Disgusting reporting when compared to ausgovs social media ban. This is good, tech companies shouldn’t be able to peddle emotional dependence on opaque and erratic chatbots.

  • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 days ago

    I don’t even think it’s caused by anything inherently negative. In developed societies having children has become a burden, they are a cost that weighs you down for 18 years.

    I would consider the state not adequately supporting reproduction to be for all intents and purposes inherently negative

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yeah maybe.

      If I’m right about this whole economic incentive thing then the state could calculate what it costs for a family to support a child for 18 years vs what a member of the population contributes to society and the state.

      If the contribution outweighs the cost, the state could just pay for the entire cost of the child for those 18 years.

      If the birthrate decline is economically motivated, this would resolve the problem.

      • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        I don’t think states ultimately have much of a choice in the end, because as more countries get more developed this issue will spread and immigration will no longer be a solution, so it’s basically choosing between support or civilizations imploding from population decline.

        • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 days ago

          Only if they realise that’s the measure they have to take to solve it. There’s a strong chance they take every single other possible measure first before the one that costs money and even then I’m not convinced they’ll even try it.