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

India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 427 posts

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#61

Post by newhotelowner »

twobitshifter wrote: post #21

They didn’t mention the last two years as possibly contributing to less childbirth. There could be counteracting effects there, stuck together with nothing to do, vs nobody to meet and nothing to do - but it at least deserves a mention. This 2019-2021 drop could bounce right back up if people chose to delay childbirth.

I know more Indian couples who has only 1 child vs 3. In my family (my generation), not a single couple has more than 2 child. My family's replacement rate is below 2. From my dads side, we are 12 cousins. We only have 18 kids. My village in India has roughly 440 people. Not a single couple that got married in last 20 years has more than 2 kids.

Before Covid, we had a middle school reunion. Every single one of us had 1-2 kids.

I have 8 best friends (Married for 15+ years). Only one of my friend and I have 2 kids. Everyone else has only 1 kid.

Pretty much all states except a couple are below replacement rate of 2.1. And some are way below 2.1.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#62

Post by mitigating »

pilom wrote: post #52

I wish the US had some of the options for male sterilization/contraception that are available in India. I've asked my doctor for years about some of the options available in other countries and am always given a blank stare of ignorance.

What about vasectomies? They seem to be widely known

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#64

Post by jimbob45 »

We struggle greatly to actually understand population numbers in many countries. Consider Afghanistan, where the numbers were in part made up until recently[0]. I really wish we could see more background on these numbers.

[0]https://youtu.be/WF3Rkt42wPY?t=266

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#65

Post by baybal2 »

zpeti wrote: post #48

Global population will basically top out at 9-10bn. I look forward to the problems we will face then, and the apocalyptic narratives the media will invent about this new problem. Here's my shot at a few: - Even with better quality of life its going to be hard to make people who are over 70 work productively. But without children less and less people will need to take care of this large old age group. And they will ne…

[flagged]

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#66

Post by bhouston »

gizmo686 wrote: post #60
bhouston wrote: post #47

This is good to a degree. But it does mean India joins much of the rest of the world with sub-replacement fertility with just a few outliers. The challenge now switches to how to move from sub-replacement to sustainable fertility. Japan and South Korea are leaders in sub-replacement fertility with not that much success in finding a path towards sustainable population. Both I believe are still dropping. This is the gr…

Is there a need to a sustainable population rate? There are about 8 billion humans on the planet. We can sustain a sub replacement birthrate for generations. There is a good chance we can sustain it for long enough to solve aging; or at least significantly push back the ~100 year limit to human life. Once we do that, we will need generations of sub replacement fertility just to compensate for having more generations…

> Is there a need to a sustainable population rate?

At some point yes we do.

> There are about 8 billion humans on the planet. We can sustain a sub replacement birthrate for generations.

For sure. But at some point there won't be enough humans to run an advanced society.

> here is a good chance we can sustain it for long enough to solve aging; or at least significantly push back the ~100 year limit to human life. Once we do that, we will need generations of sub replacement fertility just to compensate for having more generations being alive.

I think generational change is a major driver of innovation. Old people get stuck in their ways, more so then we are likely to ever admit -- but maybe we can solve brain plasticity as well? I think if we solve aging completely, we become a rigid oligarchic society.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#67

Post by gizmo686 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #24

If lifespans increases then the population will still grow for some time. And it's increased steadily for the past 70 years.

Average lifespan has increased because of changes on the low end. Fewer people are dying young. There has been very little movement on the upper end of lifespan. The current trend of improvement has a natural wall at about 100-110 average lifespan.

Having said that, I suspect that once we crack aging, we may blow past the current limit and see a relativly sudden jump in lifespan

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#68

Post by f6v »

tharne wrote: post #29
Swenrekcah wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I’m fairly sure they work their asses off already. Maybe not that gets measured in GDP thought.

I was going to say this. We have this weird habit in the West of trivializing raising one's own children, as if that's not "real work". A lot folks would rather raise their children instead of outsourcing it to strangers just to work a job they hate.

It’s outsourced to strangers anyway once children to to school.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#69

Post by newsclues »

baybal2 wrote: post #65
zpeti wrote: post #48

Global population will basically top out at 9-10bn. I look forward to the problems we will face then, and the apocalyptic narratives the media will invent about this new problem. Here's my shot at a few: - Even with better quality of life its going to be hard to make people who are over 70 work productively. But without children less and less people will need to take care of this large old age group. And they will ne…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#70

Post by droopyEyelids »

gizmo686 wrote: post #60
bhouston wrote: post #47

This is good to a degree. But it does mean India joins much of the rest of the world with sub-replacement fertility with just a few outliers. The challenge now switches to how to move from sub-replacement to sustainable fertility. Japan and South Korea are leaders in sub-replacement fertility with not that much success in finding a path towards sustainable population. Both I believe are still dropping. This is the gr…

Is there a need to a sustainable population rate? There are about 8 billion humans on the planet. We can sustain a sub replacement birthrate for generations. There is a good chance we can sustain it for long enough to solve aging; or at least significantly push back the ~100 year limit to human life. Once we do that, we will need generations of sub replacement fertility just to compensate for having more generations…

It depends what you mean by 'need'.

From the perspective of eudaemonia, yes, the surviving population needs goods and services to continue. With a sub-replacement birthrate, there are fewer 'new' people to provide the goods and services for the remaining. This creates inflationary pressure and deprivation.

From the perspective of 'will the world end?' no- the Earth will continue to exist even without any people at all.

Post reply on HN