India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by akudha » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

mastax wrote: post #76

bhouston wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I predict these issues will cause bigger problems than population expansion ever did. I think that unfettered population growth would have caused massive issues -- you could say that global warming is one of its legacies. But there will be a whole host of new issues as we face this new challenge of moving towards sustainable fertility. I suspect we will see a lot of government intervention with incentives towards l…

Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates - with the possible exception of the Czech Republic. I agree though that governments are going to try, and they may find a way to do it. There was a good episode of The Weeds podcast, "Baby making vibes," which talked about this. Some of it is focused on the American political lens…

Today we are at over 7 Billion. Suppose the population falls to say, 2 Billion or something like that. Is that a big problem? Like, what is the optimal number of people that this planet can support, without wreaking havoc on other species that also live here? 2 Billion is still a very large number...

This might sound cruel, but the less humans the better.

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

#212

Post by vidarh » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

akudha wrote: post #211

mastax wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates - with the possible exception of the Czech Republic. I agree though that governments are going to try, and they may find a way to do it. There was a good episode of The Weeds podcast, "Baby making vibes," which talked about this. Some of it is focused on the American political lens…

Today we are at over 7 Billion. Suppose the population falls to say, 2 Billion or something like that. Is that a big problem? Like, what is the optimal number of people that this planet can support, without wreaking havoc on other species that also live here? 2 Billion is still a very large number... This might sound cruel, but the less humans the better.

The issue is not the number. The issue is the rate of change.

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

#213

Post by valenceelectron » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

danuker wrote: post #179

mpol wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two decades, sure, but two centuries? If sea level is about to rise 1 or 2 or 3 meters, things will surely change more than what we see now. I live in the Netherlands, I am not worried about myself. But the world for our children might look different in this regard than ours. And we should not fall into the trap that it only exists when it touches us, then it will be way too late.

> but two centuries? I believe the sea level rise will indeed affect the Netherlands. I hope technology will progress so as to allow cheap relocation, or conversion of buildings to seasteads. I'm pretty sure two centuries from now there will also be completely unforeseeable problems, but also solutions. If you look at old predictions, we feared lots of things that did not turn out to happen: alien invasions, meteor s…

The Netherlands are already affected by sea level rise for some time. However, it seems to me they also plan and act accordingly for quite some time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlan...

"The sea defenses are continuously being strengthened and raised to meet the safety norm of a flood chance of once every 10,000 years for the west, which is the economic heart and most densely populated part of the Netherlands, and once every 4,000 years for less densely populated areas. [...]

The Second Delta Committee [...] expects a sea level rise of 65 to 130 cm by the year 2100."

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

#214

Post by akudha » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #192

ativzzz wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women with four children will most likely be full time moms for the majority of their productive lives so that's a pointless benefit, unless this policy manages to somehow reverse gender roles as well.

Even if said lady only rejoins the workforce for 20 years, the savings are fairly significant. Also, knowing Hungary, this is probably intended as a subtle disincentive for the local Roma ghetto population. All the Central and Eastern European states fiddle with their welfare systems not to incentivize higher birthrates among the Roma ghetto population, even if they do not want to state this aloud. That is why the be…

Not familiar with Roma, whats wrong with them?

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

#215

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #194

bhouston wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Hungary, if you do it four times you are exempt from paying taxes for the rest of your life: "Hungarian women with four children or more will be exempted for life from paying income tax, the prime minister has said, unveiling plans designed to boost the number of babies being born." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47192612

That's a pretty great incentive. From your article: "As part of the measures, young couples will be offered interest-free loans of 10m forint (£27,400; $36,000), to be cancelled once they have three children." The average household income in Hungary appears to be $7,100. So essentially they can get a potential 5 years of income for having kids. Massive incentive.

> So essentially they can get a potential 5 years of income for having kids. Massive incentive.

Depends how you look at it. If you're nursing, it takes 5 years to have three kids anyway.

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

#216

Post by soperj » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

ElectronShak wrote: post #154

nynx wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t really convincing. Newton and Maxwell were incredibly important, but they also lived quite a while ago. Religion has a different role in society these days.

I agree, although I don't look at Christianity as religion, from my understanding of the new testament..Christ was crucified basically because he didn't follow "the law of their fathers"..religion essentially. The aim is not to convince though, but to raise the question, why does our generation think that anything scriptural cannot be treated as fact. Why are newtons laws fact, but not his convictions? Are we so take…

Newton's laws are not fact, but scientific theory that's been tested through experiment and observation over hundreds of years. His convictions are just opinion.

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

#217

Post by mschuster91 » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 7:03 PM UTC

mastax wrote: post #76

bhouston wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I predict these issues will cause bigger problems than population expansion ever did. I think that unfettered population growth would have caused massive issues -- you could say that global warming is one of its legacies. But there will be a whole host of new issues as we face this new challenge of moving towards sustainable fertility. I suspect we will see a lot of government intervention with incentives towards l…

Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates - with the possible exception of the Czech Republic. I agree though that governments are going to try, and they may find a way to do it. There was a good episode of The Weeds podcast, "Baby making vibes," which talked about this. Some of it is focused on the American political lens…

> Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates

Yeah because even in Germany the Kindergeld of ~220€ per child per month isn't nearly enough to cover the extra cost in rent, much less the actual expenses that a child brings with it.

When most people below 30 struggle to make rent, even without children, and actual ownership of a decent sized home is even more unrealistic, they won't have children.

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

#218

Post by inglor_cz » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 7:07 PM UTC

akudha wrote: post #214

inglor_cz wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if said lady only rejoins the workforce for 20 years, the savings are fairly significant. Also, knowing Hungary, this is probably intended as a subtle disincentive for the local Roma ghetto population. All the Central and Eastern European states fiddle with their welfare systems not to incentivize higher birthrates among the Roma ghetto population, even if they do not want to state this aloud. That is why the be…

Not familiar with Roma, whats wrong with them?

Recently (1940s-1950s) forcibly settled former nomads whose culture hasn't yet made the necessary switch. To be fair, it took our Neolithic ancestors much longer than a few generations to adapt, too.

Basically, not enough education and a lot of crime in the community. Combined with enormous brain drain, because whoever manages to succeed a bit, moves away and marries into the majority population, thus disappearing as a potential positive influence.

This is one of the notorious ghettos in Slovakia, a neighbourhood called Luník IX: https://goo.gl/maps/KPnGTyBtX3NDTpdP6

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

#219

Post by akudha » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #218

akudha wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not familiar with Roma, whats wrong with them?

Recently (1940s-1950s) forcibly settled former nomads whose culture hasn't yet made the necessary switch. To be fair, it took our Neolithic ancestors much longer than a few generations to adapt, too. Basically, not enough education and a lot of crime in the community. Combined with enormous brain drain, because whoever manages to succeed a bit, moves away and marries into the majority population, thus disappearing as…

Thank you. That is one scary looking building!

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

#220

Post by dotnet00 » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 7:15 PM UTC

soperj wrote: post #187

dotnet00 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the country does not get richer faster than it gets older, the increasingly older population will suffer, having to work till they're older and getting less financial support (healthcare, pensions etc) because there would be proportionally fewer healthy young people to pay in to the system.

I keep seeing this, but then I look at how rich countries treat their old people, and generally it's stuff them in retirement homes, which seem like awful places.

I agree, but that isn't much of a counter-point, if anything a population that is majority old people will only make that worse since the increased burden on the young would breed more resentment towards older people.

Would you rather old people be dying of starvation/due to lack of healthcare because the country isn't rich enough to support them fully than living in old age homes?