ADVERTISEMENT

Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications

This is the result of a global desire for wealth and misplaced priorities. And hey, I’m guilty too. We’ve been led to believe that success is defined in our job, income, and possessions. We’ve minimized the value of family and prioritized careers. We send our kids to be watched, educated, and essentially raised by daycares and teachers. We leave the family for 40-60 hours per week so that we can focus on work. We delay having kids so that we can get financially secure and established in our careers. I had my first kid at 32.

It took me too long to realize it but I wish I hadn’t chased the dollar and career. I would have desired a more simpler lifestyle, perhaps homesteading, and focused more on TIME with my family. My time was and is spent on my career. I see my kids for a few hours on the evenings and weekends.

Throw in both working parents who are career oriented and you can see how this problem gets worse. Earn enough to pay others to watch your kids, etc.

Our priorities are all out of whack.
 
I didn't say poverty, I said insecurity. You want call it priorities or lifestyle that's fine. just don't ascribe it to Hoosier's idea that the whole world has gone liberal and hates families.... but that seems stupid.

Divorces have skyrocketed thanks to liberal social policies. Children being raised by single parents have also skyrocketed due to those same policies.

If you are suggesting that this country as a whole is pro-family. . . I would say that the statistics show otherwise.
 
Gilead is inevitable.

emmy-snubs-2020-elisabeth-moss-handmaids-tale.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: noleclone2
Divorces have skyrocketed thanks to liberal social policies. Children being raised by single parents have also skyrocketed due to those same policies.

If you are suggesting that this country as a whole is pro-family. . . I would say that the statistics show otherwise.
Read the studies - the phenomenon is global - even in China. You can stop blaming liberals.
 
Anecdotally, our teenagers are telling us that they never want kids and neither do any of their friends. The popular conception in their age range is that daycare is too expensive for anyone to reasonably handle.
Hence why you need to make enough $$ so a spouse can stay home if he/she desires during those first 5 years.
 
Read the studies - the phenomenon is global - even in China. You can stop blaming liberals.
I agree. Divorce isn't due to liberalism. There's probably no singular cause either, but it's pretty safe to say people aren't as determined to work through things since the grass is greener on the other side.
 
What's the problem? This is what the lefties have been agitating for for years.
Taxes and social security are dependent on the young paying into the system. Hopefully this can be offset by increased automation which will bring the cost of goods down. But it is a problem that will have to be dealt with at some point. Probably won't be my kids problem or even their kids problem. Also, if we extend the working lifespan of humans, this could offset decreased birthrates. When I say working lifespan, I mean not just making humans live longer, but live younger longer. So people who are 80 have the body of a 40 year old. If they can't do that then I'm not really interested in living to 150. I'd like to be aware of my surroundings when I am old.
 
I don't disagree with that. However I would also point out that nations which provide a great deal of assistance to parents are also having problems getting people to reproduce.

There is an economic problem here. . . but there is also a cultural problem. We have under valued things like family and often treated them as secondary concerns.

Yeah, I don't think it is just economic considerations driving this. There is a cultural shift. (now you argue economic conditions feed into this, but like Indiana mentions, this is an issue all across the west, even for countries with greater safety nets)

I don't really think it's that different than the 50s. It's just that now popular opinion has swung pretty hard towards being childless or considering being childless.

People don't know how to live, what a satisfying life might be. I think we used to push family-for-everybody as the model for a good life too hard, and that alienated some people. We got the 60s. Fair enough. We've become much more liberal, much more write-your-own-story. More individual freedom, which in and of itself, is fine.

The problem is what people do with it.

It's not clear that leading a child-free life with pets as a fill is going to lead to greater human fulfillment. (which is, BTW, what people find most meaningful -- not the fleeting happiness)

That's what's interesting to me here. Maybe if you don't have enough conservative pressure to adhere to tradition, to precedence, people on average don't live as good a life. And that's because it's hard to figure out what the hell that is, a good life. Traditional at least is a proven thing, a formula. It's going to produce X amount of satisfaction consistently.

So it's a really interesting experiment playing out. We'll see.
 
The DMR had a front page article about the sagging birth rate in Iowa. Kimmie and the GOP patted themselves on the great victory of not losing a House seat after the initial numbers from the census were released. The facts are that deaths are outpacing births in the majority of counties. The jokes on them. The “growth”, areas are being fueled by Latino births.
 
Maybe we'll get some breathing room after all. :)

--------------------------

All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.

Maternity wards are already shutting down in Italy. Ghost cities are appearing in northeastern China. Universities in South Korea cannot find enough students, and in Germany, hundreds of thousands of properties have been razed, with the land turned into parks.

Like an avalanche, the demographic forces — pushing toward more deaths than births — seem to be expanding and accelerating. Although some countries continue to see their populations grow, especially in Africa, fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere else. Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time.

A planet with fewer people could ease pressure on resources, slow the destructive impact of climate change and reduce household burdens for women. But the census announcements this month from China and the United States, which showed the slowest rates of population growth in decades for both countries, also point to hard-to-fathom adjustments.

The strain of longer lives and low fertility, leading to fewer workers and more retirees, threatens to upend how societies are organized — around the notion that a surplus of young people will drive economies and help pay for the old. It may also require a reconceptualization of family and nation. Imagine entire regions where everyone is 70 or older. Imagine governments laying out huge bonuses for immigrants and mothers with lots of children. Imagine a gig economy filled with grandparents and Super Bowl ads promoting procreation.

“A paradigm shift is necessary,” said Frank Swiaczny, a German demographer who was the chief of population trends and analysis for the United Nations until last year. “Countries need to learn to live with and adapt to decline.”

The ramifications and responses have already begun to appear, especially in East Asia and Europe. From Hungary to China, from Sweden to Japan, governments are struggling to balance the demands of a swelling older cohort with the needs of young people whose most intimate decisions about childbearing are being shaped by factors both positive (more work opportunities for women) and negative (gender inequality and high living costs).

The 20th century presented a very different challenge. The global population saw its greatest increase in known history, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000, as life spans lengthened and infant mortality declined. In some countries — representing about one-third of the world’s people — those growth dynamics are still in play. By the end of the century, Nigeria could surpass China in population; across sub-Saharan Africa, families are still having four or five children.

But nearly everywhere else, the era of high fertility is ending. As women have gained more access to education and contraception and as the anxieties associated with having children intensify, more parents are delaying pregnancy, and fewer babies are being born. Even in countries long associated with rapid growth, such as India and Mexico, birthrates are falling toward or are already below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per family.

The change may take decades, but once it starts, decline (just like growth) spirals exponentially. With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did — which is happening in dozens of countries — the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff.

“It becomes a cyclical mechanism,” said Stuart Gietel Basten, an expert on Asian demographics and a professor of social science and public policy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “It’s demographic momentum.”

Some countries, like the United States, Australia and Canada, where birthrates hover between 1.5 and 2, have blunted the impact with immigrants. But in Eastern Europe, migration from the region has compounded depopulation, and in parts of Asia, the “demographic time bomb” that first became a subject of debate a few decades ago has finally gone off.

South Korea’s fertility rate dropped to a record low of 0.92 in 2019 — less than one child per woman, the lowest rate in the developed world. Every month for the past 59 months, the total number of babies born in the country has dropped to a record depth.

That declining birthrate, coupled with a rapid industrialization that has pushed people from rural towns to big cities, has created what can feel like a two-tiered society. While major metropolises like Seoul continue to grow, putting intense pressure on infrastructure and housing, in regional towns it is easy to find schools shut and abandoned, their playgrounds overgrown with weeds, because there are not enough children.

Expectant mothers in many areas can no longer find obstetricians or postnatal care centers. Universities below the elite level, especially outside Seoul, find it increasingly hard to fill their ranks; the number of 18-year-olds in South Korea has fallen from about 900,000 in 1992 to 500,000 today. To attract students, some schools have even offered iPhones.
FINALLY!

The truth comes out.

SARS-CoV-2 was engineered and released to reduce human fertility globally.

The reign of homo sapiens nears its end.

Next up? Meerkats.

Interesting that God gave dinosaurs 100 times longer before pulling the plug.
 
Divorces have skyrocketed thanks to liberal social policies. Children being raised by single parents have also skyrocketed due to those same policies.

If you are suggesting that this country as a whole is pro-family. . . I would say that the statistics show otherwise.
FTR, educating women is not a "liberal social policy" (or maybe it is) but it has given women a different lens through which to view the world.
 
FTR, educating women is not a "liberal social policy" (or maybe it is) but it has given women a different lens through which to view the world.

Educating women is not what has caused divorces and single parenthood to skyrocket. Educated women are generally speaking less likely to be single parents and more likely to stay married. If anything education of both spouses is actually a positive thing when it comes to marriage.

Easy divorce policies are what has caused this. No fault divorce is what has caused this.
 
Yeah, I don't think it is just economic considerations driving this. There is a cultural shift. (now you argue economic conditions feed into this, but like Indiana mentions, this is an issue all across the west, even for countries with greater safety nets)

I don't really think it's that different than the 50s. It's just that now popular opinion has swung pretty hard towards being childless or considering being childless.

People don't know how to live, what a satisfying life might be. I think we used to push family-for-everybody as the model for a good life too hard, and that alienated some people. We got the 60s. Fair enough. We've become much more liberal, much more write-your-own-story. More individual freedom, which in and of itself, is fine.

The problem is what people do with it.

It's not clear that leading a child-free life with pets as a fill is going to lead to greater human fulfillment. (which is, BTW, what people find most meaningful -- not the fleeting happiness)

That's what's interesting to me here. Maybe if you don't have enough conservative pressure to adhere to tradition, to precedence, people on average don't live as good a life. And that's because it's hard to figure out what the hell that is, a good life. Traditional at least is a proven thing, a formula. It's going to produce X amount of satisfaction consistently.

So it's a really interesting experiment playing out. We'll see.

Agree with most of what you said, although I think the problem isn't that we maybe pushed family life too hard. I think the problem is that we engaged all sorts of liberal social policies which created easy divorce and single parenthood.

And what that has created is a large portion of my generation and the generation before mine doesn't view family as having any value or meaning. They don't view it as a permanent fixture in a person's life. Their parents got themselves an easy divorce, they grew up in a broken home, and so they don't view it as having all that much value. To them marriage is just dating with a piece of paper.
 
On top of everything else, men's sperm counts in the U.S. are tanking; it's thought they've dropped 50% in the last fifty years, with the sperm also showing increased rates of poor motility. Already 10% of chuldren in the U.S. are conceived with medical help, and it's thought by 2050 that's going to be much, much more common (admittedly a lot of the latter is probably also due to later-life conceptions). It's suspected a couple of ingredients in plastic may be causing the decrease in sperm, as well as generally unhealthy life-styles. I firmly believe that all the chemicals, prescription drugs, and plastics we are polluting the world with will begin to come calling. I think I see the future... and it sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
Educating women is not what has caused divorces and single parenthood to skyrocket. Educated women are generally speaking less likely to be single parents and more likely to stay married. If anything education of both spouses is actually a positive thing when it comes to marriage.

Easy divorce policies are what has caused this. No fault divorce is what has caused this.
Lol...you should take a knee on this one. My father hit my mom and my older brother. He cheated on my mom. He was a raging alcoholic. And my mother was stuck with him and the six kids. She passed on college despite being her class salutorian to get married and have a family - that's what women did. Followed my father halfway across the country so he could go to college after WWII. She was trapped.

The evidence is crystal clear...give women choices and opportunities to be something other than "mom" to a brood and they take it. When women start gaining greater access to education in Africa, the fertility rate there will plummet just like it has everywhere else.

On a positive note, my dad stopped drinking in his later years and became the model grandfather.
 
Lol...you should take a knee on this one. My father hit my mom and my older brother. He cheated on my mom. He was a raging alcoholic. And my mother was stuck with him and the six kids. She passed on college despite being her class salutorian to get married and have a family - that's what women did. Followed my father halfway across the country so he could go to college after WWII. She was trapped.

The evidence is crystal clear...give women choices and opportunities to be something other than "mom" to a brood and they take it. When women start gaining greater access to education in Africa, the fertility rate there will plummet just like it has everywhere else.

On a positive note, my dad stopped drinking in his later years and became the model grandfather.

Divorces for reasons of adultery and cruelty were always legal. Your mom did have options, she just passed on them.
 
Divorces for reasons of adultery and cruelty were always legal. Your mom did have options, she just passed on them.
You have no f'n idea what you're talking about. A single woman in the 60's with six kids? Pray tell...what might those "options" have been?
 
You have no f'n idea what you're talking about. A single woman in the 60's with six kids? Pray tell...what might those "options" have been?

Welfare and food stamps exist. Not saying it would have been easy, quite frankly there should probably be more support for families broken by adultery or cruelty. Quite frankly I believe that because he was the person who caused the break in the marriage she should have received the vast majority of the assets.
 
Welfare and food stamps exist. Not saying it would have been easy, quite frankly there should probably be more support for families broken by adultery or cruelty. Quite frankly I believe that because he was the person who caused the break in the marriage she should have received the vast majority of the assets.
LOL...you REALLY should have sat this one out.
 
I'm ok with a 1.5 to 2 billion populated earth as opposed to a 32 billion one.

 
I suspect that America will have an answer for that problem, if it is a problem. I think a country's productivity and GNP is a much better measure of its health than population growth. I think the only reason we fear a declining population is because we have never experienced it. Family life will be much different, I agree. But I also think human nature is a more powerful force than we give it credit for. We have likely seen the last of the Norman Rockwell era in America for the foreseeable future, I doubt we see smaller families turning their backs on each other simply because they are a smaller unit.
I think the family unit will be more “variable”.
 
Continued:


To goose the birthrate, the government has handed out baby bonuses. It increased child allowances and medical subsidies for fertility treatments and pregnancy. Health officials have showered newborns with gifts of beef, baby clothes and toys. The government is also building kindergartens and day care centers by the hundreds. In Seoul, every bus and subway car has pink seats reserved for pregnant women.

But this month, Deputy Prime Minister Hong Nam-ki acknowledged that the government — which has spent more than $178 billion over the past 15 years encouraging women to have more babies — was not making enough progress. In many families, the shift feels cultural and permanent.

“My grandparents had six children, and my parents five, because their generations believed in having multiple children,” said Kim Mi-kyung, 38, a stay-at-home parent. “I have only one child. To my and younger generations, all things considered, it just doesn’t pay to have many children.”

Thousands of miles away, in Italy, the sentiment is similar, with a different backdrop.

In Capracotta, a small town in southern Italy, a sign in red letters on an 18th-century stone building looking onto the Apennine Mountains reads “Home of School Kindergarten” — but today, the building is a nursing home.

Residents eat their evening broth on waxed tablecloths in the old theater room.

“There were so many families, so many children,” said Concetta D’Andrea, 93, who was a student and a teacher at the school and is now a resident of the nursing home. “Now there is no one.”

The population in Capracotta has dramatically aged and contracted — from about 5,000 people to 800. The town’s carpentry shops have shut down. The organizers of a soccer tournament struggled to form even one team.

About a half-hour away, in the town of Agnone, the maternity ward closed a decade ago because it had fewer than 500 births a year, the national minimum to stay open. This year, six babies were born in Agnone.

“Once, you could hear the babies in the nursery cry, and it was like music,” said Enrica Sciullo, a nurse who used to help with births there and now mostly takes care of older patients. “Now there is silence and a feeling of emptiness.”

In a speech this month during a conference on Italy’s birthrate crisis, Pope Francis said the “demographic winter” was still “cold and dark.”

More people in more countries may soon be searching for their own metaphors. Birth projections often shift based on how governments and families respond, but according to projections by an international team of scientists published last year in The Lancet, 183 countries and territories — out of 195 — will have fertility rates below replacement level by 2100.

Their model shows an especially sharp decline for China, with its population expected to fall from 1.41 billion now to about 730 million in 2100. If that happens, the population pyramid would essentially flip. Instead of a base of young workers supporting a narrower band of retirees, China would have as many 85-year-olds as 18-year-olds.

China’s rust belt, in the northeast, saw its population drop by 1.2% in the past decade, according to census figures released Tuesday. In 2016, Heilongjiang province became the first in the country to have its pension system run out of money. In Hegang, a “ghost city” in the province that has lost almost 10% of its population since 2010, homes cost so little that people compare them to cabbage.

Many countries are beginning to accept the need to adapt, not just resist. South Korea is pushing for universities to merge. In Japan, where adult diapers now outsell ones for babies, municipalities have been consolidated as towns age and shrink. In Sweden, some cities have shifted resources from schools to elder care. And almost everywhere, older people are being asked to keep working. Germany, which previously raised its retirement age to 67, is now considering a bump to 69.

Going further than many other nations, Germany has also worked through a program of urban contraction: Demolitions have removed around 330,000 units from the housing stock since 2002.

And if the goal is revival, a few green shoots can be found. After expanding access to affordable child care and paid parental leave, Germany’s fertility rate recently increased to 1.54, up from 1.3 in 2006. Leipzig, which once was shrinking, is now growing again after reducing its housing stock and making itself more attractive with its smaller scale.

“Growth is a challenge, as is decline,” said Swiaczny, who is now a senior research fellow at the Federal Institute for Population Research in Germany.

Demographers warn against seeing population decline as simply a cause for alarm. Many women are having fewer children because that is what they want. Smaller populations could lead to higher wages, more equal societies, lower carbon emissions and a higher quality of life for the smaller numbers of children who are born.

But, said Gietel Basten, quoting Casanova, “There is no such thing as destiny. We ourselves shape our lives.”

The challenges ahead are still a cul-de-sac; no country with a serious slowdown in population growth has managed to increase its fertility rate much beyond the minor uptick that Germany accomplished. There is little sign of wage growth in shrinking countries, and there is no guarantee that a smaller population means less stress on the environment.

Many demographers argue that the current moment may look to future historians like a period of transition or gestation, when humans either did or did not figure out how to make the world more hospitable — enough for people to build the families that they want.

Surveys in many countries show that young people would like to be having more children but face too many obstacles.

Anna Parolini tells a common story. She left her small hometown in northern Italy to find better job opportunities. Now 37, she lives with her boyfriend in Milan and has put her desire to have children on hold.

She is afraid her salary of less than 2,000 euros a month would not be enough for a family, and her parents still live where she grew up.

“I don’t have anyone here who could help me,” she said. “Thinking of having a child now would make me gasp.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2021 The New York Times Company
Yeah the population is really dropping off.

2019-Revision-–-World-Population-Growth-1700-2100.png
 
Last edited:
On top of everything else, men's sperm counts in the U.S. are tanking; it's thought they've dropped 50% in the last fifty years, with the sperm also showing increased rates of poor motility. Already 10% of chuldren in the U.S. are conceived with medical help, and it's thought by 2050 that's going to be much, much more common (admittedly a lot of the latter is probably also due to later-life conceptions). It's suspected a couple of ingredients in plastic may be causing the decrease in sperm, as well as generally unhealthy life-styles. I firmly believe that all the chemicals, prescription drugs, and plastics we are polluting the world with will begin to come calling. I think I see the future... and it sucks.
Fatty/salty/sugar laden processed foods... Decreased physical activity. There is something behind this.
 
Fatty/salty/sugar laden processed foods... Decreased physical activity. There is something behind this.
Kids are going through puberty earlier mainly because of this. My granddaughter started having her period at 11.
 
Kids are going through puberty earlier mainly because of this. My granddaughter started having her period at 11.
We bought organic meat (In bulk from a local farmer), and dairy for this reason. There is no telling what all those extra steroids, hormones, and antibiotics are doing to kids.
 
I agree. Divorce isn't due to liberalism. There's probably no singular cause either, but it's pretty safe to say people aren't as determined to work through things since the grass is greener on the other side.

Also it’s easier to get a divorce now. So, for starters, women in an abusive marriage aren’t stuck in it. I have to assume it used to be a lot of unhappy people stayed in marriages because it was too hard to get out of it. Easing divorce made it inevitable we’d see more - but that isn’t necessarily bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alaskanseminole
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT