Dismissing Modern Struggles By Romanticizing The Past ignores historical context.

To address the assertion that past generations easily afforded children, it's crucial to contextualize historical realities and contrast them with modern challenges:

1. High Mortality Rates: Historically, infant and child mortality were staggeringly high. Many children didn't survive infancy, compelling families to have more offspring as a pragmatic strategy to ensure some reached adulthood. Today, lower mortality rates mean parents invest more resources in fewer children, prioritizing quality of life over quantity.

2. Children as Economic Contributors: In agrarian and hunter-gatherer societies, children contributed labor early—farming, chores, or apprenticeships. Modern economies require prolonged education, delaying economic contributions until adulthood. This shifts children from assets to long-term financial responsibilities.

3. Communal vs. Nuclear Structures: Extended families or communal groups historically shared childcare and resources. Modern nuclear families or single-parent households bear these costs alone, exacerbated by urbanization and reduced community support networks.

4. Healthcare and Maternal Risks: Past societies lacked modern medicine. Maternal mortality was high, and diseases ravaged populations. Surviving childbirth or childhood was uncertain, contrasting sharply with today's medical advancements, which raise expectations for safety and longevity.

5. Life Expectancy and Labor: Shorter lifespans meant people worked physically grueling jobs until death. While modern work is less physically taxing, financial pressures—student debt, housing costs, healthcare—create different stresses, compounded by longer lifespans requiring sustained income.

6. Social Safety Nets and Autonomy: Historically, children were a necessity for elder care and labor. Today, social security and retirement plans exist, but rising costs of living outpace wage growth. Meanwhile, societal shifts allow personal choice in childbearing, juxtaposed with economic barriers absent in eras when large families were culturally enforced.

7. Romanticization of Suffering: Asserting ancestors "still went on" overlooks immense suffering—famine, plagues, exploitation (e.g., child labor during industrialization). Survival ≠ thriving; past resilience doesn’t negate today’s right to dignity and security.

Conclusion: Dismissing modern struggles by romanticizing the past ignores historical context. Progress should ensure that having children isn’t a matter of mere survival but of providing a stable, fulfilling life—a goal achievable through systemic support, not individual blame.

The following is DeepSeek’s thinking on putting this reply together:
Okay, so I need to respond to this person on social media who's saying that people today shouldn't complain about not being able to afford kids because our ancestors managed for 300,000 years. The user wants me to explain that the past wasn't some easy, idyllic time. Let me think about how to approach this.

First, the original argument seems to oversimplify history. The person is equating the ability to have children with having a good standard of living. But just because people had kids in the past doesn't mean their lives were easy or that all those children survived. I need to point out the high rates of infant and child mortality. Back then, many kids didn't make it to adulthood, so having more children was a way to ensure some survived. That's different from today, where we expect all our children to survive and thrive.

Also, the nature of work has changed. In hunter-gatherer societies or agrarian communities, children could contribute to the family's labor from a young age. They helped with farming, gathering, or taking care of animals. In modern capitalist societies, children are dependents for much longer, requiring education and care without contributing economically until much later. That's a significant financial burden that didn't exist in the same way before.

Another point is the difference in societal structures. In many past societies, there were communal living arrangements where childcare and resources were shared among the group. Extended families lived together, which isn't as common now. Today, nuclear families or single parents bear the full cost alone, which is more expensive.

Healthcare is another factor. Even if people in the past had more children, they didn't have the medical care we have now. Women died in childbirth more often, and diseases that are now preventable or treatable were deadly. So, while they had kids, the risks and hardships were immense compared to today's standards.

Life expectancy was shorter. People worked hard physically their entire lives, which was exhausting and often led to early death. Comparing that to today's context where people live longer but face different challenges like student debt, housing costs, and healthcare expenses—it's not just about having kids but the quality of life for both parents and children.

There's also the aspect of social safety nets. In many past societies, there weren't alternatives; you had kids because you needed them for labor and to take care of you in old age. Now, there are different expectations and systems, but the cost of living has increased in ways that wages haven't kept up with, making it harder for many to afford children without financial strain.

I should also address the romanticization of the past. The idea that ancestors "still went on" ignores the immense suffering, high mortality rates, and lack of choices people had. Surviving isn't the same as thriving. Plus, societal norms have shifted; in the past, not having children wasn't really an option due to cultural pressures, whereas now people have more autonomy but face economic barriers.

Maybe bring up specific examples, like the industrial revolution, where children worked in factories under terrible conditions. That's not an ideal situation, even if they were contributing economically. Also, the transition from agrarian to industrial and post-industrial societies changes the economic role of children.

In summary, the key points are: high historical child mortality, the role of children as labor in the past, lack of modern healthcare, shorter life expectancy, communal vs. nuclear family structures, changes in economic systems, and the romanticization of past struggles. The argument that because people had kids in the past we should be able to now ignores all these contextual factors and the increased financial and emotional demands of raising children in a modern capitalist society.

https://chat.deepseek.com/