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

131–138 of 138 posts

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

#131

Post by selimthegrim »

tiatia wrote: post #112
selimthegrim wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, didn't feminists change the rape legislation too (cf. Assange) so that Sweden has one of the highest reporting rates in the world. I'm not ruling out what you say but you have to disentangle these things.

This may play a minor role. One of the first google links: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape (I don't know this "Institute", so take the source with a grain of salt. But all the links will more or less report similar conclusions.) Another link: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/muslim_sacra... Don't forget that most of these people come from very tribal regions and backgrounds. In many…

Uh, the only person that ever called jihad a 'pillar of Islam' was Maududi, who is hardly a mainstream Islamic figure (a warmed over ex-Marxist clerical fascist journalist with zero formal religious training)

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

#132

Post by toomuchtodo »

znpy wrote: post #70
ticksoft wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting! It's almost as if we've evolved out the need to have children (no need for free hands working the fields, the ability to have sex for recreation instead of procreation, and children typically providing limited financial return compared to their historical role).

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

#133

Post by microtonal »

tormeh wrote: post #88
microtonal wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Moreover, there are very few day cares that accept children after three months Doesn't the baby need milk in that period? Sounds like opposite of how it should be.

You can bottle milk just fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_pump

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

#134

Post by bitwize »

ekianjo wrote: post #53
bitwize wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Currently it takes 1.2 earths' worth of resources to support LOL, this kind of "x amount of Earths" to support ourselves always make me laugh, because it assumes energy cannot be produced and that productivity gains do not exist. 30 years ago we were supposed to reach the "Peak petrol" point very soon, yet we found new ways to extract fossil fuels and push back that peak time to a much later time, leaving us time t…

What is meant by that is that thebcurrent worldnpopulation exceeds Earth's carrying capacity by a factor of 0.2. That means that there are more people than the Earth can sustainably -- note the world sustainably. Once you overshoot the carrying capacity, you're in a situation where even the Earth's renewable resources are being depleted, in a way that may not recover for a very long time.

Overpopulation is a glibal crisis.

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

#136

Post by chillingeffect »

microtonal wrote: post #133
tormeh wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Moreover, there are very few day cares that accept children after three months Doesn't the baby need milk in that period? Sounds like opposite of how it should be.

You can bottle milk just fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_pump

breast pumps are not a panacea.

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

#137

Post by everly »

SiVal wrote: post #46
everly wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he/she might have meant that immortality isn't really sustainable because of overpopulation concerns unless population growth rate is negative.

Even if population growth rate is negative, that only means that birth rate minus death rate is negative, not that birth rate itself is negative. If immortality makes the death rate zero, the growth rate can't be negative, and the birth rate would have to also be zero or growth rate would become positive again.

True, and I wasn't necessarily advocating that point of view, only trying to clarify what the OP might have meant. However, I'd also add that immortality being an option doesn't necessarily mean that the death rate would become zero. Some people may opt to die or be unable to afford whatever the cost may be (not to mention homicide, accidental deaths, etc).

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

#138

Post by SiVal »

everly wrote: post #137
SiVal wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if population growth rate is negative, that only means that birth rate minus death rate is negative, not that birth rate itself is negative. If immortality makes the death rate zero, the growth rate can't be negative, and the birth rate would have to also be zero or growth rate would become positive again.

True, and I wasn't necessarily advocating that point of view, only trying to clarify what the OP might have meant. However, I'd also add that immortality being an option doesn't necessarily mean that the death rate would become zero. Some people may opt to die or be unable to afford whatever the cost may be (not to mention homicide, accidental deaths, etc).

Also true. As you are saying, growth rate will remain non-zero birth rate minus non-zero death rate.
Post reply on HN