• 'Remarkable' decline in fertility rates
    35 replies, posted
We Children of Men now
The poorest country in the world (according to Wikipedia) has the highest birthrate per woman, I'm not surprised they're poor, how the hell can you sustain that.
Maintaining population is a stupid measure against fertility levels, a country can afford to get smaller as automation becomes more apparent.
How can anyone even afford children!? Besides that not having children makes life so much easier.
That's a cool opinion you have there but maybe next time please read the article.
Everybody rambles on about how their countries are too full and there's no room for anybody else, surely this a good thing?
You have causation flipped upside-down
My only concern with this is the financial burden on future generations. Japan for example has a ridiculous amount of debt and less people to help pay it off. The same could be said for infrastructure.
Long term maybe, in the short term falling birth rates result in some out of whack demographics where there's more old people needing support than young people working and paying taxes and able to provide that support.
Because a lot of poorer countries' families rely heavily on children to provide for the family. As somebody else said - you have this the wrong way around.
In the developed world it costs a lot of money and time to raise a family, something that eats into your possible career opportunities in the future. Developing countries still exist in a state where children can help a family economically by taking care of the household/farm/whatever other work they are doing, thus it's more beneficial for them to get kids.
This is a basic trend for nearly every country on earth. They aren't poor because they have many kids. They have kids because they are poor. As a country goes from undeveloped to developed, the need to have many children to provide you with support and beat mortality rates disappears.
But muh great replacements
Author suggests that lower fertility rates is not due to impaired reproductive health among the wealthiest populations with low birth rates. Actually, thats not quite true: Study (an article from the atlantic, but hyperlink keeps shortening this to one word so whatever) . Surely actual gross fertility has at least something to do with individual fertility. We also know that in spite of hypersexualized media portrayals as well as consumption of sexual media, millennials actually have less sex than their parents did (some literature even indicates that surverys might even be rather conservative in their figures - suggesting that men in particular feel pressure to exaggerate their sex lives, so the rate of celibacy could actually be as much as 30% - incel crisis? Perhaps. It would explain the growing subculture) On the physiological side of things, reproductive health is a ticking time bomb in many affluent societies, and despite common journalistic assertion that nobody knows why, actually theres plenty of reasons why scientists just rarely agree upon a single causative smoking gun. People in affluent countries are fat (this isnt even debatable anymore , 70% of americans overweight, 60% of australians, 64% of canadians, ~65% of UK adults... so on and so forth), sick and increasingly reliant on medication. Then we have the secondary issues, way too much dairy consumption (which IS full of estrogen and DOES interfere with the endocrine system, as seen here: Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk ,while dairy council funded dairy studies continue to assure us nothing happens when you drink milk other than making u big and strong ;) , exposure to synthetic estrogens from industry byproducts and plastics, over reliance on BC medicines (we've also reached the stage where BC as a daily supplement for women is so ubiquitous that no one thinks its at all concerning to have young women on steroid hormones most of their life, but then scratches their head about breast cancer rates and precocious puberty. Scientists knew as far back as 1955 that estrogens are rocket fuel for cancer), the list goes on and on. In the end, I'm not sure what can be done about it. Like combating climate change, it seems all a bit "too little too late"
Population decline actually has a lot of really bizarre economic ramifications. More people living in an area can put money into increasing and expanding the infrastructure, but there's no good way of cleanly decreasing available infrastructure if a population suddenly shrinks. It costs money to tear down stuff and rebuild, even on a smaller scale. This usually means that cities are stuck maintaining equipment and systems that are far more expensive to maintain than appropriately scaled stuff would be. There's also myriads of problems with things like water and sewage systems where problems can arise specifically because they aren't being used enough. Cities like Detroit aren't just shitholes because there are no job opportunities. Their gargantuan infrastructure simply cannot be sustained by their smaller populations, and that makes it damn near impossible to fix anything. Note that I'm not advocating that we just keep the population boom going. That's obviously stupid. My point is that even moderately quick decreases in population are going to cause some serious economic problems if not managed carefully.
It isn't. Your average arabs and somalis couldn't give less shit about shit like that.
Nobody wants to have kids because the world is so fucked right now. Why would anyone want to have kids when A. We'll struggle immensely to provide and shelter them, and B. The world as we know it today might not be as kind and liveable to their generation, and so on, as it has been to us and the previous generations.
Yeah, having read this and thought about it some I realise I sound retarded, thanks.
We need chem trails but with sperm to increase pregnancy
Gonna be the wrong kinda white Christmas :V
This video explains it pretty well https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348 tl;dr This is the normal path of countries becoming "1st world" countries, as they become more prosperous they don't need to have as many children for families to sustain themselves and people can focus on things other than starting a family.
This was expected, though expect it to boom again when Africa goes through their own industrial revolution, because its coming and soon too.
kind of the reason why we need immigration. immigrants to the US both legal and otherwise have propped up our birth rate for years.
Us does not need immigration, like japan and europe, you need to resolve the problems they are facing, provide incentives for having kids.
We've created societies that puts so much pressure on people to succeed that we don't have time for kids anymore.
Our society is a hyperventilating mess of stress and bullshit because everything is production and efficiency focused because we consume so much god damn shit we don't actually fucking need. It absolutely boggles my mind that if you want a growing population you provide decent work, for decent pay that gives you time to spend with family and friends? We've had this before, we had this at the post World War 2. And you can see the spike in population. But now work and life are devalued, cut into pieces, repackaged and sold to us by corporations and companies who are then pushing for automation so what's the god damn point of having kids? They're not going to have a future? What future?
This is what happens when you don't ban anime.
Good tbh. Less mouths to feed means less of a carbon footprint on the world including less demand. Plus I can't afford a kid nor trust myself with the responsibility.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.