Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences • Hacker News Board

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#51

Post by bcrosby95 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:38 AM UTC

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #4

The weirdest part is that I’m pretty sure women generally want a replacement rate (or more!) number of children when surveyed, but feel like they’re unable to support that number. Why can’t we address those? Edited to ask: some replies seemed skeptical so I went to find what I based this idea off of. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/american-fertility... https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-many-kids-do-women-want

Some of it is a real concern, such as cost associated.

Some of it is pressures we put on ourselves: a lot of people think you basically need to be perfect to be a parent. No one is perfect, and I see a lot of shit from people without kids expecting parents to be so.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#52

Post by aylmao » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:39 AM UTC

COGlory wrote: post #32

I've been wondering a lot about fertility lately. Almost every married woman that I know of my age group is seemingly unable to have children, despite, in most cases, wanting to. This is often accompanied by PCOS, thyroid problems, or other strange but undiagnosed illnesses. The one exception to this seems to be those of Italian American vintage. Having grown up in Rhode Island I know quite a lot of Italian Americans…

Beyond pollutants, which isn't at all far-fetched to think is affecting fertility rates, there's also just life. I know plenty of people who want to have kids, but there's a lot of reasons to wait before having them. The later one waits, the harder (physically) it is to have kids.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#53

Post by throwaway3838g » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:39 AM UTC

throwaway29291 wrote: post #5

Perhaps, instead, we can see this as a good thing and plan a graceful way back to a more sustainable population over the course of a century. Just yesterday yet another in a long line of reports talked about how humanity has not just bent but likely broken many of the Earth's ecological boundaries that humans and non-humans alike depend upon. We've known this for decades -- mountains upon mountains of studies in ecol…

I agree with this sentiment but wonder… as long as there are humans, is an ever increasing resource consumption and waste production inevitable? Isn’t this unquenchable desire for more intrinsic to humans? Yes, this means we will probably blow the planet it up, but is there any other way?

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#54

Post by mlsu » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:39 AM UTC

throwaway29291 wrote: post #5

Perhaps, instead, we can see this as a good thing and plan a graceful way back to a more sustainable population over the course of a century. Just yesterday yet another in a long line of reports talked about how humanity has not just bent but likely broken many of the Earth's ecological boundaries that humans and non-humans alike depend upon. We've known this for decades -- mountains upon mountains of studies in ecol…

I've seen this take before, especially around climate and the environment. It's correct that having 20,000 humans on Earth would be more (actually indefinitely) sustainable.

These "degrowth" strategies mean tremendous suffering. People have to die to make degrowth possible. Those who stick around have to suffer of curable medical complications. They have to live hard lives without the comforts of modern life.

Why do we need to descend? It's not strictly necessary: the "environment" has enough fissionable material for nearly limitless electrical power. The "environment" has enough raw material to increase the amount of computation on our planet by many orders of magnitude. And that's if we stay here on Earth -- if you want to think on "indefinitely" timescales, Earth's constraints may not apply.

It's profoundly cynical. I don't actually understand it. All of this technology, this art, this incredible organization that the modern world provides, and think "we need to turn back, tail between our legs, and give up."

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#55

Post by tomcar288 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:39 AM UTC

aemreunal wrote: post #8

As the article points out, having a choice, and not being pressured by society into having kids one doesn't want, certainly is a good thing. On the other hand, as the article notes: > [...] cannot afford to have more children, or because of other policy failures, such as housing shortages [...] the financial aspect is a huge blocker for those who want to have children. We live in a world where the majority of young p…

the material standard of living has been dropping and it's now getting to the point where people can't afford shelter any more and thus no more kids. CA's birthrate has already plummeted to a level lower than in the great depression several years ago.

What i don't get is why decreasing fertility is always presented so negatively in the media. falling fertility is a huge blessing in the long run. we can't keep growing our population exponentially.. there's already way more people on the planet than the planet can support (see overshoot theory; climate change, earth mineral shortages, shelter shortages, etc). Humans outnumber other animals (non-domesticated) by orders of magnitude: it's not natural or sustainable.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#56

Post by lynx23 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:40 AM UTC

klipt wrote: post #34

lynx23 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in my case, I moved to a city for more infrastructure, public transport and my job. I had absolutely no plans to raise kids there. In fact, most people I know move out of the city center to the suburbs once they have kids. I dont follow your analysis why less childbirth would automatically lead to deserted cities.

A shrinking population does eventually have to lead to smaller (or fewer) cities.

Why? What if those left alone in rural areas end up moving to cities for the exact reasons they already do? At least that is what happens right now. Rural areas do nothing to make the young stay. If you don't own a car, you are lost. Most jobs are mechanical in nature, software almost nowhere to be found. And the cities are growing, slowly, but they are. What maes you think this effect would be changed just because overall, population goes down?

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#57

Post by glitchc » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:40 AM UTC

aemreunal wrote: post #8

As the article points out, having a choice, and not being pressured by society into having kids one doesn't want, certainly is a good thing. On the other hand, as the article notes: > [...] cannot afford to have more children, or because of other policy failures, such as housing shortages [...] the financial aspect is a huge blocker for those who want to have children. We live in a world where the majority of young p…

That's just a function of changing economic conditions. Do you care about Detroit the same way you care about SF? It had a roaring culture in the 40s-60s, but is now little more than a derelict husk.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#58

Post by perryizgr8 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:40 AM UTC

xeromal wrote: post #38

Every comment I read about this is how low housing, low income, no time, etc is the cause of a global fertility drop, but I don't buy. Humans have been having boatloads of kids in horrible horrible times and they haven't been stopped until now.

Yeah most people saying they can't afford to have children probably are in the richest 10% of the world's population. They can absolutely afford a child.

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#59

Post by danlugo92 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:40 AM UTC

hotpotamus wrote: post #46

xeromal wrote: post #38

Every comment I read about this is how low housing, low income, no time, etc is the cause of a global fertility drop, but I don't buy. Humans have been having boatloads of kids in horrible horrible times and they haven't been stopped until now.

Any theories as to the cause then?

Flynn effect

Re: Global fertility has collapsed, with profound economic consequences

#60

Post by bombcar » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 3:40 AM UTC

valleyer wrote: post #39

aemreunal wrote: post #8

As the article points out, having a choice, and not being pressured by society into having kids one doesn't want, certainly is a good thing. On the other hand, as the article notes: > [...] cannot afford to have more children, or because of other policy failures, such as housing shortages [...] the financial aspect is a huge blocker for those who want to have children. We live in a world where the majority of young p…

> will eventually drain cities of young people and those cities will be left behind Where are they going to move to? Or are you saying that there simply won't be any young people anywhere, because they were never born?

Exactly that, it can very quickly snowball and then you just don't need as many buildings anymore.

Or look at it this way: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/20/facts-on-u-s...

> There were a record 44.8 million immigrants living in the U.S. in 2018, making up 13.7% of the nation’s population.

If the USA was net neutral on immigration (as many people entered as left), the birth rate would be too low, there would be some tens of millions of dwelling units either empty or never having been built.