this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
186 points (93.9% liked)

World News

39040 readers
3961 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Notably, Chang's report claims that biological females develop earlier than males do, so requiring girls to enter school at younger ages will create classes in which the two sexes are of more equal maturity as they age. This, the author posits, makes it more likely that those classmates will be attracted to each other, and marry and have children further down the line."

(...)

"The report does not include evidence of any correlation between female students' early enrollment and the success rate of their romantic relationships with men. The author also does not detail specific mechanisms by which his proposed policy would increase romantic attraction or birthrates."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's almost like once you've stopped exerting religious and social pressure for every woman to have five kids and given access to birth control... The birth rate is going to drop.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

And you know, that's not a bad thing. Especially when the global birthrate is still higher than replacement, and the planet is finite.

Short term, East Asia should be less racist and take a few immigrants. Long term, we will need to figure out another way to keep the species going within the next few centuries.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Or simply accept that population will go down

[–] AA5B 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Population shrinking is probably a good thing, but population shrinking too quickly might be all sorts of bad.

It’s hard to see where we really are with so many variables, so many future decisions, but I believe we’ve passed the point of “good shrinking” and are well into “all sorts of instability and disruption”. If replacement rate is 2.1 kids/woman, and South Korea is already like 1.1, that’s a huge difference. As current generations pass, each succeeding one will be half its size. That’s a problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

That can be solved by welcoming immigrants because it won't be solved by trying to force people to have kids. When social programs are introduced to help people raise a family you see a little bump in the numbers and then it goes back down again. It's as if people realize that having a family isn't just a financial decision, crazy right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Medium term, yeah. After a few centuries you're reaching dangerously small levels, though, assuming normal mortality. Maybe you're onboard with extinction, but for a couple reasons I'm not, even as shit as we are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ok, so the only way to reverse it is to reduce access to birth control and go back on women rights.

There's a whole lot of stuff that people in this discussion are blaming for birthrate going down but if you look at historical data it was going down even before these things were issues, just because people are more educated, have access to birth control and women have rights over their body. You're not moving back above 2.1 without getting rid of these things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Have you ever read A Brave New World? If we can get artificial wombs going - in a few centuries, which is a reasonable timeframe, I think - we could do it that way.

Yes, I know, it wasn't supposed to be a society to emulate, but that part at least seems fine to me. Getting rid of birth control would be dumb, absolutely agreed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

One is science fiction, the other is the reality we live in.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which thing is the reality we live in?

The trajectory of the human population is intrinsically a far-future question, of course I'm bringing science fiction into it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Artificial wombs are science fiction, the reality we live in is that babies need a mother and women don't want enough kids to renew our population when they're actually given the choice.

It's nice to dream, but let's face the fact that we're probably heading in a direction where human population will eventually be going down and is predicted to peak at this end of this century.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Like I said, in the medium term, sure. We'll still have billions for many decades after that, and then we have to start thinking about a solution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Bingo and people here can't wrap their head around that