“I think it probably should be a concern for the government, the declining birth rate,” Sarah Brewington told NPR. “There is going to come a time when everyone is retiring and there’s not going to be a workforce.”
Many researchers believe this accelerating global shift is being driven in large part by a positive reality. Young couples, and women in particular, have far more freedom and economic independence. They’re weighing their options and appear to be making very different choices about the role of children in their lives.
“It’s not that people don’t like kids as much as they used to,” said Melissa Kearney, an economist who studies fertility and population trends at the University of Notre Dame. “There’s just a lot of other available options. They can invest in their careers, take more leisure time — it’s much more socially acceptable.”
This change in decision-making and behavior appears to be accelerating. New research from the United Nations found that the number of children born to the average woman worldwide has reached the lowest point ever recorded. In every country and every culture, women are having fewer than half as many children as they did in the 1960s.
I, for one, am glad I got snipped. I’ve no interest in contributing to this pyramid scheme.
Sorry, but any time “workforce” is brought up as a reason for kids, all I hear is “servants to provide for us”. Populations rise and fall, and the myth of Infinite Growth that’s permeated Capitalist thinking is now being applied as a demand on humans. No thanks.
“There is going to come a time when everyone is retiring and there’s not going to be a workforce.”
Well there certainly wont be a workforce if we keep framing immigration as only murderers and thieves and trying our hardest to deport them all (and a bunch of legal citizens in the process).
I find it interesting that this article takes the framing of freedom, options, and a positive reality. Where’s the mention of cost? If your average worker is struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck more than 50 years ago, is it really surprising that less people are willing to take on the financial burden of kids?
And what of thinking about the future of our planet as a whole? We’re cooking the planet and many of the young adults alive today know they’ll be facing dire times in the upcoming decades. If I were younger and considering kids I would surely think twice knowing my kids would be drafted into the climate wars…
Positive reality? World is flat out dystopian and they think people are not having kids because not having kids is more socially acceptable? Maybe it is because of rampant inflation, job insecurity, rising fascism, imminent climate chaos, and all of the other awful things that make people consider against parenthood.
This is the inverse hyperbolic threat I suffered from as a kid. Underpopulation replaces overpopulation. I wonder how much longer the elitist neo-eugenic narratives of climate change, and eco-collapse will continue now that they’re a hindrance to our elites?
Why was my comment removed?
You can always check the modlog.
The reason I provided was “Blaming falling fertility rates on Covid vaccines via a preprint is not appropriate for this community.”
You provided no context for irrelevant links. That’s not how Beehaw works.
One was a preprint and the other a completed study from PubMed which doesn’t even say it’s covid, but the timing sure is coincidental. A preprint still has relevant data. When we everyday people see patterns, we then make deductions from them that tend to be accurate. The preprint is full of great data and shouldn’t be discounted because of what it is. Let people see evidence and make their own deductions. It being a “preprint” wasn’t hidden.
The context was is the data in the links. They were directly relevant being one study is about decline in conception and the other a decline in sperm motility, by significant numbers too.
When we everyday people see patterns, we then make deductions from them that tend to be accurate. […] Let people see evidence and make their own deductions
…no? as humans, our pattern recognition, while well refined, often still causes us to make completely incorrect inferences from nothing. even restricted to the realm of the medical: you need only look at what people think made them sick versus what actually does; most people will blame food poisoning on the last thing they ate, or their sickness on the last person they encountered, even when there are many other possible reasons for their sickness.
also: a pre-print by definition has not been subject to rigorous peer review–it’s roughly analogous to a draft–so i would be exceedingly hesitant to even assert something like it having “good data.” even if you’re the author you wouldn’t definitively know that at this stage.
I said tend to be accurate. It’s one way of starting to figure out what’s true. We can’t throw out that evidence as it just adds to other evidence. Also, peer review is not end all be all. It’s a system that can be gamed and also used to discredit other studies
which doesn’t even say it’s covid, but the timing sure is coincidental
So you’re saying you personally made a correlation without any evidence, just a hunch
The evidence of the topic in the paper. The timing is a correlation
Removed by mod
