7 ms·

Why are Europeans so hesitant to have children, and what does it mean for their future and for ours?

33 points by robg 18y ago

jsmcgd 18y ago
“It’s insane to consider low birthrate as a crisis,” I could not agree more.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Care to explain yourself? Would you be happy if people stopped reproducing?
  - daniel-cussen 18y ago
    0 babies per family is an edge case.
  - jsmcgd 18y ago
    Not entirely no.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Ok -- thought I'd ask before I downmodded you.
      - jsmcgd 18y ago
        Haha. Sorry my answer is very ambiguous. I would like to explain myself: I would not like it if everyone stopped reproducing. I would however like it very much if the human race stopped reproducing as much. To be more specific I would ideally like the human race to reproduce just enough so that the total human population began to gently decrease until we return to a sustainable population. And if it was up to me I would make me very happy if the population then remained constant indefinitely.
davidw 18y ago
Not entirely sure it's hacker news, but it's certainly a well written and in-depth article. It sums up a lot of things I've kind of known for a while: places with better social systems like the Nordic countries are better places to have children than in somewhere like Italy (where I'm writing from, on vacation) which is, very sadly, going nowhere fast. Having our daughter Helen in Austria was far easier, despite the language barrier, than it would have been in Italy.
mynameishere 18y ago
My god, I could barely stand to skim that. So, so much nothingness in so many words. A few points: 1. There is no crisis. Certain conditions produce certain effects. When smallpox is introduced into a population, the population declines, but subsequent generations resist it. The modern world has a perfectly consistent effect on population size, roughly the same as smallpox. The fittest, as always, will survive, and subsequent generations will not have the same problem. 2. The United States is not a "sparkling exception", if you correct your samples. If you reduce Americans to their European subset, you see that Birth rate was 11.6 for Non-Hispanic Whites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat... ... the lowest of all major groups. 3. The subject of immigration should not come up. Europe will not "save itself" by replacing itself with North Africans. This point warrants no discussion. If you hate Europe as much as the editors of the nytimes, that's another matter, and it's a valid viewpoint to the degree that it is open. It's not open, of course. 4. Europe and Japan are both far too crowded. As long as the situation isn't treated like a crisis, with hopeless policies (mass immigration, mass boondoggles) the long-term effect will be positive. 5. Three big groups who've reversed the trend: Mormons, Albanian muslims, and Ultra-orthodox Jews. A portend of things to come, and it's no surprise that the nytimes is troubled by the situation resolving itself.
- gruseom 18y ago
  Birth rate was 11.6 [per 1000 population] for Non-Hispanic Whites But that's not the unit (average children per woman) that they use in the article, and there isn't an obvious conversion between the two (is there?). So this isn't enough information to compare how the birth rate among Americans of European descent compares to the birth rate in Europe itself... which I agree would be interesting. Edit: I also agree about it being tiring to even skim that article. I do love it, though, when apocalpytic crises directly contradict each other. Weren't we all going to die because of exponential population growth?
  - cia_plant 18y ago
    the conversion factor would be life expectancy * 2, wouldn't it be? So ~160*11.6 / 1000 = 1.86. Overestimate since life expectancy is just shy of eighty.
ivankirigin 18y ago
There are huge implications. Think about real estate - the demand to build new homes. That could impact millions of people in their employment. Think about systems like Social Security, where a large young working class pays for the retired class. There is a trend followed very closely in robotics about the number of elderly people per worker. The larger that ratio gets, the more we'll need robots. And not in 30 years -- in 15 years. We need to support the baby boomers. They'll be 70+ in 7 years. It's even worse in Japan. The cultural landscape will also change significantly. The Muslim minorities might not be minorities for long. This is a change of epic proportions.
- ajross 18y ago
  Relax. A slowdown in birth rates is a temporary disturbance (the opposite of the baby boom, in fact). Over time, society returns to a steady state. Yes, the finances get complicated, and we're looking at a generation or two that may see substandard retirement income. But it's hardly a huge social problem; three generations back we were looking at every generation having no retirement income. And the "muslim minority" stuff is just alarmist (and, frankly, semi-racist) political spin. Past the third generation, minorities stop being minorities. They become culturally indistinguishable from the overall society, with at most a unique subculture. This is true of all cultures. They're malleable. No one freaks out (here in the US) about the Polish Menace any more, nor about what all those greasy catholics (!) are going to do to our society, nor about all that lucre under the control of The Jew, nor about what will happen if we allow those awful Blacks to wed (!) our pure, white daughters. Do you see the point? In 50 years, all this "ZOMG Muslims!" mania is going to look equally dumb. If all that scary stuff didn't kill us, what are a few muslims going to accomplish? :) The saddest thing is how many of the people freaking out over things like muslim immigration (or, here in the US, mexicans) are grandchildren of people who saw exactly the same kind of discrimination.
  - akd 18y ago
    > Past the third generation, minorities stop being minorities. They become culturally indistinguishable from the overall society. Excuse me? Black people are culturally indistinguishable from white people in the USA? And the whole miscegenation thing is still very real; try to name some onscreen romances between blacks and whites, and witness the backlash against the Super Bowl ad with Terrell Owens and a white woman.
gojomo 18y ago
More evidence that like other animals, humans don't breed well in captivity? (Offended europhiles -- I kid, I kid! Also, this quip is not original, but I can't recall where I'd first read it.)
peakok 18y ago
Oh please. Take a look at the charts of the world human population of all time : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg Where is the crisis now ? (I'd started to write a long answer adressing this topic but it would have been too long. If you want to digg into this matter I'll follow you).
- vixen99 18y ago
  Reminder: we are talking here about Europe not the overall world population. Moreover whatever some moderate Muslims say, Islam is fundamentally intolerant of other religions and atheistic values. In case you doubt it take a look at Islamic societies across the globe. The much enhanced birthrate of Muslims in Europe does therefore present us with a serious question as to how Europe will change as a result of this once Muslims are democratically able to alter national goals and cultural norms. This is nothing to do with racism or bigotry.
  - peakok 18y ago
    Let's see. Since (all ?) europeans countries birthrates are agnostics, they include the recently immigrated people as well. Therefore, they include the muslims people. If everything above is true, and the birthrates are still low, then the article contradicts itself when it says : "[...] — mostly Muslim — who have yet to be infected by the modern malady called family planning [...]". It appears on the contrary, according to our low birthrates, that they don't have as much childs as we fear. Whatever the reality is, there is a logical fallacy somewhere. Since the science of demography knowns only 2 factors : (1) birthrates (2) migration flows (wich are continuous), we are left with the only other explaination. Maybe you understand now why you are deluding yourself if you study demographics without considering the whole world population, because this is what is feeding the migration flows. Whatever the laws you pass, you won't be able to stop people from all over the world to try to escape their life of misery, people who have such hopes for a better life that they take insane risks to make it and more than often die in the journey. The first waves of US immigrants were people fleeding oppression too. But the true problem isn't even here. The demographic doxa wich states that we should have everlasting high birthrates is closely tied the Economic Growth paradigm, and it is the true responsible for the great post-war immigration policies that european countries engaged in. This doxa (more people = more consumers = more taxpayers = more economic growth) is the true responsible for the situation you describe. If you're looking for an ennemy, then fight this doxa. Maybe we can live in a world where "less is more". Malthus would have been probably right if he lived today : our earth has limited ressources and our problems are just starting as a lot of emerging countries are catching up with the Occidental lifestyle. A lot of our current problems could be solved by having less people around (from education to transportation and ravaged landscapes). Even if our technology allows us to make it, there is no philosophical nor practical reason to be 20 billions on earth instead of 6 or 3 or even 1. Especially if the conditions of life are greater, common sense would suggest less quantity for more quality. Less misery in black Africa, less hopeless immigrants, and why not, less malls in Occident. The more people reproduces in poor countries, the more they'll take their shot at trying to reach richer countries. That's just, well, human. In trying to produce too much wealth, the process just becomes destructive for the cultures at some point and benefits to nobody.
sealedidentity 18y ago
Hugely informative article. A sarcastic thought just popped into my head. To make a snide remark: at least we Europeans don't do "Procreation for recreation."
ComputerGuru 18y ago
I'm a Muslim. How many people here are going to start suddenly hating me because I'm part of the "grand conspiracy to take over the world?" Oh yeah, I'm also American. I'm a practicing Muslim, raised in a western culture, contributing to western society, and fitting right in... I'm really disappointed to see some of the hate and prejudice that plagues the ignorant portion of the offliners here on HN - I thought hackers were supposed to be more open minded and stuff!
- ajross 18y ago
  Amen. I really would have expected more open-mindedness here. This whole "muslim plague" narrative I'm hearing from european right-wingers is straight out of 1920's america. It's all the same terms, all the same fear, all the same demographics. The only thing different is the proper nouns.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  How exactly is it "hateful" to have opinions on immigration policy?
  - ComputerGuru 18y ago
    It's hateful because it's not referring to non-citizen immigrants but rather the lump-sum Muslims in general - which includes people with full citizenships, etc.
    - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
      That's pretty much a non-answer. > I'm part of the "grand conspiracy to take over the world?" It's not really a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires secrecy. Islamic theology plainly calls for supremacy. Not that this is a realistic threat, it just underlines a certain incompatibility with modern sensibilities. > I thought hackers were supposed to be more open minded and stuff! At this stage in the game the open minded position is one that acknowledges the realities of world cultures and human history. The closed minded position is unthinking acceptance of the multi-cultural mantras.
biohacker42 18y ago
The future is bleak, but it's not what you think. Birth control and education are like a virus that impacts fertility. Over time we will adapt. It used to the sex drive was enough to reproduce, in the future the specific desire to HAVE kids will replace that. So the population will drop, then slowly turn around, but it will not end up in a balance. What you'll have is wealthy educated citizens of liberal democracies who absolutely have got have lots of kids. We better have colonized space then.

33 points by robg 18y ago

jsmcgd 18y ago

“It’s insane to consider low birthrate as a crisis,” I could not agree more.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Care to explain yourself? Would you be happy if people stopped reproducing?
- daniel-cussen 18y ago
  0 babies per family is an edge case.
- jsmcgd 18y ago
  Not entirely no.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Ok -- thought I'd ask before I downmodded you.
    - jsmcgd 18y ago
      Haha. Sorry my answer is very ambiguous. I would like to explain myself: I would not like it if everyone stopped reproducing. I would however like it very much if the human race stopped reproducing as much. To be more specific I would ideally like the human race to reproduce just enough so that the total human population began to gently decrease until we return to a sustainable population. And if it was up to me I would make me very happy if the population then remained constant indefinitely.

davidw 18y ago

Not entirely sure it's hacker news, but it's certainly a well written and in-depth article. It sums up a lot of things I've kind of known for a while: places with better social systems like the Nordic countries are better places to have children than in somewhere like Italy (where I'm writing from, on vacation) which is, very sadly, going nowhere fast. Having our daughter Helen in Austria was far easier, despite the language barrier, than it would have been in Italy.

mynameishere 18y ago

My god, I could barely stand to skim that. So, so much nothingness in so many words. A few points: 1. There is no crisis. Certain conditions produce certain effects. When smallpox is introduced into a population, the population declines, but subsequent generations resist it. The modern world has a perfectly consistent effect on population size, roughly the same as smallpox. The fittest, as always, will survive, and subsequent generations will not have the same problem. 2. The United States is not a "sparkling exception", if you correct your samples. If you reduce Americans to their European subset, you see that Birth rate was 11.6 for Non-Hispanic Whites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat... ... the lowest of all major groups. 3. The subject of immigration should not come up. Europe will not "save itself" by replacing itself with North Africans. This point warrants no discussion. If you hate Europe as much as the editors of the nytimes, that's another matter, and it's a valid viewpoint to the degree that it is open. It's not open, of course. 4. Europe and Japan are both far too crowded. As long as the situation isn't treated like a crisis, with hopeless policies (mass immigration, mass boondoggles) the long-term effect will be positive. 5. Three big groups who've reversed the trend: Mormons, Albanian muslims, and Ultra-orthodox Jews. A portend of things to come, and it's no surprise that the nytimes is troubled by the situation resolving itself.

gruseom 18y ago
Birth rate was 11.6 [per 1000 population] for Non-Hispanic Whites But that's not the unit (average children per woman) that they use in the article, and there isn't an obvious conversion between the two (is there?). So this isn't enough information to compare how the birth rate among Americans of European descent compares to the birth rate in Europe itself... which I agree would be interesting. Edit: I also agree about it being tiring to even skim that article. I do love it, though, when apocalpytic crises directly contradict each other. Weren't we all going to die because of exponential population growth?
- cia_plant 18y ago
  the conversion factor would be life expectancy * 2, wouldn't it be? So ~160*11.6 / 1000 = 1.86. Overestimate since life expectancy is just shy of eighty.

ivankirigin 18y ago

There are huge implications. Think about real estate - the demand to build new homes. That could impact millions of people in their employment. Think about systems like Social Security, where a large young working class pays for the retired class. There is a trend followed very closely in robotics about the number of elderly people per worker. The larger that ratio gets, the more we'll need robots. And not in 30 years -- in 15 years. We need to support the baby boomers. They'll be 70+ in 7 years. It's even worse in Japan. The cultural landscape will also change significantly. The Muslim minorities might not be minorities for long. This is a change of epic proportions.

ajross 18y ago
Relax. A slowdown in birth rates is a temporary disturbance (the opposite of the baby boom, in fact). Over time, society returns to a steady state. Yes, the finances get complicated, and we're looking at a generation or two that may see substandard retirement income. But it's hardly a huge social problem; three generations back we were looking at every generation having no retirement income. And the "muslim minority" stuff is just alarmist (and, frankly, semi-racist) political spin. Past the third generation, minorities stop being minorities. They become culturally indistinguishable from the overall society, with at most a unique subculture. This is true of all cultures. They're malleable. No one freaks out (here in the US) about the Polish Menace any more, nor about what all those greasy catholics (!) are going to do to our society, nor about all that lucre under the control of The Jew, nor about what will happen if we allow those awful Blacks to wed (!) our pure, white daughters. Do you see the point? In 50 years, all this "ZOMG Muslims!" mania is going to look equally dumb. If all that scary stuff didn't kill us, what are a few muslims going to accomplish? :) The saddest thing is how many of the people freaking out over things like muslim immigration (or, here in the US, mexicans) are grandchildren of people who saw exactly the same kind of discrimination.
- akd 18y ago
  > Past the third generation, minorities stop being minorities. They become culturally indistinguishable from the overall society. Excuse me? Black people are culturally indistinguishable from white people in the USA? And the whole miscegenation thing is still very real; try to name some onscreen romances between blacks and whites, and witness the backlash against the Super Bowl ad with Terrell Owens and a white woman.

gojomo 18y ago

More evidence that like other animals, humans don't breed well in captivity? (Offended europhiles -- I kid, I kid! Also, this quip is not original, but I can't recall where I'd first read it.)

peakok 18y ago

Oh please. Take a look at the charts of the world human population of all time : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg Where is the crisis now ? (I'd started to write a long answer adressing this topic but it would have been too long. If you want to digg into this matter I'll follow you).

vixen99 18y ago
Reminder: we are talking here about Europe not the overall world population. Moreover whatever some moderate Muslims say, Islam is fundamentally intolerant of other religions and atheistic values. In case you doubt it take a look at Islamic societies across the globe. The much enhanced birthrate of Muslims in Europe does therefore present us with a serious question as to how Europe will change as a result of this once Muslims are democratically able to alter national goals and cultural norms. This is nothing to do with racism or bigotry.
- peakok 18y ago
  Let's see. Since (all ?) europeans countries birthrates are agnostics, they include the recently immigrated people as well. Therefore, they include the muslims people. If everything above is true, and the birthrates are still low, then the article contradicts itself when it says : "[...] — mostly Muslim — who have yet to be infected by the modern malady called family planning [...]". It appears on the contrary, according to our low birthrates, that they don't have as much childs as we fear. Whatever the reality is, there is a logical fallacy somewhere. Since the science of demography knowns only 2 factors : (1) birthrates (2) migration flows (wich are continuous), we are left with the only other explaination. Maybe you understand now why you are deluding yourself if you study demographics without considering the whole world population, because this is what is feeding the migration flows. Whatever the laws you pass, you won't be able to stop people from all over the world to try to escape their life of misery, people who have such hopes for a better life that they take insane risks to make it and more than often die in the journey. The first waves of US immigrants were people fleeding oppression too. But the true problem isn't even here. The demographic doxa wich states that we should have everlasting high birthrates is closely tied the Economic Growth paradigm, and it is the true responsible for the great post-war immigration policies that european countries engaged in. This doxa (more people = more consumers = more taxpayers = more economic growth) is the true responsible for the situation you describe. If you're looking for an ennemy, then fight this doxa. Maybe we can live in a world where "less is more". Malthus would have been probably right if he lived today : our earth has limited ressources and our problems are just starting as a lot of emerging countries are catching up with the Occidental lifestyle. A lot of our current problems could be solved by having less people around (from education to transportation and ravaged landscapes). Even if our technology allows us to make it, there is no philosophical nor practical reason to be 20 billions on earth instead of 6 or 3 or even 1. Especially if the conditions of life are greater, common sense would suggest less quantity for more quality. Less misery in black Africa, less hopeless immigrants, and why not, less malls in Occident. The more people reproduces in poor countries, the more they'll take their shot at trying to reach richer countries. That's just, well, human. In trying to produce too much wealth, the process just becomes destructive for the cultures at some point and benefits to nobody.

sealedidentity 18y ago

Hugely informative article. A sarcastic thought just popped into my head. To make a snide remark: at least we Europeans don't do "Procreation for recreation."

ComputerGuru 18y ago

I'm a Muslim. How many people here are going to start suddenly hating me because I'm part of the "grand conspiracy to take over the world?" Oh yeah, I'm also American. I'm a practicing Muslim, raised in a western culture, contributing to western society, and fitting right in... I'm really disappointed to see some of the hate and prejudice that plagues the ignorant portion of the offliners here on HN - I thought hackers were supposed to be more open minded and stuff!

ajross 18y ago
Amen. I really would have expected more open-mindedness here. This whole "muslim plague" narrative I'm hearing from european right-wingers is straight out of 1920's america. It's all the same terms, all the same fear, all the same demographics. The only thing different is the proper nouns.
kingkongrevenge 18y ago
How exactly is it "hateful" to have opinions on immigration policy?
- ComputerGuru 18y ago
  It's hateful because it's not referring to non-citizen immigrants but rather the lump-sum Muslims in general - which includes people with full citizenships, etc.
  - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
    That's pretty much a non-answer. > I'm part of the "grand conspiracy to take over the world?" It's not really a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires secrecy. Islamic theology plainly calls for supremacy. Not that this is a realistic threat, it just underlines a certain incompatibility with modern sensibilities. > I thought hackers were supposed to be more open minded and stuff! At this stage in the game the open minded position is one that acknowledges the realities of world cultures and human history. The closed minded position is unthinking acceptance of the multi-cultural mantras.

biohacker42 18y ago

The future is bleak, but it's not what you think. Birth control and education are like a virus that impacts fertility. Over time we will adapt. It used to the sex drive was enough to reproduce, in the future the specific desire to HAVE kids will replace that. So the population will drop, then slowly turn around, but it will not end up in a balance. What you'll have is wealthy educated citizens of liberal democracies who absolutely have got have lots of kids. We better have colonized space then.