This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1723733620577x122774386965518900 Note: You can now create your own quizzes on our website -- just set up an account & a creator profile.
What people refuse to say is that fertility dropped in industrial countries because of birth control pills and abortion. And it's exactly the cause for some : Human Reproduction Update, Volume 12, Issue 5, September/October 2006, Pages 603 to 616
Economies are a pyramid scheme, in order to keep growing, more people have to be added (unless mechanization bans are lifted, and AI is developed further for taking over more complex jobs). This is the reason for the US to be complacent with illegal immigration, the UK doing the same, Russia stealing population and children from Ukraine and trying to attract immigrants, China announcing they regret the one-child policy and so on. Russia also started pedalling ideas through their propaganda machine, where they say it's a civil duty to multiply and those not doing it should be sent to prison. Also saying that state-sponsored forced pregnancy should be introduced.
@@EthelJung-j5w it's also possible that we rethink housing. It isn't really necessary for everyone to have a house. Most people can function just fine with an apartment. Having a house is a luxury. And realistically most people with houses don't even use all of the amenities that often. Meaning the back and front yard. Most families are either in the house or out in public. I am living in a house right now but I actually like living in apartments more. Apartments have always seemed more social in my experience. At apartments there were always children playing around outside. In my house neighborhood there are never any kids outside. The only thing we need to figure out with apartments is bugs. Bugs can get in the walls and get into other apartments. We really need to figure that out. That's actually the only reason I am not living in an apartment right now. I'm afraid of my neighbors giving me a bug infestation.
@@SimonWoodburyForget that's true but I feel like we can figure that out. Maybe. Hopefully. Otherwise we will just get stuck with overpriced apartments forever 😂
lol, as if housing prices aren’t high because of the regulation and zoning laws required to build houses. Increase supply and price will drop! Keep housing difficult to build and prices will stay high.
@@EthelJung-j5w I might be wrong, but I see two crisis at the same time. We have lack of housing in metropolitan areas and shrinking population on small villages.
@@debasishraychawdhuri So youre saying we need to produce housing instead of just selling existing housing back and forth for ever higher prices? How novel!
Its not entirely useless: 1) Of course the prices go up but they will not go up by 30.000€ but by a way smaller amount. Google for the economic effect of government subsidies, its a well studied field. And no politician expects the 30.000€ to go to the people in need entirely but saying the effect is 0€ is not true either. Its more complex. 2) The 30.000€ are distributed equally - which is a good thing and utterly *bad* for the rich. To illustrate that, take it a step further and imagine the government would give 10 billion € to everybody. Of course that would equal a hyper inflation but anybody who holds cash would basically be disowned. The rich would stay rich because of assets other than cash but they would still lose more than the poor who didnt have anything to lose in the first place.
Having worked for many years with fostered children and others with family problems, I STRONGLY recommend, if you don’t want children, DON’T have them. To grow up into healthy happy people, children need happily devoted, loving parents. Nothing will change for the better so long as our society promotes Work, Profit, fat Incomes over child care. Shovelling small infants off to nurseries is no the answer. Children need their parents and parents need society to support them to nurture their children. Breeding children to fill a gap created by our profit oriented society is certainly not the solution.
@@NaumRusomarov Worldwide, yes, but in a developed western society not so much particularly for the younger generations. And yes, it is difficult to go against the grain and chose not to have children (even in said countries), but I'm guessing it's more difficult to bring up children you don't want. It's not easy, but it is simple.
@@NaumRusomarov I think that we should not be encouraging people to have children - because if they need encouragement, then they don't really want them.
Still true. It currently takes about 20 people living in poverty to support one person a middle class levels. Much better then Voltaire's time when the ratio was much higher. Tech is improving the ratio but until we get replicators and unlimited energy the ratio will never go away. The average human on Earth only generates $8k/yr in wealth so socialism only makes everyone poor.
@@indranilbanik3424 yeah, except almost no woman in their right mind wants to be a single mother by choice. Even those women who want kids, want them with a stable, loving life partner who will share the burden of life and parenthood with them.
How indeed... Is there a way out of that situation? Like, if you really wanted to get out, could you imagine how and do it and put your mind to it, making the sacrifices and suffering through it until you met your goals? Or are you a victim of circumstances until you die? You might not be able to get out depending on your education, support structure, and single parent status. Many say "Where there is a will, there is a way." A lot of people just give up. Some don't. Good luck.
There is no overall housing crisis, its only a problem in the massively overcrowded cities. Why people insist on living in places they can't afford is insane to me.
@@Rudi__yt1 Too late for what? Just 2000 years ago we had less than 1% of the population we have now. And we were fine back then. Do you think any of the changes in Japan or Korea are that significant?
It's not living is unaffordable. It's luxorious lifestyle. Compare birth rates in rich industrial states with developing states. Baltic states have a fraction of switzerlands GDP, and still higher birth rates. Even more interesting is Israel. It is developed economy and with high birth rates. Moral values matter, not economy.
Yes it is true, it's on Wikipedia. And it's important because in this context it makes it seem as if the government wanted to achieve something by doing this and it failed. When it was rather a joke and for a private company. Reduces overall credibility of the rest.
@@kinetic-cybernetic I see you mean it wasn't the gov't that ran "Do it for Denmark", and subsequent "Do it for Mom". To be fair the intent of the ads was indeed to increase birth count, per the very first sentence of the wikipedia article, it just wasn't the gov't and was done in a humorous way. The wikipedia goes on to claim it was irony but the three citations have nothing to do with that if you click them, in fact they alerted me to: The gov't aired a program titled “Knald for Danmark” or “Screw for Denmark”, whatever that was, and Copenhagen ran it's own campaign touting slogans for men like “swimming too slowly?” in reference to sperm, and women if they had “counted their eggs today?”. I'm sure also as jokes but the intent even if it was humorous was to get people to have more kids. That's still pretty weird. Though to be honest handing people cash to have kids is just as weird. Especially when the cash is nowhere near what a child costs. Virtually every country has tried that... At least the ads give us a nice train wreck to watch I suppose. I personally think they gov't should maybe try providing people with less stressful work or die scenarios through universal basic income and provide more time and places to socialize and enjoy life. But quick cash and cheap sleezy ads are more gov't and big business' style.
You didn't mention urbanisation, which is a huge driver of this issue. There is simply no reason to have 8 kids if you live in a city. Massive families make much more sense when you need a lot of free labour. Not so much when you live in a small flat and kids are a financial liability. You can see how fertility drops off in countries as their populations shift from rural to urban settings. Kenya is a great example of this.
Nothing about big words. Simple, just say this older generation of our generation is hoarding all jobs of the land and the land too, leaving too little to have a schoolbus of little kids.😅
The "mouse utopia" experiments are a pretty good indicator of what's to come. Only worse. The rats didn't have mass immigration and economic collapse... The anti-natalist sentiments you see here will only increase as society is torn inside-out by nihilism. I suppose future civilizations will look back to the West as we see Rome, perhaps something better can rise from the ashes after a dark age.
Who is having 8 kids? People can hardly afford 1. I live in L.A. and have 2. I can tell you that it feels like 8 when the bills add up. My parents moved to the valley and it was literally no cheaper. Historically, the Valley was built for space, but all we did was wipe out the farmland that we had right outside the city and bring a bunch of transplants from other states for the weather. L.A. isn't going to get cheaper no matter how many houses we build, people are going to move to L.A. for the weather.
If you lengthen your view, children can move from financial liability to financial boon. It's a long investment, one that the rich families that control most everyone else learned long ago.
1. The marriage contract being seen as a bad financial decision especially when ending. 2. Family courts not being impartial when making decisions. 3. Current state of economy 4. Peoples negative feelings about the state of society.
@@nickthompson1812No it's simple mathematics. Infinite growth is not possible, the simplest possible equations say population rises and falls; it can oscillate and crash as well. Economics flies in the face of reality; the boom years can't go on forever.
@@MoonberryJam93 we aren’t suppose to be trying to do it all alone. The intention of big families and living in community was to help each other. We have forgotten this important piece of information. You raise your children to take on family and household responsibilities as they grow older, not for money or prize but because that was one of the fundamental pieces to our evolution.
It may feel like that. But in reality, we live in the most prosperous times. The living standards of prior generations at that age was worse. The only exception - and this is an important one - are house prices. Young people who have no prospect of owning a home do understandably feel too economically unstable to have kids.
In earlier times, families were huge because there was not any efficient contraception. Women were forced to bear child after child after child until they died or reached menopause.
My main concern is how to survive all of these financial and political crisis, especially in light of the US political power scuffle. The government has really called things more difficult for its citizens, and we can't sit back and bear all the consequences of the bad governance.
I'm glad you made this comment, I can recall when I was homeless and faced with many things in life until $75,000 biweekly began rolling in and my Life went from A homeless nobody to a different person with good things to offer!!!! !!
I thank Judy Marion Then who has always been there to help me with detailed analysis and recommendations that I would not have had access to otherwise.
I'm a 31 year old dude in Denmark. I don't have my own apartment yet; the ones I can afford have ridiculous waiting times, the ones that are available right now have ridiculous rent prices. I have not been able to achieve any of my goals in life yet either, and my life is already divided between the shitty job I have to do and the things that I want to do. So why the hell do I want to make my life even more complicated by adding a child into the mix?
Adding children to your life do make life a little more complicated, true. But they also make your life many, many times more meaningful. Sounds like your life is pretty meaningless right now.
Ask yourself why white people get the same "you're on your own" treatment from governments in every single western country, but bend over backwards to import and subsidize the reproduction of non-whites.
@@sjcherry56 It's a primitive idea that one's life meaning is to produce offspring. While we're still animals that require basic animal fulfilments, our intelligence gives us the power to give ourselves meaning in life. Children most certainly isn't that for me. I'm a science fiction artist, though mostly stuck doing furry art for commissions. My goals, my meaning, the reason why I get up in the morning at all, is to try and make my ideas come to life, either as comics, animations, or perhaps even a videogame or two. However, between having been homeless for 6 years thanks to 2008, and barely being able to afford living, it seems like all the world is against my ambitions, and only becoming more difficult as time goes on. My life isn't meaningless. It's being actively worked against.
I had a child. A full term son who lived 4 hours, due to agent orange in the watershed put there by the lumber industry in the mid seventies. There was a class action lawsuit covering it. I decided not to try again.
The only real way to encourage people to have babies, is to make it so that both parents don’t have to work 60 hour weeks each and take million dollar loans to put roofs over their head, cover medical costs and put their children through school, change life to a slog of work (earning the bacon), and then more work (raising kids), while unable to take holidays. The cost of living is INSANE, building a level playing field for your child to succeed is almost impossible, and the ROI is non-existent.
Economic incentives have been tried all over the world and never worked. This is not the reason why most of the childless people are childless. Medical costs and costs of putting children through school are essentially zero in most of the developed world and people are still choosing to not have kids.
This is why inflation is the biggest crime against humanity. Still you can move to places where houses are cheaper or simply lower the standards. For example for the first 7 years of my life my parents raised me while living in 1 room in my grandparents' house.
To me, what's the point if a relationship has much higher costs than it did back then. Also it's sad knowing the legal system basically doesn't give full access to genetic tests on birth to all children.
Yes. Not considering the few ones that choose chastity, Incels are on the rise, I’m afraid. My advice would be go to a golden hearted prostitute for instruction and practice, then start reading the red flags. It’s never too late
Uh yeah. I know absolutely nobody like that and know lots of people are having lots of sex. I can tell you who is not having a lot of sex and it is people on the right. Mostly because women refuse to have sex with them any more on the dating circuit. I wonder why. Go figure. /s
@@StuHol-jb1hh For too many people they ARE... but those are more often the people who will eventually be complaining that their adult kids no longer want to talk to them!
It's the norm in parts of the world for kids to take care of their parents. Hypothetically, in America you could make a lot of money by having a number of children, living on the same property, and getting your kids into jobs ASAP, then getting a second home, and a third... Problem is, you don't have social capital. You're encouraged to be individualistic and difficult to get along with. High GDP economies work like this. It's a commodification game, and you're a good employee. No family distractions.
Is it hilarious? My wife takes care of her parents now with help from her sisters. I'd let my parents move in with me if they needed it or even help them move closer if they wanted. They weren't good parents but I don't harbor hatred or grief over it. One of my friends is buying his parents a 450k house in their old age. My brother and his wife have moved her mom into an assisted living facility that costs about $6k a month or some crazy amount. Most of it is from the moms house as a rental, and they pay about 2k in addition. I should add, I don't expect my three kids to take care of me, but it would be nice! I had a lucky break moving from poverty to a gated neighborhood via military service and a STEm education so our perspectives likely differ. It seems that you haven't experienced familial support and I have not experienced much of a lack. Conclusion: we are both ignorant and naive.
In america, economic restrictions on housing and healthcare and rising taxpayer subsidies are basically wiping out the middle class. People can't afford to live and the europeans are telling us that the answer is even more the same.
@@MikeOxolong You only need chatgpt 3 level intelligence with TTS or the multimodal chatgpt. Industrial tasks or FSD needs sophisticated robots. Throw in a bunch of sensors and transducers with such an AI talking to the person. At least the robot can dial someone on emergency, report to the hospital or someone near and dear. Why can't it fetch medicines or pick you up when you fall down in the bathroom floor? You need monitoring, and a last mile connectivity sort of to the healthcare or social network.
Cost of living and in particular house prices, the cost of childcare and university tuition fees are a major problem, that needs fixing. I would rank skyrocketing property prices first. After all, a self-owned home has a strong psychological effect on young families who feel “anchored” at a place and its local community. That being said, it is demonstrably wrong that affordability concerns are the only or indeed the decisive factor in declining birth rates. Much of this is cultural. And the positive development of women getting better educated has follow-on effects that are unaccounted for. That is, high achieving women have trouble finding a suitable partner to start a family with. It remains a common pattern that women do not want to “date down” and rather stay single.
Declining population isn't a problem in and of itself. The problem is that our society is a ponzi scheme you need an endless supply of fresh meat to funnel into the grinder that is social programs for the elderly. When they say society will collapse what they mean really is that *social security* will collapse, because there's an overabundance of elderly relative to working age people. Immigration doesn't solve this problem either, because they get old too. Childless people are not a problem in and of themselves. We work so we're net contributers, and we'll retire wealthy so will be self sufficient in our old age. We're only a problem in so far as we're not producing more units for the mincer.
Even if you take out the social security, your wealth when you retire is conditional on other people being willing to do labor at the time you are old. Unless you stockpile a couple decades worth of supplies instead of cash that is. Consider a thought experiment when you have the two countries of Northland and Southland, where the Southland is a normal country while Northland is comprised exclusively of rich retires. You know what's the first thing that'd happen? The North$ exchange rate would collapse immediately into the floor, and the accumulated wealth of the pensioners would be destroyed.
@@melissachartres3219 Let the Pagan spill theirs O'er mountain, hill, and plain God shall strike them down for Each sperm that's spilt in vain Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is good Every sperm is needed In your neighborhood Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite iraaaaaate!
@@harrynewiss4630 That is a false equivalence. Just because your "dirt poor grandparents" managed to have children in the 1930s, then suggesting that people today should be able to do the same, you are over-simplifying and ignoring the complexities of the current context. Such as, not acknowledging the significant differences in economic conditions, Societal expectations which is especially relevant today, since there is a much higher standard for raising children, and how to actually take care of them, plus the cost of living, and other factors that have changed over time.
While receiving a public education during the 1960s, I was repeatedly subjected to social science lessons in regard to the "existential threat" posed by the "unsustainable" rise in global population; going "childless" was thus characterized as a noble act. In 1965, there were an estimated 3,334,533,703 people on earth. Today, there are more than 8,161,972,572 humans polluting the air and consuming dwindling resources. In spite of this growth in population, the extreme poverty rate has declined by over forty percent during the same period. The shift from agrarian society toward a modern, information based society has been realized as a need for two income households and child daycare centers - and family sizes have declined accordingly. While incomes have remained stagnant for decades for American hourly wage earners, the ratio of corporate CEO compensation to that of the average wage earner has gone up from 40 to 1 to over 400 to 1. With the advent of AI and autonomous robots and vehicles, fifty percent of the workforce could be rendered obsolete within a generation. What then is to be done with useless eaters against a backdrop of "sustainability" hysteria?
In my opinion we need a new economic system that will make AI and robotics of the future work for the benefit of the many, not for a handful of corporate owners. We also need the vast majority of our industrialized populations to accept a different standard of living, where balance with our environment is a more imporrtant priority than continually growing our material wealth. An economy where repairing things is efficient because spending resources in production are taxed at a higher rate than labour is for fixing things. We have the capacity and the technology to feed and house everyone in the world, but our economic system is unable to get it done, both due to inefficiencies and because of countermanding incentives. My hope is that the climate crisis will eventually make the world realize that this current system cannot go on forever, and that we figure it out in time to build something better.
People not having children is them saying: "Nah, I rather remove myself from the gene pool." Anyone who has a moral compass, generally has a positive attitude towards their peers and is not severely mentally ill, would look at that and say: "This is breaking my heart! I need to figure out immediately why so many people would think that way!" But that's not what they do, is it? They _blame_ the childless for being "selfish", because it impacts them materially: They no longer have enough minimum wage employees, gullible buyers, bankrupt students and attention givers. One could _almost_ conclude, that they're part of the problem.
This problem effects the sheep just as much if not more than the wolves. This isn't a rich vs poor issue. Everyone in our societies will suffer as a result of the demographic crisis this is causing.
@@Erowens98The problem is calling it a problem. Kids cost money, people have a given standard of living. Business owners who don’t have enough resumes to wipe their ass with are the ones complaining.
Living in a south European country (Greece) where us, the vast majority, can barely afford renting a tiny penthouse and survive the month, all I can say is when confronted with J. D. Vance and others of his ilk is …. “talk is cheap”.
But, for Muslims having more kids is a priority, believe it or not. Even the poor ones want more children and they don't care much about the cost; just let them live like us in poverty or whatever. They think outnumbering "kafir" people is a religious duty!
@@dolev_dil no. Her comment was a quick comment based on her opinion. It's not backed by science. Proven is that as the cost of living goes up, number of children goes down.
@@williamparis500 That's entirely correlative, not causal. As she points out in the video, even countries where having children is not a financial burden have far lower birthrates when they are wealthier. Wealthier societies have fewer children because of the values that tend to be promulgated in those societies, not because they cannot afford to have children.
We received a 'baby bonus ' when my son was born, the obstetrician increased her fees just when the policy was introduced and 'coincidentally' the new fee was the exact same amount as the gap in our insurance. The waiting list at the time meant we didn't have a chance to shop around and in any case from speaking to friends we found that they all did the same. In economics we call that market failure.
That’s not market failure. That’s the fact that giving large groups of people bonus money is inflationary. Governments repeatedly misunderstand this. (Though I wish it wasn’t this way and I sympathise with you.)
I live in the USA. I couldn't have children. That's just the way it turned out. A large chunk of my friends were having a lot of kids; probably more than they could afford. They felt bad for me, but they also wanted me to have kids so that there would be more of US than THEM. I don't associate with them anymore.
Your friends understand realpolitik and you either don't understand or you're in the suicide cult. You're childless and it's a sad thing, truly. 4 billion years of uninterrupted reproduction now ends abruptly with you.
@@gaspachoo5046 Racist people don't tend to be the most level headed as your comment clearly indicates. I think this guy dodged a pack of arseholes unlike you.
Let's see,I must have cable TV, a motorcycle for the week ends, play golf, host great barbques on Saturday and buy tennis shoes that are $250 so I cannot afford having another human living in my house that is a total expence with no chance of a $$ return for at least 16-18 years. I will have my comforts first; maybe child later. Arrogance and hubris are great birth control methods supported by abortion if one gets in a hurry ...
Where are people getting this idea that this problem only affects the upper class? You're gonna suffer this, too! Our system is built on the idea that the young who work support the old who can't. If there are no young, what happens to the old? You might say "I don't give a shit about the boomers," but guess what, you're gonna be 70 some day! And when that happens, how are you gonna pay your medical bills? The economy is gonna collapse under the weight of aging Gen Z and Millenials, and whatever poor generations come after us are gonna be stressed out because there are too few to support us. Because we didn't have kids. You know how we give shit to boomers because they ignored an existential threat (climate change) and just put it off and let us deal with it? You're literally doing to that to those that come after us.
No matter how much money I have, my day has only 24 hours. The only way I could imagine a third child, is if something or someone takes more tasks away from me so I actually have free time. Grandparents are mostly dead, siblings very few and far away. So, almost no support there. A butler, a cook and maid would definitely help. Since I can't afford that, sufficient childcare would be helpful. But we don't have that, either, so we have to do it ourselves, and no time for more kids.
Sounds like the problem is not enough children in your family. If your grandparents and parents had more, you'd have more help. Older children can also help.
This is why it is importantly that women have their first child in their twenties. The workload of caring for children becomes way more manageable when older siblings are already more self sufficient when another child is born.
This is a very good point. People have kids older so grandparents are no longer there to help. No support networks is a big reason women opt out from having a kid. Sabine simply ignored all the social reasons. She has two kids with a husband. She is from the old generation. She has no clue what it's like now.
A Population of over 1 billion on only one planet is not a "population crisis". There is a theoretical max population for EVERY ecosystem. There is a HUGE range of "viable population" in most ecosystems. I think we are way too close to our planet's population functional max. A gradual decline back into the middle of the "viable range" wouldn't be a bad thing.
@@drgn2182not inherently bad, but we all agree pollution, traffic, dwindling fresh water supplies, infrastructure, deforestation, etc etc are bad things, and adding more humans won't help it. Any new tech you throw at the problem is just kicking the can further down the road until some future generation has to fight for drinkable water. OR we can start having less babies now and lessen the burdens on future generations. Do you really want to ration your AC usage in August? Do you think people 100 years from now will want to?
The current young adult generation here in Ireland is hosed, they can't have kids because they're still stuck living in their parents' home because the housing market is beyond fubar. Fertility rates were still high until the mid 1970s, but they're expected to crash further to South Korean levels soon.
Perhaps it wasn't that great of a deal to open the country to be a tax haven for big techs So they can flood in the major cities Bring thousands of their remote and better payed employees Raising rent so much as to outprice the locals from job centers I remember when I was wee lad, I had oa dream of one day moving to Ireland I no longer dream of that
@@matheussanthiago9685 - It's not just Ireland, it's everywhere: housing bubble has been the big business since the 90s and, in 2008, instead of letting it burst, it was patched, so we stayed other two decades in the nightmare. Almost half a century of instable low-pay jobs and extremely expensive housing take a toll on societies, we're being essentially genocided by our oligarchs.
Ireland choosing to be the wild west for big tech operating in the EU is why your country is fooked. It never used to be like that. Your elites destroyed your standard of living so a few could get uber rich.
Don't forget religions. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world because they are having more kids than other religions. Every religion wants you to have as many kids as you can.
The population of the Earth in 1900 was less than 2 billion, while the economic consequences of less population are probably real, we have more than 4 times that number of people today, and that has real environmental consequences. I'll start worrying about it when the global population dips below 4 billion
It used to be possible to have a family of 5 on ONE income, with one parent full time at home, and one working. That was balance, that allowed everyone to feel comfortable raising a family and having some time to themselves. This is not possible now for the majority. Out of necessity both parents must work and its very difficult to survive for most just day to day without kids. Housing and property tax have gotten out of control. You can look at so many charts showing how disproportionate housing costs have gone up in the last 30 years compared to everything else. This is all it comes down to.
And then our politicians allowed jobs to go to Mexico and other foreign countries. That said, it is possible. You just have to have one earning a good pay (does not have to be $100K), low-cost area, and "day care" is Mom (or Dad) watching the kids. I know families who can still do this. They just don't waste money on latest gadgets or drive new cars.
Almost like you didn't even watch the video. Women don't want to get stuck doing childcare for zero dollars, let their intellect be limited to what can be accomplished at home, and/or be stuck to a man for his earning abilities without any way of escape. In no way was this scenario "balance" for anyone but the men who got to do whatever they wanted and do literally nothing different than they would have if single and working. And... there's always been families where both parents worked because poor people have always needed to do this. You're just seeing a very tiny slice of propaganda about a very specific time period.
@@beebeebop3405 Cost is one of the reasons, though. In fact, here in the US it seems that is one of the biggest reasons I see repeated. Nearly every article I read on the subject touches on the cost related to kids. Some also refer to climate or "carbon footprint", which never ceases to amaze me.
She literally addressed this. Even in Scandinavian countries with ample public housing, free childcare, free Healthcare, etc don't have enough children. It's not just an issue of cost.
@@AndrasMihalyiPoor countries have usually lower living expenses and a warm climate which doesn't kill you if you have to live in a cardboard box with your ten kids eating cockroaches.
The divorce rate in the US hoovers around 50%.Growing up in a broken home and the hardships experienced doesn't encourage people to repeat these mistakes.
You know the idiot Vance also has a solution to this. He wants to outlaw no fault divorces and force people to stay in unhappy marriages “for the kids”. I grew up in a household where my parents were constantly bickering.. they made my childhood a hell.
Now that gays have legal marriage we have stats. Gay men divorce at a rate of 17% and gay women at 65%. Feels like women are freaking out a bit after coming into the working world. Keep calm and carry on.
You can look to Sweden where people have one child each with many different partners. Actually, you can also go to the museum of architecture in Stockholm and see that the government has influenced how many children people have at a time by deciding how many rooms apartments should have
I am mentally ill and can't even afford or take the effort to care for a single child. To have a child would be ruthless and careless to me, because it's very hard for me to care for myself alone. I don't think that's egoistic. It is the opposite, if you look closely. And if that means that this system will collapse, because I look after the happiness of my future offspring, let it collapse, because it's not worth it.
it's egoistic to spread misinformation around concerning the idea that having children is an optional choice and push people to find excuses to live hedonistically without making children. Wanna make genetical self-sabotage because "you can't afford it?" fine, don't lure people into believing this is a preferred solution to a more affordable life. Having children, or at least one child, and finding a way to actually focus on raising them with values requires a lot of effort and an immense amount of willpower and self-sacrifice (the latter not being an issue if one loves the child). But ultimately, to live using problem-solving to find a way to leave a live project behind instead of excuses, is the only rational choice for intelligent life (excluding those who cannot have any children even if they want to).
@@quantumzoflyne I don't have any kids 100% by choice. It never made any sense, and I have never had the 'urge'. I also have a need or urge to be married. Also no chance I could have afforded kids. It is much better I never had any, then to have ones I didn't want, and have them grow up poor. It baffles me that dirt poor people choose to have many kids. That makes zero logical sense. It seems your take it there is no excuse or reason to not have children. I certainly don't need to leave a 'live project' behind.
In 1996, the world entered an efficiency economy. It's not about growth anymore, it's about downsizing the number of workers and using technology to fill the gap. People have found it cheaper to offer self driving cars as taxis than hiring less than minimum wage drivers for instance. The only thing more people will bring is more people living in the streets.
That's luckily not how it works. When skme tasks are automated that leaves time for people to find other useful things to do that aren't basic necessities (like producing yt vids, art and science). Humans are still very much needed in society. DW
@@drgn2182 That is how it works. Without the fundamental support structure within society to create future scientists UA-cam video makers, and artists, you're just telling truck drivers and coal miners to learn how to code while shoving your fingers in your ears. This is their MO. Dissolve the Department of Education, make abortion illegal, and hog ownership of our new automation masters amongst the few generationally wealthy in power. You'll have your permanent underclass with lots of free time, children, mandatory religious study, debt, and a happy thank you for the at will employment allowing them to do more productive things when they're let go, like being an amateur astronaut or building a perpetual motion machine in their free time. Just give people free time via automation and everything magically takes care of itself. Economic equilibrium doesn't have a human cost, it's just numbers on a graph. Humans are only needed only to be ruled by the chosen few. Let them eat cake.
Tech has many hidden costs, notaby fuel and global warming. Also no reduction in working hours since the Mexican and Russian revolutions 106 years ago: shouldn't higher tech efficiency allow us to have more free time (and better living conditions overall, including job stability and decent affordable housing), which may in turn cause more babies?
We've created a society based on empty consumption, BS jobs and artificially inflated competition in working hours. None of it is essential or even a positive. People don't want to have kids for moral reasons (as we saw in the old Eastern Bloc), for economic reasons and for ecological reasons. Every single one fo these reasons are valid and far more important to address than just telling people to have more kids "because its good for the economy"...
LOL! The poorest regions in the world have the most children, & they work more hours than in the West. West is going to collapse. Too much debt (insolvent), and demographic cliff (too many boomers promise huge retirement entitlements & pensions that were never funded).
Pretty much. The pronatalist arguments are basically economic arguments, and economists are notorious for their "inside the box" thinking that treats the economy and human society as if they were independent of the larger earth system. Personally I also don't want to bring any kids into the current psudo-capitalist system as it is, at least until we figure out what exactly we're trying to accomplish with it. When my friends and I got our first jobs about 15 years ago, it was like you spend 18 years hearing about how we're a free country, and then you get a job and I'd caricature it as "Alright now that you're an adult, let me introduce you to the two people who are going to be running your life: your landlord and your scheduling manager." It's basically serfdom and I don't really want to put someone else through that.
OP makes a great point, an overemphasis on sustaining an unsasustainable economic model, and a broader system that is overly focused on increased efficiency solely from a monetary viewpoint.
@@augustodelerme7233 They infest the left side. They still revere Ehrlich, though won't admit it. The "globalists" want to reduce the Earth's population by 90%, fast. The best way to do this is to ban the use of fossil fuels, thus fertilizer and pesticides. These actions will cut food production by a large fraction, causing mass starvation in the third world. It will also cause people to freeze in the Northern climes, causing them to burn everything is sight, denuding the forests, and burning peat. Both are far worse than fossil fuels. Unintended consequences.
I think it's always been like this. The people that should have kids simply don't because of fear of the future and/or personal greed, and then the ones that really shouldn't go ahead to create as many as they can because they don't know any better.
Even the ones that shouldn’t have children ALSO aren’t having children! Teenage pregnant is falling all across the globe. Poorer countries with less access to benefits for theirs kids are also having less children. People with hereditary disease, financial issues, no support, are more aware than ever about what it means to be a parent and what children need. The whole “good people don’t have kids and bad (dog whistle for poor class, undesirables, criminals, minorities) people have too many” is not even true anymore.
Raising a family in a VERY expensive little flat on the 20th floor is not pleasant. Intensive humanstock farming is just no fun. And the future doesn't look like it's going to be any nicer. On the contrary...
Not having time due to focusing on other things is actually poverty. Poverty is nowadays so normalized that poor people think they rather don't have time than they're actually being poor. Or that the world has gone to hell, when it really has just become more poor. Not being able to change the world for the better is poverty.
I often wonder what that 'focusing on other things' really entails to be honest. If you're going to accomplish anything really significant I think most would have achieved/done it by the time they're 30 and still within the window of having children.
Poverty is normalised in the west? what are you smoking? It's actually the countries with the greatest average wealth that have the least new babies per capita.
@@Alex-ni2ir Maybe, if we're talking one's peak performance, but not necessarily. Many people reach their peak later if the experience and time they spend practicing is relevant to the discipline. If we're talking career and livable wage, 30 is being optimistic. Especially with time needed to spend on studying or even keeping up with technological development.
There are 8 billion people on earth and they act like it’s not alright to be childless. For me this is just a sign of racism. For them it’s not like we don’t have enough babies, we don’t have enough babies of the _right_ race. I have children and I am really glad that I made the decision to have them. I think I would be missing out on some things in life without them, but then again if I wouldn’t have them I probably wouldn’t know I’m missing out. But I respect everyones decision who doesn’t want to have children.
What are childless people missing out on, exactly? They all have been children, so they know exactly how this thing plays out. They don't need to see the other angle of a sad, sad play. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 I guess you only know it when you have children. It’s just incredible seeing them grow up. I love them so so much, much more than my partner tbh. It fills me with deepest joy just when they discover something, when they are happy or when I can teach them something. I can hardly describe how it is, but the worst thought of my life is that they grow up and they grow away from me. That’s how much I love being a parent. And besides that people usually don’t remember their own childhood because we all have this strange amnesia of the first few years of our lifes, of course being a parent is a different thing than being a child. It may be the same play but you have different roles. I guess it’s not that much about the outcome, but about the joy of playing in this play. And I am sorry for you if your play had a sad outcome so far. I hope you will get better soon.
The lack of compassion and the self-hatred of natalists makes me sad. I wish these people had the courage to look at themselves and reflect on what truly motivates them.
That would be the people who inflict a life of suffering on people who have never done them any harm. But why invent the word "natalist", when we already have "parent"?
Natalists are the onles that love themselves, because they love what they are and want to keep it alive through their kids. All they are, their culture. They don't want to commit self g3nocid3
@@shinobiwannabe"The lack of compassion + self hatred of natalists makes him sad." Might be a case of your odd interpretation of text. Or of an odd construction of text.
My parents were early boomers, here in Australia. Their professional education was paid for by the government under a scheme that also guaranteed two years' full time employment in the field of their qualification once they graduated. They bought their first home in their mid twenties. There are a lot fewer school leavers as a percentage of the population now than there were back then. If the country could afford to give the boomers that start in life, we could give it to everyone.
I'm not a "childless cat lady".... I'm a "mommas boy" still living in her basement at an age where I probably should be dealing with surly adolescents of my own....In other words, there aint a lot of gals seeing someone like ME as "procreation material", and I dont have a "wallet" either to make me look attractive.....Not "bragging"....Just sharing a pretty harsh truth.
Basically, I'm 200lbs pretty fit. Can do 150 push-ups, take care of everything at my folks place but good if I have not been able to find a suitable girl to marry. Its ridiculous honestly. Even the big girls think they are 8-9's, selling only fans just a fked society at this point. The women who want that are few and far between and the men fkng FIGHT over those girls. Like they are willing to kill and all sorts of things.
One of the biggest reasons why women with education and high incomes who want kids, never have those kids, is that they never met a man they wanted to have kids with. At this point the whole system is broken. But looking at the world honestly, would a loving parent inflict this world on their kids? Really? I think that's a choice only people with a high level of privilege could do to their kids with a clear conscience.
That's a really good point. But have you thought about how to change that? Get a job, a hobby and go on Hinge. Say you're looking for marriage in your dating profile
@@tealkerberus748 the real change may be not being able to support a family on a single wage anymore. if this was still a thing those successful women would have house husbands. or both partners working part time to spend more time with each other. this is no longer possible, pay is too low and cost of living too high. as a result both parents need to work full time and the kids get raised by an institution. its no wonder kids hate their parents now. someone who does not work is simply not attractive.
@@tealkerberus748 When was the world better? During WW2? The cold war? The Irish famine? etc. A population that does not have offspring is doomed. Also, people who don't have kids contribute to the other's kids to be lonelier, and to have more social costs saddled on them when they grow up
The logic of unlimited growth is the logic of the cancer cell. We had a population boom, now let’s take care of the population bust, let’s make some sacrifices so that the old generation can go out in dignity. At the end of the day, a smaller population will solve a lot of issues: housing, unemployment, climate, etc
The issue isn't as much the lack of growth as it is a sudden crash. Ideally waht you want is a soft landing towards replacement fertility, but most western countries and China are far below that. Immigration can keep the working-age population up, but comes with its own problems if the immigrant stream is too large.
Elon Musk claimed that we need more people on order to have more ideas to solve the big problems of the world... We don't need more people, we just need to give existing kids a better education. How many brilliant young minds get wasted every day?
The decline in fertility is the collapse of civilization. Obviously, the communists are going to twist everyone's words around and misrepresent what people said.
@@universeisundernoobligatio3283 Its more a matter of time poverty. Not economic poverty. In the passed almost every household had someone at home to take care of and raise children almost all the time. Today, thats impossible for most households. People have money. What they don't have is the time flexability to devote 5 years to early child care.
Financial cost absolutely is a major factor in why people aren't having as many kids. I know this personally because it's the main reason my wife and I only have one child. We would have liked to have two, but we realized we wouldn't be able to take care of two while still maintaining the quality of life, schooling, extracurricular programs, level of attention, and so on that we want for our child. Where we live, daycare alone is over $1000 a month. We can only afford to have one and still be able to do everything we want to for him. My wife and I are lucky. Our income places us in the top quarter for our age bracket, easily. And we still feel as though we can't really afford a second child. Perhaps if our government spent as much money on child support as they do on bailing out major corporations then the situation would be different.
From experience I'm very skeptical about declared intentions on this subject. The only useful data is what people actually do, not what they say they're going to do.
This. So beyond tired of people going "oooh kids are too expensive". It's ridiculous. Financial incentives have proven to not work, and the people I know that have kids aren't exactly millionaires.
But it correlates. And the actual data is, as she said, the main factor, is child mortality rate, and somewhat religious culture. These are backed by data.
The problem is those numbers are also bad, and rapidly getting worse. More to the point, there has always been a strong correlation between the two sets of data. In other words one of the strong determining factors in whether people will have kids in the future is how they feel about it now. It certainly isn't 1 for 1 correlation, but it is still a strong one. The number of young adults who do not plan to have kids and more importantly who are not participating in or seeking out sexual relations is at an unprecedented high and it is growing rapidly. The other big correlations are socio-economic stressors, and all of those indicators look quite grim as well and have been steadily getting worse for decades now. This isn't just some future speculative problem, this is an serious ongoing issue in many countries and including here in the USA to a lesser extent. It has already begun to strain our social security system and the only reason we are not going into a population collapse is it is currently offset by immigration. If you remove immigration from the equation we no longer replace ourselves.
Yeah, I mean, I'm 54 and have heard the overpopulation drumbeat since I was a literally a grade schooler, now the problem is "not enough babies!!" It's a tad disorienting.
Many reasons boil down to money. If the wealth gap widens, people cannot afford children. Those other activities might cost money as well, so in some cases they may be chosen over children again for the reason of money.
In a remotely sane world we would be looking urgently at how to reduce global population - reasource depletion, pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss and general quality of life. All these would be better with a low population. Why is this not totally obvious!
Because most of us realize that we're only here because our parents were allowed to have children.... A decreasing population would worsen our quality of life because there will be a greater proportion of old people that the working class would need to pay for. The world is going to be fine. Earth was here before humans existed, and it will be here long after our bones are dust. These problems are HUMAN problems, and as long as we have the resources to solve real problems as they come up instead of hamstringing ourselves by spending too much money on things that don't improve our productivity, then we'll have the capacity to solve these too.
My first son Theo James was born 22nd of may this year... after 28 years of a great life he's the best thing to ever happen to me and its not even close, i genuinely feel really sorry for anyone who can't have children
@@ruschein "Now what?" accepting that behavior is influenced by more than one factor would be a start. Time and money are resources, they are scarce even in rich countries, so people tend to focus on that instead of children. In poor countries children are often seen as a resource on farms in order to help with work and income, in rich countries children are a financial drain on the family for at least 16ish years due to more extensive education. Healthcare and pension fund systems have improved, so children are not seen as a necessity to take care of their retired parents anymore. Rich countries let women vote and work more on average, so a lot of them choose to pursue a career instead of being a stay at home mom. edit: spelling
Americans look like they have not been going hungry in the years that the decline started. I live outside a fairly poor WY reservation town and not only does it look like most people are living way beyond their means, the poorest (and they are very poor) seem to be having the most kids.
Vance's (rather poorly articulated) point wasn't about having working class serfs or anything, it was that parents tend to plan longer term than non-parents do and the current government is overwhelmingly composed of non-parents.
@@willythemailboy2The current government is overwhelmingly non-parents? I don't think that's accurate. Becoming a parent does not give you super powers of foresight, and there is no evidence that people without children care any less about their communities' future. That's just a thing people say because of how invested they are in their own children when they never cared about anyone else before. That was their experience, but people are not all the same. Many of us have a wider sphere of empathy that doesn't require such a personal stake to feel responsible.
@@willythemailboy2That argument would make sense if the natalist party were the ones that were actually concerned about long term issues like climate change. The reason the government doesn't care about the long-term is because it's full of geriatrics.
So basically the only way to increase fertility without impacting women's rights or commiting baby genocide, is to make it possible to live a life AND have a child? The best way to do that is to reduce full time working hours and increase wages, but idk how the economy could sustain that
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless. Revelation 22:12-14 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
@@serioustoday Clearly, the *average* mother survived to squeeze out at least 3 live births. The upper bound for fertility is in the mid-60s of births, but how many were still alive at age 5 is far less clear.
Being childless is normal, just like being single. But when you have a society actively against marriage and maternity then you inevitably have problems.
@@TuomasKivisto What a bunch of cry babies! What did they read or eat that told them life was supposed to be easy? Go live in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka for a month. Goodness, life is just too hard... I cannot do this by myself! They won't last that long because they will catch a disease and die or starve to death. In fact why not leave now!
I would respect this comment more if you said “I don’t think I would’ve been the best mother so I skipped the opportunity.” The way you phrase it, you sound entitled and self-centered.
Socially if most people behave like that, then it is a problem. But the problem is not you (or me, similar case) but a society that does not help its own survival by providing stable jobs and affordable housing. Some people will always choose to remain childless or prefer not to have a couple, etc. That's not really the problem if the rest can willingly make up for them.
I am in mid 30-ies, can easily afford a house and want to have kids (multiple). Yet I don't. Its been like ~5 years since I last time fall in love. It just don't happen. I guess it have something to do with past experiences. Also I am so tired. So bloody tired... I kind of feel that there is not much life left in me (
I hear you. Same deal here, except older. My interest in the opposite vanished with the neutralization of everyone, there were nothing to appreciate anymore. Nothing to chase, zero excitement - everyone became the same.
indeed there is not enough. A hundred years are peanuts. We should live a thousand years in order to reach some serious goals. But you have nothing less than any other person, so, you play with the cards you have. Use them wisely.
I knew that i am late, when i turned 24. I changed my life 180 and streamlined everything for parentship, no matter the impact. I'm now 45 and the first one is about to leave😎 Act now! They stay 15-18 years! Do not fucking move in a big space! Give them reasons not to stay, but moove out as soon as possible!
I was in your situation. My solution: 1) finding a job with flexible time schedule, 2) working in a a developed country (high salary), yet 3) livig in a not-so-developed country (namely stay at the border between two countries, one developed, where you work, the other less developed, where you live), 4) attending social events and doing social activities with group of people sharing family values. It worked!
I’m not sure the reasoning is very clear for why we should “keep calm and carry on”. There is no precedent for an intelligent species recently unshackled by historical societal norms to self regulate, making your case for ambivalence very weak. In what other species or society has a population bounced back from an infertility trend driven primarily by shifting gender roles?
A married couple living in a city usually both need a job just to keep a stable household, then if you add a baby to the mix, and add the medical costs of having a baby, its a nightmare
Urbanised areas always had poor natural growth. It's always been the outskirts and farmlands which drove the population growth. In an era of never ending urbanisation it's hardly surprising people aren't having children.
Civilised countries don't charge their citizens for essential health care like pregnancy and labour care. So that's another way your country is completely off the rails. If you're a citizen or permanent resident and you pay your taxes, essential health care should be funded out of your taxes already.
When I was 5 or 6, about the same time the sunday school lady told me that I was going to hell for asking difficult questions. I looked at my mum, then I looked at my dad, and I decided not to pass down those genes.
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless. Revelation 22:12-14 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Childless cat ladies don't vote Republican so why should Vance care if he offends them?... Really campaigning to serve such selfish self-centered people's wants would only produce a whole society of sick sad people.... No, better to lose the election then to placate the mentally ill.
Do you actually think that half of the population was going to vote for him in the first place? Theres nothing wrong with telling your enemies to go die.
Perhaps you should listen to what he actually said, instead of the false reporting about it. His point ais that he doesn’t trust people in power who don’t have children, as they don’t have a stake in making things better in the long run. Then he pointed at a number of top politicians in the Democrat Party and jokingly compared them with childless cat ladies.
Strange how our vastly increased productivity compared to 1950 apparently isn't able to support an aging population. It must be the looming "underpopulation crisis" and not the debts and investments that demand the future be forever more productive than the present or else will fail.
In Japan, they refuse to let people move in. In China, they're reaping what they sowed w the 'one child' tax policy of the past. In Italy, young people go to other EU nations that actually have opportunities. My point is this: you were right about there being more to it, but in all places, systemic issues, not individual choices, are to blame.
@@VoidCael with China at the time they were dealing with an over population crisis. Their decisions may not have been great but if they truly believed it would have self regulated they wouldn't have put in any laws in the first place. Italy has tried to keep younger populations in the country. Even though they have tried it still doesn't make the fact that they have an aging population not a crisis. I guess my point is the problems facing population is nuanced country to country and there isn't always an immediate fix. I understand Sabine coming with a retort for JD Vance but lumping every country that has unique issues just to make him look more clueless isn't helpful.
@@charlesxavier1904 - Sadly enough the only home country under Capitalism is Earth. Going back to fragmentation is not possible anymore, even if full unification will be hard to achieve.
The answer is objectively a resounding a NO! If people aren't having children, that's on our institutions and government mismanaging our economy and breaking the social contract; our parents and grandparents could work hard and be confident it meant they and their family would be better off and be able to afford a home. We work just to maintain a manageable amount of debt and to remain in our rental. No wonder fewer people want to bring children into a world that has fewer and fewer rewarding opportunities. Not to mention a world so divided in just about every aspect.
Oh Sabine, It is quite easy, why can't you see it? Income and security in oder people has been disconnected from raising children. People raising Kids have a huge disadvantage compared to childless people enjoying a careless live and then eating up their retirement being producerd by other peoples children for them.😢
It is a fact that historically, populations have been self-regulating. But it does sound a bit like it didn't occur to you that we're living in circumstances for which there is no historical precedence whatsoever. For example, we have no idea what the long-term effects of widely available contraceptives on populations will be, as they've only existed for a mere 60 years or so. Social media and their effects on dating and mating are even newer. There are a lot of reasons to think birth rates will keep plummeting, and I have yet to see a single rational argument why this will stop at some point. The only thing I always hear is "but they always have". Yes they did, but we're in uncharted territory now.
The form of self regulation I can imagine for the ongoing situation is when the collapse is getting nearby. If it comes to the point of "it's too bad here, we need immigrants to fulfill the declining population", a bad policy will let immigrants get within developed nations and cause social issues due to the cultural differences, a prominent example is the muslim immigrant crisis in the UK and Sweden. Will it solve the "decreasing population problem (and the low birth-rate one)" for the near future? Yes; will it cause an unprecedented amount of problems? Yes. The hope is that things don't lead this way (structural changes in the way the global economy functions), or at least a rigorous immigration policy, importing whoever it is to ones country is dangerous, as you can see in the UK, and how the r*p*-rate on Sweden skyrocketed.
Have you seen the other comments here? Peeps feel squeezed. At some point, resources like housing must become more plentyful as population declines. Maybe it will require some economic reform, but at least there will grow space for people to not feel squeezed. And right now even the plea to 'fight' for a bigger future population will be dismissed because people feel squeezed. And if all of that has been tried, and none of that works, only then we can start talking about removing peoples' rights and freedoms by taking contraceptives or telling them how to plan their families. As for dating: people want love, and the offline world exists. A movement to date offline could emerge. Dating apps suck anyway. In short I am not concerned about the natural regulation being broken, yet.
There will be a point where the population isn't intelligent enough to maintain the tech required for online dating, or produce the likes of birth control, or maintain the current infrastructure. The population will start to self regulate at that point.
@@skaus2184 Maybe. But then her “keep calm and carry on” remark would become quite scary. “We’ll have so few kids that society collapses back into a point where having kids is all we can do. But don’t worry, you’ll be dead before that happens so it’s not your problem!”
@@marcosolo6491 So? In a rollercoaster the highest point is right before the drop. And I wouldn't say that either, it's a common perception (and quite well sustained by data) that things have already started going downwards in the last few decades, at least in the west
1- HAVING or NOT children is a very private decision Imo…2- as soon as a country gets more developed and wealthy, the number of children per family decreases … that is a very good argument to help underdeveloped countries to rise up… and in the end the planet would be much more acceptable with less people on it…
Eh, I'd rather India and China and all of Africa lose half their population before contributing to pollution and resource consumption on American/European levels Btw keirkezachkkt is sponsored by billionaires with an agenda and they give you well scripted and edited pieces with a charming yet soothing voice to sway your opinion. Hint: the only people that really need more people and more immigrants are people who need cheap labor. As Voltaire said, the comfort of the rich relies on the abundance of the poor.
Another reason for childlessness is that parenting style had changed over years. Now you have to supervise your kids 24/7, which requires a lot from a parent. While, 30 years ago when I was young, I could play outside for a whole afternoon and only show up for dinner.
Almost as if the constant use of the "think of the children!" 'argument' when passing laws had negative consequences. It's not just parenting style change, i've heard in US the parents will be prosecuted if somebody sees their kid by themselves without supervision.
Part of it is that a growing portion of the male population (from teens to older adults) no longer want to get involved. There's various reasons why they do not. Few people -- and none of the "talking heads" -- want to acknowledge this. Basically, it's just not worth the hassle.
You’re speaking about how many laws directly favor women over men now? How women’s issues are first and foremost in society but men’s issues are not spoken about?
My wife and I have five kids, definitely broke the trend. But I don’t care if people don’t want to get married or have children. Most of us live in very expensive cities and it makes ZERO financial sense to have children and getting married is cumbersome to people, especially when their family loads these expectations on their shoulders. Just live and let live! ❤❤❤❤
To be fair living in a country that is experiencing a sharp population decline may prove to be cumbersome as well. You can import all the immigrants you want but that may also prove to be cumbersome in the long run. 😅 It seems we're all in quite the pickle.
Children are not financial instruments. They meant to give your life meaning. People are starting to understand as the childless generations age and find themselves alone and miserable. And economically children are essential, because they grow up to be productive adults. No children, no workers, no economy.
@@andrasbiro3007 children are meant to give your life meaning? Possibly, but not for everyone. There’s a lot more to happiness and fulfillment in life than children!
I’d wager that you are going to be happier for the rest of your lives than some “DINK” (dual income, no kids) couples. You know, these hedonistic pleasures (expensive holidays, material possessions, career achievements) pale in comparison with the laughter of children and grandchildren in your house. You will never be lonely or bored either. But I am with you: it is rather pointless to try and talk people into wanting to have children. What does make sense is to help future parents who do want to have kids to make the right decisions at the right point in time. And to help them financially - especially when it comes to home ownership. Families with 3 kids or more should be fully tax exempt with childless couples paying up for the shortfall in tax revenue.
My catholic grandpa with 10 siblings were given as much attention from my alcoholic great grandmother and father, as puppies in a puppy mill. The catholic elder generation were so disfuctional and child abusive, that its took several generations to break the cycle, of child neglect abuse, and the cycle addiction. Grandpa told me how the kids were often fed nothing but boiled potatoes for weeks because his father gambled all the money away and their mother was to drunk to prepare anything. But she died having the 12th baby in a one room cabin while great grandpa was betting on horses at the track.
I was the youngest of six, and my parents weren't alcoholic or have any addictions, but me and number five were severely neglected. The older kids drained my parents to the point of them just being on autopilot and phoning it in at the end. I don't forgive them for it, but I understand. I only had one kid.
This is exactly the same with my grandpa and grandma. My grandma had 5 children and had to leave 1 child for adoption because they couldn't feed her. My alcoholic and gambling addicted grandpa always abused his children and wife and of course all of them were catholics. My dad used to tell me that they all tried to fight him at the same time but he was too strong. I live in a very religious and third world country. Edit: My grandpa died drunk getting run down by a truck when my dad was 19.
I'm not worried about humanity going extinct, I know that won't happen, I'm worried about who will pay my pension in 40 years. Edit: to those saying I should save and invest, yes, I do that to the best of my ability, but it's hard to save enough with the current cost-of-living crisis, and when 30% of my gross salary goes towards paying the current pensioners.
@@tj2375LOL, it will be solved. Old people are already forced to work beyond retirement age. Problem is here and now and I don't see magical solutions poping out 😅
Tax automation, not labor. That would provide the revenue needed to support retirees and the unemployed. The more humans who can be replaced by robots & AI, the fewer humans are needed.
@@tj2375who is going to work, when this childfree population will be too old to work themselves? Imaginery techlologies, that has not been developed yet?
There was a saying in Australia (ok, that's a bit of a stretch) about having kitds that I think Peter Costello said when he was treasurer. Something along the lines of "have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country".
Or, have kids because you love them and you believe that you're bringing them into a world that will treat them with dignity and be a good place for them to live.
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1723733620577x122774386965518900
Note: You can now create your own quizzes on our website -- just set up an account & a creator profile.
"What is the reason for the decrease of fertility?" - "Better access to pornographic material of course". These quizzes are so funny 🤣
What people refuse to say is that fertility dropped in industrial countries because of birth control pills and abortion. And it's exactly the cause for some : Human Reproduction Update, Volume 12, Issue 5, September/October 2006, Pages 603 to 616
Economies are a pyramid scheme, in order to keep growing, more people have to be added (unless mechanization bans are lifted, and AI is developed further for taking over more complex jobs). This is the reason for the US to be complacent with illegal immigration, the UK doing the same, Russia stealing population and children from Ukraine and trying to attract immigrants, China announcing they regret the one-child policy and so on. Russia also started pedalling ideas through their propaganda machine, where they say it's a civil duty to multiply and those not doing it should be sent to prison. Also saying that state-sponsored forced pregnancy should be introduced.
Are childless people a problem? Well, they are a problem to the solution of the demographic problem in Europe, for sure.... by definition.
It's the cost for me. Omg. Life is so expensive.
I'll start worrying about the birth rate when the housing crisis becomes a crisis of too much houses and not enough people to fill them.
@@EthelJung-j5w it's also possible that we rethink housing. It isn't really necessary for everyone to have a house. Most people can function just fine with an apartment. Having a house is a luxury. And realistically most people with houses don't even use all of the amenities that often. Meaning the back and front yard. Most families are either in the house or out in public.
I am living in a house right now but I actually like living in apartments more. Apartments have always seemed more social in my experience. At apartments there were always children playing around outside. In my house neighborhood there are never any kids outside.
The only thing we need to figure out with apartments is bugs. Bugs can get in the walls and get into other apartments. We really need to figure that out. That's actually the only reason I am not living in an apartment right now. I'm afraid of my neighbors giving me a bug infestation.
There's plenty of cheap housing. But you don't want to live there. It doesn't meet your high lifestyle expectations.
@@SimonWoodburyForget that's true but I feel like we can figure that out. Maybe. Hopefully. Otherwise we will just get stuck with overpriced apartments forever 😂
lol, as if housing prices aren’t high because of the regulation and zoning laws required to build houses.
Increase supply and price will drop! Keep housing difficult to build and prices will stay high.
@@EthelJung-j5w I might be wrong, but I see two crisis at the same time.
We have lack of housing in metropolitan areas and shrinking population on small villages.
😅You can't force people to work three jobs, make it impossible to afford housing then wonder why no one is having babies
No kidding! 👍
@@deltanine6497 "Kid"ding? -I see what you did there.... 🙂
yea canada is really bad for that
But people in Africa and the Middle East have much worse living conditions than Americans, and they have more children.
Now imaging life before vaccines, no electricity, no modern appliances, no modern healthcare.
In Hungary, you could only use the 30000 euros to buy property, which drove up property prices, so now it's useless. Genius idea...
Yeah, sounds more like a corrupt politician funneling more money into the real estate industry.
Pumping money into the economy without increasing production causes inflation - basic economics.
@@debasishraychawdhuri So youre saying we need to produce housing instead of just selling existing housing back and forth for ever higher prices?
How novel!
Its not entirely useless:
1) Of course the prices go up but they will not go up by 30.000€ but by a way smaller amount. Google for the economic effect of government subsidies, its a well studied field. And no politician expects the 30.000€ to go to the people in need entirely but saying the effect is 0€ is not true either. Its more complex.
2) The 30.000€ are distributed equally - which is a good thing and utterly *bad* for the rich. To illustrate that, take it a step further and imagine the government would give 10 billion € to everybody. Of course that would equal a hyper inflation but anybody who holds cash would basically be disowned. The rich would stay rich because of assets other than cash but they would still lose more than the poor who didnt have anything to lose in the first place.
@@andreasschmidt7215 It was not distributed equally though, you had to have a good credit rating to be eligible.
The movie “idiocracy” explained this very issue brilliantly. Highly recommend.
Having worked for many years with fostered children and others with family problems, I STRONGLY recommend, if you don’t want children, DON’T have them. To grow up into healthy happy people, children need happily devoted, loving parents. Nothing will change for the better so long as our society promotes Work, Profit, fat Incomes over child care. Shovelling small infants off to nurseries is no the answer. Children need their parents and parents need society to support them to nurture their children.
Breeding children to fill a gap created by our profit oriented society is certainly not the solution.
Well said.
i find the fact that this has only 9 likes to be highly disturbing.
“Don’t have children if you don’t want” oversimplifies the problem of societal expectations and evolutionary drive to have offspring.
@@NaumRusomarov Worldwide, yes, but in a developed western society not so much particularly for the younger generations. And yes, it is difficult to go against the grain and chose not to have children (even in said countries), but I'm guessing it's more difficult to bring up children you don't want. It's not easy, but it is simple.
@@NaumRusomarov I think that we should not be encouraging people to have children - because if they need encouragement, then they don't really want them.
I dont want to get married, raise kids and live a family life. I want a larger particle collider.
😂
I want a solar gravity lens observatory, orbital station with simulated gravity and sunshades at L1. Ditto on the other stuff
Let's cure cancer first eh?
When I run for office, one of my slogans will be "A Particle Collider in Every Garage!"
I want something like the Web Telescope around Jupiter doing nothing but parallax measurements.
"The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor."
Voltaire
Exactly! A very simple answer to all this, under which I would sign wholeheartedly.
Still true. It currently takes about 20 people living in poverty to support one person a middle class levels. Much better then Voltaire's time when the ratio was much higher. Tech is improving the ratio but until we get replicators and unlimited energy the ratio will never go away. The average human on Earth only generates $8k/yr in wealth so socialism only makes everyone poor.
This is the true reason, they want a steady supply of poor, uneducated wage slaves.
Exactly. Notice how it's only the wealthy and the people in power who want others to have more children.
Very true
Bro it's not just women that are childless. It takes two to tango.
Demography counts the birth rate using women because it's easier to determine how many children a woman has had than a man.
Usually videos like this focus primarily on women because men can be shared around by women if the women really want children but very few men do.
@@indranilbanik3424 What about when many men want children (hi!) and very few women do? I guess they don't matter right?
@@indranilbanik3424 yeah, except almost no woman in their right mind wants to be a single mother by choice. Even those women who want kids, want them with a stable, loving life partner who will share the burden of life and parenthood with them.
Childlessness amongst men has always been surprisingly higher.
How to support kids, when 50 % of your income (from 2 jobs at least) goes to rent? Not everybody can be an overpaid and useless politician.
Or a useless overpaid landlord or shareholder.
How indeed... Is there a way out of that situation?
Like, if you really wanted to get out, could you imagine how and do it and put your mind to it, making the sacrifices and suffering through it until you met your goals?
Or are you a victim of circumstances until you die? You might not be able to get out depending on your education, support structure, and single parent status.
Many say "Where there is a will, there is a way."
A lot of people just give up. Some don't. Good luck.
Just rent a cheaper/smaller house.
Have less kids.
I'm pretty sure this is the "other things people want to do with their lives" for a lot of people. Can't raise kids in crippling debt.
I'll start worrying about the birth rate when the housing crisis becomes a crisis of too much houses and not enough people to fill them.
@@Rudi__yt1 Dermatologic ? :D
The skill is to get ahead of trends though.
@@plokki456 Don't underestimate skin problems :)
There is no overall housing crisis, its only a problem in the massively overcrowded cities. Why people insist on living in places they can't afford is insane to me.
@@Rudi__yt1 Too late for what? Just 2000 years ago we had less than 1% of the population we have now. And we were fine back then. Do you think any of the changes in Japan or Korea are that significant?
First they make life unaffordable, and then they mock you.
How do explain highest birth rate in world. What is it with you college cultist and opposing reality
It's not living is unaffordable. It's luxorious lifestyle. Compare birth rates in rich industrial states with developing states. Baltic states have a fraction of switzerlands GDP, and still higher birth rates. Even more interesting is Israel. It is developed economy and with high birth rates. Moral values matter, not economy.
@@user-im9qv1zy9d "developing" states do not have access to birth control.
define "they"
You're of course referring the the billionaire class, the CEOs and Trump.
A small correction - the ‘do it for Denmark’ ad was for a large tour operator and was meant to be a joke
Small correction. This is incorrect.
Yes it is true, it's on Wikipedia. And it's important because in this context it makes it seem as if the government wanted to achieve something by doing this and it failed. When it was rather a joke and for a private company. Reduces overall credibility of the rest.
@@kinetic-cybernetic I see you mean it wasn't the gov't that ran "Do it for Denmark", and subsequent "Do it for Mom". To be fair the intent of the ads was indeed to increase birth count, per the very first sentence of the wikipedia article, it just wasn't the gov't and was done in a humorous way. The wikipedia goes on to claim it was irony but the three citations have nothing to do with that if you click them, in fact they alerted me to:
The gov't aired a program titled “Knald for Danmark” or “Screw for Denmark”, whatever that was, and Copenhagen ran it's own campaign touting slogans for men like “swimming too slowly?” in reference to sperm, and women if they had “counted their eggs today?”. I'm sure also as jokes but the intent even if it was humorous was to get people to have more kids.
That's still pretty weird. Though to be honest handing people cash to have kids is just as weird. Especially when the cash is nowhere near what a child costs. Virtually every country has tried that... At least the ads give us a nice train wreck to watch I suppose.
I personally think they gov't should maybe try providing people with less stressful work or die scenarios through universal basic income and provide more time and places to socialize and enjoy life. But quick cash and cheap sleezy ads are more gov't and big business' style.
@@jagermaestro1 interesting and agree
You didn't mention urbanisation, which is a huge driver of this issue. There is simply no reason to have 8 kids if you live in a city. Massive families make much more sense when you need a lot of free labour. Not so much when you live in a small flat and kids are a financial liability. You can see how fertility drops off in countries as their populations shift from rural to urban settings. Kenya is a great example of this.
Nothing about big words. Simple, just say this older generation of our generation is hoarding all jobs of the land and the land too, leaving too little to have a schoolbus of little kids.😅
The "mouse utopia" experiments are a pretty good indicator of what's to come. Only worse. The rats didn't have mass immigration and economic collapse... The anti-natalist sentiments you see here will only increase as society is torn inside-out by nihilism. I suppose future civilizations will look back to the West as we see Rome, perhaps something better can rise from the ashes after a dark age.
Who is having 8 kids? People can hardly afford 1. I live in L.A. and have 2. I can tell you that it feels like 8 when the bills add up. My parents moved to the valley and it was literally no cheaper. Historically, the Valley was built for space, but all we did was wipe out the farmland that we had right outside the city and bring a bunch of transplants from other states for the weather. L.A. isn't going to get cheaper no matter how many houses we build, people are going to move to L.A. for the weather.
If you lengthen your view, children can move from financial liability to financial boon. It's a long investment, one that the rich families that control most everyone else learned long ago.
@@JoshTheTechnoShaman ah, see your parents' issue is that they're still in California.
1. The marriage contract being seen as a bad financial decision especially when ending.
2. Family courts not being impartial when making decisions.
3. Current state of economy
4. Peoples negative feelings about the state of society.
Ironically, not having kids will make 3&4 even worse
@@Jack-gl2xw the mindset is “I won’t be here to see it and neither will my (nonexistent) children!”
may I ask if you are from UK, as I am, as i totally agree with you, genuine question mate
@@nickthompson1812No it's simple mathematics. Infinite growth is not possible, the simplest possible equations say population rises and falls; it can oscillate and crash as well. Economics flies in the face of reality; the boom years can't go on forever.
Add to the list adultery... 👀
I say this every time the topic comes up: WE CAN BARELY PROVIDE FOR OURSELVES. HOW THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE KIDS?
Well yes but try explaining what are you even talking about to Elon. I bet he'd just dismiss you with "surely you're just lazy"...
It's actually surprisingly easy and fun. Raising children on the other hand....
@@MoonberryJam93 we aren’t suppose to be trying to do it all alone. The intention of big families and living in community was to help each other. We have forgotten this important piece of information. You raise your children to take on family and household responsibilities as they grow older, not for money or prize but because that was one of the fundamental pieces to our evolution.
It may feel like that. But in reality, we live in the most prosperous times. The living standards of prior generations at that age was worse. The only exception - and this is an important one - are house prices. Young people who have no prospect of owning a home do understandably feel too economically unstable to have kids.
@@TrentSLucas you go, but I won't so maybe don't try to tell me what I will sacrifice and be happy for ok?
In earlier times, families were huge because there was not any efficient contraception. Women were forced to bear child after child after child until they died or reached menopause.
My main concern is how to survive all of these financial and political crisis, especially in light of the US political power scuffle. The government has really called things more difficult for its citizens, and we can't sit back and bear all the consequences of the bad governance.
I'm glad you made this comment, I can recall when I was homeless and faced with many things in life until $75,000 biweekly began rolling in and my Life went from A homeless nobody to a different person with good things to offer!!!! !!
Wow, that is huge, how do you earn that much a month? I am 37 years old and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
I thank Judy Marion Then who has always been there to help me with detailed analysis and recommendations that I would not have had access to otherwise.
JUDY MARION THEN ?
I googled her and yes, she has captured my heart. She just got a new client
I'm a 31 year old dude in Denmark.
I don't have my own apartment yet; the ones I can afford have ridiculous waiting times, the ones that are available right now have ridiculous rent prices.
I have not been able to achieve any of my goals in life yet either, and my life is already divided between the shitty job I have to do and the things that I want to do.
So why the hell do I want to make my life even more complicated by adding a child into the mix?
Adding children to your life do make life a little more complicated, true. But they also make your life many, many times more meaningful. Sounds like your life is pretty meaningless right now.
Ask yourself why white people get the same "you're on your own" treatment from governments in every single western country, but bend over backwards to import and subsidize the reproduction of non-whites.
@@sjcherry56
It's a primitive idea that one's life meaning is to produce offspring. While we're still animals that require basic animal fulfilments, our intelligence gives us the power to give ourselves meaning in life.
Children most certainly isn't that for me.
I'm a science fiction artist, though mostly stuck doing furry art for commissions.
My goals, my meaning, the reason why I get up in the morning at all, is to try and make my ideas come to life, either as comics, animations, or perhaps even a videogame or two.
However, between having been homeless for 6 years thanks to 2008, and barely being able to afford living, it seems like all the world is against my ambitions, and only becoming more difficult as time goes on.
My life isn't meaningless.
It's being actively worked against.
Who will there be to read your art? Nothing has any meaning when no people are around.. :@@TheTattorack
@@SimonWoodburyForget you dont want kids because you are a kid yourself still, playing games all day long...
I had a child. A full term son who lived 4 hours, due to agent orange in the watershed put there by the lumber industry in the mid seventies. There was a class action lawsuit covering it. I decided not to try again.
I’m sorry for your tragic loss❤
Your decision is personal and free, and must be always respected. Nobody can tell you what to do with your life.
The cruelty of the world is too much. I'm sorry for your loss.
I'm sorry you went through this.
Sorry for your loss
The only real way to encourage people to have babies, is to make it so that both parents don’t have to work 60 hour weeks each and take million dollar loans to put roofs over their head, cover medical costs and put their children through school, change life to a slog of work (earning the bacon), and then more work (raising kids), while unable to take holidays. The cost of living is INSANE, building a level playing field for your child to succeed is almost impossible, and the ROI is non-existent.
Economic incentives have been tried all over the world and never worked. This is not the reason why most of the childless people are childless. Medical costs and costs of putting children through school are essentially zero in most of the developed world and people are still choosing to not have kids.
This is just blatantly wrong. Many european countries with policies like this still have very very low fertility rate.
I'm 31 and kind of want kids but I can't afford to buy a house. Of all the girlfriends I've had, none of them have children to this day either.
I had my first kid at 32, wasn't ready but this housing crisis in America is a joke. They say there's plenty of houses, but no one can afford them
Poor people have more kids the statistik on this is clear.
You don't need to own a house to raise kids.
This is why inflation is the biggest crime against humanity. Still you can move to places where houses are cheaper or simply lower the standards. For example for the first 7 years of my life my parents raised me while living in 1 room in my grandparents' house.
@@unduloid Owning a home can reduce the welfare payments you qualify for!
One reason to be childless is to never have had a relationship. Funny that was never mentioned as reason.
To me, what's the point if a relationship has much higher costs than it did back then. Also it's sad knowing the legal system basically doesn't give full access to genetic tests on birth to all children.
Yes. Not considering the few ones that choose chastity, Incels are on the rise, I’m afraid.
My advice would be go to a golden hearted prostitute for instruction and practice, then start reading the red flags. It’s never too late
Uh yeah. I know absolutely nobody like that and know lots of people are having lots of sex. I can tell you who is not having a lot of sex and it is people on the right. Mostly because women refuse to have sex with them any more on the dating circuit. I wonder why. Go figure. /s
Or if you have genetic reasons.
Incels incoming 😢
The idea that kids will take care of their parents is hilarious. I know people who have moved from Canada to Australia to avoid the parents.
It's an investment which will put you in debt first and the certainty of the worth of the investment decreases every year
@@jankiprasadsoni6793 children arent monetary products in the first place.
@@StuHol-jb1hh For too many people they ARE... but those are more often the people who will eventually be complaining that their adult kids no longer want to talk to them!
It's the norm in parts of the world for kids to take care of their parents.
Hypothetically, in America you could make a lot of money by having a number of children, living on the same property, and getting your kids into jobs ASAP, then getting a second home, and a third...
Problem is, you don't have social capital.
You're encouraged to be individualistic and difficult to get along with.
High GDP economies work like this.
It's a commodification game, and you're a good employee.
No family distractions.
Is it hilarious? My wife takes care of her parents now with help from her sisters.
I'd let my parents move in with me if they needed it or even help them move closer if they wanted. They weren't good parents but I don't harbor hatred or grief over it.
One of my friends is buying his parents a 450k house in their old age.
My brother and his wife have moved her mom into an assisted living facility that costs about $6k a month or some crazy amount. Most of it is from the moms house as a rental, and they pay about 2k in addition.
I should add, I don't expect my three kids to take care of me, but it would be nice!
I had a lucky break moving from poverty to a gated neighborhood via military service and a STEm education so our perspectives likely differ. It seems that you haven't experienced familial support and I have not experienced much of a lack.
Conclusion: we are both ignorant and naive.
I have two degrees, work in two jobs; one in retail and one in hospitality. I can’t even survive on my own with good health, let alone have a kid.
In america, economic restrictions on housing and healthcare and rising taxpayer subsidies are basically wiping out the middle class. People can't afford to live and the europeans are telling us that the answer is even more the same.
I'm counting on my personal AI robot taking care of me in my final years.
That was my first thought on AI enabled robotics. And, it is well within reach.
@@dvoiceotruth useful humanoids are still far away.
Poor you. Why are you giving up without a fight?
@@MikeOxolong You only need chatgpt 3 level intelligence with TTS or the multimodal chatgpt. Industrial tasks or FSD needs sophisticated robots. Throw in a bunch of sensors and transducers with such an AI talking to the person. At least the robot can dial someone on emergency, report to the hospital or someone near and dear. Why can't it fetch medicines or pick you up when you fall down in the bathroom floor? You need monitoring, and a last mile connectivity sort of to the healthcare or social network.
@@dvoiceotruth We don't even have a humanoid that can reliably walk up stairs.
Leaders (business and political) : Break the social contract.
People : Refuse to have children
Leaders : Shocked Pikachu.
Underrated
Please elaborate about said social contract!
@@AgentLeonrefer to summaries of the key ideas of 17th century philosophers Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
Cost of living and in particular house prices, the cost of childcare and university tuition fees are a major problem, that needs fixing. I would rank skyrocketing property prices first. After all, a self-owned home has a strong psychological effect on young families who feel “anchored” at a place and its local community.
That being said, it is demonstrably wrong that affordability concerns are the only or indeed the decisive factor in declining birth rates. Much of this is cultural. And the positive development of women getting better educated has follow-on effects that are unaccounted for. That is, high achieving women have trouble finding a suitable partner to start a family with. It remains a common pattern that women do not want to “date down” and rather stay single.
Fabulous summary 🙏😊
Declining population isn't a problem in and of itself. The problem is that our society is a ponzi scheme you need an endless supply of fresh meat to funnel into the grinder that is social programs for the elderly. When they say society will collapse what they mean really is that *social security* will collapse, because there's an overabundance of elderly relative to working age people. Immigration doesn't solve this problem either, because they get old too.
Childless people are not a problem in and of themselves. We work so we're net contributers, and we'll retire wealthy so will be self sufficient in our old age. We're only a problem in so far as we're not producing more units for the mincer.
Collapse of social security will be the best thing to happen in 100 years as long as taxation is taken down as well.
We need another model of retirement. Having lots of kids as a retirement plan is not going to work.
@@NightsideOfParadise
It is nonsense, that taxation will be abolished.
Maintained Streets, government and military don’t exist without money.
I wanted to write this kind of comment but you said it very eloquently. 😂👍
Even if you take out the social security, your wealth when you retire is conditional on other people being willing to do labor at the time you are old. Unless you stockpile a couple decades worth of supplies instead of cash that is.
Consider a thought experiment when you have the two countries of Northland and Southland, where the Southland is a normal country while Northland is comprised exclusively of rich retires. You know what's the first thing that'd happen? The North$ exchange rate would collapse immediately into the floor, and the accumulated wealth of the pensioners would be destroyed.
I'd offer that the forth reason on that first list is the real reason: people just can't afford it.
How are we suposed to get/have more children, when there is no time to take care of them, and everything is so expensive?
By having unprotected sex. I think you're referring to child rearing.
like all of our ancestors did, who by the way lived in way more dire times than today?
@@melissachartres3219
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!
How on earth did my dirt poor grandparents manage in the 1930s?
@@harrynewiss4630 That is a false equivalence.
Just because your "dirt poor grandparents" managed to have children in the 1930s, then suggesting that people today should be able to do the same, you are over-simplifying and ignoring the complexities of the current context.
Such as, not acknowledging the significant differences in economic conditions, Societal expectations which is especially relevant today, since there is a much higher standard for raising children, and how to actually take care of them, plus the cost of living, and other factors that have changed over time.
While receiving a public education during the 1960s, I was repeatedly subjected to social science lessons in regard to the "existential threat" posed by the "unsustainable" rise in global population; going "childless" was thus characterized as a noble act. In 1965, there were an estimated 3,334,533,703 people on earth. Today, there are more than 8,161,972,572 humans polluting the air and consuming dwindling resources. In spite of this growth in population, the extreme poverty rate has declined by over forty percent during the same period. The shift from agrarian society toward a modern, information based society has been realized as a need for two income households and child daycare centers - and family sizes have declined accordingly. While incomes have remained stagnant for decades for American hourly wage earners, the ratio of corporate CEO compensation to that of the average wage earner has gone up from 40 to 1 to over 400 to 1. With the advent of AI and autonomous robots and vehicles, fifty percent of the workforce could be rendered obsolete within a generation. What then is to be done with useless eaters against a backdrop of "sustainability" hysteria?
In my opinion we need a new economic system that will make AI and robotics of the future work for the benefit of the many, not for a handful of corporate owners. We also need the vast majority of our industrialized populations to accept a different standard of living, where balance with our environment is a more imporrtant priority than continually growing our material wealth. An economy where repairing things is efficient because spending resources in production are taxed at a higher rate than labour is for fixing things. We have the capacity and the technology to feed and house everyone in the world, but our economic system is unable to get it done, both due to inefficiencies and because of countermanding incentives. My hope is that the climate crisis will eventually make the world realize that this current system cannot go on forever, and that we figure it out in time to build something better.
People not having children is them saying: "Nah, I rather remove myself from the gene pool." Anyone who has a moral compass, generally has a positive attitude towards their peers and is not severely mentally ill, would look at that and say: "This is breaking my heart! I need to figure out immediately why so many people would think that way!" But that's not what they do, is it? They _blame_ the childless for being "selfish", because it impacts them materially: They no longer have enough minimum wage employees, gullible buyers, bankrupt students and attention givers. One could _almost_ conclude, that they're part of the problem.
Wolves are complaining that sheep do not breed
Funny, I saw no Dems complaining??
This problem effects the sheep just as much if not more than the wolves. This isn't a rich vs poor issue. Everyone in our societies will suffer as a result of the demographic crisis this is causing.
@@Erowens98 Oh no, you're breaking the excuses!
@@Erowens98The problem is calling it a problem. Kids cost money, people have a given standard of living. Business owners who don’t have enough resumes to wipe their ass with are the ones complaining.
@@Erowens98 But what side gets hurt much more than the other side?
Living in a south European country (Greece) where us, the vast majority, can barely afford renting a tiny penthouse and survive the month, all I can say is when confronted with J. D. Vance and others of his ilk is …. “talk is cheap”.
@@cookeecutkk Same throughout the West and developed Asia. Housing prices are suffocating everyone's home lives.
But, for Muslims having more kids is a priority, believe it or not. Even the poor ones want more children and they don't care much about the cost; just let them live like us in poverty or whatever. They think outnumbering "kafir" people is a religious duty!
As Sabine explain, the decline of fertility rat is not about cost or access to childcare
@@dolev_dil no. Her comment was a quick comment based on her opinion. It's not backed by science. Proven is that as the cost of living goes up, number of children goes down.
@@williamparis500 That's entirely correlative, not causal. As she points out in the video, even countries where having children is not a financial burden have far lower birthrates when they are wealthier. Wealthier societies have fewer children because of the values that tend to be promulgated in those societies, not because they cannot afford to have children.
We received a 'baby bonus ' when my son was born, the obstetrician increased her fees just when the policy was introduced and 'coincidentally' the new fee was the exact same amount as the gap in our insurance. The waiting list at the time meant we didn't have a chance to shop around and in any case from speaking to friends we found that they all did the same. In economics we call that market failure.
That’s not market failure. That’s the fact that giving large groups of people bonus money is inflationary. Governments repeatedly misunderstand this. (Though I wish it wasn’t this way and I sympathise with you.)
Problem is the people that should have babies aren't having them and the people that shouldn't are.
I live in the USA. I couldn't have children. That's just the way it turned out. A large chunk of my friends were having a lot of kids; probably more than they could afford. They felt bad for me, but they also wanted me to have kids so that there would be more of US than THEM. I don't associate with them anymore.
sounds like your friends are more level headed than you.
Your friends understand realpolitik and you either don't understand or you're in the suicide cult. You're childless and it's a sad thing, truly. 4 billion years of uninterrupted reproduction now ends abruptly with you.
@@gaspachoo5046 Racist people don't tend to be the most level headed as your comment clearly indicates. I think this guy dodged a pack of arseholes unlike you.
@@gaspachoo5046 stupid!!
Let's see,I must have cable TV, a motorcycle for the week ends, play golf, host great barbques on Saturday and buy tennis shoes that are $250 so I cannot afford having another human living in my house that is a total expence with no chance of a $$ return for at least 16-18 years. I will have my comforts first; maybe child later. Arrogance and hubris are great birth control methods supported by abortion if one gets in a hurry ...
Wolves crying that they are running out of sheep
👍🥁🙌💥👏
@@Rodrigo_Gatti Democrats are sheep and Republicans are wolves. Smart take. Superduper smart take, that.
Where are people getting this idea that this problem only affects the upper class? You're gonna suffer this, too!
Our system is built on the idea that the young who work support the old who can't. If there are no young, what happens to the old?
You might say "I don't give a shit about the boomers," but guess what, you're gonna be 70 some day! And when that happens, how are you gonna pay your medical bills?
The economy is gonna collapse under the weight of aging Gen Z and Millenials, and whatever poor generations come after us are gonna be stressed out because there are too few to support us. Because we didn't have kids.
You know how we give shit to boomers because they ignored an existential threat (climate change) and just put it off and let us deal with it? You're literally doing to that to those that come after us.
The rich want migrants, much better then local population. Much easier to control
Maybe they should try another flock of wolves for a change.
No matter how much money I have, my day has only 24 hours. The only way I could imagine a third child, is if something or someone takes more tasks away from me so I actually have free time. Grandparents are mostly dead, siblings very few and far away. So, almost no support there.
A butler, a cook and maid would definitely help. Since I can't afford that, sufficient childcare would be helpful. But we don't have that, either, so we have to do it ourselves, and no time for more kids.
Sounds like the problem is not enough children in your family. If your grandparents and parents had more, you'd have more help.
Older children can also help.
This is why it is importantly that women have their first child in their twenties. The workload of caring for children becomes way more manageable when older siblings are already more self sufficient when another child is born.
@@andrasbiro3007 parentification of children is one of the reason many adults don't want their own children, what a shitty solution.
my sister has 5 and doesn't even have a job yet. to be fair the guy she is shacking up with is kind of a dick.
This is a very good point. People have kids older so grandparents are no longer there to help. No support networks is a big reason women opt out from having a kid. Sabine simply ignored all the social reasons. She has two kids with a husband. She is from the old generation. She has no clue what it's like now.
A Population of over 1 billion on only one planet is not a "population crisis". There is a theoretical max population for EVERY ecosystem. There is a HUGE range of "viable population" in most ecosystems. I think we are way too close to our planet's population functional max. A gradual decline back into the middle of the "viable range" wouldn't be a bad thing.
Thank you! Finally!
There is no overpopulation problem. Do the math.
600 wild gorillas left vs 8 billion humans
That's concerning but I don't think 8 billion humans being alive is bad.
until we have to eat gorillas
gorillas are useless, no remorse
@@drgn2182not inherently bad, but we all agree pollution, traffic, dwindling fresh water supplies, infrastructure, deforestation, etc etc are bad things, and adding more humans won't help it. Any new tech you throw at the problem is just kicking the can further down the road until some future generation has to fight for drinkable water.
OR we can start having less babies now and lessen the burdens on future generations.
Do you really want to ration your AC usage in August? Do you think people 100 years from now will want to?
I heard the rich are high in nutrition and low in parasites and diseases
The current young adult generation here in Ireland is hosed, they can't have kids because they're still stuck living in their parents' home because the housing market is beyond fubar. Fertility rates were still high until the mid 1970s, but they're expected to crash further to South Korean levels soon.
Perhaps it wasn't that great of a deal to open the country to be a tax haven for big techs
So they can flood in the major cities
Bring thousands of their remote and better payed employees
Raising rent so much as to outprice the locals from job centers
I remember when I was wee lad, I had oa dream of one day moving to Ireland
I no longer dream of that
The same happening in most developed cities around the globe.
Eh, who likes long lines at the airport anyway
@@matheussanthiago9685 - It's not just Ireland, it's everywhere: housing bubble has been the big business since the 90s and, in 2008, instead of letting it burst, it was patched, so we stayed other two decades in the nightmare. Almost half a century of instable low-pay jobs and extremely expensive housing take a toll on societies, we're being essentially genocided by our oligarchs.
Ireland choosing to be the wild west for big tech operating in the EU is why your country is fooked. It never used to be like that. Your elites destroyed your standard of living so a few could get uber rich.
Politicians and economists need to get more imaginative, rather than keep choosing the lazy path of population growth.
You can be a politician
You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Don't forget religions. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world because they are having more kids than other religions. Every religion wants you to have as many kids as you can.
The population of the Earth in 1900 was less than 2 billion, while the economic consequences of less population are probably real, we have more than 4 times that number of people today, and that has real environmental consequences.
I'll start worrying about it when the global population dips below 4 billion
It used to be possible to have a family of 5 on ONE income, with one parent full time at home, and one working. That was balance, that allowed everyone to feel comfortable raising a family and having some time to themselves. This is not possible now for the majority. Out of necessity both parents must work and its very difficult to survive for most just day to day without kids. Housing and property tax have gotten out of control. You can look at so many charts showing how disproportionate housing costs have gone up in the last 30 years compared to everything else. This is all it comes down to.
It is possible for most people. The problem is that most people are willing to sacrifice their quality of life.
Based on exploiting women's free labor.
And then our politicians allowed jobs to go to Mexico and other foreign countries. That said, it is possible. You just have to have one earning a good pay (does not have to be $100K), low-cost area, and "day care" is Mom (or Dad) watching the kids. I know families who can still do this. They just don't waste money on latest gadgets or drive new cars.
Almost like you didn't even watch the video. Women don't want to get stuck doing childcare for zero dollars, let their intellect be limited to what can be accomplished at home, and/or be stuck to a man for his earning abilities without any way of escape. In no way was this scenario "balance" for anyone but the men who got to do whatever they wanted and do literally nothing different than they would have if single and working. And... there's always been families where both parents worked because poor people have always needed to do this. You're just seeing a very tiny slice of propaganda about a very specific time period.
@@beebeebop3405 Cost is one of the reasons, though. In fact, here in the US it seems that is one of the biggest reasons I see repeated. Nearly every article I read on the subject touches on the cost related to kids. Some also refer to climate or "carbon footprint", which never ceases to amaze me.
Children expensive. Houses expensive. Food expensive. So less children.
so that's why the poorest countries have the highest fertility rates... You are wrong
She literally addressed this. Even in Scandinavian countries with ample public housing, free childcare, free Healthcare, etc don't have enough children. It's not just an issue of cost.
I appreciate your brevity.
In poor countries...... standard of living low. So less to lose if having children. Or dont care. So..... you are wrong
@@AndrasMihalyiPoor countries have usually lower living expenses and a warm climate which doesn't kill you if you have to live in a cardboard box with your ten kids eating cockroaches.
The divorce rate in the US hoovers around 50%.Growing up in a broken home and the hardships experienced doesn't encourage people to repeat these mistakes.
this is the biggest reason IMO. No need to give your child the same painful experience.
You know the idiot Vance also has a solution to this. He wants to outlaw no fault divorces and force people to stay in unhappy marriages “for the kids”.
I grew up in a household where my parents were constantly bickering.. they made my childhood a hell.
None of us are destined to give our children the same painful experience we had. You act like it is out of a person's control but it isn't.
Now that gays have legal marriage we have stats. Gay men divorce at a rate of 17% and gay women at 65%. Feels like women are freaking out a bit after coming into the working world. Keep calm and carry on.
You can look to Sweden where people have one child each with many different partners.
Actually, you can also go to the museum of architecture in Stockholm and see that the government has influenced how many children people have at a time by deciding how many rooms apartments should have
I am mentally ill and can't even afford or take the effort to care for a single child.
To have a child would be ruthless and careless to me, because it's very hard for me to care for myself alone.
I don't think that's egoistic. It is the opposite, if you look closely. And if that means that this system will collapse, because I look after the happiness of my future offspring, let it collapse, because it's not worth it.
it's egoistic to spread misinformation around concerning the idea that having children is an optional choice and push people to find excuses to live hedonistically without making children. Wanna make genetical self-sabotage because "you can't afford it?" fine, don't lure people into believing this is a preferred solution to a more affordable life. Having children, or at least one child, and finding a way to actually focus on raising them with values requires a lot of effort and an immense amount of willpower and self-sacrifice (the latter not being an issue if one loves the child). But ultimately, to live using problem-solving to find a way to leave a live project behind instead of excuses, is the only rational choice for intelligent life (excluding those who cannot have any children even if they want to).
@@quantumzoflyne I don't have any kids 100% by choice. It never made any sense, and I have never had the 'urge'. I also have a need or urge to be married. Also no chance I could have afforded kids. It is much better I never had any, then to have ones I didn't want, and have them grow up poor.
It baffles me that dirt poor people choose to have many kids. That makes zero logical sense. It seems your take it there is no excuse or reason to not have children. I certainly don't need to leave a 'live project' behind.
In 1996, the world entered an efficiency economy. It's not about growth anymore, it's about downsizing the number of workers and using technology to fill the gap. People have found it cheaper to offer self driving cars as taxis than hiring less than minimum wage drivers for instance. The only thing more people will bring is more people living in the streets.
That's luckily not how it works.
When skme tasks are automated that leaves time for people to find other useful things to do that aren't basic necessities (like producing yt vids, art and science).
Humans are still very much needed in society. DW
They tell you not to have kids
Then they Import shit tier migrants because we need people.
Both realities exist at the same time......
@@drgn2182 Building robots to replace us is ironically a very labor intensive task!
@@drgn2182 That is how it works. Without the fundamental support structure within society to create future scientists UA-cam video makers, and artists, you're just telling truck drivers and coal miners to learn how to code while shoving your fingers in your ears. This is their MO. Dissolve the Department of Education, make abortion illegal, and hog ownership of our new automation masters amongst the few generationally wealthy in power. You'll have your permanent underclass with lots of free time, children, mandatory religious study, debt, and a happy thank you for the at will employment allowing them to do more productive things when they're let go, like being an amateur astronaut or building a perpetual motion machine in their free time. Just give people free time via automation and everything magically takes care of itself. Economic equilibrium doesn't have a human cost, it's just numbers on a graph. Humans are only needed only to be ruled by the chosen few. Let them eat cake.
Tech has many hidden costs, notaby fuel and global warming. Also no reduction in working hours since the Mexican and Russian revolutions 106 years ago: shouldn't higher tech efficiency allow us to have more free time (and better living conditions overall, including job stability and decent affordable housing), which may in turn cause more babies?
We've created a society based on empty consumption, BS jobs and artificially inflated competition in working hours. None of it is essential or even a positive.
People don't want to have kids for moral reasons (as we saw in the old Eastern Bloc), for economic reasons and for ecological reasons.
Every single one fo these reasons are valid and far more important to address than just telling people to have more kids "because its good for the economy"...
LOL! The poorest regions in the world have the most children, & they work more hours than in the West.
West is going to collapse. Too much debt (insolvent), and demographic cliff (too many boomers promise huge retirement entitlements & pensions that were never funded).
Pretty much. The pronatalist arguments are basically economic arguments, and economists are notorious for their "inside the box" thinking that treats the economy and human society as if they were independent of the larger earth system.
Personally I also don't want to bring any kids into the current psudo-capitalist system as it is, at least until we figure out what exactly we're trying to accomplish with it. When my friends and I got our first jobs about 15 years ago, it was like you spend 18 years hearing about how we're a free country, and then you get a job and I'd caricature it as "Alright now that you're an adult, let me introduce you to the two people who are going to be running your life: your landlord and your scheduling manager." It's basically serfdom and I don't really want to put someone else through that.
We found a malthusian here! 👀
OP makes a great point, an overemphasis on sustaining an unsasustainable economic model, and a broader system that is overly focused on increased efficiency solely from a monetary viewpoint.
@@augustodelerme7233 They infest the left side. They still revere Ehrlich, though won't admit it. The "globalists" want to reduce the Earth's population by 90%, fast. The best way to do this is to ban the use of fossil fuels, thus fertilizer and pesticides. These actions will cut food production by a large fraction, causing mass starvation in the third world. It will also cause people to freeze in the Northern climes, causing them to burn everything is sight, denuding the forests, and burning peat. Both are far worse than fossil fuels. Unintended consequences.
I think it's always been like this. The people that should have kids simply don't because of fear of the future and/or personal greed, and then the ones that really shouldn't go ahead to create as many as they can because they don't know any better.
That's how it works shortly before the collapse.
Just look at trump and his 5 spawn.
Even the ones that shouldn’t have children ALSO aren’t having children! Teenage pregnant is falling all across the globe. Poorer countries with less access to benefits for theirs kids are also having less children. People with hereditary disease, financial issues, no support, are more aware than ever about what it means to be a parent and what children need.
The whole “good people don’t have kids and bad (dog whistle for poor class, undesirables, criminals, minorities) people have too many” is not even true anymore.
Idiocracy wasn't just a documentary...
@@yucol5661it's still true. Look at Ethiopian birth rates
"Do it for mom"
"It didn't work"
So you're saying that thinking about their mothers didn't get the Danes aroused? Who would have thought?!
Raising a family in a VERY expensive little flat on the 20th floor is not pleasant. Intensive humanstock farming is just no fun. And the future doesn't look like it's going to be any nicer. On the contrary...
Statics show opposite of what college teaches on just about every issue
'Intensive human farming' - love it. ❤😂
@@osmosisjones4912 ... bro... you're not made for thinking. just ignore all this stuff, go to work and enjoy some entertainment.
Work remotely from a ranch in Oklahoma
What is wrong with 20th floor?
Not having time due to focusing on other things is actually poverty. Poverty is nowadays so normalized that poor people think they rather don't have time than they're actually being poor. Or that the world has gone to hell, when it really has just become more poor. Not being able to change the world for the better is poverty.
Well said...the neo-libs have made societies where most communities cannot actually survive.
It will take more than silly promos and childcare...
I often wonder what that 'focusing on other things' really entails to be honest. If you're going to accomplish anything really significant I think most would have achieved/done it by the time they're 30 and still within the window of having children.
Poverty is normalised in the west? what are you smoking? It's actually the countries with the greatest average wealth that have the least new babies per capita.
Why then poor countries have much more kids than rich countries?
@@Alex-ni2ir Maybe, if we're talking one's peak performance, but not necessarily. Many people reach their peak later if the experience and time they spend practicing is relevant to the discipline.
If we're talking career and livable wage, 30 is being optimistic. Especially with time needed to spend on studying or even keeping up with technological development.
There are 8 billion people on earth and they act like it’s not alright to be childless.
For me this is just a sign of racism. For them it’s not like we don’t have enough babies, we don’t have enough babies of the _right_ race.
I have children and I am really glad that I made the decision to have them. I think I would be missing out on some things in life without them, but then again if I wouldn’t have them I probably wouldn’t know I’m missing out.
But I respect everyones decision who doesn’t want to have children.
What are childless people missing out on, exactly? They all have been children, so they know exactly how this thing plays out. They don't need to see the other angle of a sad, sad play. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 I guess you only know it when you have children. It’s just incredible seeing them grow up. I love them so so much, much more than my partner tbh. It fills me with deepest joy just when they discover something, when they are happy or when I can teach them something. I can hardly describe how it is, but the worst thought of my life is that they grow up and they grow away from me. That’s how much I love being a parent.
And besides that people usually don’t remember their own childhood because we all have this strange amnesia of the first few years of our lifes, of course being a parent is a different thing than being a child. It may be the same play but you have different roles. I guess it’s not that much about the outcome, but about the joy of playing in this play.
And I am sorry for you if your play had a sad outcome so far. I hope you will get better soon.
@@hansdampf2284 So your children were born into an unhappy marriage. OK. NEXT! ;-)
The lack of compassion and the self-hatred of natalists makes me sad. I wish these people had the courage to look at themselves and reflect on what truly motivates them.
That would be the people who inflict a life of suffering on people who have never done them any harm.
But why invent the word "natalist", when we already have "parent"?
The fact the people lack self-hatred makes you sad?
That’s really odd take
Natalists are the onles that love themselves, because they love what they are and want to keep it alive through their kids. All they are, their culture. They don't want to commit self g3nocid3
@@shinobiwannabe you seem to have missed a separating article, my apprentice grammar clown
@@shinobiwannabe"The lack of compassion + self hatred of natalists makes him sad."
Might be a case of your odd interpretation of text. Or of an odd construction of text.
If you want more kids, pay people enough to afford to have them. It's not complicated.
So true!
My parents were early boomers, here in Australia. Their professional education was paid for by the government under a scheme that also guaranteed two years' full time employment in the field of their qualification once they graduated. They bought their first home in their mid twenties.
There are a lot fewer school leavers as a percentage of the population now than there were back then. If the country could afford to give the boomers that start in life, we could give it to everyone.
I'm not a "childless cat lady".... I'm a "mommas boy" still living in her basement at an age where I probably should be dealing with surly adolescents of my own....In other words, there aint a lot of gals seeing someone like ME as "procreation material", and I dont have a "wallet" either to make me look attractive.....Not "bragging"....Just sharing a pretty harsh truth.
Basically, I'm 200lbs pretty fit. Can do 150 push-ups, take care of everything at my folks place but good if I have not been able to find a suitable girl to marry. Its ridiculous honestly. Even the big girls think they are 8-9's, selling only fans just a fked society at this point. The women who want that are few and far between and the men fkng FIGHT over those girls. Like they are willing to kill and all sorts of things.
One of the biggest reasons why women with education and high incomes who want kids, never have those kids, is that they never met a man they wanted to have kids with. At this point the whole system is broken.
But looking at the world honestly, would a loving parent inflict this world on their kids? Really? I think that's a choice only people with a high level of privilege could do to their kids with a clear conscience.
That's a really good point. But have you thought about how to change that? Get a job, a hobby and go on Hinge. Say you're looking for marriage in your dating profile
@@tealkerberus748 the real change may be not being able to support a family on a single wage anymore. if this was still a thing those successful women would have house husbands. or both partners working part time to spend more time with each other. this is no longer possible, pay is too low and cost of living too high. as a result both parents need to work full time and the kids get raised by an institution. its no wonder kids hate their parents now. someone who does not work is simply not attractive.
@@tealkerberus748 When was the world better? During WW2? The cold war? The Irish famine? etc. A population that does not have offspring is doomed. Also, people who don't have kids contribute to the other's kids to be lonelier, and to have more social costs saddled on them when they grow up
The logic of unlimited growth is the logic of the cancer cell. We had a population boom, now let’s take care of the population bust, let’s make some sacrifices so that the old generation can go out in dignity. At the end of the day, a smaller population will solve a lot of issues: housing, unemployment, climate, etc
The issue isn't as much the lack of growth as it is a sudden crash. Ideally waht you want is a soft landing towards replacement fertility, but most western countries and China are far below that. Immigration can keep the working-age population up, but comes with its own problems if the immigrant stream is too large.
@@adrienbeauduin6307 Falling population means houses rotting down and old people uncared for.
@@kx4532Money can be allocated to care for those elderly people, but governments and wealthy corporations will have to fork it up.
@@kx4532really depends 2h9w quickly it falls. A gradual fall maybe fine while a crash is not.
@@stinooke Just get a translation app for the immigrant stream.
Elon Musk claimed that we need more people on order to have more ideas to solve the big problems of the world... We don't need more people, we just need to give existing kids a better education. How many brilliant young minds get wasted every day?
Also, lots of the so called 'big problems of the world' are due to there being too many people in the world.
Nothing says "vote for me" like offending half the population 😂
Indeed. 👍
The decline in fertility is the collapse of civilization. Obviously, the communists are going to twist everyone's words around and misrepresent what people said.
The rich gets richer, the poor gets children
The rich have always been rich, the poor have always been poor, has not changed in 1000s of years.
I can't afford children...
@@dimitarivanovski6322
You have enough money to be here, change your priorities.
Besides there is no shortage.
Project 2025 in a nutshell.
@@universeisundernoobligatio3283 Its more a matter of time poverty. Not economic poverty.
In the passed almost every household had someone at home to take care of and raise children almost all the time. Today, thats impossible for most households. People have money. What they don't have is the time flexability to devote 5 years to early child care.
Financial cost absolutely is a major factor in why people aren't having as many kids. I know this personally because it's the main reason my wife and I only have one child.
We would have liked to have two, but we realized we wouldn't be able to take care of two while still maintaining the quality of life, schooling, extracurricular programs, level of attention, and so on that we want for our child. Where we live, daycare alone is over $1000 a month. We can only afford to have one and still be able to do everything we want to for him.
My wife and I are lucky. Our income places us in the top quarter for our age bracket, easily. And we still feel as though we can't really afford a second child.
Perhaps if our government spent as much money on child support as they do on bailing out major corporations then the situation would be different.
From experience I'm very skeptical about declared intentions on this subject. The only useful data is what people actually do, not what they say they're going to do.
Well fewer people are having kids, so...
This. So beyond tired of people going "oooh kids are too expensive". It's ridiculous. Financial incentives have proven to not work, and the people I know that have kids aren't exactly millionaires.
But it correlates. And the actual data is, as she said, the main factor, is child mortality rate, and somewhat religious culture. These are backed by data.
The problem is those numbers are also bad, and rapidly getting worse. More to the point, there has always been a strong correlation between the two sets of data. In other words one of the strong determining factors in whether people will have kids in the future is how they feel about it now. It certainly isn't 1 for 1 correlation, but it is still a strong one.
The number of young adults who do not plan to have kids and more importantly who are not participating in or seeking out sexual relations is at an unprecedented high and it is growing rapidly. The other big correlations are socio-economic stressors, and all of those indicators look quite grim as well and have been steadily getting worse for decades now.
This isn't just some future speculative problem, this is an serious ongoing issue in many countries and including here in the USA to a lesser extent. It has already begun to strain our social security system and the only reason we are not going into a population collapse is it is currently offset by immigration. If you remove immigration from the equation we no longer replace ourselves.
Yeah, I mean, I'm 54 and have heard the overpopulation drumbeat since I was a literally a grade schooler, now the problem is "not enough babies!!"
It's a tad disorienting.
Many reasons boil down to money.
If the wealth gap widens, people cannot afford children.
Those other activities might cost money as well, so in some cases they may be chosen over children again for the reason of money.
In a remotely sane world we would be looking urgently at how to reduce global population - reasource depletion, pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss and general quality of life. All these would be better with a low population. Why is this not totally obvious!
Exactly, it’s not even spoken about anywhere. IPCC, EU, the green parties. It’s really bizarre to me.
+1
Because most of us realize that we're only here because our parents were allowed to have children....
A decreasing population would worsen our quality of life because there will be a greater proportion of old people that the working class would need to pay for.
The world is going to be fine. Earth was here before humans existed, and it will be here long after our bones are dust. These problems are HUMAN problems, and as long as we have the resources to solve real problems as they come up instead of hamstringing ourselves by spending too much money on things that don't improve our productivity, then we'll have the capacity to solve these too.
It’s as obvious today as it was to Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger 100 years ago. Say no to the eugenics. Say no to the fear mongering.
@@fulconerra3055Most of them are scared to state the facts, live in denial or are just hypocrites.
My first son Theo James was born 22nd of may this year... after 28 years of a great life he's the best thing to ever happen to me and its not even close, i genuinely feel really sorry for anyone who can't have children
"Animals in resource scarce environments produce less offspring"
Funny that the greatest drops are in the richest countries! Now what??
@@ruschein The countries may be rich but the people in them are not
@@ruschein "Now what?" accepting that behavior is influenced by more than one factor would be a start.
Time and money are resources, they are scarce even in rich countries, so people tend to focus on that instead of children.
In poor countries children are often seen as a resource on farms in order to help with work and income, in rich countries children are a financial drain on the family for at least 16ish years due to more extensive education.
Healthcare and pension fund systems have improved, so children are not seen as a necessity to take care of their retired parents anymore.
Rich countries let women vote and work more on average, so a lot of them choose to pursue a career instead of being a stay at home mom.
edit: spelling
@@vraoletwhat do you mean? Of course they're way more well off than countries that are poor and produce lots of offspring.
Americans look like they have not been going hungry in the years that the decline started. I live outside a fairly poor WY reservation town and not only does it look like most people are living way beyond their means, the poorest (and they are very poor) seem to be having the most kids.
I wish politicians in the US would be transparent about their need to fuel a robust working class instead of taking such a creepy approach 😮💨
It's not just working class dude, it's every class
Vance's (rather poorly articulated) point wasn't about having working class serfs or anything, it was that parents tend to plan longer term than non-parents do and the current government is overwhelmingly composed of non-parents.
@@willythemailboy2The current government is overwhelmingly non-parents? I don't think that's accurate. Becoming a parent does not give you super powers of foresight, and there is no evidence that people without children care any less about their communities' future. That's just a thing people say because of how invested they are in their own children when they never cared about anyone else before. That was their experience, but people are not all the same. Many of us have a wider sphere of empathy that doesn't require such a personal stake to feel responsible.
Lol the video was basically all about how it’s not because of economic reasons. People just don’t want kids
@@willythemailboy2That argument would make sense if the natalist party were the ones that were actually concerned about long term issues like climate change.
The reason the government doesn't care about the long-term is because it's full of geriatrics.
2:20 This isn't a sign of integration. Mexican fertility rate was lower in 2023 than in the USA.
That also jumped out for me, Sabine is really plugging uncontrolled immigration in this episode.
So basically the only way to increase fertility without impacting women's rights or commiting baby genocide, is to make it possible to live a life AND have a child? The best way to do that is to reduce full time working hours and increase wages, but idk how the economy could sustain that
More automation
A century ago 3 or 4 of those 5 - 7 children didn't reach adulthood
Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless.
Revelation 22:12-14
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
2 centuries ago, yes ; 1 century ago, far fewer died (and even fewer today)
and often the mother did not survive
@@serioustoday Clearly, the *average* mother survived to squeeze out at least 3 live births.
The upper bound for fertility is in the mid-60s of births, but how many were still alive at age 5 is far less clear.
My great granny had 10 siblings and they all survived and another granny had 12 and survived. Maybe 2 centuries ago it was like that but not 1
I am 35, have PhD degree. And I want to have kids. The problem is I can not find person with whom I would like to have kids
look harder ,and also be better looking (i don't mean your face ).
Perfect is the enemy of good.
@@moddaudio I know that perfect person is not exist. I am looking for someone who will share my values and wants to have family with me.
@@danielmekuria2212face is also important, particulary when all other women around me look gorgeous.
Globalization and mobility has made everything much more complicated. I can easily find people that I like, just not in any vicinity.
For me, i can't even afford to have a healthy quality of life, it feels like I could never afford a child.
Being childless is normal, just like being single. But when you have a society actively against marriage and maternity then you inevitably have problems.
There's lots of reasons why I didn't have kids but basically life is too hard.
I agree. That's it in a nutshell.
I'm glad my ancestors were up to the task
Life has never been easier
@@TuomasKivisto What a bunch of cry babies! What did they read or eat that told them life was supposed to be easy? Go live in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka for a month. Goodness, life is just too hard... I cannot do this by myself! They won't last that long because they will catch a disease and die or starve to death. In fact why not leave now!
I am childfree by choice because I just didn't want them...to be considered a "problem" is an insult.
Who's going to support you once you retire? Other people's children?
Your selfishness remains a problem.
Ah, and there is another reason to not want kids: people shaming others from not wanting kids.
I would respect this comment more if you said “I don’t think I would’ve been the best mother so I skipped the opportunity.” The way you phrase it, you sound entitled and self-centered.
Socially if most people behave like that, then it is a problem. But the problem is not you (or me, similar case) but a society that does not help its own survival by providing stable jobs and affordable housing. Some people will always choose to remain childless or prefer not to have a couple, etc. That's not really the problem if the rest can willingly make up for them.
I am in mid 30-ies, can easily afford a house and want to have kids (multiple).
Yet I don't.
Its been like ~5 years since I last time fall in love. It just don't happen. I guess it have something to do with past experiences.
Also I am so tired. So bloody tired... I kind of feel that there is not much life left in me (
I hear you. Same deal here, except older. My interest in the opposite vanished with the neutralization of everyone, there were nothing to appreciate anymore. Nothing to chase, zero excitement - everyone became the same.
indeed there is not enough. A hundred years are peanuts. We should live a thousand years in order to reach some serious goals. But you have nothing less than any other person, so, you play with the cards you have. Use them wisely.
I knew that i am late, when i turned 24. I changed my life 180 and streamlined everything for parentship, no matter the impact. I'm now 45 and the first one is about to leave😎
Act now! They stay 15-18 years!
Do not fucking move in a big space! Give them reasons not to stay, but moove out as soon as possible!
.
I was in your situation. My solution: 1) finding a job with flexible time schedule, 2) working in a a developed country (high salary), yet 3) livig in a not-so-developed country (namely stay at the border between two countries, one developed, where you work, the other less developed, where you live), 4) attending social events and doing social activities with group of people sharing family values. It worked!
I’m not sure the reasoning is very clear for why we should “keep calm and carry on”. There is no precedent for an intelligent species recently unshackled by historical societal norms to self regulate, making your case for ambivalence very weak. In what other species or society has a population bounced back from an infertility trend driven primarily by shifting gender roles?
A married couple living in a city usually both need a job just to keep a stable household, then if you add a baby to the mix, and add the medical costs of having a baby, its a nightmare
Urbanised areas always had poor natural growth. It's always been the outskirts and farmlands which drove the population growth. In an era of never ending urbanisation it's hardly surprising people aren't having children.
watch the video again: it's not about the money...
@@AndrasMihalyi It is for me
Civilised countries don't charge their citizens for essential health care like pregnancy and labour care. So that's another way your country is completely off the rails. If you're a citizen or permanent resident and you pay your taxes, essential health care should be funded out of your taxes already.
When I was 5 or 6, about the same time the sunday school lady told me that I was going to hell for asking difficult questions. I looked at my mum, then I looked at my dad, and I decided not to pass down those genes.
Neither of your parents said anything?
❤
Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless.
Revelation 22:12-14
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
That’s terribly sad, you will never know real love by following generations and learn to be happier not focused just on yourself.
@@fractalelf7760 yea but he won´t pass on those genes for stupid people he has.
“Nothing says “vote for me” like offending half the population”😂😂
Childless cat ladies don't vote Republican so why should Vance care if he offends them?... Really campaigning to serve such selfish self-centered people's wants would only produce a whole society of sick sad people.... No, better to lose the election then to placate the mentally ill.
Half?
Isn't that something else I'm a moderate conservative I can't believe what is two are saying
Do you actually think that half of the population was going to vote for him in the first place? Theres nothing wrong with telling your enemies to go die.
Perhaps you should listen to what he actually said, instead of the false reporting about it.
His point ais that he doesn’t trust people in power who don’t have children, as they don’t have a stake in making things better in the long run. Then he pointed at a number of top politicians in the Democrat Party and jokingly compared them with childless cat ladies.
Strange how our vastly increased productivity compared to 1950 apparently isn't able to support an aging population. It must be the looming "underpopulation crisis" and not the debts and investments that demand the future be forever more productive than the present or else will fail.
China, Japan, Italy are all facing population problems. I usually love your videos but i think there's a lot more to this overall.
In Japan, they refuse to let people move in. In China, they're reaping what they sowed w the 'one child' tax policy of the past. In Italy, young people go to other EU nations that actually have opportunities.
My point is this: you were right about there being more to it, but in all places, systemic issues, not individual choices, are to blame.
@@VoidCael with China at the time they were dealing with an over population crisis. Their decisions may not have been great but if they truly believed it would have self regulated they wouldn't have put in any laws in the first place. Italy has tried to keep younger populations in the country. Even though they have tried it still doesn't make the fact that they have an aging population not a crisis. I guess my point is the problems facing population is nuanced country to country and there isn't always an immediate fix. I understand Sabine coming with a retort for JD Vance but lumping every country that has unique issues just to make him look more clueless isn't helpful.
There's a lot of people in Africa (and many other places).
@@LuisAldamiz and they probably want to stay in their home country. Immigration laws are a whole other issue.
@@charlesxavier1904 - Sadly enough the only home country under Capitalism is Earth. Going back to fragmentation is not possible anymore, even if full unification will be hard to achieve.
The answer is objectively a resounding a NO!
If people aren't having children, that's on our institutions and government mismanaging our economy and breaking the social contract; our parents and grandparents could work hard and be confident it meant they and their family would be better off and be able to afford a home. We work just to maintain a manageable amount of debt and to remain in our rental. No wonder fewer people want to bring children into a world that has fewer and fewer rewarding opportunities. Not to mention a world so divided in just about every aspect.
There is no social contract. I have never either seen or agreed to such a contract. I don’t own anyone anything nust because I was born.
@@rpersen Nobody said it was fair.
💯💯💯
Oh Sabine, It is quite easy, why can't you see it? Income and security in oder people has been disconnected from raising children. People raising Kids have a huge disadvantage compared to childless people enjoying a careless live and then eating up their retirement being producerd by other peoples children for them.😢
It is a fact that historically, populations have been self-regulating. But it does sound a bit like it didn't occur to you that we're living in circumstances for which there is no historical precedence whatsoever. For example, we have no idea what the long-term effects of widely available contraceptives on populations will be, as they've only existed for a mere 60 years or so. Social media and their effects on dating and mating are even newer. There are a lot of reasons to think birth rates will keep plummeting, and I have yet to see a single rational argument why this will stop at some point. The only thing I always hear is "but they always have". Yes they did, but we're in uncharted territory now.
The form of self regulation I can imagine for the ongoing situation is when the collapse is getting nearby. If it comes to the point of "it's too bad here, we need immigrants to fulfill the declining population", a bad policy will let immigrants get within developed nations and cause social issues due to the cultural differences, a prominent example is the muslim immigrant crisis in the UK and Sweden. Will it solve the "decreasing population problem (and the low birth-rate one)" for the near future? Yes; will it cause an unprecedented amount of problems? Yes.
The hope is that things don't lead this way (structural changes in the way the global economy functions), or at least a rigorous immigration policy, importing whoever it is to ones country is dangerous, as you can see in the UK, and how the r*p*-rate on Sweden skyrocketed.
Have you seen the other comments here? Peeps feel squeezed.
At some point, resources like housing must become more plentyful as population declines. Maybe it will require some economic reform, but at least there will grow space for people to not feel squeezed.
And right now even the plea to 'fight' for a bigger future population will be dismissed because people feel squeezed.
And if all of that has been tried, and none of that works, only then we can start talking about removing peoples' rights and freedoms by taking contraceptives or telling them how to plan their families.
As for dating: people want love, and the offline world exists. A movement to date offline could emerge. Dating apps suck anyway.
In short I am not concerned about the natural regulation being broken, yet.
Precisely. Bravo.
There will be a point where the population isn't intelligent enough to maintain the tech required for online dating, or produce the likes of birth control, or maintain the current infrastructure. The population will start to self regulate at that point.
@@skaus2184 Maybe. But then her “keep calm and carry on” remark would become quite scary. “We’ll have so few kids that society collapses back into a point where having kids is all we can do. But don’t worry, you’ll be dead before that happens so it’s not your problem!”
Why bring more people into this world to experience the absolute shitshow?
@@marcosolo6491 I beg to differ. That would be the 1990s. We've been in a serious decline this century.
@@marcosolo6491 So? In a rollercoaster the highest point is right before the drop. And I wouldn't say that either, it's a common perception (and quite well sustained by data) that things have already started going downwards in the last few decades, at least in the west
Don't you want to exercise your inner sadist?
@@a.karley4672 🤣
I love my life
1- HAVING or NOT children is a very private decision Imo…2- as soon as a country gets more developed and wealthy, the number of children per family decreases … that is a very good argument to help underdeveloped countries to rise up… and in the end the planet would be much more acceptable with less people on it…
Eh, I'd rather India and China and all of Africa lose half their population before contributing to pollution and resource consumption on American/European levels
Btw keirkezachkkt is sponsored by billionaires with an agenda and they give you well scripted and edited pieces with a charming yet soothing voice to sway your opinion.
Hint: the only people that really need more people and more immigrants are people who need cheap labor. As Voltaire said, the comfort of the rich relies on the abundance of the poor.
Another reason for childlessness is that parenting style had changed over years. Now you have to supervise your kids 24/7, which requires a lot from a parent. While, 30 years ago when I was young, I could play outside for a whole afternoon and only show up for dinner.
Almost as if the constant use of the "think of the children!" 'argument' when passing laws had negative consequences. It's not just parenting style change, i've heard in US the parents will be prosecuted if somebody sees their kid by themselves without supervision.
Idk, that's still pretty normal here around (Germany)
Here in Nicaragua kids also do that and they come back once it's homework time or dinner time 🎉
Keep it up! Save the environment!
Part of it is that a growing portion of the male population (from teens to older adults) no longer want to get involved. There's various reasons why they do not. Few people -- and none of the "talking heads" -- want to acknowledge this. Basically, it's just not worth the hassle.
You’re speaking about how many laws directly favor women over men now? How women’s issues are first and foremost in society but men’s issues are not spoken about?
0:45 "and he's certanly done his part to populate the planet" 💀💀
The man is irrelevant. Musk has 12 kids, but the women he had them with don't have 12 each.
What goes up must come down. Population has been going up for a long time, and it's peaked.
My wife and I have five kids, definitely broke the trend. But I don’t care if people don’t want to get married or have children. Most of us live in very expensive cities and it makes ZERO financial sense to have children and getting married is cumbersome to people, especially when their family loads these expectations on their shoulders. Just live and let live! ❤❤❤❤
To be fair living in a country that is experiencing a sharp population decline may prove to be cumbersome as well. You can import all the immigrants you want but that may also prove to be cumbersome in the long run. 😅 It seems we're all in quite the pickle.
Children are not financial instruments. They meant to give your life meaning. People are starting to understand as the childless generations age and find themselves alone and miserable.
And economically children are essential, because they grow up to be productive adults. No children, no workers, no economy.
@@andrasbiro3007 children are meant to give your life meaning? Possibly, but not for everyone. There’s a lot more to happiness and fulfillment in life than children!
@@andrasbiro3007 "Children are not financial instruments." "And economically children are essential", so which is it?
I’d wager that you are going to be happier for the rest of your lives than some “DINK” (dual income, no kids) couples. You know, these hedonistic pleasures (expensive holidays, material possessions, career achievements) pale in comparison with the laughter of children and grandchildren in your house. You will never be lonely or bored either.
But I am with you: it is rather pointless to try and talk people into wanting to have children. What does make sense is to help future parents who do want to have kids to make the right decisions at the right point in time. And to help them financially - especially when it comes to home ownership. Families with 3 kids or more should be fully tax exempt with childless couples paying up for the shortfall in tax revenue.
Kids are less useful than they used to be from a cost benefit analysis.
My catholic grandpa with 10 siblings were given as much attention from my alcoholic great grandmother and father, as puppies in a puppy mill. The catholic elder generation were so disfuctional and child abusive, that its took several generations to break the cycle, of child neglect abuse, and the cycle addiction. Grandpa told me how the kids were often fed nothing but boiled potatoes for weeks because his father gambled all the money away and their mother was to drunk to prepare anything. But she died having the 12th baby in a one room cabin while great grandpa was betting on horses at the track.
Omg that's aweful😢
I was the youngest of six, and my parents weren't alcoholic or have any addictions, but me and number five were severely neglected. The older kids drained my parents to the point of them just being on autopilot and phoning it in at the end. I don't forgive them for it, but I understand. I only had one kid.
What about that sounds Catholic to you. Like how is that reflective of Catholics and only Catholics
you still grew up, where is the problem?
This is exactly the same with my grandpa and grandma. My grandma had 5 children and had to leave 1 child for adoption because they couldn't feed her. My alcoholic and gambling addicted grandpa always abused his children and wife and of course all of them were catholics. My dad used to tell me that they all tried to fight him at the same time but he was too strong. I live in a very religious and third world country.
Edit: My grandpa died drunk getting run down by a truck when my dad was 19.
Peter Tiel groomed Vance for the position he's now in. That alone should freak us out.
I'm not worried about humanity going extinct, I know that won't happen, I'm worried about who will pay my pension in 40 years.
Edit: to those saying I should save and invest, yes, I do that to the best of my ability, but it's hard to save enough with the current cost-of-living crisis, and when 30% of my gross salary goes towards paying the current pensioners.
Pension? What pension?
@@tj2375LOL, it will be solved. Old people are already forced to work beyond retirement age. Problem is here and now and I don't see magical solutions poping out 😅
This financial pyramid will collapse.
Tax automation, not labor. That would provide the revenue needed to support retirees and the unemployed.
The more humans who can be replaced by robots & AI, the fewer humans are needed.
@@tj2375who is going to work, when this childfree population will be too old to work themselves? Imaginery techlologies, that has not been developed yet?
There was a saying in Australia (ok, that's a bit of a stretch) about having kitds that I think Peter Costello said when he was treasurer. Something along the lines of "have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country".
Or, have kids because you love them and you believe that you're bringing them into a world that will treat them with dignity and be a good place for them to live.