Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The global fertility rate is falling

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 881 posts

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#461

Post by mattlondon »

cbsks wrote: post #40

My wife’s theory is that there will be a lot of babies born in about 6 months (9 months after the quarantine started), but only for first time parents. Being quarantined with a child is the absolute best birth control.

I initially thought this too, but then someone pointed out that people choose to have kids when they feel their life is stable (and safe).

Sure there will be a load of unplanned pregnancies, but a lot of people actively planning their family might choose to wait to see if they have a job/a place to live/are still alive after the pandemic is over.

Apparently there was a similar drop in birth-rate after the 2008 financial crash - people just held back waiting to see what happened before committing to having kids.

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#462

Post by throwqqq »

echelon wrote: post #349
creato wrote: post #345

It is disturbing that people take for granted that this is an economic problem. This thread is full of people lamenting the fact that we could support X times as many people as we do now if we all just sacrifice Y. When I look around the world today, I think the biggest resource that is lacking is economic opportunity. Huge swathes of people are desperate, angry, and depressed, I think because there is no opportunity…

> The techno utopian solution of allocating everyone a 20 m^2 apartment, a vr headset, and 1500 calories of soylent per day is going to be a disaster unless you also allocate everyone some future drugs to keep them sedated. I don't know if you live in California, but I think that there's sort of a reality distortion field that comes with living in a big and expensive city. Here in Georgia the rents are cheap and peop…

That's only because no one wants to live there. Once everyone from NY decides to move there will be no land for anyone to own. We know this happens because it literally happened in NY 200 years ago.

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#463

Post by mjburgess »

jb775 wrote: post #259

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the financial costs, you figure it out as you go. I have a 1.5 year old and it's hard to explain the simple joys I get from just running around the house with him goofing off. It's nice to forget about the real world for a while and build a pillow fort. He's also brought much joy to other family members (grandparents, cousins), and my extended family is closer as a resu…

People who think about social policy on the scale of nations need to worry about costs.

This isn't something that you "figure out as you go", it's something that causes wars and societal breakdown. We're already in a democratic world where the key voting fault lines are young-vs-old.

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#464

Post by leokennis »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #400
gregfjohnson wrote: post #357

The Hacker News comment section tends to be factual, rational, and logical. So - this may be out of place, but here goes. When making decisions about whether or not to have children, we operate in a state of partial information. (This is of course true of all decisions.) I would like to contribute a bit of information. I'm 66, and have three children and four grandchildren. My adult children are the most wonderful pe…

I'm not sure having children so you won't be lonely in old age is a good thing.

Not if it's just for that reason. But, historically, for humans besides passing on genes, having children has been a very economic decision:

- Increases the labor potential of the family "for free"

- Now you have someone to take care of you when you're old

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#465

Post by imtringued »

iso947 wrote: post #372
silisili wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The boomers will be dead long before the system shocks itself. Probably the tail end of Gen Xers or Millenials that will get royally screwed, if I had to guess.

Of course, screwed by boomers, then screwed by the those born today.

I don't really think so. It's the parents who decided to have fewer children and be against immigration (mostly the US and UK). If they are really getting screwed then they can always open their countries up for immigrants.

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#466

Post by bananaface »

killjoywashere wrote: post #455
bananaface wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the economic line of thinking is: Why do peasants in Africa have more children than Lawyers in New York? Builders in Arkensas have more kids than tech workers in San Francisco? Poor people in general have more kids than rich people. It doesn't fit the data.

"it's in the very poorest places that you're going to have a tripling in population ... it's amazingly as children survive, parents feel like they'll have enough kids to support them in their old age. And so they choose to have less children." https://www.gatesnotes.com/about-bill-gates/a-conversation-w...

I actually don't agree with that diagnosis. I think the very poorest people genuinely can't access contraception. Once you get above a fairly low level and the pill becomes affordable, something else becomes the bigger factor.

I just don't buy that very poor people ration out sex under a precise calculation of how many kids they want. Doesn't fit my observations of how humans behave. Most people fuck because they're horny, or because their husband is horny and they need his support to survive, or frankly because they're so poor they have to sell themselves. HIV is a bigger risk than not having children in old age, most Africans know that, but that doesn't stop it either.

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#467

Post by volent »

simonh wrote: post #435
mirimir wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have another data point. A dear friend died last month, after about two weeks in hospice. She had no children, but she did live in a large cohousing community. We did our best to manage visitors, but sometimes there were 5-10 people waiting to spend time with her. Which stressed the staff, and annoyed other residents. So anyway, children aren't the only path.

Quite right, but living in any community involves making compromises along with the benefits. I think the bottom line is community is an achievement that takes effort and compromise to attain.

Quite right, but [having children] involves making compromises along with the benefits.

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#468

Post by Thorrez »

Apocryphon wrote: post #453
Thorrez wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portland is very very tiny? It has 600k people. That's larger than Atlanta.

The Atlanta metropolitan area is home to more than 6 million people and is the ninth-largest metropolitan area in the nation. Portland is located in the 25th.

Sure, but 25th largest city in the US is not "very very tiny". I grew up in a township of 4k people. That would be what I consider very very tiny. I was nearby a city of 30k people. I considered it a decently large city.

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#469

Post by leokennis »

cbsks wrote: post #40

My wife’s theory is that there will be a lot of babies born in about 6 months (9 months after the quarantine started), but only for first time parents. Being quarantined with a child is the absolute best birth control.

In this regard, human psychology is weird. Ask any first time parent of a ~6 month old if they're going to have a second one and the answer will most likely be a resounding "no!".

Then when that baby is ~2 years old, suddenly the pain of delivery, the sleepless nights and the baseless crying seem to be forgotten, and the cycle starts again.

Re: The global fertility rate is falling

#470

Post by scarmig »

newyankee wrote: post #384
scarmig wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India and China are both projected to have a <1B population by 2100.

These projections do not account for increase in life expectancy. India is projected to peak at 1.7 b, if you consider Indian subcontinent as an entity, it puts the population of South Asia at 2.25 b. Not a good sight when coupled with unreliable climate, water scarcity, unlivable summer temperatures and no direct opportunities which means corruption may lead to feudalism of the yore.

> These projections do not account for increase in life expectancy.

That's inaccurate. The study in the link, which has those predictions:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

See the Mortality section.

Yes, India will peak at 1.7 billion, but then begin to decrease. That peak happens in 2050, which is closer to our 2020 than 2100.

Post reply on HN