Finnish Fertility Rate Drops by a Third Since 2010 (npr.org) 176
Finland's fertility rate has dropped below 1.3 children per woman, the lowest among Nordic countries and far beneath the 2.1 replacement level needed to maintain a steady population. The rate has declined by a third since 2010. Kela, Finland's social insurance agency, started distributing 2025 "baby boxes" -- filled with clothing and other infant supplies -- in August instead of spring because so many 2024 boxes remained unclaimed.
More parents now choose cash payments over the traditional boxes filled with infant supplies. The decline puzzles researchers because Finland offers paid parental leave for both mothers and fathers, subsidized childcare and national healthcare. Anneli Miettinen, Kela's research manager, said that good family policies no longer explain birth rates in Nordic countries. Immigration has offset some population loss, but officials worry about workforce shrinkage and pension system strain.
Anna Rotkirch, who authored a government-commissioned report, found that many 17-year-olds describe wanting a house, garden, spouse and three children. Her research suggests young people struggle to form relationships, focus on education and careers, and delay childbearing. Some researchers attribute relationship difficulties to technology reducing physical interactions.
More parents now choose cash payments over the traditional boxes filled with infant supplies. The decline puzzles researchers because Finland offers paid parental leave for both mothers and fathers, subsidized childcare and national healthcare. Anneli Miettinen, Kela's research manager, said that good family policies no longer explain birth rates in Nordic countries. Immigration has offset some population loss, but officials worry about workforce shrinkage and pension system strain.
Anna Rotkirch, who authored a government-commissioned report, found that many 17-year-olds describe wanting a house, garden, spouse and three children. Her research suggests young people struggle to form relationships, focus on education and careers, and delay childbearing. Some researchers attribute relationship difficulties to technology reducing physical interactions.
It's Social Media, Stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
Dumbasses, it's social media. Social media makes it impossible for people to get along, which is why young people "struggle to form relationships." Social Media trains people to live in a state of defiance and opposition to those around them.
Re:It's Social Media, Stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
Social Media trains people to live in a state of defiance and opposition to those around them.
Bullshit! Your point may be valid, but I fully reject it!!
Re:It's Social Media, Stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
fertility rates have been falling since well before social media.
Re: (Score:3)
fertility rates have been falling since well before social media.
It started around the same time that failure in life means homelessness immediately. Without safety nets, why would anyone engage in risky behavior? Raising children is inherently risky. On the bright side, the flow of money has been extraordinarily efficient. It is a shame that the flow is away from the average person, but then, how can an empire be built if you allow the normals any money.
(hilarious, CAPTCHA is pregnant. how is it so consistently insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"My pet subject is the only relevant thing for this massive global obviously multi-factoral problem. Address my pet subject!"
Re: It's Social Media, Stupid. (Score:2)
What if AI lets us have the fun of a kid without the messiness?
Re: (Score:2)
What if AI lets us have the fun of a kid without the messiness?
This type of what if is the shit the marketers are pushing. The problem is that it looks like what AI will actually do is remove the option of working from large portions of the population, and feed more data, more resources, and more MORE to the top of the financial structure of society. So, if being so destitute you have no decision maker power makes you feel like a kid, you're in luck. Otherwise? Not so much.
The big drop was the 1960s (Score:2)
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/fertility-rate
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/fin/finland/fertility-rate
That drop alone brought the US down to about the current total fertility rate: 1960 (3.65), 1973 (1.88), 2024 (1.79). The drop from 2007 (2.12) until now is pretty minor in comparison. I of cours
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The big drop was the 1960s (Score:2)
"Maybe Kristi can do an ad for that too."
At least the costume will be cheaper for the taxpayer
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like someone discussing Elvis scandalously shaking his hips in the 1950s. People are having plenty of sex. They just don't want to bother with children.
It's the economy, stupid!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Dumbasses, it's social media. Social media makes it impossible for people to get along, which is why young people "struggle to form relationships." Social Media trains people to live in a state of defiance and opposition to those around them.
Social media may suck, but this issue predates social media and I seriously doubt it was exacerbated by it. It's always about money. Our fertility rate was high when people could afford homes to raise kids in. Our fertility rate was high when it was easy enough to provide for a family on one income. Those are the 2 factors that are killing fertility rate in the advanced world.
1. Education. College is now mandatory for most to enter the middle class and many occupations expect advanced degrees. If you don't get your first real job until you're 26...yeah, that drastically reduces your chance of having kids.
2. Costs. OK, now you need to be REALLY FUCKING WEALTHY to buy your first home or merely to live alone in a place big enough to start a family. This goes back to issue #1. OK...I can't afford a decent home with a HS diploma, so I get a BA...which again...I can now afford my own apt, but it's too small and cramped for me to start a family...so I go get an advanced degree so I can give my kids the life I had growing up...so...yeah....now you're starting families in your 30s and not your 20s. Additionally, long ago, you could raise a family with one income. Now...you really can't, so the mom has to work...if the mom can devote all her attention to it, the family will likely have more kids. If she's either juggling work and kids or taking off and watching the saving drain...yeah, they're less likely to have a large family.
And it's just common sense...the longer you wait to start, the greater the chance of divorce. LOTS of couples get divorced between age 32 and 38...that's when the person who was wonderful at age 22 either fails to grow into the 32yo you need them to be or becomes a total piece of shit...or you're the total POS and your partner outgrows you...
Additionally, it's a lot harder for most to start families in your 30s than 20s. While I come from trashy stock and there's no such thing as a planned pregnancy in my extended family...many in my cohort needed medical help to conceive. Miscarriages are more common with paternal age as are birth defects. Few have a kid with Down's Syndrome or a nearly fatal heart defect and say "let's have 3 more!"
Fewer people have kids due to our economic and educational pressures.
Those that do?...they start later and thus have fewer...
It's been well studied. You can't really incentivize couples to start families. The most effective route is to fund people who start their families to encourage them to have more kids. If a couple is happy childless, there's no sum the gov can afford to make them want kids.
However, for people like me, who have 2 kids, but can't afford a 3rd...well...we might have considered it if we could get cheaper childcare and afford a bigger house.
If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:4, Insightful)
This field of research is dominated by survey's that have led to misleading results. It's the best example I can think of where if you ask people to self-report why they have no children you will get the wrong answer. Never mistake your finger for the moon. Everyone in this field is generating tremendous amounts of confirmation bias to support programs that generate no children.
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:5, Insightful)
You're exactly right. If you ask anyone why people aren't having kids, they will say money, because they want the system to give them money. But there are several facts that clearly disprove this: 1) poor people have more babies than wealthy people (Elon excluded), 2) people in the past managed to raise kids on far less income than the average income now, and 3) there are many countries, like Finland, who instituted generous parental supports, and it barely moved the needle.
If I could compare and contrast our society today with the society I grew up with in the 80's and 90's, I would say a huge difference is that society has de-valued parenthood, and motherhood in particular. Stay-at-home moms in the 80's weren't looked down on. If you *dared* to suggest that a SAHM was "sitting around all day" you'd get an earful from both women and men. Being a mother was recognized as a pretty high status role in society.
These days women themselves look down on mothers and motherhood. It's a weird change.
We also had more examples of positive parental role models on TV. I get that Bill Cosby in real life was shown to be a piece of shit, but the Cosby Show itself portrayed some pretty great role models of good parenting. Parents in the 80's aspired to be that good. Nothing on TV these days comes close.
You get what you celebrate, and it's been a long, long time since we really celebrated the importance of motherhood in our society.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I gave you a mod point, so have to go anon...
To continue your post, to have a SAHM, that also means that (1) you need a father in the home which means we need intact families; (2) it also means the father needs to be able to earn enough they can live on only his pay, which is very difficult to do now days. So let's remove some of the things that pull families apart and fix the wages so that we can have a family live on 1 income, and we'll start to have more children -- at least in the US. [I don't see the w
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is an effect rather than a cause of declining fertility. People don't have fewer babies because motherhood is no longer considered the aspirational default. Motherhood is no longer the aspirational default because people are having fewer babies.
You see the same decline in fertility worldwide in all different cultures with all sorts of different government policies and social norms. The only common denominator is access to birth control. That's it. The only places where fertility rates are still
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:4, Interesting)
I wholeheartedly disagree. Women are having fewer babies because society no longer nurtures and inspires little girls to aspire to motherhood. I rarely ever see little girls walking around with baby dolls. Instead, they're encouraged to focus almost entirely on a career and the desire and means of parenthood are expected to somehow magically happen sometime after that. And then social media and dating apps came along and ruined dating and put unnecessary strains on social relationships and a group of women that were already tepid about parenthood has lost what little interest they had.
This whole argument assumes that desire for children has remained constant and likely will remain constant. If women have less of a desire to have children, they will be less likely to stop taking their birth control for the purpose of planned pregnancies. Control and desire are two fairly independent things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:4, Informative)
"You wholeheartedly disagree" with the facts. If your theory was right, that it was that we suddenly decided to culturally devalue motherhood (never mind the question of why we would suddenly do that, I guess it's some sort of conspiracy), then why is it a global phenomenon, as OP points out? Why did Koreans, Finns and Chileans suddenly decide to devalue motherhood and stop letting little girls play with dolls at the same time?
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:4, Informative)
It's not just that. In the past kids were only a slight economic cost. They were only a slight opportunity cost. And they were the support for when you became too elderly to work.
None of those are true anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I always like comments like these from men who blame women for not having babies. After all, the sole job of a man is inject and go. It's the woman who has to undergo nine months of an ever increasing blob taking nutrients from them, drastically altering their hormones, making them uncomfortable 24 hours of every day, and eventually causing pain and discomfort. Assuming they don't die in the process.
Who wouldn't want to go through all that?
If the day ever comes when men can become pregnant, birth control
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:4, Insightful)
this is an anecdote but we have 5 kids and my wife having the undue burden of the physical side of producing offspring was something she actively desired, so your take on the idea that it's this universally reviled unequitable situation is unfair. She wanted our family to be this size and drove our decisions because it was her desire. In our family, our unequitable distribution of physical burden didn't play a role.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
According to some study I read a couple of years ago, women's brain chemistry changes after they have a kid, and they switch to 'mommy brain' where they want to have more kids. This is probably why the most ardent opposition to having kids typically comes from childless women.
I also suspect that one of the best ways to convince women to have kids is for their friends to have kids so the childless women are surrounded by children all the time. Then being a mother becomes fashionable and everyone wants it.
Re: (Score:2)
We're spinning in circles around this debate.
I think it's entirely one of economics and career choice. You can have all the children around you want to "promote womenhood" but it makes no difference if the women have zero interest in raising chidren. My wife is an example. She loves kids, will play with them and loves seeing photos and such, but has *zero* interest in raising any. She's always asking for photos of my niece's kid, since that's the only kid in family at the moment and she finds him adorable.
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:4, Insightful)
If the day ever comes when men can become pregnant, birth control will be freely available and there will be a whole host of government programs implemented to make their lives as comfortable and safe as possible.
If men could get pregnant abortion would be a fundamental human right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice, but utterly irrelevant because there'll be no Western nations soon if women aren't having kids.
Why do you care? You'll be long dead by that time.
Re: If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:2)
If you want women to have kids then make it an attractive option. If you don't care enough to do that then you don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one thing women can do that men can't.
Have babies.
It's literally the reason women exist. And they're not doing it.
It will not end well, one way or another. In Finland I'd guess white men will die out and the New Finns won't care what women think.
From your comment you don't appear to care what women think either. Good to know you'd fit right in with the Taliban.
Re: (Score:3)
1) poor people have more babies than wealthy people (Elon excluded),
Having babies makes you poor, because you must drop out of school our out of the workforce (at least for awhile), and spend hours that you could spend on your career on raising a child instead.
2) people in the past managed to raise kids on far less income than the average income now,
There is no middle class any more, essentially only rich and poor, so the "average income" doesn't really mean anything. I would say instead, that it was once possible to raise a family on a working-class job (such as meat packing plant worker), but that's long gone for sure, as such jobs don't exist that pay well eno
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want people to have children if they don't want them either. But there's lots of evidence showing that women report that they want more children than they are actually having. In fact, in the UK at least, if women had as many children as they reportedly say they wanted, then the UK would be at the 2.1 replacement rate. Part of the problem is that they're encouraged to wait to have kids, but infertility increases with age, so many are getting to age 30 and either can't find a suitable mate, or sim
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:4, Informative)
Stepping back from career work for a period of time, especially early on, is likely one component of the wage difference between men and women.
We all have anecdotes about "a friend who..." or a "family member who..", but that's just an anecdote, not data on which to base policy decisions.
Health wise, yes, the 20s are generally healthier but risk really doesn't shoot up until the 40s for most women (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32741623/), and if you really want children, at whatever age, who am I to tell you no?
Re: (Score:2)
You're exactly right. If you ask anyone why people aren't having kids, they will say money, because they want the system to give them money.
I was with you in the first half, but I don't think the "because money" argument is the result of wanting government handouts.
My grandfather was an Italian immigrant, who came to America right before the Great Depression hit. He only got a 9th grade education (some variants of the story say 6th or 8th; suffice it to say he didn't graduate high school), and then he worked for a defense contractor doing machine work. On one income (admittedly 80-hour work weeks were the norm for that income), on a 9th-grade e
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:5, Informative)
people in the past managed to raise kids on far less income than the average income now ...
If I could compare and contrast our society today with the society I grew up with in the 80's and 90's
Real median household income has risen about 20% since the 80's [stlouisfed.org]
Unless you didn't go to college, in which case your income has been stagnant or went down in real dollars [ed.gov].
Meanwhile, the cost to raise a child has increased by over 60% in that time. [ktvz.com]
In other words, it is 3 times more expensive to raise a child now than it was in the 80's. And that isn't even considering college, which has gone up even more. And a much bigger fraction of those jobs in the 80's came with pensions, which are not counted in those income numbers. Today that "extra" 20% you make goes into your 401k if you want a chance at a decent retirement.
There are definitely changing societal norms that are influencing this trend. But waving away the very real and significant cost increases is omitting a huge piece of the picture.
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:5, Insightful)
Real median household income has risen about 20% since the 80's
But now 'household' income is generated by two people rather than one.
Double the work...20% more pay...
Re: (Score:2)
We're actually observing a very complex multi-factoral pattern. For example, it's true that in recent past, was was poor who were having more children than rich. This is no longer true in most of them, as situation has flipped.
In many Western countries this pattern flipped in last half a decade or so. Rich are now having more children than poor. It gets even more interesting when you consider US and African American culture, its current obsession with single motherhood and having lots of kids by many differ
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, there really has been a complete reversal. Women have been convinced to devote themselves to the workforce in what I presume is a vain attempt to increase the GDP, and those who do not ("stay-at-home moms," which feels like a slur these days) feel shamed for devoting their time to their kids. The alternative is what, raising kids that are in day care from 6 am to 6 pm every day? Raising kids that you barely see except for a few minutes a day? What a society we live in today. No wonder young people don't want to have kids when it becomes just another chore between work and commuting and maintaining your instagram profile.
Re: (Score:3)
Women entering the workforce was due to two main things.
1. Financial independence. Relationships break down, and women used to get trapped in them for financial reasons. Removes the pressure to quickly find a partner in the first place, and to compromise on quality to do so.
2. The cost of living has increased faster than wages, so two decent incomes are needed where one manual labour job used to be enough.
Declining fertility years and culture (Score:2)
One explanation is in the rise of women in careers and education.
A woman has roughly 16 years of fertility, from age 14 to 30. At age 30, 10% of couples can't conceive after a year of trying and the numbers get worse after that. Yes, older couples can have kids, but the probability goes way down.
Culturally, having a child before age 18 is assumed to be a bad thing (4 years). Then if the woman has a college education (another 4 years), then goes for an advanced degree (up to 7 years), or wants to establish h
Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing on TV these days comes close.
Try Bluey. Seriously. It's a parenting show disguised as a children's show.
Re: (Score:2)
You get what you celebrate, and it's been a long, long time since we really celebrated the importance of motherhood in our society.
But is it actually desirable? Or is it a scam to get people to contribute much more than they get out? At the same time, this dirtball is overpopulated to a degree that we existential threats.
Re: If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score:2)
Everyone knows that unless one spends 40+ hours slaving away in the cubicle, warehouse, store, restaurant, etc then one is a worthless failure
No, it's the economy - the poor don't choose (Score:5, Informative)
The costs of bearing children goes up with each generation. Daycare used to be OK-ish, now it's more than rent in my area. Things that were optional when we were kids are mandatory, like internet, devices, etc. Even fucking car seats. Now kids need boosters in grade school? And yeah, don't give me that "back in my day" bullshit...we didn't have boosters or smart phones...and if you deprive your kids of that, it's at best, a "bold choice". You will be judged for being a shit parent and I have enough to worry about in life to not rebel. But shifting trends aside, it's more expensive...and even more importantly, it's perceived as more expensive. When I meet someone with 3 kids, I think...holy shit, you earn a lot more than I do or holy shit, how do you manage the debt?
OK, so it's fucking expensive to reproduce...so...get a better job...OK, that means going to a good school and probably getting an advanced degree. Entering the workforce 4-8 years later means your childbearing is pushed back at least 6-10 years, including the debt you've incurred. Each year you delay, your probability of reproducing goes down AND the probable number of kids you'll have goes down.
Now, the killer...the fucking home. Homes are expensive everywhere there are jobs, especially in the developed world....hell, even houses in shithole towns are now expensive. So you need to save up money for a down payment to get a decent house because raising babies in a cramped apt is HELL...and procreating while living with your parents is a non-starter for most. You at least need detached walls so your neighbors don't file noise complaints while you let your baby cry it out.
If anything you said was true, remember, not everyone consumes the same culture you do. For every "feminist" there's a similar proportion of trad wives who want to start families. Not only are less people having children, which could theoretically support your hypothesis, but those who do are having less...which negates it. The economy is the most obvious answer.
Also, women don't look down on mothers FFS...unless they're young or stupid. And the stupid ones?...if it wasn't motherhood, it would be something else. They don't scorn motherhood, they're just generally rebellious. It's like the many times I've been called a "faggot" in my life. I am not homosexual...it's just the person angry at me couldn't think of a better insult. He/she was going to say something shitty to me, that's just what they could come up with.
It's the economy...always was. Give people cheaper homes and more people will start families and existing families will have more kids. Make raising the kids cheaper and you'll see more 3rd and 4th kids.
Give better supports and you'll see more 3rd, 4th, and even 5th kids...but that's really expensive. However, it's not crazy...for example, give sliding scale subsidized childcare and afterschool programs. I have 2 young children. It SUCKS having to take off work at 2pm to pick up my daughter from school (I live a city that doesn't have bus service). Picking her up at 5 or 6?...well, that's a lot more doable.
Finally you overestimate the impact of TV. Cliff Huxtable made a great fictional dad...but which do you think is a stronger influence?...watching the Huxtables on TV living the life?...or seeing your older sister or cousin start a family and their life sucking....entering the workforce in your 20s and watching your cool coworkers in their late 20s go from being awesome to be around to having kids and being zombies who suck. Anyone with eyes can see th
I think the problem isn't the surveys (Score:2)
The problem is even beyond the economy it appears that women have a limited number of children they actually want to have because it's physically demanding to have children. I don't mean the raising them although there is that there is the whole giving birth to them thing.
I don't think this is something most men think about all that much. But every year children get bigger because we have all this prenatal care and that's a good thing for the h
Re: (Score:2)
If it were just the economy, then the countries with the highest fertility rates would be places like Monaco, Luxembourg, Singapore, and Norway. In fact, no rich country (defined as a "High" human development index) is above replacement birthrates in 2025 except Israel (likely due to the high fertility rates among the Orthodox community there). Instead, the places with the highest fertility are Chad, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (birthrates of over 5 per woman). Even among middle-income cou
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
kindly fuck off
Step 1: Child Care, Step 2... (Score:2)
Child care is a good start. Now you have to rework all the messaging on family values to promote teenage pregnancy. If proper welfare and child support is setup, women are much better off having children in their natural child bearing years, rather than trying to engage in ever more advanced science and technology to extend child bearing years. Parents' ability to deal with school and kids or work and kids is at its max when they are young. Financial stability has been the primary motivator of pushing every
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If proper welfare and child support is setup, women are much better off having children in their natural child bearing years, rather than trying to engage in ever more advanced science and technology to extend child bearing years.
Historically there were none of these programs several generations ago when women were having more children on average. That Finland which has these sort of programs in place yet still sees reduced fertility rates seems to suggest that their inclusion does little to solve the problem to the extent it actually exists.
I think that it largely comes down to the simple realization that society now values women far more for their personal productivity during the period of their lives when they could raise chil
Re:Step 1: Child Care, Step 2... (Score:5, Interesting)
women are much better off having children in their natural child bearing years
This is 30 year old news. There was at least on study of women's economic status in the 1990's that found working class women who had children in their late teens were better off economically than if they had waited until their mid-20's. But that was not true for affluent women.
The researchers concluded/speculated that the difference was that women in their late teens still had their family support network in tact. Grandma just naturally stepped in to take care of the kid when needed. By their mid-20's they had been living independently for several years. Grandma no longer felt responsible for them.
The other issue was that in their late teens they had jobs with little responsibility. If they missed work to care for a sick child their employer tolerated it. But by their mid-20's they had jobs with responsibilities that employers couldn't easily replace. The example was someone working as one of many clerks in the store and being promoted to assistant manager responsible for opening. A very different scenario than having gone to college and got a law degree.
I am not sure how that relates to overall decline in children. But as women have taken on more responsibility in the working world, it seems natural that they will devote less energy to having and raising children. That becomes an even bigger issue in a world where relationships, including marriages, are often temporary. Many people, men and women, no longer have the security of a life partner to share the raising of children. Having children you see once a week is not the same as having a family. So perhaps the real issue is strengthening families, not focusing on making it easier./cheaper to have children.
Women physically shouldn't be having kids (Score:2)
This is another example of men not really knowing how ladies plumbing works. I only know because I watch entirely too many left-wing YouTube channels and they cover it all this extensively with the abortion debate here in America.
It is possible to force women to have children against their will. You don't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carrots won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
Current western culture is a dead end. Left to their own devices eventually genes would curb the memes, but with mass immigration it will never get to that point. Memes and genes are going to get replaced wholesale. Possibly with some side effects though, the new culture won't necessarily be able to maintain the current technology, mores and stability.
If AI wasn't going to replace us all, it might be worth worrying about. I think you'd need the stick to make any real change in direction, banning hormonal an
Re: (Score:2)
Ban hormonal contraception and people will switch to copper IUDs. Ban that and people will switch to condoms. Train has left the station.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd need the stick to make any real change in direction, banning hormonal anti-conception might be enough.
How repulsive. Straight from a NAZI playbook.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban contraception? How do you think a kid that is born to parents that didn't want to have kids turn out? Homicide rates have been decreasing for a reason. Compare any country's homicide rate to what it was in the 70s and 80s or before.
Re:Carrots won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what I like to call the Post-Reaganite/Thatcherite Ruin Loop, it was born in the first world and now plagues all of it, but has spread well beyond that now with many ex-2nd-world and third-world countries having entered it at this point. It goes like this:
1. Hollow out the economy by transferring hefty chunks of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the rich.
2. When people inevitably have less kids due to their good education and access to birth control combined with lack of resources to raise children (reduced in step 1), complain about it and point out that it's bad for the economy.
3. To satisfy capital's desire for unsustainably cheap labor, bring in fresh suckers from poorer countries who aren't up to date on how much shittier things became in Step 1.
4. GOTO 1
Any society with a capitalist economy will be fighting endlessly repeating battles to keep from entering this loop, and given enough time having to fight, it will eventually lose one of those battles, and that's all it takes.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberalism (what's left of it) is the core of western civilisation and it's a result of things like the plague weakening feudalism and of course good old Christianity. Relatively strict prohibitions on consanguinity, a dogma of separation of church from civil authority and a lot of sects which got sick of killing each other.
Genes and memes made Europe the core of modern civilisation. Also world wars, suicidal modern liberalism and now demographic collapse, it's a mixed bag.
Children are hard (Score:2)
I suspect people perceive raising children is hard and scary and expensive and stressful, the rewards being less tangible and easily dismissed as parental delusion.
I also think there has been an increasing infantilisation of adulthood since Gen X (people playing video games and watching Marvel movies in their forties) which makes people less willing to give up personal pastimes to take on the responsibilities of family.
Contraception, abortion, and now online porn and an apparently decreasing interest in act
Re:Children are hard (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect people perceive raising children is hard and scary and expensive and stressful
Having raised three kids to adulthood, I can say it's not just a perception. It is hard, scary, expensive and stressful. And the rewards are less tangible and can even be negative... kids have their own personalities right from birth, and you're rolling the dice as to whether or not you'll end up getting along with your kids as they become adults.
It's a bit taboo to mention this, but I think it needs to be said.
Re: (Score:2)
The rewards are tangible, just very delayed, because old age is hard too.
Money helps to an extent with the problems of old age, but kids help more and there needs to be sufficient kids to spread the load.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but you spend 18 years raising kids (often a lot more before they are fully self-sufficient) and most are only going to have a handful of years of old age frailty where they benefit from kids helping them out. Plus, there's no guarantee your kid will step up or be able to.
You really have to enjoy kids for their own sake to make it a net lifetime benefit, not for the things they may do for you at some very late date.
Re: (Score:2)
You're part right. Yes, "You really have to enjoy kids for their own sake to make it a net lifetime benefit", but that's not sufficient. In modern society it's *going* to be a net cost, and not a small one. And if you don't spend much time with them, the benefits necessarily decrease.
FWIW, it was discovered in India in the 1950's that giving a village a TV would decrease the birth rate. Alternative choices of activity are important factors.
Worldwide phenomenon (Score:3)
Fertility rates are falling everywhere [ourworldindata.org]. And I don't see a realistic way to reverse it.
Having kids is an enormous amount of work and has a huge financial impact on parents. And anywhere from 5-14% of parents regret having kids [psychologytoday.com]. For something so life-changing, those regret rates are insanely high... why would you roll the dice?
Tweaking tax codes here or giving baby bonuses there is (IMO) not going to move the needle. We're just going to have to come to terms with a shrinking world population in the next 50 years and figure out how to cope.
FWIW, I have three adult kids, but I somehow doubt any of them will have kids of their own and I can't say I blame them, given the insane cost of housing here in Canada and the shaky economic prospects.
I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
they're Finnished.
Here's what's happened. Most humans don't want a bunch of kids. It's not actually programmed into us, what's programmed into us is the desire for sex. If human nature was such that we wanted to have kids, sex would suck. It would be undesirable, wouldn't feel good at all to do it. I mean, why do you think nature made sex desirable? It feels good because nature felt we wouldn't just do it voluntarily for the sake of reproduction. The concept of reproducing itself is not compelling enough, nature had to trick us. Most prosperous countries see population collapse (it's not Europe specific .. check Japan/South Korea for example). It's also happening to the native populations of wealthy Middle Eastern countries (their population growth is entirely the result of labor import). With education and wealth, many humans have "realized" nature can't trick them into having kids. I'm not saying that's the case for everyone. But it's looking to me that a majority of humans don't want to have more than 1 or 2 kids. And there may even be a significant minority (10%) of humans that don't want any kids. Though that may be counteracted by the 5% of humans that want a bunch of kids.
Re:I guess (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but that's not a general truth, and the deduction that "such that we wanted to have kids, sex would suck" is neither justified not justifiable. Many people *do* want to have kids. Sufficiently so that they even adopt them.
Findand is an educated country (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm antinatalist, but I haven't seen evidence of most educated people being so. I'm curious if there is data to support this claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, because societies that are religious and don't over-educate girls also tend to be poor and have higher infant mortality rates, shorter lifespans, and crappier living conditions and healthcare systems.
And also, children of religious people are not necessarily religious themselves; they may have a higher likelihood than children of atheists, but it's not 100%.
Education is the reason (Score:2)
The more years women spent at school, the less children they will have, as shown here:
https://wol.iza.org/articles/f... [iza.org]
Next, be reminded that Finland has free education system (for citizens) and many women (over 20%) spend 18 years in education and at minimum they will spend around 13 years, most spending something in between. Look at the diagram again and see where this range falls into.
Re: (Score:2)
Replacement rate is probably closer to 2.7 (Score:3)
It turns out the way our population was growing was we forced women to have children whether they wanted to or not. Basically rape marrying them.
It's not terribly hard to figure out why. The woman has to squeeze those kids out. So if you look at women who have a lot of kids except for a few oddballs it's all either women who are forced to do it because they're part of some twisted religious cult or it's extraordinarily wealthy women like Romney's wife who can basically focus entirely on having the kid and then have a nanny do all the really hard work of raising them.
The physical toll of actually having and raising a lot of kids is pretty brutal. A buddy of mine wanted a third kid and the wife vetoed it because she's the one that has to squeeze them out. Anecdotal but it matches the 2.6 above.
Even when you get a woman who wants to be a clown car like my old next door neighbor she topped out at five kids before the doctor said the next one was going to kill her.
We could of course do away with modern civilization and go back to forcing women to have children against their will, using a variety of little nasty tricks to mask that we are doing that. You know like that trad wife bullshit.
The trouble is doing that's going to require breaking down the parts of civilization that give us the sort of medical system that keeps those women alive so they can squeeze out five or six kids before kid number six or seven puts them in the grave.
I don't know if it's going to matter since the billionaires aren't planning on letting us have civilization anymore anyway so it seems likely that 99% of the population is going to be driven back into squalor and pre-industrial civilization. That's where all this AI automation is about. It's about dismantling the system of capitalism that forces billionaires to depend on us filthy consumers and workers.
But assuming the billionaire plans don't pan out the way they expect then the human race is going to have to figure something out to maintain our numbers. Maybe artificial wombs? But we are a hell of a long way off from that despite a few cool sci-fi-ish articles about it.
Re: (Score:2)
And even in the most advanced economies women poll at only wanting 2.6 kids.
Most advanced economies are below this in practice, regardless of what polling says. 2.1 kids are the replacement rate. In many advanced economies the only growth is achieved through immigration. The USA is currently at 1.6
So if women want 2.6 kids (Score:2)
The point I'm making is that the actual replacement rate appears to be closer to 2.7 based on real-world numbers and the speed at which population decline is happening.
If you Google 2.7 birth rate you will find articles describing it with links to the studies about it.
The 2.7 number isn't something I pulled out of my ass it's the only thing that explains the data.
So right now the p
Would you want to bring a child into this world? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe there's reluctance to bring a child into a world that is rapidly turning into a antibiotic-resistant, climate-change, toxic-social-media, AI-ruled, hell hole.
Re: Would you want to bring a child into this worl (Score:3)
Global poverty has never been lower, war rarer, or standards of living higher than they are today at any point in human history. You are totally brainwashed.
Re: (Score:2)
Many things can be true at the same time (although measurements of standard of living show growth has been stagnant for quite some time). That doesn't make anybody brainwashed.
Universe 25 (Score:5, Interesting)
"Universe 25 was a 1960s-70s experiment by John B. Calhoun that created a "mouse utopia" with ample food, water, and nesting sites, but no predators or disease. The experiment demonstrated how an overpopulation of mice, despite a lack of material scarcity, led to a social breakdown known as the "behavioral sink". This collapse included social withdrawal, aggression, a breakdown of parental care, and a cessation of reproduction, ultimately leading to the colony's extinction." -GoogleAI created summary.
We don't want to admit it, but we're so successful and wealthy that we cannot see the value of struggle.
Or, if you want the Space version, WALL-E fat lazy human civilization.
The problem is, removing resistance makes us weaker not stronger.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting because he ran some other experiments where the population seemed to become self-sustaining rather than going insane. But human society does very much appear to be following the Universe 25 path.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't want to admit it, but we're so successful and wealthy that we cannot see the value of struggle.
I know what class you are a part of. It is clear and obvious. Defnitely a comfortable position having all of your needs met with no worries about your immediate future. Try living the life that 60% or more of your countrymen live. You will find PLENTY of struggle there... and suicide and drugs and prostitution and ... oh yeah, that stuff doesn't exist. Most people don't need to struggle at all. *blink* *blink*
Stop calling it "fertility" (Score:5, Insightful)
Fertility is the ability to conceive children. People may be very fertile, but may abstain from sex entirely and so never have kids. Others may fuck like rabbits and not use contraception, yet never conceive because they're infertile.
I think this is an important distinction. In the stories I've come across lately about the "infertility" problem, I haven's seen any mention of systematic fertility testing. It's possible that a significant portion of decreased birthrates is because of overall lower sperm and/or egg viability. The first possible cause that comes to mind is micro-plastics, although of course there are others.
This is a good thing (Score:2)
Endless growth is impossible
We need steady state sustainability
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And significantly below current levels of population.
Won't someone think of the ultra-rich? (Score:2)
Anyone remember the Voluntary Human Extinction Mov (Score:2)
Live Long and Die Out?
Maybe they watched EraserHead (Score:2)
Or read Dubliners, A Little Cloud
Challenges. Purpose. Striving. Or the lack thereof (Score:2)
Hint- the 70s (Score:2)
It is quite easy to tell the cause. The birthrates dropped precipitously starting in the late 60â(TM)s and early 70â(TM)s. Itâ(TM)s not just a coincidence that this perfectly lines up with 2nd wave feminism. Women leaving the home, delaying marriage, prioritizing career over family.
Whether you think this is a great thing or a horrible thing it matters little. Reversion to the mean is a real phenomenon and thereâ(TM)s no social engineering that will stop it. Cultures which prioritize wome
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite easy to tell the cause. The birthrates dropped precipitously starting in the late 60â(TM)s and early 70â(TM)s. Itâ(TM)s not just a coincidence that this perfectly lines up with 2nd wave feminism.
It also lines up with hormonal birth control being available.
The reason (Score:2)
I was watching I think diary of a CEO who has a guy on studying this stuff for a long time.
He said the cause is primarily women delaying having their first child or marriage.
He said we need to promote family first then career.
If a woman builds a career in her 20s, She actually becomes much more selective about men by 30, but a small pool of available men so may never partner thus much less likely to have kids.
He said statistically, the chance of a 30yr woman having any children is 50%, regardless of country
It's about who wants 4+ kids (Score:3)
I don't believe the fraction of women wanting 0,1,2 babies has changed. The number wanting 3 has declined a bit.
But it's easy to figure out that if 10% of women either don't want or cannot have children, or ("never find the right time"), and another 10% have just one child, then 3X that many have to have 3 or more kids to balance them out.
Balance always came from the several percent that had 4+ kids. That number has collapsed from several down to under 1%. In America, Mormons used to contribute a lot of 4+ child families, this vanished a generation ago:
https://religionnews.com/2019/... [religionnews.com]
So, you can't beat on women for "not having kids". Most have not changed from the number their mom and grandmom produced.
The rest have looked at a kid costs $300K over 20 years, sort of like your housing costs. And decided to raise 3 kids in a $900K house rather than 4 kids in a $600K house. That's the tradeoff.
Time for the pointy stick (Score:2)
High taxes if you dont produce at least 2 kids, with breaks if you produce 3.
I have 5 kids (Score:3)
Here are the common things couples I know who had 3 or more kids together had
1) The man either had a good job or good earning potential at a young age.
2) They started having kids at or before 25
3) They were able to get a reasonable home and were secure in it, plus the option to move.
4) They had support from family
Kids are crazy expensive. Giving a family a couple thousand extra a year to have a child is an insult.
Early career opportunities for men are terrible in all of the western world. Parental leave is only good if you already have a job. Also generous parental leave likely makes employers hesitant about hiring young people.
Housing near good employment is terrible in almost all the world. There are great jobs in New York city but you can't take the jobs because there is no where to live. Young people don't need a lot of money but they need security to start building a family. Knowing that they can always have a place to live and that they have the option to move if there are other opportunities is important. Make houses and apartments a place to live not a guaranteed investment.
Family support is huge if you are the first in your friend group to have a baby. I don't think I had held a baby or played with a toddler for 15 years before I had my first child. It's always going to be scary to have a first child but when you literally haven't touched one in your adult life it is much scarier.
Re: (Score:2)
So is that why Iran has a fertility rate of 1.67 (about the same as the U.S. and France)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You know, Iran- that feminist paradise with ultra woke schools and universities.
Man-haters were never going to have kids anyway (Score:2)
So for decades schools, universities, government and the media have been teaching girls that men are the enemy, whose jobs they deserve, whose behavior they see mocked, whose hobbies are all labelled "toxic", and now we're surprised women hate men ? Stopping sexism means taking back our education system, government and media from demented, manhating, so-called "feminists".
I live in the liberal belly of the beast among many pink-haired obese genderqueer manhaters...they weren't "turned". They were broken to begin with and use men as an excuse. Any woman who uses the work feminist far too often in conversation is using men as an excuse. I know these women. I am around them. I have many women in my life whose identity revolves around feminism. They have many issues in their life more fundamental than the patriarchy. In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard "patriar
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you're saying that ethnically diverse workplaces are killing dating because they produce more ethnically diverse societies while most people's dicks/pussies are racist and would prefer to live in a racially homogeneous ethnostate, am I understanding you correctly?