Slashdot Mirror


Women Increasingly Freezing Their Eggs To Pursue Their Careers

Lasrick (2629253) writes "Really interesting piece by Emma Rosenblum about women freezing their eggs in order to take 'biological clock' pressure off while they pursue careers: 'Not since the birth control pill has a medical technology had such potential to change family and career planning. The average age of women who freeze their eggs is about 37, down from 39 only two years ago... And fertility doctors report that more women in their early 30s are coming in for the procedure. Not only do younger women have healthier eggs, they also have more time before they have to use them.'"

342 comments

  1. Making a Safer World... by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...for procrastinators.

    1. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, cause 60-year-olds make great parents for teenagers.

    2. Re:Making a Safer World... by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but freezing your eggs doesn't freeze the rest of your aging. As somebody with 3 kids, I'm glad that I had kids young, because I would not have the energy to deal with kids when I was 50 or 60. There's people who are having babies when they are 45. I would not want a teenager in the house when I'm 60. I guess everybody is entitled to their own way of doing things, but it takes a lot of energy to raise kids. Also, I'd like to point out that kids cost exactly as much to raise as you want them to. Sure you could buy $200 shoes for your kid, but they definitely don't need any of that stuff. My kids get plenty of enjoyment from going out for a walk in the woods, which is free, and don't need to go to amusement parks all the time to be entertained.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Making a Safer World... by InvalidError · · Score: 2

      They may be able to support their kids economically but at 50+ years old, they may have a hard time with the stamina to keep up with teen-aged kids.

      If I had kids, I would prefer dealing with them in my 30s while my own health is still unlikely to become a problem.

    4. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      It's stupid. get your kids out of the way when you are young. It's already proven that the genetic stock of a male sperm is severely deteriorated as you get older. best time to sire your kids is in your 20's because they are out of the house in your 40's and you get to live a great life with your spouse kid free, unless you are one of those nutjobs that has 3 or more and dont know what birth control is.

    5. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause 60-year-olds make great parents for teenagers.

      Why do they need to parent, if they did it *right* they can pay for someone else to do that.

      (tongue->cheek)

    6. Re:Making a Safer World... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Sure you could buy $200 shoes for your kid, but they definitely don't need any of that stuff. My kids get plenty of enjoyment from going out for a walk in the woods, which is free, and don't need to go to amusement parks all the time to be entertained.

      That's really only a half-truth. Kids cost either A) the net of the salary the parent gave up to stay at home to raise them or B) the price of the daycare so that the parents can continue to work. The presumption that there is a careerless, stay-at-home parent by default is rather quaint, so A is usually a pretty high number. If you live in a particularly populous area, the cost of B will be rather high if you want your kids to be in a well-staffed facility (and who wouldn't want that?) So, there is a specific and considerable cost to having kids, and backend-loading the cost after your earnings have risen is a very attractive proposition, especially for people who are accustomed to a pretty high standard of living, i.e. a roomy house, vacations, driving a "newer" car, etc.

    7. Re:Making a Safer World... by lgw · · Score: 2

      No one gets to "have it all". You have to prioritize in life - what will your priorities be?

      We're living in a NIMH mouse utopia, I fear, and extinction due to losing the social ability to breed is coming for us.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Making a Safer World... by jma05 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but something tells me that these women would not be wanting to have 3 kids like you, perhaps just the token kid to be a parent at all... or at most two. You can do that at a grandparent age.

      At a later age, I also imagine that a parent would be a bit more wise about being a parent... and generally have a better understanding about how to deal with people, kids or otherwise. A more emotionally mature household might also effect kids differently.

      I am just speculating of course. I wonder what the stats are on fertility rates of parents who start late and take this route. I also wonder what the performance stats of kids are when raised by older parents. I know autism risk goes up, among other things... but that's for unfrozen eggs of natural late motherhood. We know that kids of young parents (as in teen mothers) don't do as well, intellectually, as those from older parents. Does that relationship taper off? or does it continue linearly?

    9. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly, not tongue in cheek. Nowadays many parents view that parenting like many other business tasks can be outsourced.

      It's a major problem with modern schooling for example. Traditionally schools were mainly about providing education. Now they are widely expected, especially by older parents to provide at least partial parenting.

      This is causing a large amount of friction in many countries that are seen the phenomena of older parents.

    10. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The presumption that a job is more important than raising your children is a modern abomination, and has fucked up 3 generations of children who are now aggressively fucking up the planet through their all-consuming greed. (" i.e. a roomy house, vacations, driving a 'newer' car, etc.")

    11. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, it's not quite that bad for men. While the quality of sperm is known to start to deteriorate eventually, male sperm is far less susceptible to this problem than female eggs.

      That and the fact that we know that male sperm quality has been dropping fairly steadily over last century or so. Age doesn't appear to protect against that (i.e. quality of sperm of younger men is also going down), and we're not really sure what's causing it.

    12. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The presumption that a job is more important than raising your children is a modern abomination

      How long has the abomination called "Don't have kids you can't afford" been around to prop up the necessity of a job?

    13. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or C) the parent that stays home to raise them never had a salary to give up. If you never had it, it's not terribly hard to give it up and do without it. This is the route my wife and I chose. We had our first child in our Junior year of college and our second in my last year of graduate school. Our oldest is now almost 17 and my wife has stayed home with our seven children ever since she graduated from college. It turns out that its really not as expensive to raise children as people claim.

    14. Re:Making a Safer World... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, cause 60-year-olds make great parents for teenagers.

      I am not quite 60, but I had my kids late in life. I may not have the energy of a 30 year old, but I am financially secure, and can take as much time as I want to spend with them. Every school day, my kids and I ride our bikes to and from their school. Number of 30 year old parents that do the same: 0. After school, I coach a robotics club. Number of 30 year old parents that participate: 0. Parenting takes energy, but it also take time. If you don't have the latter, the former doesn't matter.

    15. Re:Making a Safer World... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Sadly. most parent with two working parents and a child in day care would be better off with one working parent, cost wise.
      I've seen that a lot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously You're telling me I am the only one who noticed that this news bit comes right after "Venus's crust heals too fast for plate tectonics?" I am going to have nightmares now..

          Really Seriously now, I love that this technology is equalizing women's options with men in terms of having options as to when and where they choose to reproduce as opposed to being slaves to their biology. On the one hand it is nice to pee standing up, but let's be serious, they gave up a lot for the ability to have multiple orgasms. Women deserve an equal chance, and I for one welcome our Cougar tastic frozen egged Hyperorgasmic OverLadies! (Though the phrase sounds like some long lost White Zombie B-side track... doesn't it?)

    17. Re:Making a Safer World... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Clarence.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    18. Re:Making a Safer World... by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Well, one's certainly less likely to physically beat their children at age 60 than at age 30.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    19. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, great submission for Easter.

    20. Re:Making a Safer World... by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      Severely deteriorated might be overstating it. On the other hand, in my family circle the two kids out of about 20 that had problems, (1 autistic, 1 with Crohn's) were both sired by men in their late 40's. The rest of us had kids when Dads were 25 to 35 and had no particular problems. (Small sample size, anecdote is not evidence yada yada.)

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    21. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      If you look at larger sample size, you will indeed see a correlation. However correlation for men is MUCH weaker than what your sample size suggests when polling across large population.

      It's about right for women though. Perhaps the men in question also had older companions which compounded the effect?

    22. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You post on Slashdot and you coach a robotics club. You're an exception. Most 60 years old I know can barely use a computer and basically still live in 1975. For an 8 years old, it's not much of a problem. For a 13 years old, it's a major problem. If the kid follows the education of his parents, he'll be completely unfit for modern society.

      The most important role of a parent is not to pay for things or to be some kind of friend, but it is to serve as a role model so the kid can find his place in society. That's what most 60 years old can't do.

    23. Re:Making a Safer World... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Sadly. most parent with two working parents and a child in day care would be better off with one working parent, cost wise.
      I've seen that a lot.

      Given you can pay for $5000 of your annual daycare expenses with completely pre-tax money, for the first child you would have to earn less than minimum wage (working full time) to make that true (assuming the US average center based daycare cost) so I don't think your experience is typical (based on median wage data). If you opt for an in-home care situation (i.e. at your neighbor's place who watches kids for the thrill) then you can probably find a spot for 2 kids on what amounts to a $15/hr wage. Two kids at an average center-based daycare gets tough, and by the time you get to three you are probably in the red unless you make significantly above the US median wage. I have sticker-shocked many prospective parents with cost figures on child care, but always follow it with this: "if you think daycare is expensive, try not working."

    24. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean wanting a career and hedging they may want kids as well.

      I'm with the other posters, who wants a 60 year old mom when you are a teen?

      She going to take you out and do stuff together?

      Seems rather selfish to have kids knowing you cant deal with them as you are too old, and there is a good chance you will die before they are 20.

    25. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be able to support their kids economically but at 50+ years old, they may have a hard time with the stamina to keep up with teen-aged kids.

      Do you have to chase them around the block? Is there some sort of parent/teen workout plan going on?

      People at 50+ years old are more than capable of raising teenagers. The very fact that they had children late in life will have kept them in better physical shape than if they had a sedentary childless lifestyle.

    26. Re:Making a Safer World... by Bengie · · Score: 2

      The reduced parent to child time is quite detrimental to their development. There is a statistical significance in IQ, schooling, confidence, interests, and opportunities for children watched by their parents instead of day-cares. Unless the parent is a welfare stay at home type, there is a lot of good reasons to take the opportunity cost of not having two incomes, assuming it's even an option.

    27. Re:Making a Safer World... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      It's stupid. get your kids out of the way when you are young. It's already proven that the genetic stock of a male sperm is severely deteriorated as you get older. best time to sire your kids is in your 20's because they are out of the house in your 40's and you get to live a great life with your spouse kid free, unless you are one of those nutjobs that has 3 or more and dont know what birth control is.

      My first guess is that increased quality of life has reduced selective pressure against those with poor sperm.

    28. Re:Making a Safer World... by es330td · · Score: 1

      IIRC, when a woman is born she has all the egg cells she is ever going to have. When she ovulates one of them finishes developing and is released. Consequently, it only makes sense that the longer they stick around, the more likely an egg is to degrade. Men, on the other hand, make new sperm by the millions constantly, so the sperm he contributes are only recently created.

    29. Re:Making a Safer World... by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Sure you could buy $200 shoes for your kid, but they definitely don't need any of that stuff. My kids get plenty of enjoyment from going out for a walk in the woods, which is free, and don't need to go to amusement parks all the time to be entertained.

      That's really only a half-truth. Kids cost either A) the net of the salary the parent gave up to stay at home to raise them or B) the price of the daycare so that the parents can continue to work. The presumption that there is a careerless, stay-at-home parent by default is rather quaint, so A is usually a pretty high number. If you live in a particularly populous area, the cost of B will be rather high if you want your kids to be in a well-staffed facility (and who wouldn't want that?) So, there is a specific and considerable cost to having kids, and backend-loading the cost after your earnings have risen is a very attractive proposition, especially for people who are accustomed to a pretty high standard of living, i.e. a roomy house, vacations, driving a "newer" car, etc.

      Whlle I agree that CastrTroy's comment was a bit dismissive of the costs of giving up a career for the 2nd parent or the costs of daycare in any developed Metro, there are options to both: 1) Live near family (ie, grandparents) that can care for your kids and assist with transportation 2) Look for in-home daycare or other providers - often nearer, may also work with you on transportation (at one point, our bigger kid got walked back from the bus stop to the provider's daycare).

      Trying to get by on one income can be fraught with dangers - losing healtchare (less of an issue now with Obamacare), financial stress of making ends meet, and frustration for the spouse that gave up his/her career. The pernicious fact is that, for larger metros, many families are double income (some with no kids), so real estate and cost of living assumes this. Lower income familes often have 2-4 jobs with one or both parents working 2 jobs to make ends meet.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    30. Re:Making a Safer World... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      You may have to consider several factors involved your statement. Speaking of that, there are many questions to be asked in order to understand how and why you said it. 1)Who paid for both of your education? 2)Where do you live? 3)What help did you get from the Government along these years? 4)Who else help your family during these years, or only two of you?, 5)How much did you claim your kids for tax deduction? and 6)What does your wife think about raising 7 kids?

    31. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ignoring some of the other costs of working: Eating out more, commuting, business attire, and quality of life.

      Some people find their work fulfilling and would really miss it if they had to stay home with kids. Others work because they have to, or feel they have to. For the latter, staying home with the kids can be quite fulfilling, and either costs the same as or less than working + daycare.

    32. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the kid follows the education of his parents, he'll be completely unfit for modern society.

      Wow, what a heap of shit. Education and training are two totally different things. Education - the ability to reason, the fundamentals of logic and of scientific thought, of language, of history, of politics, of rhetoric - is timeless.

    33. Re:Making a Safer World... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      Take me out and teach me how to play football Dad, do you need your walker ? Did you take all of your heart medications today, don't want you keeling over while you are pushing me on my bike as I learn to ride....Mom why are you so much older than all my friends moms' ?

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    34. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Correct. The issue is more with the tissues generating the sperm and their degradation which is much more subtle, which is also currently assumed to be behind degradation of quality of sperm observed across entire population. We just don't know what causes it, and hypotheses range from too tight underwear (testicles are located in a vulnerable location outside the body because they require lower than body temperature to properly develop and tight underwear would cause temperature to rise due to proximity of the body) to increase in chemicals in drinking water to pollution.

    35. Re:Making a Safer World... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      You may have to consider several factors involved your statement. Speaking of that, there are many questions to be asked in order to understand how and why you said it. 1)Who paid for both of your education? 2)Where do you live? 3)What help did you get from the Government along these years? 4)Who else help your family during these years, or only two of you?, 5)How much did you claim your kids for tax deduction? and 6)What does your wife think about raising 7 kids?

      Having someone else care for 7 children (even if only 3 were in daycare at any point) would almost certainly be more expensive than working unless his wife had particularly high income potential (if she went to school to be a pri/sec teacher then forget about that.) However it goes without saying that having 7 children is the exception, not the norm.

    36. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol I'd consider having kids in your 30 "late", I'm 34 with a 1yr old, and I wouldn't of wanted to leave it any later, most of my friends had theirs in their late 20's or bang on 30, and are very involved with their children. not everyone in their 20s or 30s is an irresponsible douche.

    37. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard that before too, but it doesn't pass a smell test. Cells don't live forever, how could one last 50 years? How can this possibly jive with the fact that after 7 years your entire compliment of somatic cells have turned themselves over.

    38. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number of 30 year old parents that do the same: 0.

      This is demonstrably false. I almost ran over a 30-something parent the other day who was riding a bike with their kid.

      And as for our robotics club, number of 60 year old parents that participate: 0.

      On the other hand, number of 30-something mothers helping with local (to me) pre-school, elementary school, and middle school activities: dozens.
      Number of 60-something grandparents helping with same: a handful.

      There's room for everyone to help. Taking 30-somethings out of the parenting pool does not increase the number of parents involved in their childrens' lives. It most certainly decreases the number of grandparents involved.

    39. Re:Making a Safer World... by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      Kids aren't something to "get out of the way" - they're the most important thing in your life (if you choose to have them). I've already lived a great life with my spouse kid free, when I was young enough to enjoy it (and could focus what spare income we had on us) and now I'm ready to have a family. And now I have plenty of money and time to make the family the most important thing, not just something to get over with already.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    40. Re:Making a Safer World... by jeffmeden · · Score: 0

      1) Live near family (ie, grandparents) that can care for your kids and assist with transportation

      This will bite you in the ass... just as soon as your kids are ready to start college (probably at your expense) your parents will be calling dibs on their bedrooms so that you can support them in return... while keeping your kids' tuition paid. It might be worth it, or might not.

    41. Re:Making a Safer World... by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      Correction, not one but 5-25 eggs are released per cycle, depending on the number of active follicles. I didn't know this until we did IVF. The number of follicles that still release eggs at all goes down with age, and the average egg quality also goes down, especially over age 30.

      If you're with an established partner and under age 30, but don't want kids yet, I'd encourage spending the ~$15k to freeze a dozen 5-6 day old embryos. When you're 35, you'll have a much better chance to have healthy children, and can donate the rest to women who can't produce their own. (The pregnancy odds at 35 are around 20%, so with a dozen embryos you should be able to have two or maybe three children.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    42. Re:Making a Safer World... by unimacs · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had my son when I was 35 and my daughter when I was 39. My son is 14 now, a bit taller than me and he can beat me playing one on one. But I can still win too and probably would most of the time if I had much in the way of basketball skills. But I'm 5' 8" and I knew early on that it wasn't going to be my sport.

      A few years ago he gave me crap about getting old so I challenged him to a race when he's 15 and I'm 50. That will be this coming FALL and he's a little worried. He's insisting on a 40 yard dash because he knows he'd lose any kind of endurance race. He'd better hope I slow down a lot in the next few months because the 40 will not be an easy one for him either.

      Sadly enough many Americans in their 20's and 30's are in pretty crappy physical condition and it really doesn't take that much for a 50 year old to be in shape by comparison. Take care of yourself and you'll be fine in your 50's.

      The other thing about teenagers that's important to remember is that they'd much rather be doing something with their friends than with you. That's not to say my son minds playing ball with his Dad, - but only if he's got nothing else going on.

      I do wish that there was going to be a larger span of time between the time they finish college and the time I retire from work but honestly as far as active playing time goes, my kids got far more time from me that most kids get from their parents, - no matter what their age.

    43. Re:Making a Safer World... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Who watches other people's kids for the thrill of it? Maybe Grandma and Grandpa...

    44. Re:Making a Safer World... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      The ability to reason is intelligence, not education.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    45. Re:Making a Safer World... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      My point is not about number of kids, but I want to clarify his statement -- "It turns out that its really not as expensive to raise children as people claim." Why? Because I do not believe what he said. I felt that he & his wife did not pay their own college expenses. I felt that he took a lot of help from either government or their family or both. When one has been helped (may include financial help), the one does NOT feel that it is "as expensive as" others think.

      By the way, he said that he is the only person who works, so his wife income has no place here.

      my wife has stayed home with our seven children ever since she graduated from college.

    46. Re:Making a Safer World... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      "Nowadays?" That and your unquantified charge that "schools used ter be about LEARNING, now they're about BABYSITTIN!" makes me think you're romanticizing the past.

      Parents haven't changed that much. The percentage of women aged 35 or older having children increased from 5% in the 70's... to about 15% today. We're not talking about a fundamental change in society here. Schools have always been partly about taking the kids off parents' hands for a while. Nannies weren't invented anytime recently. Boarding schools are pretty rare these days.

      I also really don't think there's evidence of "a large amount of friction in many countries" in relation to kids and parents compared to years past. Kids and parents of any age don't get along, but things turn out okay.

      Without data to back up your claim that older parents are worse, I'd suggest the opposite hypothesis: that older parents have less of a struggle to support their children, have to spend less time at work to do so, and thus are better parents.

      Lets not say the sky is falling, because it doesn't appear to be doing so and in general almost never does. I know it's fun to run around squawking that we're doomed, but citations are needed before I'll allow it to continue.

      I'll get off your lawn now.

    47. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so wait you are 70 and your childs in full teenager crysis, you'll have a lot of fun.

    48. Re:Making a Safer World... by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly this attitude is becoming so common people don't even recognize it's wrong. Take day care. As an institution, it was designed as a last-resort option for single mothers who were forced to work due to poverty. It was supported to large degree by charitable organizations. Now it's a booming business and caters to career women who think it's ok to stop being a parent when your kid is 24 months old. I can't imagine why people would deliberately stick their children into what is basically a part-time orphanage before they can even speak. Unless they were so poor they literally couldn't feed their kids without it.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    49. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dear 20-something:

      It's pretty unlikely that a 60-year-old would be in a walker, or on heart meds. You're thinking of someone in their 80s.

      I know everyone over 30 looks the same to you, but we're not.

    50. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really you're depriving your grand-kids and even great-grand-kids, who might never even exist due to lack of family support

    51. Re:Making a Safer World... by dont_jack_the_mac · · Score: 1

      It's not exactly hard to post on slashdot. My dad was 36 when my mom had me. Compare that with one of my co-workers who had his first kid at 15. Sure my co-worker said he had the energy to play basketball with his kids later on, but he was still a kid himself. A parent role is more than just being young and energetic. I am not energetic at any age, but I want to be experienced enough to where my children can benefit from my wisdom. I also want to be financially stable which means pushing parenthood into my 30s.

    52. Re:Making a Safer World... by sjames · · Score: 1

      There are larger problems if teenagers need to be pushed on their bikes while they learn to ride. Generally, if they have any interest in football, they've learned that by the teen years as well.

    53. Re:Making a Safer World... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      By the way, he said that he is the only person who works, so his wife income has no place here.

      By the way, I said "income potential" which is to be considered as an opportunity cost. I am thinking of this purely from an economical standpoint as there are several other non-economic factors which may easily override this. Hence I made no attempt to state what is right/wrong for any given person or family.

    54. Re:Making a Safer World... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think most parents would prefer to spend time with their children but can't afford to. Both of them need to work to pay the bills. Outsourcing is the only option.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    55. Re:Making a Safer World... by almitydave · · Score: 2

      He's talking about practical ability, not innate. Human beings have the ability to juggle. Not everyone can juggle - it is a learned skill. As the internet has helpfully demonstrated, not all human beings have learned the skill of reasoning.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    56. Re:Making a Safer World... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Society needs children, obviously. Otherwise it starts to have all sorts of problems with a falling population, not enough tax payers to pay for the elderly, not enough people to do key jobs. To maintain a constant population the fertility rate needs to be 2.0 or just a little under (due to immigration). As Japan has discovered if you make women choose between a career and children the fertility rate rapidly falls below this level.

      We have to choose between making it easier for people to have children or much higher levels of immigration.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    57. Re:Making a Safer World... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Immigration is a short term answer. Eventually, everywhere will face this problem. Having kids when you're 50 is not the answer.

      We either need to just be OK with starting your career in the late 20s instead of 21, and not see that as any kind of failure (but that seems unlikely), or change what a career looks like in response to increasing automation and plenty of cheap basics. I favor the latter.

      Professional work should be full time for the first 10 years or so, to master the profession, then part time after that, IMO. Two parents each working a 30 hour week will have time for family (as opposed to one parent working, which we tried and was silly). Why not switch to that in your early 30s? Modern employers don't have the concept, of course, but I think it would be a better world if they did (and employers would probably come out ahead paying the same total amount for more workers each with shorter work weeks).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    58. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause 60-year-olds make great parents for teenagers.

      I am not quite 60, but I had my kids late in life. I may not have the energy of a 30 year old, but I am financially secure, and can take as much time as I want to spend with them. Every school day, my kids and I ride our bikes to and from their school. Number of 30 year old parents that do the same: 0. After school, I coach a robotics club. Number of 30 year old parents that participate: 0. Parenting takes energy, but it also take time. If you don't have the latter, the former doesn't matter.

      You sound like a wonderful grandparent! Which is nice, since your age means your kids probably don't have one.

    59. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      No problem. I just have several friends who are teachers, both by profession and by calling. This is one of their favourite talking points after they get a few drinks into them. The friction is there, and it's definitely increasing.

      Note that you yourself agree that number has tripled over just 40 years. I find it strange that you would consider that tripling of demand for certain services that require heavy investment and long term preparation will not generate friction between consumers of said services and providers.

    60. Re:Making a Safer World... by Lotana · · Score: 1

      So much for discipline. Hopefully more than one child is had at a time or the single child will be spoiled rotten.

    61. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Because modern culture glorifies personal achievements and downplays importance of family.

      There are some significant benefits to this approach, such as much more efficient utilization of human resources in the society, but also some significant downsides such as estrangement of child from parent and vice versa.

    62. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That depends on life style in many cases, though obviously the increased financial demand on parents, especially those of middle class has played a major role here. Throughout much of last century one working man could provide enough resources for entire family. This is no longer the case today if you wish to maintain middle-class life in many countries.

    63. Re:Making a Safer World... by hodet · · Score: 1

      he must of hacked into his dad's ./ account.

    64. Re:Making a Safer World... by hodet · · Score: 1

      um /. or is it \. whatever.

    65. Re:Making a Safer World... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      No problem. I just have several friends who are teachers, both by profession and by calling. This is one of their favourite talking points after they get a few drinks into them. The friction is there, and it's definitely increasing.

      That's still anecdotal evidence. Even if these friends of yours have been teaching for the last 30 years, that's still not very reliable unless they've found a way to quantify that it's getting worse.

      Note that you yourself agree that number has tripled over just 40 years. I find it strange that you would consider that tripling of demand for certain services that require heavy investment and long term preparation will not generate friction between consumers of said services and providers.

      Nonsense. The article said the proportion of mothers 35 or older has tripled in the past 40 years. That doesn't represent a tripling of demand from schools.

    66. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Pell Grants, academic scholarships and working our way thru school (me as a computer lab manager and her as a respite provider).
      2. Portland
      3. None. We've never been on welfare of any sort.
      4. We don't have any family that lives within 300 miles. The majority of our family lives at least 1000 miles away.
      5. I'm not sure how much we claim our kids for tax deduction. I use TaxAct and just enter in the kids with their social security numbers and let it do the math.
      6. It was her idea.

    67. Re:Making a Safer World... by nemesisrocks · · Score: 1

      I think most parents would prefer to spend time with their children but can't afford to. Both of them need to work to pay the bills. Outsourcing is the only option.

      In Australia, the cost of fulltime daycare is around $800 per week. That's often the entire take-home pay of one of the parents, especially if they're only working 9AM-3PM.

      Most people aren't doing it to earn extra cash. It's so they don't "lose their place" in their career. Time out of the workforce is a killer for career progression.

    68. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... because nobody ever sent their kid away to boarding school before the year 2000. Are you kidding? Parents are insanely involved with their kids these days, particularly fathers. Go back a generation or two and fathers spent their time in the workshop/garage or watching TV after dinner. Now the entire day is about kids' stuff.

    69. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the demand must have far more than tripled, as today far more mothers are working instead of raising children at home.

    70. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      There are many kinds of cells in human body. Nerve cells live for decades, as do undeveloped egg cells.
      One of the reasons why fertility collapses so fast and so badly after ~30 years of age is because these cells start reaching their end of life.

    71. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That was only done in a few countries, and only for higher strata of society in most of those countries.

      What we're talking here is middle class.

    72. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work because otherwise I would have to stay at home with the wife and those goddamned kids.

    73. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me tell you from experience: YES YOU DO HAVE TO CHASE THEM AROUND THE BLOCK. If you think otherwise, the Chattanooga Police and the Dpt of Child Services would like to have a word with you....

    74. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the skoolin Internet Tough Guy. I bet your swoll..... swag yolo

    75. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I already replied to your questions in another post (paid for school via work, loans, grants, and scholarships - just like lots of other people. We haven't relied on family or government or other sources for help). We have paid for everything on my middle class income. The thing to realize is that the cost of raising kids is not 7x the cost of raising 1 child. It's like buying in bulk, the cost per child goes down when there are more children. It doesn't cost that much more to make a meal for 9 instead of 3 or 4. Clothes, toys, etc. can be passed down. You don't have to pay for babysitters when you have older children. The list goes on and on.

    76. Re:Making a Safer World... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Not sure if joking or trolling, but you're an asshole either way. Attending to career so they can provide well for the child doesn't seem like procrastinating to me. It sounds like good and reasonable planning.

      Yes, because providing well is the only metric in raising children

      Let us say, the woman makes the choice to delay having her children until age 50.

      So when the child is in college, she is 70. Since their seems to be a 5-10 year difference in age between wives and husbands, daddy might be in his 80's or even dead by that time. Of course this might not matter if the woman does not need a man.

      So here we have an 80 year old woman, with 30 year old children.

      They might visit you in the nursing home. Maybe. and when your femal child makes your smart choice, you figure you will be around at 100 when she decides the time is right to have children.

      That won't be the only thing your well provided for children will miss out on. Their grandparents stand a pretty good chance of being dead. You will not have the energy to interact with them in the way you would if you had them at a more normal time. There is joy in having still vital parents, and even grandparents. I would not have given that up for anything. Your well provided for children will not have this joy. I played on the same adult hockey team as my son.

      And your well provided for children are probably going to be burdened with taking care of you in your decline, while trying to raise families of their own. Perhaps changing their child's huggies, then your depends. You are doing your well provided for children no favors. I think having children very late on purpose is subtle cruelty, the sort of "smart idea" that only the most self centered are capable of doing.

      Beware of calling people assholes when you are being a smug, pretentious "The world orbit around me" person.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    77. Re:Making a Safer World... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Are your children going to be taking care of you and their children at the same time?

      For some years now, way too many people are adopting the concept that they will live forever. Just about the time that my son got out of high school, my parents and my wife's parents started downhill, and needed a lot of help. If we were still raising our child, especially if he were pretty young at the time, it would have been a nightmare, and it was bad enough as it was.

      We see this staying around forever disorder in wide ranging areas, from the old parenting trend, to people figuring they'll start saving for retirement tomorrow. Always tomorrow. But we should be out of that stage about the time we graduate from college.

      I was a lot poorer when we started our family. Doing okay, but still a lot less money. My son has never once mentioned about how much he appreciated the financial security I provided. He often talks about how much he enjoyed when we both played on the same hockey team together.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    78. Re:Making a Safer World... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      1) Live near family (ie, grandparents) that can care for your kids and assist with transportation

      This will bite you in the ass... just as soon as your kids are ready to start college (probably at your expense) your parents will be calling dibs on their bedrooms so that you can support them in return... while keeping your kids' tuition paid. It might be worth it, or might not.

      You sound like my sisters, and my wife's brothers and sister.

      In both cases, they tossed off any responsibility for any of our parents, who managed to all die off within 7 years. So it was my wife and I who cared for them.

      Anyhow, the siblings were surprised when my wife and I got the lion's share of all the inheritances.

      The irony is that I'd told all the parents that I didn't like dead people's money, and our siblings are all about money.

      Perhaps your parents will end up feeling the same about you.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    79. Re:Making a Safer World... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Kids aren't something to "get out of the way" - they're the most important thing in your life (if you choose to have them). I've already lived a great life with my spouse kid free, when I was young enough to enjoy it (and could focus what spare income we had on us) and now I'm ready to have a family. And now I have plenty of money and time to make the family the most important thing, not just something to get over with already.

      Are you ready for your children to not have living Grandparents? Are you ready to be in your declining years, dependent upon them when they are trying to raise their own families.

      And finally, if there is one thing that I have discovered about those who delay - Money is number one. Your self centeredness is number two. Children alomst never think of money. Yours will probably find it to be the metric of your love.

      Then again, you might be the exception.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    80. Re:Making a Safer World... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      We're living in a NIMH mouse utopia,

      A Nickel-Metal Hydride mouse?

      Dude, you should use Litioum Ion batteries in that thing!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    81. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made 48K in Houston. My wife worked part-time while our 10month old was in daycare. Because she worked as a contractor, she paid half her income in taxes. The other half wasn't even enough to cover daycare. So not only did we actually money with all the time involved, but that was less time for her to spend with our son.

      Short version: I work 60+ hours a week, she holds the stay-at-home-mom title. Both are full-time jobs. Well actually, her job never ends so it's tougher on her than it is for me. But I'm still exhausted from work too, so I'm not slacking. Not by a long shot.

      I guess we haven't changed much from the days of hunter-gathering have we?

    82. Re:Making a Safer World... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      You have this backwards. Kids exist to teach their parents new technology, parents don't teach their kids technology.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    83. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how these days it's the oldies who are fit and the young parents who are fat and can barely catch a breath.

    84. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer:
      C) Neither (A) nor (B) ... grandparents!

      Absolutely free. And best of all ... they love & treat the grandchildren as if they are their own flesh and blood. 'Cos they are!

    85. Re:Making a Safer World... by djdarko · · Score: 1

      Not sure what sort of crappy day care you've been exposed to, but our daughter has been going to school at Bright Horizons since she was 10 weeks old. She is now 2 and 1/2, and we (including her) couldn't be more pleased. They are very experienced with early childhood education and provide us (first-time parents) guidance and support in raising our daughter. Their positive, nurturing environment, structured curriculum, and positive peer pressure with things like crawling, walking, eating, speaking, and potty training help to provide a rate of cognitive and social development that would be hard for us to emulate on our own. You talk about "day care" as though it's a lazy alternative to parenting - I would argue that it IMPROVES the quality of time that we spend together as a family because we are all fresh and excited to spend time together after our work / school days are over. Full-time moms are frequently exhausted and exasperated (not to mention financially strained), which strains their relationship with their child. Additionally, full-time parents generally have to drag their kids all over town during the day to do things like shopping, whether or not the child's mood or temperament are suitable - tantrum, anyone? Parents that have fulfilling careers outside of the family are happier and happier parents are better parents. Obviously, there needs to be proper work/life balance.

    86. Re:Making a Safer World... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      1) Live near family (ie, grandparents) that can care for your kids and assist with transportation

      This will bite you in the ass... just as soon as your kids are ready to start college (probably at your expense) your parents will be calling dibs on their bedrooms so that you can support them in return... while keeping your kids' tuition paid. It might be worth it, or might not.

      You sound like my sisters, and my wife's brothers and sister.

      In both cases, they tossed off any responsibility for any of our parents, who managed to all die off within 7 years. So it was my wife and I who cared for them.

      Anyhow, the siblings were surprised when my wife and I got the lion's share of all the inheritances.

      The irony is that I'd told all the parents that I didn't like dead people's money, and our siblings are all about money.

      Perhaps your parents will end up feeling the same about you.

      Hm nope, that's already taken care of, but thanks for being a condescending asshole anyway. Your siblings must find you delightful.

    87. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just disciplined you with a -1 Troll mod. See? No need to resort to committing a violent felony in order to teach someone a lesson.

    88. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other thing about teenagers that's important to remember is that they'd much rather be doing something with their friends than with you.

      Sure — if you're an authoritarian square. Teenagers are interested in porn, beer, and weed. If you play an active role in those activities, you can "out-cool" the kid's friends, and they'll stick around, out of trouble. Further, you provide a trusting, safe, supervisory environment in which your child can engage in these things, and they won't get into actual, serious trouble. That's how my parents did things, and now that's how I'm doing things.

    89. Re:Making a Safer World... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      There's no reasoning someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Clearly, you want to believe that there is a crisis in education and parenting and are unable to consider anything that doesn't justify your position on the matter. So I give up, and I'll just say I'm glad you have limited control of education and parenting.

    90. Re:Making a Safer World... by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 1

      I wish circumstances allowed my parents to live with me. I cannot imagine a happier circumstance than the opportunity to care for them in their winter years.

    91. Re:Making a Safer World... by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      Nice anecdote, but there's plenty scientific evidence pointing to the fact that children who go to day care have significant differences with those who do not, and the differences are negative. While they are slightly more cognitively stimulated because of the day care environment, they tend to be more aggressive and impulsive.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    92. Re:Making a Safer World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Sadly enough many Americans in their 20's and 30's are in pretty crappy physical condition and it really doesn't take that much for a 50 year old to be in shape by comparison. Take care of yourself and you'll be fine in your 50's...

      Agreed. Staying active makes all the difference. Though I don't yet have kids, (at 44,) I still consider it. That, and in the office I work in, I'm both the oldest.. and the fastest. ;)

    93. Re:Making a Safer World... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Nice anecdote, but there's plenty scientific evidence

      Citation needed.

    94. Re:Making a Safer World... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Nowadays many parents view that parenting like many other business tasks can be outsourced.

      Why the "nowadays"?

      People have outsourced parenting to wet nurses, nannies and servants for the whole of recorded history. Whenever they could afford it, they've done it.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    95. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Only the upper classes who could afford this. Vast majority never could.

    96. Re:Making a Safer World... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Like I said, "whenever they could afford it".

      It may be becoming more common and/or cheaper these days, but it's not anything fundamentally new.

      On a different level, outsourcing looking after the kids to granny has been going on more widely and for much much longer ; there are reasonable arguments that the whole menopause thing and an extended lifespan are an evolutionary consequence of granny being able to increase her gene's representation in the population by looking after the kid's kids.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    97. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      But that was a shift of parenting within a family unit, which was nuclear family throughout most of human history. It touches on another major socio-economic change that is dissolution of nuclear families which is also stressing social assistance networks to the extreme as they struggle to compensate for quickly changing care requirements for elderly.

    98. Re:Making a Safer World... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It occurred to me that we're arguing about the details while agreeing on the whole, but my way of expression may give a different impression.

      My main point is not to deny that this was happening, it's the scale of it occurring, which has exploded in a very short time, causing severe growing pains for services which now have to produce services that used to be very limited and expensive aimed only at elite. Now they need to be produces cheaply and en masse as amount of people requiring these services has exploded.

    99. Re:Making a Safer World... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It occurred to me that we're arguing about the details while agreeing on the whole,

      Yeah, it's no biggie.

      The dissolution of the "nuclear family" is happening. I'm neutral on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing - I'm not in the breeding game ; it's a "someone else's problem".

      But that was a shift of parenting within a family unit, which was nuclear family throughout most of human history.

      Hmmm, that's an assertion. For most of written history, yes, the nuclear family is common. It's not the only solution - a lot of hunter-gatherer societies are not nuclear family models. But for written history ... I'll agree that the nuclear family is the commonest solution.

      Looking at the houses at Catal Hoyuk, they'd not be inappropriate to a nuclear family. But on the other hand, the iron age roundhouses found all over western Europe would accommodate 20-30 people easily. Which doesn't sound like a nuclear family.

      Stepping back through the rest of history and archeology ... groups as small as a "nuclear family" seem smaller than what we have in the way of sites. There might be multiple families living together, possibly related. But it doesn't look like a nuclear family in the way people use the term these days.

      Going to our closest living relatives, chimps, bonobos and gorillas - none of them use a nuclear family. Which suggests to me that the nuclear family is not the basal situation for primates.

      Horror for politicians : one of their shibboleths might not actually be terribly important. Oh noes!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    100. Re:Making a Safer World... by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Plenty of loving families are poor - mine was growing up - but to say that any family that has gotten itself financially secure before bringing life into the world is self centered is pretty fucking trollish of you.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    101. Re:Making a Safer World... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Plenty of loving families are poor - mine was growing up - but to say that any family that has gotten itself financially secure before bringing life into the world is self centered is pretty fucking trollish of you.

      Oh, bullshit.

      Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I am a troll, any more than me disagreeing with you makes you one.

      If you like, with the miracle of modern science, you and your SO can have children in your 80's.

      What is this mysterious "financially secure" thing anyhow? It varies. And for some of us, it is an imaginary number. It's always something more than what we have at the moment.

      Is it a net worth of 100 K?

      150K?

      half a million?

      A million?

      and so on

      It's so very odd, but the amount of personal wealth is almost irrelevant to the perception of what is enough money.

      Although I increased my wealth quite a bit in the last few years, my SO worries more about it now than she ever did before - including when we did start our family. I suspect if we were trying to start our family now - we just wouldn't.

      And a much younger former coworker of mine, who is inexplicably driving a taxi now, is on his third child. He and his wife put the shame to many financially secure parents. What do you figure he makes? Point is, you'd be surprised at how many reasons there are to delay childbirth - forever - if personal wealth is the metric.This isn't get off my lawni'sm, just how life works out.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    102. Re:Making a Safer World... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I was 20 something, 25 years ago...

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  2. Useless without a surrogate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not just the eggs that deteriorate as women age. Test tube babies are going to become more and more common as parents decide to wait longer to have kids.

    1. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It runs both ways. I'd be interested to see if any men are buying these stored eggs... I know their is a market for them. Then contributing their own sperm and hiring a surrogate to bring it to term. Its not a great deal different from the women that have been going to sperm banks.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:Useless without a surrogate by popo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's only one particular class of humans on earth that is waiting longer. The uneducated, the religious and the poor (which are often one and the same group) are actually having babies at an increasing rate, starting at a younger age.

      The global effects of "waiting" on overall population are actually very small when measured against the overall metrics of global population. It's a big world out there. The effects on demographics and culture are actually profound though -- but they are opposite to the intent of those who wait: Populations are dumbing down precisely because the educated have decreased their rate of reproduction.

      What is good for the individual family, may be fatal for the society.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    3. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Christ, what male wants children and decades long financial burdens that badly?

    4. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be interested to see if any men are buying these stored eggs... Its not a great deal different from the women

      Except if a guy did that, society would consider it creepy as fuck. For the same reasons that it doesn't let guys be teachers anymore.

    5. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Number42 · · Score: 0

      ...it doesn't let guys be teachers anymore.

      I don't think so. Statistics show an approximately 50% ratio of female teachers which doesn't seem to be going up (thus implying a decrease in the ratio of male teachers).

    6. Re:Useless without a surrogate by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      I think the Anonymous Coward is talking about the United States, which has a considerably higer ratio.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    7. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Idiocracy. It's coming true.
      (Captcha: Unwanted)

    8. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Looking at the natural world, the purpose of life is to survive through the genetic code. That is encoded in every organism. They are born, breed and die. Some in a very short time frame.

      Humans are special in that we get to choose our purpose. However having children still feels the best. Many have said that real happiness is impossible without children. Not to mention you want someone to take care of you when you get old.

      Why do you think males are more immune to these drives than females? Just because we are not limited in our number of sex cells? Men want children just as much as anyone regardless of the financial strain. It is very rare indeed for a person to choose never to have children.

    9. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So what if they did think it was creepy? Not illegal... and at that point the man will have a family. Try to start something. You'll lose.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Populations are dumbing down precisely because the educated have decreased their rate of reproduction.

      Citation needed.

      I have an unsupported, unscientific opinion as well: If, indeed, populations are becoming less intelligent, surely it is because modern society selects for beauty and charisma over intelligence.

    11. Re:Useless without a surrogate by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 2

      Intelligence is actually fatal for mating. The mating instincts are part of our monkey-brains, and if our monkey-brains are too civilized, then we actually have problems tapping into the instincts that assist reproduction.

      This is where alcohol steps in to save the human race, and thank goodness for that.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    12. Re:Useless without a surrogate by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

  3. Obligatory by Johann+Lau · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Obligatory by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And people still assert this is in spite of decades of the Flynn Effect. There's an important genetic component to intelligence, but everything we've see recently suggests fetal development, nutrition, and education make such tremendously larger difference that the "idiocricy effect" could at most be considered a momentary blip.

      Human beings are smart. Given good conditions, they tend to be really smart. And we're all incredibly genetically similar.

    2. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

      Also

      Therefore the "idiocricy effect" as you called it is merely a consequence of population density, not individual capability.

    3. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      everything we've see recently suggests fetal development, nutrition, and education make such tremendously larger difference that the "idiocricy effect"

      Except for twin studies which indicate a heritability for IQ between .7 and .8:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

      So, you know, there's that.

      Of course environment has an impact. It's similar to height in that regard - malnourish a child and they won't grow into their genetic destiny. But to therefore suggest that height isn't strongly heritable is just absurd.

    4. Re:Obligatory by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      The failure of design by committee has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with the nature of conflicting interests and compromise. An individual can still be smart sitting in a crowded room, and in fact, when that happens we call them "Lecture halls"

    5. Re:Obligatory by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If both your parents are morons then the likelihood of you receiving good fetal development, nutrition, and education are slim to none. There are exceptions but the reason they are called exceptions is they are RARE! That said growing up extended family would frequently commented on how much I was like my grandfather (he died when I was an infant) because I had his smarts (He taught himself chemical engineering and was part of the development of polymers). My take on our society is today's typical highly intelligent couple are too self absorbed to embark on a life of selfless giving by having children. Of those that do have children a large percentage offload the actual parenting to paid support so they can continue to be self absorbed while patting themselves on the back for having pro-created. Having said all that I believe a child raised by morons that love the child has a far superior life to a child raised by intellectuals or affluent parents who see the child as a trophy or burden.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    6. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fetal development, nutrition, and education make such tremendously larger difference

      Sources?

      Environment is only a dominant factor at the low end - if you deprive a child then it won't fulfill its genetic potential. At the top of the distribution, human intelligence is strongly limited by genetic factors.

      Look up the research (twin/adoption studies, GWAS, the current BGI study of high-IQ individuals). Read Steve Hsu's blog. You can't create a von Neuman or Einstein by making your kids eat their Wheaties; if you could, there'd be a lot more of em.

      I realize the belief that IQ is all environmental is both emotionally and politically gratifying. But look up the research. It's simply not true.

    7. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Flynn effect doesn't disprove that dumber, more conservative, more religious, and less responsible people all have more babies. The Flynn effect simply says we're raising their dumb and irresponsible children with proper nutrition, education, and fewer environmental toxins. That XKCD comic is completely on the wrong side of history.

    8. Re:Obligatory by brit74 · · Score: 2

      And people still assert this is in spite of decades of the Flynn Effect.

      Here's the thing: the Flynn effect seems to be a real thing, but the Flynn effect seems to have stopped in the past decade or two in developed countries. "Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores[4] to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

      There's even been some reports that IQs have begun declining in developed countries. (I wouldn't put too much stock in this just yet, but it might be a good indicator that the Flynn Effect is a relic of the 20th century.)

      Scores on cognitive tests have been very widely reported to have increased through the decades of the last century, a generational phenomenon termed the ‘Flynn Effect’since it was most comprehensively documented by James Flynn in the 1980's. There has, however, been very little evidence concerning any continuity of the effect specifically into the present century. We here report data from a population, namely young adult males in Denmark, showing that whereas there were modest increases between 1988 and 1998 in scores on a battery of four cognitive tests–these constituting a diminishing continuation of a trend documented back to the late 1950's–scores on all four tests declined between 1998 and 2003/2004. For two of the tests, levels fell to below those of 1988. Across all tests, the decrease in the 5/6 year period corresponds to approximately 1.5 IQ points, very close to the net gain between 1988 and 1998. The declines between 1998 and 2003/4 appeared amongst both men pursuing higher academic education and those not doing so.

      http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe...

      There's an important genetic component to intelligence, but everything we've see recently suggests fetal development, nutrition, and education make such tremendously larger difference that the "idiocricy effect" could at most be considered a momentary blip.

      Or maybe we should treat the Flynn Effect as a momentary blip.

      So, what's going on? One possibility is that, in poorer countries, a substantial portion of the population is failing to get sufficient nutrition and stimulation to their children. This would have the effect of creating a portion of the population which is cognitively harmed - thus reducing the average intelligence of the population as a whole. As you get better nutrition across the entire population, you see the average IQ increase - but only because the bottom segments of society are improving (not because everyone is improving).

      This would explain why poorer countries are continuing to see Flynn-effect improvements, but developed countries saw it's effect in the mid-20th century but isn't seeing any improvements lately (because the poverty that was harming childrens' brain development isn't happening anymore in developed countries).

      Whatever the case, it's time to stop relying on the "Flynn Effect" as some kind of prediction that our future will continue to be bright. Here's an analogy: in the 20th century, we saw the average height of Japanese people increase significantly. This was due to better nutrition (protein, in particular, during childhood is important). We can also say that height is a strongly heritable trait. At this point, I think we should just accept that the Flynn Effect has topped-out in developed countries.

      I don't think questions about declining IQs based on genetics is a bad question to ask, and I don't think 'trust the flynn effect' should be treated like it's an adequate answer. I realize I could be opening a whole can of worms, though, with this comment, becau

    9. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey guys! We've found Leonard Hofstadter's Slashdot UID! Your mom says hi. She also says to quit being a baby and take the titty out of your mouth. Needy babies are greedy babies. I read that in her book.

    10. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My take on our society is today's typical highly intelligent couple are too self absorbed

      "If I have children, they will inherit many aspects of themselves from my significant other and I. It is highly likely that they will face many of the same challenges and issues that I do."

      Here, the highly intelligent couple says, "Maybe we should figure our shit out before we take responsibility for another life."

      The not-so-intelligent couple says something along the lines of "Fuck it, we want babies."

      to embark on a life of selfless giving by having children.

      I know a lot of parents. Hell, I even have a few of my own. There is no question in my mind that there is a selfless, unconditional love in the heart of every parent, even the ones who are total fuck-ups who probably shouldn't have had children. But don't go trying to imply that parenthood magically makes you Mother Teresa.

      After all, if it did, I'm pretty sure your parents would have taught you how to spell "archangel."

  4. Still can't use them later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You still can't use them later, if you wait until your 40s when your career really has taken off, you're all dried up in there, and can't use the eggs.

  5. It's not a doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Babies are people, not toys that you lay away for.

    1. Re:It's not a doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abort! Abort! Abort! Every sperm is sacred!

    2. Re:It's not a doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like, "my mercedes and corner office come first"

    3. Re:It's not a doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timely article is timely: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb...

    4. Re:It's not a doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Congratulations, here's your prize for speaking out against... well, I'm not really sure, but here it is anyway!

      Why in the world would you care in the slightest what any woman does with her own body and/or offspring? Things that are 100% out of your control -- and damn well should be -- are things which aren't worrying about. Go find something productive to do, like worrying about yourself.

    5. Re:It's not a doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are correct, babies are people, not toys. Sadly, we've gotten so far from civilised it's not even laughable. The fact a woman wants to freeze her eggs for future use is indicitive her primary role is to marry and raise a family. Society has simply gotten worse since the 50s. Let's not start a flame war, here, lads. I'm speaking of general societal mores and norms concerning the traditional family. There once was a time when a chap could work a job and pay for his mortgage, food, a nice family coupe, and even have a bit left over to save for family holidays and a little time down the pub with mates. Sadly, this is gone. Both man and woman now have to work and for what? The women I know work to place their children in care whilst they work. Stupid, really. Call me old fashioned, and yes, I am, but the good old days are far behind us. Internet and technology are nice, but they don't replace, even remotely, good family, good morals, and time down the pub with mates over darts and cigars (no sadly illegal whilst in public).

    6. Re:It's not a doll by kanweg · · Score: 1

      So, you must be happy that they want to have their baby when they have time for it, not squeezed in a too tight time schedule because of some biological clock ticking.

      Bert
      Who can only hope that you know the difference between an egg and a baby

    7. Re:It's not a doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact a woman wants to freeze her eggs for future use is indicitive her primary role is to marry and raise a family.

      More sexist garbage. It's indicative that she wants to wait before having kids. Marriage is a mere title; absolutely irrelevant.

    8. Re:It's not a doll by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Society has simply gotten worse since the 50s.

      We are in a record low murder, abortion, teen pregnancy, and violent crimes, and that's going as far back as records go, and that includes the early 1900s for some of those statistics. We're in a much better time, we just have more FUD around us with easy access to sensational news.

    9. Re:It's not a doll by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Babies are continuation of your genetic line, which is your concern and your concern alone first and foremost.

    10. Re:It's not a doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great article. Up until the part at the end where they're pushing the anti-promiscuity pro-fidelity agenda. What's fidelity gonna do to you? Promiscuous and always there is a lot better than faithful and alienated. She was a virgin in her 30s, so what does the sexual liberation have to do with anything in her case? It's the same case as here on Slashdot: our work keeps away from mating, and no amount of fidelity or promiscuity will change that. But hey, look at the mountain of cash I spent on my toys :) _MY_ toys.

    11. Re:It's not a doll by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope. Continuation of the species is you first and foremost concern, even if you don't realize it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:It's not a doll by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see people put eggs in storage than risk having problem babies. Studies in the last decade have shown that people that have babies after 35 are at much higher risk of having autistic kids. The only 4 autistic kids I know are from parents that opted to have kids after 35 (coincides with the studies).

      Before my argument can even start making sense the following question needs to be answered: Does freezing your eggs and sperm reduced your chances of having an autistic kid if grown in an aging body?

    13. Re:It's not a doll by Seumas · · Score: 1

      No. In a few decades (at best), I'll be dead. What do I give a shit if my "genetic material" is left behind? I'LL BE DEAD.

      If you really want to leave something behind, go murder a few thousand people and guarantee a spot in history books. Or help some people. . . but frankly, you're better killing them. Everyone remembers Manson after a few murders, but almost nobody remembers Borlaug after a billion and counting lives credited to his work.

    14. Re:It's not a doll by Seumas · · Score: 1

      This is what really disturbed me about Sarah Palin playing the whole "look what a saint I am, caring for a child with downs/autism/whatever it was!". Despite the fact that she was a "saint" for caring for *her own damn kid*, the fact was that she had him when she was like 40. The risk at 30 is something like 1:1200. At 35 and later, it goes to 1:30 and so on.

      Don't get me wrong - I'm all for people not having children when their lives aren't together, they don't know who they are, and they are not financially capable without the aid of the rest of us coming to their rescue -- but that doesn't negate the risks you assume in waiting too long, either. And, really, it won't hurt anything if you just don't have any at all. The planet isn't exactly hurting for human resources.

    15. Re:It's not a doll by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Babies are people

      So:

      babies = people
      corporations = people

      Therefore:

      corporations = babies

      Does this mean we can spank corporations and give them time-outs?

    16. Re:It's not a doll by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It is not. In nature, interspecies competition can be so harsh, it can wipe out the entire species in process of selection. Species can also diverge into two distinctly different species.

      Priority is always placed on your own genetic line and line of those close to you genetically over that of entire species for aforementioned reasons among other things.

    17. Re:It's not a doll by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Because you are, by design, nothing but a strand of genetic information that is biologically created for a singular purpose - procreation as to advance evolution.

      You may no like it, but that is the harsh reality. Even your intelligence which you use to deny evolution has evolved only because it allowed your genetic line to be better than competitors in the selection. Individualistic look at evolution fails for this very reason - when faced with evolution, single member of any species is largely irrelevant.

      I don't like to sound religious, but by using intellect to deny evolutionary priorities, you are essentially denying your creator.

    18. Re:It's not a doll by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Your argument makes absolutely no sense. FYI.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    19. Re:It's not a doll by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The argument is that he is using intellect, granted to him because of evolutionary selection, which in turn requires leaving progeny, to deny that he should leave progeny behind.

    20. Re:It's not a doll by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Do you think it was men that demanded for women to have careers?

      During the WW2, due to the shortage of men, women entered the workforce. The loved it so much that after the war there was no putting them back in the homes anymore.

      Face it, women want to work. They are free. It is only fair to let them choose their destiny. Yes, it did lessen (Not killed. Some women prefer to be stay-at-home moms) the traditional gender roles, but I will argue it resulted in happier population as a whole.

    21. Re:It's not a doll by Lotana · · Score: 1

      But your genetic information keeps diluting with every generation. By the fourth generation, you are well and truly dead.

    22. Re:It's not a doll by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      I like working in an environment where women are empowered and contributing. I have a great CFO who's a woman, and she's an inspiration to everyone here. I get to work with intelligent, fun, and attractive women who feel safe in expressing themselves--it's fantastic. Women in the workplace is a good thing, and I'm willing to surrender male privilege if this is the result.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    23. Re:It's not a doll by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I don't think you quite understand how this "evolution" thing works. The purpose is not to clone yourself. That is in fact the opposite. The purpose is to show that you genetic material is good enough to procreate and find other person/people who are also good enough to procreate and create something from crossing your genes which can do the same.

  6. The idiocracy is coming by carlhaagen · · Score: 1

    Just wait.

    1. Re:The idiocracy is coming by gstoddart · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure it's already here, and has been for some number of years.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:The idiocracy is coming by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      People have been getting smarter and more educated for as long as we've been keeping records.

      100 years ago, people would line up around the block to pay a nickel to see deformed animal fetuses in jars.

    3. Re:The idiocracy is coming by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And now the watch ads for the privilege of seeing Honey Boo Boo.
      You're right, people in general have been getting smarter and more knowledgeable, I just found your example funny.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:The idiocracy is coming by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      "My brother is at Harvard"

      "Then why are you begging in the streets? Good God can't he support you?

      "No. He's in a jar of formaldehyde. He was born with two heads."

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    5. Re:The idiocracy is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up!

      'Ouch, my Balls!' is on.

  7. Reading the Headline... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    ...wondered, "Why is Slashdot posting cooking and preparation of eggs as 'women's work'? And why would that affect woman's career? Kinda sexist if you ask me..."

    --
    I8-D
  8. Don't delay too long by Chelloveck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For purely financial reasons both men and women probably want their kids to be out of college and self-supporting before they retire. That kind of means you really want to have them by the time you hit your early 40s.

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    1. Re:Don't delay too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retire?
      What is this word you speak of?

    2. Re:Don't delay too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, retirement will be a myth for 99% of the population soon enough anyways.

    3. Re:Don't delay too long by Algae_94 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kids being out of college and self-supporting is becoming a myth for many people as well.

    4. Re:Don't delay too long by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It would help too if more men shared in child rearing. Instead society still seems to think it's just the mother who has to give up the career.
      And along that line, maybe there should be a way to freeze sperm too because as men get older there is evidence that sperm quality declines.
      And along that other line, why are so many opposed to adoption?
      But I digress.

    5. Re:Don't delay too long by userw014 · · Score: 1

      Besides that, the amount of energy it takes to deal with children is daunting. It's a lot easier to convince yourself to have children when you're younger and think that you can do anything.

    6. Re:Don't delay too long by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      The real biological reason for women having a biological clock is because they are the ones who are supposed to stick around for 20 years to raise the child, and stick around as grandmothers for another 10. With a life expectancy of 70-78 years, that gives a 40-48 age for menopause. If they can't stick around to raise the child it's simply an exercise in waste and unnecessary pain.(Life tries to avoid such things, and sometimes it decides to enter into coma, and death, rather than drag through the raw cold turkey reality of pain. Most drug abuse is for similar reasons, can't take the relative harshness and reality of life cold turkey.) The males, are the discardable member of the species, do not have a biological clock. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... you can read: "the three most significant factors in survival were age, sex, and the size of family group each member traveled with. The survivors were on average 7.5 years younger than those who died; children aged between 6 and 14 had a much higher survival rate than infants and children under the age of 6, of whom 62.5 percent died, including the son born to the Kesebergs on the trail, or adults over the age of 35. No adults over the age of 49 survived. Deaths among males aged between 20 and 39 were "extremely high" at more than 66 percent.[174] Men have been found to metabolize protein faster, and women do not require as high a caloric intake. Women also store more body fat, which delays the effects of physical degradation caused by starvation and overwork. Men also tend to take on more dangerous tasks, and in this particular instance, the men were required before reaching Truckee Lake to clear brush and engage in heavy labor, adding to their physical debilitation. " I got an Easy Home Body Fat Scale, for $15 at Aldi's, Model 91207, aldi-US@supra-elektronik.com. It sends a tiny bit electricity through your legs if you stand on it barefoot to display body fat, muscle mass and water content, the remainder being bone%, but I don't think they use variable frequencies, as ratio in low and high frequency impedances could give more information than the plain pie in the sky formulas, that give you a number, though not necessarily something that has anything to do with reality. You also have to enter if you're an athlete, in which case it uses a different formula, as it cannot properly distinguish between muscle and fat in the formulas, so it makes different assumptions for athletes. To get to the point, in the instructions it says women normally store 10% more fat than men. That extra body fat is what makes them the survivors of the species who can drag it out, and the men the discardable fighters or food/wealth suppliers. There is a baby in a womb or outside the womb, surrounded by the female, as a protective and nourishing shell, who is surrounded by a discardable male protective and nourishing shell, but often the male is not available, and it's okay, but if the female is not available, only in recent times it is OK, as men don't have to fight, and mothers can be druggies, and babies can make it without breastfeeding. At http://home.utah.edu/~msm25/Fu... it says: "A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man." There are some other funnies there, too. By the way, keeping your eggs frozen means they can be stolen easily, and even replaced, and then you don't know who's eggs you're giving birth to. In fact even if you go with your own eggs, you never know if they have not all been harvested when you hit puberty, making you infertile, but guaranteed to be lab-bred later depending on how you behave in your life, or, a couple reimplanted back to let you get pregnant, and see what kind of a mother you are. But you never know if the child is really yours, some ancient true-enemy situation, or distant across the globe but genetically close relative, there is all kinds of games

    7. Re:Don't delay too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sperm donation (and the related freezing) is significantly more common than egg donation and/or freezing. Getting eggs to freeze requires surgery. Getting sperm requires masturbating.

      My aunt's family adopted a kid. There's a huge process that goes into it and it costs a lot of money. Most people want something of themselves to survive and not someone else. With your own kid, you're there from the start. With an adopted kid, you skip all the super cute ages.

    8. Re:Don't delay too long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a way to freeze sperm. It's rarely used for procrastination of procreation, and more often for keeping a nice genetic copy before potentially damaging medical treatments (chemo, radiation).

    9. Re:Don't delay too long by Lotana · · Score: 1

      And along that other line, why are so many opposed to adoption?

      Same reason lion male kills off all the offspring from their competitors: You want your genetic information to live on, not someone else.

  9. im not even sure where to start with this. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Oocyte cryopreservation has been available since 1986 with success rates of nearly 90%. Its commonly used for women with cancer or history of early menopause.

    my biggest issue is that the article is predicated on the condescending notion that without this technology, women are forced to forego their careers and simply bare children instead. There are plenty of women who do not want children. Its also worth noting that the spike has very little to do with the success rate of cryopreservative technologies but instead:

    with increased media attention and an unlikely celebrity spokeswoman. In a 2012 episode of Keeping up With the Kardashians, Kim, post-divorce, consulted with a fertility doctor about freezing her eggs.

    given this recent advocation and the fact that fertility is a 4 billion dollar industry in the united states, its difficult to say women are intentionally choosing this rather expensive procedure not covered by insurance by their own volition and without the assistance of businessweek articles. like gout, antidepressants, and erectile dysfunction medications, expect cryopreservation to start making its commercial debut on television in the near future.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:im not even sure where to start with this. by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of women who do not want children.

      If you could be so kind, sir, as to point me in the right direction, I would be eternally grateful.

    2. Re:im not even sure where to start with this. by swb · · Score: 1

      Maybe if ED drugs worked better we wouldn't have ads about cryopreservation..

    3. Re:im not even sure where to start with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my biggest issue is that the article is predicated on the condescending notion that without this technology, women are forced to forego their careers and simply bare children instead.

      Have the father stay home with the kids.

    4. Re:im not even sure where to start with this. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I never really understood what was so taboo about adoption. Why the intense focus on fertility where there are unwanted children? Some couples spend more on fertility than an adoption would cost.

    5. Re:im not even sure where to start with this. by unimacs · · Score: 1

      my biggest issue is that the article is predicated on the condescending notion that without this technology, women are forced to forego their careers and simply bare children instead. There are plenty of women who do not want children.

      I didn't take it this way. I'm sure most people know that having kids is entirely optional. But there are folks who want both kids AND a career but wanted to focus on the career for awhile before starting a family.

    6. Re:im not even sure where to start with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "bare children". You American cretin...

      It's "BEAR children". Idiot.

    7. Re:im not even sure where to start with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never really understood what was so taboo about adoption. Why the intense focus on fertility where there are unwanted children? Some couples spend more on fertility than an adoption would cost.

      Do you even know how many years--yes, that's right, the time is measure in years--people are on a waiting list to adopt here in the USA? The most straight-forward way around this waiting line is to adopt from overseas, which has another set of problems.

    8. Re:im not even sure where to start with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Eurotrash, I prefer bare children over bear children thank you very much......oh wait.....

  10. Or foregoing kids altogether by sandytaru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My husband and I decided (long before we got married) we didn't want kids. We have three nieces and a nephew between us. That's plenty of kidlet time when we need it, and it gives their parents a break. (Turns out I'd have difficulty getting pregnant anyway so I'm glad we already decided on our route before I got my hopes up only to have them dashed.)

    People may consider it selfish of us, but I'm not sure I want to bring any more human beings into this already over crowded world.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      I respect your decision not to have kids, but I don't know if overcrowding is the counterargument. Overpopulation is more a problem in 3rd world countries where people still have big families as a traditional counter to high mortality rates.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also allows you to be smug and self-righteous at parties. Its so much fun to bitch about the "breeders"!

    3. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by lorinc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My wife and I are in the same situation, and I never understood the selfishness argument. Why is it selfish? To whom? What harm does it bring and to what?

      The more I have this discussion with family and friends, the more it turns out to be pure jealousy towards us better enjoying our life. Most of them didn't expect it is that hard to raise children, and especially the many things you have to give up due to the lack of time to do it.

    4. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Meh, not so much. Many of my same-aged friends are having kids (or had them and they're ranging from a few months to 10 years old in one particular teen pregnancy case). I went through my smug "child-free" stint a long time ago, and now I just appreciate the hard work they are putting into raising their families and am grateful I only have cats to deal with at the same time.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    5. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by trparky · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is projected that within the next fifteen to twenty years, if global population growth rates don't slow down we will simply not be able to grow enough food to feed the world's population. Global famine will be a result. Already we're seeing the effects of over-fishing, fish populations are at the lowest seen in years. The giant water aquifer under the Great Plains of the United States (sometimes referred to as the Breadbasket of the World) is losing water, we're taking out water faster than nature can replace it.

      So yes, even we in the United States, need to start worrying about over-population.

    6. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      I view humans as humans, regardless of country or ethnicity. Too many first world countries also put an enormous strain on the environment, with our love of conflict minerals and cheap imported goods.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    7. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by asylumx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My wife and I are also on this band wagon, and not only do I not think it is selfish, but frankly I think some of the people I know with 5 or 6 kids are actually the selfish ones because they seem to think the rest of the world should praise them for their efforts raising a big family. Yes, raising a child is work, but if you didn't want the job you didn't have to have the child. Don't complain about the crappy hours and poor pay -- instead go get a better paying job with decent hours and then pay for daycare.

      Ug.

    8. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This is actually a very solid argument. While those who suffer the most from overpopulation are in poor third world countries, those who cause this are predominantly in first world, as every single person in first world consumes a very large amount of resources in comparison, and requires a pretty heavy pillaging of third world ecology to maintain their level of life.

      I can't say I totally agree with your reasoning, but I can understand the logic. And well, if you do both have nieces and nephews, you could argue that your genetic line is more or less continuing regardless of your actions.

    9. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See if you can find this to watch: Don't Panic - The Truth About Population

    10. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Bahhh, we can feed on the weak. When vegetation was scarce we went on to hunt animals. We just have to shifts to cannibalism.

      On a serious note, I think 15-20 years is a little early to expect famine in 2nd and 1st world countries. There are plenty of changes we can make to increase the food output. Currently there are many types of food that are manufactured that don't make good use of space. Add eating normal portions to this and we could probably cut our food intake by 40%.

    11. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by jma05 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I thought that the opposite is true...that people who have kids are selfish (and I may yet be one among those selfish people - not decided yet)... since they are adding kids to a planet that can do with a lot fewer of them.

      The "replenishment" argument has not made sense in centuries. Not having a baby is the most green thing one can do. Babies have bigger carbon footprints than *anything* else you can have and most probably (unless some revolution of green technologies hits soon) more than everything else you do.

      Parents having children later in life also exerts some downward pressure on population growth, even if we retain fertility rates. So more power to those who choose this technology.

    12. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Better to be smug about being child free than smug about being burdened with children that you can barely tolerate and can't afford.

      Kind of like all those "smug" people who rub it in everyone's faces that they didn't get 0 percent down mortgages that they could never afford and therefore didn't go into financial ruin due to poor decision making. The audacity of such people!

    13. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      We also have plenty of options for increasing yields and nutrition from existing crops, although a lot of the anti-GMO panic is putting a damper on that research. (Even when such research doesn't actually involve direct gene tinkering...)

      Famine is already a problem in many places around the world, unfortunately.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    14. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by juancnuno · · Score: 1

      People may consider it selfish of us, but I'm not sure I want to bring any more human beings into this already over crowded world.

      I'm wondering why anyone would consider you not wanting kids selfish. I've decided a long time ago that I would never want to father more than a single kid precisely because of overpopulation.

    15. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And well, if you do both have nieces and nephews, you could argue that your genetic line is more or less continuing regardless of your actions."

      This isn't a hard and fast requirement of life.

      Sure, it's a good topic to debate/argue down the pub, and plenty will disagree with me, but my opinion is that I have no prerogative to pass on my genetic information.

    16. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Megane · · Score: 2

      The problem with "global population growth rates" is only in the developing world. As a society develops, birth rate naturally goes down. Right now Japan is facing a top-heavy population due to declining birth rate, and Europe is also below the replacement rate. I think the US is about flat, but because of immigration. The reason is that as infant mortality goes down (less need for "spare" kids), and as lifestyle options increase, children turn from an asset into a liability. Child labor laws also help reduce the value of a large family, and having children at a later age reduces the replacement rate.

      You not having kids isn't going to help the planet. People in India and China having fewer kids makes a much bigger difference.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    17. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Famine in most parts of the world are a political problem, not a resource problem. There isn't much that can be done about political problems; you can either let them play out on their own, or you can send the Army in to intervene and set up a new government. In the former case, you get criticized for allowing atrocities to happen. In the latter case, you get criticized for stealing that area's natural resources and setting up a puppet government. Either way, the outcome is always bad.

    18. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is still based on the premise that because other areas have issues, everywhere that does not have issues should participate in the solution. It's like someone with solar panels refusing to turn on their TV because in another area there's barely enough power to charge up the batteries in a flashlight.

      This isn't an issue such as air pollution where if one town does it, surrounding areas suffer. If you increase the population in an area that supports it (Northeastern US, for example) zero effects will be felt by areas that do not support it (Africa).

      One has to look at the exact area they are living in, and decide two things: Is the place I live in able to support more population without trouble? If yes, go ahead. If no, am I willing and able to move to a place where population is no issue?. If yes, go ahead, move and have children. If no, don't have children.

      Resources made in one area only occasionally make it elsewhere. I highly doubt, for example, that a huge majority of crops from the Northeastern US are being shipped to Africa.

    19. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The "replenishment" argument has not made sense in centuries. Not having a baby is the most green thing one can do. Babies have bigger carbon footprints than *anything* else you can have and most probably (unless some revolution of green technologies hits soon) more than everything else you do.

      This is certainly true. The question is -- if none of the people who want the world to be "greener" have babies, where will the environmentalists for the next generation come from?

      I'm certainly NOT saying environmental consciousness is an inherited trait -- but it is a cultural one, and something that is distinctively shaped by the priorities of people around you when you grow up.

      In today's developed countries, there are lots of benefits to not having kids, so people who are smart, intelligent, and wealthy are increasingly avoiding them. Meanwhile, the people likely to have the most kids are people who are less intelligent, poor, have less resources, etc. Their kids are increasingly likely to have a similar fate. And for most of these people -- particularly in less affluent countries -- environmentalism is hardly near the top of their list of things to be worried about. In the past, babies of poor stupid people died. Not so any longer. (I'm NOT suggesting they should -- just making an observation.)

      Sci-fi writers have discussed this issue in the past (perhaps most famously in the recent movie Idiocracy), and perhaps it is exaggerated a bit. But at some point people may need to think about what "replenishment" means in terms of diversity of culture, ideas, and even intelligence (which seems to have at least some significant heritability). Perhaps it's an argument for environmentalists with no kids to take some of the vast amount of time and money and energy they save from not having kids, and making sure the next generation of other people's kids understand the issues involved. Otherwise, it risks being something like the lone pacifist at the front lines of war: it's great to say "I refuse to fight" in the hopes that others will follow, but if you're gunned down and nobody replaces you, your ideas die with you.

    20. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I think you always do. It's an issue of free will. If I wish to walk off a cliff, I can choose to do so, genetic desire for survival be damned. That's one thing that we have that separates us from most of the other species on the planet - ability to use intellect to override primal impulses. What we use it for on the other hand, is a whole different topic.

      You could however argue that doing so would extremely irresponsible towards your family (i.e. your close genetic relatives) for example, and you would be correct.

      And I think we need to face the fact that slashdot is essentially an online pub when it needs to be!

    21. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what I heard Rush Limbaugh say. You must be wrong.

    22. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      I believe more in nurture than nature. Human plasticity is an amazing thing. So long as some of those smart, intelligent people who are not actually reproducing are teachers (and lo, my husband is an education professor) then critical thinking can be taught to the next generation, regardless of who provided the genetic material.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    23. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by nbritton · · Score: 1

      x = population, lim (x --> infinity), f((earth's resources)/x) = resource starvation = kill -9 you

      That explains why the world is the way it is; the only workable solutions I can think of are population control or expansion into space.

    24. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by hodet · · Score: 1

      I have a kid, and I love him. But you are totally within your rights not to. Nothing wrong with that.

    25. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by sjames · · Score: 1

      We can cure our wallstreet problem, social inequality problem, and our food problem all at once. Mmmmmmmm, roast Eloi!

    26. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by sjames · · Score: 1

      If we can send in a drone to some remote village nobody's heard of and surgically remove known terrorists nobody's ever heard of, surely we can take out a brutal dictator and his toadies.

      Yes, I know the guy on the other side is probably just as bad, but we have lots of drones.

    27. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, we could do that, but we never do. Why is that, I wonder? Probably because those brutal dictators aren't sitting on lots of oil.

      Besides, even if you take out a brutal dictator and his minions, that'll just leave a power vacuum and someone else just as bad will probably fill it. I wouldn't let that stop me if I were a (benevolent) dictator and had drones at my disposal, but with democratic national governments sensitive to political scandals, they probably avoid stuff like that unless they have some really good reason to do it (like lobbyists wanting them to).

    28. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by frist · · Score: 1

      If course it's selfish, but selfish folks seldom see that they are being selfish - it's in their nature. Everyone else must bear the cost and spend the time to raise children so that they can care for your selfish old asses when you are in the nursing home and pay for the debt that you are incurring with your liberal tax and spend ideology today.

      The big secret though is that we love our children and children are actually a blessing and a joy when raised properly (i.e. not by TV, not by the NEA, not by rap music, not by their peers, not by the government). So you are in fact actually missing out on something wonderful if you were able to do it right, but chances are you would do it wrong anyway so good on ya for being selfish. But don't deny that you're being selfish.

    29. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imma always drank when I reed /. butt than again imma always drank....

    30. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by sjames · · Score: 1

      If they can cook up a crazy story about WMD and yellow cake and make that fly, it should be fairly easy to show some actual child soldiers and massacred villages. Add a few children starving because the despot grabbed all the foreign aid and it's a done deal.

    31. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Isn't it selfish to expect other people (yet to be born) to devote their lives to making sure we are OK at the end of ours?

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    32. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by jma05 · · Score: 1

      > In today's developed countries, there are lots of benefits to not having kids, so people who are smart, intelligent, and wealthy are increasingly avoiding them. Meanwhile, the people likely to have the most kids are people who are less intelligent, poor, have less resources, etc.

      If we, as a society, really believe this reasoning, then there are ways to realign incentives, at least until someone screams: eugenics... because that's what it is.

    33. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      If you choose to not have children because you can't afford them then you're still poor, which makes you a loser and you have no right to be smug.

    34. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by lorinc · · Score: 1

      Funny, I often say that I have enough students to make having children unnecessary.

    35. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      If we, as a society, really believe this reasoning

      It's not a "reasoning" -- it's stating a fact. The people most likely to have lots of kids (or any at all) tend to be those without adequate resources for birth control, who are often poor or have other social pressures as well that are increasingly compounded by the kids.

      there are ways to realign incentives, at least until someone screams: eugenics... because that's what it is.

      Yes and no. I'm not advocating we selectively allow people to reproduce according to their genes or race or anything -- and I would NEVER advocate such a despicable practice.

      In fact, my argument doesn't actually depend on genetics at all. Whether you believe that it's mostly "nature" or mostly "nurture" or some sort of mixture of the two, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter why people are poor or uneducated or have few resources -- the simple fact is that kids born in such an environment are more likely to end up in that environment themselves. Personally, I think very little of it has to do with genetics, but more with cultural practices.

      The point is that when the people who reproduce in your society are the ones in the worst conditions, it will have a tendency to expand the underclass. I'm not suggesting that we limit reproduction: I'm saying it presents a problem that we need to solve to avoid future imbalances. Giving incentives to rich smart people to reproduce is only one possible solution (and probably will be least effective)... we also need to consider how we can alter the environment of kids growing up in such situations so that the effects don't propagate.

    36. Re:Or foregoing kids altogether by jma05 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I don't disagree. It would be expensive to provide incentives to rich, smart people. But perhaps it won't be too hard to provide incentives to poor, smart people :-). Hey, humanities grad students, you will do :-).

  11. Old School! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    I found the old fashioned way of making babies far more enjoyable.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Old School! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You go around beating women on the head with a club and dragging them into your cave?

    2. Re:Old School! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Is that an option? Who knew?!

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:Old School! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It's always an option, as long as you're willing to live with the consequences of your actions.

      Such as ending up with a shrew for a wife! :D

  12. Does it really make that much of a difference? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Are the eggs viability all that different from "young egg" to "old egg"?
    Isn't a huge factor simply the age of the mother?

    Is planting a 'frozen young egg' in a relatively elderly 50 year old uterus really going to be that much more successful?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Does it really make that much of a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Egg viability is MUCH higher in a younger woman than an older woman. By your 30s, chances for genetic defects are already much much higher, and by 40, your chances of defects are gigantic. Conversely, a young donor egg in an older mother is just a question of science; no biological issues come into play that arent resolved through modern science. Older eggs however, can not be made healthy; they will always just be older eggs with unfortunate deficencies.

      That being said, young donor or not, if you are in your 50s having a kid, you better be in amazing shape and have a much younger partner, because raising that kid will be challenging for many different reasons.As mentioned, having a teen age kid when you are 60 or 70 is hugely different from 30 or 40....

    2. Re:Does it really make that much of a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a gigantic difference between an old and young egg, hence the reason for doing this.... the "energy" in the cell is finite and defined basically when a woman's body is developed, as the woman ages, the "energy" in this cell decreases to the point where it can not become a "baby".

      The Uterus DOES-NOT age and an old woman can have an egg implanted, but most IVF facilities make 50 y/o the absolute cut off.

    3. Re:Does it really make that much of a difference? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      The odds of that egg impregnating in a 50-year-old woman are insanely low. I'll say 1.5% to make up a number. The cost to implant that egg is some pretty affordable medicine and a half day as an outpatient, and they can plant 3 at a time (assuming it's not inhumane to risk triplets or abort one, depending on your views).

      However, the cost to retrieve eggs is about $15,000 in medicine, and then you only get the number of eggs produced that cycle. For a young woman, that might be 20 healthy, viable eggs. For a 35 year old woman that might be 7 eggs, only four of which are viable.

      So while it won't be easier to plant a young egg in an old mother, it's much cheaper to have lots of eggs and play the numbers if you get the eggs when you're young.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  13. why not just have a baby earlier? by shadowrat · · Score: 2

    I'm in my 40s now (and male for perspective), but when i was in high school, i had it drilled into my head that having a baby in your late teens / early 20s was one of the worst mistakes you could possibly make.

    Well, here i am 20 years later and now i feel like it would be an even bigger mistake to have a kid. I've got to keep active in my middle age. my regular exercise schedule is staving off the onset of old age. I'm pretty sure that as soon as i get a kid, BAM! i'm 10 years older and thats a virtual age of 50s. Plus, kids are super expensive. Sure, i've got a good health plan, but babies would still be a huge expense and i've got retirement to save for. When i was 20, i was so much less financially responsible, i never would have noticed a kid sucking my money away.

    Looking back, i think it would have been far better to have had a kid at 20. Really, my college education was a waste. At that age i lacked any sort of focus or purpose. i think i probably needed a kid to give me something to work for. I've met enough people my age who had their kids early on and went on to have successful careers and awesome families that i'm starting to think our society has it's priorities backwards when it comes to the right time to start a family. It's far better to do that stuff when you are 18 and 20 and think you can overcome anything.

    1. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by alen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yep, i'm also 40 and have 2 kids

      best to have kids in your mid 20's right after college and buy a home around the same time. by the time you hit 40 your kids are ready to be kicked out of the house and as you start to make more money you will have time for real entertainment like nice vacations instead of the 20s deal of going to bars all the time

      and when you get to your 40's you start to feel like chilling out a lot more instead of always having to have small kids tug you everywhere and take your attention

      i see a lot of parents in their mid to late 40's now with newborns and i'd hate to be that age and having to wake up at 6am on weekends to watch the kid

    2. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      yeah. thanks for fueling my regrets :/

    3. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, kids are super expensive.

      That hasn't been my experience at all. If you don't raise them to be "consumers," then they're not really all that much more expensive than a normal person that you live with. I simply stopped buying unnecessary garbage and spend time with my kids. They have no need to be "consumers," and to prevent them from being brainwashed by advertisements, there is no cable.

    4. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You are correct. having a kid at any age is a huge mistake if you want to do things with your life that is outside the raising a child idea. To some people raising children IS Their career, and more power to them. to Others, it's retarded to blow that time and money that children require to just have them because of societal or parental pressures.

      Then you have the nutjobs that think they HAVE to have kids so they have a LEGACY... If you really want to raise children for the right reasons, go do it, but all these people need to STFU to people that dont want to have kids, and dont think it's important to devote 100% of your resources for 18-25 years to raising one.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by alen · · Score: 1

      mostly my first kid since he would wake up at 4:30am almost every day as a baby and toddler. i was on like 4 hours sleep for a year
      the second kid wasn't too bad

    6. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by alen · · Score: 1

      yep

      only expensive if you're always going to toys r us for the overpriced crap that gets lost in 2 days. a few things in there lasted me a few years but most of it the kids get bored of pretty fast.

      electronics are the best. no mess, they last for years and grow with the kids
      ipad and xbox are pretty good and pay for themselves over and over with the lack of crap you end up buying from toys r us.

    7. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      >only expensive if you're always going to toys r us for the overpriced crap that gets lost in 2 days
      only expensive if you're always allowing them to pursue their interest in competitive horse riding.

      There fixed that for you.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    8. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep

      only expensive if you're always going to toys r us for the overpriced crap...

      ...or they have the slightest chronic medical problem.

    9. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i see a lot of parents in their mid to late 40's now with newborns and i'd hate to be that age and having to wake up at 6am on weekends to watch the kid

      I'm male, in my 50's

      Had two boys in my 30's. Two girls in my 40's. We'd have more now but it's not possible.
      No regrets at all. It's great having young kids to goof around with.

      As for freezing/thawing/implanting/don't need a man anyway, good luck.

    10. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried living on 7 hours of sleep for a few months. I started having anxiety attacks, I couldn't focus at work, I would fall asleep behind the wheel during my 5 minute commute, I almost fell down a stairs several time because I would suddenly feel dreadfully tired and about pass out, went to the Emergency Room a few times because I would randomly lose feeling in a large portion of my body for hours at a time.

      On 8 hours of sleep, I feel perfectly well. I don't think I would survive a year with only 4 hours.

    11. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Really, my college education was a waste.

      Good luck affording a house for you and your children to live in without one. 30 years of dual incomes and financialisation have placed a home firmly outside the reach of most single income households, and at this stage quite a few double income households.

      Make no mistake, no mistake whatsoever. These women are not pursuing abstract "careers". They are perusing the income and job-security needed to buy and live securely in a family home. And like the rest of us, they are losing.

      This happened in Japan beginning in the 1980s. The birth rate there has plummeted. If you don't produce affordable, aspirational accommodation, people will not settle down.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    12. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by alen · · Score: 1

      eating right and keeping healthy helps too

    13. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Globe199 · · Score: 1

      "only expensive if you're always going to toys r us for the overpriced crap that gets lost in 2 days"

      False. We almost never buy our three-year-old anything unnecessary. She has plenty of toys, but they were all gifts from relatives. We go to the library a lot.

      And now for the killer. We spend $1000/month on daycare/preschool for her. Toys R Us doesn't hold a candle to that.

    14. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah. thanks for fueling my regrets :/

      Just think: if you had taken his advice in 2000's and lost your job and house in 2008 he'd probably be here telling you how you shouldn't have kids you can't afford. And you'd probably have the same reply.

    15. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      God damn.

      I read "male for perspective" in the same mindset as "banana for size comparison".

      I've had enough internet, this week.

    16. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      If you don't have legacy, then you may as well have never existed. As someone who is trying to be logical about having children or not, my view is depressing.

    17. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I would fall asleep behind the wheel during my 5 minute commute

      If your commute is 5 minutes by car, then you need to fucking walk (or maybe ride a bike) instead!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The only problem I have with this idea is: the number of housing units in the country has not decreased, instead it's constantly increasing. The population is increasing too, but not at an astronomical rate. So it's not like housing is getting hard to find, however the costs are obviously rising greatly.

      So why is this? Is the housing all being bought up by someone so the prices are inflated?

    19. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Paco103 · · Score: 1

      I have no kids, not sure if I want them. But this is BS. Because I have no kids, I have a lot of time for other things. I spend time with friends kids, trying to be a positive influence for them. I volunteer with many charities that I wouldn't have time for with my own family. I am a volunteer firefighter, because my finances and time allow me to be so. I have never pulled a person from a building, but I have saved houses, pets, cut people out of cars, and performed CPR on a man for over an hour that ended up surviving. I have worked in disaster zones searching for unaccounted for people. I guarantee none of those people know my name or my story, but I bet they or their family remember someone (or a few someones) they had never met before showing up and making a difference.

      You just have to decide what a legacy means to you. I do believe I have made a positive impact, and that my existence on Earth has mattered. Plenty of people are bringing kids into this world. What makes that a legacy, other than society has told you it is? My grandparents had kids, but I guarantee you they have no more of a legacy than I do. Don't believe me? What do you know about your great great grandparents? Your grandparents might remember them, but chances are, unless you go out of your way to study your genealogy, you don't know any more about them than any other random person that existed at the time.

    20. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Must be nice to have affordable housing and good graduate wages. In the UK a lot of "children" can't afford to move out of their parent's homes until they are in their 30s.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA stucks for walkers. I'm looking for summer housing right now and there's no sidewalks or crosswalks around my internship employer. There's a major highway where I'm going to have to play frogger every day to cross. Driving a car for less than a mile will be considerably safer than walking. I'm seriously considering buying a cheap car or moped for my tiny commute to work because crossing the street will be so difficult. I could walk 3.2 miles out of my way to cross the street... I'll probably end up doing that on a bike :/

      The nearby shopping mail is also not accessible by walkers. The roads into/out of the area are lined with side rails and drops off to wooded areas. You can't walk on the side of the street because there is no side, and checking StreetView, it looks like there isn't enough room to walk on the other side of the railing.

      Engineers, please don't forget about us car-less people.

    22. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are tons of slightly used toys out there. You never need to buy new baby supplies (except safety equipment). The current generation of games are specifically designed to be addictive (to increase micro payments). I wouldn't want my kids playing those.

    23. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.....did Hitler have kids? I'm pretty sure he didn't, but we all certainly know he existed.

    24. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were to guess, it would be because of all the Libertarian thought processes and bullshit that people like you spew all day. To put it simply: "Fuck you , I got mine" is the problem and people like you don't help.

    25. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      People like me? Where did I spew any Libertarian ideology lately?

    26. Re:why not just have a baby earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WITH WHAT MONEY!!?? We have 30 year olds moving back in with their parents because of the fucked up job market. That, and new graduates have mounds of debt. Forget having a kid let alone purchasing a house. This nation is fucked!

  14. Soft Eugenics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Women delaying having children does one thing, it selects out their genes for people who decide to ultimately have lots of children in their prime. A "strong, independent, woman TM" not having children while she's of a fertile age will not be able to carry her genes onto another age. I also doubt that the majority of these SIW types will be able to afford the $6,500 and $15,000 costs of freezing and then the added costs of finding a surrogate and artificial insemination. So congrats feminism, you've selected yourself out of the gene pool in at least two or three generations.

    Which is fine, they can always raise someone else's unwanted offspring. Everyone needs a loving family. It just won't be your genes you're helping raise to another generation.

    Mod me down, but no amount of "nah nah nah" head burying in sand will change this fact.

    1. Re:Soft Eugenics by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      There is a counter argument to that. Most of these women are the smarter, more viable types carrying better genes. If they are selected out of the gene pool, it's to overall detriment to human evolution in short term.

      Overall, genetic selection hasn't been very suitable for human species after we have uplifted ourselves from animal level of intelligence. That method of selection is simply not well suited to select most viable members of that kind of a species. Your issue is one of the better examples. We need people to get more intelligent to progress as species, and yet those who are the most intelligent are in fact getting selected out of the gene pool because they don't breed nearly as much as those who just blindly follow their animalistic instincts.

    2. Re:Soft Eugenics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So congrats feminism, you've selected yourself out of the gene pool in at least two or three generations.

      I like where you're going with this - on one hand, trying to blame genes for political stances; on the other, refusing to acknowledge what that means - that you cannot be disparaging without being an idiot, because genes.

      It just won't be your genes you're helping raise to another generation.

      I also like how you're implying this is some sort of horrific thing that people should actually care about.

    3. Re:Soft Eugenics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know that the ability to conform and kiss-ass your way into a mindless corporate drone job is not only an indicator of high intelligence, but is also a marker for "better genes".

      Maybe we should start branding babies as they leave the womb with corporate advertising. You know those baby photos get a lot of eye-time with friends, family and coworkers!

    4. Re:Soft Eugenics by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Here's a nasty point for you - ability to adapt to environment and survive is the key selector in evolution. Regardless of how you view that environment.

  15. Please see the middle class errosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People want to be in the middle or upper class, but they know single incomes are almost impossible now so build the nest egg(college money) prior to kids vs trying after. Oddly I'd love to see the rate of autism related to older bio material.

  16. Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay! Because every child should have the opportunity to have 60-70 year old parents when they graduate from high school! Yay! Score for selfishness and social irresponsibility! Yay!

  17. FTFA: "typical profile" by tomhath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized

    Apparently it isn't so much about not wanting to have babies earlier, it's more about "all the good men are married or gay". Once a person (man or woman) is out of school it becomes increasingly difficult to find a spouse; moving into higher income brackets makes it much more difficult - mostly you need to wait for the mid-life crisis to free some up through divorce.

    1. Re:FTFA: "typical profile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once a person (man or woman) is out of school it becomes increasingly difficult to find a spouse; moving into higher income brackets makes it much more difficult - mostly you need to wait for the mid-life crisis to free some up through divorce.

      I'm wondering how important matching income will remain. More college educated women than men, perpetual unemployment, and a realization that this power WWII model of the nuclear family and what the middle class are supposed to be no longer exist.

      I see more stay at home dads, more multi-generational households, and different concepts of what mates and parents becoming the norm. Basically, if your a female with a good job, maybe a husband that is handy, and whose parents own a large home outright would be a better match for you than someone with more money.

    2. Re:FTFA: "typical profile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's priorities. Spend more time studying and focused on growing your career or spend more time trying to find someone.

      Also if all the good men are married or gay, then it's likely all the good women are too by that age. Therefore if you can't find a mate you might want to spend some time on deep personal reflection.

    3. Re:FTFA: "typical profile" by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 1

      Once a person (man or woman) is out of school it becomes increasingly difficult to find a spouse

      Crap, don't tell me that. I was planning on finding someone after grad school.

    4. Re:FTFA: "typical profile" by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      "All the good men are married or gay" is code for "My standards are now astronomically high and I have nothing to offer."

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    5. Re:FTFA: "typical profile" by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      Once a person (man or woman) is out of school it becomes increasingly difficult to find a spouse

      Randall Munroe would disagree.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    6. Re:FTFA: "typical profile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, combine this with the egg-reprogramming cloning technique mentioned this weekend and soon you'll have 45 year old career mothers raising their clone daughter.

      No need to worry about married or gay men then and no wedding planning or divorce proceedings to go through.

    7. Re:FTFA: "typical profile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pussy? Blowjobs? Money? What about a Playstation 4?

  18. Title should read "Affluent Women" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't something that people who work for minimum wage do.

    1. Re:Title should read "Affluent Women" by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Exactly. People who work for minimum wage for a prolonged period of time don't have the foresight or fortitude to do any such thing and just pump them out like pez.

  19. Makes Sense to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the average cost to raise a child at around $250K in the U.S., it makes sense that people would want to wait until they are more financially stable before taking on such a significant financial responsibility. Trying to make ends meet with the expense of children might mean financial stability will never arrive. I certainly wouldn't want to raise children without the means to give them a good life and education.

    I'm 31 and have yet to find my first girlfriend. With single women my age becoming scarcer by the day, I'm worried I might not meet the right one for quite some time, if ever. Perhaps my future wife (if she exists), will have the foresight to freeze her eggs. More realistically, though, I'll probably die wifeless and childless.

    1. Re:Makes Sense to Me by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I enjoy kids, but when I sit down and figure out the math, I don't like them enough to risk my retirement (or early retirement). This is the driving force behind making sure what kind of people I get involved with and ensuring that protection is always a necessary precaution. There are also a lot of other things I would like, in life, but am not willing to risk a couple hundred grand or more on for the limited return that comes with it.

      If I were a multi-millionaire, it would be a simple thing to accept (well, no it wouldn't - lack of sleep, diapers, screaming, babysitting, teen years, mooches, layabouts, etc). Not being a multi-millionaire, it is an easy decision -- just like deciding not to buy a yacht is an easy decision.

      I just feel bad for my parents. The burden of raising three children has made it a difficult life of sacrifice and less reward or stability. One, likely, without even any promise of affording a retirement as they now approach that age. This won't be a burden I shoulder, however. As most parents desire for their children to have more successful lives than they had, I will be saving myself that burden. (But let's be frank, I'll probably die very young from shitty health anyway, so it isn't like there's a long retirement to contend with anyway!).

    2. Re:Makes Sense to Me by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you haven't had a girlfriend by 31, I don't think the future looks too bright for you in the relationship department. Have you tried online dating?

      Maybe you should think about leaving the country; you'd probably do better in a different culture. American culture sucks in a lot of ways, especially at younger ages where women have horrible criteria for selecting male partners.

    3. Re:Makes Sense to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've tried PoF a little, but I mostly got ignored. Women on there weren't even interested in replying to my messages that simply introduced myself and asked a question or two in an effort to start a conversation. Unfortunately, I just don't think I have what desirable women are looking for. I'm below average height, look fairly average, and don't have a lot of money.

      I compounded my problem by spending most of my early 20s in college studying engineering. I felt certain I would have at least one girlfriend in college, but it turned out my classes had very, very few women in them. It was a strange situation to see lots of women around campus, but they were always running to their own classes and seemed to be in a different world than I.

      Women seem to be good at quickly sizing up a potential mate and deciding whether they are even worth dating. I certainly don't blame them for not being interested in me. They don't seem to have any problem finding what they're looking for, so why should they settle for a guy like me? The last thing I want to do is finally land one and then disappoint her.

      I like your idea about considering leaving the country; that's something I haven't really considered. I've thought about the mail-order bride thing, but I don't have the financial means to make that work, and I would be suspicious of their sincerity anyway.
       

    4. Re:Makes Sense to Me by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They don't seem to have any problem finding what they're looking for, so why should they settle for a guy like me?

      What makes you think they're finding what they're looking for? I think the high divorce stats in this country prove the exact opposite. They're picking the shiny and glamorous, and then changing their minds later on. Then they find themselves 35+, divorced (because they just couldn't stand the guy any more, or he dumped her for some reason), and bitter.

      The last thing I want to do is finally land one and then disappoint her.

      No offense, but I think you need to work on your self-confidence. This is coming from someone who has his own issues with that, so you're not alone.

      and I would be suspicious of their sincerity anyway.

      That's very wise. Leaving the country isn't that easy (unless you go to a 3rd-world cesspit), but if you have valuable tech skills it can be done pretty easily.

    5. Re:Makes Sense to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think they're finding what they're looking for? I think the high divorce stats in this country prove the exact opposite. They're picking the shiny and glamorous, and then changing their minds later on. Then they find themselves 35+, divorced (because they just couldn't stand the guy any more, or he dumped her for some reason), and bitter.

      Yeah, and then as the new man in her life you will be the one forced to answer all those awkward questions about why men are such jerks.

    6. Re:Makes Sense to Me by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the "bitter" part kinda covers that.

  20. Well .... by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    Talk about an off-site backup!

    1. Re:Well .... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Brought to you by Carbonite.

  21. Parenting is a marathon, not a sprint by enjar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am turning forty this year, and already have two school aged kids. They can feed themselves, wipe their own asses, go to bed on their own and bathe themselves. They also can clearly communicate (sometimes too clearly!) their needs, wishes, desires, aches, pains, etc. Even still, they are damned tiring to have around and suck up a lot of time, too. I can only imagine the sheer living hell that would be having an infant at this point in my life. I'd either need the mom to be some twenty something trophy wife with a pile of twenty something energy, or someone who made a pile of money so we could hire a nanny, because I can't imagine a forty something woman who works a full day and is a high achiever coming home and being Super Mom. I know I barely scrape by some days on the parenting scale after a big day at work.

    I do keep in shape (which helps keep the energy up) and I do love my kids, but I see people with infants and it makes my vasectomy turn into a happy memory. You have to pick priorities in life, and I know by making the choice to have kids, I've likely shut more than a couple doors career-wise since things like business travel, relocation and ability to take "risky" (e.g. startup) opportunities are kind of off the table now, or there is a whole bunch more at stake than before.

    1. Re:Parenting is a marathon, not a sprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be a marathon, but I got off my lazy ass early and have finished said marathon by the 38. You're 40 and still on the first leg. What was your point?

  22. Worth pointing out by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    The grandparent post ("And people still assert this...") cites actual data. The parent post cites a movie and a demotivational poster. Which is the better argument?

    1. Re:Worth pointing out by Number42 · · Score: 0

      Obviously the latter. Sarcastic putdowns and comedic crowd appeals have almost never failed against reasonable arguments.

  23. Good idea before surgery, bad idea otherwise by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Putting off having kids is not as easy as you think.

    My sister did have a kid in her late 40s, but the viability of female eggs is actually not that high.

    You're far better off having kids and doing what First World Nations do, which is have women with kids not suffer in their careers.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Good idea before surgery, bad idea otherwise by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're far better off having kids and doing what First World Nations do, which is have women with kids not suffer in their careers.

      We can't do that in the USA. That's like going to Zimbabwe and telling them, "just be more like Norway and everything will be better!"

    2. Re:Good idea before surgery, bad idea otherwise by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      You're far better off having kids and doing what First World Nations do, which is have women with kids not suffer in their careers.

      We can't do that in the USA. That's like going to Zimbabwe and telling them, "just be more like Norway and everything will be better!"

      Admittedly, Zimbabwe is probably more of a democracy than we are ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  24. Obligatory to Obligatory by jma05 · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Obligatory to Obligatory by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      That's just a bunch of strawmen and a made up assertion: "people complaining about the decline of society are contributing more to it than anyone else" - oh yeah? Nietzsche, Erich Fromm and *thousands* others will still be read, and still have something worthwhile to say, when the last mirror of xkcd has blinked out of existence. Pah.

      And you know, when I thought of "career" and "frozen eggs" I had to think of that particular bit in the opening of Idiocracy. If you think I was trying to claim freezing eggs will lead to the decline of human intelligence you're an idiot. I don't even think IQ necessarily has anything to do with how wise or how idiotic people are. It's like a really fast car, you can still drive in circles with it. Just really fast, yay.

    2. Re:Obligatory to Obligatory by jma05 · · Score: 1

      > If you think I was trying to claim freezing eggs will lead to the decline of human intelligence you're an idiot.

      I don't post based on what you think. I have no access to that info nor should I be expected to. I post based on what you post.

  25. Sure, that'll work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You won't be too old to chase toddlers around if you wait until you're 45 to have kids. That will totally work. They'll love how you're able to help them move out into their first apartment when you're 65 years old. You should still be able to carry the refrigerator for them. I'm sure they'll appreciate that you'll probably die when they're in their 30's instead of in their 50's like less selfish parents. But, above all, I'm sure they'll understand paying all those prices so you wouldn't have to be inconvenienced by them.

    1. Re:Sure, that'll work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, excuse me, but it's far more important to spend your youth in the education-career machine than to live a natural simple life. By the time the kids are ready to move, retirement age will have increased to 85 (Praise the Free Market! Allelujah!) and 3D printed robots will help with the moving.

  26. Not Selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awaiting birth child after 5 years of infertility so I've given this issue much thought. Having a child is really the ultimate act of selfishness. Nothing consumes more resources than a 1st world child; your own resources and other peoples. A breeder is literally creating another person just to satisfy their biological desire, it is hard to imagine something more selfish.

    Breeders are literally creating a near copy of themselves. Why not adopt? There are many orphans out there who would love a home? Our species does not have a dwindling population, so let's not solve a problem we don't have. If $country has a declining population, then just open up the immigration flood gates and let the populations equalize. Or do you only want to be surrounded with people who look/act/think like you?

    Fundamentally people want to have their own biological children. They dress it up in all sorts of justifications.

    When I think honestly about the years and tens-of-thousands of dollars I've spent trying to have a biological child, I must admit that I do it only out of a selfish desire to fulfill a biological imperative.

    1. Re:Not Selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awaiting birth child after 5 years of infertility...

      Congratulations on your new baby. I deleted the rest of your comment because it is all nonsense.

    2. Re:Not Selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely with all of this.

    3. Re:Not Selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, GP here.

      What part of it did you find to be nonsense? What do you disagree with?

      --AC

    4. Re:Not Selfish by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If $country has a declining population, then just open up the immigration flood gates and let the populations equalize. Or do you only want to be surrounded with people who look/act/think like you?

      Actually, yes. Is there something wrong with wanting to only be around people I like, and not around people who irritate me with customs and values I don't share and don't really appreciate?

      If you disagree, why don't you go live in rural Alabama for a while and get to know the locals there? Or some other part of the Bible Belt where most of the people are fundamentalists? Or better yet, someplace in rural Idaho that's dominated by white supremacists? What, are you now saying you don't want to be surrounded with just any random people, and that you actually prefer some cultures to others? How racist!

    5. Re:Not Selfish by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Fundamentally people want to have their own biological children. They dress it up in all sorts of justifications.

      When I think honestly about the years and tens-of-thousands of dollars I've spent trying to have a biological child, I must admit that I do it only out of a selfish desire to fulfill a biological imperative.

      You say this as if it were surprising, or deep. The thing you don't seem to get is that pretty much everything else you do is for the same reason. Mostly, you do what you do because you are genetically programmed to do it. You are an animal like any other animal. People are just more inclined to invent a posteriori rationalizations for their actions.

  27. The difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't barbecue an egg.

  28. Good luck to them by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    As a parent who got a late start due to some biological issues, all I can say is "Good luck." Even with frozen eggs, it's very hard getting and staying pregnant. My wife and I are only in our late 30s, and it took a huge amount of medical intervention to get our two kiddies here.

    Plus, the other thing to consider is that having kids is definitely a young man's game. I'm doing all right, but having a 3 year old and 1 year old is extremely tiring, as I'm sure it is to a 25 year old, but that just goes up as you get older and have more responsibility at work, etc. Free time doesn't exist anymore, and I'm not going to get that back for a very long time if I keep doing this right.

    I guess I kind of understand why people wait. If my wife and I had kids when we were 24/25, we would probably be broke now and in perpetual debt. Having kids later allows you to save a little bit, build up a cushion and actually be able to provide them a decent life without taking out 4 mortgages and 20 credit cards. The problem is that waiting too long to find a mate (i.e. being unattached into your late 30s) puts you in a disadvantaged pool of single people. Lots of single women I talk to who haven't found anyone yet say the quality really drops off -- and they cite immaturity of the man as the reason. Past the mid 30s, you either get the permanent single guys hopping from one club to another on the weekend or the unmarryable.

    1. Re:Good luck to them by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Single women will ruthlessly disqualify men due to the tiniest of flaws. It's no wonder they can't find a husband. They'll rationalize it later (he's immature) to defend their fragile psyche. These women are single for a reason, and the reason is inside themselves.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  29. It is jealousy by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people who say "Oh it is selfish not to have kids," are jealous. Kids are a big commitment, you have to trade off a lot to have them, at least if you are going to be a good parent. Now there are benefits, of course, it can be extremely rewarding emotionally. But there are tradeoffs and some people don't like them. So they see childless couples and see all the extra money and time they have and get jealous, and thus hateful.

    It is, in fact, not a selfish position. It is a very pragmatic one. If we are to have a sustainable future, we need population growth to level off. Now I suppose we could go about it all draconian like China and force people to have a certain amount of children. However a better solution is for people who don't wish to have children to not do so. That allows those that want to have more children to do so and yet maintain a consistent population level.

    1. Re:It is jealousy by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      You are right that it's a pragmatic one. I would personally never have kids. If, however, the human population started seriously declining (we're talking a huge existential decline), they'd have a point. The people who were having kids would be shouldering the burden of sustaining society while all the rest would be mooching off of their services. In that case I'd support some kind of 'bachelor tax' to help those with children. But really, it'd have to be a huge population decline, like say a yearly -2% worldwide, before I'd support something like that.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    2. Re:It is jealousy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's selfish because while you keep your resources and time you still expect the 'breeders' to invest their time and money to produce the next generation. It's the 'breeders' that make sure society keeps functioning and your bottom gets wipes when you can no longer do it yourself.

    3. Re:It is jealousy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Population growth varies with development. The highly developed countries have little to negative population growth. Those people believe it's too expensive to have kids or it's never the right time, so they end up with fewer kids. The people in other countries don't have easy birth control, have higher child death rates (so you have a lot of them to ensure some will survive to adulthood), and need the kids to help with chores.

    4. Re:It is jealousy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is your retirement planning going?

      A few generations ago the cost of raising a child was born by the parents but so did the benefits because children were your retirement plan. However since the 1930's the US and most other developed countries started to dis-intermediate the costs of raising children and the economic benefits.

      In the spirit of a modest proposal I suggest that we re-intermediate cost of raising children by turning them into an investment asset through the sale of an individuals collected FICA taxes. Once a child had reached 25 parents could either chose to retain or auction the assets. Traditional Social Security and Medicare payments would cease.

      The prospectus would read something like this:

      The college educated, employed, middle class adult (C.E.E.M.C.A. for short) is a national resources. As an investment assets a CEEMCA has yield of 15.3% via legally mandated payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicate) that cannot be cleared even in bankruptcy! CEEMCA's make an ideal asset for your retirement portfolio. Cash payments generally start at $7,650 per year and generally increase with the life of the asset. It is also possible to leverage your CEEMCA by investing in additional education through the use of bankruptcy proof loans to your CEEMCA (this option may not be available on on CEEMCAs). These loans also carry a Federal guarantee with yields that are linked to ten year Treasuries making it a nearly risk free investment!

      CEEMCA are a true long term asset. Production is very time and cash intensive process that typically take 25 years before the CEEMCA starts producing significant dividends (although many produce smaller cash flows as young as 16). Efforts have been made to automate the process with poor results so production is still very much a Mom and Pop business. Quality of CEEMCA assets varies greatly and mature CEEMCA rarely come on the open market. There also is significant information asymmetry in the sale of CEEMCA so it is buyer beware.

      Most OECD countries have under invested in CEEMCA assets since the 1970's which has greatly increased the competition among investors for these assets. The limited trading of the underlying CEEMCA assets and increasing costs of production have made prices soar. Efforts have been made to import CEEMCAs but imports are unlikely to meet domestic investor demand.

      CEEMCA's are the only investment asset where returns aren't correlated with labor productivity. In a world awash in capital they in many ways are the only remaining asset for investors looking with a 30 year horizon.

  30. DIY jokes? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    So, where are all the "why are you sitting in the snow" jokes?

  31. Jeez ... indeed. by staynegative · · Score: 1

    No, but every child SHOULD have parents who wanted them so much that they were willing to try anything to have them.
    My mother was in her early 40s and my father in his mid 50s when they had me. Yes, I lost my father young, but I wouldn't have had my world any other way.

    As a gal with 40 looming and no prospects of the right guy looming it's a scary world. Yes, I've had the jerks telling me "too bad, it's just not in the cards for you" or "it's not fair to the child for you to consider having them on your own"... .but I know if I choose to go to extremes no one would ever be able to tell my child I didn't want them.

    This is often the point where a few "kind and giving 'gentlemen' offer their services".

    1. Re:Jeez ... indeed. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I was raised by a single mother who adopted me, and my perspective is that it's horribly selfish. Children need to grow up with multiple adults, so they can see adults in real relationships, and also so they have someone around when they're young, rather than being around abusive babysitters and their boyfriends, or being latchkey kids who are alone most of the time.

      Don't be a single mother by choice. Think about the life your kid is going to have.

    2. Re:Jeez ... indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanting kids is different from being able to keep up with them. In 5 years (when they're 4), how many hours will you be able to craw around with them through DIY forts and then go run around for a game of tag. When they're older and throwing a tantrum about going to bed, are you going to be able to catch up with them when running around the house in circles? Everyone is different but the average 50 year old will tire too easily. My parents are in their early 50s and can't keep up with their grandkids for more than a couple of days at a time. My relatives had a bunch of kids when in their late 30s and used electronics as baby sitters. They had a lot of trouble when those kids were early teenagers. After a few very stressful years full of fighting, those kids are doing better now (finishing up high school) and no longer overweight.

      Parting of trying anything is also settling for a non-perfect guy. There's also adoption.

      I'm a male in my late 20s. I'll be giving up in my mid 30s. At least I'll be able to retire early.

    3. Re:Jeez ... indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanting kids is different from being able to keep up with them. In 5 years (when they're 4), how many hours will you be able to craw around with them through DIY forts and then go run around for a game of tag. When they're older and throwing a tantrum about going to bed, are you going to be able to catch up with them when running around the house in circles? Everyone is different but the average 50 year old will tire too easily.

      As a 50 year-old father of a five-year-old child, please allow me to inform you that you are completely full of shit.

      You're welcome.

    4. Re:Jeez ... indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe my parents are really out of shape.

    5. Re:Jeez ... indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is often the point where a few "kind and giving 'gentlemen' offer their services".

      Hey! We just want to help in whatever way we can. Honest!

  32. Logical Jumps of Conclusion by SarahD'Onofrio · · Score: 2

    Lets look at logic. Everyone made the jump that this meant having kids in 50. Having kids at 35 with the eggs you could have had at 30 is also a viable option here. This is saying hey, I can freeze my eggs NOW because I want to have kids in case something happens where I can't later in life, and I may as well use the younger, healthier eggs. So, this could mean "I want to have kids at 35-40, but I should freeze my eggs before most diseases start showing up around 30" I'd also include this isn't a "Selfish" decision. If me working for 5 more years means that I can have the white picket fence house with the perfect school neighborhood for my child and the best early education, then why wouldn't I? The "costs" can also be in 5 years I'll have $50,000 college bond put away from my child that will effectively double by the time he or she is 18. That would be my reason for delaying kid, I want to know before I even have one the education money is saved away. So does that mean having the child at 30 and potentially risking giving my baby any education he or she wants? Or does this mean I say, hey, I can give me some time and know when I have this child I have her future secured away and I can just enjoy my time with her. Additionally, I'd like to add if this article was "Men freezing sperm to avoid putting off fatherhood until they are older because the sperm they produce when they are younger is better" what would your thoughts be? Would it be men embracing the role of eventually becoming a father until they satisfied their career? Typical male putting career first? I would like to see that data for how we'd react and what jumps we would make.

    1. Re:Logical Jumps of Conclusion by Shados · · Score: 2

      It absolutely make sense to do. If I was a woman who wanted kids, I'd do this in a heartbeat.

      The benefits however, are going to be short lived. Things that improve your economic situation only work when you're one of the few doing it. Like when women started having careers, a couple in that situation was way, way ahead of the curve financially. Now that its common though, that pretty little house in the perfect neighborhood is priced for couples where both have a career.

      So once/if this becomes a mainstream thing to do, anyone who wants kids and the pretty house will HAVE to do this.

  33. White cis straight dude detected by Fwipp · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if you were anything else, you wouldn't pine for the 50's.

    1. Re:White cis straight dude detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad hom much?

  34. Why don't you just call him a nigger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it's okay to insult someone based on race and gender now.

    1. Re:Why don't you just call him a nigger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White male cishet, you have no right to speak. Check your privileged.

  35. How did you delete someone else's comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do Tell.

  36. The good ol' days were a historical anomaly by Xaedalus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What you are referring to is the post-World War II era of twenty years that applied really just to the United States, Britain, and a few other select nations. The rest of humanity's history is very similar to the present: both parents working and trying to find low-cost alternatives for child-care, education rapidly approaching unattainable levels of cost for all but the very elite, and a resurrection of the landowner/landlord aristocracy. We're moving to a form of Feudalist Capitalism, only instead of lords and mandarins, we have Corporations and oligarchic republics. Even during the Industrial revolution, we STILL had aristocracies, merchants, and peasants. It was just that technology was redefining who was who. Right now the entire planet is reverting back to the *standard* way of life, the way it used to be before World War I. We just happen to have higher living standards and better technology to assist us.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  37. genetics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what this does for genetics. the new generation being based on two or three back instead of the previous one. Before it was always a lock step increase (ignoring mixed aged parents or old people that actually managed to pull it off somehow)

  38. Why would a woman pursue a career ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pursuing a career so I can be successful with women. I've been in love with a lot of women in my life, I could not get most of them because I was not successful, I did not have money to afford a decent apartment, furniture and stuff...

    I'm pursuing a career so I have the assets (such as money, stability, influence, confidence, etc...) to get the woman I love when I meet her, then marry her and build a family with her. There is a fire in me that pushes me to this goal.

    Otherwise, if I meet the woman I love, how can I seduce her due to me being a poor, unsuccessful, dispensable 30-something guy that works flipping burgers and cleaning toilets, a competitor will seduce her before me, that's for sure.

    So I'm asking the question, what pushes a woman to pursue a career if they usually can be selective and get any successful man they want ?

    1. Re:Why would a woman pursue a career ? by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      mimicry

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    2. Re:Why would a woman pursue a career ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I (a woman) have a career because I like what I do. I'm not doing for it for money, success or anything of the sort. I like my job. Neither my husband, nor myself, have any desire to build a family.

  39. Sorry. Never mind. by PPH · · Score: 1

    I thought this was going to be a thread about me microwaving frozen dinners because the wife was busy at work.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  40. guys save young sperm too by peter303 · · Score: 2

    For should they want to reproduce in middle age. A few conditions like autism are blamed on aging fathers. And/or chemo or trauma ends sperm production.

  41. biology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At some point we have to accept the biology of life. Women become fertile around 16 and our artificial attempts to delay reproduction for 20 years after that is really not logical. I read this story and I don't find myself jealous of women that can freeze their eggs and wait another 10 years before having a child. I'm jealous of my friends from high school that got pregant at 18, went to college, got a job and are now independent in the middle class with children that are out of the house by the time the parents are 40.

    1. Re:biology by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Actually, we find menses depends on the culture and biological constraints.

      In some areas it's as young as 12, in others as late as 18.

      Earlier births lead to more early births, later births lead to more later births.

      Age of male partners historically has been much older in many locations, but is closer to age of female partners in most locations nowadays.

      A friend of mine was a grandmother at 29, and she has a professional job. Other friends have had children at ages much later than 29.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  42. Prince Charming Fantasy by SlurpingGreen · · Score: 1

    I take issue with the 'immaturity of the man' argument. In my experience, it's much more to do with some fantasy of the perfect guy who will make them happy, instead of making themselves happy and finding someone to share it with.

    In fact, I think some rough empirical evidence exists in this direction. Women's sexual market value peaks in their 20s and falls off rapidly in their mid 30s. For men, the peak is much later. In the same way teenagers think they're invulnerable and youth will never end, women find this drop unexpected so their experience is one of a sudden drop in quality of available partners.

    Moreover there seems to be a general social move away from long term commitments of any kind. Marriage rates are declining, divorce rates increasing. People move around much more so friendships are broken up. Jobs don't last, etc.

  43. Jews committing genocide... what's new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Emma Rosenblum" LOL...

    Oh look, a filthy JEWESS telling white women that it's just find and dandy to NOT HAVE CHILDREN, just have them when you're 50, when white people are a minority in all previously white countries, and are being killed in our millions by our non-white 'enrichers'. Sickening.

  44. LaJoie fits the typical profile? by DTentilhao · · Score: 1

    Quoting tomhath quoting the article: "LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized"

    Maybe it's because men don't want to marry another pseudo-male ..

  45. Re:Most people shouldn't breed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah that's real encouraging, makes me want to bring a child into the world this very moment.

    Please, don't bother. Something tells me that we won't miss your genetic line when it dies out. Seriously. Just don't bother.

  46. You're not a 6 digit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way you are actually a 6 digit UID. You hacked your dad's account or something. Any real 6 digit would know better than to post such a retarded wall o text. I tried to read it but didn't get past the first wiki link. Reformat and try again, boy.

  47. wait a second.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't they be in the kitchen?

  48. Adopt by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    Adopt a child. That's what we did... there are an enormous number of children that desperately need a home or they will die... or worse, possibly end up in sex trade. It's a scary thing to do, and it's tough. But I love my son more than I could have ever possibly imagined. He doesn't look like me, isn't the same color as me, doesn't have the same hair as me... but he's my son. God damn, I'm glad I adopted. It's the most important thing I have done, or ever will do again.

  49. Father & grandfather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was father when 19 and grandfather at 53. Now, at 57, some afternoons I babysitting my grandsons (4 & 2 yo) and wonder how I had the energy (at 19) to raise childrens, because right now, I got tired after just a few hours taking care of them. Now, I'm a fit man, spending hours in my mountain bike or over the surf board almost every day, but kids ...

    Have your children as early as you can.

  50. Why? by allo · · Score: 1

    Whats the point in reproducing, if you have no mother feelings?

  51. Single women? by Depressive+Cyborg · · Score: 1

    "Lots of single women I talk to who haven't found anyone yet say the quality really drops off -- and they cite immaturity of the man as the reason. Past the mid 30s, you either get the permanent single guys hopping from one club to another on the weekend or the unmarryable."

    Send the ladies to me...

    I should be viable alternative for most women, but I have never encountered an attractive woman who does not suddenly find a partner somewhere , just after she met me. Some girls even dump their boyfriends and find a new one that I've never heard of, while dating me....
    I have no idea what it is about me that makes women suddenly fall in love with just about anyone except me, but the statistics are insane.

    You might think I'm boring, stupid or unhealthy but I'm clever, quite funny, well educated (there are companies who could hire special troops to kidnap me within 48 hours if they knew about my skill and knowledge), sporty and....unfortunately, disliked for reasons I don't really know. Anyway, I'm just above 30 (although most people think I'm still in my twenties) and I am lost in a strange world where everyone else seems to get a nice career, a girlfriend/wife and a pleasant future.

    Maybe my problem is more common than I think?

    1. Re:Single women? by Uzuri · · Score: 1

      Where do you live? I swear I'm the female version of that ;)

      If nothing else, if I met you, it'd guarantee that I'd find somebody new right after, going by your track record ;)

      --
      I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.