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This discussion has been archived.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.
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.
(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.