3 ms·

No. Pollution, likely microplastics are preventing and interfering with reproductive behaviour. Understand, we are complex beings. The desire to reproduce i

by b112 2y ago

No. Pollution, likely microplastics are preventing and interfering with reproductive behaviour. Understand, we are complex beings. The desire to reproduce is not conscious. It is innate and compulsive. And if you interfere with that hormonally derived urge, this is the result. It's not about money. That's on the conscious side. People had scads of kids during depressions and recessions, even when the pill was available, having kids was more important than not. And if you looka around the world, the amount of children has nothing to do with the country, or culture. Women oppressed or not, it doesn't matter. And what culture is more unique than Japan compared to the West? It's not culture, for the entire planet has a collapse in birthrates. We're going extinct.

yoyohello13 2y ago
> We're going extinct. I think that is hyperbole, but I agree with your general take. Maybe we are just at the top of the human population sigmoid curve and this is a normal collective correction. We've hit the carrying capacity of the post-industrialized world. Food isn't the limiter as much as an unconscious 'perceived opportunity for growth'.
- analognoise 2y ago
  It’s amazing that rather than recognize that the rich have too much and we too little, we’d rather organize around them hoarding so much wealth that the population declines. Like we could not imagine a fairer distribution that would incentivize more people to have children in a positive fashion. I think we might even go the other direction - circumscribe the rights of women directly to increase the birth rate, Handmaids Tale style.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >I think we might even go the other direction - circumscribe the rights of women directly to increase the birth rate, Handmaids Tale style. Given recent events, I think the Republic of Gilead will be a real thing in the USA before too long.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    People don't want to have kids even with all the incentives in the world. For many, it's now a lifestyle choice. And I mean, who can fault them, no one can be forced to have kids (unless you want to go through some unsavory means).
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      What incentives? That really depends on where you are. In the US, having kids is horrifically expensive. You can look forward to tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, even with good insurance, just for one hospital birth. Then having to pay tons of money for medical insurance for your kid, plus all the other regular expenses that come from child-rearing. Don't even get me started on the costs for daycare. In the US, there's enormous disincentives to having children. Here in Japan, it's much better: all medical expenses for children are free. There's also a cash bonus for having kids. Daycare is still a problem though, but the cost isn't nearly as awful as in America, however availability is a real problem.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        Not the US, I mean in Europe, specially Scandinavia. They've tried so many things to incentivize people but still people don't have kids. It seems to be that as countries develop and get richer, the number of kids born tends towards zero.
        slaw 2y ago
        Scandinavia didn't try anything that could help. Let them try inexpensive houses or 20k Euro tax rebates per child.
      - lumost 2y ago
        Child birth is a small fraction of the cost. The real costs add up in the 40 hour work week. School, daycare, and even the legal frameworks those operate in are intended for at least one parent to live close to the child and work at most part time. By and large millennials in the US were the first generation where both parents were raised to work for a variety of good reasons. How many jobs really let parents cut out at 4 to commute home for a 5pm pickup? Now consider the childcare and opportunity costs of raising children.
lxgr 2y ago
> the amount of children has nothing to do with the country, What a baffling comment to post under an article about the birth rate of a specific country and quite different from that of many others.
beeflet 2y ago
I like to joke that microplastics are responsible for social changes, and I don't deny that it has some effect but it is probably minor in the grand scheme of things

by b112 2y ago

yoyohello13 2y ago

> We're going extinct. I think that is hyperbole, but I agree with your general take. Maybe we are just at the top of the human population sigmoid curve and this is a normal collective correction. We've hit the carrying capacity of the post-industrialized world. Food isn't the limiter as much as an unconscious 'perceived opportunity for growth'.

analognoise 2y ago
It’s amazing that rather than recognize that the rich have too much and we too little, we’d rather organize around them hoarding so much wealth that the population declines. Like we could not imagine a fairer distribution that would incentivize more people to have children in a positive fashion. I think we might even go the other direction - circumscribe the rights of women directly to increase the birth rate, Handmaids Tale style.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >I think we might even go the other direction - circumscribe the rights of women directly to increase the birth rate, Handmaids Tale style. Given recent events, I think the Republic of Gilead will be a real thing in the USA before too long.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  People don't want to have kids even with all the incentives in the world. For many, it's now a lifestyle choice. And I mean, who can fault them, no one can be forced to have kids (unless you want to go through some unsavory means).
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    What incentives? That really depends on where you are. In the US, having kids is horrifically expensive. You can look forward to tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, even with good insurance, just for one hospital birth. Then having to pay tons of money for medical insurance for your kid, plus all the other regular expenses that come from child-rearing. Don't even get me started on the costs for daycare. In the US, there's enormous disincentives to having children. Here in Japan, it's much better: all medical expenses for children are free. There's also a cash bonus for having kids. Daycare is still a problem though, but the cost isn't nearly as awful as in America, however availability is a real problem.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      Not the US, I mean in Europe, specially Scandinavia. They've tried so many things to incentivize people but still people don't have kids. It seems to be that as countries develop and get richer, the number of kids born tends towards zero.
      - slaw 2y ago
        Scandinavia didn't try anything that could help. Let them try inexpensive houses or 20k Euro tax rebates per child.
    - lumost 2y ago
      Child birth is a small fraction of the cost. The real costs add up in the 40 hour work week. School, daycare, and even the legal frameworks those operate in are intended for at least one parent to live close to the child and work at most part time. By and large millennials in the US were the first generation where both parents were raised to work for a variety of good reasons. How many jobs really let parents cut out at 4 to commute home for a 5pm pickup? Now consider the childcare and opportunity costs of raising children.

lxgr 2y ago

> the amount of children has nothing to do with the country, What a baffling comment to post under an article about the birth rate of a specific country and quite different from that of many others.

beeflet 2y ago

I like to joke that microplastics are responsible for social changes, and I don't deny that it has some effect but it is probably minor in the grand scheme of things