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

Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 138 posts

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

#61

Post by seanmcdirmid »

alextgordon wrote: post #37
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It takes a special kind of person to look at all the environmental damage we are currently doing to the world (destruction of rainforests, overfishing, rising sea levels, disappearance of coral reefs, desertification, air pollution, soil erosion), and say " more please! "

Nowhere in my post did I say "more please." To say humans should roll over and intentionally go extinct is not the solution just as much as exhausting all resources. Somehow, we will find how to thrive.

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

#63

Post by jacquesm »

blux wrote: post #62

A diminishing population only has negative consequences for an economy in the short term, right? In the end, less people means less money needs to be made to sustain a certain standard of living.

It has a huge impact on long term quality of infrastructure and an immediate impact on social security (pensions especially).

Infrastructure needs a certain population density in order to be maintained and since countries usually do not give up territory when their population drops the number of people available as a tax bas dictates that if the quantities of infrastructure remain the same that the quality should decrease.

Canada would be lot more efficient for instance if it moved all of its population to the west coast but of course that's not an option for many practical reasons.

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

#64

Post by ekianjo »

justincormack wrote: post #58
ekianjo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and most importantly Japanese society is (slowly) becoming more tolerant to mothers going back to work. Yup, but that won't prevent Japan from going right into the demography wall within a decade or two (with serious consequences on its economy, since current workers have to pay for retired ones, in a growing deficit and a climate of increasing taxes).

Japan has a lot of overseas assets, so to some extent foreign workers will pay for Japanese retirees. It may not be enough though.

The debt of Japan is so huge (to put it in relative terms, Greece's debt is nothing compared to it) that they would need half of the developed world to cater to it.

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

#65

Post by boomlinde »

josteink wrote: post #55
mike_ivanov wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, of course, you can provide links to credible studies supporting such extraordinary claims, right?

Petty much every documentary I have seen the last 5 years claims humans are increasingly ruining the planet at a non-sustainable rate. I expected this to be common knowledge by now. If you prefer reading about it, Collapse by Jared Diamond[1] is an exceptional book on the subject, with facts and references for every claim and anecdote. [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143117009/ref=as_li_tl?ie=...

I assume that the commenter specifically meant this part:

> Currently it takes 1.2 earths' worth of resources to support the earth's population

... which obviously isn't true since the earth's worth of resources currently supports its population.

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

#66

Post by microtonal »

ajmurmann wrote: post #20

As a German who lives in the US since 8 years I am not surprised by this at all. By the time you finish university in Germany you are about 25 years old. They introduced the Bachelor/Master system, but at least when I studied, getting a Bachelor was more of a way to drop out gracefully. In addition there was a culture that expected you to stay at home until your child is at least 1 year old. Therefore there was very…

Therefore there was very little support to take care of very young children. For well educated couples this leaves an extremely small window in which you can have children.

Moreover, there are very few day cares that accept children after three months (which is pretty normal in The Netherlands and probably most other Western countries). This creates the perception of having to choose between a career and children (in some fields, leaving for a few years is a high-impact career choice). Luckily, things seem to be changing slowly:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/law-goes-into-ef...

There are tax incentives to have children (e.g. we wouldn't lose much income if my wife decided to stop working), unfortunately it seems that the conservative government (CDU/CSU) does not seem to be realize that most modern people don't want to live the 'man works, wife stays home with the children until they are 18'-lifestyle.

Another problem is that employers are not very flexible towards reducing the work week. Fortunately, our employer was flexible, allowing my wife to work four days. But I hear that it's hard in general for e.g. husband & wife to both work four days.

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

#68

Post by pvaldes »

jarek-foksa wrote: post #47
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.

Are they worried about being killed by famine (after having eaten their own cats and dogs), war or pandemic soon? If not, then they are not "struggling to live", which in turn means there is no need to reproduce that much. From the biological perspective, excessive population growth can be dangerous to the species [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

Probably not but I can't see why "to be killed by famine" is a relevant point here (A lot of alive germans had experienced the fear to be killed by famine in their past, that's for sure, as many other people that was children in the wars and postwars).

Today 7 millions of germans live with minijobs and for most of them is its only source of income. I don't really see those people reproducting like bunnies, but well... I can be wrong. Is a different kind of poverty, not the classic one.

> Excessive population growth can be dangerous to the species

I guess that you don't encourage the reproduction of this people?. Again, this is not the point here. We are trying to understant why germans have a low natality, not if this is convenient or not for the rest of the planet.

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

#70

Post by znpy »

ticksoft wrote: post #9
jtzhou wrote: post #3

It is interesting how a country with a lot of seemingly positive aspects -- abundant natural resources and fresh water, temperate climate, stabile economy and low unemployment, and great infrastructure -- cannot convince its citizens to procreate, whereas a country like Yemen with little in development is exploding in population (doubling every 20 years). When given the choice, it seems humans have children more out…

Having children (and being married) is a tool for survival in harsh environments. Conversely, it can be seen as a trap/burden from a legal and financial perspective in a 'developed' country.

That is a very interesting observation.

Edit: In the land I come from (south Italy) it was fairly common up to 50s and 60s for a couple to raise many children, as many as 7 or eight.

The reason is dead simple: being the economy largely based on agriculture and being schools not very common, more children meant more helping hands.

That need has basically disappeared.

Post reply on HN