Why do developed nations have low birth rates?

[SGF]

I was looking at South Korea's demographics this morning and it's fertility rate is 1.11 with a median age of 43.7. Back in 1955 the fertility rate was 5.65 and median age was 18.9. So what happened here and why do people in developed nations have so few kis?

Currently the idea is that its because of financial instability and people w8ting too long to become "financially secure" but that has to be wrong as less developed poor nations with far worse conditions have substantially higher birth rates and contraceptives are easily affordable even there. I see this even here, the poorer population in Romania has LOT of kids. Families I've seen with 3 to 12 kids and they are dirt poor with only the father working. This seems to be the same across the planet with places like Africa and India experiencing population explosions.

demographic pyramid reversal also means social systems like universal health care, free education and so on are going to become unfeasible as there aren't enough young working people to pay into the system while there are too many old people relying on these services (see Japan). This leads to a need for immigration which creates social and political instability as society breaks up into competing ethnic blocks (see USA, Yugoslavia, USSR, Austro-Hungary, Catalonia and so on).

This got me thinking that lower birth rates have something to do with being better off, financially more secure, better educated and so on. What do you guys think? Do we just have too high standards and have gotten too comfortable for our own good?

when I was 24 and fresh out of uni, I wanted to marry my gf at the time.. and I remember clearly neither of us were "financially secure", but the reason I didn't in the end was because she'd freak out every time she'd have to go to the doctor even for mundane things, she didn't want to have kids and one day she said kids are parasites. I had this very "cold" premonition as to what life would be like with her and instantly got cold feet, was sweating bullets every time we were together. From that moment onward it took only 2 weeks to end a promising 4 year relationship. She is 35 now (I'm 34), several failed relationships later she is living alone in a small apartment working 12 h a day including Saturdays. Similar situation with me, never found anyone after that either although I'm financially and time-wise better off.. right now buying a roadster to mod for fun :\.. but still childless and alone. How did everything go so wrong? WTF

[mfckrz]

Diminished kin networks (i.e. social atomization): https://pseudoerasmus.files.wordpres...xplanation.pdf

In general the incentive matrix for smarter people is screwy—pressured from all angles to burn their prime fertility years career striving rather than forming a family. Modern conditions thus heavily favor r>K selection, so poors end up doing most of the breeding now.

Also figure that we're not actually "better off" financially. US real wages flatlined in 1971… meanwhile our grandparents could buy a house and raise a family at 18 on a single income. Consumer technology and lack of historical perspective conceal this acute decimation in quality of life.

when I was 24 and fresh out of uni, I wanted to marry my gf at the time.. and I remember clearly neither of us were "financially secure", but the reason I didn't in the end was because she'd freak out every time she'd have to go to the doctor even for mundane things, she didn't want to have kids and one day she said kids are parasites. I had this very "cold" premonition as to what life would be like with her and instantly got cold feet, was sweating bullets every time we were together. From that moment onward it took only 2 weeks to end a promising 4 year relationship. She is 35 now (I'm 34), several failed relationships later she is living alone in a small apartment working 12 h a day including Saturdays. Similar situation with me, never found anyone after that either although I'm financially and time-wise better off.. right now buying a roadster to mod for fun :\.. but still childless and alone. How did everything go so wrong? WTF

Many such cases. People are better off not overthinking this… go knock up the love of your life, you'll figure out the rest.

[The Reality Denialist]

Like I have said before bandage solutions solve nothing in long term when the cause is left untreated.

[The Reality Denialist]

Some experiments with mammals, mainly rodents, have been done. End result: beautiful rodent utopia collapsed and not due to lack of resources. It is actually astonishing to see how much ahead of time some scientists have been.

[FreelancePoliceman]

In agrarian societies having kids is financially beneficial. It also means you have someone to look after in your old age. There are observable benefits to having kids compared to not having them.

I think children and married life are generally good for people. At the same time most people are terrible at realizing and doing what’s best for them. If it’s between difficult, long-term happiness and cheap shiny thrills that can be purchased with the saved money, most people will take the latter, even if at the end of life they’ll be left regretting it.

[xerx]

Birth rates are falling everywhere. Even middle-income Muslim-majority countries are getting fertility rates comparable to 1970's Western Europeans. Why? I assume that it's related in part to the availability of contraception, the education of women, etc.

[marooned]

When women have control over their own reproduction and economic freedom, they often choose not to reproduce. It's currently a good thing imo bc human race is badly overpopulated.

[Northstar]

Children are so much work that in very individualized (atomized?) societies few people want to put that much time into raising them unless it is their calling in life. Unless there's a religious reason or the mom is a stereotypical SEI, it's unlikely for people to want more than the average 0-2 kids. It's just diminishing returns of happiness to go through all the trouble over and over again. The thing with kids is that they really need a lot more socialization than just their parents. Kindergarten and school helps but it still isn't enough. The grandparents are also no longer dependent on their kids for survival and don't want to invest that much time anymore since it's no longer a requirement.

[SGF]

Well, you probably wrote an answer to your question. A lot of people believe either that having kids is too much work(mostly women, because household chores are still often their burden) or that their life should be figured out before they have kids/want too much out of life. In the 'modern' view, children and family in general is not perceived as an environment in which the individual can thrive and prosper anymore.

As said in previous posts, some causes of this are the worse economic environment in which we live(less job security, higher pressure at work, lower purchasing power) and the diminished significance of family in our social life(at least in the 'educated' & urban section of society). But I feel that now that people have spent one year locked down and countries face incertain and unstable times, family life might become a "social safe heaven" again.

Idk, my neighbur in the street is of Roma minority for example. He married when he was 14 years old (their culture), has 8 kids. His wife never worked a day in her life, they are poor. The kids go to school normally and they get by just fine it seems. He and his wife, they went through the same education system I did (he sells "persian" rugs).

It can't be lower purchasing power and so on, when I see very poor people around me having up to 12 kids per married couple under current conditions, while ppl like me who are middle class, we are in our early 30s and nothing. From my schoolmates, 13 of whom are women, only 2 have kids and all of them are my age. For a guy 34 isn't a tragedy, but for my ex this is kind of a disaster. She is super miserable. I had hoped she'd do much better, especially after she went to the UK as living standards there are higher.

its just as @mfckrz said it seems..

[RBRS]

I think it may really be the financial stability argument.

In the Western middle class culture, it is imprinted (in fact, it is true) that once you leave primary education, there is either a decision to develop high-cap skills or to study a university degree, a postgraduate degree and find a job with a good salary, or you will not be capable of forming a stable family and providing them decent living conditions. To develop yourself professionally in this way and find yourself at a certain level of financial stability, you need, on average, at least to arrive at 25/26 years of age.
Add to this that in order to maintain a decent standard of living it is necessary that both the husband and the wife have a job in most cases (obviously, to have children it is necessary either to pay a caregiver or for one of the parents to stay and takes care of the home) and you have the result that the average age in which both parties have the "cultural and financial permission" to have children is 25 years.
Keep in mind that between pregnancy and pregnancy, at least two years should pass, and after thirty having children ensures that they will not become independent until you are in many cases almost fifty five years old, with the prolonged fixed costs of maintaining them, giving them education...

Result? the average number of births in the middle class in developed countries is two children per couple, because every condition incentivizes such thing.

In comparison, gypsies generally have the support of a family clan, and their culture does not punish living in poor conditions. Add to this that in Roma cultures women generally should not have sexual relations until marriage (otherwise, they are ostracized) and that in many Western countries having a large family and low income means receiving subsidies or housing under a regime of official protection and you have the best incentive for a far higher birth rate.

Adding something else, the dating pool is fucked up since the sexual liberation of women, thus stable couples form generally not at teenage years but in between the 25-35 year gap for the middle class.

[The Reality Denialist]

Back to rodents and us.This sort of lifestyle or envinronment just triggers certain responses. While the economic argument is not valid at first glance I think the issue is that when you become specialist you have to sacrifice something and that is flexibility. Put a lion in zoo and you'll realize that something gets lost while something gets better (eg health). You are supposed to become a module if you educate yourself in many cases (so called creativity in modular world is usually filthy newspeak). If you can not become a module and have education you are also lost because other people will take over your place. You are a part and you are not a whole. If you happen to get some handyman job (or being non specialist) you have probably won in the lottery of life because you are a person more than most of the modules can ever be.

[mfckrz]

I think it may really be the financial stability argument.

In the Western middle class culture, it is imprinted (in fact, it is true) that once you leave primary education, there is either a decision to develop high-cap skills or to study a university degree, a postgraduate degree and find a job with a good salary, or you will not be capable of forming a stable family and providing them decent living conditions. To develop yourself professionally in this way and find yourself at a certain level of financial stability, you need, on average, at least to arrive at 25/26 years of age.
Add to this that in order to maintain a decent standard of living it is necessary that both the husband and the wife have a job in most cases (obviously, to have children it is necessary either to pay a caregiver or for one of the parents to stay and takes care of the home) and you have the result that the average age in which both parties have the "cultural and financial permission" to have children is 25 years.
Keep in mind that between pregnancy and pregnancy, at least two years should pass, and after thirty having children ensures that they will not become independent until you are in many cases almost fifty five years old, with the prolonged fixed costs of maintaining them, giving them education...

In the US one essentially has to be a millionaire at this point to provide the same quality of life easily attained by middle class persons 50+ yrs ago… QoL in terms of being able to afford living in a safe trustworthy community conducive to childrearing w/ decent schools and so on; existential conditions which are difficult to quantify on paper, but you immediately sense the difference when you see it. For lack of exposure, most of us nowadays don't know what's been lost and can't even begin to articulate it.

Adding something else, the dating pool is fucked up since the sexual liberation of women, thus stable couples form generally not at teenage years but in between the 25-35 year gap for the middle class.

I suspect many women want to get married and have kids—at least according to surveys, something like 90% still say they do. But seems like a gauntlet of psychosocial influences exist to dissuade them of that—e.g. indolent boomer parents insisting their daughters should "just have fun", "think about career first", and other anomic nonsense. And then wondering why they've no grandkids after it's far too late. A woman expressing the desire to marry young invariably gets savaged over it as if that's a fate worse than being a prostitute.

[ashlesha]

economic concerns are legitimate but since i had a good son as a 17 yr old single mom i wanna roll my eyes and tell ppl to try being stronker
to be fair it certainly wasn't all me lol but the guy who raised my son was working at a fried chicken place
maybe try being stronquer

[marooned]

I suspect many women want to get married and have kids—at least according to surveys, something like 90% still say they do. But seems like a gauntlet of psychosocial influences exist to dissuade them of that—e.g. indolent boomer parents insisting their daughters should "just have fun", "think about career first", and other anomic nonsense. And then wondering why they've no grandkids after it's far too late. A woman expressing the desire to marry young invariably gets savaged over it as if that's a fate worse than being a prostitute.

the best way for a woman to reach the goal of having kids is to put career first and build the necessary financial foundation. this is how it works for most of the upper middle class ppl i've observed. they both started by focusing on their career. then they were able to gain the money/resources to be able to provide for someone in addition to the two of them. it's more a necessity than this mutually exclusive thing. sometimes i feel this story is an excuse that often comes out of the right wing to hide how right wing economic policies and shooting down of liberal ideas that focus on family first are WHY this situation exists to begin with. it's easy to shoot oneself in the foot and imagine the gun in someone else's hand i guess.

i personally don't want kids bc i can't even take care of myself. i'm in deep shit already. if i had a kid, not only would i fail to support them financially but i would fail as a basic caretaker. i didn't get special messages from my parents like you mention. i did however observe how hard having to support my sister and i was for my parents. that i don't want kids without financial surplus was a lesson i learned before even reaching puberty. also really i found babies repulsive for like all of my 20s and now when i see them i have this fear reaction "it needs things all the time, run away!"

really it's best i don't reproduce for so many reasons lol.

[mfckrz]

the best way for a woman to reach the goal of having kids is to put career first and build the necessary financial foundation. this is how it works for most of the upper middle class ppl i've observed. they both started by focusing on their career. then they were able to gain the money/resources to be able to provide for someone in addition to the two of them. it's more a necessity than this mutually exclusive thing. sometimes i feel this story is an excuse that often comes out of the right wing to hide how right wing economic policies and shooting down of liberal ideas that focus on family first are WHY this situation exists to begin with. it's easy to shoot oneself in the foot and imagine the gun in someone else's hand i guess.

The march of time against fertility is inviolable regardless of one's politics. Compatible partners aren't a fungible good either, the pool is quite limited for everyone.

i personally don't want kids bc i can't even take care of myself. i'm in deep shit already. if i had a kid, not only would i fail to support them financially but i would fail as a basic caretaker. i didn't get special messages from my parents like you mention. i did however observe how hard having to support my sister and i was for my parents. that i don't want kids without financial surplus was a lesson i learned before even reaching puberty. also really i found babies repulsive for like all of my 20s and now when i see them i have this fear reaction "it needs things all the time, run away!"

really it's best i don't reproduce for so many reasons lol.

Hmm, yes you totally seem like someone whose opinions on this should be taken seriously.

[marooned]

The march of time against fertility is inviolable regardless of one's politics. Compatible partners aren't a fungible good either, the pool is quite limited for everyone.

i am not sure how the pool is so limited when it is so large. there may be difficulties accessing the pool however for various reasons.

Hmm, yes you totally seem like someone whose opinions on this should be taken seriously.

ah ha, resorting to a put down instead of noting your bad argument. first you note how much money is necessary to take care of children, then you complain the issue is women focusing on career first.

but still, my first post in the thread stands... the human race (considered as a whole) isn't suffering from lack of fertility, but from inability to control its fertility. if we were like 1 billion and declining, then i would sing a way different tune. but right now human fertility and survival of humanity are at cross purposes. the trends happening in western countries i don't see as somehow independent of this either--a lot of people know deep down this is a bad problem and question how reproducing won't simply add to it either directly or indirectly.

[RBRS]

@inumbra

-You need a university degree or professional development to be able to have children

Which implies stopping developing other kinds of things (A stable couple relationship, with future plans). It also implies a certain level of economic instability. The truth is that for us, finding and maintaining stable employment with a decent salary requires a lot of effort (and sometimes debts that at the end are worth nothing, but this is another topic). Practically all the people of my generation, who went to my school, have gone to study careers in which they have learned absolutely nothing, to become unemployed and not be able to do more than spend their days drinking alcohol, smoking joints and taking coke, and inbetween they fuck with each other when they allow it to happen. This is due to social and economic conditions.

I highly doubt you have heard of a boomer that ended up that way for financial and not personal reasons.

> women needs to do careers and work, this is like this is.

No, this is not an absolute condition, do not speak as if you are completely incapable of seeing beyond your own nose.

Such a condition is common in late civilizations, or in a state of decay. When the idea of ​​raising children gains negative stigmatization, sex ceases to be a personal and intimate matter to be something not very different from having coffee with someone, and social, political and economic conditions make it as difficult as possible to form families, you can go storing canned food because a Caesar is going to sit on the throne soon.

> The human race does not have a fertility problem.

Westernized countries have it, and the result will be either correcting the curve, or great periods of instability followed by the disappearance of the native ethnic groups that made up those developed countries. Those countries exist for something... Anyway, seeing the comment I doubt that you will understand where the problem is.

[mfckrz]

i am not sure how the pool is so limited when it is so large. there may be difficulties accessing the pool however for various reasons.

Because realistically the odds of randomly stumbling into someone you'll be maritally compatible with are considerably low. Ergo a large part of why modern dating sucks—little to no SNR optimization in mating assortment. One of the prime functions of kin networks was/is optimizing that process so compatible people find each other easier.

ah ha, resorting to a put down instead of noting your bad argument. first you note how much money is necessary to take care of children, then you complain the issue is women focusing on career first.

Forcing people to operate on double incomes isn't a viable solution though. For the most part all this did was double the labor supply and suppress real wage growth. It's a scam.

but still, my first post in the thread stands... the human race (considered as a whole) isn't suffering from lack of fertility, but from inability to control its fertility. if we were like 1 billion and declining, then i would sing a way different tune. but right now human fertility and survival of humanity are at cross purposes. the trends happening in western countries i don't see as somehow independent of this either--a lot of people know deep down this is a bad problem and question how reproducing won't simply add to it either directly or indirectly.

When the kinds of people necessary to maintain advanced civilization aren't making more of themselves, it's a problem for everyone. This isn't just a 1st-world problem either.

[marooned]

@inumbra

-You need a university degree or professional development to be able to have children

Which implies stopping developing other kinds of things (A stable couple relationship, with future plans). It also implies a certain level of economic instability. The truth is that for us, finding and maintaining stable employment with a decent salary requires a lot of effort (and sometimes debts that at the end are worth nothing, but this is another topic). Practically all the people of my generation, who went to my school, have gone to study careers in which they have learned absolutely nothing, to become unemployed and not be able to do more than spend their days drinking alcohol, smoking joints and taking coke, and inbetween they fuck with each other when they allow it to happen. This is due to social and economic conditions.

I highly doubt you have heard of a boomer that ended up that way for financial and not personal reasons.

this only supports what i was saying - yes kids are expensive, yes you need money, and supposedly (haha) these degrees are supposed to help with that

> women needs to do careers and work, this is like this is.

No, this is not an absolute condition, do not speak as if you are completely incapable of seeing beyond your own nose.

it kind of is. two parents bringing in money is better than one. often times both parents have to work to support the kid because as you noted, kids are expensive

Such a condition is common in late civilizations, or in a state of decay. When the idea of ​​raising children gains negative stigmatization, sex ceases to be a personal and intimate matter to be something not very different from having coffee with someone, and social, political and economic conditions make it as difficult as possible to form families, you can go storing canned food because a Caesar is going to sit on the throne soon.

this feels like an argument for some restoration of traditional values - but again if you want your traditional values you need an economy that doesn't make it so expensive and difficult for people to have kids... although @mcfkrz or whatever pointed out that this trend isn't only about whether or not people can afford it or have the time... it could be fewer women want to reproduce these days and that's actually fine, it doesn't mean the human race will go extinct (snort), it's just the current phase it is in (which again given our dwindling resources, continued destruction of our planet, etc.) is a very fitting phase. i'm sorry if it makes our lifetimes not ones of baby making plenty, but perhaps... this isn't the age/time for that. it will have its age/time again if humanity can meet its current pressing crises. it's like you don't get dessert until you eat your veggies. it sucks bc our lives are so short. but honestly if someone wants to reproduce badly enough nothing is stopping them lol. overall the human race is still reproducing like crazy.

> The human race does not have a fertility problem.

Westernized countries have it, and the result will be either correcting the curve, or great periods of instability followed by the disappearance of the native ethnic groups that made up those developed countries. Those countries exist for something... Anyway, seeing the comment I doubt that you will understand where the problem is.

yes the west is reproducing less and often has negative birth rates... the human race as a whole however is reproducing too much and IMO is already disgustingly overpopulated. my point was humans need to reproduce LESS not MORE. i don't really feel a great crisis for the declining fertility rates in the west because like i said i'm considering the human population as a whole. i am not making distinctions about where humans come from only that there are TOO MANY OF THEM.

ps. think of the indigenous people! is this strange empty emotional appeal that has little to do with this. i'm considering human population as a whole, not some kind of eugenics YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCE bs. the main thing needed is women need control over their reproduction and need to be able to earn money for themselves--this will help bring the population down. unfortunately it also takes a long time. but i'm not for draconian measures. i'm for peacefully encouraging people to weigh their immediate instinctual drives to reproduce against the fate of the entire human race into the future. if we can't get better, then people in the future get to deal with the consequences. i could say i don't care bc i'll be dead, but i strangely do seem to care about the longevity of my own species. that's kind of the whole point of reproducing anyway (usually).

[marooned]

Because realistically the odds of randomly stumbling into someone you'll be maritally compatible with are considerably low. Ergo a large part of why modern dating sucks—little to no SNR optimization in mating assortment. One of the prime functions of kin networks was/is optimizing that process so compatible people find each other easier.

yeah, there is perhaps an access problem... and also perhaps an over-idealization problem lol

Forcing people to operate on double incomes isn't a viable solution though. For the most part all this did was double the labor supply and suppress real wage growth. It's a scam.

it's what people are forced to do... until the economic situation is made to care about people instead of this work till you drop mentality, expect people to encourage their daughters to put career first because they have no choice if they are trying to do this in a way that they are sure they can afford to support offspring. it's not idiotic as you said before, it's what must be done. most of these traditionalist desires come from the right side of the political spectrum and as i said, they shoot themselves in the foot by making it economically not feasible for people. you can't have a brutal economy and a society that works well for child rearing. you have to choose. you can't value humans more than money and value money more than humans at the same time. it's one or the other. (by "you" i mean society)

When the kinds of people necessary to maintain advanced civilization aren't making more of themselves, it's a problem for everyone. This isn't just a 1st-world problem either.

no shit? although i don't think it's "the kinds of people" - i think it's a matter of invest in the citizens and get fruitful rewards, or don't invest in them and get what the US is.

BUT as you said the whole reproduction thing is bigger than this. and as i said, i don't think this is the time for our dreams of reproduction aka growing the population, it's already way too large, and in many countries it's young.

ETA: i mean the issue is the overly capitalist system assumes there are endless resources, always a new horizon, but we're currently out of new horizons. i feel like it's a bit too early for the rest of the solar system to somehow be our deus ex machina. sometimes, the work is just the hard work, the work that isn't preferred and lasts a long time, because it's the only way to get something better. some sort of economic overhaul is needed... it can't go on this way.

and really maybe some of all the global culture war stuff is bc everyone knows it. one can't cling to the way it was, because it can't be that way again any time soon. change is needed and the debate is over how, what kind of change.

[ouronis]

So I can either have free time, or I can devote my life to an endless task with no guaranteed emotional payoff. Hmm..

[marooned]

So I can either have free time, or I can devote my life to an endless task with no guaranteed emotional payoff. Hmm..

free time isn't valued. that is space for human consciousness. it means human hands and minds aren't busy producing things and the hungry hippos at the top are tapping their feet.

[mfckrz]

it's what people are forced to do... until the economic situation is made to care about people instead of this work till you drop mentality, expect people to encourage their daughters to put career first because they have no choice if they are trying to do this in a way that they are sure they can afford to support offspring. it's not idiotic as you said before, it's what must be done. most of these traditionalist desires come from the right side of the political spectrum and as i said, they shoot themselves in the foot by making it economically not feasible for people. you can't have a brutal economy and a society that works well for child rearing. you have to choose. you can't value humans more than money and value money more than humans at the same time. it's one or the other. (by "you" i mean society)

The prevailing sociopolitical Right/Left are both inimical to family formation, as childless people can be exploited to work more. Also strengthens generational myopia, no consideration for longer-term policy implications (i.e. "how will something affect my children or grandchildren?").

no shit? although i don't think it's "the kinds of people" - i think it's a matter of invest in the citizens and get fruitful rewards, or don't invest in them and get what the US is.

Procivilizational attributes like intelligence and trait conscientiousness are quite heritably bound—and of course, inversely correlated with fertility under modern conditions. Hence the problem.

[marooned]

Procivilizational attributes like intelligence and trait conscientiousness are quite heritably bound—and of course, inversely correlated with fertility under modern conditions. Hence the problem.

sometimes intelligence is overrated, or is rigidly defined in certain ways (e.g. IQ test). societies can always pull the minds they need and waste the others (the waste likely well outweighs those who have been able to apply their intelligence well in society such that they are more easily detectable). i don't really believe that the anomaly of genius can be so easily eradicated. if i imagined all "the smartest people" having a meeting about how precious their genes are, how they must spread them... they just aren't seeing all the diamonds in the rough. i don't believe there is a shortage of these diamonds or the means to create more. not with this whopping human population. really i don't know that genius/intelligence is the most pressing concern in solving the world's problems. i mean, humans are arguably the "most intelligent" species on earth and they are also the most destructive. our intelligence doesn't mean we will do what is best for the whole. it's not about that. i don't really fear the outcome of the movie idiocracy as a genetic thing, though a global dark age would create an "idiocracy."

or another way to put it, i'm sure many of the globe's top destroyers are "highly intelligent people."

[thistle]

Hopefully I'll make my point clear and not veer too much off topic...because in my mind, this is interrelated

Thinking back to the earlier thread on moves toward atomisation. Remarks such as "google it" (conversation truncated), and apps that swat a potential partner out of sight just so. We're in a rush, for what? When you neatly wrap each of these elements into efficient little packages, this is not living. You drive out curiosity, for one. Doors close (think Sliding Doors with Gwyneth Paltrow lol). You drown out the silence in which you could begin to eek out the question do I even want this? With every propaganda that sucks us into optimisation of self/ self-hacks we turn ourselves into product that needs to be more enhanced *delivering all the features; strength in all the IEs* to even be worth someone's time.

Who you are, what you have got, what you have achieved is simply not enough. You are falling by the wayside if you don't keep your eyes on the screen - keep up, you are replaceable! There is barely enough time in the day to offset all of your perceived shortcomings and be present to other people, even your family members. Their advances may begin to feel like intrusion, unless you can scope out quickly what they want or what they can do for you. Exchanges go way of transactional, and where is the serendipitous romance to be found? I don't deserve it, because I've laid out parameters to my own worth or success and am fixated on what it would take for me to be enough...


...but a union is greater than me.

[Aramas]

Main reason for high birth rates is stress and moral compulsion. Lower birth rates is more common and standard when people aren't pressured.

Not really a concern because there are plenty of people already and money is fake anyways. Just put the money in people's accounts and let the robots take over from there.

[WVBRY]

Families raising less children in itself might not be issue. It's due to the fact that educated people are able to calculate the costs of having children, whereas poorer people are less concerned with this. This might have something to do with the fact people who come from upper and middle classes are more aware of the future whereas people from poorer classes aeren't really taught to worry about it, hence people from middle class environments have less children due to calculating the costs that such would have on their resources. Having more kids means less quality of life for these kids, so smart people tend to favor quality of quantity.

I see a bigger problem in the fact many millenials are just unable to offer a stable future for their families, hence they end up not having families or start them rather late in life. This is due to economic conditions being not what they were in the 20-30 years following WW2, hence many young people are cynical about being able to offer their family a future. This isn't really true in poorer communities where people don't have a habit of saving resources and planning for the long term, hence they end up having more kids, and welfare being a thing as well as there being a need for cheap labor in Western countries, poorer people are often able to raise many kids, though it doesn't mean these people will be able to send their kids to college and invest in their raising their status in society one way or another, hence repeating the cycle. Also contraception is often looked down in these communities for religious reasons, or simply not used due to ignorance.

Other factors play into this, industrialization, which drove people into cities and away from rural areas where families lived several generations under one roof, individualisim, women's liberation, what Nietzsche called "the death of god" IOW religion and and conventional institutions no longer being essential to society etc. All this leads to atomization, which means individuals (barring a few 'winners') are weaker economical actors than before.

[marooned]

Why are you guys so concerned with what will be? What makes you think you can control what will happen or even accurately predict it? Things change, societies get destroyed, people die in wars with other people over futilities, pandemics happen, so why waste time making up solutions to hypothetical problems that will lead to other problems when there are so many real ones out there?

because it's easy and I don't have to leave my sofa. it's less of a waste of time than gardening or home improvement or scrapbooking.

[RBRS]

this only supports what i was saying - yes kids are expensive, yes you need money, and supposedly (haha) these degrees are supposed to help with that

it kind of is. two parents bringing in money is better than one. often times both parents have to work to support the kid because as you noted, kids are expensive

this feels like an argument for some restoration of traditional values - but again if you want your traditional values you need an economy that doesn't make it so expensive and difficult for people to have kids... although @mcfkrz or whatever pointed out that this trend isn't only about whether or not people can afford it or have the time... it could be fewer women want to reproduce these days and that's actually fine, it doesn't mean the human race will go extinct (snort), it's just the current phase it is in (which again given our dwindling resources, continued destruction of our planet, etc.) is a very fitting phase. i'm sorry if it makes our lifetimes not ones of baby making plenty, but perhaps... this isn't the age/time for that. it will have its age/time again if humanity can meet its current pressing crises. it's like you don't get dessert until you eat your veggies. it sucks bc our lives are so short. but honestly if someone wants to reproduce badly enough nothing is stopping them lol. overall the human race is still reproducing like crazy.

yes the west is reproducing less and often has negative birth rates... the human race as a whole however is reproducing too much and IMO is already disgustingly overpopulated. my point was humans need to reproduce LESS not MORE. i don't really feel a great crisis for the declining fertility rates in the west because like i said i'm considering the human population as a whole. i am not making distinctions about where humans come from only that there are TOO MANY OF THEM.

ps. think of the indigenous people! is this strange empty emotional appeal that has little to do with this. i'm considering human population as a whole, not some kind of eugenics YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCE bs. the main thing needed is women need control over their reproduction and need to be able to earn money for themselves--this will help bring the population down. unfortunately it also takes a long time. but i'm not for draconian measures. i'm for peacefully encouraging people to weigh their immediate instinctual drives to reproduce against the fate of the entire human race into the future. if we can't get better, then people in the future get to deal with the consequences. i could say i don't care bc i'll be dead, but i strangely do seem to care about the longevity of my own species. that's kind of the whole point of reproducing anyway (usually).

- this only supports what i was saying - yes kids are expensive, yes you need money, and supposedly (haha) these degrees are supposed to help with that

I personally think degrees mean nothing, at least where I live, and this belief is confirmed by the fact that college graduates in my country almost never work in the field or job they are meant for (If they are lucky enough to get a job). Employers search for experience or proof of being competent, as they know graduates usually don't even know how to tie their shoes.

- it kind of is. two parents bringing in money is better than one. often times both parents have to work to support the kid because as you noted, kids are expensive

Seems like I need to make a clearer argument. The fact that both the mother and father need to work to sustain the family is a recent phenomenon and history, it hasn't been common except for lower classes, areas without developed industries (The case of my grandmother, who had to alternate working on the fields while doing raffles of common consumer goods). Historically, the norm has been that a segment of the population did not work (at least under legal contract) or pay taxes, a single salary was capable of providing several people with decent living conditions within the standards of the time, and only one salqry had the purchasing power that two or even three salaries have today.

Adittionally, raising a child to adolescence mentally healthy not only requires money, it requires care and presence on the part of the parents, which is incompatible with both having a full-time job. Otherwise, the psychological well-being of the child can be affected and the recognition as a mother goes directly to the (paid) caregiver, which is also a big expense (And why the hell do you have children if you don't even get to see them?). In economic conditions that do not allow a single minimum wage to support a family in decent conditions, birth rates are doomed to decline.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_absence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_deprivation

https://www.google.com/amp/s/explori...nt-mother/amp/

-this feels like an argument for some restoration of traditional values ​​- but again if you want your traditional values ​​you need an economy that doesn't make it so expensive and difficult for people to have kids ... although @mcfkrz or whatever pointed out that this trend isn't only about whether or not people can afford it or have the time ... it could be fewer women want to reproduce these days and that's actually fine, it doesn't mean the human race will go extinct (snort ), it's just the current phase it is in (which again given our dwindling resources, continued destruction of our planet, etc.) is a very fitting phase. i'm sorry if it makes our lifetimes not ones of baby making plenty, but perhaps ... this isn't the age / time for that. it will have its age / time again if humanity can meet its current pressing crises. it's like you don't get dessert until you eat your veggies. it sucks bc our lives are so short. but honestly if someone wants to reproduce badly enough nothing is stopping them lol. overall the human race is still reproducing like crazy.

Responding to the first, I refer not to traditional values ​​but to Oswald Spengler's work, the decline of the west, which is a study (with an immense amount of historical sources and information backing it's claims) of human history from a cyclical and non-linear prism ( In fact, with the exception of Westerners, practically all human cultures have seen history from a cyclical and non-linear prism, we see history from the linear idea "stone age, iron age, classical age ... blame Christianity)

In his work, Spengler postulates that history speaks of a succession of collectivities called great cultures, and that all of them go through (as if they were a biological entity) through the same stages of development, from birth to death. The cultures that Spengler describes, I must add, are distinguished from each other by a primary symbol, which is reflected in both the arts, sciences, and beliefs of the aforementioned culture, and which is determined by the environment in which it is found. According to Spengler (and he also offers a large amount of data to affirm it) the phenomenon that maintaining a family becomes too expensive, women do not want to have children, low birth rates start to become worrying and everything we have discussed, is a common trait that appears in all the great civilizations a little before (and also during and at the end of Caesarism) the advent of the caesarean age (It is one of many, many trends common in all historical great cultures that are currently occuring in our societies), which is practically the oldest age, or the progressive death of the culture itself and in some cases the petrification of it.

-Think of the indigenous people! is this strange empty emotional appeal that has little to do with this. i'm considering human population as a whole, not some kind of eugenics YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPRODUCE bs.

Eugenics is not "muh nonwhites don't breed" is restricting the expansion of severe genetic disabilities through methods like vasectomy. People with severe genetic disabilities are not an ethnicity nor they are a religious group, nothing positive is gained from them reproducing and nothing positive is lost from them not reproducing, to this day I haven't found a single rational argument agains't eugenics.

Maybe I have confused you by saying that this is a problem in westernized countries. In reality, developed countries are all westernized, the West, as a culture, nowadays not only encompasses Europe, but is imposed on other peoples. The thread is literally about these countries.

In any case, negative birth rates imply an inverted population pyramid that, on the one hand, destroys a good portion of the productive capacity of a country and, on the other hand, makes it completely impossible to maintain a welfare state as we have known it until now, since there exists less active population than retired population. The solution that most states are trying to provide is to replace the native populations that carry the culture, history and genetics (with all that this implies for the makeup of the country) of those who built that country.

On one hand, this implies that the existence, or the right to exist, of the ethnic groups of developed countries lays far behind the interests of the political class and the large multinational companies, and on the other hand that the intention is, for whatever reason, to replace the original ethnic group, greatly reducing them in number in their own territory, if not by making them disappear within it.

We could practically even speak of genocides (The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group , as such" including for example deliberately imposing living conditions that seek to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part") if it were not because the reason is to lower labor costs and maintain political models that are ineffective in the given situation but benefit the subsequent political parties, and not because of a publically expressed and direct intention to decimate the native populations. The fact is that the result of this policies is the same of genocide, the destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group (actually all of these at once, it's so fucking cool).

[FDG]

From a global point of view the reason is "simple" people are globally living longer life and human population is constantly growing thus space is getting more cramped in those few heavily populated areas which are also those where some form what is currently considered "work" is available, this creates a natural hormonal response which makes you less likely to have kids, it's like this for every type of overcrowded population.

[squark]

Phthalates and other environmental toxins and endocrine disruptors are also having an effect on both people and animals and their abilities to reproduce.

[RBRS]

From a global point of view the reason is "simple" people are globally living longer life and human population is constantly growing thus space is getting more cramped in those few heavily populated areas which are also those where some form what is currently considered "work" is available, this creates a natural hormonal response which makes you less likely to have kids, it's like this for every type of overcrowded population.

What's the basis for that assumption? Would like to know the sources o I can get deeper into it

[FDG]

What's the basis for that assumption? Would like to know the sources o I can get deeper into it

yeah look them up for yourself www.google.com

[squark]

What's the basis for that assumption? Would like to know the sources o I can get deeper into it

A really old study on mice to get you started: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/c...en_access_etds

[mfckrz]

From a global point of view the reason is "simple" people are globally living longer life and human population is constantly growing thus space is getting more cramped in those few heavily populated areas which are also those where some form what is currently considered "work" is available, this creates a natural hormonal response which makes you less likely to have kids, it's like this for every type of overcrowded population.

Urban centers are definitely fertility shredders. But I'd hazard it's more to do with acute resource scarcity rather than something directly endocrinological.

[RBRS]

yeah look them up for yourself www.google.com

I say it because if such a thing were to be the main cause of low birth rates, then rural areas would have at least a stable birth rate, and they don't. Rural areas in Europe are suffering the effects of depopulation far more than urban centers are, to the point of some becoming completely depopulated. I take into account that migrating might take part on this but I sincerely doubt that the majority of people inheriting rural properties in zones that lack the demand of densely populated areas wouldn't do something with that property, thus the effects should be partial.

Also, I don't know about other european countries, but in mine the case is the opposite, when there's some migratory movements in rural and depopulated areas, is young urbanites move to smaller rural areas because of either lower tax pressure, or public housing or jobs given to attract migrants with children.

https://www.espon.eu › filesPDF<br /...Europe - ESPON

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It's rather obvious I think. As society develops- the need for people is naturally less & less because it kinda becomes a 'faggish' quality over quantity type deal. Like in the very beginning- nature is harsh and brutal- u obviously want to have lots of kids/offspring and ban being gay. And so I think heterosexuality being tied into something more 'wild' harsh and sadistic- has it's roots in there, as nature is naturally cruel/unforgiving/harsh. So when civilizations are forming, or are in the process of being formed- you have to boost up making kids. Also it's a survival thing - more feels better and like you are improving humanity more.

As society develops, more gay people are born- or people who probably aren't going to contribute much to the gene pool for other reasons - as a way to balance this. Also more 'nerdy soy non-alpha males' that are good with geeky technology but lack a more animalistic presence- have more a place in society as technology advances and the need to make people is even less. People that would realistically die very quickly in a real fight can better thrive, but in a modern society where the least little aggression is frowned down upon and you get like a slew of PC managers saying how 'wrong' that aggression is (even though it's really slight and not much of a problem that they're making it out to be) - that's not likely going to happen.

I guess I have mixed feelings on this. I probably don't agree as much with you that it's a very bad thing- but perhaps society has gone too much in the other direction and it could stand to be a little straighter. Har Har Har. In order to return to a more "natural" straight society though - you'd have to have more real disasters instead of the comforts we all enjoy.

If there ever was a natural disaster or a event big enough to pressure people into having kids- like a dystopia walking dead type scenerio- then you would see people value heterosexuality again. But true straightness is naturally linked to harsh conditions like that- as like I said in a previous posts, the sexes actually do *not* naturally like each other as much as it seems even though yes, most of us are byproduct(s) of heterosexual affection. The price of heterosexuality on a grand scale- is that it thrives best in 'harsher' conditions. Once those conditions cease being so harsh- the need for heterosexuality greatly decreases. ((and you're in a catch-22 here as people naturally want to help and heal the world even though that's gay as hell!)) This is also the stereotype of where gay males are more 'peaceful and softer' come from. (even though it's a dumb stereotype and a gay man can obviously be just as dangerous as a str8 one lol) But an on objective, non-individual level, these stereotypes have truth in them for obvious and realistic reasons.

[RBRS]

It's rather obvious I think. As society develops- the need for people is naturally less & less because it kinda becomes a 'faggish' quality over quantity type deal. Like in the very beginning- nature is harsh and brutal- u obviously want to have lots of kids/offspring and ban being gay. And so I think heterosexuality being tied into something more 'wild' harsh and sadistic- has it's roots in there, as nature is naturally cruel/unforgiving/harsh. So when civilizations are forming, or are in the process of being formed- you have to boost up making kids. Also it's a survival thing - more feels better and like you are improving humanity more.

As society develops, more gay people are born- or people who probably aren't going to contribute much to the gene pool for other reasons - as a way to balance this. Also more 'nerdy soy non-alpha males' that are good with geeky technology but lack a more animalistic presence- have more a place in society as technology advances and the need to make people is even less. People that would realistically die very quickly in a real fight can better thrive, but in a modern society where the least little aggression is frowned down upon and you get like a slew of PC managers saying how 'wrong' that aggression is (even though it's really slight and not much of a problem that they're making it out to be) - that's not likely going to happen.

I guess I have mixed feelings on this. I probably don't agree as much with you that it's a very bad thing- but perhaps society has gone too much in the other direction and it could stand to be a little straighter. Har Har Har. In order to return to a more "natural" straight society though - you'd have to have more real disasters instead of the comforts we all enjoy.

If there ever was a natural disaster or a event big enough to pressure people into having kids- like a dystopia walking dead type scenerio- then you would see people value heterosexuality again. But true straightness is naturally linked to harsh conditions like that- as like I said in a previous posts, the sexes actually do *not* naturally like each other as much as it seems even though yes, most of us are byproduct(s) of heterosexual affection. The price of heterosexuality on a grand scale- is that it thrives best in 'harsher' conditions. Once those conditions cease being so harsh- the need for heterosexuality greatly decreases. ((and you're in a catch-22 here as people naturally want to help and heal the world even though that's gay as hell!)) This is also the stereotype of where gay males are more 'peaceful and softer' come from. (even though it's a dumb stereotype and a gay man can obviously be just as dangerous as a str8 one lol) But an on objective, non-individual level, these stereotypes have truth in them for obvious and realistic reasons.

Higher rates of homosexuality is due to a society that values homosexuality far more. Sexual orientation, if you don't want to label it for a metal illness or lets say condition, you should say is innate and not chosen. Humans are not a hive mind designed to work like a clock in my opinion. But there's some truth to what you say. In part, higher birth rates could be a result of more difficulty in getting access to decent healthcare, if that standard of healthcare even existed.

For example, in my region, in my country in the past century, it was usually the case that families started at 14-16 years old, and couples had an average of 5 to 8 children. There was a 50/50 of them dying and in a lot of cases if the child wasn't able to work or it was unfeasible to feed him the parents would sell the child to someone. Higher birthrates could be because you get the children to work and bring money to the household for the time they live with you, plus if its not possible you can sell the kid, and the other children could die tomorrow, compared to nowadays where children only cost money, time and resources and there's every incentive agains't having them.