• indistincthobby@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Help me understand please, how is it a survival need? Maybe back in the 1800s when you were working a farm and needed to produce extra pairs of hands to help? Nowadays it seems to me that while it might be nice to have a proper family having children is a financial burden that many can’t bear, whether they want to or not

    • hanekam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s a need in that it’s programmed into your biology, and most people can’t thrive without it. Surveys of middle-aged people find about 1 in 5 are child-free. Out of those, about 1 in 10 are so by choice. That leaves 49 in 50 that either have or wished, but couldn’t have, children.

      • DM_Gold@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        That ratio seems off? 49 out of 50 people wished they could have children? I highly doubt that. If going by your logic you say that 1/10th of 1/5th of folks are child free not by choice. Say out of 50 people that math equals 1 person per 50 folks regret not being able to have kids.

        • hanekam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          No. Out of 50 that’s 40 who had kids, 9 who didn’t and regret it, and just 1 who didn’t and are content.

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s a need in that it’s programmed into your biology, and most people can’t thrive without it.

        That’s not what survival need means.

        That leaves 49 in 50 that either have or wished, but couldn’t have, children.

        Again, this doesn’t make it a survival need.