Not having kids likely allowed them that stability in the first place; now that they have it, why would they give it up? Times are precarious.
back
1 comments
> now that they have it, why would they give it up?
a number of reasons, including avoiding to feed the gerontocracy
> Times are precarious
yeah i get it but at the same time, times are always precarious.
from your first line, i think we are in agreement - they want to preserve stability hence they remain childfree, also to not provide fodder to the machine
Why breed when you're certain in advance that your children will be losers? They can wake up early, study hard, work hard and they will every time lose against children (now grandchildren) of rich boomers.
Your kids will see them passing by in Porsche, or speaking how they casually bought an island on Adriatic.
Your line of reasoning is very shortsighted.
Why? Children will have to emigrate or at least move far away, you'll meet them once or twice a year, or every two years, unable to create any bond with grandchildren. So you basically only pass your genes.
again, very short-sighted.
> Children will have to emigrate or at least move far away, you'll meet them once or twice a year, or every two years, unable to create any bond with grandchildren.
That is not true in general, and a lot depends on how you behave as a parent. In the year 2026 where remote-working is possible (sometimes only occasionally) if your children avoid spending time with you it's most likely that you were a shitty parent, not that they really really can't.