The world is at a startling demographic milestone. Sometime soon, the global fertility rate will drop below the point needed to keep population constant. It may have already happened.
Fertility is falling almost everywhere, for women across all levels of income, education and labor-force participation. The falling birthrates come with huge implications for the way people live, how economies grow and the standings of the world’s superpowers.
In 2017, when the global fertility rate—a snapshot of how many babies a woman is expected to have over her lifetime—was 2.5, the United Nations thought it would slip to 2.4 in the late 2020s. Yet by 2021, the U.N. concluded, it was already down to 2.3—close to what demographers consider the global replacement rate of about 2.2. The replacement rate, which keeps population stable over time, is 2.1 in rich countries, and slightly higher in developing countries, where fewer girls than boys are born and more mothers die during their childbearing years.
“The demographic winter is coming,” said Jesús Fernández-Villaverde, an economist specializing in demographics at the University of Pennsylvania.
Many government leaders see this as a matter of national urgency. They worry about shrinking workforces, slowing economic growth and underfunded pensions; and the vitality of a society with ever-fewer children. Smaller populations come with diminished global clout, raising questions in the U.S., China and Russia about their long-term standings as superpowers.
Some demographers think the world’s population could start shrinking within four decades—one of the few times it’s happened in history.
Israel’s high birth rate (including the non-religious) and high happiness rate—despite being under constant attack by Iran and proxies — should be analyzed to see how they succeed.
@Centr1stHazelRepublican3wks3W
Israel is a culture that values children. They are considered precious human capital, a crop vital to sustaining a nation. Children are most definitely not seen as a burden, but as sparks of hope. The mindset is very different from that of other societies.
@FreeTradeApplesGreen3wks3W
And Palestinian children?
@QuaintSwanForward3wks3W
As a proud father of three young children, I can tell you that having babies is completely and totally unaffordable. With both my wife and I working, we have a combined income of round $225-$300k, depending on the year, which is higher than the vast majority of the population, and even for us it's hard. $50-$60k for full-time childcare. $10k into the college fund. Easily $10k-15k a year in healthcare, dentistry, etc, because somebody always needs tonsils out, knocks out a tooth, etc. Another $5k in school supplies, activities, and sports. Already I'm at $75-$90k/year for my three, and that's not even including food, clothes, and fun ... and you can't forget about the $10-$20k that it cost to bring each into the world.
Just to offer a contrasting view to any prospective parent reading the above, I find having kids to be totally affordable, on less income.
Try Christian health ministries. It is much cheaper than health insurance and they payed the entire bill for our 4 kids to be delivered. We also have found having one parent at home be a worthwhile investment in many ways. Cheers mate. I personally consider each of my children to have added to my wealth immeasurably.
It's part of the culture now. Marriage, kids, church... these are things of the past.
Young people want to retire early and not work... they want to enjoy themselves. Having kids is hard.. it takes time and money... lots. All of which could be used for travel, entertainment, etc.
The article mentions it.. but everyones' focus is on themselves now. Just how it is.
@Freedom763wks3W
If you don't want to work, starve to death in a street corner. You're not wanted in America, and no one's going to pay for you to sit on your couch playing Fortnite and scrolling TikTok all day.
@MinorityJuliaRepublican3wks3W
It's part of the culture now. Marriage, kids, church... these are things of the past.
Young people want to retire early and not work... they want to enjoy themselves. Having kids is hard.. it takes time and money... lots. All of which could be used for travel, entertainment, etc.
The article mentions it.. but everyones' focus is on themselves now. Just how it is.
Hmm, I reckon its people having kids with no thought,
Its just what you do, is actually the selfish choice
@PacifistRobLibertarian3wks3W
What is "selfish" about having as many children as you can support? It's actually the opposite. Is it selfish to nurture, teach and take care of other people; to bring children into the world to help produce things and improve the world?
@ToucanJohnnyGreen3wks3W
I'm old enough to have enjoyed an America with a population of about 200 million. It was better in almost every aspect that mattered to a middle-income family. It may be hard for people under age 50 to appreciate how much inviting and less crowded this nation was by the mid-sixties than it is now. By every environmental and infrastructure resource measure the US is grossly over-populated.
There's no escaping the "crowd." Places in the '60's in which a citizen could enter - sans reservations - such as Yellowstone and Glacier which I simply showed and stayed now… Read more
@Freedom763wks3W
The reason America was better "in almost every aspect" for the middle-income family was that we had a relatively stable dollar, far less government regulation, far more balanced budgets, far less spending, and far less debt, and we had intact, nuclear families. More than half of the United States is completely devoid of human population and half of the world at large is the same way. If the government would sell off the lands it unconstitutionally controls, we could carve out new towns from these rich areas. It is a LIE that there are two many people in the US, designed to stop fami… Read more
@CuriousVoter_900Green3wks3W
Spot on, and not to mention there are cities in areas that will run out of water in the not too distant future such as Phoenix
@R3publicanRhinoDemocrat3wks3W
Well there was no escaping the crowd in New York City or San Francisco in the 1960s. What is different now is that more of the crowd can afford to escape...to national parks and the like. In fact, for most of the American landmass (rural areas and small towns) depopulation is the issue. In fact, popular myths like the 'western' aside, the US has always been dominated by its great cities, although over time which cities are the great ones has morphed a bit.
@Freedom763wks3W
Thomas Jefferson said that the "mobs of the cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body." They are inflated tumours growing on an otherwise beautiful nation. Flee to the country.
@ToucanJohnnyGreen3wks3W
No. The US population has near doubled - and it has expanded greatly to the West - and now the South even as the Midwest has depleted to some degree. Phoenix and Salt Lake City, for example were still largely open desert and prairie. Now, Phoenix is a megapolis. And SLC's boundary now runs 50 miles north to Ogden.
For a giant humongous change see San Diego and even Seattle. My employment sent me across all these towns and many more thru the '60's. Brother, we are crowded!
Where I live my favorite fishing lake and streams are over run. There is a lake that is a 15 mile hike to get to. Some hiking app turned it into a challenge to post a picture to say you have been there and now it is ruined.
The old days are gone. IT is sad but something new is coming. Perhaps it will be better somehow. I hope that for the next generations. Whatever is coming is coming. Today is a good day, enjoy it the best you can.
@SomberTr3atyForward3wks3W
For my entire adult life the nattering nabobs of negativism in the press have been bemoaning the increase in the world population as a ticking time bomb for humanity. Now that world population growth is finally projected to level out and start declining 37 years from now, I am told that is another demographic catastrophe.
It's actually amazing how completely wrong Paul Ehrlich was when he wrote
The Population Bomb. But eco-pessimism continues, even as the neo-Malthusians have been discredited.
@ParrotTommyGreen3wks3W
Our planet has a finite carrying capacity. I’ve travelled and worked all over the world in the last half century or so. I worked on the polar ice cap north of Point Barrow.
We are visibly and dramatically changing our entire planet.
Our throw away global economy is unsustainable - if the productive citizens want to have any sort of reasonably comfortable life in the future.
We still have time to make small course corrections to humanity and try to achieve a “soft landing”. Some of the changes are still relatively easy to implement.
But the old economic solution of growing GDP to pay off debt is a paradigm that has to be re-examined.
“Our planet has a finite carrying capacity.”
How do you know this?
@MorbidUnanimousForward3wks3W
Finite sure, it is a finite mass after all. But where does technological progress meet the max sustainable population?
Wildly beyond where we are in case you are wondering. We are not even making fresh water from scratch yet. Farming is far from maxed out. How much meat can we make in the clone vats? Does it taste better than wild meat?
@ISIDEWITH3wks3W
@ISIDEWITH3wks3W
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
