Promoting immigrants in your country is also bad for the country - i.e. doctors and Engineers leaving Nigeria or the Phillipines, lowers the access and quality to healthcare and infrastructure in Nigeria and the Phillipines.
in theory, it is a good idea for people to come over on visa for access to education not available in their nation of origin and then stay to be a part of the workforce. Then, after a few years return to their origin country with the knowledge and money they earned so they can share that knowledge with people from their home country and invest in their family's estate. However, US colleges use prison cells for dorms (how many college dorms have more than 2 sources of light? and a window does not count if it doesn't face the sun), feed israel-slop through compulsory meal plans, and operate like a law of the sea nation (the USA for example) to create a debt society.
Less workers. Economy decline, lack of taxes. Pensioners becoming the biggest demographic cohort and youth the least. So rise of taxes. And so on@@petterbirgersson4489
Something people don’t like to talk about is pensions. For most of history, your children were your retirement plan and your insurance. This economic incentive is removed in the modern day.
@@tyresr theoretically you're funding your own retirement through taxes but that is not how it actually works. however with smart economic decisions you can basically pay for your own retirement.
Just feels to me like if you want there to be an "economic incentive" for child-rearing then you're approaching parenthood with completely the wrong attitude.
Here in Sweden the state will give "newbies" (non swedes) A LOT of help with housing and work. Meanwhile homelessness has gotten so bad amongst Swedes that the state literally censors and contorts numbers. Like in 2023 it was the record for death amongst the homeless by freezing to death in winter. Then it was quickly buried when people started talking about it! edit; to see if comment got auto deleted
@@ibx2catThe only event in modern history where the birth rate collapse was successfully reverse direction is 1967. when the dictatorship Romanian 🇷🇴 communist government banned abortion, causing the birth rate to jump from 1.90 in 1966 jump to 3.66 in 1967 and ending up stable at 2.44 -2.22 in the 1973-1989 period. and then the brith rate fell again simultaneously with the fall of the Romanian communist party.
Japan, Korea and Chinas rates for decades have been catastrophic and much worse if compared to north-western Europe who have had much better rates by comparison over time (France, UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia).The rest of Europe have had much worse rates than north-western Europe, but not quite as bad as China Japan and South Korea, with the caveat of Italy and Germany, who have had the problem for longest in the entire world (since 1975), but in pure numbers, are still having birth rates higher than the Asian developed countries
@@charlesrhodes1089Primitive low iq way of thinking. We don’t live in the 1800’s anymore. They could import only high iq people from around the world, but they prefer not to because “we’ll look a little different”. Haha what a Stone Age way of thinking.
War zones is not the same as financial stability. The latter is caused by modern society and how it is structured. The factor behind the growth in fertility in war zones is _mortality salience,_ which is an individual's awareness of their own death, it is the psychological impact of contemplating death. Preindustrial revolution, 40% of people did not reach adulthood, medicine was about making you bleed to cure you, and a small cut could be a death sentence. So people were very much aware of how easy they could die, especially with god and religion being prominent.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Ukraine war is regional to its eastern side, but the economical impact, plus the huge refugees leaving the country makes it harder, especially since most of the population was urbanized compared to, let's say, Afghanistan.
Another problem is that even migrants end up having less and less babies by the 2nd, even 1st, generation after moving. Similar to the native population. So the problem is more systematic and cultural.
Giving benefits after birth is not gonna help when the problem is that young people cannot get established in the world. No money, no houses, increased taxes are all issues that need to be solved in order for people to have children. People also go on about how poor countries have more kids, but that's because everyone is poor. If my life is comparable to the vast majority of people around me, then there's a big chance I would consider myself established enough for a kid. When I can see that some 10% of people are doing so much better than me and I can't possibly hope to reach them by working hard, then there's a big chance I won't have children. On top of just the "considering yourself established" problem, there's also the huge problem that the vast majority of people want to provide a good life for their children. And that good life is out of the window when a significant part of the population is just doing way better than you. Your kid is going to come home and ask why the fuck do all other families have expensive stuff while we don't. Maybe you can have one generation who doesn't care, but the next one will just refuse to have children until they seem themselves at that level. So yeah until we change the world to help young people exist, there will be no children.
Thats the dummest thing I’ve ever heard. You won’t have children because of the top 10%? If everyone thinks that our population would literally crash to the ground in the next 5 years. And it won’t, so you’re wrong. People in undeveloped countries see people on social media that are rich and famous. Also your painting this absurd picture that these countries with high birth rates are in jungle eating plants and berries. Countries like Algeria have a higher birth rates but still have billionaires and millionaire with wealthy people around them. Complete cope.
Housing has already been proven to be a small issue at best when it comes to explaining the low birth rates. Culture plays a way more significant role. You also contradicted yourself.
The decline of religious affiliation is a major factor. People who follow a faith have more kids. I go to a free protestant church of sorts nothing that tends to supersize families like Mormons or Catholics however having 3 to 4 kids is the norm. I then go to work and 40 year old guys are having their first baby with their 38 or 39 year old partners.
Age of having first child is actually far more important than the number of children you have As the child will mature "faster" in relative to the rest of the population and thus be able to have their own children and then the cycle continues
I mean, if you don't believe in transcendence and meaning, we become nihilistic, and humans are just pieces of flesh. No wonder why those people don't want to produce more "pieces of flesh".
The numbers don't show this, heavily christian countries like those in Eastern Europe have very bad birth rates. Worshipping a jew on a stick doesn't heal birth rates
Here's my reasonably hot take: Economic incentives do not work because the problem is not predominantly economic, but cultural. The high cost of living indeed influences birth rates, but I would argue that 40/50 years ago, in most countries, the cost of living was not as high as it is today, and the birth rate was still below replacement. Consider also that even today, the birth rate of the middle-high/high class is not so different from middle-class people. We have so many expectations put on child rearing and so little community support from neighbours or family members (since family size reduced dramatically) that it becomes impossible for most people to even consider having kids.
This is demonstrated by the fact that, in developed countries, religiosity is the best predicator for having kids. And not just amongst migrant groups. In terms of causes, part of it is community support, but I suspect a bigger part is earlier age at marriage. If woman gets married at thirty, she has maybe 8 years of decent fertility left. It's possible to have 4 kids in that time, but much more difficult than if she'd started having kids at 25. And if nobody is having large families, then maintaining an average significantly above 2 is mathematically difficult.
It's mostly due to a lack of hope for a better future. Governments increasingly don't address the needs of their people, rather focusing on promoting the interests of business classes. When you combine that with lives that feel only geared to be useful workers, business practices that simply squeeze as much as they can from people to go along with enshittification, and numerous 'once in a lifetime events' most people of that age have gone through with little support you get a situation where people will not want to bother bringing kids into the world and instead spend what free time they have on themselves. This situation is most acute in east Asia where their work cultures are the most insane. Simply giving people money or tax breaks for having kids is not going to work, as has been proven repeatedly when those policies are implemented. Governments need to implement policies so people don't feel squeezed in their day to day lives and have extra free time to spend for themselves and potentially spend time with their kids if they decide to have them.
Comparing the birthrates of two groups in a state of financial stability (middle class and up) doesn't reflect well on the reality of people living paycheck to paycheck, of which I do believe there is an increasing amount lately. I don't think how much spare money you have makes a big difference (as you point out) but having any spare money or not probably makes a very substantial difference.
@@Jack93885 What you are saying sounds intuitive, but it gets very quickly proven wrong when you look into the low class birth rate, as they have the highest number among developed countries. In fact, the countries that seem to have the highest birth rate in the world are the ones riddled with war and poverty. I'm not saying that the economic aspect is irrelevant, but for sure it's not the main driving force.
Yes theyre just a patch on a syndrome and the root of the problem is ignored as it is deep and huge. Modern society in first World countries simply isnt healthy and made to fail
Its almost certainly cultural. So much of the population now is highly urbanised and particularly since the 1980s, society atleast in the UK has become so individualistic and materialistic that there is just a situation now where even small wealth gaps can mean massive differences in social connections and overall there just isn't any stability. You don't know your neighbours, you don't know your neighbours kids, the schools are terrible, parks are sometimes terrible, streets atleast in urban areas aren't really as safe as they used to be. I know plenty of people my parents age who grew up on council estates and didn't really have anything, but atleast they knew plenty of people in the same boat, atleast they all knew eachother and atleast there was a sense of community. You don't get that nowadays. I want to have kids sometime in the future, but the prerequisite is first to have completed my University education, be in a stable place in my career and also to have been able to live out my life now that I can actually afford things. Alongside that, I wouldn't raise my kids in a city or town nowadays, I'd move to a village and raise them there and to be completely honest I'd rather just GTFO out of the UK also. So that pushes when I'd have kids into the mid to late 30s potentially early 40s.
It is scary that so many people propose migration as a fix for Western countries, as those people are also needed back in their countries or else poverty will take over.
Northern Ireland is the part of the UK with the highest birth rate. The reason for this is maybe something to do with the troubles & all. Also the higher rural population. Like we have 6 major cities Lisburn, Bangor, Belfast, Derry/Londonderry, Craigavon & Ballymena (which isn't a city just a large settlement) we have a few other bigish settlements like Newtonards & Newry (which is a city but smaller than bloody ards). Basically anything below newry in population have less than 28,000 people. So if I do the math 1,046,869 (863,674 living in urban areas) people don't live in urban areas give or take. Also the fact that we are quite poor also makes us have a higher birth rate. NI is just kinda in a situation that let's it become large. So how we fix the birthrate problem is follow whatever is done here.
Not really the poorer and less developed a place the higher the birthrates. If northern ireland would become as developed as england for example it would have the same issue. The problem is to develop AND maintain birthrates
@@ArdaSReal yea but there is also a lot of cultural aspects. I recognise that if we developed more it'd remove that but we aren't really set up for anything. We've tried to build up the old shipyards of the titanic quarter & develop but that's been a pretty big failure & we mainly still rely on British taxes to keep us from falling apart as most people work in the civil service or something relating to it. We have a good deal of tourism due to things like GOT but we don't really do that well. We are always the slowest however to adopt things the rest of the UK has such as abortion only becoming legal in the last 4 years & likely will become illegal again soon enough knowing how Sinn Fein & the DUP feel about it. We likely just need the right conditions to allow us to keep a relatively high birth rate but its still declining just at a slower rate to the rest of the UK.
What is the rate of urbanisation in Ireland? Wikipedia says it's about 64.5% On the other hand France has a higher rate of Urbanisation than Germany or South Korea and still a higher fertility rate. (81.8% and 1.8 for France, 77.8% and 1.4 for Germany, 81.5% and 0.9 for South Korea. As comparison 64.5% and 1.8 for Ireland) The UK has an urbanisation of 84.6% and a fertility rate of 1.6 That doesn't really look like there is any correlation.
@@HappyBeezerStudios I said Norn Iron not Ireland. Bloody Ireland is a whole different place. Different culture & all. I also recognise their is other factors mainly the youth culture here seems to be higher amounts of wee lasses willing to get pregnant early & also the fact that the end of the troubles likely caused a post-war baby boom type thing. Also mainly the fact we are dirt poor in cities, out of cities, everywhere because without westminster giving us money to keep our economy afloat we'd all be pretty much outta job.
been living in the UK, if your options are to rent a room with other strangers also renting a room in the same house you don't really have the space even if you wanted to have kids.
Also cultural, medieval English peasants would think having more than 1-2 rooms for parents and several children is wildly luxurious (not that going back to that would be fun IMO)
I find it amusing that when Hungary has a financial incentive to have more kids it's considered 'right wing', but when Britain has a financial disincentive discouraging people having more kids it's also 'right wing'. Basically, there is nothing right or left wing about having kids.
0:23 Hey, I made and maintain that map and by quite the coincidence I just updated it to the newest data a few hours ago. You can find it on the Total Fertility Rate wikipedia page. (It's supposed to have a sans serif font, I guess Toycat doesn't have the same fonts installed that I do though.)
@@ibx2cat the SVG image format is quite a difficult one to work with and get perfect and I'm little more than a beginner with it so it doesn't really surprise me with the fonts falling back in a weird way. I doubt this is a problem with Opera.
@@ibx2catThe only event in modern history where the birth rate collapse was successfully reverse direction is 1967. when the dictatorship Romanian 🇷🇴 communist government banned abortion, causing the birth rate to jump from 1.90 in 1966 jump to 3.66 in 1967 and ending up stable at 2.44 -2.22 in the 1973-1989 period. and then the brith rate fell again simultaneously with the fall of the Romanian communist party.
I wouldlike to point out how big of a deal tens of thousands of dollars is to a Hungarian. My mom lived and worked in Budapest for a few years in the early 2000s, she made 200 dollars a month and barwly ate into her savings to survive
It is a temporary fix. Ideally it will equal out globally and we all become a mixed globalised united humanity lol i guess that is unavoidable no matter what, if we continue to exist and develope for the next centuries
Absolutely. The world population will start to decline from about 2085 as there will be no country with growing birth rate, according to current projections.
They've already declined there but there are declining fast I mean Lebanon supposedly it's at 1.3 kids Iran is only at 1.67 the Middle Eastern part of turkey is falling fast and as a whole turkey only has a 1.51 TFR Morocco is probably at 2.0 and Tunisia is at 1.6 everywhere is falling fast really
It's sad to see towns and bloodlines die out, but I don't blame people for not having any kids. Jobs (low level) don't pay enough to support families like they used to in the past, college/university is insanely expensive, housing is insanely expensive, cars are insanely expensive, medical care (in the states, idk about other places) is expensive, corporations are out of control, divorce and fatherless children is rampant, immigrants (many of them illegal) are given benefits and incentives while you get nothing in the very country you're born in, crime and corruption have skyrocketed, the weather and environment have gone to shit, and the recent social medias and popular culture is absolutely ROTTING away the minds of the younger people.
Jobs are not paying enough? Say that to a person in Congo, they don't seem to mind not earning enough and still push out a lot of babies, its western society that is spoiled, the politicians programmed you to think that it's never a good moment to have kids
Instead of promoting lots of parental leave, I think we should promote parental telework. The parent gets paid, spend time with their kids, and save on daycare. Plus, companies get productivity. A win-win.
Exactly. Children take time and money to raise. You need to have low enough working hours that you can spend time raising them, but also the budget to afford raising them. And for how long would parental leave last? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? At what point is staying at home taking care of your children no longer neccesary.
Problem is society has fundamentally shifted children provided future stability and or free labour now people just see them as a burden to their luxury lifestyle, it’ll be interesting to see what societal norms change as depopulation becomes a worldwide phenomenon, whatever will happen their will definitely be a backlash to anti-natal sentiment that’s becoming prominent today
luxurious lifestyle? buddy, the average joe lives from paycheck to paycheck, trying to not fall into poverty while dealing with inflation and an unstable economy, as well as having other bills to worry about, this is not a luxurious lifestyle as for the response to the low birth rates, im sure artificial wombs will be a thing, however, its an ethical question on how such technology is gonna be used, either for survival of the human species or creating more obedient slaves for the corporate class
At some point we will have to choose between individual luxury and social well being. Either leave the elder on their own or somehow sacrifice our future generations forever. This tradeoff is horrifying.
People in the uk dont wanna have kids and they blame it on cost of living 😂,, imagine having free health, free nursery, 6 months of paid maternity, and free schools and still complain 😂. People in africa dont get none of that and still have bunch kids.....
If you have no healthcare, no pension and the children do a full 60 hour job as soon as they're large enough to work, you'll have more children, because they will have to provide for you.
The world also have an overpopulation problem, it's just that the economy require perpetual growth which you can't maintain with a declining population, thus the need to increase the population in an already overpopulated society, such as is the case for China as an example, is pretty much like an addiction that causes withdrawal symptoms if you go without.
All the entitlements, such as free healthcare, free education, social programs, social security, etc. that you probably support rely on labor and taxing younger working population. Such system will not exist if no people are born. Imagine having 80% retired population working to tax you, or you having to work up into your 80s to not starve. It's ugly. Overpopulation is not a problem except in very few places of the world.
@@CanKarataş-j9v What is nonsense is to make an empty "you're wrong" argument without any counter point. It is well established fact that humanity is spending more resources than what is sustainable for the planet by multitudes.
Generally speaking, humans are prolific. They want to have children and they want to make families. But when times are tough, people aren't feeling hopeful and optimistic, they're going to have fewer children. Especially right now with the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of so few, the rest of us see children as a massive economic liability which will drain already strained resources. Plus there's women's attitudes toward dating. 80+% of men are completely invisible to most women.
I believe parents need to be able to rely on communities to raise children, as it was for most of humanity we lived in bigger groups than just our direct family like know. If the mother goes working she should be able to rely on other, older retired people, neighbours friends, other mothers and institutions to take care of the children. At the same time countries have to start prioritising happiness and development not just sheer wealth through infinite growth
I'd wager shrinking populations in wealthy countries and the rise of AI/automation there could go quite well together if managed with a bit of foresight and empathy. Tho I doubt that will happen because both are like water in a desert when talking about how we as humans generally manage things.
All these things just ignore the fact that when given the choice half of women aren’t interested in having children 🙋♀️ I consider myself lucky that I had the choice to opt out but I’ve never had a great relationship so maybe that would have made a difference 🤷♀️ I’ve heard people say they never wanted kids until they met the right person but obviously without experiencing that it’s hard to know and I’ve never enjoyed being around kids anyway so would have likely made an awful parent.
Sure but it also means no more cushy benefits you get from the welfare state that you claim to love (pensions, paid holidays, free healthcare, free education)
@@ahsaniqbal5084, maybe you don't but many do and still adopt this attitude that the welfare state can just operate out of thin air which is frustrating.
All the public benefits, such as free healthcare, free education, social programs, social security, public transportation, infrastructure, etc. that we rely on, using younger labor and taxing a working population, rely on people being born. -- Imagine having 80% retired population working to tax you, or you having to work up into your 80s to not starve. It's hell. Even if all stays the same thanks to automation (which I doubt), I don't see much technological or scientific development on top of that for a long time, a new dark age. I also expect a lot of social isolation as a scale never seen.
The most important policy position IMO is centered around cultivating community. If your country has communities that allow children to run around unsupervised you’ll have a high birth rate. If it requires an adult to give full-time supervision for 18 years you’ll have a low birth rate.
@@Mattallla no. that is not how math and probability works. Its kind of like expecting the USA to elect a native American as President. AT SOME POINT : the x and the y cross path on different trajectory. the energy rules are the same here on earth as in space.. it doesnt stop until something stops it. ======== Let use Japan: if Japan goes back into being 100% Japanese including culture and mentality. they wont have this issue... they wont be over populated or underpopulated. Do you know why? because their culture had solved that issue already. Culture push itself forward unless interrupted. Cultures also have "stop gap " measures in it called cultural norms. ------------ Daycare cost is a major culture interrupter
Duuuuude your Channel Name is waaay to hard to remember. Some time Ago i watched your Videos a lot. Then i somehow lost your channel and had several attempts to find it again. It took me 2 years to finally find your channel…just today
@@supersuede91 non sense. When AI became the working class of the today who will controll them ? When big people have all the working force in the country what will happen to the average people ?
How about people start saving for their own retirement fund rather than relying on an obviously unsustainable inflow of young people that work and pay for someone else's retirement while they are barely left with enough for themselves. basically public pensions are a scam.
@@talebm5008 i don't know much about uk politics but i'm pretty sure both parties won't risk the elderly population, both parties are automatically pro pensions, if they weren't then they have no chance. so it's not a lefft vs right thing.
lol.. not it’s not. We have superannuation in Australia that pays for our retirement. The employer pays between 10-20% on top of one’s salary into an account that can’t be accessed until retirement age (unless you have good reason to access it before then) . If you spend 40 years working you should have a decent balance to retire on at 65.. or 67.
It should not be a bad thing that the population declines. You only need to adapt the society: Automation, favor collective living for older people, preventative healthcare etc.
Half of young people still do not go to university and uni is massively over subscribed. Starting work at 16 is normal and natural if you start at 25 you have wasted your best decade.
Tbf doesnt help that they made college essentially mandatory, even if you do get a job/placement you still have to attend a college sector. E.g. if you leave school, then get a job as an electrician, you still have to 'be in education', which just mean go to college once a week i think.Makes me wonder which college director made them do that rule.
Work in the modern world isnt just physical, what a ridiculous thing to say 16-25 is the best decade to spent working 😂 it is the best decade to get educated
you can also increase your productivity. Something most Western European countries really should be doing but haven’t basically haven’t in the last 2 decades (by the recent EU report).
Hello...Worldometer, 271,000 babies just since this morning. That's more the worlds remaining population of elephants, we increased in humans in just two days. There is no fertility crisis........
Countries should accept it, jobs are getting more automated, more robots are on the horizon. Having children that will probably grow up and just be unemployed is not what most people want...
well except that as we get more automated we are going to have alot more time to innovate and invent. I large reason in the last few decades we have seen unprecidented growth is due to the fact we can spend more time doing things other then just worrying when our next meal is.
@@ArdaSReal It's not will not work, it's can't work. How many people work farms or factories nowadays? Millions less than there used to because of automation...
Why not make kids in the lab and then put them out for adoption? Create incentives to adopt children, one of the reasons why women don't want babies is because of the suffering caused by pregnancy.
The bigger the upfront cost of housing the fewer children that country will have. Houses are needed for young folk to feel confident enough to bring a family into being. It then comes down to the way housing inflates opposite to whatever level other goods become cheaper. Meaning that banking and real estate are indelibly twisted around one another, and society.
In the UK, it's very difficult to get housing, health care, school places, etc. due to uncontrolled immigration. Plus, people don't feel as safe as they used to, so are less likely to want children. The native population has decreased, while the foreign population has increased, although I think this is part of the plan.
It is but you have it twisted. The migration is whats keeping the numbers up and the country rolling, like it or not. Also how is it uncontrolled, youre not part of the EU anymore? England without migration will quickly shrink to 30mil people and lets see how happy you will be then.
I dont think having more humans is a good idea, especially with all the problems that existence plagues the sentient beings who never asked to be born. We have no right to make humans to fulfill an artificial problem that doesnt need to exist in the 1st place. What we should do is take the time to fix the problems before creating problems (more humans to fullfill needs).
The only event in modern history where the birth rate collapse was successfully reverse direction is 1967. when the dictatorship Romanian 🇷🇴 communist government banned abortion, causing the birth rate to jump from 1.90 in 1966 jump to 3.66 in 1967 and ending up stable at 2.44 -2.22 in the 1973-1989 period. and then the brith rate fell again simultaneously with the fall of the Romanian communist party.
Fun Fact: If nobody knows, nobody can protect. That's why young women order pregnancy Tests, Pill After and Ab Medicine ONLINE. No whitness = no crime 😋
A decline in population can actually be good for people. Houses will become cheaper because demand will be lower. People could ask for higher wages because the demand will be higher and the supply lower.
I think the problem is more that there would be more old people who can’t work. If mortality rate went up then economically population decline is fine.
@@melvingamer If there wre fewer people, then it is true that there would be fewer workers in the economy, but there would also be correspondingly fewer customers. It's not like businesses are like "crap we still have to make all this stuff, who's going go fill our jobs, better offer them more"; they would simply have less stuff to make, and therefore fewer jobs, which would cancel out the effect of there being fewer people to fill those jobs. A declining population doesn't lead to a better-paid workforce, just a lot of lost jobs and collapsed businesses. As for housing, there's one country that has a lower population today than it did before the industrial revolution - Ireland. So you'd think that they'd have plenty of housing. But actually they have one of the worst housing shortages in the entire world.
In theory you are correct. In practice municipalities more frequently tear down properties people once lived in as they decay as the banks who own them refuse to lower their price. As for wages, what you say is correct in a closed system- one without immigrants willing to take slave wages.
@@Joe-Przybranowski Immigrants have the same effect. They are labourers but they are also consumers. They increase the supply of labour *but also the demand for it,* overall they don't affect wages much as these two effects cancel out.
"In the meantime we can borrow the people from the countries that have too many" No, it's that thinking that got us into this position to begin with; abortion alone did not destroy birth-rates correlation does not equal causation for there has to be substantive link to make a relationship between the 2 statistics. If we going to do the statistics thing do it properly or not at all cause were just misleading people otherwise.
Not at all migration is the single thing that is keeping the west alive, like it or not. Its also why the USAs future is brightest compared to the rest of the west and why south korea, japans etc. Future will be so much worse. Ofc migration from poor undeveloped countries brings problems too, but despite that its the biggest advantage of the west and that is fact
@@ArdaSReal Well like it or not insisting it works doesn't make it true all of a sudden. Also I didn't say anything about poor people from under developed countries that's a non sequitur. Anything else?
@@TheOriginalJAX the wests future is only looking better than eastern europes because of migration. Yes it is proven to be working it's intended purpose
Insecurity of work. Insecurity of housing. Insecurity of self. Insecurity is your problem. If you cant provide an income, somewhere to live and a stable parent then why would you? You need better working conditions, better mental health care and not just more but better housing and communities. All this is beyond a throw money at it solution. Takes some imagination based mostly on the above insecurity.
Abortion in the UK is now around 250K and if you ban it, you'll be up to replacement level even accounting for the black market. You can also ban contraception or make it more difficult to acquire. The incentives people are talking about will not make a difference.
Great idea. Then ladies go on strike completely and the birth rate plummets further. Address people who WANT to bring kids here… not those who don’t!!! More misery if you force kids on people who don’t bloody want them! FFS.
@@middler5 Yeah, maybe, I don't care. The national interests are at stake. I guarantee people will not be happy when the economy stalls out, debt keeps rising, social safety nets collapse.
8000 USD a month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rich countries having eugenic plan selecting good genes and treat motherhood AS A JOB paying for lifetime 8000 USD a month. It sounds lucrative. Would you apply for the job?
Give a free house to people who say they want children - if they don't have a child in four years, take back the house and charge them for the past year/ give them a mortgage to buy off the house as normal.
They got trillion of dollars to throw at this. $$$ is not the issue. financial incentives did not work in Several European, Canada + Asian countries, Russia offered free land. Japan try to give away homes = ITS NOT ECONOMICS you need melanin to fertilize the egg + sperm. [ basic planet rule ] Those who got enough to spare are not having this issue. ** THERE IS A STRONG COINCIDENCE this is happen after 1945 } the race to "whiteness" and the race to unlimited chemical contact in "western" countries. NOT EVERY "W" is a win. that is the lesson. good day
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and reading lots of takes on it and I'd say the primary correlation for lower birth rates is increased education levels. Especially among the least educated quartile, once they start getting educated enough they stop having teen and/or unplanned pregnancies, and this really lowers the birth rate. Making the population dumber isn't really an option (and calls into question if this low birth rate trend is even reversible on a multi-century timescale...) The broad social attitude also seems be quite important. That is if there is a stigma attached towards having lots of children then the birth rate will be lower; however in more religious societies the birth rate is often higher due to having lots of children being viewed pretty positively. All this said it seems to me that lower birth rates are by-and-large a good thing, not because of decreased environmental impact (the effect is actually fairly minor), but because there are more natural resources per person it increases the wealth per person and everyone gets a bit richer the fewer people are around. I'm aware the tech bros have a totally different view on this, they think more people means more innovation-derived economic growth, but I haven't seen any evidence for this. Honestly TFRs of between 1.0 and 3.0 seem fine to me. Areas of concern to me are sub-Saharan Africa, which just needs help in general; Pakistan, which has a worryingly high fertility rate based on its starting conditions; and South Korea, the only country to have a TFR so low I'd actually worry about it causing economic problems down the line. Most of these politicians and/or nationalists just like ruling a more powerful country, which having more people gives you. Nobody gives a damn what Denmark has to say, even though they (or a country like them) really should be the one the world is listening to. But if you _really_ want to raise the fertility rate then focus on making it cool to have kids. Cheaper housing wouldn't hurt either.
In some countries, especially in Europe, the decline in population is not driven by the low fertility rate, but by the rapidly aging population. Politicians push for more natalist policies just to replace those elderly people that are dying.
@@J.o.s.h.u.a. that’s logically flawed. If people are living longer and getting older, this should push the population up as there’s less turnover at the dying portion of the stats.
@@griefwnl7641 Sorry, I think I didn't explain myself well. In the original comment, it was stated that a TFR between 1.0 and 3.0 is not a problem. In some European countries it is, because the fertility rate is made worse by the rapidly aging population. There aren't enough children to replace the elderly people. In many countries, this means that soon we will have more elderly people than workers and because pensions are paid by the workers, the government won't have enough money to pay people's pensions and this will lead to the downfall of the welfare system. This is why in these countries the tolerance for fertility rate needs to be higher and why politicians are pushing for more natalist policies. I think my mistake was saying that the problem was people dying. Let me rectify: the problem is not them dying, it's them getting old, which means they are not going to work. Sorry for the confusion.
This is massive exaggeration.Looking at the birthrate right now is silly, you need to look at it over the last 45 years to understand the country situation and the UK rate has been 1 of the best in the developed world, in fact it's similar to Sweden and Denmark over time and only inferior to France by a small margin.The countries with a severe crisis coming in the next 10 years are Germany Italy and all of central eastern and southern Europe as well as South Korea, China and Japan - but Germany and Italy have had the crisis longer
@@ArdaSReal because you have to identify what's the problem with low birth rates and then at what level they become a serious problem.For example, automation is going to eventually make up for the shortfall, but this probably won't be for at least another decade or more, and then the problem will not be the birth rates, but how the population that cannot find work have managed to gain a sufficient "universal allowance" from the government , which they deserve and yet corporations will try to pay no tax because current tax rules don't cover automation *Ultimately, when countries that have had extremely low birth rates for several decades start to have a crisis (hasn't really happened anywhere yet), then you are probably going to see skilled and unskilled young workers looking to other developed country to work to send money back to their families who over time will have their services cut because there won't be enough money in tax revenues to pay for everyone.This might solve the problems that countries without the imminent earth rate problem will have if they don't solve the problem in the long-term e.g. having enough workers to produce tax revenues to maintain services. *The countries that have had an extremely low birthrate (under 1.7 for over 45 years ) will probably be in this boat within a decade.The only countries in this situation are Germany and Italy.Then you have countries who have had the problem for only 40 years, but even lower levels e.g. below 1.4) These are China, Japan and South Korea.
Water is not declining though; we have the water cycle for reason; and isn’t the ice melting due to climate change? That would bring more water into the system.
@@davisvoelzke8011 Many scientists disagree with you. The technology for harvesting ice melt before it becomes salinated is somewhat clunky, and some of what is harvested today is not used for fresh drinking water ... but for niche products like Iceberg Vodka. And the supply of ice melt is not infinite, either. At best, it's a stop gap. Desalination is currently both expensive and energy intensive, although innovation in that sector is ongoing.
It is though! Artesian basins and rivers have been sucked dry due to terrible industrial farming practices. Google it. It’s not good. Technology is waaaaaay behind
or maybe we can create an economic system that does not rely on growing birth rates. Do we really need more people on this planet? to the point that we're incentivising people to procreate even if they don't feel like doing it?
What kind of system do you suggest? Cause every economic system currently in existence requires the population to at the very least get replaced close to 1 to 1 to not collapse long term. Workforce can't be generated out of thin air
@@inbb510 where in my comment did i ever said that i love the welfare system? All i ever said is that we need new system that does not rely on growing birth rate. We can’t expect the population to keep growing.
@@takakocaesar579 , we can't expect it to keep growing but we can expect it to be stable with intermittent ups and downs. But a declining population simple will not be a functional society unless you go back living a caveman style society or a capitalist society where the function of a nation doesn't depend on the welfare state.
I feel like Immigration is an immediate solution that also has benefits in the future, as they have kids as well, but the birth rate can’t get neglected. It’s not sustainable to require immigration anytime your population is in crisis.
@@user-hp6ye8zt9b I am realistic, we are all destined for greatness and love, if we open our eyes and hearts. Compared to the year 1800 we have virtually eliminated poverty in the world, imagine what another 200 years will get us
So only allow women to work if they have at least 2 children? Probably wasn’t done before I know some people will get angry about this. This is as obviously satirical as was possible to me
Not a bad idea, but I would just bar full time work from women at first, then eventually bar most kinds of work from women, so it's less a shock to the system and to give time for women to find a partner.
Western countries want you to have more kids but than they make everything so expensive. Me and my wife are looking to move to her country in Eastern Europe because it doesn’t make sense financially to leave where we do especially if we want more than just our one child.
Money and economical incentives don't really play a role. The poorest countries are the ones with the most children and the richest, most developed countries are the ones with the fewest. It's all about what's in peoples heads. In our western societies with our individualism, hedonism and anti-religion, anti-tradition stance there is no place for family, for children. Our lifestyle is shaped by media for decades now and it's very egocentric. It is not sustainable, it won't last.
"Solving" the birthrate crisis by increasing immigration is really naive. The developing nations where immigrants are coming for aren't endless supplies of people, they will likely develop to the point that their own birthrates slow as well, or immigration will simply reduce because the quality of life will be better in those countries. Even the immigrants who do come to western countries struggling with birthrates will likely assimilate into the culture, and for the same reasons as the native citizens, their birthrates will become as low. There is also the problem of increased immigration, in that most immigrants are young, working age families, often more men than women. The countries where their population is leaving to immigration will potentially suffer economically due to the working age population becoming too small to support the aging older class. Is it really ethical for us to prop up our economies by exploiting the working age people of developing nations? The solution is to raise the birthrates. Figure out why birthrates are low, and take steps to improve that. A big issue is that the cost of raising a child has increased. Another issue is that wages are too low for many families to survive on one income, meaning both parents have to work and if they choose to have a kid, the kid will not have a stay-at-home parent to take care of them. These are the underlying issues, and they are much more difficult to solve than it would be to simply flood the country with migrants, which is why politicians prefer the latter. But we need experts working on solving the underlying issues.
@@hircenedaelen You can't really plan to have kids until you're in a serious relationship - not necessarily engaged, but living together. Because "let's have kids" is something that two people decide on together. So it's not surprising that sixth-formers weren't thinking about it.
How would cutting government spending on healthcare, childcare, education and social benefits increase birth rates? It would lead to a social collapse instead. The opposite should be done - we should increase taxes on the rich (maybe even nationalize their property) and massively increase the government spending on education, housing etc.
@@ibx2catbecause every system depends on it and the costs gets passed down to the bottom. If energy is cheap then people on the fence about kids would feel much safer that they could provide for them.
So many women haters in the comments showing their true colours. Toycat even explicitly said that most of the world’s countries with high birth rates have terrible things happening in them, and the incels are like “yeah, we want that!”. 🤡
Promoting immigrants in your country is also bad for the country - i.e. doctors and Engineers leaving Nigeria or the Phillipines, lowers the access and quality to healthcare and infrastructure in Nigeria and the Phillipines.
So concerned about the welfare of those countries. So so concerned.
Mega brain drain
That can also be to the fault of those countries as well. How could you blame someone for wanting to leave?
@@slendii366 can't. but promoting mass immigration by the host country is the issue.
in theory, it is a good idea for people to come over on visa for access to education not available in their nation of origin and then stay to be a part of the workforce. Then, after a few years return to their origin country with the knowledge and money they earned so they can share that knowledge with people from their home country and invest in their family's estate.
However, US colleges use prison cells for dorms (how many college dorms have more than 2 sources of light? and a window does not count if it doesn't face the sun), feed israel-slop through compulsory meal plans, and operate like a law of the sea nation (the USA for example) to create a debt society.
Imagine people from old times finding out not having enough babies is the worlds biggest problem they’d never believe it
next to climate change
It isn't the biggest problem.
It indeed happened in Rome.
Less workers. Economy decline, lack of taxes. Pensioners becoming the biggest demographic cohort and youth the least. So rise of taxes. And so on@@petterbirgersson4489
@@YMandarinCliemate change doesn't exist.
Something people don’t like to talk about is pensions. For most of history, your children were your retirement plan and your insurance. This economic incentive is removed in the modern day.
Why have children when other people’s children will fund your retirement?
@@tyresr theoretically you're funding your own retirement through taxes but that is not how it actually works. however with smart economic decisions you can basically pay for your own retirement.
Women's education is a huge driver of population loss. Afghanistan top the chart.
Just feels to me like if you want there to be an "economic incentive" for child-rearing then you're approaching parenthood with completely the wrong attitude.
Not really its just indirect, its still the young people paying those pensions
Hungary's legislation makes sense to me. Women would be compensated for years lost in the workforce (thus lower wages) by not paying tax
fair point, but an expensive principle!
Here in Sweden the state will give "newbies" (non swedes) A LOT of help with housing and work. Meanwhile homelessness has gotten so bad amongst Swedes that the state literally censors and contorts numbers. Like in 2023 it was the record for death amongst the homeless by freezing to death in winter. Then it was quickly buried when people started talking about it!
edit; to see if comment got auto deleted
Women getting in workforce created all of this problems, they need to stay at home and take care of it
@@ibx2catThe only event in modern history where the birth rate collapse was successfully reverse direction is 1967. when the dictatorship Romanian 🇷🇴 communist government banned abortion, causing the birth rate to jump from 1.90 in 1966 jump to 3.66 in 1967 and ending up stable at 2.44 -2.22 in the 1973-1989 period. and then the brith rate fell again simultaneously with the fall of the Romanian communist party.
But Hungary government policy it has no impact at all
Surprisingly most countries have this issue, but Japan and Korea get singled out because they wont take immigrants.
Japan, Korea and Chinas rates for decades have been catastrophic and much worse if compared to north-western Europe who have had much better rates by comparison over time (France, UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia).The rest of Europe have had much worse rates than north-western Europe, but not quite as bad as China Japan and South Korea, with the caveat of Italy and Germany, who have had the problem for longest in the entire world (since 1975), but in pure numbers, are still having birth rates higher than the Asian developed countries
They don't want to be altered beyond recognition.
@@charlesrhodes1089 Nailed it.
@@charlesrhodes1089Primitive low iq way of thinking. We don’t live in the 1800’s anymore. They could import only high iq people from around the world, but they prefer not to because “we’ll look a little different”. Haha what a Stone Age way of thinking.
What's the point of taking in immigrants to "solve" the demographic crisis when you're getting extinct either way?
"If you don't feel stable in your life, you're not going to have children"
-Toycat, after showing that the highest birth rate countries are war zones
So why is Ukraine so low .Even though it's at war
@@carkawalakhatulistiwaone anomaly doesn’t disprove the trend
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Because its a post enlightenment industrialised country.
War zones is not the same as financial stability. The latter is caused by modern society and how it is structured.
The factor behind the growth in fertility in war zones is _mortality salience,_ which is an individual's awareness of their own death, it is the psychological impact of contemplating death.
Preindustrial revolution, 40% of people did not reach adulthood, medicine was about making you bleed to cure you, and a small cut could be a death sentence. So people were very much aware of how easy they could die, especially with god and religion being prominent.
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Ukraine war is regional to its eastern side, but the economical impact, plus the huge refugees leaving the country makes it harder, especially since most of the population was urbanized compared to, let's say, Afghanistan.
Another problem is that even migrants end up having less and less babies by the 2nd, even 1st, generation after moving. Similar to the native population.
So the problem is more systematic and cultural.
Invaders having low birth rates isn't a problem, it means they have a lower ability to displace native people
Giving benefits after birth is not gonna help when the problem is that young people cannot get established in the world. No money, no houses, increased taxes are all issues that need to be solved in order for people to have children.
People also go on about how poor countries have more kids, but that's because everyone is poor. If my life is comparable to the vast majority of people around me, then there's a big chance I would consider myself established enough for a kid. When I can see that some 10% of people are doing so much better than me and I can't possibly hope to reach them by working hard, then there's a big chance I won't have children.
On top of just the "considering yourself established" problem, there's also the huge problem that the vast majority of people want to provide a good life for their children. And that good life is out of the window when a significant part of the population is just doing way better than you. Your kid is going to come home and ask why the fuck do all other families have expensive stuff while we don't. Maybe you can have one generation who doesn't care, but the next one will just refuse to have children until they seem themselves at that level.
So yeah until we change the world to help young people exist, there will be no children.
Thats the dummest thing I’ve ever heard. You won’t have children because of the top 10%? If everyone thinks that our population would literally crash to the ground in the next 5 years. And it won’t, so you’re wrong.
People in undeveloped countries see people on social media that are rich and famous. Also your painting this absurd picture that these countries with high birth rates are in jungle eating plants and berries. Countries like Algeria have a higher birth rates but still have billionaires and millionaire with wealthy people around them.
Complete cope.
Well said with good points throughout.
Housing has already been proven to be a small issue at best when it comes to explaining the low birth rates. Culture plays a way more significant role. You also contradicted yourself.
@@rgonzalo511 10000% agree, couldn’t agree more. All pew research and poles show that the number 1 reason is : don’t want to.
@@rgonzalo511 the comment above is just such a cope. The poorest countries have the most children.
The decline of religious affiliation is a major factor. People who follow a faith have more kids. I go to a free protestant church of sorts nothing that tends to supersize families like Mormons or Catholics however having 3 to 4 kids is the norm.
I then go to work and 40 year old guys are having their first baby with their 38 or 39 year old partners.
Age of having first child is actually far more important than the number of children you have
As the child will mature "faster" in relative to the rest of the population and thus be able to have their own children and then the cycle continues
I mean, if you don't believe in transcendence and meaning, we become nihilistic, and humans are just pieces of flesh.
No wonder why those people don't want to produce more "pieces of flesh".
At my Orthodox Church 1/3 of the people are children
The numbers don't show this, heavily christian countries like those in Eastern Europe have very bad birth rates. Worshipping a jew on a stick doesn't heal birth rates
Here's my reasonably hot take: Economic incentives do not work because the problem is not predominantly economic, but cultural. The high cost of living indeed influences birth rates, but I would argue that 40/50 years ago, in most countries, the cost of living was not as high as it is today, and the birth rate was still below replacement. Consider also that even today, the birth rate of the middle-high/high class is not so different from middle-class people. We have so many expectations put on child rearing and so little community support from neighbours or family members (since family size reduced dramatically) that it becomes impossible for most people to even consider having kids.
This is demonstrated by the fact that, in developed countries, religiosity is the best predicator for having kids. And not just amongst migrant groups. In terms of causes, part of it is community support, but I suspect a bigger part is earlier age at marriage. If woman gets married at thirty, she has maybe 8 years of decent fertility left. It's possible to have 4 kids in that time, but much more difficult than if she'd started having kids at 25. And if nobody is having large families, then maintaining an average significantly above 2 is mathematically difficult.
It's mostly due to a lack of hope for a better future. Governments increasingly don't address the needs of their people, rather focusing on promoting the interests of business classes. When you combine that with lives that feel only geared to be useful workers, business practices that simply squeeze as much as they can from people to go along with enshittification, and numerous 'once in a lifetime events' most people of that age have gone through with little support you get a situation where people will not want to bother bringing kids into the world and instead spend what free time they have on themselves. This situation is most acute in east Asia where their work cultures are the most insane.
Simply giving people money or tax breaks for having kids is not going to work, as has been proven repeatedly when those policies are implemented. Governments need to implement policies so people don't feel squeezed in their day to day lives and have extra free time to spend for themselves and potentially spend time with their kids if they decide to have them.
Comparing the birthrates of two groups in a state of financial stability (middle class and up) doesn't reflect well on the reality of people living paycheck to paycheck, of which I do believe there is an increasing amount lately. I don't think how much spare money you have makes a big difference (as you point out) but having any spare money or not probably makes a very substantial difference.
@@Jack93885 What you are saying sounds intuitive, but it gets very quickly proven wrong when you look into the low class birth rate, as they have the highest number among developed countries. In fact, the countries that seem to have the highest birth rate in the world are the ones riddled with war and poverty. I'm not saying that the economic aspect is irrelevant, but for sure it's not the main driving force.
Yes theyre just a patch on a syndrome and the root of the problem is ignored as it is deep and huge. Modern society in first World countries simply isnt healthy and made to fail
Its almost certainly cultural. So much of the population now is highly urbanised and particularly since the 1980s, society atleast in the UK has become so individualistic and materialistic that there is just a situation now where even small wealth gaps can mean massive differences in social connections and overall there just isn't any stability. You don't know your neighbours, you don't know your neighbours kids, the schools are terrible, parks are sometimes terrible, streets atleast in urban areas aren't really as safe as they used to be.
I know plenty of people my parents age who grew up on council estates and didn't really have anything, but atleast they knew plenty of people in the same boat, atleast they all knew eachother and atleast there was a sense of community. You don't get that nowadays.
I want to have kids sometime in the future, but the prerequisite is first to have completed my University education, be in a stable place in my career and also to have been able to live out my life now that I can actually afford things. Alongside that, I wouldn't raise my kids in a city or town nowadays, I'd move to a village and raise them there and to be completely honest I'd rather just GTFO out of the UK also. So that pushes when I'd have kids into the mid to late 30s potentially early 40s.
I don't date. I see it as a waste of time.
I don't want to be a mother, I have better things to do.
4:37 It doesn't matter if more children are born if they leave as soon as they can...
It is scary that so many people propose migration as a fix for Western countries, as those people are also needed back in their countries or else poverty will take over.
@@josepheridu3322the brain drain
Northern Ireland is the part of the UK with the highest birth rate. The reason for this is maybe something to do with the troubles & all. Also the higher rural population. Like we have 6 major cities Lisburn, Bangor, Belfast, Derry/Londonderry, Craigavon & Ballymena (which isn't a city just a large settlement) we have a few other bigish settlements like Newtonards & Newry (which is a city but smaller than bloody ards). Basically anything below newry in population have less than 28,000 people. So if I do the math 1,046,869 (863,674 living in urban areas) people don't live in urban areas give or take. Also the fact that we are quite poor also makes us have a higher birth rate. NI is just kinda in a situation that let's it become large. So how we fix the birthrate problem is follow whatever is done here.
Not really the poorer and less developed a place the higher the birthrates. If northern ireland would become as developed as england for example it would have the same issue. The problem is to develop AND maintain birthrates
@@ArdaSReal yea but there is also a lot of cultural aspects. I recognise that if we developed more it'd remove that but we aren't really set up for anything. We've tried to build up the old shipyards of the titanic quarter & develop but that's been a pretty big failure & we mainly still rely on British taxes to keep us from falling apart as most people work in the civil service or something relating to it. We have a good deal of tourism due to things like GOT but we don't really do that well. We are always the slowest however to adopt things the rest of the UK has such as abortion only becoming legal in the last 4 years & likely will become illegal again soon enough knowing how Sinn Fein & the DUP feel about it. We likely just need the right conditions to allow us to keep a relatively high birth rate but its still declining just at a slower rate to the rest of the UK.
What is the rate of urbanisation in Ireland?
Wikipedia says it's about 64.5%
On the other hand France has a higher rate of Urbanisation than Germany or South Korea and still a higher fertility rate. (81.8% and 1.8 for France, 77.8% and 1.4 for Germany, 81.5% and 0.9 for South Korea. As comparison 64.5% and 1.8 for Ireland)
The UK has an urbanisation of 84.6% and a fertility rate of 1.6
That doesn't really look like there is any correlation.
@@HappyBeezerStudios I said Norn Iron not Ireland. Bloody Ireland is a whole different place. Different culture & all. I also recognise their is other factors mainly the youth culture here seems to be higher amounts of wee lasses willing to get pregnant early & also the fact that the end of the troubles likely caused a post-war baby boom type thing. Also mainly the fact we are dirt poor in cities, out of cities, everywhere because without westminster giving us money to keep our economy afloat we'd all be pretty much outta job.
been living in the UK, if your options are to rent a room with other strangers also renting a room in the same house you don't really have the space even if you wanted to have kids.
Also cultural, medieval English peasants would think having more than 1-2 rooms for parents and several children is wildly luxurious (not that going back to that would be fun IMO)
I find it amusing that when Hungary has a financial incentive to have more kids it's considered 'right wing', but when Britain has a financial disincentive discouraging people having more kids it's also 'right wing'.
Basically, there is nothing right or left wing about having kids.
The government that did it is right wing, and it didn’t work besides.
Hungary is right wing populist, that UK policy IMO comes from a right wing conservative place.
0:23 Hey, I made and maintain that map and by quite the coincidence I just updated it to the newest data a few hours ago.
You can find it on the Total Fertility Rate wikipedia page.
(It's supposed to have a sans serif font, I guess Toycat doesn't have the same fonts installed that I do though.)
That's super fun! This is in the Opera browser, I'd be surprised to learn it doesn't have sans serif installed by default haha
@@ibx2cat the SVG image format is quite a difficult one to work with and get perfect and I'm little more than a beginner with it so it doesn't really surprise me with the fonts falling back in a weird way. I doubt this is a problem with Opera.
@@ibx2catThe only event in modern history where the birth rate collapse was successfully reverse direction is 1967. when the dictatorship Romanian 🇷🇴 communist government banned abortion, causing the birth rate to jump from 1.90 in 1966 jump to 3.66 in 1967 and ending up stable at 2.44 -2.22 in the 1973-1989 period. and then the brith rate fell again simultaneously with the fall of the Romanian communist party.
I wouldlike to point out how big of a deal tens of thousands of dollars is to a Hungarian. My mom lived and worked in Budapest for a few years in the early 2000s, she made 200 dollars a month and barwly ate into her savings to survive
What happens when birthrates decline in Africa and the Middle East? Immigration will no longer be a "solution" to declining birth rates.
It is a temporary fix. Ideally it will equal out globally and we all become a mixed globalised united humanity lol i guess that is unavoidable no matter what, if we continue to exist and develope for the next centuries
Absolutely. The world population will start to decline from about 2085 as there will be no country with growing birth rate, according to current projections.
They've already declined there but there are declining fast I mean Lebanon supposedly it's at 1.3 kids Iran is only at 1.67 the Middle Eastern part of turkey is falling fast and as a whole turkey only has a 1.51 TFR Morocco is probably at 2.0 and Tunisia is at 1.6 everywhere is falling fast really
@spipo1903 sub Saharan Africa has seen big dips btw though well above replacement rate keep in mind it is falling fast there
@@Aaron-qw1dn turkey and iran's fertility is 1.9
It's sad to see towns and bloodlines die out, but I don't blame people for not having any kids. Jobs (low level) don't pay enough to support families like they used to in the past, college/university is insanely expensive, housing is insanely expensive, cars are insanely expensive, medical care (in the states, idk about other places) is expensive, corporations are out of control, divorce and fatherless children is rampant, immigrants (many of them illegal) are given benefits and incentives while you get nothing in the very country you're born in, crime and corruption have skyrocketed, the weather and environment have gone to shit, and the recent social medias and popular culture is absolutely ROTTING away the minds of the younger people.
Jobs are not paying enough? Say that to a person in Congo, they don't seem to mind not earning enough and still push out a lot of babies, its western society that is spoiled, the politicians programmed you to think that it's never a good moment to have kids
“Benefits and Incentives” for being an illegal immigrant. Does lying come naturally to you?
Instead of promoting lots of parental leave, I think we should promote parental telework. The parent gets paid, spend time with their kids, and save on daycare. Plus, companies get productivity. A win-win.
Exactly. Children take time and money to raise. You need to have low enough working hours that you can spend time raising them, but also the budget to afford raising them.
And for how long would parental leave last? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? At what point is staying at home taking care of your children no longer neccesary.
Problem is society has fundamentally shifted children provided future stability and or free labour now people just see them as a burden to their luxury lifestyle, it’ll be interesting to see what societal norms change as depopulation becomes a worldwide phenomenon, whatever will happen their will definitely be a backlash to anti-natal sentiment that’s becoming prominent today
lifestyle inflation and kids are exact opposites, it's true!
luxurious lifestyle? buddy, the average joe lives from paycheck to paycheck, trying to not fall into poverty while dealing with inflation and an unstable economy, as well as having other bills to worry about, this is not a luxurious lifestyle
as for the response to the low birth rates, im sure artificial wombs will be a thing, however, its an ethical question on how such technology is gonna be used, either for survival of the human species or creating more obedient slaves for the corporate class
lol 😂 make sure you have many children to be the change you want to see.
At some point we will have to choose between individual luxury and social well being. Either leave the elder on their own or somehow sacrifice our future generations forever. This tradeoff is horrifying.
@@josepheridu3322Sounds like a threat. Women choosing to not have kids? Guess we'll have to take away their choice
People in the uk dont wanna have kids and they blame it on cost of living 😂,, imagine having free health, free nursery, 6 months of paid maternity, and free schools and still complain 😂. People in africa dont get none of that and still have bunch kids.....
If you have no healthcare, no pension and the children do a full 60 hour job as soon as they're large enough to work, you'll have more children, because they will have to provide for you.
The world also have an overpopulation problem, it's just that the economy require perpetual growth which you can't maintain with a declining population, thus the need to increase the population in an already overpopulated society, such as is the case for China as an example, is pretty much like an addiction that causes withdrawal symptoms if you go without.
npc
@@_monti142 con
All the entitlements, such as free healthcare, free education, social programs, social security, etc. that you probably support rely on labor and taxing younger working population. Such system will not exist if no people are born. Imagine having 80% retired population working to tax you, or you having to work up into your 80s to not starve. It's ugly.
Overpopulation is not a problem except in very few places of the world.
no, world doesnt have an overpopulation problem. Your whole comment is outright nonsense
@@CanKarataş-j9v What is nonsense is to make an empty "you're wrong" argument without any counter point. It is well established fact that humanity is spending more resources than what is sustainable for the planet by multitudes.
Generally speaking, humans are prolific. They want to have children and they want to make families. But when times are tough, people aren't feeling hopeful and optimistic, they're going to have fewer children. Especially right now with the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of so few, the rest of us see children as a massive economic liability which will drain already strained resources. Plus there's women's attitudes toward dating. 80+% of men are completely invisible to most women.
Online dating is hell, and offline dating is almost impossible. No wonder there is a loneliness epidemic
Dig at women at the end. This sort of attitude also affecting couples forming.
I believe parents need to be able to rely on communities to raise children, as it was for most of humanity we lived in bigger groups than just our direct family like know. If the mother goes working she should be able to rely on other, older retired people, neighbours friends, other mothers and institutions to take care of the children. At the same time countries have to start prioritising happiness and development not just sheer wealth through infinite growth
I'd wager shrinking populations in wealthy countries and the rise of AI/automation there could go quite well together if managed with a bit of foresight and empathy.
Tho I doubt that will happen because both are like water in a desert when talking about how we as humans generally manage things.
All these things just ignore the fact that when given the choice half of women aren’t interested in having children 🙋♀️
I consider myself lucky that I had the choice to opt out but I’ve never had a great relationship so maybe that would have made a difference 🤷♀️ I’ve heard people say they never wanted kids until they met the right person but obviously without experiencing that it’s hard to know and I’ve never enjoyed being around kids anyway so would have likely made an awful parent.
I don't want to be a mother. I don't even date
@@CordeliaWagner1999 same, I’m not interested in actively dating. If I met someone along the way I wouldn’t discount it though.
Nice video as always, funny how i discovered this channel after you're awkward driving attempt on Conquer Driving.
Population collapse i.e no more slaves to milk 😂
Sure but it also means no more cushy benefits you get from the welfare state that you claim to love (pensions, paid holidays, free healthcare, free education)
@@inbb510 I don't love them, never did.
@@ahsaniqbal5084, maybe you don't but many do and still adopt this attitude that the welfare state can just operate out of thin air which is frustrating.
@@inbb510I can pay for all of that with the money I save by not having kids
All the public benefits, such as free healthcare, free education, social programs, social security, public transportation, infrastructure, etc. that we rely on, using younger labor and taxing a working population, rely on people being born. -- Imagine having 80% retired population working to tax you, or you having to work up into your 80s to not starve. It's hell. Even if all stays the same thanks to automation (which I doubt), I don't see much technological or scientific development on top of that for a long time, a new dark age. I also expect a lot of social isolation as a scale never seen.
Germanics collectively doing absolutely nothing
Well if you build housing without childrens rooms , dont expect them to be filled 😅
The most important policy position IMO is centered around cultivating community. If your country has communities that allow children to run around unsupervised you’ll have a high birth rate. If it requires an adult to give full-time supervision for 18 years you’ll have a low birth rate.
You can also just have no healthcare and let the children work, that also increases fertility.
@@HappyBeezerStudios That's not a real solution, that's a regression
@@xoduty1424 and both aren't solutions in practice.
but Africa is fine ... 💅 I do not know why there is an alarm world-wide? the central continent is doing fine.
Africa faces the same problem based on the trends. It will just happen later.
@@Mattallla no. that is not how math and probability works.
Its kind of like expecting the USA to elect a native American as President.
AT SOME POINT : the x and the y cross path on different trajectory.
the energy rules are the same here on earth as in space.. it doesnt stop until something stops it.
======== Let use Japan:
if Japan goes back into being 100% Japanese including culture and mentality. they wont have this issue... they wont be over populated or underpopulated.
Do you know why? because their culture had solved that issue already.
Culture push itself forward unless interrupted.
Cultures also have "stop gap " measures in it called cultural norms.
------------
Daycare cost is a major culture interrupter
Duuuuude your Channel Name is waaay to hard to remember. Some time Ago i watched your Videos a lot. Then i somehow lost your channel and had several attempts to find it again. It took me 2 years to finally find your channel…just today
There is literally nothing you can do. This issue will destroy our society as we know it.
I think AI and robots will come in clutch to fill the gap
@@supersuede91 lowkey they could save the day
@@supersuede91yeah. Japan is already on it.
@@supersuede91 non sense. When AI became the working class of the today who will controll them ? When big people have all the working force in the country what will happen to the average people ?
Has Hungary's population of iPhones increased on the back of spending 5% of the GDP on financing having children?
Heh
you should livestream these like atrioc
How about people start saving for their own retirement fund rather than relying on an obviously unsustainable inflow of young people that work and pay for someone else's retirement while they are barely left with enough for themselves. basically public pensions are a scam.
Impossible - electoral success is linked to the increasing elderly population
@@supersuede91 that doesn't align with the age demographics of those who voted Labour. Pensioners was the lowest.
Their kind off the point of the goverment, a huge party of the contract. Very sad how modern society is this unsustainable
@@talebm5008 i don't know much about uk politics but i'm pretty sure both parties won't risk the elderly population, both parties are automatically pro pensions, if they weren't then they have no chance. so it's not a lefft vs right thing.
lol.. not it’s not. We have superannuation in Australia that pays for our retirement. The employer pays between 10-20% on top of one’s salary into an account that can’t be accessed until retirement age (unless you have good reason to access it before then) . If you spend 40 years working you should have a decent balance to retire on at 65.. or 67.
It should not be a bad thing that the population declines. You only need to adapt the society: Automation, favor collective living for older people, preventative healthcare etc.
I like this idea, I’m just not sure it gets to the root of the issue. Tax payers still have to pay for these social programs
Our systems are based on infinite growth, same mistake as companies
It is a very bad thing in the system we live now, not in whatever fantasy land you can up with
@@d.dr.v42 Indefinite population growth is not sustainable in our world in the long run. It's not fantasy it's reality.
Half of young people still do not go to university and uni is massively over subscribed. Starting work at 16 is normal and natural if you start at 25 you have wasted your best decade.
In Australia u gotta stay at school until 17 nearly / yr 12 unless u go to tafe (trade school and general courses) or get an apprenticeship
Tbf doesnt help that they made college essentially mandatory, even if you do get a job/placement you still have to attend a college sector. E.g. if you leave school, then get a job as an electrician, you still have to 'be in education', which just mean go to college once a week i think.Makes me wonder which college director made them do that rule.
There aren't enough of these works without qualifications. It's a good thing that the population declines.
Work in the modern world isnt just physical, what a ridiculous thing to say 16-25 is the best decade to spent working 😂 it is the best decade to get educated
No way was that my best decade
13:00
>you cant just pop out a child now and ask questions later
thats what our parents did
you can also increase your productivity. Something most Western European countries really should be doing but haven’t basically haven’t in the last 2 decades (by the recent EU report).
Hello...Worldometer, 271,000 babies just since this morning. That's more the worlds remaining population of elephants, we increased in humans in just two days. There is no fertility crisis........
In some parts of the world people can’t find anyone they’d want to have children with. True story.
Good to hear from you ❤😂
Just like ToyCat has immigrated to ToyCat2 due to declining viewership on ToyCat1
Countries should accept it, jobs are getting more automated, more robots are on the horizon. Having children that will probably grow up and just be unemployed is not what most people want...
well except that as we get more automated we are going to have alot more time to innovate and invent. I large reason in the last few decades we have seen unprecidented growth is due to the fact we can spend more time doing things other then just worrying when our next meal is.
Oh no my child will not work because ChatGPT😢
@@ArdaSReal It's not will not work, it's can't work. How many people work farms or factories nowadays? Millions less than there used to because of automation...
Im tring to buy enouth land to survive, having it l will only need enouth money to pay the goverment to rent it
Why not make kids in the lab and then put them out for adoption? Create incentives to adopt children, one of the reasons why women don't want babies is because of the suffering caused by pregnancy.
Lab kids + cure for aging
😂😂😂😂
I think there is a simple solution but we'll never implement it before a crash
The bigger the upfront cost of housing the fewer children that country will have. Houses are needed for young folk to feel confident enough to bring a family into being. It then comes down to the way housing inflates opposite to whatever level other goods become cheaper. Meaning that banking and real estate are indelibly twisted around one another, and society.
In the UK, it's very difficult to get housing, health care, school places, etc. due to uncontrolled immigration. Plus, people don't feel as safe as they used to, so are less likely to want children. The native population has decreased, while the foreign population has increased, although I think this is part of the plan.
It is but you have it twisted. The migration is whats keeping the numbers up and the country rolling, like it or not. Also how is it uncontrolled, youre not part of the EU anymore? England without migration will quickly shrink to 30mil people and lets see how happy you will be then.
housing, health care, and schooling is not limited because of immigration. The true problem is an economy thst prioritizes profits over people.
@@twinyang1770 An increase in demands has obviously put pressure on the supply of the things you mentioned.
Do you think Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Afghanistan have a higher birthrates because the government there is giving their citizens loads of free money 😂?
Religion is what keeps them breeding.
I dont think having more humans is a good idea, especially with all the problems that existence plagues the sentient beings who never asked to be born. We have no right to make humans to fulfill an artificial problem that doesnt need to exist in the 1st place. What we should do is take the time to fix the problems before creating problems (more humans to fullfill needs).
The only event in modern history where the birth rate collapse was successfully reverse direction is 1967. when the dictatorship Romanian 🇷🇴 communist government banned abortion, causing the birth rate to jump from 1.90 in 1966 jump to 3.66 in 1967 and ending up stable at 2.44 -2.22 in the 1973-1989 period. and then the brith rate fell again simultaneously with the fall of the Romanian communist party.
We need protection of all humans life from moment of conception.
Fun Fact:
If nobody knows, nobody can protect.
That's why young women order pregnancy Tests, Pill After and Ab Medicine ONLINE.
No whitness = no crime 😋
100%
The decline starts in 1900?
Well... that was about 20 years after Capitalism was created and implemented.
So that checks out!
😂
A decline in population can actually be good for people. Houses will become cheaper because demand will be lower. People could ask for higher wages because the demand will be higher and the supply lower.
Yes it is unnatural to have infinite growth. The actual problem is that our economy and systems are based on exactly that.
I think the problem is more that there would be more old people who can’t work. If mortality rate went up then economically population decline is fine.
@@melvingamer If there wre fewer people, then it is true that there would be fewer workers in the economy, but there would also be correspondingly fewer customers. It's not like businesses are like "crap we still have to make all this stuff, who's going go fill our jobs, better offer them more"; they would simply have less stuff to make, and therefore fewer jobs, which would cancel out the effect of there being fewer people to fill those jobs. A declining population doesn't lead to a better-paid workforce, just a lot of lost jobs and collapsed businesses.
As for housing, there's one country that has a lower population today than it did before the industrial revolution - Ireland. So you'd think that they'd have plenty of housing. But actually they have one of the worst housing shortages in the entire world.
In theory you are correct.
In practice municipalities more frequently tear down properties people once lived in as they decay as the banks who own them refuse to lower their price.
As for wages, what you say is correct in a closed system- one without immigrants willing to take slave wages.
@@Joe-Przybranowski Immigrants have the same effect. They are labourers but they are also consumers. They increase the supply of labour *but also the demand for it,* overall they don't affect wages much as these two effects cancel out.
Spending 5% of your countries GDP, which is most likely higher than your countries defense budget, for a small increase in birth rate... Good lord...
"In the meantime we can borrow the people from the countries that have too many" No, it's that thinking that got us into this position to begin with; abortion alone did not destroy birth-rates correlation does not equal causation for there has to be substantive link to make a relationship between the 2 statistics. If we going to do the statistics thing do it properly or not at all cause were just misleading people otherwise.
Not at all migration is the single thing that is keeping the west alive, like it or not. Its also why the USAs future is brightest compared to the rest of the west and why south korea, japans etc. Future will be so much worse. Ofc migration from poor undeveloped countries brings problems too, but despite that its the biggest advantage of the west and that is fact
@@ArdaSReal Well like it or not insisting it works doesn't make it true all of a sudden. Also I didn't say anything about poor people from under developed countries that's a non sequitur. Anything else?
@@TheOriginalJAX the wests future is only looking better than eastern europes because of migration. Yes it is proven to be working it's intended purpose
Singapore has an interesting way of doing things too! 😂
Your interpolation of economic subsidy as prochild is off base
Insecurity of work.
Insecurity of housing.
Insecurity of self.
Insecurity is your problem. If you cant provide an income, somewhere to live and a stable parent then why would you?
You need better working conditions, better mental health care and not just more but better housing and communities.
All this is beyond a throw money at it solution. Takes some imagination based mostly on the above insecurity.
Abortion in the UK is now around 250K and if you ban it, you'll be up to replacement level even accounting for the black market. You can also ban contraception or make it more difficult to acquire. The incentives people are talking about will not make a difference.
no
Not happening. Support for abortion bans is tiny even among the UK right
Great idea. Then ladies go on strike completely and the birth rate plummets further. Address people who WANT to bring kids here… not those who don’t!!! More misery if you force kids on people who don’t bloody want them! FFS.
Forcing people to have children they don't want will not create happy future workers.
@@middler5 Yeah, maybe, I don't care. The national interests are at stake. I guarantee people will not be happy when the economy stalls out, debt keeps rising, social safety nets collapse.
Governments can pay sondieren but not mothers?
Nah.
8000 USD a month!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rich countries having eugenic plan selecting good genes and treat motherhood AS A JOB paying for lifetime 8000 USD a month. It sounds lucrative. Would you apply for the job?
Seems to me that if the 🥕 doesn't work, governments are going to have to use the stick.
Bro can't sit still 😂
He keeps hobbling
Give a free house to people who say they want children - if they don't have a child in four years, take back the house and charge them for the past year/ give them a mortgage to buy off the house as normal.
Nah just give them a free Villa and lambo and a ps5 for every child 🤡
Israel is still growing, mostly due to Jewish culture.
Only the very traditional people have more than two children. They abuse the women as Baby machines
X amount of kids for a free house or mortgage forgiveness would be great.
They got trillion of dollars to throw at this. $$$ is not the issue. financial incentives did not work in Several European, Canada + Asian countries, Russia offered free land. Japan try to give away homes = ITS NOT ECONOMICS
you need melanin to fertilize the egg + sperm. [ basic planet rule ] Those who got enough to spare are not having this issue.
** THERE IS A STRONG COINCIDENCE this is happen after 1945 } the race to "whiteness" and the race to unlimited chemical contact in "western" countries. NOT EVERY "W" is a win.
that is the lesson. good day
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and reading lots of takes on it and I'd say the primary correlation for lower birth rates is increased education levels. Especially among the least educated quartile, once they start getting educated enough they stop having teen and/or unplanned pregnancies, and this really lowers the birth rate. Making the population dumber isn't really an option (and calls into question if this low birth rate trend is even reversible on a multi-century timescale...)
The broad social attitude also seems be quite important. That is if there is a stigma attached towards having lots of children then the birth rate will be lower; however in more religious societies the birth rate is often higher due to having lots of children being viewed pretty positively.
All this said it seems to me that lower birth rates are by-and-large a good thing, not because of decreased environmental impact (the effect is actually fairly minor), but because there are more natural resources per person it increases the wealth per person and everyone gets a bit richer the fewer people are around. I'm aware the tech bros have a totally different view on this, they think more people means more innovation-derived economic growth, but I haven't seen any evidence for this.
Honestly TFRs of between 1.0 and 3.0 seem fine to me. Areas of concern to me are sub-Saharan Africa, which just needs help in general; Pakistan, which has a worryingly high fertility rate based on its starting conditions; and South Korea, the only country to have a TFR so low I'd actually worry about it causing economic problems down the line. Most of these politicians and/or nationalists just like ruling a more powerful country, which having more people gives you. Nobody gives a damn what Denmark has to say, even though they (or a country like them) really should be the one the world is listening to.
But if you _really_ want to raise the fertility rate then focus on making it cool to have kids. Cheaper housing wouldn't hurt either.
Yh, making it cool to have kids. Feminism destroyed that.
In some countries, especially in Europe, the decline in population is not driven by the low fertility rate, but by the rapidly aging population. Politicians push for more natalist policies just to replace those elderly people that are dying.
@@J.o.s.h.u.a. that’s logically flawed. If people are living longer and getting older, this should push the population up as there’s less turnover at the dying portion of the stats.
@@griefwnl7641 Sorry, I think I didn't explain myself well.
In the original comment, it was stated that a TFR between 1.0 and 3.0 is not a problem. In some European countries it is, because the fertility rate is made worse by the rapidly aging population. There aren't enough children to replace the elderly people. In many countries, this means that soon we will have more elderly people than workers and because pensions are paid by the workers, the government won't have enough money to pay people's pensions and this will lead to the downfall of the welfare system. This is why in these countries the tolerance for fertility rate needs to be higher and why politicians are pushing for more natalist policies.
I think my mistake was saying that the problem was people dying. Let me rectify: the problem is not them dying, it's them getting old, which means they are not going to work. Sorry for the confusion.
1000th video!!!
I wonder why Sweden birthrate is higher than Hungary... hmm
It's foreigners having the kids, not swedes.
@@madonemt you figured it out
This is massive exaggeration.Looking at the birthrate right now is silly, you need to look at it over the last 45 years to understand the country situation and the UK rate has been 1 of the best in the developed world, in fact it's similar to Sweden and Denmark over time and only inferior to France by a small margin.The countries with a severe crisis coming in the next 10 years are Germany Italy and all of central eastern and southern Europe as well as South Korea, China and Japan - but Germany and Italy have had the crisis longer
How is it silly if you want to predict the future? Ofc you look at current birthrates
@@ArdaSReal because you have to identify what's the problem with low birth rates and then at what level they become a serious problem.For example, automation is going to eventually make up for the shortfall, but this probably won't be for at least another decade or more, and then the problem will not be the birth rates, but how the population that cannot find work have managed to gain a sufficient "universal allowance" from the government , which they deserve and yet corporations will try to pay no tax because current tax rules don't cover automation
*Ultimately, when countries that have had extremely low birth rates for several decades start to have a crisis (hasn't really happened anywhere yet), then you are probably going to see skilled and unskilled young workers looking to other developed country to work to send money back to their families who over time will have their services cut because there won't be enough money in tax revenues to pay for everyone.This might solve the problems that countries without the imminent earth rate problem will have if they don't solve the problem in the long-term e.g. having enough workers to produce tax revenues to maintain services.
*The countries that have had an extremely low birthrate (under 1.7 for over 45 years ) will probably be in this boat within a decade.The only countries in this situation are Germany and Italy.Then you have countries who have had the problem for only 40 years, but even lower levels e.g. below 1.4) These are China, Japan and South Korea.
Britaidh birth rates:
All the little Mohammeds and Aishes
But what is the point of increasing birth rates in a world with declining natural resource supply, e.g. water?
Water is not declining though; we have the water cycle for reason; and isn’t the ice melting due to climate change? That would bring more water into the system.
@@davisvoelzke8011 Many scientists disagree with you.
The technology for harvesting ice melt before it becomes salinated is somewhat clunky, and some of what is harvested today is not used for fresh drinking water ... but for niche products like Iceberg Vodka. And the supply of ice melt is not infinite, either. At best, it's a stop gap.
Desalination is currently both expensive and energy intensive, although innovation in that sector is ongoing.
It is though! Artesian basins and rivers have been sucked dry due to terrible industrial farming practices. Google it. It’s not good. Technology is waaaaaay behind
People are freakink out about 5% The society is doomed. I'd easily go with at least 10%
or maybe we can create an economic system that does not rely on growing birth rates. Do we really need more people on this planet? to the point that we're incentivising people to procreate even if they don't feel like doing it?
It seems like a Good idea, but it would take so much time and effort to destroy the system. Our entire system is based on increasing birth rate
What kind of system do you suggest? Cause every economic system currently in existence requires the population to at the very least get replaced close to 1 to 1 to not collapse long term. Workforce can't be generated out of thin air
The welfare system you love literally works because of a growing/stable population.
@@inbb510 where in my comment did i ever said that i love the welfare system? All i ever said is that we need new system that does not rely on growing birth rate.
We can’t expect the population to keep growing.
@@takakocaesar579 , we can't expect it to keep growing but we can expect it to be stable with intermittent ups and downs.
But a declining population simple will not be a functional society unless you go back living a caveman style society or a capitalist society where the function of a nation doesn't depend on the welfare state.
I feel like Immigration is an immediate solution that also has benefits in the future, as they have kids as well, but the birth rate can’t get neglected. It’s not sustainable to require immigration anytime your population is in crisis.
Immigration is how you destroy and replace the original people, their culture, and their heritage. What a great benefit
Why would anyone want to have kids in a dying world when people can't afford it
Same reason people had kids during the Black Plague, collapse of the Roman Empire, invasion of the Sea People, etc
@@DavidSolimanoStupidity?
@@winterwulf1995 because life is beautiful and worth living and the world is a wonderful place and humanity is infinitely adaptable
@@DavidSolimano you are delusional
@@user-hp6ye8zt9b I am realistic, we are all destined for greatness and love, if we open our eyes and hearts. Compared to the year 1800 we have virtually eliminated poverty in the world, imagine what another 200 years will get us
Didnt mongolia achieved a breakthrough with their birth policys?
The ten people living there?
Honestly, they need to insteivse having kids. Like at the moment, if you're not rich enough, you just receive a financial bollocking 😂
Toxic Diet increased radiation limited resources... Be nice to have a few mill in UK instead of 68...as long as I'm one of em!
So only allow women to work if they have at least 2 children? Probably wasn’t done before
I know some people will get angry about this. This is as obviously satirical as was possible to me
Not a bad idea, but I would just bar full time work from women at first, then eventually bar most kinds of work from women, so it's less a shock to the system and to give time for women to find a partner.
That's pretty cringe of you.
@@ZombieCSSTutorialsyou wouldn’t be able to get any of that done
Ironically war might be a key factor, considering israel has a high fertility rate.
Not war but the Island effect.
Only the very traditional people. They have HUGE fa.ilies, their women Pop out 10 children or even more
War has nothing to do with Israel’s birth rate. It’s religion, specifically the Orthodox. Less religious Israelis have far fewer children.
Pretty much nothing.
Western countries want you to have more kids but than they make everything so expensive. Me and my wife are looking to move to her country in Eastern Europe because it doesn’t make sense financially to leave where we do especially if we want more than just our one child.
Eastern Europe has an even lower birth rate
Speed it up please .
Money and economical incentives don't really play a role. The poorest countries are the ones with the most children and the richest, most developed countries are the ones with the fewest. It's all about what's in peoples heads. In our western societies with our individualism, hedonism and anti-religion, anti-tradition stance there is no place for family, for children. Our lifestyle is shaped by media for decades now and it's very egocentric. It is not sustainable, it won't last.
I consider that a good Thing.
Religion is a giant lie.
"Solving" the birthrate crisis by increasing immigration is really naive. The developing nations where immigrants are coming for aren't endless supplies of people, they will likely develop to the point that their own birthrates slow as well, or immigration will simply reduce because the quality of life will be better in those countries. Even the immigrants who do come to western countries struggling with birthrates will likely assimilate into the culture, and for the same reasons as the native citizens, their birthrates will become as low. There is also the problem of increased immigration, in that most immigrants are young, working age families, often more men than women. The countries where their population is leaving to immigration will potentially suffer economically due to the working age population becoming too small to support the aging older class. Is it really ethical for us to prop up our economies by exploiting the working age people of developing nations?
The solution is to raise the birthrates. Figure out why birthrates are low, and take steps to improve that. A big issue is that the cost of raising a child has increased. Another issue is that wages are too low for many families to survive on one income, meaning both parents have to work and if they choose to have a kid, the kid will not have a stay-at-home parent to take care of them. These are the underlying issues, and they are much more difficult to solve than it would be to simply flood the country with migrants, which is why politicians prefer the latter. But we need experts working on solving the underlying issues.
my theory for the drop in 2002 was because less people wanted to … after 9/11. i have no source for this.
Population 📉 Environment 🌱📈
A couple years ago, one of my a level teachers asked about our classes plans for kids. Literally no one had plans for kids
@@hircenedaelen You can't really plan to have kids until you're in a serious relationship - not necessarily engaged, but living together. Because "let's have kids" is something that two people decide on together.
So it's not surprising that sixth-formers weren't thinking about it.
Italy does not pay for children. At all.
America says hold my beer.
Cost of living is too high for children. Gut the governments spending and taxes and focus on making gas cheap and kids will follow.
That would unfortunately pollute the atmosphere for the next generations. We need to get carbon levels down somehow.
how would making gas cheap result in more kids???
How would cutting government spending on healthcare, childcare, education and social benefits increase birth rates? It would lead to a social collapse instead. The opposite should be done - we should increase taxes on the rich (maybe even nationalize their property) and massively increase the government spending on education, housing etc.
@@ibx2cat Because gas is needed to run society. Its price effects everything down the supply chain.
@@ibx2catbecause every system depends on it and the costs gets passed down to the bottom. If energy is cheap then people on the fence about kids would feel much safer that they could provide for them.
People should be married at young age, simple!! Less fertility issue ✌️
HOLY MOLY i cant believe Hungary got all that legislation to pass, very cool
14:42 *SO real* :(
So many women haters in the comments showing their true colours. Toycat even explicitly said that most of the world’s countries with high birth rates have terrible things happening in them, and the incels are like “yeah, we want that!”. 🤡
women are blamed for everything, because its easier to do that than to fix a broken economic system that needs more slaves
You use Al Jazeera? Do you use RT also? 😂😂