When my sister and I were growing up, we were given our independence in different areas at different ages: it was a matter of when we felt confident doing those things unsupervised and when we earned our parents' trust. As a general rule, I got to do responsibility-based tasks (like stay home alone, pick my own bedtime, and set my own homework schedule) at an earlier age than my sister, but she got to do physically risky tasks (like use knives, use the stove, and play high-risk sports) at an earlier age than me.
In all cases, it was a gradual process: they guided us, then they let us try while they watched, then they let us try while they were on hand if we called out for help, then they let us do it alone. Each step took as long as they (or we) felt was needed.
My parents are both highly anxious/cautious people, so I know it wasn't easy for them to give us these freedoms, but they understood intellectually that it was vital that we practice for adulthood well before we were suddenly on our own. They knew they only had a few short years to teach us how to survive independently of them.
It must have been a lot of work for them, but we were planned children (not accidents) and they put a lot of thought into how they wanted to raise us.
Nowadays middle-class people tend to have just one or two children, they literally cannot afford the space or childrearing costs for more - for lower classes eligible for government assistance such as the un(der)employed the situation does look different as society picks up large parts of the tab. Additionally, ever rising requirements in employment criteria make it necessary to invest more and more into their education: up until maybe 2-3 decades ago, even a school dropout could work in construction, a factory, retail, farm or mine and make a relatively decent living. But these jobs have largely gone away to China/India or to automation, so the few employment options for "undereducated" people are highly contested.
And so, the kid must turn out perfect: there is no room for the kid to make mistakes, especially not ones that endanger their career prospects, and hence all the helicopter parenting.
On top of all of that come decades of media/politician "fear brainwashings" (aka, the "pedo child-snatcher van" myth), as well as the legitimate collapse of a high-trust society (homeless, drunk and mentally ill people literally everywhere in major cities; police simply not enforcing laws any more).
Sure they can. Early North American settlers lived in tiny, one room log cabins, and raised those 3+ children in them just fine. Homes that small are not even allowed in most jurisdictions these days. The middle class have way more space to work with these days.
Let's face it, the reality is that middle class people just don't want children. It's not 'cool' to have children. Society says you need a career instead, and so that's what most people buy into and turn their attention towards.
Just having your children learning to swim costs 1000 euro!
I can't speak for anything outside the US, but here in the states we have lakes and rivers that do just fine for teaching kids to swim.
Poor people aren't apt to care if someone thinks they are an asshole, but the middle class people we're talking about feel like they have to keep up appearances for some reason. And, so, they miss out on having children they claim they want because of it. Strange, but that's people for ya. They don't put much thought into things.
whoever thinks this is true is either in a thought bubble or have surrounded themselves with shitty people.
none of this is anywhere near true for me, but I live in flyover country. Who knows, perhaps we're lucky that the dicks fly over rather than land and stay.
Let me draw a far more likely scenario, so likely I've actually seen it.
You're at the river with lots of people with kids and teenagers of various ages. One kid disappears under the water. Every adult and teenager goes diving into the water, as in full on sprint from the bank into the water. Kid gets pulled out of the water and everyone is concerned regardless of whose kid it is.
maybe you just live around assholes.
Maybe you're just an asshole?
Sure, but... who wants to go back to the days of the early settlers "living" in such conditions? We're in 2024, not 1607 after all. As a species, as a society we should progress, not regress. Just because our ancestors had to live in filth, it doesn't mean we have to as well.
> Let's face it, the reality is that middle class people just don't want children. It's not 'cool' to have children.
Anecdata ahead: many of my relatively middle-ish class friends want children but no one can afford them - the biggest road block is of course housing (the market is completely dead here in Germany - sales aren't happening because everyone fears the market correction / to realize a value depreciation, and rentals are routinely at 300+ interested candidates for a single apartment), but also a lack of stable career perspective: academia is a shitshow of limited-term contracts anyway, government doesn't pay anywhere near enough to be competitive with the private sector (usually about 60-70%, but IT and legal staff <<40%), NGOs pay even less than government, and the only way to get raises in the private sector outside of highly competitive unionized shops is to regularly churn companies which has the downside you're the first one to be on the chop block in case of layoffs.
Back in '91 when I was born, a lowly police officer could support a family on his own, even in a big city like Munich. Nowadays? Completely impossible.
Those who want to have children. But I agree, people don't want children, they want other things in life. And fair enough. It is their life to live as they see fit.
> many of my relatively middle-ish class friends want children but no one can afford them - the biggest road block is of course housing
So they say. But really, they're just complaining about the housing situation using a device that they hope will pull on the right heart strings (and most likely are just repeating what they heard someone else say). Let's face it: Whatever housing they've already got, even if just a tent, will be fine for the children. Children don't care.
> Back in '91 when I was born, a lowly police officer could support a family on his own, even in a big city like Munich. Nowadays? Completely impossible.
Or, perhaps, children were the contributors that made those things possible? We don't have to go too far back in history to find a time where adults were unable to survive without children. Being able to opt to not have children today is a luxury afforded to those well off (yes, that includes the middle class).
> We don't have to go too far back in history to find a time where adults were unable to survive without children. Being able to opt to not have children today is a luxury afforded to those well off (yes, that includes the middle class).
That was when children helped on the farm or with odd jobs to earn extra income. You're talking about industrialization and child labor laws, not luxury or even class.
> Whatever housing they've already got, even if just a tent, will be fine for the children. Children don't care.
This is just hyperbole on verge of trolling. Yes, those kids in Dorothea Lange photos sure look like they're having a good time.
The average woman in Niger will have seven children. Clearly that's a good enough standard of living, else they would have no children by your logic.
You can't provide a better life to one child, let alone seven, than someone in Niger? And if not, how do you explain your parents? That means they had no trouble bringing you into a horrible existence. Something doesn't quite add up here.
> You're talking about industrialization and child labor laws
I agree that industrialization was the catalyst that made everyone richer, allowing them to no longer need children to support them. In the first world, even the poorest people are much, much, much richer today than rich people were in earlier times.
> You can't provide a better life to one child, let alone seven, than someone in Niger?
We are not talking about having no children. We are talking about why people might have one or two children instead of more. The focus of this conversation is on costs of living, of which housing is the chief expense. More children means more space means more cost.
Yet, hilariously, the average home size keeps on growing. Where I live, the average home built today is 25% larger than in 1990 and 100%+ larger than the average house prior to 1950. There is a pretty strong inverse correlation between family size and housing size – as families get smaller, houses get bigger.
It seems people have no trouble bearing the cost of larger housing. They just don't want to fill them with people. Again, because people don't want the children.
Why would they? You don't need the 'mule' anymore. Rich people can hire someone else from outside of the family to do the work. Today, you don't need a kid slaving away in the kitchen to ensure you are fed, you can simply go to McDonalds.
https://usafacts.org/articles/why-are-us-homes-getting-bigge...
Also, while past generations may have expected much from children in terms of work, I don’t think forcing kids to literally cook supper was a typical responsibility.
No doubt. Poor people have always had to leave their family behind to make a go of life. There weren't enough resources found "at home" to support multiple adult generations. But when one is rich, they don't have to set out unto the world. They can bring the resources to where they already are.
> I don’t think forcing kids to literally cook supper was a typical responsibility.
Alone? Probably not. Alongside a parent? Most definitely. There wasn't enough time in the day to get everything done if you didn't have their help. I will also note that rich people today also have modern kitchen appliances to further replace those children, so even if you're not going to McDonalds, you're probably using things like a food processor and dishwasher to do the work the children would have historically done. So, again, no need for the 'mule'.
> you're probably using things like a food processor and dishwasher to do the work the children would have historically done
That recontextualizes your earlier statements, which are made even more dubious. Chopping vegetables and handwashing dishes are chores, not “slaving away in the kitchen.”
Where the people were rich, sure. Of course you were going to have all the generations living in your castle. Why wouldn't you? But for a poor family in that 200 sq.ft. thatch hut? Yeah, no.
> Chopping vegetables and handwashing dishes are chores, not “slaving away in the kitchen.”
Fine, slave away in the dining room. I don't care where the actual chore was done. The significance is the act, not the precise location.
That is not borne by the historical record.
> for most of American history, multigenerational living has been the norm, not the exception. […] Throughout the 19th century, most Americans lived in a multigenerational household, with a majority of elderly Americans living with an adult child. The main driver of this living arrangement was the country’s agrarian economy. For farmers, there was an incentive to have many children, as this meant more help around the farm. It was common for one child to remain at the farm after reaching adulthood to continue working with the anticipation of eventually inheriting it. If more than one child stayed, the land was sometimes divided between children, forming smaller farms.
https://dreamcollaborative.com/full-house-a-history-of-ameri...
> The significance is the act
The act is not “slaving away,” it is a common chore.
Each rebuttal grows flimsier and flimsier. Have you even seen a child? Has this entire discourse been with ChatGPT?
You must have copied the wrong account, then. The American farmer in the 19th century owned their land. They were not under serfdom. These were quite wealthy people. By the 19th century, anyone who was poor was relegated to the city.
> The act is not “slaving away,” it is a common chore.
Is there something actually here or are you just trying to go down some silly semantic rabbit hole because you don't want to admit that people don't have children simply because they don't want to have children?
He says following pulling out the historical record that contracts his own claim. At least your comedy routine is down pat.
Quite a cynical reply. Social services will care if you try to raise a child in a tent here where temperatures are freezing. And the child will prefer better lodging after a single sleepover with the neighbor kids.
Sure, so as you point out there is absolutely no reason why you can't have children, even if you are in the most dire of straights[1]. As you point out, other people will happily help you out with those children if you are struggling to make it on your own.
The only reason to not have children is because you don't want them. Anything else is a lame excuse.
[1] Of course, we're specifically talking about middle class people here. Middle class people don't live in tents. They live in comparatively large houses that are far bigger than would ever be necessary to raise many children. Even if they wanted to live in smaller houses, must jurisdictions don't allow it.
I guess that’s why the average home built today is ~100% bigger than an average home built 100 years earlier - ironically, when people actually had large families. No concept of what large even is.
2. Children used to die all the time from various causes. I remember e.g. the case of Mozart who had just one surviving sibling and 5 who died early. I can't imagine what the parents had to go through - their first 3 children died early. You have to become desensitized to not go crazy.
2. Social status / value of children grew a lot.
Also biologically your whole legacys survival lies on one kid.
This all has 2 psychological effects: when parents feel like they’re just barely keeping this teetering lifestyle from falling over, they become very controlling. Tight control becomes the name of the game: it’s how everything’s done and anyway no one has the time or energy for the unexpected.
Also, when the child represents a gargantuan investment, people become realty protective over their fragile prize. Like a luxury car that you can barely afford: all protective measures will be taken.
Naturally you'd expect this to result in a much higher base level of fear, as compared to when your community was just people you knew and trusted personally.
Children can find out that rocks hurt through trial and error throwing pebbles at their friends, and they will figure it out. They are instinctively wary of things like snakes.
But the threat posed by electrical sockets, stovetops, cars, bleach, power tools, and so forth are not forgiving to experimentation and not instinctive.
Probably 90% of kids in the US live boxed in a relatively small area by roads that are 50ft+ (if not 80ft) wide with 40mph speed limits so that huge vehicles are actually traveling at 50mph driven by people looking at their phone.
In addition, the density of kids is far less. A single street light only have a handful of kids, and probably not all the same age. A neighborhood might have a bunch, but not enough for the kids to mingle.
Plus many send their kids to daycare or afterschool activities. I spend $20k per year per toddler just so they can interact with other toddlers.
It's what kind of risk we're talking about. When I'm supervising my 4-year-old, I definitely want to prevent him from getting life-altering brain trauma. But if he falls and breaks his arm? Certainly worth warning him about, but in the end he'll be fine, and giving him the choice to take that risk is part of his development.
I let him use the battery-powered electric drill (under close supervision), because he's shown that he's careful, and the worst that can could happen is he get some skin abrasions. He's not getting anywhere near the circular saw until he's a lot older.
Parents these days aren't rational at all. They worry about protecting the physical nature of the child and leave their development and ability to accurately assess risk on their own as an afterthought. That's how you perpetuate failure: with children who grow up while never possessing the life experience necessary to properly raise kids of their own. The world simply isn't that fucking scary.
At least they learned how to cross the street safely at a young age. That's the one bit of independence that stuck.
This is what my grandparents did to my mom and aunts and uncles when they were growing up during the 60s and 70s. They weren't allowed back inside before dinner, but they had to return by sunset.
They were used to it, and spent their time playing in the woods and playing games with the neighborhood kids.
Nowadays, if you kicked them outside the house, they'd probably just have each other to play with, because kids don't play outside as much.
I suppose it's a Nietzsche thing; the "Death of God" turns us into "The Last Man".
They aren't worried about the child. Anyone with a typical five year old knows they'll be able to cross the neighbourhood just fine.
What they are actually worried about what other adults will think the five year old is seen out alone.
That they aren't worried about the child is just an irrational statement. If there was nothing to worry about, then there's no reason to keep the kid cooped up out of public sight.
Yeah, it’s nonsensical, but such is people. Similar to why most people aren’t having children in their sexual prime, instead waiting until they are of geriatric age. The harsh reality is that society says it’s wrong to have children “young” and ostracizes anyone who does. Just ask any teenage mother about the scorn they had to deal with.
Thousands of years ago most people didn't have time to sit around and evaluate what other people do. Only the richest kings could even begin to live in that kind of luxury. And even up until around the 1950s, most people lived rurally, so the kids weren't apt to leave the property anyway – and if they did, who was going to see it?
Not to mention that there wasn't the "You must go to university or you will ruin your life" nonsense that has emerged in the past ~30 years. Hell, in my grandparents time, it was uncommon to even go to high school. Back then, having children was celebrated, not featured on MTV with a show that tries to convince people to not have children.
Let's face it, we've collectively come to hate children, and as a result people are reluctant to have them.
Thousands of years ago, people CERTAINLY had to the time to sit around and evaluate other people. You think everyone was running around in a field with a spear? They'd plant crops, do chores, and then sit around and do fuck-all, especially when it got hot in the afternoon hours.
Stop defending childish, modern idiocy. The times haven't changed at all. The people have changed. They've become cowards.
Found the busybody.
I think that's a great example of what I think of as the distinction between safetyism and preparedness: the former is all about no fun allowed in the presence of any level of risk whatsoever, with no rational consideration of likelihood and mitigating factors, while the latter is about doing fun stuff while taking reasonable procautions to mitigate realistic dangers. It's not going backpacking at all vs. taking a first aid class and bringing the ten essentials.
If I was walking on the beach and I saw someone swimming alone I probably would hang out in the area and keep a passive eye on them until they got out. I wouldn't feel the need to get in the water unless I saw that they needed help.
You'd be surprised at how rarely this happens, though. Usually there are lots of people at the beach.
Also having grown-up on the coast, since I was a child I've always been in the water with all the other kids, without parents around, never had any life-threatening cramp, never seen it happen either. Maybe I've just been lucky and you've been unlucky, since it's all anecdata anyway - but it's strange to me how it can both be so jarring for you to do it alone, and jarring for me to be afraid of doing it alone. For me it's like you said it's dangerous to walk in the park by yourself because a tree branch can fall on your head. It's true but I will eyeroll almost unconsciously.
I have lived 15 minutes from the ocean my entire life and I have never gone swimming in it alone.
I'm not an absolutist either, each situation has to be assessed on its own merits. If the kids are all strong swimmers and they want to go to the pool without an adult, that's fine with me. I might even let them go together into the sea depending on which beach they're headed to. But if they're taking the 3-year-old in water wings out to the open ocean I'm going to be tagging along.
Likewise, if you want to walk alone in the park I think you'll probably be all right, but if you're hiking 10 miles out into the wilderness I'm going to strongly suggest you bring a buddy, whatever your age.
I was thinking about it more and I think one aspect that is important is what you mention about "which beach". I agree with you completely, there's beaches in our coast we'd never swim in, not even in a group, even as adults. And in some areas of the country almost all the beaches are in that category. So I think you're quite right, your position was more general and I was thinking too much about the beaches I had nearby while growing up. Particularly how many meters of "foot" (not sure what the word is in english) you have - ie can you just stand up and not have to stay afloat.
That was always the understood rule as kids, we can go alone to the sea but we need to stay "with foot".
Awesome. We're going to the quarry, and we're going to jump off the cliff over 10 feet of rock into the water.
Bring a case of Meister Brau.
When I grew up the road by my grandparents house was wide and empty and you could see anything coming a mile away and drivers could see the kids playing just as well.
Now it has been redesigned to be a cluttered mess to "discourage speeding" even adding parking spots to reduce the width of the road. You could drive through it at walking speed and still wouldn't see a kid trying to cross the road before it popped out from behind a car right in front of you.
Ideally they'd add parking protected bike lanes
When first hearing about it sounded just a bit extreme, but the moreI read about it the darker and gloomer it gets, and it's a phenomenon that is having a deep impact on the whole Korean society's future.
Thank you for posting this. I was thinking of going for a vacation to Korea _with kids_, and now I don’t think I will.
Can’t imagine needing to explain to my well-behaved 8-year old that, no, we can’t go to some place we’d want to go, because other kids can’t behave. This should totally be illegal.
It really has nothing to do with having or not having R-rated movies. It’s just discrimination against children, and by extension their parents.
'Discrimination' is not "bad" per se. It is merely a social contract to prohibit it to some protected classes. Discrimination literally just means to differentiate, the negative connotations are social and cultural bias, and thus are socially constructed. Society does that because we've found that to lead better outcomes. There's no inherent naturalistic justification to these protections, besides weird Locke-ian attempts to justify "human rights" based on a higher entity (gods). Legislation is drawn as an attempt to resolute differing, conflicting ideas. It is not innate, it is not given by god(s).
Knowing this, then the equivocation of "Irish, Muslisms, old people, women, men, gay people" to "people like to have areas without kids" is ridiculous. The class of a parent and their offspring is not the same as the class of a religion or a sexuality (something that you can't even choose -- whereas you can choose to be a parent (discounting rape, because that is an extraordinary circumstance)).
This is right to the point. Having kids socialize and be integrated in everyday life as much as possible has centuries of proven efficiency, for kids, parents, and society in general.
I don't think there's any solid high minded argument that goes one way or the other, it comes down to the practical repercussions of cutting a specific group from a whole slide social activities.
As you point out birth rates are falling, and society thoroughly making sure the fun stuff happens where no kids are allowed is both easier to do than ever, and accelerating that trend to an extent that is hard to describe.
I think people will still want kids, and couples in the right time and place will have one. But not two, or three. Because once they'll experience how it feels to be cut from society as an adult for about a decade, it's a real tough choice to go through that again given all the other sacrifices (career, money, housing, the sheer grunt of it) while getting no sympathy for it ("previous gens all did it, why you complain ? Also can't that kid shut up ?")
"no kids zone" in all nice places is fine if we all accept that we don't really need population renewal or have alternatives ways to preserve our species (There must be some movie with a plot of growing kids on a farm upstate until they're ready for societal life ?)
In Logan's Run the people live in a bubble-dome city, a portion of which is essentially an unmaintained ruin that feral children run around until they're old enough to be civilized.
Nobody swims in my pool without a buddy. Ever.
The point being is that there is no algorithm to sort this out. I would trust a young teen [just an example] to swim alone if they have demonstrated good risk behavior and swimming experience.
Nope. No buddy, no swimming. I don't even swim alone, even though I know chances are it would be fine 99% of the time.
> The point being is that there is no algorithm to sort this out.
Sure there is.
if swimmer_cout < 2:
throw NoSwimException
This is mostly rhetorical; the point is the constant (necessary) risk calculus is draining, and parents are rational to err on the side of caution.
It has been observed that most public spaces in America are default adult spaces where children are only tolerated. It follows most public spaces will tend to have adult levels of hazard and risk.