138
I don't by soldiers gifts either though, so that is a weird parallel to draw for your case.
You don't have to buy present but you have to try hard to provide a good life for mother of your child as raising a kid for society is hard work. People here do not understand that people with children take the burden of keeping human race alive, so child free guys can have their peaceful live
people with children take the burden of keeping the human race alive
People make kids because they want kids, not because they're on some noble self-sacrificing mission to ensure the survival of the human race. Fuck that noise. We didn't ask to have any part of it and we didn't ask you to take the "burden" either.
To be fair, I don't give presents to the military either.
The historical risk of death isn't reflective of today's conditions, in both childbearing and war fighting/combat. And using them as an argument is not based in a reality that matters.
And yet if you'd bothered to look it up you'd see that the statistic is still 3x in favor of women dying in child birth vs people dying in conflict in the past two decades. 3X.
Also the fact that this is being used to justify a cosoom mentality.
What did you mean with cosoom?
I mean that the original post is referring to a corporate attempt to create yet another cultural obligation to buy more crap that people don't need. "Consoom" is often used as a variant of "consume" when people want to point out or ridicule our society's consumerism sickness.
You can give hand made gifts instead of store bought. Some people appreciate them even more because of the time invested.
Ahhh, you skipped the n and I expected a different meaning. Thought exactly that at first.
Yeah, the expenses before/after having a baby really add up. So many items to buy: high chair, baby dishes/spoons/bottles/cups, pacifiers, toys, rattles, teething trinkets, a wash tub, a crib, blankets, clothes, car seats, books, et cetera.
That's not even counting consumables such as diapers, wipes, formula, baby food, medicine, etc.
Or medical expenses, including maternity/pre-natal/post-natal care as well as regular check-ups for the baby and several rounds of vaccinations.
So if by "push presents" they mean things like that which any new parents are gonna need, or maybe something that makes maternity easier (since the brunt of childrearing so often falls upon the mother), then it could make sense. Like a housewarming gift, but for new parents. Although I'm pretty sure that's what baby showers are already for.
If it it's something that you bring her in the hospital to make her stay more comfortable, then that makes sense too.
I admit I've never heard of the concept before, so it could mean something like that. But if it's like "nooo buy her this expensive trinket that does nothing because society says you have to now" then that's just stupid consumerism.
Buying gifts like that can be nice, if it comes from the heart. Which it doesn't, if it's only being done out of a social obligation.
Gifts should be pleasant surprises. Not expectations that will result in disappointment if unfulfilled.
I got my wife a necklace with our daughters first initial on it, it wasn't very expensive
Don't make kids so landlords and employers wont be able to crush them for fiat currency. Not being born is one of life's most precious mercies.
All this does is discourage vulnerable women from having children. These numbers do not relate to modern risks of either child birth or war.
At a rough average mortality of 1-2% chance of death per birth, and most women having 6-10+ kids in pre-industrial times, that's a roughly 6-18% chance of death. Most wars are like 3% for fatalities
Where are you getting the 3% figure from wars?
WW1, UK saw a 11-12% mortality rate among their troops. Germany saw an 18% mortality rate. The Russian empire ~ 14%
WW2 the USSR had a rate estimated at ~27%, UK 4%, US 3%, Germany ~27%, Australia 4%, Japan ~ 20%, Finland 3%
Spanish civil war, 10%
The US civil war saw a mortality rate of ~25% among enlisted men.
The napoleonic wars saw ~30% across the board.
And in the 1600s, you were expected to lose 10-30% of your sailors before even reaching your enemy due to disease and illness on the ship. Depending on the length of the voyage.
And as a final note. Death during childbirth is the highest for the first child. The risk will decrease for subsequent children. As in, a woman having her second child, is less at risk of dying from that childbirth than someone who ia birthing her first.
Not that it's a competition between the sexes.
It's what I heard for pre-industrial warfare since actual fighting happened so infrequently and most people died from disease than actual warfare.
I tried to make it a direct comparison between the two (the original claim in the Twitter screenshot) not counting disease in preindustry which like you said killed the most men in the military.
Why do you think fighting happened so infrequently?
Soldiers or Sailors dying from disease is a direct result of warfare and service. Getting shot or stabbed in the arm could very well be a death sentence. Not because the wound itself is fatal, but because of the bacteria and infection that takes root afterwards.
Does it matter if you die from disease, splinters, steel, or lead? You died. And you died as a direct result of your service.
And the area under the curve for both sides still is somehow in line with my point. Does this really matter that much?
At a rough average mortality of 1-2% chance of death per birth, and most women having 6-10+ kids in pre-industrial times, that’s a roughly 6-18% chance of death. Most wars are like 3% for fatalities
If this is your point. Then no. It is not in line with your point. You're simply factually wrong.
That's what I said but you've misattributed what I'm saying you're missing the forest from the trees here. I can explain it to you but I can't comprehend it for you. I was pointing out the math behind the post directly to give it numbers, but even with your correction you're still wrong about the magnitude of women who died vs men dying from disease or battle. More women died full stop no matter how you try and slice it. Look up historical mortality rates for women from child birth and see for yourself.
10-30% deaths in (whatever % of men are military men) is less overall deaths than the 85-90% of women who reproduced historically, with an average of 5.5 children roughly, and a 1-2% chance of death from each childbirth.
But this is a really stupid argument since you're going to end up agreeing with the post and me in essence even if you disagree about the minutiae.
I wouldn't be so sure if I were you. There are more people alive today. Than people that have died since the beginning of our species.
130 years ago. We were ~1.8 billion people. The mortality rate from childbirth hoovered around 1%. Today, it's 0.0001%
We are, roughly. 8 times as many people today than 130 years ago. As our population increased, childbirth mortality decreased. While armed conflicts have increased.
More Ukrainian soldiers have died since the start of Russias war. Than childbirth deaths in the Europe for the past 20 years combined.
And that's just Ukrainian losses. Rather. Those are just the Ukrainian losses they officially admitt have died. Other international estimates quadruple those losses.
It does not look very promising for your "full stop" that more ukranian soldiers have died in the past 4 years than european women in childbirth over the past 20.
And by the looks of it. The war doesn't have an end in sight anyone soon. Not to mention the new ones we're starting
I am sure since even conservative estimates for the total number of humans that have ever lived is 100 billion+
So 50 billion women roughly, at a mortality rate of 10-20% (how bad would it have been in pre history? Maybe worse?) you're looking at 5-10 billion women who died from child birth in prehistory alone.
Literally 10-20% of half the world population constantly until the 19th century.
Your link does not work.
But there's a giant flaw in your calculations here if we assume your 100 billion figure is accurate. Which it seems that it is. So i was wrong about that.
Infant and child mortality was extreamly high in our primitive past. 50 billion girls born. Does not mean 50 billion girls grew up. If you want to estimate the number of girls (and boys) that even made it past age 5. You'll have to cut that number in half. And then there's another ~10 years they will have to survive to even have a chance of dying in childbirth. (Not the best phrasing but you know what i mean)
So, your 5-10 billion is starting to look a lot more like 2-4 billion (if we're being generous). Unfortunately for your argument. The boys that also grew up past puberty were all expected to be soldiers when called upon. You either fought and died or you just died. With some luck you survived. And by luck i mean lucky to have been born on the winning side.
The various empires in our history did not become empires because they were nice to eachother. They did so through blood and conquest.
Genghis Khan's conquests killed ~40 million people alone. That's estimated to have been 11% of the worlds entire population at that time.
Again. This isnt a competition. But men have always (unfortunately) been very resourceful when it comes to war and killing their percieved enemies. And there's been no lack of fighting, ever.
It's a bit of a trope but various massgraves confirms it. Kill the men. Enslave the women and children. (And then work them to death)
Additionally, almost every woman would be impregnated at some point, whether she wanted to be or not, whereas war and general soldiery was absolutely not a thing every man was expected to do.
What is even the point of this community? Do you believe humanity should go extinct or what?
I don't care whether it does, or doesn't. Why should it matter to me at all?
Why should anyone care if humans continue to exist after they die? You might call that "selfish", but that doesn't answer the question.
I'm getting on board let me tell you
So this isn't a child free space so much as a pro-human extinction space?
They aren't the same thing, and I think you understand that.
I'll ask you, why do you care whether our species exists in the future? I expect your answer will be something altruistic sounding, but that's really just to make you feel better about yourself, and perhaps superior to those who don't care. If that's your reason, then so be it, but I don't that's a compelling reason. Sounds selfish to me.
"WHAT?! You can turn this around and make me the selfish one..."
I DO care whether people alive today die unnecessarily, I DON'T care whether more people are born to replace them in the future. Two different things.
Why the hell not? The planet would be better without us.
Why do you care more about the planet than your own species, assuming you're not AI. Why the self-hatred?
I don't hate myself. I hate everyone that has allowed our society to become the way it is and willfully continue making it worse. If shit is just going to continue on this path we're better off stopping with the current generation. Having kids now is selfish as fuck.
This community just dropped in my lap here
Are you guys against anyone having kids? If so, how do propose humanity continues, exactly?
If its just about not wanting kids yourself that is fine, but why make a community for that? Its notnthst i care, I just saw this coming by is all, but its a little weird to see people making having no kids part of their identity and having the need to advertise it. Its not weirder than people advertising that you should have kids, but yeah, it's a bit weird
Do you often waltz into a [whatever] community and go "So yOu ThInK eVeRyOnE sHoUlD [wHaTeVeR]?"
So you know how atheism itself isn't cringey but r/atheism is full of the most insufferable people on the planet whose personalities are defined not by what they like but what they don't? Yeah..
Ah, so like child free on Reddit
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
138 points (88.8% liked)
childfree
2549 readers
161 users here now
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS