Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knowing what we know now about the burden of overpopulation on natural resources, destruction of the environment, and climate change, what is the continued obsession with increasing the birth rate? If anything, we should be strongly, strongly discouraging anyone from ever having children, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. I don't get the hand-wringing about omg we'll have to allow immigrants to provide essential services in the future if we don't birth our own. The modern nation-state with strict borders is such a small blip in the history of how humans organized societies. There's no reason to assume that will continue in perpetuity. I bet that in several hundred years, the current world order of self-interested countries striving to consume the most resources would looks just as strange and inefficient to the (hopefully much reduced) population as medieval feudal kingdoms look to us.

We should absolutely NOT be discouraging everyone for ever having children.

Because, you know, extinction.

As for nation states, I'll bet that you're wrong. Considering that something roughly analogous has existed for the entirety of recorded history.

Climate change is of course very real and very dangerous. But your silly and facile "solutions" just distract from serious conversations.

No. Really, no. No it hasn't. No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knowing what we know now about the burden of overpopulation on natural resources, destruction of the environment, and climate change, what is the continued obsession with increasing the birth rate? If anything, we should be strongly, strongly discouraging anyone from ever having children, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. I don't get the hand-wringing about omg we'll have to allow immigrants to provide essential services in the future if we don't birth our own. The modern nation-state with strict borders is such a small blip in the history of how humans organized societies. There's no reason to assume that will continue in perpetuity. I bet that in several hundred years, the current world order of self-interested countries striving to consume the most resources would looks just as strange and inefficient to the (hopefully much reduced) population as medieval feudal kingdoms look to us.

We should absolutely NOT be discouraging everyone for ever having children.

Because, you know, extinction.

As for nation states, I'll bet that you're wrong. Considering that something roughly analogous has existed for the entirety of recorded history.

Climate change is of course very real and very dangerous. But your silly and facile "solutions" just distract from serious conversations.

You assume that the continued existence of homo sapiens sapiens is a good thing for the planet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knowing what we know now about the burden of overpopulation on natural resources, destruction of the environment, and climate change, what is the continued obsession with increasing the birth rate? If anything, we should be strongly, strongly discouraging anyone from ever having children, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. I don't get the hand-wringing about omg we'll have to allow immigrants to provide essential services in the future if we don't birth our own. The modern nation-state with strict borders is such a small blip in the history of how humans organized societies. There's no reason to assume that will continue in perpetuity. I bet that in several hundred years, the current world order of self-interested countries striving to consume the most resources would looks just as strange and inefficient to the (hopefully much reduced) population as medieval feudal kingdoms look to us.

We should absolutely NOT be discouraging everyone for ever having children.

Because, you know, extinction.

As for nation states, I'll bet that you're wrong. Considering that something roughly analogous has existed for the entirety of recorded history.

Climate change is of course very real and very dangerous. But your silly and facile "solutions" just distract from serious conversations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knowing what we know now about the burden of overpopulation on natural resources, destruction of the environment, and climate change, what is the continued obsession with increasing the birth rate? If anything, we should be strongly, strongly discouraging anyone from ever having children, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. I don't get the hand-wringing about omg we'll have to allow immigrants to provide essential services in the future if we don't birth our own. The modern nation-state with strict borders is such a small blip in the history of how humans organized societies. There's no reason to assume that will continue in perpetuity. I bet that in several hundred years, the current world order of self-interested countries striving to consume the most resources would looks just as strange and inefficient to the (hopefully much reduced) population as medieval feudal kingdoms look to us.

We should absolutely NOT be discouraging everyone for ever having children.

Because, you know, extinction.

As for nation states, I'll bet that you're wrong. Considering that something roughly analogous has existed for the entirety of recorded history.

Climate change is of course very real and very dangerous. But your silly and facile "solutions" just distract from serious conversations.

Anonymous wrote:Knowing what we know now about the burden of overpopulation on natural resources, destruction of the environment, and climate change, what is the continued obsession with increasing the birth rate? If anything, we should be strongly, strongly discouraging anyone from ever having children, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. I don't get the hand-wringing about omg we'll have to allow immigrants to provide essential services in the future if we don't birth our own. The modern nation-state with strict borders is such a small blip in the history of how humans organized societies. There's no reason to assume that will continue in perpetuity. I bet that in several hundred years, the current world order of self-interested countries striving to consume the most resources would looks just as strange and inefficient to the (hopefully much reduced) population as medieval feudal kingdoms look to us.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, we love those anecdotal exceptions that somehow invalidate actual studies using hardcore data.

Let me guess, out of 10 babies on the Hill, maybe 1-2 will still be a teenager living on the Hill. Most of the rest will be in the burbs or perhaps now also in other parts of DC, namely NW.

That's the same thing with Manhattan.

But what some of you smug college educated liberals are also wholly ignoring in your biases is that the number of poor families is rapidly declining in the high cost big cities. But since you never see those families or that demographics beyond as service workers or cleaners in your house and you don't care about them or their kids, they obviously don't count as real people in your mind, so your personal experience of seeing more yuppies pushing strollers around the Hill is much more valid and real than the overall decline in numbers of youths across all of DC or NYC, which is likely driven by the rapid gentrification pushing out poorer households and their kids to be replaced by childless single professionals and dinks. That's why the average household size is shrinking, even if the total number of households increases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the first thing I thought of when I read the title of this thread was how I experienced Capitol Hill when we first bought there (1996).

I remember telling my ILs (who lived in NoVa) that the only time I see children is when I come to visit them.

And now the Hill is crawling with kids. Not just babies - teens too. A lot of us are just stubborn and stayed out once we had kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, everyone in DC can probably walk to multiple playgrounds. Unless by “DC” you mean Fairfax.

No, not everyone in DC can probably walk to multiple playgrounds, let alone seven of them.

Dc has a lot of playgrounds. I suspect that almost everyone can indeed walk to multiple playgrounds. The below map shows how many there are and their locations.

https://dpr.dc.gov/page/playgrounds-00

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are going to dispute objective data, because at the end of the day they like living in cities that have become playgrounds for single white adults, rather than cities that have playgrounds for kids of all backgrounds.

I would not object to the data, but I think there is a major logical flaw. Birth rate has steadily declined in the US over the past 10 or so years, this isn't a cities phenomenon. I would like to see a comparison on how cities are fairing relative to rural areas, today vs. in the past.

You can't possibly make an argument that birth rates in Manhattan have declined by 15% in what, ten years?

If you think birth rates have declined over the past ten years, that would explain the dwindling number of babies but not children aged 10+.

Birth rates in US have declined by 15% over last 10 years, so Manhattan decline is average and NYC (at 9%) is significantly better than average. Brooklyn has been en vogue the past decade and many families migrated there.

I have no idea where you got the stats for the dwindling number of kids 10+. Anecdotally, I just visited NYC 3 weeks ago with my kids and was amazed at the number of playgrounds and how cool (read high end) many were.

Well, not anecdotally:

"According to a study in 2012 by the Trust for Public Lands, the most playground-friendly city in America is Madison, Wis., with a total of 7.1 playgrounds for every 10,000 residents. Cincinnati is second, with 5.1. By this yardstick, some of the more successfully gentrifying cities in America in recent years have abysmal numbers. New York City stands at 2.1 playgrounds per 10,000 residents; Chicago, at 1.9; Washington, D.C., at 1.7; San Francisco at 1.6 and Los Angeles close to the bottom at 1. If you plot the percentage of children in a big city against the number of playgrounds, you nearly always get a correlation. This is not to say what causes what, but it does make clear that quite a few cities desiring a reputation for family friendliness have failed to address a simple problem that is limiting their attractiveness to young families."

This is a dumb way to measure playgrounds. I live in DC and quickly can walk to 7 playgrounds. I doubt anyone in Wisconsin can say that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, everyone in DC can probably walk to multiple playgrounds. Unless by “DC” you mean Fairfax.

No, not everyone in DC can probably walk to multiple playgrounds, let alone seven of them.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, everyone in DC can probably walk to multiple playgrounds. Unless by “DC” you mean Fairfax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the first thing I thought of when I read the title of this thread was how I experienced Capitol Hill when we first bought there (1996).

I remember telling my ILs (who lived in NoVa) that the only time I see children is when I come to visit them.

And now the Hill is crawling with kids. Not just babies - teens too. A lot of us are just stubborn and stayed out once we had kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are going to dispute objective data, because at the end of the day they like living in cities that have become playgrounds for single white adults, rather than cities that have playgrounds for kids of all backgrounds.

I would not object to the data, but I think there is a major logical flaw. Birth rate has steadily declined in the US over the past 10 or so years, this isn't a cities phenomenon. I would like to see a comparison on how cities are fairing relative to rural areas, today vs. in the past.

You can't possibly make an argument that birth rates in Manhattan have declined by 15% in what, ten years?

If you think birth rates have declined over the past ten years, that would explain the dwindling number of babies but not children aged 10+.

Birth rates in US have declined by 15% over last 10 years, so Manhattan decline is average and NYC (at 9%) is significantly better than average. Brooklyn has been en vogue the past decade and many families migrated there.

I have no idea where you got the stats for the dwindling number of kids 10+. Anecdotally, I just visited NYC 3 weeks ago with my kids and was amazed at the number of playgrounds and how cool (read high end) many were.

Well, not anecdotally:

"According to a study in 2012 by the Trust for Public Lands, the most playground-friendly city in America is Madison, Wis., with a total of 7.1 playgrounds for every 10,000 residents. Cincinnati is second, with 5.1. By this yardstick, some of the more successfully gentrifying cities in America in recent years have abysmal numbers. New York City stands at 2.1 playgrounds per 10,000 residents; Chicago, at 1.9; Washington, D.C., at 1.7; San Francisco at 1.6 and Los Angeles close to the bottom at 1. If you plot the percentage of children in a big city against the number of playgrounds, you nearly always get a correlation. This is not to say what causes what, but it does make clear that quite a few cities desiring a reputation for family friendliness have failed to address a simple problem that is limiting their attractiveness to young families."

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the first thing I thought of when I read the title of this thread was how I experienced Capitol Hill when we first bought there (1996).

I remember telling my ILs (who lived in NoVa) that the only time I see children is when I come to visit them.

Anonymous wrote:Knowing what we know now about the burden of overpopulation on natural resources, destruction of the environment, and climate change, what is the continued obsession with increasing the birth rate? If anything, we should be strongly, strongly discouraging anyone from ever having children, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. I don't get the hand-wringing about omg we'll have to allow immigrants to provide essential services in the future if we don't birth our own. The modern nation-state with strict borders is such a small blip in the history of how humans organized societies. There's no reason to assume that will continue in perpetuity. I bet that in several hundred years, the current world order of self-interested countries striving to consume the most resources would looks just as strange and inefficient to the (hopefully much reduced) population as medieval feudal kingdoms look to us.