2.8 million delaying parenthood due to housing costs

JonnyBravo

ninky wrote: »

true. not so sure it was historically true of humans or all other primates. if you look at chimpanzee groups the alpha male tends to mate with all the females (and many of the other males).

in chimp world it's the mike tysons that seem to get to pass on their genes more than the brad pitts or bill gates. did you see that show by professor winston recently? it talked of evidence that 1 in 10 men bring up a child that is not their unknowingly and that human females are genetically programmed to be attracted to more "masculine" males when they ovulate but choose more "feminine" mates for lifelong partners. they want to produce strong offspring but have nurturers to support raising them.

Aye, true enough.

treliac

ninky wrote: »

true. not so sure it was historically true of humans or all other primates. if you look at chimpanzee groups the alpha male tends to mate with all the females (and many of the other males).

in chimp world it's the mike tysons that seem to get to pass on their genes more than the brad pitts or bill gates. did you see that show by professor winston recently? it talked of evidence that 1 in 10 men bring up a child that is not their unknowingly and that human females are genetically programmed to be attracted to more "masculine" males when they ovulate but choose more "feminine" mates for lifelong partners. they want to produce strong offspring but have nurturers to support raising them.

Don't know how the 1 in 10 hypothesis is reached / how such research is conducted. If women disproportionately choose more masculine men to father their children, it would suggest that men would become increasingly masculine/aggressive through each generation. Nurturers would be bred out.

LydiaJ

I've asked my son what he thinks about this question of what makes life stable for children. He's 10, and so far he's experienced 3 house moves as well as Daddy leaving Mummy, Daddy dying, and the deaths of the dog and goldfish. He says moving house is quite a big deal if you have to move to a new place and new school, but not really a problem if you can stay in the local area. Even moving a long distance is much less of a big deal than the death of the goldfish, though, let alone the death of the dog. Daddy leaving home and Daddy dying are in another whole league. That's his opinion from his experience, anyway.

As a society, we have our priorities back to front if we are worrying about how kids will cope with moving house when so many of them are subjected to their parents' breakup and expected just to deal with it and be fine.

treliac

LydiaJ wrote: »

I've asked my son what he thinks about this question of what makes life stable for children. He's 10, and so far he's experienced 3 house moves as well as Daddy leaving Mummy, Daddy dying, and the deaths of the dog and goldfish. He says moving house is quite a big deal if you have to move to a new place and new school, but not really a problem if you can stay in the local area. Even moving a long distance is much less of a big deal than the death of the goldfish, though, let alone the death of the dog. Daddy leaving home and Daddy dying are in another whole league. That's his opinion from his experience, anyway.

Poor mite, what a lot your children have had to cope with already Lydia. I'm sure it's testament to you that they will survive and grow up to be mature, confident adults.

Shakethedisease

The younger the parent the less wealthy they are on average. A family's wealth has been shown to be a risk factor for a host of illnesses, childhood mortality and is a strong determinant of the child's academic success. There are more risks than the risk you seem to be suggesting is important. Medical science allows the mitigation of this risk in most of the population.

Do back this up please. A 'host' of illnesses ? Which ones would those be ? Childhood mortality.. practically negligible in statisical terms compared to even 20 years ago.. regardless of income. Strong detriment to a childs academic success ? Purely financial/social and class barriers in place.. most of which are only now being recognised and dealt with.

Women today are putting off children due to purely financial reasons.. and it's unforunately at complete and utter odds with what their biology is programmed to do. Simple as that..So they make their choice.
It's those with the most to lose that will think more about it, since pure and simply, they can't afford the loss of 1 income or the childcare. So they look in envy and disgust to those that don't have to, those with nothing to lose financially.

This wasn't true, again, even 20 years ago.

It costs too much these days to have a secure roof over one's families head on one income. Especially if the mortgage is secured on 3x joint wages ( and that's what everyone's really talking about on this thread about 'being financially secure' before having kids let's face it)

. I really do believe it all boils down to this, and it's not rocket science. Working women who's income is needed to pay the mortgage or the rent will think twice and put off having children.. then blame those who don't/have nothing to lose/or have fallen on hard times and are now single themselves... and feel somehow that it's now some kind of a 'moral' issue or crusade. It's nothing of the sort, and it's only a very recent thing that women have started feeling this way.

Fact is, our economy is now WAAAAAAY out of whack with our basic biology. It is not good for women to keep putting off having children later and later in life biologically. Yet it's not good economically these days for any woman really to start a family in their early 20's, when it's best biologically.

Nature will generally always out though. And the real travesty is that waiting until you're 39 to have your first child.. is being hailed as something to be smug and morally correct about at all..thats not something to 'aspire' to.. it's something that is at the present time seen as the 'financially' correct thing to do despite all the biological problems it presents.

Lets not keep confusing personal morals with how much money one has in the bank ? Seems one equals the other on this thread. Sheesh.

ninky_2

treliac wrote: »

Don't know how the 1 in 10 hypothesis is reached / how such research is conducted. If women disproportionately choose more masculine men to father their children, it would suggest that men would become increasingly masculine/aggressive through each generation. Nurturers would be bred out.

and women would become more aggressive too - it's not as if men only pass their genes on to men, some genes are sexually specific but not most. being a bit cod scientist here but could it explain the increasing levels of autism and similar spectrum disorders? - that is associated with lack of empathy and other traits similarly linked to high testosterone levels. i don't know how they work it out either tbh - unless it is through some large scale dna research on families which has revealed this.

1 in 10 still suggests 9 in 10 women are faithful to their partner, or at least conceive with them.

ninky_2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Fact is, our economy is now WAAAAAAY out of whack with our basic biology. It is not good for women to keep putting off having children later and later in life biologically. Yet it's not good economically these days for any woman really to start a family in their early 20's, when it's best biologically.

Nature will generally always out though. And the real travesty is that waiting until you're 39 to have your first child.. is being hailed as something to be smug and morally correct about at all..thats not something to 'aspire' to.. it's something that is at the present time seen as the 'financially' correct thing to do despite all the biological problems it presents.

Lets not keep confusing personal morals with how much money one has in the bank ? Seems one equals the other on this thread. Sheesh.

it does slow the birthrate considerably though - do the maths. it's the natural check many species go through when resources become scarce - reproduction slows. it's more important to rebalance numbers with resources than breed a lot at the fertile peak. although the risks of genetic disease do increase somewhat with age the numbers are still tiny - you might reasonably argue that that small increase is a more desirable outcome than increasing overpopulation.

Jonbvn

INT1 wrote: »

I say have kids now rather than later, get it out the way!

We preferred to have plenty of practice first.;)

ceridwen

ninky wrote: »

it does slow the birthrate considerably though - do the maths. it's the natural check many species go through when resources become scarce - reproduction slows. it's more important to rebalance numbers with resources than breed a lot at the fertile peak. although the risks of genetic disease do increase somewhat with age the numbers are still tiny - you might reasonably argue that that small increase is a more desirable outcome than increasing overpopulation.

At a rough guess - this would equate to about 5-6 million fewer people in this country than would otherwise be the case. Just imagine if everyone could afford the children they want when they want - where would these 6 million children that could have been born live?:eek: what jobs would they do?:eek: etc etc. So - there is no reason to think that human beings arent just another species - because ultimately that IS what we are. If other species have to stop breeding so much because of lack of the resources to do so - then obviously the same thing happens to us too....

Orpheo

JonnyBravo wrote: »

We could argue about what you mean by "competitive" but lets stick to your genetic argument.
Each one may be, but as a whole and that is how they should be considered in genetic terms your daughter would need 5 times the competitive advantage.
Unlikely.
Very unlikely.

Sorry, can't see how his stacks up. To compete with 5 people I have to be 5 times better than they are?

Admittedly, any tangible competitive advantage would more likely come from nurture and environment than genetics.