4 ms·

Compared to my parents, I spent 20x the time parenting (the new normal) and I'm not sure these stats reflect that. Our global birthrate is a unconcerning 2.3 a

Compared to my parents, I spent 20x the time parenting (the new normal) and I'm not sure these stats reflect that. Our global birthrate is a unconcerning 2.3 and worldwide restroom use continues apace. Sex is edging out smoking but not by much.

jl6 1y ago
A net positive birth rate is still concerning. 8.2 billion people is a lot. All of the world’s problems, from energy sourcing to food production to climate change become harder and harder as the population continues to grow. It’s easy to be complacent in developed countries because birth rates have come way down, probably because of increased wealth and better education/opportunity for women and girls - but this is not yet the case in developing countries, and the nature of exponential growth is that if it exists anywhere locally, then it will eventually come to exist globally. It really doesn’t help to cut aid programmes to places that are most in need of development.
- derektank 1y ago
  The Club for Rome estimates that global population will peak at just below 9 billion by the middle of the century and then begin a sharp decline, ending at under 7 billion by 2100. This is really bad if your country's pension and welfare system assumes a certain ratio of people will be in the labor force, relative to the number of old and retired people, as most developed countries do. A declining birth rate is much worse than a slightly positive birth rate.
  - jl6 1y ago
    Maybe time to fix the ponzi approach to pensions and welfare instead of continuing to assume unlimited population growth on a finite planet. Edit: it’s not that I don’t believe the population projections showing a peak later in the century (although I think the Club of Rome one in particular is inaccurate), it’s that these projections are based on there being continued effort to bring birth rates down, hence now not being the time for complacency or defunding these efforts.
    - oytis 1y ago
      What approach would you take without getting rid of the concept of retirement entirely? If people live longer than they can work, they have to rely on the support of those who work in the old age - and the worse the radio of working people to retired people, the harder it is for the society.
      - jl6 1y ago
        The only thing that can work (which is also what is happening in practice) is to continually adjust the “pension & welfare” age upwards to achieve the necessary balance between working years and retirement years. The upshot is that everyone will need to save more for retirement than they do currently, whether privately or via taxation.
        oytis 1y ago
        Well, that's what seems to be happening at least in Germany where I am. Retirement age goes up, retirement benefits (inflation-adjustment) go down, contributions to pension system go up. It's always a bit of political struggle of course with back and forth, but the general trend is just that.
        jl6 1y ago
        Nobody likes paying more and getting less, and it’s perceived as some kind of societal decline, but it’s more like a correction. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the high birth rates in developed nations declined, roughly, in conjunction with the rise of welfare states. Both are ways, roughly, of providing for yourself in the future. Both are unsustainable in their current forms. We are living in the age of peak entitlement, where we draw down on the finite fossil fuel reserves of the past while simultaneously drawing down on the earnings of our children in the future.
        nonameiguess 1y ago
        This is the same thing. Human lifespan can't extend indefinitely, so if you continually adjust retirement age upward, eventually you adjust it to a point that nobody ever lives long enough to retire.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
elric 1y ago
Not sure about you, but most smokers I'm aware of smoke way more frequently than anyone can reasonably have sex. There would probably be significant benefits to swapping the frequency of those habbits, but I'm afraid there might be some practical concerns.
DiggyJohnson 1y ago
> 20x What do you think the actual number is in terms of dedicated hours per day?
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  Total time would include the time I wasn't at work and some of the time I was. My kids lived under 24/7 adulting, moving from one adult-curated, adult-populated box to the next. My mom parented between zero and few hours a week. Both her time and mine were representative of our respective generations. The major difference was her time spent was unchanged since before history. And sometime between her gen and mine, US childhood was mostly eradicated.

jl6 1y ago

A net positive birth rate is still concerning. 8.2 billion people is a lot. All of the world’s problems, from energy sourcing to food production to climate change become harder and harder as the population continues to grow. It’s easy to be complacent in developed countries because birth rates have come way down, probably because of increased wealth and better education/opportunity for women and girls - but this is not yet the case in developing countries, and the nature of exponential growth is that if it exists anywhere locally, then it will eventually come to exist globally. It really doesn’t help to cut aid programmes to places that are most in need of development.

derektank 1y ago
The Club for Rome estimates that global population will peak at just below 9 billion by the middle of the century and then begin a sharp decline, ending at under 7 billion by 2100. This is really bad if your country's pension and welfare system assumes a certain ratio of people will be in the labor force, relative to the number of old and retired people, as most developed countries do. A declining birth rate is much worse than a slightly positive birth rate.
- jl6 1y ago
  Maybe time to fix the ponzi approach to pensions and welfare instead of continuing to assume unlimited population growth on a finite planet. Edit: it’s not that I don’t believe the population projections showing a peak later in the century (although I think the Club of Rome one in particular is inaccurate), it’s that these projections are based on there being continued effort to bring birth rates down, hence now not being the time for complacency or defunding these efforts.
  - oytis 1y ago
    What approach would you take without getting rid of the concept of retirement entirely? If people live longer than they can work, they have to rely on the support of those who work in the old age - and the worse the radio of working people to retired people, the harder it is for the society.
    - jl6 1y ago
      The only thing that can work (which is also what is happening in practice) is to continually adjust the “pension & welfare” age upwards to achieve the necessary balance between working years and retirement years. The upshot is that everyone will need to save more for retirement than they do currently, whether privately or via taxation.
      - oytis 1y ago
        Well, that's what seems to be happening at least in Germany where I am. Retirement age goes up, retirement benefits (inflation-adjustment) go down, contributions to pension system go up. It's always a bit of political struggle of course with back and forth, but the general trend is just that.
        jl6 1y ago
        Nobody likes paying more and getting less, and it’s perceived as some kind of societal decline, but it’s more like a correction. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the high birth rates in developed nations declined, roughly, in conjunction with the rise of welfare states. Both are ways, roughly, of providing for yourself in the future. Both are unsustainable in their current forms. We are living in the age of peak entitlement, where we draw down on the finite fossil fuel reserves of the past while simultaneously drawing down on the earnings of our children in the future.
      - nonameiguess 1y ago
        This is the same thing. Human lifespan can't extend indefinitely, so if you continually adjust retirement age upward, eventually you adjust it to a point that nobody ever lives long enough to retire.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

elric 1y ago

Not sure about you, but most smokers I'm aware of smoke way more frequently than anyone can reasonably have sex. There would probably be significant benefits to swapping the frequency of those habbits, but I'm afraid there might be some practical concerns.

DiggyJohnson 1y ago

> 20x What do you think the actual number is in terms of dedicated hours per day?

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
Total time would include the time I wasn't at work and some of the time I was. My kids lived under 24/7 adulting, moving from one adult-curated, adult-populated box to the next. My mom parented between zero and few hours a week. Both her time and mine were representative of our respective generations. The major difference was her time spent was unchanged since before history. And sometime between her gen and mine, US childhood was mostly eradicated.