Women and the slowing global population • Hacker News Board

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#21

Post by mihaifm » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:59 PM UTC

I would argue that the exponential increase in population in the 20th century was a "bubble", explained by the discovery of antibiotics and other advances in medicine. People that were not expected to live past the life expectancy (which was 40 years or so) lived on, thus overlapping with the next generations.

If there won't be any other similar breakthroughs in medicine, I don't think the exponential growth can last much longer, people will be born and die in a more predictable pattern.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#22

Post by ethbro » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

Rinzler89 wrote: post #9

toasterlovin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life. More specifically, there is something about the information environment that scrambles whatever mechanism we have for determining if we are doing well enough to bring more children into the world. I mean, it has to be that, since objectively speaking families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in…

> families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in the world, both past and present, yet we are having less children than we want. Answer in 3 words: Real estate prices. If you're a couple in the developed world you probably want to give your kids living standards to match. Fat chance doing that unless you and your partner aren't high earners

Among other things. Ability to "provide for children" seems highly subjective, according to our surrounding conditions.

Having 2 goats in a town with no goats = able to provide.

Having a McMansion in a town with bigger McMansions = worried about ability to provide.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#23

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

mihaifm wrote: post #21

I would argue that the exponential increase in population in the 20th century was a "bubble", explained by the discovery of antibiotics and other advances in medicine. People that were not expected to live past the life expectancy (which was 40 years or so) lived on, thus overlapping with the next generations. If there won't be any other similar breakthroughs in medicine, I don't think the exponential growth can last…

[deleted]

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#24

Post by Cthulhu_ » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:12 PM UTC

I get the feeling this article is conflating birth rate with actual population growth. One reason why people have less children is that more of them survive. Happy to be shown I'm wrong though.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#25

Post by baud147258 » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:18 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #4

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Although fertility has stabilised at levels above two children per woman in some countries, in the countries of Central Asia, the fertility rate (which had been close to two) has risen to around three children per woman. This is linked to the fact that many women there are having the number of children they want to have. That last fact is interesting. The average ideal family size reported by adults in the US is 2.…

My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life. More specifically, there is something about the information environment that scrambles whatever mechanism we have for determining if we are doing well enough to bring more children into the world. I mean, it has to be that, since objectively speaking families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in…

> My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life

Or modern life is not adapted to humans

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#26

Post by francisofascii » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:22 PM UTC

jatsign wrote: post #17

Ethical question - is it unethical to contribute to a charity/foundation/whatnot that works towards people having fewer children, given that such would inevitably be most effective in third-world countries where the birth rate is highest? Or would that be western imperialism pushing our values on the less developed world?

Depends on the methods used to promote fewer children. Education, great. Sterilization without consent, bad. The right to procreate is a fundamental human right, so we can't lose track of that.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#27

Post by qubax » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #24

I get the feeling this article is conflating birth rate with actual population growth. One reason why people have less children is that more of them survive. Happy to be shown I'm wrong though.

> I get the feeling this article is conflating birth rate with actual population growth.

It's not. Fertility rate for the US and the developed world is below replacement. And in the developing world, it has been dropping consistently.

> One reason why people have less children is that more of them survive.

That's a reason why women don't have 5 or 6 children, but that's not a reason why women has less than 2 on average.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#28

Post by Sharlin » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:35 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #13

Sharlin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet we are having less children than we want. How so? Evolution has not programmed into us any sort of drive for careful family planning to optimized the number of offspring. We simply have a drive to have sex. For the vast majority of human (pre)history, optimization of offspring number occurred the same way as with all sexually reproducing species: natural miscarriage and child mortality. Now that we have control…

Humans have been able to calculate the present value of children for a long time now. One could easily see the value of extra hands in a farming society, and even now if you can raise a few high earners then you have some backup if/when your retirement doesn't pan out or you need medical assistance and company when you're old. Personally, I would optimize at 3-5 kids (depending on age of mother), assuming 1 or 2 of t…

Sure. A big cause of the recent population explosion has been reduction of child mortality due to modern medicine, while the number of births lagged behind. In a traditional agrarian society it made some amount of sense to have eight live births, as maybe three or four of those would survive to adulthood. But due to lack of contraception there's not much planning involved in that. A woman would just be continuously either pregnant or nursing. And of course there was a 5% or so chance per birth for the mother to die, which adds up!

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#29

Post by YinglingLight » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:36 PM UTC

PunchTornado wrote: post #5

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Although fertility has stabilised at levels above two children per woman in some countries, in the countries of Central Asia, the fertility rate (which had been close to two) has risen to around three children per woman. This is linked to the fact that many women there are having the number of children they want to have. That last fact is interesting. The average ideal family size reported by adults in the US is 2.…

For me the ideal is 3 kids, but I don't want to raise 3 kids.

Even though responsibility is what gives life meaning. I feel like many men are 'checking out' of society's responsibilities (which need not be related to raising children) for a number of factors.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#30

Post by belorn » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 2:44 PM UTC

> But - big picture - what’s important is that reproductive rights are extended to all women and men.

Reproductive rights for men as consistently ended at the point of conception, with the modern feminist movement seemingly being one of the strongest voice against men having any rights beyond that point. Did Professor Peter McDonald just mistype when he includes men in this part off the article?