Comment on if the total fertility rate drops and stays below global replacement rate, will humans disappear?
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
If it stays there forever, yes.
It won’t though, as there become fewer humans it’s likely it will become easier to have more children again (fewer people for the same amount of finite resources) and the rate will increase.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Funny way to think…
Actually it is poor countries (less ressources) that have the higher birth rates.
I’d say, having children is hard work, but people in rich countries are lazy :-)
FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 3 months ago
That is a really naive and kinda braindead take on why rich nations have less kids. The more likely reasons, and more commonly accepted reasons are:
better career opportunities for women
costs of children
challenges with child care
education
access to contraceptives
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
I like how we phrase this as “better education” and “better career opportunities for women”. While technically true relative to poor countries, these explain nothing about why fertility rates are so low. But they are related, but framing them differently will help us understand.
Why do people have fewer kids? Because economic life in most developed countries is relatively unstable, and to ensure economic stability, we require people to develop years of education and work experience to receive a comfortable salary. In many places we now require two such incomes. This mean women really don’t have a choice but to pursue advanced education and work, whether they want to or not. And we are not willing to accommodate children during education or work. This means women (and increasingly men too) are severely penalized economically for having children, and so of course people will have far fewer on average.
If you look at the very wealthy,
In developing countries, children often mean free labor and form the basis of your retirement through elder care, so while the economic conditions are of course worse overall, the opposite incentives exist.
The_v@lemmy.world 3 months ago
In poorer countries, the investment into each child is minimal. By the time they were 8 or 9 years old they were expected to contribute to the family. Higher child mortality rates also plays into this, as most families lose a few kids to disease etc. Children are seen as a commodity that they control to make the parents/grandparents lives better.
In industrialized societies the amount of resources dedicated to each child is more than the the resources dedicated to 5 or 6 families in poorer countries. Children are dependent on their parents well into adulthood. As the cost to raise the kids increase the average family size decreases because of limited resources.
FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 3 months ago
Yea I completely agree with everything you said. Life in rich countries doesn’t mean that everyone is rich and lazy and fat. I mean just look at the US. So many people live in poverty and literally cannot afford kids.
abbadon420@lemm.ee 3 months ago
The retirement plan goes for rich countries too. But different. With elder care going the way it’s going, you’d be happy to get someone to help you shower once per month. Children can help you with a lot once you’re old and fragile.
redisdead@lemmy.world 3 months ago
People from poor countries that move into wealthy countries adopt the birth rate almost immediately.
It isn’t about laziness, it’s about education and wealth.
shrugs@lemmy.world 3 months ago
You are contradicting yourself. By moving into a wealthy country you neither gain education nor wealth. Its about culture and environment.
My guess is: in wealthy countries people are living more isolated. Without help from friends and family you have to invest a huge amount oft time into rising a child, which many can’t afford.
redisdead@lemmy.world 3 months ago
By moving to a wealthy country, you do gain education and wealth, wtf are you talking about.
People don’t move to a country to stay poor and uneducated. They immediately send their kids to school and they immediately benefit from better employment.
There’s been enough studies about it. Birthrate is absolutely linked to wealth. It’s universal.
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
You’re thinking about the resources wrong. I mostly mean land availability.
Even in first world countries the birth rates are higher outside cities than inside. In undeveloped counties the birthdates are lower in crowded cities.
MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Huh, I guess that will mean that humans will perpetually be moving to “the big city” from the countryside. I guess romcoms won’t ever have to change their story line.