messaging made it easier to interact with friends, not harder."

Maybe sort of. I don't think it's quite the same as in-person. I think we are seeing this on a mass scale with pandemic restrictions too - that virtual presence isn't the same as physical presence. How does one learn to handle emotions in person rather than just shut if the computer when an argument arises?

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by colinmhayes on Thursday January 06, 2022 @02:46PM (#29828890)
> Is building software that much different from construction? I think so.

Really I think this comes down to what you think makes experiences valuable. Obviously virtual and physical construction aren't the same, but do they provide the same benefits? It seems to me that building things is a valuable experience because it teaches kids about hard work, grit, teamwork, perhaps curiosity, and makes all those things fun. Building things virtually seems to me to provide all those same things. Maybe you think getting your hands dirty had some value, in which case yea kids are missing out, but I generally think they're able to get many of the same things with the added benefit of increased use of imagination since they can literally build anything.

Now obviously the internet is what you make of it. Like anything the the internet can be a crutch or a tool. Kids can sit in front of youtube for 10 hours a day and learn nothing from it, but I'm not sure that wasn't also the case in the past. Keeping children on track probably requires more parental oversight than in the past, but I'm not exactly sure that's a bad thing either. Exploring the internet together with your child can easily be a way to bond with them while also creating a lifelong love of building and curiosity.

Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by tonyedgecombe on Thursday January 06, 2022 @02:01PM (#29828189)
How many trees did you climb?
Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by giantg2 on Thursday January 06, 2022 @02:15PM (#29828436)
Why?
Re:What is the point of imagining new technologies without n... by nostrademons on Thursday January 06, 2022 @03:40PM (#29829773)
Note that the selection bias has existed throughout history. Every kid assumes that having children is the natural order of things, because their sample usually consists of their friends and all their friends' parents (by definition) had kids. However, when I look at my parents' friends (or even siblings), a lot of them were childless or died young. U.S. fertility rates today [1] aren't appreciably different from what they were in the late 70s and early 80s.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fert...