The perils of short-termism

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190109-the-perils-of-short-termism-civilisations-greatest-threat

by noego • 7 years ago

46 87 7 years ago

What this author forgets is that many young people today are not procreating because having children is increasingly becoming a luxury of the upper middle class. Why should childless individuals care all that much about how issues like global warming and growing economic inequality will affect future generations when they're desperately just trying to hold onto their current jobs in order to service increasingly unjustifiable levels of debt (home, medical, educational,...)?

rogerkirkness2• 7 years ago

That's a weak argument for antinatalism. The global middle class is much larger and more capable of supporting the necessities that children require. People consider upper middle class lifestyles table stakes for child raising, which is why they choose to opt out of the children having status tournament. Diapers and food are actually not that expensive, but toddler yoga, dual earner flexible childcare, private school and similar absolutely are.

analog31• 7 years ago

The risk of being destroyed financially if something goes wrong with your kids is sobering.

DollarGuru2• 7 years ago

Do you believe raising children should be an act of duty and self-sacrifice?

While I would like to raise a family one day the idea of raising children with just being capable of supporting their necessities doesn't appeal to me at all.

If I can't offer them the best start in life or be the parent I wish I had (due to a lack of resources) I would rather not have children.

djrobstep6• 7 years ago

This is nonsense born from classist contempt. Every day middle class people are struggling not with luxuries but with everyday essentials like housing.

The correct response to this is not antinatalism but anticapitalism: Why should we have a system that systematically subjects people to financial hardship for having children?

It's easily fixed with a sensibly-designed welfare state, but we don't have one because we'd rather be judgemental to the poor about wanting "luxuries" like a decent house to live in.

watwut7• 7 years ago

Diapers and food are actually not that expensive, but toddler yoga, dual earner flexible childcare, private school and similar absolutely are.

While toddle yoga is fluff for healthy children, it is not that expensive and baby exercising can help to the ones that have mild motoric issues. It is actually often something mom does also for herself so that her time is occupied and she meets other moms (social isolation sux, being in same room whole day sux). It is also literally mom seeing problem in her own mental state and taking steps to fix it before it affects her behavior toward kids and husband. When you are socially isolated and bored, you can stay home and be depressed or find a place with people and something that makes somewhat sense to do.

Good school, healthcare and do actually matter, you know. So that the child has also middle class future. Good school also eases out situation for parent, as bad school means the parent have to re-teach, have to work around bullying and social pressures on child to be bully or not learn.

Dual earner flexible childcare is something traditional man does not appreciate. But, mom who wants ability to fend for herself too if needed and not be dependent and helpless completely appreciates a lot. If nothing else for psychological reasons - staying home is depression inducing for a lot of reasons. And when husband dies or get sick or get unemployed, yeah, it matters a lot.

they choose to opt out of the children having status tournament

Well, social status matter to people and always mattered. How others treat you matter a lot to you.

paganel• 7 years ago

Just wanted to add that diapers are really expensive for lots of middle-class people from around the world. Baby food is also more expensive compared to food for grown-ups.

marble-drink5• 7 years ago

I cannot find a woman who will be a full time mother after giving birth. I will not put my children into day care for 12 hours a day. I could afford to support a family in my own, but only with my very frugal and minimalist lifestyle (no fancy car, no expensive holidays, no eating at restaurants etc)

lazyjones4• 7 years ago

What this author forgets is that many young people today are not procreating because having children is increasingly becoming a luxury of the upper middle class

For a small part of the world's population, that's mostly true, everywhere else it is not.

Why should childless individuals care all that much about how issues like global warming and growing economic inequality will affect future generations

Apparently they do though, many of those who demonstrate (FFF etc.) are still in school.

keiferski5• 7 years ago

This argument for antinatalism never made any sense to me. A casual glance at history will show you that it’s easier and cheaper to raise children today than at pretty much any point in time, except perhaps for middle class white Americans ~1955-1990. What’s changed is the (perception) that keeping up with the consumerist Jones’ is somehow required to have a family.

JauntyHatAngle2• 7 years ago

middle class white Americans ~1955-1990.

Isn't that where most people get their idea of family life from?

pytester4• 7 years ago

Did the cost of rent, medical care and college go down?

Kaiyou• 7 years ago

Children used to be a help, because they could work much earlier and had to on farms. So it made economic sense to have them. The incentives have changed.

devoply3• 7 years ago

When the next collapse of civilization happens those that caused it will be holding most of the money. They will then use this money to rebuild civilization and make yet more profit...

Spooky233• 7 years ago

The problem is that wealth is tied to functioning society. Law and our current monetary system need order to function.

devoply3• 7 years ago

You can move wealth into all sorts of assets that you can then protect with that wealth... When the Roman empire fell the rich did not suffer only the poor did. Same thing will repeat.

crispinb2• 7 years ago

There's a good chance that the next collapse will be more comprehensive than previous ones though. In particular, it's very easy to imagine nukes getting thrown around as nations compete for rapidly diminishing topsoil & fresh water.

n4r93• 7 years ago

It's also easy to imagine the financial elites burrowing down into their premade bunkers to wait it out.

mytailorisrich• 7 years ago

The way 'money' exists today, if civilisation collapses money disappears with it.

ClumsyPilot2• 7 years ago

Quite the opposite, most of the elite did not survive the French Revolution or the Russia revolution.

lazyjones4• 7 years ago

The opposite is true. We're currently so occupied with imagined problems from the future that we forget to take care of present issues. The interesting time span for normal folks and most politicians to deal with should be the next 5 years, not the end of the century. Leave that to science fiction authors. Better and more interested people will deal with problems in 81 years, whatever they will be.

c22• 7 years ago

The horizon of our problem-solving should be based on the scope of our activities. If we are making decisions with 100 year outcomes then we should certainly be thinking about 100-year problems.

lazyjones4• 7 years ago

If we are making decisions with 100 year outcomes then we should certainly be thinking about 100-year problems.

Can you name a few decisions that were actually made only with 100 year outcomes in mind and not to solve current problems?

SamReidHughes3• 7 years ago

A lot of great projects -- subways, tunnels, bridges, constitutions, the metric system, manifest destiny, the marine chronometer, GNU -- wouldn't have happened if people only cared about the next five years.

pinkfoot• 7 years ago

You forgot pyramids, cathedrals, and great walls :)

lazyjones4• 7 years ago

All of these were built in order to immediately improve the current situation, not the one in 100 years.

ptah• 7 years ago

this is not a new problem. it's been around since at least the industrial revolution

dr_dshiv5• 7 years ago

Part of the issue with longtermism in the present politic is pessimism on climate change. Specifically, because people treat tech and development as antithetical to healthy futures, they don't develop a positive vision of the 50 year future.

We need a positive vision. We need to be optimistic that we are addressing the environmental issues and that humans will be thriving and flourishing in 2100. Therefore, what will that look like? And what is the work we need to do to design and develop that positive future?

The perils of short-termism

Related Stories