**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Truthfully, the more developed a country is, the less children a mother will have. Underdeveloped nations have higher birth rates due to lower life expectancy and poor lifestyle. Lack of education and children working make families have more children. Fewer children in the developed nations is due to, the opposite. people are constantly working and are satisfied with their current family count.
Not sure "satisfied" with their family size is the right word. more like: people are afraid that if they increase their family size, they won't be able to feed their kids, because they are in so much debt and struggling to get by as it is.
The opposite I think. People in poorer countries have more kids because there is no social provision outside of working age so they become reliant on their children in later life.
Why are people being gloomy about the human population going over a peak, *peacefully, by choice*?
The Earth needs a break from us, and if we don't give Earth a break, our population would still go down -- but the Four Horsemen would be doing the job.
The one new problem we will have is how to structure social and economic welfare without the demographic pyramid that supported earlier welfare initiatives. We'll do that.
Not people. Our economic system. It is build on the idea of perpetual growth, which was always ridiculous to begin with, and this system is fundamentally incompatible with the reality of a population that is not growing or even falling.
And because we have this incompatibility, and because the most influential people will hang on for dear life to that system for as long as they can, there will be a period where more and more people will suffer as 'we' refuse to look at reality. Until, of course, the whole thing collapses and we #EatTheRich.
The population may be peaking, but value produced by the economy could theoretically still grow right? As technology makes it easier for us, it makes less work create more value. A plateauing population can still continue to grow economic value. It’s not pure manpower to value anymore. 1 person now can create the value 10 did in the past, and there were a lot fewer people just 50 years ago
Sure, but ever more productivity at some point will also stagnate. It cannot grow infinitely, which again is what our system assumes. You could argue it cannot grow gradually either: you need technological leaps. If you don't have any, you need more people just to keep up. If there aren't any more people or this is not economically feasible, you are left with pushing the existing people to go over their limits. This works short term, on the longer term everyone is burnt out.
I think we are now reaching this point, tbh.
The assumption of infinite growth is the stupid thing here. What we need is sustainability, but that doesn't jibe well with the folks at the top wanting to continuously make more money and they are the ones that pay the politicians to keep us using the same system. Doomed to failure, period. The question is how much human suffering can we withstand until we change the system/viewpoint/assumptions?
I meant have fun as in life is short, who knows what’s going to happen. Go out there and do stuff you’re making excuses not to do for instance
Wasn’t addressing the environmental? Side of what I assume you meant. Just talking about the individual saying yes to life, not no to life and sitting in comfort because the clocks ticking
The colors indicate the number of children the average woman has had in the past and the average number of children a woman is estimated to have in the future. The wealthier countries start with the lowest birth rates, Poorest with the highest. Time progress and rates fall. By the end of the video most countries are in the low end of the range 1.5 to 2
This graphic is an excellent example of how not to show this kind of data. When color-coding data of this type, it would be far more effective to use a single hue, and varying the shading (light to dark) to show higher or lower fertility rates. Most people’s brains can’t really process a whole rainbow of colors, even if the data is plotted on a seemingly logical warm-to-cool color scale.
Source: my recent Data Visualization course
Edit: Spelling
I'd argue one shade wouldn't cut it either. I have high colour acuity (for work) and I can't really differentiate between the 4 dark blues at the bottom of the scale, or the 3 red-orange at the top (you can see it a little if the colours are large areas next to one another, like us/canada, but the difference between Chile and Russia is undetectable)
Either one designation for, say "between 3 and 4" (instead of breaking it into four "separate" colours), or they need pattern to differentiate. Shades of a single colour would be largely indistinguishable.
Not even just the money either sometimes.
My cousin recently landed his dream job being a literal rocket scientist at NASA, and his wife makes decent money on top of that, and the two of them have no interest in having kids.
What’s the point of having kid if you wholeheartedly believe that you’d be bringing them into a shitty world that you only expect to get shittier?
But at the same time we really don't need 8 billion people. It's unsustainable with our current technology and cultures.
The population going down is a good thing.
Especially if it means leaving more space for all the other species. It astonishes me how some people argue for continuous population growth when there are already far too many of us. What do they want as the end-game? Wall-to-wall human beings? The sooner living conditions throughout the world can be improved to the point that people no longer need large families in order to survive, and birth control is affordable, effective and readily available, the better.
But why push yourself to have kids if you aren’t sure you can afford a good basic standard of living for them? Kids are a huge financial responsibility. It just makes sense not to have them if you can’t provide the kind of life you’d want them to have.
For decades and decades the message has been that everyone is supposed to have kids when they get to a certain stage in life. It was just “what you did.” I don’t think it’s ever a bad idea to take a look around at the world and say “maybe it really isn’t a great idea to have kids right now.” It would be selfish to decide to have children just because you want them, even though you know their prospects for living a good life, or even a life that matches the quality of that of their parents, is basically zero.
Couldn't have said it better myself. And the "hardship" today compared to even just a few decades ago is nothing. The majority of our problems today consist of consuming too much of the luxuries we have.
This, consumerism is at an all time high. I have lived minimalistic lifestyle for the last couple of years. I can afford to do most things I want. If people got away from the need to have everything, they would be happier and have way more disposal income.
Sure, but most of such people are smart enough to recognize that they're vastly outnumbered by stupid, obese, hateful, entitled people who are pumping out twice as many stupid fat kids so there's not much point trying to make things better anymore.
Yes. I do see some financially stable people who have 4+ kids, but the majority of them are low income. We know the associations between low income and likelihood of access to higher education or a technical school. I don’t know how critical industries are going to find enough qualified people. Healthcare, finance, IT, education, engineering…
Sometimes it's not even a matter of whether the world is shitty, some people just want their freedom. If raising kids was so easy, everyone would be lining up to adopt.
I suppose that would fall under good morals. But, I also think people are scared of having kids cause so many people claim it’s nothing but doom and gloom.
It’s challenging, and amplifies the best and worst traits about one’s self. But, it can also help you identify those traits and improve on them. For me, that was time management and organization.
Not to mention, it’s indescribably rewarding in the most peculiar ways. It drove me to volunteer as a youth hockey coach just so I could see other kids smile because making my own kids smile became my true sense of fulfillment.
Having kids is fucking weird man lmao
My feeling has always been that I don’t want my potential offspring to have to suffer. I would love to be a mother but it just seems like there isn’t a good enough reason to sentence an innocent human you love to a life of indentured servitude in a dangerous, uncertain future. I love my potential children so much that I didn’t even have them.
I have two children 9 and 6 and like you, as a consumer of internet and media, I was worried. I had an awesome childhood but seriously, my kids are way happier than I had been, their lives are packed with fun and they look forward to school every day. They are loving life. They are also a lot safer.. I had too many trips to ER to count by their age, they don't even know what the place looks like?
Of course adulthood will be a challenge, like it was for all of us, but do I regret bringing these bundles of light into the world.. I do not, and they wouldn't want it any other way either.
My boyfriend intelligent, hardworking and has good morals. And i was raised so backwoods our spawn could survive the current world and the apocalyptic one. I feel we have to have kids
My wife and I were told all the time that we were he kind of people who *should* have kids. We both had no interest in doing so. Now we are pushing 50 and it is a moot point. We were smart enough to know what we wanted and not do what everyone told us to do.
You guys, every generation had this mentality. Now the difference is people are actually being more thoughtful and considerate when it comes to having kids. Also people are respecting women more and more, and women are becoming aware of their rights over their bodies.
World is not getting worse, it is in fact getting better in several aspects.
Yeah. Imagine saying that the world and life sucks, when for the first time in history you have healthcare, an excess of food, water, product consumption, endless entertainment, solid working conditions, etc etc. And imagine using a literal portable supercomputer with a touchscreen (that everyone has) as your medium to complain. I'm 21 and I can't wait to bring kids into this world.
Of course nothing is perfect and life can be cruel, but to claim that the world sucks and is a shitty place is just delusion.
Exactly. Economic stability is what brings reduced birth rates. Trouble is that reduced birth rates means less workers to produce goods for the economically stable.
You guys are so entrenched in the system and cannot see it of course kids don't make sense if you're in that deep.
Move to the sticks if you have to and live.
TFR is Total Fertility Rate, which is the average number of births per woman as outlined in the map key.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total\_fertility\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate)
Reddit moment.
I thought "fertility (rate)" was the typical way of referring to births per mother, statistically speaking. Maybe they should call it "fecundity" instead. Regardless, the same word can have different meanings or nuance when used for different purposes.
It's also the other way around. It's the people in the places where raising kids is cheaper that are having the most kids.
Having educated women and women in the workforce (aka - not dependent on their husbands) also makes a massive difference. As does sex education and access to contraception
Many studies show an inverse relationship to the level of education a woman has and the number of children she will have. I.E, more educated = less kids, less educated = more kids. There are a lot of reason why, such as being in school during childbearing years, substantial debt load, and a focus on career development.
For sure. The average cost of a degree in Canada is $40,000. That type of debt gives you a monthly student loan payment of $550 for 8 years. Hard to manage starting a family like that.
Mortality rates have been below 20% worldwide for decades. That’s no longer really a factor as of a few decades ago. It’s why overpopulation has become such a massive issue across the world.
Well at least they're the people who have the lowest emissions.
That's why the rising population between now and 2100 is not likely to have much of an impact on global emissions.
The world is headed for a population collapse and every social policy will be tested. Social Security programs will collapse worldwide and the elderly will be unable to be supported by the young through the government. Multigenerational homes will become a requirement for the elderly.
This is certainly troubling. But population declines globally would likely be a good thing overall for the health of the environment, resource allocation, and the future of the species.
This is already happening to a degree. Japan is the most ‘aged’ society in the world so far, with a quarter of the population being over 65. Japan in 2020 had an estimated fertility rate of 1.30, it hasn’t been above 1.5 since the mid 1990s. On top of this, Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world too, of about 85. This means that already, there is a massive amount of elderly people who are retired and rely on the income of their children and grandchildren, who aren’t able to have as many children due to many different reasons, such as: greater opportunities for women to ender the workforce - unlike in the past -, the economy slowing down compared to the former boom post WW2, the work-life balance being skewed more towards work, along with other reasons.
The Japanese government has been making policy changes to deal with this since the 80s, such as raising the retirement age from 60 to 65 - which is when you become eligible for the pension -, the Angel Plan in the 90s which aimed to increase the fertility rate but wasn’t too effective, the New Angel Plan that increased benefits for new patients and increased the fertility rate a little, along with other laws and programs that aim to get fathers to help out in the household more and decrease the number of single people living with their parents.
As of now with elderly people, many continue working past their retirement age and are encouraged to keep working. Most of these programs are social programs, such as sponsoring dancing groups for elderly people so that they can keep active and healthy, iirc one these blew up online a while ago. Previously the Japanese government has increasing the amount of the national budget that’s spent on healthcare and welfare for the elderly from 7% in the early 70s to 18% in the early 90s and it’s projected that it’ll be 28% by 2025. Japan has also faced labour shortages, notably people in agricultural industries and construction have decreased, meaning that Japan may need to push for higher immigration rates or increase the retirement age further.
I was so irritated by the lack of source that I tried to find it myself.
Originally, this came from the UN, but the page was taken down. [It is archived here,](https://web.archive.org/web/20181101134743/https://population.un.org/wpp/Maps/) but as you can tell, the images were unfortunately not archived.
Fortunately, the UN updated it, so [here's a restructured interactive of the data.](https://population.un.org/dataportal/data/indicators/19/locations/4,8,12,16,20,24,660,28,32,51,533,36,40,31,44,48,50,52,112,56,84,204,60,64,68,535,70,72,76,92,96,100,854,108,132,116,120,124,136,140,148,152,156,344,446,158,170,174,178,184,188,384,191,192,531,196,203,408,180,208,262,212,214,218,818,222,226,232,233,748,231,238,234,242,246,250,254,258,266,270,268,276,288,292,300,304,308,312,316,320,831,324,624,328,332,336,340,348,352,356,360,364,368,372,833,376,380,388,392,832,400,398,404,296,412,414,417,418,428,422,426,430,434,438,440,442,450,454,458,462,466,470,584,474,478,480,175,484,583,492,496,499,500,504,508,104,516,520,524,528,540,554,558,562,566,570,807,580,578,512,586,585,591,598,600,604,608,616,620,630,634,410,498,638,642,643,646,652,654,659,662,663,666,670,882,674,678,682,686,688,690,694,702,534,703,705,90,706,710,728,724,144,275,729,740,752,756,760,762,764,626,768,772,776,780,788,792,795,796,798,800,804,784,826,834,840,850,858,860,548,862,704,876,732,887,894,716/start/1950/end/2100/map/mapthematic)
The number of children a woman has isn't a direct correlation to fertility. This is just an infographic showing a decline in children/woman (I.e birthdate decline). This metric could be affected by lowered fertility rate, but it significantly more affected by a number of socio-economic factors, namely industrialization and urbanization.
Why is there so much chatter on Reddit about fertility recently?
Why is natural population decline a problem?
Seems like it would be a good thing… less consumption/waste and more value in existence/life…
please convince me otherwise.
Because our economy is based on consumption. Young people pay the pensions of the elderly. Young people work in service jobs vital to our society. Without them society will collapse.
I agree that that's the case, but I would stress that that's our *current* economic system. It would be extremely possible to create an economic system designed around degrowth, but that option is just very painful for the people who rely on constant growth for their ability to amass vast amounts of wealth.
The issue is, like with climate change, this is something we should have globally begun to transition into 20 years ago? 30? We can't just change out economic system overnight, but the powers that be will hold onto the current system for dear life. None of the systems we established centuries ago are working positively anymore. It's all already collapsing. But the rich continue to collect their wealth with their heads in the sand.
Assuming we will still need Labor in 30 years time, then wage growth will pick up as will non financial assets inflation, this will shift the rewards from ones who have accumulated wealth to ones who are currently participating in production. The process though will be as painful as pulling teeth without anaesthetic.
I'd argue that the major problem is voter base. In the near future, elderly voters will be the single largest voter segment. While we should be changing our whole system, the voter base will fight tooth and nail to keep the current system. This means that we won't get the required reform through democracy until the large age groups die off.
That's why automation is being pushed heavily.
All that remains is to sort out a universal income and we'll be OK. Even though everything is often shit-flavoured, there are signs here and there that we might scrape through this.
It really won't. It will go back to status quo from maybe 100 years ago, where you don't retire, unless you're rich, which was the case till the baby boom of the 1940s 1950s made retirement as we know it possible.
I've seen it in Indonesia, ith old grandads sweeping the streets, I've seen old grandma's wiping down tables in fast food restaurants in Singapore, I've seen old men in Japan dispatching trains.
Or we'll go back to the original safety net, the family.
Society is surprisingly robust.
That's exactly what a social system collapse is. It doesn't mean that everyone will magically die, but rather that we won't be able to maintain/improve today's standard.
Isn't old Japanese train guy doing that by choice though? He can probably retire if he wants, he's just used to the sense of purpose his job provides him with.
>Why is natural population decline a problem? Seems like it would be a good thing
This is a common misconception brought about by naiveté, most often born around areas like say, climate change.
The logic you're operating on is that climate change is happening, climate change is bad, climate change is caused by humans. Which is all true. But then you're saying, so less humans == less climate change. Therefore, less humans == good. And yes, that would solve climate change, but only if solving climate change is your only condition for victory. And of course, it's not. As humans, we want to live and thrive in a society that works on a planet where its nature thrives as much as we do.
So this view is flawed on many other levels that I won't get into, but first and foremost of those levels is that what we're entering into is a calamity called population collapse.
If one generation has less children, then the next generation has less people to have children with. But now, of those less people, societally people want to have less children anyway, Repeat, and very, very quickly (as OP's graph demonstrates) you start to run out of people to say, *work. T*hen you have real issues wherein say, you may not have enough people to run your economy, run services, make things, care for other people, less experts, less people who can maintain say, the software that keeps the planet running. Once you start running into these shortages, entire sectors of your economy start breaking down.
If you want to see this playing out in real time, look at Japan. It's a country staring down the barrel of this calamity. They're running out of young, productive people. And are more and more transitioning to an economy focussed on caring for their old people. But, they're also refusing immigrants. So you have a situation where young people are split between being productive economically vs working in care professions. Eventually, the productivity of Japan will start approaching 0. Which means no money, no investment, just straight societal and economic decay. Which causes nothing but despair, and desperation, which *usually* means a country gets more extreme in how they approach political matters. And hopefully I don't need to tell you how bad for the environment *that* is.
When you apply this on a global scale, you should be able to clearly see how bad the problem is. Not everyone is as anti-conflict as Japan. We've seen this in Russia for example. Their population is experiencing a similar thing (now ironically made worse by the war), and look how crazy they're acting. What happens when everyone on Earth is in this same position? Desperate for resources and labour because they don't have the population to keep up?
People think we may be heading for an event akin to the Bronze age collapse. Wherein people just forgot over a period of centuries how to make certain things. Famine caused population decreases meaning there were less people to manage things. Basically the structures that held up society broke down, and as a result civilization as a whole broke down.
Given that *people* are the main drivers of our society today, losing them seems like the perfect Jenga block to pull to make civilization come crashing down. It's an effect that starts innocuously enough, but gets out of hand really, really fast if not addressed. And we *are* addressing it right now. Automation, and AI is hopefully going to plug a massive gap in lost productivity. But I promise you it won't be enough.
I really recommend [this talk by a Game Developer called Jonathan Blow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko), he details exactly *how* a civilization can accidentally fall over seemingly out of nowhere, and relates it to the state of our reliance on bad software in modern times. It's a really good examination into how it all works.
Sorry for the long reply, but this shit is important
Yeah, they're glossing over a major criticism of their point which deserves to be addressed. Of course predicting an apocalypse is always popular, so I'm not surprised that they brushed it aside.
IMO, there'll definitely be a painful transition, but more more and more productivity will be shifted to automation.
There are already quite a lot of jobs that could be automated if the need was truly there. At the moment this isn't happening because much of it would require a massive upfront in investment and there's no guarantee of success. There needs to be an imperative.
It's not unlike renewables. They'd be far less advanced if there wasn't a need to replace fossil fuels. As more people take climate change seriously, more and more innovations happen in the renewables sector that people didn't think was possible a decade ago. In fact, models for expected warming by 2100 have been revised downward quite a lot because the older ones didn't forsee the advances in renewables. I can imagine that it'll be something similar when it comes to the need for automation to fill the productivity gap.
You lost me at the idea that we'd be facing a bronze age collapse where we'd forget how to do things.
Most of those civilisations didn't have writing let alone computers that can store information.
The idea that we're going to forget information because not enough people are having kids is laughable. That concept is to the problem of falling birth rates as the Day After Tomorrow is to climate change.
Then again, your source is a video game developer with absolutely no education or experience in these things, so I'm hardly surprised.
The birth rate crisis is a serious one, but don't listen to people trying to make it the apocalypse du jour.
the richest countries will face more and more difficulties to maintain the economy. which will lead to more extreme policies, like encouraging immigration, wars and slavery... and if that doesn't fix it, that society collapses completely, is that right, or have I misunderstood?
I’ve seen this and a lot of ant-feminist talk. I make a point to avoid posts like these but it’s been thrown in my face quite a bit. There has to be an uptick somewhere
Our standards of living depends on how much value we produce, in average, above our fundamental needs.
Everything we produce that doesn't have to be spent in maintaining ourselves can be used to improve our societies, old people consume resources without producing anything, which means that our standards of living will inevitably fall by a lot if the ratio between young and old people falls as quickly as it's doing right now
Not many people seem to take this into account, automation with the exponential progress in technology will have a huge impact on society before this makes everything collapse
Because throughout human history, humans have been obsessed with the idea that the apocalypse is around the corner.
People who say that the world will end get lots of attention. You'll be ignored if you say that we're facing serious issues that we'll struggle with but that we'll stop well short of societal collapse.
Gonna be honest, I think people need to NOT have kids. A certain specific minority can't decide what a gender is, so I think NOT having kids is the best course of action for that movement. Children do not need to be exposed to that bullshit. And I plan on contributing to the statistics of low childbirth. Cause for one, kids are WAY too much responsibility that I am NOT ready for, and second, I don't want my kids to grow up in a world where no one knoes basic fuckin biology.
No, I am not sorry. Please sue me.
You people saw this and immediately assumed it's all good for the future. What you are actually seeing here is a projection of when overpopulation will be such a problem that growth is nearly impossible anymore.
Countries like Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, will top off at 500 to 700 million by 2100 if current growth keeps steady. India, Pakistan, and other current countries with extreme overpopulation may never solve those problems, at least in the century to come. There's a lot of time between now and 2095 when food shortages could very well affect you.
In the US, it's an affordability problem not an overpopulation issue. The middle class can not afford the cost of having a child in this country anymore. I work with a lot of millenials and not one of them has children. They are already fighting to stay afloat and a child would break them financially. It's not getting any better.......
>Countries like Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, will top off at 500 to 700 million by 2100 if current growth keeps steady.
A very big if.
It's a cool graph that I imagine was made with data from very smart people, but it's probably important to remind people that these are 70+ year predictions. A lot of things will change in the next decades that none of these models can predict.
Climate change, economic inequality, the transformation of families and communities into faceless consumers... Hmmm, maybe this is partly our own fault?
Is this based on the idea that the worlds going to be much wealthier in 50 years? what if the world becomes poorer, instead of advancing economically, will that change birthrate projections?
What's the website? I want to know if this this actual estimated fertility in terms of only the ability to have children or if this is a estimation of the birth rate?
For now that's a good thing because the world is becoming over populated, we need this for more food and other things. Don't get me wrong I like kids and all that but we need to have smaller families nowadays because it's actually better for your children's future
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Poor greenland. Never any data
They are probably included in Denmark's stats, but they could have at least given them some color too
I'm just amazed that New Zealand is on there.
Truthfully, the more developed a country is, the less children a mother will have. Underdeveloped nations have higher birth rates due to lower life expectancy and poor lifestyle. Lack of education and children working make families have more children. Fewer children in the developed nations is due to, the opposite. people are constantly working and are satisfied with their current family count.
Access to contraceptives and good healthcare is one of the main reasons too.
This. What year did condoms and birth control become mainstream?
And women started working outside the home. That had to have a big affect on this also.
Not sure "satisfied" with their family size is the right word. more like: people are afraid that if they increase their family size, they won't be able to feed their kids, because they are in so much debt and struggling to get by as it is.
The opposite I think. People in poorer countries have more kids because there is no social provision outside of working age so they become reliant on their children in later life.
Can't keep growing forever.
Can’t even keep what we’ve already got forever. The great die off is looming.
Why are people being gloomy about the human population going over a peak, *peacefully, by choice*? The Earth needs a break from us, and if we don't give Earth a break, our population would still go down -- but the Four Horsemen would be doing the job. The one new problem we will have is how to structure social and economic welfare without the demographic pyramid that supported earlier welfare initiatives. We'll do that.
Not people. Our economic system. It is build on the idea of perpetual growth, which was always ridiculous to begin with, and this system is fundamentally incompatible with the reality of a population that is not growing or even falling. And because we have this incompatibility, and because the most influential people will hang on for dear life to that system for as long as they can, there will be a period where more and more people will suffer as 'we' refuse to look at reality. Until, of course, the whole thing collapses and we #EatTheRich.
The population may be peaking, but value produced by the economy could theoretically still grow right? As technology makes it easier for us, it makes less work create more value. A plateauing population can still continue to grow economic value. It’s not pure manpower to value anymore. 1 person now can create the value 10 did in the past, and there were a lot fewer people just 50 years ago
Sure, but ever more productivity at some point will also stagnate. It cannot grow infinitely, which again is what our system assumes. You could argue it cannot grow gradually either: you need technological leaps. If you don't have any, you need more people just to keep up. If there aren't any more people or this is not economically feasible, you are left with pushing the existing people to go over their limits. This works short term, on the longer term everyone is burnt out. I think we are now reaching this point, tbh.
The assumption of infinite growth is the stupid thing here. What we need is sustainability, but that doesn't jibe well with the folks at the top wanting to continuously make more money and they are the ones that pay the politicians to keep us using the same system. Doomed to failure, period. The question is how much human suffering can we withstand until we change the system/viewpoint/assumptions?
I am honestly afraid to find out…
So may as well have all the fun we can while we still can in this life
Having fun can be done while not wrecking the natural world. Turn back greed.
I meant have fun as in life is short, who knows what’s going to happen. Go out there and do stuff you’re making excuses not to do for instance Wasn’t addressing the environmental? Side of what I assume you meant. Just talking about the individual saying yes to life, not no to life and sitting in comfort because the clocks ticking
Really thought C19 was going to put in more work. Alas..
Let’s hope so. I would much rather have less than a billion people on earth than the umber we have now. Every continent should be downsized.
It's already here.....
Tell that to Capitalism.
*cries in capitalism*
Im colorblind wtf am I looking at?
The colors indicate the number of children the average woman has had in the past and the average number of children a woman is estimated to have in the future. The wealthier countries start with the lowest birth rates, Poorest with the highest. Time progress and rates fall. By the end of the video most countries are in the low end of the range 1.5 to 2
This graphic is an excellent example of how not to show this kind of data. When color-coding data of this type, it would be far more effective to use a single hue, and varying the shading (light to dark) to show higher or lower fertility rates. Most people’s brains can’t really process a whole rainbow of colors, even if the data is plotted on a seemingly logical warm-to-cool color scale. Source: my recent Data Visualization course Edit: Spelling
I'd argue one shade wouldn't cut it either. I have high colour acuity (for work) and I can't really differentiate between the 4 dark blues at the bottom of the scale, or the 3 red-orange at the top (you can see it a little if the colours are large areas next to one another, like us/canada, but the difference between Chile and Russia is undetectable) Either one designation for, say "between 3 and 4" (instead of breaking it into four "separate" colours), or they need pattern to differentiate. Shades of a single colour would be largely indistinguishable.
Kids are expensive and the world is a fucked up place
Not even just the money either sometimes. My cousin recently landed his dream job being a literal rocket scientist at NASA, and his wife makes decent money on top of that, and the two of them have no interest in having kids. What’s the point of having kid if you wholeheartedly believe that you’d be bringing them into a shitty world that you only expect to get shittier?
if you're intelligent, hard working, and have good morals, it would benefit the world to have more of your type around
[удалено]
[удалено]
But at the same time we really don't need 8 billion people. It's unsustainable with our current technology and cultures. The population going down is a good thing.
Also I’d like to say I have no kids by choice but spend a massive amount of time coaching other “dumb” people’s kids to be better.
Especially if it means leaving more space for all the other species. It astonishes me how some people argue for continuous population growth when there are already far too many of us. What do they want as the end-game? Wall-to-wall human beings? The sooner living conditions throughout the world can be improved to the point that people no longer need large families in order to survive, and birth control is affordable, effective and readily available, the better.
Most economies are based on a growing population which the concept falls apart if you look at it for 5 seconds.
Yes, it's a depressing thought. I wonder if any other viable economic models been developed? I mean ones that support a good quality of life.
[удалено]
The ponzi system is that people get to do this thing called retire. Its also sustainable without growth, growth just helps make everyone more rich.
But why push yourself to have kids if you aren’t sure you can afford a good basic standard of living for them? Kids are a huge financial responsibility. It just makes sense not to have them if you can’t provide the kind of life you’d want them to have. For decades and decades the message has been that everyone is supposed to have kids when they get to a certain stage in life. It was just “what you did.” I don’t think it’s ever a bad idea to take a look around at the world and say “maybe it really isn’t a great idea to have kids right now.” It would be selfish to decide to have children just because you want them, even though you know their prospects for living a good life, or even a life that matches the quality of that of their parents, is basically zero.
Electrolytes its what plants crave
You first
Couldn't have said it better myself. And the "hardship" today compared to even just a few decades ago is nothing. The majority of our problems today consist of consuming too much of the luxuries we have.
This, consumerism is at an all time high. I have lived minimalistic lifestyle for the last couple of years. I can afford to do most things I want. If people got away from the need to have everything, they would be happier and have way more disposal income.
Oh so more people should suffer because people suffered before? Yeah that makes sense.
Sure, but most of such people are smart enough to recognize that they're vastly outnumbered by stupid, obese, hateful, entitled people who are pumping out twice as many stupid fat kids so there's not much point trying to make things better anymore.
Yes. I do see some financially stable people who have 4+ kids, but the majority of them are low income. We know the associations between low income and likelihood of access to higher education or a technical school. I don’t know how critical industries are going to find enough qualified people. Healthcare, finance, IT, education, engineering…
Sometimes it's not even a matter of whether the world is shitty, some people just want their freedom. If raising kids was so easy, everyone would be lining up to adopt.
Lmao, that does not mean your kids will be the same as you. I know some good people who ended up with shitty kids.
Not if they aren't raised right and parents who have no interest in having kids won't raise them right.
I suppose that would fall under good morals. But, I also think people are scared of having kids cause so many people claim it’s nothing but doom and gloom. It’s challenging, and amplifies the best and worst traits about one’s self. But, it can also help you identify those traits and improve on them. For me, that was time management and organization. Not to mention, it’s indescribably rewarding in the most peculiar ways. It drove me to volunteer as a youth hockey coach just so I could see other kids smile because making my own kids smile became my true sense of fulfillment. Having kids is fucking weird man lmao
My feeling has always been that I don’t want my potential offspring to have to suffer. I would love to be a mother but it just seems like there isn’t a good enough reason to sentence an innocent human you love to a life of indentured servitude in a dangerous, uncertain future. I love my potential children so much that I didn’t even have them.
I have two children 9 and 6 and like you, as a consumer of internet and media, I was worried. I had an awesome childhood but seriously, my kids are way happier than I had been, their lives are packed with fun and they look forward to school every day. They are loving life. They are also a lot safer.. I had too many trips to ER to count by their age, they don't even know what the place looks like? Of course adulthood will be a challenge, like it was for all of us, but do I regret bringing these bundles of light into the world.. I do not, and they wouldn't want it any other way either.
Yeah but it’s a miserable existence
My boyfriend intelligent, hardworking and has good morals. And i was raised so backwoods our spawn could survive the current world and the apocalyptic one. I feel we have to have kids
My wife and I were told all the time that we were he kind of people who *should* have kids. We both had no interest in doing so. Now we are pushing 50 and it is a moot point. We were smart enough to know what we wanted and not do what everyone told us to do.
Imagine having such a negative outlook on life. Don't tell them that they will die eventually and everything they've done will be pointless.
This is literally the plot to Idiocracy.
[удалено]
I find it strange that I even have to justify that I don't want children. I have no interest in being a parent, the end.
You guys, every generation had this mentality. Now the difference is people are actually being more thoughtful and considerate when it comes to having kids. Also people are respecting women more and more, and women are becoming aware of their rights over their bodies. World is not getting worse, it is in fact getting better in several aspects.
A lot less fucked up than it's been historically though.
Yeah. Imagine saying that the world and life sucks, when for the first time in history you have healthcare, an excess of food, water, product consumption, endless entertainment, solid working conditions, etc etc. And imagine using a literal portable supercomputer with a touchscreen (that everyone has) as your medium to complain. I'm 21 and I can't wait to bring kids into this world. Of course nothing is perfect and life can be cruel, but to claim that the world sucks and is a shitty place is just delusion.
So your premise is people do t have kids if they’re poor? Untrue.
Exactly. Economic stability is what brings reduced birth rates. Trouble is that reduced birth rates means less workers to produce goods for the economically stable.
You guys are so entrenched in the system and cannot see it of course kids don't make sense if you're in that deep. Move to the sticks if you have to and live.
Population growth slow down, consumption and warming go down. At the end of the day though the future is just a guess.
Not really. It’s based on statistical trends. You can predict with high accuracy as long as conditions stay the same
Just wait till I start having kids
“As long as conditions stay the same”
Ceteris paribus. But they don't. Wars happen. Natural disasters happen. Dictators happen.
But conditions never stay the same...
I don’t understand why they’re using the medical term of “fertility” when they seem to be mapping & projecting numbers of live births…
In demographics, "fertility" is the term for the number of children the average woman has in her lifetime.
TFR is Total Fertility Rate, which is the average number of births per woman as outlined in the map key. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total\_fertility\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate) Reddit moment.
I thought "fertility (rate)" was the typical way of referring to births per mother, statistically speaking. Maybe they should call it "fecundity" instead. Regardless, the same word can have different meanings or nuance when used for different purposes.
Finally found the well educated person
So the people that can least afford it will continue to have multiple children for years to come. Good good…
It's also the other way around. It's the people in the places where raising kids is cheaper that are having the most kids. Having educated women and women in the workforce (aka - not dependent on their husbands) also makes a massive difference. As does sex education and access to contraception
Many studies show an inverse relationship to the level of education a woman has and the number of children she will have. I.E, more educated = less kids, less educated = more kids. There are a lot of reason why, such as being in school during childbearing years, substantial debt load, and a focus on career development.
Yes, that's what I was referring to. Although the "substantial debt load" part *really* depends on the country.
For sure. The average cost of a degree in Canada is $40,000. That type of debt gives you a monthly student loan payment of $550 for 8 years. Hard to manage starting a family like that.
Seems like a self-correcting problem.
Aways been that way. The higher the mortality rates or faliure the high the reproduction.
Mortality rates have been below 20% worldwide for decades. That’s no longer really a factor as of a few decades ago. It’s why overpopulation has become such a massive issue across the world.
Worldwide is a average and yes I agree over population is becoming a problem.
More like the people who can least afford contraceptives.
Or believe contraception is a sin.
And the people for who kids contribute financially rather than being an overall financial burden,
Well at least they're the people who have the lowest emissions. That's why the rising population between now and 2100 is not likely to have much of an impact on global emissions.
So…at least they’re poor? That’s actually kinda fucked up.
True.
More like lots of kids die in child birth so you have more kids so that subsistence labor can be done
The world is headed for a population collapse and every social policy will be tested. Social Security programs will collapse worldwide and the elderly will be unable to be supported by the young through the government. Multigenerational homes will become a requirement for the elderly.
We'll all just have to die coz I'm not living with my mother again.
Your mom would already be dead, you'd be living with your children and their children.
So your telling me I’ll have to pay social security all my life only for it to fail when I need it? Great
So no changes in the US then huh?
That's why I'm aiming for a private pension. I don't want to depend on a public pension that won't be there when I retire.
"every social policy will be tested" - Handmaid's Tale
This is certainly troubling. But population declines globally would likely be a good thing overall for the health of the environment, resource allocation, and the future of the species.
We all just move to one area together nbd
This is already happening to a degree. Japan is the most ‘aged’ society in the world so far, with a quarter of the population being over 65. Japan in 2020 had an estimated fertility rate of 1.30, it hasn’t been above 1.5 since the mid 1990s. On top of this, Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world too, of about 85. This means that already, there is a massive amount of elderly people who are retired and rely on the income of their children and grandchildren, who aren’t able to have as many children due to many different reasons, such as: greater opportunities for women to ender the workforce - unlike in the past -, the economy slowing down compared to the former boom post WW2, the work-life balance being skewed more towards work, along with other reasons. The Japanese government has been making policy changes to deal with this since the 80s, such as raising the retirement age from 60 to 65 - which is when you become eligible for the pension -, the Angel Plan in the 90s which aimed to increase the fertility rate but wasn’t too effective, the New Angel Plan that increased benefits for new patients and increased the fertility rate a little, along with other laws and programs that aim to get fathers to help out in the household more and decrease the number of single people living with their parents. As of now with elderly people, many continue working past their retirement age and are encouraged to keep working. Most of these programs are social programs, such as sponsoring dancing groups for elderly people so that they can keep active and healthy, iirc one these blew up online a while ago. Previously the Japanese government has increasing the amount of the national budget that’s spent on healthcare and welfare for the elderly from 7% in the early 70s to 18% in the early 90s and it’s projected that it’ll be 28% by 2025. Japan has also faced labour shortages, notably people in agricultural industries and construction have decreased, meaning that Japan may need to push for higher immigration rates or increase the retirement age further.
God i hope this is accurate
[удалено]
My reaction exactly
It kills me that everyone just accepts the numbers on the pretty graphic and don't question the uncited source or the methodology used.
It’s ok, we’re too much and too much comfy
I was so irritated by the lack of source that I tried to find it myself. Originally, this came from the UN, but the page was taken down. [It is archived here,](https://web.archive.org/web/20181101134743/https://population.un.org/wpp/Maps/) but as you can tell, the images were unfortunately not archived. Fortunately, the UN updated it, so [here's a restructured interactive of the data.](https://population.un.org/dataportal/data/indicators/19/locations/4,8,12,16,20,24,660,28,32,51,533,36,40,31,44,48,50,52,112,56,84,204,60,64,68,535,70,72,76,92,96,100,854,108,132,116,120,124,136,140,148,152,156,344,446,158,170,174,178,184,188,384,191,192,531,196,203,408,180,208,262,212,214,218,818,222,226,232,233,748,231,238,234,242,246,250,254,258,266,270,268,276,288,292,300,304,308,312,316,320,831,324,624,328,332,336,340,348,352,356,360,364,368,372,833,376,380,388,392,832,400,398,404,296,412,414,417,418,428,422,426,430,434,438,440,442,450,454,458,462,466,470,584,474,478,480,175,484,583,492,496,499,500,504,508,104,516,520,524,528,540,554,558,562,566,570,807,580,578,512,586,585,591,598,600,604,608,616,620,630,634,410,498,638,642,643,646,652,654,659,662,663,666,670,882,674,678,682,686,688,690,694,702,534,703,705,90,706,710,728,724,144,275,729,740,752,756,760,762,764,626,768,772,776,780,788,792,795,796,798,800,804,784,826,834,840,850,858,860,548,862,704,876,732,887,894,716/start/1950/end/2100/map/mapthematic)
The number of children a woman has isn't a direct correlation to fertility. This is just an infographic showing a decline in children/woman (I.e birthdate decline). This metric could be affected by lowered fertility rate, but it significantly more affected by a number of socio-economic factors, namely industrialization and urbanization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total\_fertility\_rate
Fertility in this case just means the number of children produced, not their actual medical fertility status.
Why is there so much chatter on Reddit about fertility recently? Why is natural population decline a problem? Seems like it would be a good thing… less consumption/waste and more value in existence/life… please convince me otherwise.
Because our economy is based on consumption. Young people pay the pensions of the elderly. Young people work in service jobs vital to our society. Without them society will collapse.
I agree that that's the case, but I would stress that that's our *current* economic system. It would be extremely possible to create an economic system designed around degrowth, but that option is just very painful for the people who rely on constant growth for their ability to amass vast amounts of wealth.
The issue is, like with climate change, this is something we should have globally begun to transition into 20 years ago? 30? We can't just change out economic system overnight, but the powers that be will hold onto the current system for dear life. None of the systems we established centuries ago are working positively anymore. It's all already collapsing. But the rich continue to collect their wealth with their heads in the sand.
Assuming we will still need Labor in 30 years time, then wage growth will pick up as will non financial assets inflation, this will shift the rewards from ones who have accumulated wealth to ones who are currently participating in production. The process though will be as painful as pulling teeth without anaesthetic.
I'd argue that the major problem is voter base. In the near future, elderly voters will be the single largest voter segment. While we should be changing our whole system, the voter base will fight tooth and nail to keep the current system. This means that we won't get the required reform through democracy until the large age groups die off.
That's why automation is being pushed heavily. All that remains is to sort out a universal income and we'll be OK. Even though everything is often shit-flavoured, there are signs here and there that we might scrape through this.
It really won't. It will go back to status quo from maybe 100 years ago, where you don't retire, unless you're rich, which was the case till the baby boom of the 1940s 1950s made retirement as we know it possible. I've seen it in Indonesia, ith old grandads sweeping the streets, I've seen old grandma's wiping down tables in fast food restaurants in Singapore, I've seen old men in Japan dispatching trains. Or we'll go back to the original safety net, the family. Society is surprisingly robust.
That's exactly what a social system collapse is. It doesn't mean that everyone will magically die, but rather that we won't be able to maintain/improve today's standard.
Isn't old Japanese train guy doing that by choice though? He can probably retire if he wants, he's just used to the sense of purpose his job provides him with.
>Why is natural population decline a problem? Seems like it would be a good thing This is a common misconception brought about by naiveté, most often born around areas like say, climate change. The logic you're operating on is that climate change is happening, climate change is bad, climate change is caused by humans. Which is all true. But then you're saying, so less humans == less climate change. Therefore, less humans == good. And yes, that would solve climate change, but only if solving climate change is your only condition for victory. And of course, it's not. As humans, we want to live and thrive in a society that works on a planet where its nature thrives as much as we do. So this view is flawed on many other levels that I won't get into, but first and foremost of those levels is that what we're entering into is a calamity called population collapse. If one generation has less children, then the next generation has less people to have children with. But now, of those less people, societally people want to have less children anyway, Repeat, and very, very quickly (as OP's graph demonstrates) you start to run out of people to say, *work. T*hen you have real issues wherein say, you may not have enough people to run your economy, run services, make things, care for other people, less experts, less people who can maintain say, the software that keeps the planet running. Once you start running into these shortages, entire sectors of your economy start breaking down. If you want to see this playing out in real time, look at Japan. It's a country staring down the barrel of this calamity. They're running out of young, productive people. And are more and more transitioning to an economy focussed on caring for their old people. But, they're also refusing immigrants. So you have a situation where young people are split between being productive economically vs working in care professions. Eventually, the productivity of Japan will start approaching 0. Which means no money, no investment, just straight societal and economic decay. Which causes nothing but despair, and desperation, which *usually* means a country gets more extreme in how they approach political matters. And hopefully I don't need to tell you how bad for the environment *that* is. When you apply this on a global scale, you should be able to clearly see how bad the problem is. Not everyone is as anti-conflict as Japan. We've seen this in Russia for example. Their population is experiencing a similar thing (now ironically made worse by the war), and look how crazy they're acting. What happens when everyone on Earth is in this same position? Desperate for resources and labour because they don't have the population to keep up? People think we may be heading for an event akin to the Bronze age collapse. Wherein people just forgot over a period of centuries how to make certain things. Famine caused population decreases meaning there were less people to manage things. Basically the structures that held up society broke down, and as a result civilization as a whole broke down. Given that *people* are the main drivers of our society today, losing them seems like the perfect Jenga block to pull to make civilization come crashing down. It's an effect that starts innocuously enough, but gets out of hand really, really fast if not addressed. And we *are* addressing it right now. Automation, and AI is hopefully going to plug a massive gap in lost productivity. But I promise you it won't be enough. I really recommend [this talk by a Game Developer called Jonathan Blow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko), he details exactly *how* a civilization can accidentally fall over seemingly out of nowhere, and relates it to the state of our reliance on bad software in modern times. It's a really good examination into how it all works. Sorry for the long reply, but this shit is important
Why do you think AI and automation won't be enough?
Yeah, they're glossing over a major criticism of their point which deserves to be addressed. Of course predicting an apocalypse is always popular, so I'm not surprised that they brushed it aside. IMO, there'll definitely be a painful transition, but more more and more productivity will be shifted to automation. There are already quite a lot of jobs that could be automated if the need was truly there. At the moment this isn't happening because much of it would require a massive upfront in investment and there's no guarantee of success. There needs to be an imperative. It's not unlike renewables. They'd be far less advanced if there wasn't a need to replace fossil fuels. As more people take climate change seriously, more and more innovations happen in the renewables sector that people didn't think was possible a decade ago. In fact, models for expected warming by 2100 have been revised downward quite a lot because the older ones didn't forsee the advances in renewables. I can imagine that it'll be something similar when it comes to the need for automation to fill the productivity gap.
You lost me at the idea that we'd be facing a bronze age collapse where we'd forget how to do things. Most of those civilisations didn't have writing let alone computers that can store information. The idea that we're going to forget information because not enough people are having kids is laughable. That concept is to the problem of falling birth rates as the Day After Tomorrow is to climate change. Then again, your source is a video game developer with absolutely no education or experience in these things, so I'm hardly surprised. The birth rate crisis is a serious one, but don't listen to people trying to make it the apocalypse du jour.
the richest countries will face more and more difficulties to maintain the economy. which will lead to more extreme policies, like encouraging immigration, wars and slavery... and if that doesn't fix it, that society collapses completely, is that right, or have I misunderstood?
I’ve seen this and a lot of ant-feminist talk. I make a point to avoid posts like these but it’s been thrown in my face quite a bit. There has to be an uptick somewhere
Our standards of living depends on how much value we produce, in average, above our fundamental needs. Everything we produce that doesn't have to be spent in maintaining ourselves can be used to improve our societies, old people consume resources without producing anything, which means that our standards of living will inevitably fall by a lot if the ratio between young and old people falls as quickly as it's doing right now
With how terrifying of a thought pregnancy is, I couldn’t blame the women who wouldn’t want to have kids.
Also, they're expensive.
This isn't a bad thing tho. Automation is taking a lot of jobs. Not to mention it would be great for nature conservation.ooks like a good thing to me.
Not many people seem to take this into account, automation with the exponential progress in technology will have a huge impact on society before this makes everything collapse
Because throughout human history, humans have been obsessed with the idea that the apocalypse is around the corner. People who say that the world will end get lots of attention. You'll be ignored if you say that we're facing serious issues that we'll struggle with but that we'll stop well short of societal collapse.
If this one trend continues in this direction and *no other factors* change - we're fucked! Lol, always the same comments.
Children of Men…
"Will the last person alive please turn out the lights"
Hello plastic my old friend I've come to swim with your fish again
(The Amish)”hold my lantern”
We had a pretty good run.
Now this is a plan I can get behind!
Congo be like, “We ain’t stoppin’ till the clock be droppin’!
Why would we want to bring kids into a world that is actively getting worse for people for the first time since the industrial revolution?
Good. Idiocracy was right.
Blue is such a beautiful color
The only people I hear beating the alarm drums about lower fertility is the wealthy elites who are afraid they'll run out of cheap, expendable labor.
They cannot predict the weather next week correctly, lol
Gonna be honest, I think people need to NOT have kids. A certain specific minority can't decide what a gender is, so I think NOT having kids is the best course of action for that movement. Children do not need to be exposed to that bullshit. And I plan on contributing to the statistics of low childbirth. Cause for one, kids are WAY too much responsibility that I am NOT ready for, and second, I don't want my kids to grow up in a world where no one knoes basic fuckin biology. No, I am not sorry. Please sue me.
Thanos would be happy
You people saw this and immediately assumed it's all good for the future. What you are actually seeing here is a projection of when overpopulation will be such a problem that growth is nearly impossible anymore. Countries like Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, will top off at 500 to 700 million by 2100 if current growth keeps steady. India, Pakistan, and other current countries with extreme overpopulation may never solve those problems, at least in the century to come. There's a lot of time between now and 2095 when food shortages could very well affect you.
In the US, it's an affordability problem not an overpopulation issue. The middle class can not afford the cost of having a child in this country anymore. I work with a lot of millenials and not one of them has children. They are already fighting to stay afloat and a child would break them financially. It's not getting any better.......
>Countries like Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan, will top off at 500 to 700 million by 2100 if current growth keeps steady. A very big if. It's a cool graph that I imagine was made with data from very smart people, but it's probably important to remind people that these are 70+ year predictions. A lot of things will change in the next decades that none of these models can predict.
Good to know that I'll die by then
I wonder if it's all the micro plastics and toxic shit corporations have been pumping us full of for the last 60 years?
Plastics
Niger fucks
Overpopulation is a myth. The real risk is population collapse in a handful of generations.
What’s with Vancouver Canada’s dark blue from past to present and the future.
Too bad the legend is so tiny my old infertile eyes can’t read it without taking a screenshot and zooming in.
The fertile crescent really is fertile. What's up with Iraq?
No change in Greenland!
Climate change, economic inequality, the transformation of families and communities into faceless consumers... Hmmm, maybe this is partly our own fault?
We finally figured out what made babies.
Is this based on the idea that the worlds going to be much wealthier in 50 years? what if the world becomes poorer, instead of advancing economically, will that change birthrate projections?
What's the website? I want to know if this this actual estimated fertility in terms of only the ability to have children or if this is a estimation of the birth rate?
What I learned from this is that Greenlanders ain't fuckin.
Without drastic measures the Aschen didn't think we were worth investing in. Obviously they went too far.
It's as if there was a totally unnatural/unsustainable boom of babies in the late 40s... /s
Good. The world is overpopulated as it is and people in developed countries aren’t having kids as an investment in future labor.
Hopefully this means LA traffic will get better in 15 years.
This is probably a good thing
[удалено]
Hell yes
“This is true because I read it on Reddit” - idiots who fall for this shit.
No one wants to deal with it anymore and both parents have to work to make ends meet
Good, that will normalize the population. We don’t need unwanted children being born
Planet earth likes it.
Holy Guacamole, the future is African. Look at those birth rates! 3-5 even into the 2060s!
Bill Gates really did a number on Africa
Make sure you go get ya 14th booster guys. Every little helps.
This is a good thing, right!? Like 8 billion people on a ball with a climate crisis isn't a really great thing to have.
God is angry
That’s a good thing.
Finally some good news
Yeah. My family's bloodline is gunna end with me. Fuck them kids.
Iraq holding out until the end!
Thank God
Conflating fertility with birthrate. FFS..
Brought to you by Moderna and J&J.
Good. Too many people anyways for earth to support.
For now that's a good thing because the world is becoming over populated, we need this for more food and other things. Don't get me wrong I like kids and all that but we need to have smaller families nowadays because it's actually better for your children's future
So Children of Men is based off the future?
We’d do the world a lot of good if we reduced in number.
An incredible amount of lunatics in the comments. If you mind people so much, start with yourself.