Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#21

Post by k__ » Sun, May 31, 2015, 1:46 AM UTC

xienze wrote: post #16

zxyzzxxx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developed countries offer alternative life goals. This, education and entertainment provide enough reasons not to have a family. Lower birth rate is a good thing in the long term, and getting non-developed countries into developed stage will accomplish that. See Gates' yearly letters.

> Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.

If you assume a developed country, you have an attractive place to live for many people from other badly developed countries. So you can simply import them.

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#22

Post by ajmurmann » Sun, May 31, 2015, 1:46 AM UTC

k__ wrote: post #18

pvaldes wrote: post #8

Is a normal consequence on the poverty fuelled by the policies of those last years, probably. You can not expect that people think too much about having babies whereas struggling to live on microjobs. No real jobs, lots of cats and dogs. No real new babies.

But aren't the poorest those who get most of the children?

Yes, typically they are, even in Germany. That being said, very rich people who don't have to compromise and have others raise their children also tend to have more than average children I believe.

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#23

Post by resonation » Sun, May 31, 2015, 1:48 AM UTC

xienze wrote: post #16

zxyzzxxx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developed countries offer alternative life goals. This, education and entertainment provide enough reasons not to have a family. Lower birth rate is a good thing in the long term, and getting non-developed countries into developed stage will accomplish that. See Gates' yearly letters.

> Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.

I think he means there's a difference between births arising from couples in love, as opposed to births arising either by accident or from couples bound by other arrangments forced out of motives of survival, hence the qualifier being a "lover's birth rate."

As for quantifying which births are "lover's" births, and which are not, well... good luck with that.

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#24

Post by arjn » Sun, May 31, 2015, 1:48 AM UTC

I'm skeptical of the Hans Rosling talk that many people will bring up. For one, there is no indication that the poorer countries with higher birthrates will be educated in time. Secondly, just because we can calculate the world can support more people doesn't mean that's a good thing to have. We're already losing our flora and fauna at an alarming rate. This is going to get worse with a higher population.

I think sometimes people are blinded by TED talks and fail to question them.

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#25

Post by xienze » Sun, May 31, 2015, 1:51 AM UTC

k__ wrote: post #21

xienze wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.

If you assume a developed country, you have an attractive place to live for many people from other badly developed countries. So you can simply import them.

That brings with it its own problems, as many European countries are discovering.

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#26

Post by xienze » Sun, May 31, 2015, 1:52 AM UTC

resonation wrote: post #23

xienze wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.

I think he means there's a difference between births arising from couples in love, as opposed to births arising either by accident or from couples bound by other arrangments forced out of motives of survival, hence the qualifier being a " lover's birth rate." As for quantifying which births are " lover's " births, and which are not, well... good luck with that.

I'm thinking typo. "Lover" birth rate doesn't really make sense in the context of the discussion.

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#27

Post by joshuapants » Sun, May 31, 2015, 1:55 AM UTC

arjn wrote: post #19

joshuapants wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is not overpopulated by a long shot. There may be a lot of overconsumption in certain regions, but that's a different issue.

You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? The world is already heavily overpopulated. If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number. If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway. The world may be able to "support" more peop…

> You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ?

I have traveled all over the place, so your lousy ad hominem is unnecessary. "Crowded" is not the same as "overpopulated."

> If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number.

Ah, so now we've moved from a factual question ("Is the world overpopulated?") to a subjective one ("At what level below the carrying capacity should human population be maintained?") which comes with a number of ethical questions ("Who are we going to forcibly sterilize to maintain that level?" for one).

> If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway.

Undoubtedly. That is not the same thing as overpopulation, by the way, because we humans have been driving other species to extinction throughout our entire history.

> The world may be able to "support" more people, but it is unlikely to be a world worth living in.

This is nice and subjective, and also not the same thing as overpopulation. In the future, please try to avoid slinging around buzzwords.

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#28

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, May 31, 2015, 1:56 AM UTC

arjn wrote: post #19

joshuapants wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is not overpopulated by a long shot. There may be a lot of overconsumption in certain regions, but that's a different issue.

You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? The world is already heavily overpopulated. If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number. If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway. The world may be able to "support" more peop…

I live in China, which is not nearly as populated as Bangladesh or India.

We have to decide if we are to move forward or back. Technology can help us boost population while limiting impact, we can also branch out into new ecological niches (even those off planet) as any successful animal would. Biologically speaking, we should increase in number if we are doing well, to do otherwise isn't very natural (and ya, flora and fauna are out competed all the time, it's part of the system).

It might not be the moral thing to do, but it is definitely the natural thing to do.

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#29

Post by zxyzzxxx » Sun, May 31, 2015, 2:05 AM UTC

xienze wrote: post #16

zxyzzxxx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developed countries offer alternative life goals. This, education and entertainment provide enough reasons not to have a family. Lower birth rate is a good thing in the long term, and getting non-developed countries into developed stage will accomplish that. See Gates' yearly letters.

> Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.

I don't know what are you quoting me, and then talking about something I never wrote. ( rhetorical q. )

Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

#30

Post by bitwize » Sun, May 31, 2015, 2:15 AM UTC

joshuapants wrote: post #14

mg1982 wrote: post #11

It's difficult not to see to the word 'slumped' as an editorial judgement, and I find it quite strange. The world is grotesquely overpopulated and at some point it needs to stop.

The world is not overpopulated by a long shot. There may be a lot of overconsumption in certain regions, but that's a different issue.

Currently it takes 1.2 earths' worth of resources to support the earth's population, which means the earth cannot support all of us without starting to deplete resources. So yes, the planet IS overpopulated.