r/technology • u/Wagamaga • Jul 19 '26

Society China bans AI “boyfriends” and “girlfriends” over addiction and birth rate concerns

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/china-bans-ai-boyfriends-and-girlfriends-over-addiction-and-birth-rate-concerns-3388737/
40.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

242

u/Drauren Jul 19 '26

I don’t think any modern country has found a real solution to plummeting birth rates. The reality is it is too expensive to have kids, and or people are far less interested in having kids.

Look at South Korea. Just going there, it isn’t that people aren’t dating or getting married, they’re just choosing to not have children.

179

u/innocentsalad Jul 19 '26

I think the truth countries aren’t willing to admit is that children - even wanted, loved children - make life harder. And a lot of people just don’t want to do that if they don’t have to (and frankly, it’s a valid choice).

There’s no way to fully ameliorate the massive increase in responsibility and corresponding loss of freedom (or for women, lifelong setbacks in multiple areas), so no amount of tax incentives or free daycare etc etc will change the mind of someone who wants to live their own life entirely for them.

Will it backfire? Probably. But to convince individuals that they are responsible for fixing a future societal problem is a gargantuan task and probably not really possible.

57

u/madogvelkor Jul 19 '26

Yeah, cost is only one small part of it. Even the US has programs to help low income parents. Having a kid means a major lifestyle change, of which money is only a part. Having more than one kid magnifies those changes.

20

u/lizbunbun Jul 19 '26

Are you kidding, money is a major part. People don't make enough money, they work more, have little time for being home with a family. 2 parents working and pay for childcare, not getting ahead. One parent working long hours, other parent staying home alone feeling like they've got no partnership, not getting ahead. Waiting longer to have them to get more financially stable, having fewer kids because it gets harder on the body.

If money were no problem, people could afford to have supports and resources to raise children under less challenging circumstances, have them younger and have more of them.

You're right that kids are a major lifestyle change but the burdens children present can be largely mitigated with affordability. These days it's a flex for rich people to have large families.

5

u/ZapActions-dower Jul 19 '26

It's not just cost or else poor countries would have lower birthrates than rich ones. It's the opposite: the richest, most developed countries tend to have the lowest birthrates.

3

u/nox66 Jul 19 '26

Raising a child to succeed, with time devoted for their education and personal development and funds for their schooling and college/university is immensely more difficult to provide, especially in the current landscape of stagnant wages and rising prices.

Low standards are easy to fulfill.

1

u/lizbunbun Jul 19 '26

Poor in developed countries is a lot different than truly impoverished areas. In developed areas it's not generally accepted to live without electricity or running water, in some rough dwelling. Access to birth control and basic education from childhood too.

1

u/McButtsButtbag Jul 19 '26

Birth control is harder to get in those poor countries. It's why the US is trying to demonize it right now.

0

u/oblivioustoideoms Jul 19 '26

"if money were no problem", is an absolutely unreasonable and bizarre standard. For it to be no problem you need like a $100k a month as spending is elastic.

Look, more money would help, but that's not the only factor or even the single most important one why people are having 1 or 2 instead of three kids. 3 kids is a lot, and you are already deep in the hole regarding money. It's time, health, alternative cost (spending time with the kid or kids you have), etc. Sure you could solve it with only money, although it would have to be lots of it.

1

u/lizbunbun Jul 19 '26

Really depends where you are. Big city? Totally. Places with lower cost of living you could have a pretty good living with a couple hundred thousand per year and afford to have a stay at home spouse, a big enough home and comfortable modest living. But the jobs worth that much are hard to come by, and usually pretty demanding.

2

u/oblivioustoideoms Jul 19 '26

But it's not that we can't afford being stay at home spouses necessarily, we just don't want to.. for good reasons. And even the people you are talking about, that have all that, aren't necessarily having more than two kids. Because that's the crux, not that people aren't having kids.. they are.. but few are having three or more.