SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
mrpg
on Friday November 16 2018, @02:15AM
from the not-so-many-men-are-having-children-either dept.
from the not-so-many-men-are-having-children-either dept.
'Remarkable' decline in fertility rates
There has been a remarkable global decline in the number of children women are having, say researchers.
Their report found fertility rate falls meant nearly half of countries were now facing a "baby bust" - meaning there are insufficient children to maintain their population size.
The researchers said the findings were a "huge surprise".
And there would be profound consequences for societies with "more grandparents than grandchildren".
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
'Remarkable' Decline in Fertility Rates
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 146 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There's no such thing as an original sin.
-- Elvis Costello
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Friday November 16 2018, @09:39AM (15 children)
Now that's an interesting assumption, which many people state.
Yet -- is it? Is it due to social progression? Pick two cultures on the planet, the Japanese and the US. You can't get much different than those two cultural histories.
And both have different "modern" societies. Social structures are different, and they're quite separated by a radically different language.
What's my point?
I say, it's not the culture.. that if the US and Japan have a similar reaction, it could be something else.
So -- it's the environment.
Both modern cultures have similarities in that area. The types of buildings people live in. The types of packaging food comes in. The way water is processed and managed. And even, the types of products used to wash the body, to keep the body from smelling, all of it.
What I've said for the last few years is that we're going extinct. And not due to global warming, certainly we could survive that -- even if we ended up living in domes, we'd survive.
No, something is effecting fertility, and it's doing it in a way that culture doesn't have a direct impact.
One possibility? Plastic in everything. There's micro-particles of plastic in salt, in food, in every package of food we buy (pretty much), and on and on and on. We drink from plastic bottles, eat food using plastic utensils to cook it.
Then there's cookware. All those 'non-stick' cookwares that haven't been tested for long-term issues. Take teflon for example. Perfectly safe, emitting no toxic chemicals, *unless* the substance gets hotter than 260C... but how often have you accidentally had the burner on too high, and burned your meal (and likely damaged the teflon) in the process? Here's a hint, teflon is dangerous to birds -- they die from the fumes, and it happens all the time.
https://www.petcoach.co/article/teflon-toxicity-ptfe-toxicosis-in-birds-signs-and-preventio/ [petcoach.co]
My point here is -- humans live about 100 years. And therefore? To *really* honestly study the effects? You need SEVERAL GENERATIONS of testing. Yet we just throw any new crap we see at ourselves, in the name of profit. We test things like teflon, approve them without caring about real-world usage, and often have no idea of the long term, multi-generational effects.
And one of these many, many things is likely what is killing us as a species. Making us infertile.
Now here's the scary part.
Let's say it *is* plastic. It's only been the last 20+ years, where it's really invaded every place, for example being in almost every drop of surface ocean water, in lakes, etc.
If it is plastic?
And we have some war, or a plague, or something knocks our population down -- and we don't have the ability to move forward and counter this issue?
Imagine for example we were knocked back into the pre-industrial age? Small groups of communities?
Well. Maybe, just maybe, we'd never recover. And don't get all happy and joyful Mr Glum and Sour Environmentalist. No, not "good" for the Earth.
Because if it effects us? Maybe, just maybe it effects other animals too.
And maybe they'll all just.. fade away as well.
But is anyone studying all of this? Nope! Because apparently there are too many people. It's not true, we'll lose about 1/2 our population by 2050 I think.. but, what Western government is going to sponsor funding, with the political time bomb it would be, into increasing fertility?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday November 16 2018, @12:35PM (8 children)
> Is it due to social progression?
Yes and no. Yes, insofar as social progression allows our instincts for self preservation to be expressed. But no, it's not the social progression that's the reason, it's women's instinctive reluctance to bear more children when environmental conditions do not seem to be favorable. This cuts across species, it's not just human women.
It's taken us a long time to realize this, thanks to the decidedly male orientation of most societies. Turns out that the Malthusians' fears were overblown. This lack of appreciation for the female perspective is I feel the reason any of this is a "huge surprise".
> And we have some war, or a plague, or something knocks our population down
What we have seen is that societies which oppress women and put all decision making power with men have too many children. They overpopulate, and then something has to give. They starve, or go to war, or suffer an epidemic.
> Maybe, just maybe, we'd never recover.
That's right! Overpopulate, collapse, and slowly rebuild or maybe not, is not the most resilient strategy for long term survival, or more animals would do it. A species is very weak after a collapse, and ripe for replacement by another species that can exploit the same niches while exercising some vital restraint to avoid ever falling into such a weak state. The need for self restraint in particular circumstances has been an age old problem life had faced since the beginning. Life has found ways to do it, doesn't mindlessly breed and breed and breed and thereby walk into an unavoidable collapse and doom itself.
The United States has benefited enormously from other societies' lack of restraint. Europe was the world leader, until they hurt themselves in WWI. Within Europe, Britain benefited from the same dynamic. Napoleon would not quit, and took all the continental powers down with him, clearing the way for Britain to emerge as number 1. And then, with WWII, Europeans did it to themselves again, with Japan joining them in that downward ride,
We in the US like to think we're too smart to screw up like that. And now, here we are, in peril because we've allowed toxic masculinity to take the helm. They're spoiling for a fight, and if we don't keep a tight leash on them, that's what we will get. Lucky for us the Neocons chose to bully a very weak state, Iraq, which was quickly defeated, with relatively light damage.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Friday November 16 2018, @02:23PM (7 children)
So, not sure why your post devolved into political and SJW statements.
However what conditions are not favourable in the West? Hmm?
Take Canada for example. A woman need not be married, nor have support, to raise children. The state will ensure she is well taken care of..
There is no danger in Canada. There are "far off threats", but there is nothing on the doors step. No plague. No overcrowding. No War. No famine.
Food is cheap, resources are plentiful, and even someone working minimum wage can raise children by themselves. We have state subsidized day-care in some provinces, and loads of grants and payments per child.
For example, there are federal, provincial tax credits... 'bonus' payments, reduced tax overall, payments for 'outdoor activities', it goes on and on.
A family with two incomes? Has NO problem with affording children.
What you're saying is simply not true, in terms of 'threat' or 'environmental conditions' for many Western nations.
And yet, the population plummets.
The rest of your post is all neo-feminist blather, with things about toxic masculinity and all sorts of weird, unfounded stuff.
But if you want, step back and consider what is repeatedly validated. The human brain, and sex drive, can be greatly effected by chemicals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @02:59PM (3 children)
The fact that raising children is garbage. It takes all of your time, money, freedom, and often even your identity. Some people who know this choose to opt out, and would opt out even in the most "favorable" conditions imaginable.
Also, a lot of people don't like endlessly working at mind-numbing jobs just so they can put food on the table. Having children only makes this worse. Any money you get from the government isn't enough to make up for the burden of children.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:46AM (2 children)
I already stated above, it does not take all of your money. Children are easily affordable here, yet here the birth rate plummets as well. Ergo, money is not the problem.
Further.. this isn't about people "opting out". Many couples have 1 child now.
Lastly, everything else you said would be equally true 100 years ago, or 1000. Everything else you say. The "cost" of raising children, in terms of time, is the same. Yet people had more children before.
The urge to procreate is part of the sex drive. The urge to have children too. If fertility is being effected by chemicals in the environment, then the urge to have kids wanes. Not just sex, but to have offspring.
In other words, in times past -- people had ALL the concerns you did. Lack of time. Working low-wage jobs. All of it. Yet they still had kids. Loads of 'em.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday November 17 2018, @02:44PM
> A family with two incomes? Has NO problem with affording children.
Do you mean both parents are working? I've seen many married couples who tried that, and found out it was at best break even. The income from the lower paying job was about equal to the costs of day care and baby sitting.
> In other words, in times past -- people had ALL the concerns you did. Lack of time. Working low-wage jobs. All of it. Yet they still had kids. Loads of 'em.
What they had in the 19th and earlier centuries that we don't have now is "go West young man". It's not just money and time, it's opportunity. Families of 8 or more were far more common in 19th century America than today. What changed? People aren't stupid that way. People can see that things are tighter now. Also, child mortality was a lot higher 100 and 1000 years ago.
Yes, yes, the US probably could support a population of over 1 billion. Yes, maybe Alaska still has lots of empty space, and advances in agriculture will expand the crops that can be grown there. Would have to be some awfully fast growing wheat varieties to mature in the very short summer season Alaska has. (I read that oats and barley are better suited because they mature faster than wheat.) Could perhaps build more canals, bring more water to deserts.
But there's also perception and social customs and expectations. All kinds of stuff they did in the 19th century would get parents in a lot of hot water today. Put the kids to work on the farm? That's child labor! Free range kids? Gasp! Letting kids walk to school? Alone?? Oh my God! How could you expose your child to the hoards of sexual predators and criminals that you just know are wandering the streets? You can't even leave a child alone in a car for a few moments, thanks to the rather high risk some ridiculous busybody will report you for child endangerment, and the existence of authorities who just might go all nutso about that and take your kids. For their safety, of course. While some of the changes are good, a lot of them are overblown and unnecessary, and just add to the burden of raising children without delivering any benefit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @04:09PM
Even being frugal, it takes several tens of thousands of dollars to raise a child up to 18, and possibly more if they need additional assistance beyond that. Even more, if the child has a severe disability, some of which can't be detected early. And that's per child. Does that sacrifice have opportunity costs? Obviously.
Lots of people are also opting out. This will become more true the more educated people become, as they will be able to see the truth about raising children, and that it isn't for everyone.
The difference is in education and attitude. Women are more educated now, and they are far less oppressed than in the past, at least in many places. There's a real choice.
Even men are better educated in general. Everyone has access to more information than ever in the Age of Information.
Which isn't to say that there couldn't be environmental effects that cause a decrease in fertility or some other such thing. That could be, but I doubt it's the only factor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @04:45PM (2 children)
If Canada is like the US in this regard, they will force the ex-husband, boyfriend, sperm donor, statutory rape victim male under threat of prison or suspension of driving license to repay the state.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Saturday November 17 2018, @05:05AM (1 child)
These payments have nothing to do with child support. That's separate.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/canada-child-benefit-overview/canada-child-benefit-we-calculate-your-ccb.html [canada.ca]
--
Basic benefit for July 2018 to June 2019
We calculate the Canada child benefit (CCB) as follows:
$6,496 per year ($541.33 per month) for each eligible child under the age of six
$5,481 per year ($456.75 per month) for each eligible child aged 6 to 17
--
Note that there are also:
- provincial child benefits
- other grants
- tax breaks
EG
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/provincial-territorial-programs/province-ontario.html#cb [canada.ca]
--
The Ontario child benefit (OCB) is a tax-free amount paid to help low- to moderate-income families provide for their children.
OCB payments are delivered with the Canada child benefit in a single monthly payment. For July 2018 to June 2019, you may be eligible to receive up to $116.91 per month for each child under 18 years of age. If your adjusted family net income is above $21,416, you may receive a partial benefit.
--
One should also note that *mostly*, things are fairly standardized here. Here's a chart that judges use, when assigning child support.:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/child-enfant/fcsg-lfpae/2017/pdf/ona.pdf [justice.gc.ca]
It should also be noted that if the male decides to raise the children, then he receives child support from the female. As said here:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/child-enfant/guide/info2.html [justice.gc.ca]
"Child support is the right of the child"
It's not about the woman. The focus is on the kid. I think that's the only way to fix this mess. Keep all eyes on "supporting the kid".
I will say -- it isn't perfect. Nope. But it's better than it was. And it is getting better.
The real goal here is the concept that:
- by using tax revenue to ensure children have suitable conditions, you're ensuring society overall pays to raise the next generation
- with women and men on more equal footing monetarily, it means all women and all men, tend to pay for those raising children
Also note that, for example, men here have as much right to maternity leave as women. And to highlight that, they've split it into "parental leave" and "pregnancy leave".
In other words, time off because "it's close to birth time / I just had a kid" and time off because "I'm the parent of a new infant".
https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act/pregnancy-and-parental-leave [ontario.ca]
Note that income is supplemented out of the same Employment Insurance fund used for unemployment.
Again .. it's not perfect. But the goal here, so far, seems to be focused on trying to make it as fair for both sexes as possible.
I don't know what the outcome of all of this may be. I'm not sure if it's even *right*.
But if one believes that basic schooling should be paid for by the state.. in other words, "by all of us", the logic is that "everyone must pay for the next generation".
We have free health care here, so that's covered for kids. The rest of this is somewhat along that line.
Note that some of the payments above are *reduced*, not cancelled -- reduced, as income increases.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Saturday November 17 2018, @05:15AM
Just to add a little bit here.
There is the federal government, and provincial.
Provinces all handle employment law differently. The above is for Ontario, but it's similar in most provinces.
In terms to "leave", the right is not paid leave. So you have the right to be off work for a year, male or female, with a newborn.
In terms of pay, the EI fund (a federal thing) I mentioned covers 35 weeks of paid leave.. for one parent. Many work places supplement it, and many provinces add to it.
And both parents can, if they want, take 17 1/2 weeks of EI paid parental fund at the same time.
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Friday November 16 2018, @01:30PM (5 children)
The mouse utopia experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Blymie on Friday November 16 2018, @02:41PM (4 children)
We are no where, even remotely or closely near that sort of situation.
There is no overcrowding, unless people chose it. Canada, for example, has enough room that the entire world could settle here -- and all live in a rural landscape!
In fact? Take the world population, 8 billion, divide by 4. Now you have a somewhat "family" group.
Now give each family group a 1/4 acre of land. That's 500M acres, or 781k square miles. Exclude Alaska, and take the top 3 largest US states after that.
You can now fit the entire world into that landmass, each family group with a 1/4 acre of land. Think that isn't much?
You can easily sustain yourself on a 1/4 acre of land, minus housing, in temperate areas. I can get into all the logistics, how beans have a crop in 40 days, or how if you stack groups of families 4 per acre, it's even nicer.
You could put the entire planet in Australia, and those family groups would have 7 acres each or so. You could put them all in Canada, and give them 10 acres each. The list goes on and on and on.
People *choose* to live close together. In places where there are cities, even if there are jobs in the country, people prefer the city. Here, where there is lots of rural land around cities, and people can get in/out of the city fast, people STILL choose the city.
"I'd be bored", people say.
We have loads of resources, and no overcrowding as far as I see it. It's environmental.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 16 2018, @03:02PM (2 children)
I'm always amused by these "the world is not overpopulated because if you look at people per square mile there is plenty of room". But yours surpasses all previous, thanks, made my day :)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 16 2018, @04:04PM (1 child)
Instead of giving everyone a plot of land, stuff them in an arcology.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday November 16 2018, @06:14PM
I don't think we can yet build a real archology. We're getting closer, if you don't care about livability, but without that "stuff them in" is the correct description. How, for instance, do you ensure a trustworthy governance? Consider Brasilia. I don't know what it's like now, but for a long time it was a place nobody wanted to live.
Artificial environments are tricky. I agree that we should be building them, but we should acknowledge from the start that each one is an experiment.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17 2018, @03:22AM
I thought the world was going nuts when they reduced the average size of land from around 700 square meters to around 500.
Then they started selling blocks of 350 square meters with double story houses on them just to get the same footage inside as a house on a normal size block for the same price paid for a 700sm block.
Now they want a similar price for a unit with 80sm living space kilometres out of the city!
Absolutely insane and not getting any better.