this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2026
15 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
5187 readers
32 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The counter to the cost of living explanation is that people were poorer a hundred years ago and still had kids. This does not factor in that those people 100 years ago were mostly doing slightly better than their parents. Having children while being downwardly mobile feels irresponsible, like you’re betraying those children by being unable to provide for them the advantages and experiences that you had.
Also, as others have pointed out, the current generation crop of young adults is objectively less hedonistic than the previous three. Less sex, less booze, less friends, less partying, less dancing, less music.
Could this not be because addictive social media overindulgence is the norm? I think this plays some small part tbh. No time or motivation for parties, alcohol, etc if you're getting everything you need being terminally online, which is hedonism all the same.
I don’t have any data to back this up, but I think social media addiction is a symptom, and the root cause is real estate prices. Younger adults have been priced out of cities, so they don’t go out as much for the same reason that previous generations stopped going out as much after they would move back to the suburbs to buy a house. Where are you gonna go to meet your partner or party with friends? The Applebee’s? Cant drink too much cause you gotta drive to get anywhere, cant take anyone home with you because there’s a good chance you live with your parent, cant even go have a kegger in the woods because even small wooded areas have been cleared for more investment housing. So the only private space available to these young adults is digital.
Social behaviour follows the path of least resistance and our societal infrastructure funnels young people into online spaces instead of real world spaces where they would meet someone they wanna have a kid with.
They also didn't have contraceptions, child labor was normalized, the agricultural sector employed a larger section of the populace and social pressure was higher to conceive, in contrast the communal aspect was also higher.
I don't believe kids nowadays get taken care of by their neighbors if the parents are working. Stranger Danger and Kidnapping mass panic blew up since the 80s-90s.
The demand for child labour and the simple fact that sex is fun seem far more likely as reasons for the massive quantities of children people had a hundred years ago.
If you're poor, and can barely afford necessities, let alone entertainment or luxuries, what else are you going to do for fun other than have sex?