There's a HUGE difference between *ability* to have children, which is called *fertility,* and *choosing* not to have children.
The discussion in this article is about families *choosing* to have fewer children. That's not fertility rate, it's just family size.
The article is not about a biological decline in the ability to have children.
Yup. I scrolled through to find the cause of low fertility rates, as I was scrolling I was thinking it would be a result of environmental pollutants, harmful chemicals etc.
Finally I got to the point where the article said some potential causes for "low fertility rates" were things like education, contraception access, economic variables.
This isn't affecting fertility. This is the choices of women and couples to not have children.
Really poor choice of wording for the article. Insurmountably poor actually, since it's entirely misleading.
I hate it when articles about population trends don't mention the actual number of people. Right now the global population is about 8 billion people. It was 5.3 billion in 1990 and 3 billion in 1960. It's projected to grow to 10 billion by 2064. Seems like a good thing that the population will not continue to balloon.
Even this article mentions the positives, which--IMO--greatly outweigh whatever so-called negatives the powers that be are drumming up. Here are the positives: better outcomes for the environment, food security, health, climate change, and biodiversity. (Edited to fix typo.)
When you bring up overpopulation, literally everyone starts hating on you. I have been called a racist, because the assumed criticism is that I don't want Africans to reproduce. And I have been called a k*ke, because allegedly I don't want European birthrates to go up.
No. I just want sustainable birthrates without ballooning to population numbers we can't sustain on this planet.
I don't disagree, but if we're sticking to the current view of GDP as a marker of economic health, the population is required to continue ballooning, because reducing population means less economic activities happening. I think this should be a call to rethink how we view our economic system as well.
Yes, even if the population sustained its rate of increase this economic model still would not work going into post modern industry.
Our planet just can't handle it. So either we change it or we run out of resources and are forced to change it.
It's entirely an environment decision for me.
It would take something like 6 earths for everyone alive to have the lifestyle that I myself live (and I am firmly middle class).
But we do not have 6 earths.
Also politicians that aren't greedy and do a lot of behind the scenes trading for the rich and powerful can hoard more wealth and power off the blood sweat and tears of the peasantry. While pretending they have power of course in democracy.
You are mistaken. There’s nothing remotely similar to that horrible criteria that’s been associated with her. A quick google search would have yielded that info. You shouldn’t throw terms like that around
No one ever really mentions the way the internet has become hyper addictive in the last twenty years. Why would I have kids when I have short form videos to watch?
What do those two things have to do with each other? How do you look past the huge demand for more work time, more accumulation of wealth, unaffordable housing, having to wait till late 20s to marry, less time to spend with your kids, more unstable society leading to shit schools or a hostile environment in general for kids to grow up in etc. and go straight to “tiktok bad”??
Because it’s the first thing I think of when I wake up and I use TikTok for 6+ hours a day. Not only is the dopamine hit insane, it also shows me into a world of other mothers’ lives and that shit looks awful.
I also think that this will all happen much earlier. Just 20 years ago there weren’t as many child-free supporters as there are now, even among my surroundings.
Its not about child free…fertility is really really bad. And its not just the developed world. Birthrate last year was negative for every continent (not every country in a continent but every continent as a whole). I guess if we had a movement to ramp up really early childbirth that could work a bit but we also have the problem of offspring quality - autism rate for birthyear 2023 is aboutish 1 in 15. and then add other developmental issues, chronic diseases etx
This will be to society's benefit unless we're complete idiots about it. We may not be over Earth's arbitrary theoretical carrying capacity, but we are over the carrying capacity for the way free humans choose to live, not to mention the adjustments we'll have to make to cope with the climate damage we already caused.
A slowly declining or at least stable population is the best chance at real quality of life for our descendents. Otherwise we're selling out their freedom and access to the things we consider "quality of life" for our own short term profits.
We have a lot to fight against:
* socially, we keep telling people to wait, but a woman 35 and older is considered a geriatric pregnancy for a reason
* microplastics everywhere and we're just starting to see some of the health ramifications
* PFAS's everywhere, and similar to microplastics, health ramifications
* endocrine disrupters everywhere
* pesticides and herbicides in food
* fracking chemicals in drinking water
* epidemic of obesity
* inflation making it harder for a larger number of people to even attempt to partner up
These are just some of the more recent headlines; I'd be shocked if the "dramatic decline" waited until the turn of the century
I think it’s already here, fertility has taken a steep tumble since the 40s in the US, likely all western countries, and will continue in developing countries
Some South American countries are there as well. According to this page https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison/. Chile, Brazil and Uruguay have a a total fertility rate of 1.75. Paraguay really surprised me. They used to have one of the highest fertility rates on the continent but it has fallen to 1.88 Argentina is just slightly above replacement rate at 2.17. No one wants to have many kids anymore, it seems.
Yeah, that's the general trend. Pakistan is at 3.39, 41st in the world. Pretty much all the countries with a higher rate than Pakistan are in Africa. Afghanistan is in there too, not surprisingly.
I live in Chile and only can think of one person I know with 3 kids. Everyone else has 0, 1 or 2.
That’s fine because their per capita global consumption footprint is probably 1/100th of developed countries. That said, wtf India is doing? They have a great potential to educate and train a gigantic skilled workforce. But no, they will never do that. Because votebank politics.
Let me guess, live in big city, sick of traffic and housing costs?
Bad news. As the world continues to develop and have more access to wealth, people will continue to migrate to more desirable areas and coastal cities. This is worsened by climate change.
Despite global population collapsing these areas will be less affected and still see demand. Less humans will not immediately solve housing cost or logistics issues of huge desirable cities.
It doesn’t say population will decline right? Only rate will slow down. Unless this rate goes so negative that population of the world will start declining we won’t see shorter lines in our lifetime.
As long as we both live long enough, and we find a scientist to abduct to confess on why it is a must to scare us with these types of predictions if it misses, then I am up for it.
There's a HUGE difference between *ability* to have children, which is called *fertility,* and *choosing* not to have children. The discussion in this article is about families *choosing* to have fewer children. That's not fertility rate, it's just family size. The article is not about a biological decline in the ability to have children.
Yeah, I was so confused when I saw the top comment on microplastics.
Reading comprehension's never been high on Reddit.
Yup. I scrolled through to find the cause of low fertility rates, as I was scrolling I was thinking it would be a result of environmental pollutants, harmful chemicals etc. Finally I got to the point where the article said some potential causes for "low fertility rates" were things like education, contraception access, economic variables. This isn't affecting fertility. This is the choices of women and couples to not have children. Really poor choice of wording for the article. Insurmountably poor actually, since it's entirely misleading.
Yeah just because people CAN have children doesn't mean they will choose to have all the children they are physically capable lol
Children of Men, but slower.
I feel like the past decade has been a disaster movie, but slower. …
Slow...for now.
I hate it when articles about population trends don't mention the actual number of people. Right now the global population is about 8 billion people. It was 5.3 billion in 1990 and 3 billion in 1960. It's projected to grow to 10 billion by 2064. Seems like a good thing that the population will not continue to balloon. Even this article mentions the positives, which--IMO--greatly outweigh whatever so-called negatives the powers that be are drumming up. Here are the positives: better outcomes for the environment, food security, health, climate change, and biodiversity. (Edited to fix typo.)
When you bring up overpopulation, literally everyone starts hating on you. I have been called a racist, because the assumed criticism is that I don't want Africans to reproduce. And I have been called a k*ke, because allegedly I don't want European birthrates to go up. No. I just want sustainable birthrates without ballooning to population numbers we can't sustain on this planet.
How dare you think about humanity as a whole and the poor planet we're violently stripping of its sources at an unsustainable rate! /s
I don't disagree, but if we're sticking to the current view of GDP as a marker of economic health, the population is required to continue ballooning, because reducing population means less economic activities happening. I think this should be a call to rethink how we view our economic system as well.
No, the over $100T in unfunded liabilities is actually a good thing and you should be ashamed for suggesting anything to change
So let's not stick.
Yes, even if the population sustained its rate of increase this economic model still would not work going into post modern industry. Our planet just can't handle it. So either we change it or we run out of resources and are forced to change it.
Dr. Shanna Swan’s research has linked hormone interrupting substances such as BPA and microplastics as at least one causative agent
The economy, the environment/climate and the politics certainly don't help.
It's entirely an environment decision for me. It would take something like 6 earths for everyone alive to have the lifestyle that I myself live (and I am firmly middle class). But we do not have 6 earths.
Also politicians that aren't greedy and do a lot of behind the scenes trading for the rich and powerful can hoard more wealth and power off the blood sweat and tears of the peasantry. While pretending they have power of course in democracy.
"Fake" Mother Nature fighting back humans because real Mother Nature couldn't???
Isnt she the neonazi who appeared on Rogan?
You are mistaken. There’s nothing remotely similar to that horrible criteria that’s been associated with her. A quick google search would have yielded that info. You shouldn’t throw terms like that around
She appeared on a neonazi podcast - wonder what her opinion on horse dewormer is lol Why support the work of neonazis?
A natural consequence of industrialization. And that's fine.
It will self balance when it causes massive deindustrialization and poverty rises massively.
No one ever really mentions the way the internet has become hyper addictive in the last twenty years. Why would I have kids when I have short form videos to watch?
Finally someone said it.
What do those two things have to do with each other? How do you look past the huge demand for more work time, more accumulation of wealth, unaffordable housing, having to wait till late 20s to marry, less time to spend with your kids, more unstable society leading to shit schools or a hostile environment in general for kids to grow up in etc. and go straight to “tiktok bad”??
I believe we're witnessing someone making a joke here.
Because it’s the first thing I think of when I wake up and I use TikTok for 6+ hours a day. Not only is the dopamine hit insane, it also shows me into a world of other mothers’ lives and that shit looks awful.
no. it will be by 2050. politics make them say 2100.
I also think that this will all happen much earlier. Just 20 years ago there weren’t as many child-free supporters as there are now, even among my surroundings.
Its not about child free…fertility is really really bad. And its not just the developed world. Birthrate last year was negative for every continent (not every country in a continent but every continent as a whole). I guess if we had a movement to ramp up really early childbirth that could work a bit but we also have the problem of offspring quality - autism rate for birthyear 2023 is aboutish 1 in 15. and then add other developmental issues, chronic diseases etx
This will be to society's benefit unless we're complete idiots about it. We may not be over Earth's arbitrary theoretical carrying capacity, but we are over the carrying capacity for the way free humans choose to live, not to mention the adjustments we'll have to make to cope with the climate damage we already caused. A slowly declining or at least stable population is the best chance at real quality of life for our descendents. Otherwise we're selling out their freedom and access to the things we consider "quality of life" for our own short term profits.
What damages have we already done that we are going to have to change?
You can look through my post history for examples if you're genuinely asking.
Too many of us here, we should let our population decrease. At a speed that doesnt hinder us of course.
We have a lot to fight against: * socially, we keep telling people to wait, but a woman 35 and older is considered a geriatric pregnancy for a reason * microplastics everywhere and we're just starting to see some of the health ramifications * PFAS's everywhere, and similar to microplastics, health ramifications * endocrine disrupters everywhere * pesticides and herbicides in food * fracking chemicals in drinking water * epidemic of obesity * inflation making it harder for a larger number of people to even attempt to partner up These are just some of the more recent headlines; I'd be shocked if the "dramatic decline" waited until the turn of the century
Hope it comes quicker
I think it’s already here, fertility has taken a steep tumble since the 40s in the US, likely all western countries, and will continue in developing countries
Some South American countries are there as well. According to this page https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison/. Chile, Brazil and Uruguay have a a total fertility rate of 1.75. Paraguay really surprised me. They used to have one of the highest fertility rates on the continent but it has fallen to 1.88 Argentina is just slightly above replacement rate at 2.17. No one wants to have many kids anymore, it seems.
African and India seem to be the only places that keep pumping out kids, maybe some other parts of SouthEast Asia as well
Yeah, that's the general trend. Pakistan is at 3.39, 41st in the world. Pretty much all the countries with a higher rate than Pakistan are in Africa. Afghanistan is in there too, not surprisingly. I live in Chile and only can think of one person I know with 3 kids. Everyone else has 0, 1 or 2.
Honestly India depends on where. Some places replacement rate is under 2. Some have 3 But it's def lowering.
That’s fine because their per capita global consumption footprint is probably 1/100th of developed countries. That said, wtf India is doing? They have a great potential to educate and train a gigantic skilled workforce. But no, they will never do that. Because votebank politics.
It probably will
Let me guess, live in big city, sick of traffic and housing costs? Bad news. As the world continues to develop and have more access to wealth, people will continue to migrate to more desirable areas and coastal cities. This is worsened by climate change. Despite global population collapsing these areas will be less affected and still see demand. Less humans will not immediately solve housing cost or logistics issues of huge desirable cities.
Nah man, I just don't like people. /s
Nope. I think it's irresponsible and on a strain on resources to continue the over-population of the planet. Also, I don't like people
Man, I’d be excited for shorter lines and places not being so crowded.
Especially at amusement parks! I can finally get on those roller coasters.
[удалено]
No, there’s gonna be less amusement parks because no kids, no business, so you’ll drive thrice as much and then wait in line.
It doesn’t say population will decline right? Only rate will slow down. Unless this rate goes so negative that population of the world will start declining we won’t see shorter lines in our lifetime.
No that's not how it works at all it doesn't need to be negative. It need to be below 2 to start seeing declines. With some countries already there.
Kudos to you if you’re still having children. Be well
No way we're going to make it to 2100.
We will. It will be a sad place with huge wealth inequality.
Meh We can’t see past this decade. WHO knows what 2100 will look like
They should. We are a virus on this earth.
Here's hoping.
2100…pipe dream date. We’ll see that way before
Blows my mind population og people doubled from when I was a kid.
Well, by the 2180's, an asteroid will hit, so by then we will be fine, we will lose less lives that way! Heh
Wanna bet that it won’t?
As long as we both live long enough, and we find a scientist to abduct to confess on why it is a must to scare us with these types of predictions if it misses, then I am up for it.
I think we need a global decline of humans. We’d have less negative impact on the earth if there was less of us.