Fortunately for the species, over 95% plan on having unprotected sex
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
163 points (95.0% liked)
World News
38797 readers
2030 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Maybe if they created an environment conducive to having kids, more people would have them. Failing and underfunded public education, increasingly expensive cost of childcare, lower standard of living. I could go on about climate and geopolitical uncertainty but you get the idea.
In this economy you gotta wait until your 70s before you humour the thought of having children.
Besides, to match the government budgets we probably should hold off until we reach 1830s population numbers.
the 35-44 year olds skew the data quite heavily. In that age it's dangerous for women to have kids so over 50% of them saying no makes sense.
Yep. We had one kid when my wife was in hear early 30s. It was not a fun pregnancy for her in any way (morning sickness the entire time, for instance) and, on top of that, we decided against any more once she turned 35 since we didn't want to increase any risk factors.
Lots of people are getting married later in life. If you get married at 35 and you don't want to take the risk of having a kid, I don't blame you.
I can't imagine a lot of 40-year-olds are still planning to have kids so this number seems a little suspect to me.
Thanks for this, so I redid the math using the two youngest categories (up to 34 years old) and the % goes from 21% to 26% 🤷♂️
It only surveyed people who don't have children. Says on the left 'Do not have children, n = 1300'. This result says nothing about the general intention to have children as those with children in each age group are excluded. Naturally, as people age, the number who still think they're going to have children goes down.
The light blue section doesn't count towards either yes or no, right? Because it's the "I don't know" answer.
I was sitting here wondering how they came to 21% at all without only looking at the oldest category, and even then it's only a fourth that would not get children.
For sure, good call out, I think they just mean only 21% of people feel sure about wanting kids, and if we remove the age bias it goes to 26%. Honestly it would be more interesting to compare the categories to answers from 10, 20 or 30 years ago to have a better benchmark for how we could interperet this.
Yeah, I got distracted by the headline and didn't notice the bottom text that says it exactly that way.
I suppose I'm not alone, because I doubt it would've been interesting enough to make my feed without the confusion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't basic biology say that it gets more dangerous for people to have kids the older they are? Let alone the virility of men over 40.
But, the answers do specify "have or raise" so adoption is also included.
Yes, it starts being a risk birth at 35.
People PLAN to have kids? ;)
Yeah honestly 20% seems about right, if not a little high.
Once you're 50, you got everything together, the house, the car, the job.... That's when you should start dating! There's a bunch of 45 year old hotties out there with big tiddies! Just gotta know where to look....like like forward, to the left, and to the right. Usually you don't need to look up to find a hottie.
Anyway, the thing about 45 year old hotties is that they don't live with their parents anymore. Usually their parents already died. It's tragic, So know, but believe me! It's for the best! You don't wanna end up getting chased around the neighborhood by a 90 year old with a shotgun. At best the guy hurts himself and you're still the guilty party. Nah. Find yourself a 45 year old orphan.
And get a job you laisy sonobabich! How are you gonna provide to your girlfriend if you got no job! 😜
Only a fifth of Canadians younger than 50 plan on having kids
That's sustainable as long as those 1 in 5 Canadians who do have a kid each have on average at least 10 kids.
The poll found 51% say it is “not their responsibility” to fund other people’s childcare, with the most likely group to say this are those who have raised children to the age of 18 or older, where the proportion rises to 59%.
While I've got sympathy for that position, the flip side of that is that it's taxes from those kids who will be paying for pension, medical care, and so forth of people who don't have kids.
So if you don't want to pay for someone else's kids, it does seem a bit unfair that their kids should pay for your old age. I mean, it required a lot of time and work and money on the part of people who did have kids to raise that kid.
The social welfare model in most countries, as things stand, is rather loaded against people who have kids.
That argument only works on people that believe they will live long enough to see those benefits, or experience them regardless of how long they do live.
In the US at least, there is no reason to believe anyone under 50 is going to "retire," if they don't already have the full funds to retire. Canada's right wing parties desperately want to copy the US so they can get paid what US politicians get paid.
But those children will have their education and esrly healthcare paid for by the people they eventually pay for the retirement and healthcare of
That's his point. The people that say they do not want to pay for other peoples children want to opt out of the social contract that underpins all of this. And if they do, they should not get the rewards side later in life.
This kind of egocentric " me me me" thinking is to the detriment of everyone. Social systems are like insurance.. if you don't need it.. it's not a waste.. you got lucky. But if you get unlucky.. if you go at it alone.. you will be up the creek without a paddle.
Too many people think that life and the world is as you make it. They refuse to believe that probably 20pct is you, the other 80 is (good/bad) luck.
Education and a good job also prevent them from falling into poverty and crime and mugging those old people.
Toronto Sun - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Toronto Sun:
MBFC: Right - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - Canada
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://torontosun.com/news/national/only-a-fifth-of-canadians-younger-than-50-plan-on-having-kids-poll