Population collapse (general non-political... if possible)

[November]

Problem or not?
Does it worry you or will you be dead by the time it matters?
What's your theory on what caused it? The collapse of gender roles? Hormones in the water? Demons?

Personally, I'm all for robots in medicine and aged care. So the sooner that happens, the better for everyone. But in terms of economy, I dont know enough to be concerned.

 

[nightshade]

I was reading about this the other day too, a fertility crisis it was being called.

I think it's a mixture of things, financial being a big one, housing and raising a child is more expensive, but also contraception is easier and cheaper, so less big families. I think also there's less of a support network, less of the community to raise a child in. People are more individualistic these days.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

A lot of studies have shown that the concentration of testosterone in men is at about 40% of the level it was in 1980, due largely to the presence of bisphenol A and phthalates in the water supply. Estrogen is pumped into a lot of meat products and it is not destroyed in cooking. A lot of young guys see women as nothing but trouble and whereas sexual urges used to overpower this feeling, now guys would rather play video games. There are a number of dating sites (some run by women like Emily King and Courtney Ryan) that show men how to cope with the inevitable games and tests inflicted on men by women and men are becoming more wary. Having been in the Latin dance circuit for a while, I consider about half of the women I meet as undateable - simply too much trouble and too many wrong attitudes to be worth bothering with.

The cost of living has been cited as a reason for reduced population but that didn't stop people during the Great Depression. Maybe the combination of birth control and relative poverty in this generation has finally caused population decline. The average woman is now single and childless by the age of 30, something that has never happened before.

The standard of living in the US peaked in 1967. It may have been the "Summer of Love", but it was also the end of the era where one man could support a wife and family of three with a blue-collar job and afford to buy a house and a car every few years. The blue-collar jobs have been offshored to foreign countries and the middle class is vanishing.

The political effects are being felt in countries where population limits were imposed either by government decree like China or by selective abortion like India (where male children were preferred). Fewer young people are available to pay the taxes required to support old-age pensions and this is crushing the economies of these countries.

The planet could support up to 10 billion people if they all cooperated and spread the wealth out equitably but we know that the rich/poor divide will always be with us, so the current 8 billion should be seen as being as high as the population should go.

 

[Cohen]

Personally, I think it's a good thing there is a population decline. There are so many humans that it is going to become unsustainable. 10 billion might be the breaking point number, but we are seeing the ramifications.

I also love that this article makes it like it is the youth's job to take care of the *retired* elderly.

First, in America--the elderly have paid into either Social Security AND/OR a retirement account during their careers. They're using money they have already banked to survive, not money from young people. (this is a very basic statement, and I know there are nuances to finance). I realize healthcare in the US is an entirely different ballgame compared to most well-developed nations, but overall, the elderly have earned their retirement, and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the youth to take care of the elderly.

Second, I agree that it has become almost unsustainable to have a family in this society. Especially American society. Even in rural areas, people are waiting until mid-late thirties to begin having families, because they simply don't have the means to pay the enormous rent and bills expenses AND have a family. Even with the tax incentives. And the ones having babies are primarily living off government benefits.

When you graduate college hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and then only get an annual salary of 30-50k in THIS economy, it's nearly impossible to take care of children.

But also, I love that this apparently is a concern, but school populations have increased exponentially in the past decade. So I'm unsure how we're at risk of depopulation, but our population is in fact increasing? Make it make sense.

 

[nightshade]

But also, I love that this apparently is a concern, but school populations have increased exponentially in the past decade. So I'm unsure how we're at risk of depopulation, but our population is in fact increasing? Make it make sense.

Is it birth rate vs migration? So there's less people born in a certain country but more people immigrating to it as a family.

I think the young taking care of the old is more workforce based, people working in healthcare roles etc

 

[Cohen]

Interesting. I did a birth rate inquiry with major well-developed countries, and all across the board, there's been a steady decline since 1960, but especially since 1990. This makes me think that Gen X and Millenials began a trend of not having families at a young age. I think it also shows the progress since 1990 technologically and how that's played a role in careers vs family.

I then did a death rate per capita, and it's been steadily increasing since 2000 for the same countries. But, of course, most significantly in 2020-2021.

I think the young taking care of the old is more workforce based, people working in healthcare roles etc

Oh that makes sense. We will have AI take care of us in the future though. 😂 😉

 

[thrasherpix]

There was a time that even extended family counted for something, and a lot (including homes) was passed down generation to generation. Even I have an extended family safety net (though I'm loathed to use it).

That can get people more willing--and able--to raise children then the hyper-individualism where too many of us are dependent on corporations or government for even basic services or opportunities. These days, the extended family is mostly gone, and I think that's bad for many reasons (and I'm just counting the pragmatic reasons rather than any moral or ethical ones).

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Basically, birth rates collapsed in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, and this is just a cascade effect. It is a serious issue, for a number of reasons, but it's a very sensitive issue, and it's hard to discuss rationally.

 

[Stake fodder]

I've always been baffled by the belief on the part of governments, economists, etc. that we must have an ever-enlarging base of the population pyramid in order to sustain our society. It has been obvious for a long time that that was eventually going to be unsustainable.

I don't know the answers to how the economy can continue to grow with a declining population, but surely our most brilliant economists could be brought together to think of some ways. Our greatest tech minds could work on robotics to help care for the elderly and do menial jobs that there aren't enough young people to take. There are a lot of things we could be doing, but instead the governments and other entities concerned about decline just keep pressuring young people to have children they can't afford and don't want.

So in short, what concerns me is the unwillingness to search for solutions to cope with population decline, not the decline itself, which I think would be better for the planet and quality of life.

school populations have increased exponentially in the past decade.

Ours are declining sharply where I live, despite immigration.

 

[nightshade]

I think it's interesting to look at the difference between generations.

Both of my grandmothers had a big family, one had 7 kids, the other 11. But go down a generation, the average number of my parents generation is 3, however a lot of them had 2 initially and then after divorce had another one or two. There's more age gap children. Then in my generation, there's the ones that had them young and the ones that had them later, however the majority of my cousins do have children, but I'd say the average is 2 children.

 

[November]

I think it's interesting to look at the difference between generations.

Both of my grandmothers had a big family, one had 7 kids, the other 11. But go down a generation, the average number of my parents generation is 3, however a lot of them had 2 initially and then after divorce had another one or two. There's more age gap children. Then in my generation, there's the ones that had them young and the ones that had them later, however the majority of my cousins do have children, but I'd say the average is 2 children.

Yes this is a good point. The change in family dynamics is under appreciated. The middle kids are becoming extinct. Eldest children might not choose to have children because they raised their siblings (this is true in my family lol). Only/single children have a very, very different upbringing and many will get more of a leg up in the world. What we thought of as sibling rivalry and banter is branded as unacceptable bullying in a world of kids without brothers and sisters. People with siblings may have more secure family ties once the parents pass on.

the hyper-individualism where too many of us are dependent on corporations or government for even basic services or opportunities

Watching this is real time in Australia. Boarders on politics talk, but its definitely happening here. The world has changed so much, used to be able to get an uncle to fix the car, or an aunt to watch the kids. Now you have to go to a mechanic with the right computers and send kids to qualified childcare centres. Its squashed the importance of community and family ties. In a small town, everyone is someone's cousin, but this is gone in the cities.

So in short, what concerns me is the unwillingness to search for solutions to cope with population decline, not the decline itself, which I think would be better for the planet and quality of life.

Exactly! Humans are very adaptable. We can adapt to a shrinking population. That makes way more sense than begging everyone to breed more.

 

[NotASlayer]

In ye olden times, people would have children in larger numbers than now for a few reasons as well. Infant mortality would reduce the number who would survive to adulthood; if you only had two then there was a good chance you might end up with none. Queen Anne, in a rather horrendous example, was pregnant 17 times and outlived them all; only five were live births, though.

Children also used to be an asset. They would be extra hands that could help bring in money, rather than extra mouths that cost money until they finally leave home. They would also care for their parents in their dotage and now pensions and the state are intended to do that.

Smaller families are more common because in many cases children cost too much. Enough that so much time needs to be spent working to get the money to afford the children that people need to pay someone to actually care for them.

 

[November]

Do we think TV and internet has anything to do with it?
People used to have to go out for entertainment. Or make their own fun in the dark at home.
Now we all have our own personal entertainment devices, we dont necessarily have to go out to socialise. We dont have to produce our own entertainment and company when we have access to so much at a touch.

 

[NotASlayer]

Well, there has apparently long been a link between a rise in births nine months down the line and power cuts...

 

[ILLYRIAN]

Population Collapse, good.
When robotics began to be used to build (less people were needed and when computerisation forced less people to
replace the hundreds of women typing a vast reduction in the number of people the world could have survived with fewer
than the 2M at the time but the stupid politicians wanted more and more people. Without the rise in population the world
would not be faced with climate control, greenhouse gases, etc:

 

[Stake fodder]

Do we think TV and internet has anything to do with it?

I don't think so, especially considering that "Netflix and chill" has become a euphemism for getting frisky on the couch! 😉

I remember reading an article a long time ago about how some countries reach a tipping point, where the more young couples don't have children, the more who is don't see it as an automatic and expected step. The only country I can recall them mentioning as having reached this point at the time was Austria, but no doubt others have joined it since then.

What about lockdown babies?

They expected there would be a baby bump as a result of the Covid lockdown in the US, but the opposite happened.

 

[NotASlayer]

Regarding lockdown, I think there is a difference between people being in a house in the dark in a power cut with not much you can do when you are so used to technology, and being trapped in a house with someone for weeks when you still have access to tech.

I don't think so, especially considering that "Netflix and chill" has become a euphemism for getting frisky on the couch! 😉

I did not know that!

 

[TheMaster666]

Pretty sure it's the opposite problem. We have problems of overpopulation. Too many people chasing over the same limited resources. It's why housing markets keep skyrocketing and show no signs of stopping despite efforts to increase supply. There's just too much demand. Higher education has the same problem.

Illegal immigration factors into this as well. It's all fine and nice to support immigration on principle, but in practice certain numbers are just unsustainable and the cities don't have the infrastructure to deal with it.

 

[nightshade]

I wonder what difference, IVF, sperm donation, surrogacy etc has made to the population.

On the other hand, people don't stay together like they used to in my grandparents generation. I would hope that the trend of having a baby to keep a couple together has stopped?

 

[Ethan Reigns]

The friend of mine who got me into the Latin dance circuit was complaining that a lot of women simply regard a man as their personal ATM machine and have little interest in the man himself. My own girlfriend is the opposite and she didn't believe the situation was as bad as all that. I had been to a Monday night Miss Bachata dance and asked a girl to dance and she said, "How much money do you have?"

I said, "Plenty - but none of it is going to you."

She said, "Well, I won't dance with you then."

Damn right she won't dance with me. I won't allow it.

We were at the outdoor dance at Lakefront Promenade one night beside this guy when a girl approached the same friend and said "How much money do you have?" My girlfriend and I both burst out laughing. My friend had said that he knew some Polish, Ukrainian and Russian women who won't give you a second look until you buy them a house and a Mercedes. Sad to say, he is right. My girlfriend finally believed what we had been saying. She is most definitely not a moneygrubber and everyone regards us as the greatest success story on the Latin dance group.

You couldn't make this stuff up.