We had a population explosion during the last 200 years that’s only just starting to taper off. I was taught about it in school 30 years ago, except back then it was called a “demographic transition” and it was hailed as a sign of a country becoming economically prosperous. The “fertility crisis” is a moral panic manufactured by neoliberal capitalists.
That population explosion was enabled by a vast cheap energy bonanza called fossil fuels. Now that they are running out and getting more expensive and lower quality, everything is getting more expensive because fossil fuels are the basis of everything.
Things are expensive. That’s all there is to it.
Oh, and it’s a permanent situation. Renewables can’t replace fossil fuels, if they could, why didn’t we have 8 billion people a thousand years ago when we had all the solar, wind, and renewable energy we have now?
Space won’t save us either. It’s going to get uglier.
Ah yes, 1000 year old civilizations, famous for having modern high efficiency photovoltaics.
why didn’t we have 8 billion people a thousand years ago when we had all the solar, wind, and renewable energy we have now?
Because…power delivery and storage is also a thing? Like, electricity, and batteries? Which make renewable energy way more accessible. Ever heard of electric cars?
While cheap energy certainly played a huge role, medicine and other technology play an equal part.
They also kinda had fossil fuels back then, oil could be found on the surface. Why didn’t have the Romans a billion population, when they could find oil on the surface?
It makes zero sense to say we had “all the solar, wind and renewable energy we have now”. Electricity wasn’t discovered until 500 years ago and made useful much more recently, in the early 1800s.
Sure we had windmills and watermills, but surely anyone can see that harnessing the power of the wind or water for a dedicated task is a very different proposition to generating energy that can be directed to nearly anything.
Renewables can’t replace fossil fuels everywhere they are used, but they can directly in an awful lot of cases and more cases can be adapted to use electricity rather than fossil fuel (trains going from diesel to electric, etc.)
So more to the point, what are you on about?
Things are expensive. That’s all there is to it.
We are currently experiencing the biggest wealth inequality in history and you think things are expensive just because they are expensive? Or because of fossil fuels being replaced by renewables?
There’s a new billionaire made every 30 hours.
Go find one and say thank you for being my overlord.
Solar is better than its ever been and will get more efficient as tech improves. Fossil fuels are also massively subsidized by entrenched interests
Based on news articles i see about younger generations this would also apply to:
Why arent gen _ going out to clubs/pubs anymore ?
Why are gen _ drinking less alcohol ?
Why arent gen _ going to restaurants ?
Why arent gen _ going travelling ?Where I live, it’s a thousand dollars a month to rent A ROOM. The not particularly nice one bedroom apartments closest to where I live are 1700 a month. Food has never been more expensive. How people supposed to afford kids which are notoriously expensive to have?
Economy is probably the most commonly cited reason, but the world being a shithole has to be up there somewhere.
I mean, I decided to not have kids because I don’t want to subject anyone to the existential horror that is life, and I feel no obligation to crank out miniature replicas of me.
My logic is along the same line.
I didn’t ask to be here, nobody asked if I wanted to be here. Being here, I kinda wish I was given that choice so I could say no.
Why would I force someone, who I supposedly love, to suffer through gestures at everything this? I love my potential children more than to condemn them to dealing with the children of those wealthy enough to have them.
There are some who believe that choosing to come here is like the show Severance.
You in the beforelife chose to come here for reasons unknown. You in the present life forgot all about that. And when you die, you will resume being the you of the beforelife, meaning the present you won’t get any justice.
Which is why some believe we’re on a prison planet.
I default to mindless math bubble does a chemistry. So long as there is no evidence of anything else, we’re just obliterated when we die and there’s no before or after.
But this place sure does suspiciously resemble some form of Hell.
We let the worst of us decide how life should be, it was not some natural order, cosmic inevitability, or resource scarcity, someone actively decided they can’t be happy, unless everyone else is miderable, and we believed their lies.
I’m definitely of the mind that “if hell exists, we’re already there”.
I also believe that reincarnation is possible, and if you combine those two things, and “heaven” is being able to leave this place and not come back.
I don’t know what’s actually out there. I know what I believe to be out there and I obligate nobody to agree with me on that. I also think that athiesm is a more likely factual belief versus any religion that uses a text book to dictate their thoughts; but like with many things, I believe the truth is somewhere in-between, in the unknown chasm that science is trying to fill.
My beliefs will always be that science is fact, any “faith” I have beyond that is just an educated guess at best, and when science proves something I used to believe was different than what was proven, then I am wrong and my beliefs must change accordingly.
It’s a wild world, and I’m tired of suffering it, but someone put me here and unless I take “the easy way out”, I’m stuck here for another few decades at least, barring any unforeseen circumstances.
The big breakthrough science needs is figuring out how to shut down the POV we have without making us unconscious/dead. Basically, how can one be converted into a P-zombie, and back, without causing unconsciousness or death in the process?
Or put in another way: What is the minimum amount of brain required to transfer my consciousness, and ONLY my consciousness (not including memory, language, knowing how to walk, etc), into your body?
Figure that thing out, and a lot of before and after questions become easier to solve.
We’re all just playing the Roy simulation at Blips and Chitz
“I can’t even take care of myself, but I’m going to bring a bunch of children into the world to suffer my consequences anyway.”
No, THAT shit is selfish.
Finances aside, it’s still not selfish.
My father would beg to differ. Some of the things I’ve heard: “who’s going to take care of you when you’re old”, “the
undesirableimmigrants with 5+ children will take overand ruin Europe”. He also told me I was being selfish when I was barely 18 for stating I didn’t want to have children because carrying a child for 9 months and childbirth terrify me. That shit still terrifies me to this day, on top of all the other reasons why I still don’t want to have children.Also, according to him the feelings a parent has for their child are “unexplainable”. That must be why my mom and and his mom were more a part of my childhood than he was!
Having a kid can be selfish.
I argue that both are selfish decisions, but having a kid eventually drags someone else into that didn’t consent.
I wrote a blog post about it after I got a vasectomy. I’m not an anti-natalist but I think its a point to consider.
That was a great read, thanks for sharing 💜
Proud owner of a tubal litigation here, no kids. I can’t consciously bring one into this world. Took me 15 years after I started asking for one at age 27 for insurance to give me one though. I was finally considered “old enough” to not change my mind about it. Yet another reason under the “this world” stack of reasons.
That’s a crazy time frame.
I said in September “I would like a vascectomy”
And I got one in December. Insurance covered it. No questions.
Vasectomies aren’t reversible either apparently. They took a chunk of tube out of each ball and all I had to say was “Yes I’m sure. No no one is compelling me”
The sexism of the medical field is insane to me.
Vasectomies aren’t reversible either apparently.
That doesn’t stop people from claiming that they are unfortunately
I had to convince my primary care physician for a vasectomy. At almost 40. With two kids. He was on the fence about saying yes or no (and I am a military aviator, so I don’t get to have second opinions or choose my doctor). Ultimately he gave his blessing, but it was still a “what the fuck, it’s my goddamn decision, I just need you to write the referral.”
So it happens to men as well, just not as frequently (or as condescendingly, usually).
I lucked out I think.
I got an APRN first for my referral and she told me one of two doctors will need to sign off on this and one of them is chill about young people getting vasectomies the other would want to see me personally to talk me out of it, but would still do it.
I got the chill guy. He made dick jokes mid ball snipping.
(You’re awake during a vasectomy)
Thank you, more ppl are realizing that now, I think
Can be? I don’t think it’s possible to selflessly have children.
What’s wrong with being selfish? I didn’t want kids, full-time kids are annoying and a huge responsibility. If someone doesn’t desire children, it’s very much ok to dedicate the energy and resources of raising several kids to themselves.
People are selfish, reproducing doesn’t exempt you from being selfish, people can have kids for selfish reasons too.
I admit sometimes I’ve thought it would have been cool to raise a human from zero, trying to make them a good person, and be a demigod to them on their first years because they didn’t know better; but I still think the world needs less people, not more. Since the 70s we were warned about overpopulation and the environment, and we just added another 4 billion people anyway.
Edit: thank you for the correction, kind stranger.
Keep in mind that the “selfish” bit is just the Boomers projecting. We all know they’re the most selfish generation by far, they just don’t want to admit it to themselves
1970 world pop was 3.6B. 2025 8.2B
We just added another 4.6B
Largely in the global south who will be migrating to the West en masse
What exactly do those cardinal directions mean on an oblate spheroid?
Also… the future kinda sucks.
And it isn’t looking better.
Unfortunately, the people who don’t see the issue with the future are also the most likely to have more children who will likely also not see an issue with the future.
There’s also an entire subgroup that just don’t think that far. One of my very working class friends group has 3 kids, but when asked about his thoughts on the future has said things like “the climate is fucked anyway.” Somehow it hasn’t occurred to him his children have to live in that future…
its not because I’m selfish, its because I hate people
Meanwhile these boomers have multiple houses, affordable insurance, savings…
Very few help their kids.
Meanwhile, Ukrainians are still having kids.
Westerners: “This world is too horrific!”
Ngl people that care about the number of babies being born are just weird
It’s bad for the economy in the long term. Fewer and fewer young people supporting more and more elderly people. We’re about to see the effects of this “inverted pyramid” in several Asian countries.
Yeah people do have this religious devotion of maintaining the economy even after they’re dead
If they are like 30, they know the babies today will fund their retirement, and a lack of babies means they will be screwed. At least those people I can see a concern from a rational perspective.
However it’s broadly either due to some religious fervor or tech bro narcissism (two two major pro nataliat voices, both super creepy in different ways that actually also hate each other)
Actually based on the press conference the other day birth rates are down because… Airport breastfeeding spaces need to be renovated!
Malaga airport seemed have decent spaces for feeding when I last went through
Yeah, I was referencing a press conference by some gop members in I think it was Chicago airport where one stated that we should renovate the feeding rooms to fix the birth rate.
The fact women have to hide away to feed their child is so backwards. I don’t understand why feeding a child is sexualized, largely by conservatives
I agree but I find it even more rediculous that they think women consider having children and are like… Financially, ok… Housing, ok…schools, ok… Airport feeding rooms with outdated decor, never mind I’m going back on the pill
It’s not just the money, it’s also the low value of human life and knowing the world just wants more bodies for the
meetmeat grinder.Society had always been optimistic about the long term future until recently.
Up until the early 2000s, it really did look like the future would be better. Sure, wages have been stagnant since the 80s, but it really looked like with a lot of smarts and a little luck, you could land a great job and be set.
And then job security quietly went away as well.
“meat grinder”.
meet grinder
is a different thing.
And notably distinct from Grindr meat
Meet Grindr meat!
Corporate “persons” on the other hand are thriving.
You get more of what Congress, and states subsidize through tax breaks.
JFC, people were having kids during the bubonic plague, Chinese revolts that killed millions and through two world wars. People are having kids in Ukraine and Palestine, right now.
“No! The world is too harsh!”
JFC, people were having kids during the bubonic plague, Chinese revolts that killed millions and through two world wars. People are having kids in Ukraine and Palestine, right now.
“No! The world is too harsh!”
Difference being in those examples a lack of choice. The advent of modern birth control and reliable medical care which war-torn countries lack has changed the game. When you cite populations that feared absolute collapse there is a added social swell of responsibility that isn’t present in places where there is reasonable security. We are in a period where in the US due to legislation post fall of Roe V Wade the mortality rate of pregnant people is worse than for front line police. If you are a person of color this rate jumps to being higher than the mortality rate of US soldiers. We are currently in a situation where having children is a form of enlistment rather than concription and thus people are making their choices based on personal values and how willing they are to assume growing personal risk.
80 years ago a single income did the trick but endless generations of women who allowed themselves to be homemakers have discovered that their financial security and the security of their offspring was dependent on something as fickle as their working partner’s affections. In a world where a gap in a resume is a cardinal sin it means the fallout for something they had no control over is often working low paying low weekly hour jobs. The dual income household is the norm. People who are struggling now see the added cost, work, pain, health risk and struggle and that means unless you absolutely want kids the cost in time, effort and money has a higher bar to clear. Since there are available practical means of having sexuallity which is lowkey a requirement of a lot of romantic relationships without it being reproductive it is an elective decision. The US is trying to take those choices away or force people to keep children they don’t want which has meant the response has become political. People cite political reasons : climate change, economic, environmental impacts, social deficit, lack of support in part because they are effectively protesting severe top down austerity and anti-long term public welfare attitudes.
When there is growing pressure from natalists the backlash grows and these become hard lines in the sand.
___By “we’re broke” they mean not making $400k a year.
Crazy that virtually nobody is above the 2.3 replacement rate.
That is… until you have exactly one kid and realize how much work it takes. I wonder what happens to that chart if you look at “Hours employed by household”.
Betcha the low end is underemployed and the upper end is full on leisure class.
Betcha the low end is unemployed and the upper end is full on leisure class.
Lower end have more because of limited access to contraception (which costs money) among other things. But yeah, the whole “being broke” excuse is bullshit. Poor people have more kids and even people that are doing great don’t have that many kids. Theoretically you could hit replacement rate by making everyone a millionaire but I don’t know how that could work.
Theoretically you could hit replacement rate by making everyone a millionaire but I don’t know how that could work.
I doubt this would work. Financially, my family is towards the middle of that chart now. We were lower when we had our first kid and only a bit improved when we had our second. And honestly, it was pretty touch and go whether or not we would have the second. Our first was a handful as a baby and it left us wondering if we could handle a second. Thankfully, he calmed down a lot (or we just got used to the new normal) by the time he was pushing 18 months. After we had the second one though, I fully embraced the “cut my nuts off” solution to birth control (vasectomy). I don’t regret that choice at all. None of that was ever about finances. It was simply about the fact that raising children is hard and takes a lot of time.
Ultimately, I think the decline in birth rates isn’t about finances or selfishness, it’s just a change in social norms. Society has spent decades training people to the “nuclear family”. Movies, TV, and other media has pushed the “2 kids and 1.5 dogs in a home in the suburbs” for so long, that people internalized it. So, folks who do want to have kids shoot for that. Having 4 or 5 kids is now seen as an oddity, rather than the norm.
There is also a much better acceptance of women as something other than a walking womb to be filled. We no longer look at an unmarried woman in her 20’s or 30’s as some sort of spinster to be shunned. Sure, negative stereotypes still exist (e.g. Crazy cat lady); but, it’s much rarer for fathers to be selling off their 16 year old daughters to 40 or 50 year old men as child brides to be kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen for the next 30+ years of their life. Women are expected to have full lives now, which may or may not involve raising children. As one might expect, many have taken full advantage of that and simply chose to not have any. This move from what amounts to sexual slavery to being treated as an actual person is going to mean there are fewer women having children and many of them delaying until they are actually old enough to make an informed decision about it.
Well, unless certain extremists get their way, we got a solution to overpopulation right there! And possible extinction.
💜
Theoretically you could hit replacement rate by making everyone a millionaire
I might argue its a cultural shift as much as an economic one. We spent the 80s and 90s shaming people for having kids before they were “ready”, with “ready” meaning first “graduated high school” and then “graduated college” and then “owned a home” and then “had sufficient savings and health care”.
I ended up waiting to have kids until I was in my late 30s. And I only really have the time and energy and finances to support one. Would love to have a house full of kids, that’s not happening this late in life.
If that’s how much money you need to maintain a family, then yes, that’s how much money you need to maintain a family.
The definition of “broke” changes depending of what you are expecting people to do.
I would like to buy me a summer house but I’m broke.
An important fact is missing in this chart: working hours. That also explains why the curve goes up in the lowest segment: those people are probably not employed or not full time employed. After reaching a certain income level, you start having a lot more childcare options that you wouldn’t have with a lower income.
The birth rate would be much closer to the 2.1 you need for a stable population if there were affordable or even free childcare options, because Stay-at-home-Mum/Dad is only possible if either the partners income is high enough or the income of the other party is so low that it doesn’t matter.
Also. most civilized countries have laws protecting pregnant women from getting fired and have a lot more paid leave for them. US companies would push women to give birth in their toilet break and write them up if they take too long if they were allowed to.
Basically, the really really poor will go for comfort sex without protection. This leads to unwanted children. But the sort-of poor will avoid it.
Even if it’s a choice, why do some people think it’s selfish not to have kids? Is it from religious reasons?
If anything, it’s selfish to have kids. The kids were never asked if they wanted to live. The parents did it because they wanted kids. So it’s a selfish act.
