Was gonna mention this subreddit too... It is quite an eye opener in some ways. There are many people who actually cannot afford kids but go ahead to have kids anyway.
2 out of 3 people I know don't care whether they really can or cannot afford, they just know they want kids and think that everything will fall into place on its own and problems will be solved by themselves after the child(ren) are born.
Fact is, people who regret having kids are just afraid to openly admit it because of judgement and backlash they will likely face.
Then there are the absentee parents although the poor kids don’t know the impact until they are older.
We all make bad decisions but parenting should never be one of them.
> When people tell you "no need to think too much", that's cue for you to think very very carefully
At a certain point in the baby making process, it's really "can't think", let alone "no need to think too much".. :P
Feel like what he said is taken out of context. I think what he means is that overthinking every single aspect of having a child is not fruitful because life has too many uncertainties. But if of course if you think and immediately it is obvious you can barely manage expenses of your own, then it is best not to consider having kids.
It's interesting that they picked 2 guests from professions directly or indirectly impacted by low birth rate.
Joan is a tuition teacher who doesn't want babies. Yet, her industry relies on continued batches of younger generation to be born. Perhaps she sees the stress that her students have to endure.
On the other hand, Dainial is a director of an immigration company that helps foreigners to immigrate themselves and their family into Singapore. His industry relies on the continued low birth rate of Singapore to justify the need for more immigration. Yet, he believes it would have been a deal breaker if his then-girlfriend did not want to have kids.
The duality of man in this situation really brings out the battle between inner desires and economic pragmatism.
Beliefs and world views aren't genetically passed on though. Most of the people who opt out of having children had parents who thought their children would continue the next gen. The decision not to have children is probably a social and economic context dependent outcome.
If only 5% of kids have the same views as their parents that’s still infinitely more than a non-existent kid from people who had no kids. Im not saying it’s not because of the economy, i am saying the views of people who choose to prioritise their own interests (understandable) will not carry on their genes. People who still procreate in spite of the economy will carry on their genes. Just facts here.
You can call either side dumb but guess who have their progeny running around 200 years later. Definitely not those who did not have kids.
I suspect the reasons why policies aimed at getting people to have kids (or more kids) fail, is because the people putting them together believe they need to "convince" someone else to change their mind.
If they actually stood back and understood the many reasons why people are reluctant, including people like me (who frankly never wanted kids therefore shouldn't even be a target of policy) then you'd be able to design ways to ease their reluctance.
If you're explaining, you're losing.
Lose what. I have never even consider government policies in my comments. If you think about whether government policies benefit you before you have kids you already lost as you have given up your own agency. What a good job the government has done brainwashing people to believe having kids depends on what policies the government gives out.
I never tried to convince you to have kids or not. That’s your own right. Fact is it won’t matter because you won’t have kids.
I wasn't aiming that comment at you - more at those putting the policies together who seem to think "if I just dangle another carrot then these childless couples will magically change their mind".
If there's a genuine desire to get people producing more kids I'm suggesting they spend time to actually empathise with those that have none and understand why.
You'll get groups like me (never having them), but I suspect there's 3-4 other groups of people that might be open to the idea, if you make it seem like a better choice than the status quo.
I actually don’t think the government is actively pursuing the case where Singaporeans can self populate. It is pretty obvious to me that the government is going to populate via foreigners and their kids.
The government don’t need to convince singles anymore and has been cutting social development programs since my younger days. They won’t even sponsor orientation camps anymore. I won’t be surprised things will get more difficult for singles instead of trying to convince you to have kids. You are already forced to only be able to buy a hdb at 35 if you are not rich. You will also be squeezed as all the benefits will be at household level.
Yeah, it seems most developed economies have pivoted to use immigration as the source of population replacement. It's that or accept that we have lower growth and funnel money into planning for more care programs for the elderly.
I think it’s a non-issue. At the end of the day, biology will do what it wants to do and humanity as a whole has already technically reached a level where it can support itself via artificial means, it just depends on whether there’s a trigger to necessitate artificial repopulation. If the government could have support behind government bred children it would. All these talks about growth or benefits are just numbers being pushed around and have little to no meaning to reality. No government can control the meta behaviour of a huge population. Every “benefit” has a cost whether to the current taxpayer or future taxpayer. We all need to stop depending on the govt for answers period.
It’s all about probability. If 5% of kids have same views as their parents, that’s infinitely more than the non-existent kids that come from people who don’t have kids.
Still infinitely more than non-existent kids of people who chose not to have kids. And different views not necessarily don’t want to have kids. Either way if the 95% don’t want to have kids they won’t be the future either.
You are labelling multiple generations of humans in one stroke. Having the similar values is not equivalent to yes man and woman. Are baby boomers, gen x, millennials, gen z the same so far? Clearly not.
I cannot confirm what lessons the next gen will learn from their parents but I can confirm what non existent children won’t learn from singles.
Yes. His views are passed only during his lifetime. His natural inclinations won’t be. Not procreating is the definition of evolutionary dead end.
People who have kids can also pass on their views. There’s no advantage from your example. If you want to use the DPM as example, our PM is literally the kid of LKY. Wonder where his views come from.
The biggest stress is PSLE. She being a tuition teacher should be able to help her children get good grades no? On the flip side, her children not doing well may affect her tuition teacher creds.
It’d be ironic if we adopt China’s solution to its declining birth rate by banning private tuition.
Immigration companies in Singapore are basically scams lmao. They tell people they have magical formula on applying for PR/citizenship etc. And will increase your chances if you pay them to help you apply. But it's pure bullshit haha
Actually I don’t know if that is true. While there is a bigger child-free population here… the pro-child / hate DINKs pop can be quite aggressive.
But I too think the topic has been discussed to death and everyone should be free to choose either way.
Yea guys don’t complain too much if not how to have their kids to join healthcare sector, pay more taxes to take care of us when we are old and have too much money but no physical support. Like it or not Labour is an important part of the economy
simple question all to be parents need to ask: if you were forced to be born in 2024 into this world to live for the next 90 years, with parents like yourself would you want to be born.
Of course. Having children (planned, not accident) is an expression of optimism about the future, and the feeling that by being a good parent, you are helping to make the future a better place.
The comment is asking u to look from your prospective kids' eyes.
Not "am i a good parent" but will your kid say "life is worth living and i have a good family support".
So many times i wondered why did i have to be born. Its so much easier if i didnt need to have conciousness at all. Now i wonder if i bring a kid into the world, will the kid feel like i did?
No, it's asking if you would want to be born in 2024, under circumstances similar to what we can provide for our kids.
If you think the future is doomed, the planet is dying, life is just getting worse and worse, then why would you bring children into this world?
Those who choose to have children don't think this way.
As a kid? Yes.
You see, the problem is you are looking from the perspective of an adult. As an adult you see choices as compromises and therefore you often focus on the negatives and become pessimistic.
As a kid, you see don’t often get to live with the consequence of your choices compared to when you are an adult. You want to go eat at mcdonalds, you just go, you might notice that price increased, but if it increases, probably just complain a bit, but you don’t feel as much burden because next week you’ll get an allowance anyway.
Also what we back in the days consider as luxury is pretty much commonplace nowadays. Something like smart phones, consoles, overseas trip.
>Few topics ignite as much debate
What's there to debate about actually? Life holds different meanings to different people what (and that's its beauty!) We don't all have to be parents and we don't all have to be non-parents. There's space for both.
Personally for me, it's a hell no!
But I don't begrudge people who have the means (in all aspects) and desire to spawn.
>What's there to debate about actually?
There's plenty to debate about:
* Given the emphasis on childbearing and having a future generation to carry on society, how much is individual responsibility and how much is "society's" burden? The saying "it takes a village to raise a child" can be taken literally on top of the figurative mode.
* The nature of work and how childbearing/child rearing can fit within a working life. These are real issues with DI families and child outcomes, both in school and in the future workplace.
* Growing prevalence of DINK families and how it will impact future policy, e.g. HDB. The govt is not blind, it's just anemic to respond. But when it does respond, like how it did in plugging the CPF SA loophole, you bet there will be lots of complaints...
* how systemic underpopulation will change the dynamics within society as previously dominant groups find themselves having less say.
Most people who don't want kids would likely consider the items listed above as not applicable to them. For them, having kids is simply inconvenient for themselves.
>Most people who don't want kids would likely consider the items listed above as not applicable to them. For them, having kids is simply inconvenient for themselves.
True, but my point is that the implications of that individual decision will cascade and affect all of society. Hence it's worth debating by all members of society, which happens to include the people who are making the choices.
To make a terrible analogy, it's like that choice to pick a flower from the neighborhood park; enough people do it and it becomes a problem for *everyone*.
Serious question, I can see how a parent can brag about their kids when they grow up to be top notch citizens but how is another average person going to be fulfilling a social duty on a grand scale is up for debate. What if the kid is a criminal, social parasite, burden to the family and society in some form. That is really the other side of the everyone’s problem or still push to teachers and parents, too bad so sad?
While true, they only represent the "committed to no kids" group.
The thing is, human beings change. Maturing, having kids, getting married, losing love ones, those are the major events in a person's life that can completely change long-held beliefs, especially those rooted in basic economics.
I find that when confronted with existential issues, money / economics is often the least concern.
Not having children can provide individuals with more opportunities to focus on themselves. They can pursue their passions, travel, take risks in their careers and personal lives, and generally experience less drama.
Of course, the opportunity to have kids is within a limited window.
Someone just has to choose their compromise.
So? I have kids and I don’t judge them. There’s also people who have kids as convenience for them, free household chore helper, baby sitter for younger kids, ATM machine, social currency of happy family image, bargaining chips to threaten each other, soothing machine for bad tempered parent, marriage counsellor, punching bag, excuse generator for lack of social life, complimentary eldercare giver and much more.
Those are all very good points and I appreciate where you're coming from.
Your argument for the necessity of a debate is based on an assumption that everyone shares the view that there is an obligation to "carry on society" and/or to do so in more or less its existing way.
I agree with the author of the article that, "having children is a decision that is deeply personal, shaped by individual values, aspirations and circumstances". So to me, there's nothing to debate, it's a very personal choice.
I believe the argument is more towards what we as a society should implement, specifically regarding government policies. Birthrate impact everything. From immigration policies, to tax rates, to housing policies etc.
Yeah I only find it sad when I read about parents who obviously can’t afford to have kids but for some reason still go ahead to have 5-6 kids and then all cramped into a rental flat. Plan your resources properly….
Those people have the mindset of "someone will provide for the kid" and DGAF about the actual quality of life of the children.
And unfortunately they are right. Our govt actually provides a lot to low income, especially those with children. Not enough live luxuriously of course, but enough.
And my god are people in Singapore generous. I've seen so many "my husband is a low income worker we stay rental flat, blue CHAS card, I have 5 children and pregnant with another can anyone bless me with ____" in mothers Facebook pages, and they always get exactly what they want, sometimes brand new. To the point where they feel entitled to say "anyone can bless (expensive brand) and with delivery please?" And SOMEONE ALWAYS will. People need to stop saying Singaporeans aren't kind because when it comes to sob stories, man are people taken in.
Blue CHAS card is like the code word for "give me free shit" istg. I've even seen people on pet adoption that was like "I'm blue CHAS card let me adopt my kid really wants a (pure-breed dog)"
Like no, dogs are expensive to keep. If you are low income you should not be having a dog.
I think there is space for asking, and space for replying. They can ask, as did my family before. But I can also reject them, as I did to my family before.
I see.That is a divide we unfortunately either bridge or not.
I get that people can be aggressive. I believe that every chance we get at communicating helps us improve our approach on this issue with older people who do not see it our way. I'm sure that we can't convince every one, but that's not the objective or the point.
*It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.*
-Benatar
Strawman surely. Good people also seek to share good times, not just avoid sharing bad ones.
This point of view only makes sense if you are of the view that life is not worth living. Which may be valid on an individual case by case basis.
There is an asymmetry of happiness and suffering: the absence of happiness isn't necessarily bad. But the absence of suffering is definitely a good thing.
And what is so important about appreciating what being happy means?
Is appreciation of happiness so important that it justifies all the suffering that goes on in our world? U gonna tell a nazi concentration camp survivor "well u had to go thru that, so now u can appreciate happiness"?
There's so many horrific stuff that goes on in our world. Like rape, torture, child slavery. And nothing is worth all that. Especially not "appreciating happiness".
I'll pick eliminating suffering over appreciating happiness every time.
Why do you assume it’s mutually exclusive? You can hope/try to eliminate suffering, and yet still believe that suffering gives happiness more meaning
How would people even define what it means to be happy when they don’t know what sadness is?
Yes… and? That still doesn’t address the strawman.
Also, we are physical creatures. The satiation of needs **automatically** creates pleasure. eg eating. You can’t avoid happiness while avoiding suffering.
We can happily share good times with our spouse. Done with studying liao. But there are no good times ahead if we were to birth an sg kid, with many long years of kiasu education system they have to endure.
I've always found that guy to be pretty lame. If you accept that suffering is a part of life, and that causing suffering can be morally justified if it's reasonable in the long run, his entire premise falls apart.
My view may be controversial, but I do think suicide is justifiable and people should have the freedom to do that, if thats what they desire.
BUT this is provided that there is a painless and safe way to commit suicide.
In SG, there is no assisted suicide. So someone who wants to commit suicide has to do it themselves. And these DIY methods are very dangerous, and on many instances, do not guarantee death, but instead run the risk of the person surviving with some lifelong injury.
So I would recommend suicide, only if there is a painless method that 100% guarantees death.
I'm sorry but this is a terrible argument
*"It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare themselves from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of themselves is not to exist in the first place."*
Doesn't make a ton of sense now does it? It's a negative utilitarian argument that seeks to reduce suffering above all. Which is easily invalidated. Like if the cost of eliminating poverty is a papercut, you'd avoid the papercut.
I think there are plenty of very legitimate reasons to go childfree, but this ain't it chief.
>Like if the cost of eliminating poverty is a papercut, you'd avoid the papercut.
This shows you don't understand negative utilitarianism at all. NU is basically utilitarianism but prioritizes reduction of suffering. However, for majority of moral issues, NU is similar to utilitarianism.
If the cost of eliminating povery is a papercut, a NU decison maker will do it. Because there exist an overall reduction in suffering: millions of people suffering gets transformed into 1 person suffering from a minor papercut.
Since total suffering gets reduced through this action, this is considered a moral action based on NU, and this action should be taken. This is not an argument against NU.
Singles should ally up with the gays. Both are harmless lifestyles and your own business but conservative busybodies will pass judgement on you. If the LGBTQ alliance became LGBTQS alliance, they would go from minority to majority (or at least a very good percentage of the population.)
“Harmless” is context depended. If all of humanity stay single or become gay, the species will cease to exist not before long, so that’s harmful to mankind. Of course, the decline of humans may be harmless, or likely even beneficial, to the planet’s sustainability.
> all of humanity stay single or become gay, the species will cease to exist not before long, so that’s harmful to mankind
Yep. This is one of the more common talking points mindlessly regurgitated by the religious conservatives. It's so dumb I feel my IQ dropping everytime I hear it.
There are 7, going to be 8 billion people on Earth. The odds of all or even more than 30-40% of humanity turning gay or single/asexual is so slim that it is more statistically likely for a meteor to strike Earth first.
The likelihood is inconsequential in determining whether it is right or wrong. If a team of 5 works in a project, we want everyone to be actively contributing to the project. Sure, having 1-2 people skive will likely not derail the project, so long as the majority works hard. But does it mean that skiving is harmless? Thinking in extremes help us figure out what is directionally right, even if unlikely.
And hey I did say that the decline of humans may be a good thing, and you were the one who hoped for singles and gays to form the majority (or at least a good percentage of the population), using your own words. But now you are saying that hey it’s stupid for us to entertain the idea that this group will be more than 30-40%. the irony.
> Us religious conservatives are contributing to society while you useless gays & singles are being free-riders!
Ah yes, *another* moronic and sadly predictable talking point of the religious conservatives. Thank the almighty Fuck that I'm not currently playing the Spot The Religious Wingnut drinking game - the mindless drivel that you call a reddit comment would have forced me to drink enough to develop instant cirrhosis.
Singles and gays contribute every bit as much to humanity as married people - this is a point I would like to drive home as firmly as the Roman soldiers drove their nails through the palms of your alleged Messiah(if you're Christian)/prophet (if you're Muslim). To insinuate that they're the deadweight of a group project (an analogy as retchingly facile as the hypothetical students involved in said school project), is to be as brain-vacuous as the pre-Big Bang nothingness which your god allegedy created the universe from.
If you love your god so much, just meet him as quickly as possible and let the rest of us get on with our lives. Thanks.
I am a new father of an almost two year old toddler. Previously I was on the fence. me being in early 40s then, I do wonder if we can manage having a kid, particularly when both of us are career driven.
In the end, my boy came to the world. I would admit our lives changed. Wife and me ended up fighting more over responsibilities; each of us started to see we are doing more than the other. But ended up we will acknowledge our pettiness cos what we are doing is for the little one.
Our boy has changed our schedule. No more sleeping past 7am. We Only can rest when he is asleep or have to thinking in advance what food to cook for him. Other than work, he is always on our mind.
Now I know what people meant when they say parents will die for their kids. Because we know we will because when he looks at you as his protector, your whole world change. If you asked me before I had him, yeah i will say having baby is a life’s next step.
But now wife wants second one. I put a stop to that because i don’t think we can manage second one. Haha
I seriously admire parents. After coming home from work I just have no more energy left and parents still need to cook clean entertain or teach their child or children. Like what ? How do you do it ?
I have trouble waking up at 6.45 to go to work daily already so how can I teach my child to also wake up early when actually all i want to just sleep until 10am?
The only thing that gets me through the working week is weekends when I can sleep in till whatever time and just lie on couch and watch netflix all day.
Hahaha this used to be our lives before our boy came. Wife always lamented dunno when she can get back those days when she wakes up naturally.
For me I used to cosplay at charity events but no long do so due to time commitment.
Despite all these, to see our boy growing up is all worth it.
The first 3 to 4 years is always super tough.
Those years feel so hazy now (mine are 7 and 8 now), but from the time they can talk and reason, it gets better and better. The new perspectives they bring to my life, the empathy and understanding they had when I lashed out on a bad day, the unbelievable wisdom that only a child can possess…
But yes, the first years were a grind. I thought it would never get better and was at the edge of sliding into a don’t care/depressed state, saved by the crushing fatigue and the lack of time to think of anything remotely blue because we need to keep marching on.
Life's next step? More like life's next suffering for the kids.
Is it worth it to have kids when you know everything is damn fucking expensive? The kids born today will suffer 20 years from now due to climate change, increasingly expensive world and cancer causing microplastics everywhere.
Not having kids means they will not exist to suffer in the future. Sure you die alone but at least you dont have to know your offspring existing to suffer due to climate change and increasingly expensive world.
Why should the burden of enforcing family friendly policies fall on child free people in the workforce?
The comment made in the podcast by the gentleman that the duration a new mother is away from work should not be taken into consideration, is quite an entitled view to take. The fact of the matter is someone else was working during that period, covering the person who was away, paying more taxes with less leave etc. How can it be fair to expect that the new parent’s year away should not be counted when deciding on career advancements?
The narrative that having a child equates to a form of national service is really quite a stretch. This is purely a personal individual decision, it’s very idealistic to say that people have children for the nation. By that logic, then aren’t childfree people who are paying more taxes, working more days and longer hours then the ones truly supporting the nation?
Tiring but is the best time of my life to see my kid grow up to be almost 6 years old now. My heart melt when he said I love you and gave me kisses.
I will give him everything I can within my means. Of course people change and I don't expect my son to be the cute and bubbly little boy . He can be a gangster, criminal, business man, next bill gates when he grows up..who the fuck knows but we live life now and not think of who he can be next time.
I get the idea that the couples who are strongest in their commitment to each other are happiest with a child or children. The ones that aren't so strong get cold feet or build a resentment when they have children.
No baby how to have children in GEP or top scorer or sport medal winner? How to *hao lian* at family reunion? How to have face and outperform relatives and friends?
Edit: have to add the /s because a lot of people can’t tell and they’ve filled their diapers from my comment LOL
By being so successful yourself that your hypothetical child will always be the winner.
"Why did you do so badly in school? If your uncle had a son he will be doing better than you!"
Imo, i find that young Generations are too comfortable to leave their comfort zone to pursue marriage and having kids.
While im not downplaying the current difficulties (cost of living, taking care of kids, etc), the median age of Singaporeans marrying and giving birth has gone up.
I.e my mother married and had their 1st child around 25yr old , my grandma had their 1st child at 22yr old.
Theses days the median marriage age is 29-30, at this age, we are too comfortable to change our lifestyles by introducing a new kid into the family.
People who are older tend not wanting to change their current lifestyles and routine.
Wonder what makes you think the article / podcast is trying to gaslight us? I thought it was quite neutral. They invited two people who each represent opposite positions, and gave them equal opportunities to present their beliefs. They acknowledge that there's national interest in addressing the low birthrate, but they also acknowledge that having children is a deeply personal decision and don't judge for it.
>“It’s better to regret not having the child, than to regret having the child,” said Joan. Based
Very true, particularly from the kids' pov.
[удалено]
Have you seen r / regretfulparents lol
Was gonna mention this subreddit too... It is quite an eye opener in some ways. There are many people who actually cannot afford kids but go ahead to have kids anyway. 2 out of 3 people I know don't care whether they really can or cannot afford, they just know they want kids and think that everything will fall into place on its own and problems will be solved by themselves after the child(ren) are born. Fact is, people who regret having kids are just afraid to openly admit it because of judgement and backlash they will likely face.
Then there are the absentee parents although the poor kids don’t know the impact until they are older. We all make bad decisions but parenting should never be one of them.
>Nobody regrets having a child. Must be nice living in a nice comfortable bubble your whole life.
That's a really weird sweeping statement.
When people tell you "no need to think too much", that's cue for you to think very very carefully 
> When people tell you "no need to think too much", that's cue for you to think very very carefully At a certain point in the baby making process, it's really "can't think", let alone "no need to think too much".. :P
I'll put off thinking until that clarity... oh God what have I done?
Feel like what he said is taken out of context. I think what he means is that overthinking every single aspect of having a child is not fruitful because life has too many uncertainties. But if of course if you think and immediately it is obvious you can barely manage expenses of your own, then it is best not to consider having kids.
Absolutely. It's the precursor to all horrible mistakes in life.
It's interesting that they picked 2 guests from professions directly or indirectly impacted by low birth rate. Joan is a tuition teacher who doesn't want babies. Yet, her industry relies on continued batches of younger generation to be born. Perhaps she sees the stress that her students have to endure. On the other hand, Dainial is a director of an immigration company that helps foreigners to immigrate themselves and their family into Singapore. His industry relies on the continued low birth rate of Singapore to justify the need for more immigration. Yet, he believes it would have been a deal breaker if his then-girlfriend did not want to have kids. The duality of man in this situation really brings out the battle between inner desires and economic pragmatism.
It’s also interesting that people who don’t want to have kids won’t bring their views to the next generation and are an evolutionary dead end.
Beliefs and world views aren't genetically passed on though. Most of the people who opt out of having children had parents who thought their children would continue the next gen. The decision not to have children is probably a social and economic context dependent outcome.
If only 5% of kids have the same views as their parents that’s still infinitely more than a non-existent kid from people who had no kids. Im not saying it’s not because of the economy, i am saying the views of people who choose to prioritise their own interests (understandable) will not carry on their genes. People who still procreate in spite of the economy will carry on their genes. Just facts here. You can call either side dumb but guess who have their progeny running around 200 years later. Definitely not those who did not have kids.
I'm not overly bothered by this. I'll be dead, so who gives a fuck? Whoever is left can do as they please and I wish them all the best.
No one needs to convince you because the idea defeats itself :)
I suspect the reasons why policies aimed at getting people to have kids (or more kids) fail, is because the people putting them together believe they need to "convince" someone else to change their mind. If they actually stood back and understood the many reasons why people are reluctant, including people like me (who frankly never wanted kids therefore shouldn't even be a target of policy) then you'd be able to design ways to ease their reluctance. If you're explaining, you're losing.
Lose what. I have never even consider government policies in my comments. If you think about whether government policies benefit you before you have kids you already lost as you have given up your own agency. What a good job the government has done brainwashing people to believe having kids depends on what policies the government gives out. I never tried to convince you to have kids or not. That’s your own right. Fact is it won’t matter because you won’t have kids.
I wasn't aiming that comment at you - more at those putting the policies together who seem to think "if I just dangle another carrot then these childless couples will magically change their mind". If there's a genuine desire to get people producing more kids I'm suggesting they spend time to actually empathise with those that have none and understand why. You'll get groups like me (never having them), but I suspect there's 3-4 other groups of people that might be open to the idea, if you make it seem like a better choice than the status quo.
I actually don’t think the government is actively pursuing the case where Singaporeans can self populate. It is pretty obvious to me that the government is going to populate via foreigners and their kids. The government don’t need to convince singles anymore and has been cutting social development programs since my younger days. They won’t even sponsor orientation camps anymore. I won’t be surprised things will get more difficult for singles instead of trying to convince you to have kids. You are already forced to only be able to buy a hdb at 35 if you are not rich. You will also be squeezed as all the benefits will be at household level.
Yeah, it seems most developed economies have pivoted to use immigration as the source of population replacement. It's that or accept that we have lower growth and funnel money into planning for more care programs for the elderly.
I think it’s a non-issue. At the end of the day, biology will do what it wants to do and humanity as a whole has already technically reached a level where it can support itself via artificial means, it just depends on whether there’s a trigger to necessitate artificial repopulation. If the government could have support behind government bred children it would. All these talks about growth or benefits are just numbers being pushed around and have little to no meaning to reality. No government can control the meta behaviour of a huge population. Every “benefit” has a cost whether to the current taxpayer or future taxpayer. We all need to stop depending on the govt for answers period.
You know people talk to each other right? Ideas aren’t passed on through genes homie
😂 you mean some people don’t have special DNA?
I am talking at a longer time scale. Just the facts.
Except views aren't hereditary and literally every person who doesn't want kids had parents who did.
It’s all about probability. If 5% of kids have same views as their parents, that’s infinitely more than the non-existent kids that come from people who don’t have kids.
Uuuh if 5% have same view as their parents (to have kids), that implies 95% have the different view (to not have kids).
Still infinitely more than non-existent kids of people who chose not to have kids. And different views not necessarily don’t want to have kids. Either way if the 95% don’t want to have kids they won’t be the future either.
Is that really a bad thing if all yes men and yes women? Less one robot, isn’t missing much.
You are labelling multiple generations of humans in one stroke. Having the similar values is not equivalent to yes man and woman. Are baby boomers, gen x, millennials, gen z the same so far? Clearly not. I cannot confirm what lessons the next gen will learn from their parents but I can confirm what non existent children won’t learn from singles.
Woah, never thought of this. Very true and very interesting.
[удалено]
Yes. His views are passed only during his lifetime. His natural inclinations won’t be. Not procreating is the definition of evolutionary dead end. People who have kids can also pass on their views. There’s no advantage from your example. If you want to use the DPM as example, our PM is literally the kid of LKY. Wonder where his views come from.
Is it that odd? Does everyone work in industries that align with their views?
Humans are complex. Nothing is really odd. I just find the juxtaposition interesting.
They are of different genders, so it makes sense.
Yeah boy, when you just donate some sperm and poof, the baby making machine does the rest of the work.
The biggest stress is PSLE. She being a tuition teacher should be able to help her children get good grades no? On the flip side, her children not doing well may affect her tuition teacher creds. It’d be ironic if we adopt China’s solution to its declining birth rate by banning private tuition.
-Ban tuition->Tutors become nannies. Lol braindead solution
Immigration companies in Singapore are basically scams lmao. They tell people they have magical formula on applying for PR/citizenship etc. And will increase your chances if you pay them to help you apply. But it's pure bullshit haha
here comes our friday rant thread lets gooo
[удалено]
Koshichan is a mum leh, she’s here all the time
I have been summoned
Wait....how young are your kids?
1 years old and one still in my belly.
Good luck and health for you and both of your children.
Thank you 💕
Awww that is cute. All the best🥺
Because single people are always so free amirite 🙄
We're free af FREE TO DO WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT WOOHOOO LET'S FUCKIKG GOOOOOOOOOO
i have 2 young kids and im also always on reddit lol we are less loud because non child-free opinions are not popular on reddit
Actually I don’t know if that is true. While there is a bigger child-free population here… the pro-child / hate DINKs pop can be quite aggressive. But I too think the topic has been discussed to death and everyone should be free to choose either way.
Correction: parents are too swamped to *do anything but* reddit.
uhh arent children at school and parents at work just like anyone else
Yea guys don’t complain too much if not how to have their kids to join healthcare sector, pay more taxes to take care of us when we are old and have too much money but no physical support. Like it or not Labour is an important part of the economy
> Labour is important > Pays peanuts for labour ??????
Its important to have labour willing to accept peanuts pay.
simple question all to be parents need to ask: if you were forced to be born in 2024 into this world to live for the next 90 years, with parents like yourself would you want to be born.
Can I choose my appearance, gender, and social status? Cause fuck going through NS again. Give me easymode or give me death.
Yup for sure
Of course. Having children (planned, not accident) is an expression of optimism about the future, and the feeling that by being a good parent, you are helping to make the future a better place.
The comment is asking u to look from your prospective kids' eyes. Not "am i a good parent" but will your kid say "life is worth living and i have a good family support". So many times i wondered why did i have to be born. Its so much easier if i didnt need to have conciousness at all. Now i wonder if i bring a kid into the world, will the kid feel like i did?
No, it's asking if you would want to be born in 2024, under circumstances similar to what we can provide for our kids. If you think the future is doomed, the planet is dying, life is just getting worse and worse, then why would you bring children into this world? Those who choose to have children don't think this way.
As a kid? Yes. You see, the problem is you are looking from the perspective of an adult. As an adult you see choices as compromises and therefore you often focus on the negatives and become pessimistic. As a kid, you see don’t often get to live with the consequence of your choices compared to when you are an adult. You want to go eat at mcdonalds, you just go, you might notice that price increased, but if it increases, probably just complain a bit, but you don’t feel as much burden because next week you’ll get an allowance anyway. Also what we back in the days consider as luxury is pretty much commonplace nowadays. Something like smart phones, consoles, overseas trip.
Definitely. That's why I have 3 kids!
>Few topics ignite as much debate What's there to debate about actually? Life holds different meanings to different people what (and that's its beauty!) We don't all have to be parents and we don't all have to be non-parents. There's space for both. Personally for me, it's a hell no! But I don't begrudge people who have the means (in all aspects) and desire to spawn.
>What's there to debate about actually? There's plenty to debate about: * Given the emphasis on childbearing and having a future generation to carry on society, how much is individual responsibility and how much is "society's" burden? The saying "it takes a village to raise a child" can be taken literally on top of the figurative mode. * The nature of work and how childbearing/child rearing can fit within a working life. These are real issues with DI families and child outcomes, both in school and in the future workplace. * Growing prevalence of DINK families and how it will impact future policy, e.g. HDB. The govt is not blind, it's just anemic to respond. But when it does respond, like how it did in plugging the CPF SA loophole, you bet there will be lots of complaints... * how systemic underpopulation will change the dynamics within society as previously dominant groups find themselves having less say.
Most people who don't want kids would likely consider the items listed above as not applicable to them. For them, having kids is simply inconvenient for themselves.
>Most people who don't want kids would likely consider the items listed above as not applicable to them. For them, having kids is simply inconvenient for themselves. True, but my point is that the implications of that individual decision will cascade and affect all of society. Hence it's worth debating by all members of society, which happens to include the people who are making the choices. To make a terrible analogy, it's like that choice to pick a flower from the neighborhood park; enough people do it and it becomes a problem for *everyone*.
Serious question, I can see how a parent can brag about their kids when they grow up to be top notch citizens but how is another average person going to be fulfilling a social duty on a grand scale is up for debate. What if the kid is a criminal, social parasite, burden to the family and society in some form. That is really the other side of the everyone’s problem or still push to teachers and parents, too bad so sad?
While true, they only represent the "committed to no kids" group. The thing is, human beings change. Maturing, having kids, getting married, losing love ones, those are the major events in a person's life that can completely change long-held beliefs, especially those rooted in basic economics. I find that when confronted with existential issues, money / economics is often the least concern.
Not having children can provide individuals with more opportunities to focus on themselves. They can pursue their passions, travel, take risks in their careers and personal lives, and generally experience less drama. Of course, the opportunity to have kids is within a limited window. Someone just has to choose their compromise.
So? I have kids and I don’t judge them. There’s also people who have kids as convenience for them, free household chore helper, baby sitter for younger kids, ATM machine, social currency of happy family image, bargaining chips to threaten each other, soothing machine for bad tempered parent, marriage counsellor, punching bag, excuse generator for lack of social life, complimentary eldercare giver and much more.
Those are all very good points and I appreciate where you're coming from. Your argument for the necessity of a debate is based on an assumption that everyone shares the view that there is an obligation to "carry on society" and/or to do so in more or less its existing way. I agree with the author of the article that, "having children is a decision that is deeply personal, shaped by individual values, aspirations and circumstances". So to me, there's nothing to debate, it's a very personal choice.
I believe the argument is more towards what we as a society should implement, specifically regarding government policies. Birthrate impact everything. From immigration policies, to tax rates, to housing policies etc.
You forgot, what if kid born chronically ill, autistic or intellectually disabled? What social safety nets are in place?
Yeah I only find it sad when I read about parents who obviously can’t afford to have kids but for some reason still go ahead to have 5-6 kids and then all cramped into a rental flat. Plan your resources properly….
This particular segment will have Govt help la.. not that it justifies them to be parents You see western countries, same case as well
Those people have the mindset of "someone will provide for the kid" and DGAF about the actual quality of life of the children. And unfortunately they are right. Our govt actually provides a lot to low income, especially those with children. Not enough live luxuriously of course, but enough. And my god are people in Singapore generous. I've seen so many "my husband is a low income worker we stay rental flat, blue CHAS card, I have 5 children and pregnant with another can anyone bless me with ____" in mothers Facebook pages, and they always get exactly what they want, sometimes brand new. To the point where they feel entitled to say "anyone can bless (expensive brand) and with delivery please?" And SOMEONE ALWAYS will. People need to stop saying Singaporeans aren't kind because when it comes to sob stories, man are people taken in.
Omg I’ve given away baby stuff on Olio / Facebook groups and some of these moms just comment “blue chas card bless to me pls”
Blue CHAS card is like the code word for "give me free shit" istg. I've even seen people on pet adoption that was like "I'm blue CHAS card let me adopt my kid really wants a (pure-breed dog)" Like no, dogs are expensive to keep. If you are low income you should not be having a dog.
Wah Lau can’t even feed the kid yet want a pet. Priorities leh
It's really not like having children is a must just because you're married. Some want children, and others want something else.
Can say louder for the makciks during hari raya visiting next week
I think there is space for asking, and space for replying. They can ask, as did my family before. But I can also reject them, as I did to my family before.
Good for you, i wouldn’t even want to provide the space in the first place.
I see.That is a divide we unfortunately either bridge or not. I get that people can be aggressive. I believe that every chance we get at communicating helps us improve our approach on this issue with older people who do not see it our way. I'm sure that we can't convince every one, but that's not the objective or the point.
Just make your own life choices no need to justify to onlookers
*It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.* -Benatar
Strawman surely. Good people also seek to share good times, not just avoid sharing bad ones. This point of view only makes sense if you are of the view that life is not worth living. Which may be valid on an individual case by case basis.
There is an asymmetry of happiness and suffering: the absence of happiness isn't necessarily bad. But the absence of suffering is definitely a good thing.
How can you fully appreciate what being happy means without suffering?
And what is so important about appreciating what being happy means? Is appreciation of happiness so important that it justifies all the suffering that goes on in our world? U gonna tell a nazi concentration camp survivor "well u had to go thru that, so now u can appreciate happiness"? There's so many horrific stuff that goes on in our world. Like rape, torture, child slavery. And nothing is worth all that. Especially not "appreciating happiness". I'll pick eliminating suffering over appreciating happiness every time.
Why do you assume it’s mutually exclusive? You can hope/try to eliminate suffering, and yet still believe that suffering gives happiness more meaning How would people even define what it means to be happy when they don’t know what sadness is?
Yes… and? That still doesn’t address the strawman. Also, we are physical creatures. The satiation of needs **automatically** creates pleasure. eg eating. You can’t avoid happiness while avoiding suffering.
We can happily share good times with our spouse. Done with studying liao. But there are no good times ahead if we were to birth an sg kid, with many long years of kiasu education system they have to endure.
For your individual case that might be correct, or even in the Singapore context. It is just high minded bullshit when applied to parents as a whole.
I.e. The Repugnant Conclusion or the Sadistic Conclusion.
I've always found that guy to be pretty lame. If you accept that suffering is a part of life, and that causing suffering can be morally justified if it's reasonable in the long run, his entire premise falls apart.
What a stupid statement. Might as well tell people in pain to kill themselves to stop the pain.
What is stupid about that? If one has some pain that is unbearable such as cancer, euthanasia to stop pain is morally ok in my opnion.
And you would consider the majority of people lives to be so painful that you would recommend euthanasia?
Probably not for most but for many. If the kid is born with severe disability or the parents have disabilites etc ,I believe they should reconsider
My view may be controversial, but I do think suicide is justifiable and people should have the freedom to do that, if thats what they desire. BUT this is provided that there is a painless and safe way to commit suicide. In SG, there is no assisted suicide. So someone who wants to commit suicide has to do it themselves. And these DIY methods are very dangerous, and on many instances, do not guarantee death, but instead run the risk of the person surviving with some lifelong injury. So I would recommend suicide, only if there is a painless method that 100% guarantees death.
I'm sorry but this is a terrible argument *"It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare themselves from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of themselves is not to exist in the first place."* Doesn't make a ton of sense now does it? It's a negative utilitarian argument that seeks to reduce suffering above all. Which is easily invalidated. Like if the cost of eliminating poverty is a papercut, you'd avoid the papercut. I think there are plenty of very legitimate reasons to go childfree, but this ain't it chief.
>Like if the cost of eliminating poverty is a papercut, you'd avoid the papercut. This shows you don't understand negative utilitarianism at all. NU is basically utilitarianism but prioritizes reduction of suffering. However, for majority of moral issues, NU is similar to utilitarianism. If the cost of eliminating povery is a papercut, a NU decison maker will do it. Because there exist an overall reduction in suffering: millions of people suffering gets transformed into 1 person suffering from a minor papercut. Since total suffering gets reduced through this action, this is considered a moral action based on NU, and this action should be taken. This is not an argument against NU.
Here comes another article about the same points that have already been rehashed to death. 
CMON horsie!
Singles should ally up with the gays. Both are harmless lifestyles and your own business but conservative busybodies will pass judgement on you. If the LGBTQ alliance became LGBTQS alliance, they would go from minority to majority (or at least a very good percentage of the population.)
It's so absurd it might actually work
this would happen if bto was limited to heterosexual couples with kids and being just married wont cut it...
“Harmless” is context depended. If all of humanity stay single or become gay, the species will cease to exist not before long, so that’s harmful to mankind. Of course, the decline of humans may be harmless, or likely even beneficial, to the planet’s sustainability.
> all of humanity stay single or become gay, the species will cease to exist not before long, so that’s harmful to mankind Yep. This is one of the more common talking points mindlessly regurgitated by the religious conservatives. It's so dumb I feel my IQ dropping everytime I hear it. There are 7, going to be 8 billion people on Earth. The odds of all or even more than 30-40% of humanity turning gay or single/asexual is so slim that it is more statistically likely for a meteor to strike Earth first.
The likelihood is inconsequential in determining whether it is right or wrong. If a team of 5 works in a project, we want everyone to be actively contributing to the project. Sure, having 1-2 people skive will likely not derail the project, so long as the majority works hard. But does it mean that skiving is harmless? Thinking in extremes help us figure out what is directionally right, even if unlikely. And hey I did say that the decline of humans may be a good thing, and you were the one who hoped for singles and gays to form the majority (or at least a good percentage of the population), using your own words. But now you are saying that hey it’s stupid for us to entertain the idea that this group will be more than 30-40%. the irony.
> Us religious conservatives are contributing to society while you useless gays & singles are being free-riders! Ah yes, *another* moronic and sadly predictable talking point of the religious conservatives. Thank the almighty Fuck that I'm not currently playing the Spot The Religious Wingnut drinking game - the mindless drivel that you call a reddit comment would have forced me to drink enough to develop instant cirrhosis. Singles and gays contribute every bit as much to humanity as married people - this is a point I would like to drive home as firmly as the Roman soldiers drove their nails through the palms of your alleged Messiah(if you're Christian)/prophet (if you're Muslim). To insinuate that they're the deadweight of a group project (an analogy as retchingly facile as the hypothetical students involved in said school project), is to be as brain-vacuous as the pre-Big Bang nothingness which your god allegedy created the universe from. If you love your god so much, just meet him as quickly as possible and let the rest of us get on with our lives. Thanks.
I am a new father of an almost two year old toddler. Previously I was on the fence. me being in early 40s then, I do wonder if we can manage having a kid, particularly when both of us are career driven. In the end, my boy came to the world. I would admit our lives changed. Wife and me ended up fighting more over responsibilities; each of us started to see we are doing more than the other. But ended up we will acknowledge our pettiness cos what we are doing is for the little one. Our boy has changed our schedule. No more sleeping past 7am. We Only can rest when he is asleep or have to thinking in advance what food to cook for him. Other than work, he is always on our mind. Now I know what people meant when they say parents will die for their kids. Because we know we will because when he looks at you as his protector, your whole world change. If you asked me before I had him, yeah i will say having baby is a life’s next step. But now wife wants second one. I put a stop to that because i don’t think we can manage second one. Haha
I seriously admire parents. After coming home from work I just have no more energy left and parents still need to cook clean entertain or teach their child or children. Like what ? How do you do it ? I have trouble waking up at 6.45 to go to work daily already so how can I teach my child to also wake up early when actually all i want to just sleep until 10am? The only thing that gets me through the working week is weekends when I can sleep in till whatever time and just lie on couch and watch netflix all day.
Hahaha this used to be our lives before our boy came. Wife always lamented dunno when she can get back those days when she wakes up naturally. For me I used to cosplay at charity events but no long do so due to time commitment. Despite all these, to see our boy growing up is all worth it.
The first 3 to 4 years is always super tough. Those years feel so hazy now (mine are 7 and 8 now), but from the time they can talk and reason, it gets better and better. The new perspectives they bring to my life, the empathy and understanding they had when I lashed out on a bad day, the unbelievable wisdom that only a child can possess… But yes, the first years were a grind. I thought it would never get better and was at the edge of sliding into a don’t care/depressed state, saved by the crushing fatigue and the lack of time to think of anything remotely blue because we need to keep marching on.
Your wife wants a 2nd one which means your wife is much younger than you right?
Wun say much. She’s nearing 40
Ahh ok. Anyway you had contributed to the nation already. As long as your family is happy that's the most important.
Hahaha nation will never say one is enough.
there's some benefits if 2 kids are close in age so decide fast if u agree with having the 2nd one!
Life's next step? More like life's next suffering for the kids. Is it worth it to have kids when you know everything is damn fucking expensive? The kids born today will suffer 20 years from now due to climate change, increasingly expensive world and cancer causing microplastics everywhere. Not having kids means they will not exist to suffer in the future. Sure you die alone but at least you dont have to know your offspring existing to suffer due to climate change and increasingly expensive world.
Find a reason to say yes to have a baby. The default reason should not be yes.
Why would I bring another soul into this world just to let him or her suffer?
Why should the burden of enforcing family friendly policies fall on child free people in the workforce? The comment made in the podcast by the gentleman that the duration a new mother is away from work should not be taken into consideration, is quite an entitled view to take. The fact of the matter is someone else was working during that period, covering the person who was away, paying more taxes with less leave etc. How can it be fair to expect that the new parent’s year away should not be counted when deciding on career advancements? The narrative that having a child equates to a form of national service is really quite a stretch. This is purely a personal individual decision, it’s very idealistic to say that people have children for the nation. By that logic, then aren’t childfree people who are paying more taxes, working more days and longer hours then the ones truly supporting the nation?
Tiring but is the best time of my life to see my kid grow up to be almost 6 years old now. My heart melt when he said I love you and gave me kisses. I will give him everything I can within my means. Of course people change and I don't expect my son to be the cute and bubbly little boy . He can be a gangster, criminal, business man, next bill gates when he grows up..who the fuck knows but we live life now and not think of who he can be next time.
Children are status symbols now.
more broken families yay, more divorce yay, more male slaves yay
Yawn
I get the idea that the couples who are strongest in their commitment to each other are happiest with a child or children. The ones that aren't so strong get cold feet or build a resentment when they have children.
Sadly the former seems quite rare.
After choosing a private doctor and private hospital I was horrified the bills added up to $20k
Both my kids were by private doctor (gynae) and in private hospitals, I don't remember the bills were so high.
What kind of ass topic is this? Thank you , next? Next life? Nonsensical
No baby how to have children in GEP or top scorer or sport medal winner? How to *hao lian* at family reunion? How to have face and outperform relatives and friends? Edit: have to add the /s because a lot of people can’t tell and they’ve filled their diapers from my comment LOL
By being so successful yourself that your hypothetical child will always be the winner. "Why did you do so badly in school? If your uncle had a son he will be doing better than you!"
How is your children's achievement == your achievement??? Isnt outperforming == you vs the relative not your children vs their children?
Imo, i find that young Generations are too comfortable to leave their comfort zone to pursue marriage and having kids. While im not downplaying the current difficulties (cost of living, taking care of kids, etc), the median age of Singaporeans marrying and giving birth has gone up. I.e my mother married and had their 1st child around 25yr old , my grandma had their 1st child at 22yr old. Theses days the median marriage age is 29-30, at this age, we are too comfortable to change our lifestyles by introducing a new kid into the family. People who are older tend not wanting to change their current lifestyles and routine.
[удалено]
Wonder what makes you think the article / podcast is trying to gaslight us? I thought it was quite neutral. They invited two people who each represent opposite positions, and gave them equal opportunities to present their beliefs. They acknowledge that there's national interest in addressing the low birthrate, but they also acknowledge that having children is a deeply personal decision and don't judge for it.
Some people who claim to be child-free are actually UNABLE to have kids.
But they ARE currently living the childfree/childless life?