• bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    To add onto the capitalist blame: people are conditioned to think in a capitalist way, and raising a child is a definite losing venture, hence people won’t invest in that shit.

    • Gsus4@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you can hardly feed and house yourself … you can’t afford to woo a wife or raise a kid :/ but that won’t stop some people trying to half-ass it I guess

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Quite the opposite, capitalists want more human resources, human capital. There’s an entire ideology, at least centuries old, about this. You can most easily read about it as: pronatalism.

      People aren’t conditioned to think in a capitalist way, they’re conditioned to think about their kids future not being worse than their present, since having kids can throw you into poverty.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some wrong language I guess. You talk capitalists as those who possess stuff, and you’re right in this way. I talk about the liberal ideology of capitalism that produces consumer citizens and the glorification of individualism. The people a capitalist society produce.

        • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, it takes a village to raise a child. The capitalist culture also brings this idea of “nuclear family” which generates this impossible situation for the “nuclear family” to afford kids. Of course, the other aspect of this is the eugenicist/fascist aspect of: only the rich can afford kids, so them it makes sense, this nuclear family. It’s not a problem to have a nuclear family if you’re rich, and you can just replace the village by paying for extra caretakers… another type of commodified relationship. The rich can afford to pay a woman to babysit for years, while that woman can’t afford to have a family or to see her kids (often because her family is in a different country). Family for me, but not for thee.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re not just brainwashed they are living a capitalist reality where those thoughts are rational observations of the truth around them.

      definite losing venture

      I get it now. You’re some teenager who doesn’t know that raising kids is literally massively expensive. Gee you must think you’re so bright for coming up with this idea that people are conditioned to think of kids as revenue negative enterprise! I can’t believe the size of the whoosh here.

      • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Does he not? From a purely selfish financial pov having a kid is a terrible idea.

        Sure, most people don’t explicitly think in those terms, but financial stability absolutely is a factor many people consider before having kids