> I've transitioned from strongly actually believing that such a thing was possible to strongly believing that we will destroy ourselves with AI long before we get there.

I think we'll just die out. Everyone will be too busy having fun to have kids. It's already started in the West.

While the west has gone this way, there also seems to be a strong undercurrent (at least here in Australia) of "we can't afford to have kids (yet)".

As housing has moved further out of reach of young people, some don't seem to feel their lives are stable enough to make the leap. The trend was down anyway, but the housing crisis seems to be an aggravating factor.

Yep people blame technology but its really basic economics and would be fixed by building more affordable homes.

This subject has been investigated a lot. In many countries governments make it much easier and more affordable to have children, and it doesn't seem to make any difference.

I agree, using housing as a source of wealth has broken a whole generation. When the boomers of the world start to massively die out (any year now), housing will deflate, but not spectacularly without a crisis (people don't want to settle where the cheap houses are in a bull market).

I wouldn't call my kid-skipping activites fun, but go off.

Spending a life on the treadmill doesn't encourage more walks. It encourages burning it down. All I've known is work. Pass on more, thanks. I hear you/others now:

  But past generations managed...
That's exactly my point. Despite all of our proclaimed progress, we're still "managing". Maintaining this circus/baby-crushing machine is a tough sell.

To get where I could afford to have kids, I became both unprepared and uninterested.

What's more: I'm one of the lucky ones. I was given a fancy title and great-but-not-domicile-ownership-great pay for my sacrifice. Plenty do more work for even less reward.

There's a sucker born every minute, right?