Women Are Voting - With Their Wombs - Around the world, fertility rates are in free fall

[Demovictory9]

Around the world, fertility rates are in free fall. Governments have been scratching their heads over how to make babies a more feasible proposition. It’s not that parents don’t want kids - most families yearn for at least two. China used to limit its citizens to a single child, now it’s pushing its people to multiply. Over 50 countries are trying to reverse a decades-long fall in global fertility rates, says a special Financial Times (FT) report this week. The FT argues that “there is little evidence that policy helps.” But I’d argue that it’s precisely policy that is at fault. It isn’t - anywhere - near ambitious enough. If countries want babies, they’ll need to get far more serious about building more gender-balanced economies, democracies - and couples.

The Challenge: No Babies
The ‘baby bust’ deepened through Covid. Lockdowns, war, climate crises and fear of disease are not a comfortable context for making babies. Birth rates plummet in times of catastrophe, from the Spanish Flu in 1918 through depressions and World Wars. The Covid pandemic’s fall is already being recovered, and birthrates are back to pre-pandemic levels in several countries. But these are still at an all-time historical low - and well below the 2.1 replacement ratio needed to stabilise populations.

The world’s population is predicted to peak at 9.7 billion by 2064, dropping to 8.7 billion around the end of the century says a report in The Lancet. “About 23 nations can expect their populations to halve by 2100,” says the Finanical Times. “Japan’s population will fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53; Italy’s from 61 million to 28.” Christopher Murray, one of the Lancet report’s authors, said it was “hard to overstate the economic and social impact the decline in fertility would have. ‘We will have to reorganise society.’

-----------------------------

https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2022/04/23/women-are-voting--with-their-wombs/?sh=452121bd100a

MONEY: Women have gained a degree of financial independence and they prize it above all else – including reproduction. Create a holistic post-pandemic program that protects and equalises pay, prospects and pensions between genders across the entire lifespan. Mutualise the financial hit to everyone whose careers are interrupted by caring responsibilities. Provide good quality daycare. The nest needs to be comfortably feathered and secure for it to be baby-ready and mother-friendly.

[Magoo48]

1. The causes are varied and reflect humanity's troubled psyche, yet, good news for Mother Earth.

Most things have two sides.

[Jirel]

2. This is terrific news.

We need earth’s population to drop now, not just by the end of the century. To hell with the economists wringing their hands - if an economic model requires continuous growth to keep business humming, maintain aging populations, etc., the model is flawed from the start. We live in a closed system with very finite resources.

[jimfields33]

7. It's ok news. We will be gone (most of us) when there are no workers to take care of elderly

Get food to places, etc. yes that’s the economic part of your reply. But it’s true that some of the economic impact won’t be pretty.

[smirkymonkey]

25. I am just tossing this idea around here, but I sometimes wonder how much elderly

"helplessness" is learned or societal. My mom & dad are 79 and 83 respectively and many of their friends are around the same age as well. They are all, fortunately, physically and mentally healthy (relatively) and live independently. So far none of them need any elder-care or outside assistance.

Most of our elderly relatives have always lived independently until the very end, so there isn't a "model" in our family of old people needing to be taken care of. I also have to admit that most of us have the attitude that if we need someone else to attend to our basic needs, we would rather end it than go on living, but that is just us.

I am not saying that some elderly people don't genuinely need assistance in their final years, but it just isn't something I have seen in my own family or in many families close to ours.

Also, I have always hated the idea of people having children so that they will have someone to take care of them when they get old. It's selfish, and there are no guarantees that those children will be there for them anyway.

[jimfields33]

27. Very good points indeed

I’m in a 55 plus community and see the need for elderly care. But it’s not widespread at all. The good news is elderly no longer need to be helped shopping with Amazon and other delivery services. The big thing is medical which hopefully will get more VTC at least for day today needs. The future will come with or without humans.

Have a great day!

[smirkymonkey]

30. Thanks! You too!

[meadowlander]

32. Rising diabetes rates is the difference.

Literally everyone in my family besides me has diabetes.

This translates into when someone has low blood sugar they can no longer function rationally and go into a kind of psychotic state. My dad also went blind, lost a leg, had vascular dementia and was on kidney dialysis by the end. He was too sick to work for 25 years, too sick to live independently for about 10 and really should have been in full time assisted living for the last 2-3 years except my mom and siblings toughed it out to keep him at home.

Diabetes rates will increase 54% between 2015 and 2030. 1 in 3 Americans already has at least pre-diabetes.

That's a lot more people than there are even today who are going to have significant care needs as they age which are not learned or societal needs.

I agree that the population getting smaller is a net good thing and people shouldn't have kids just to take care of them when they are old, but we do also need to get the obesity and diabetes health crises under control and have a plan for how we are going to deal with the large number of very seriously sick older (and middle aged) Americans.

[smirkymonkey]

34. I am wondering if that is a more prevalent thing in the south and mid-west?

I am from the NE and neither my parents, nor their friends have diabetes and therefore are able to live independently. My grandmothers both lived on their own (grandfathers died younger of unnatural causes) into their 90's, and only had to have in home care toward the last few months of their lives (brain tumor and stroke).

Other family friends and family members were able to live on their own until they died of natural causes. I don't know anyone who is diabetic. However the statistics you mention is pretty scary.

We also need to do something about the food supply and processed foods in this country. Europeans do not have nearly the same health issues that we do and that is because they have much stricter standards on food guidelines.

There are still way too many obese people in this country, but I mostly see them in certain regions/geographical locations in this nation (mostly rural, southern and midwest, but I know they are everywhere). I know these are generalizations and these are only my observations, but I just don't see this being as much of a problem in New England/northeast/west coast as I do elsewhere in the country.

[Aristus]

35. It's certainly prevalent among the poor and lower middle class.

I have patients from those economic classes who never, ever drink water. Not when bottled sugary beverages are cheaper and more easily accessible. So they spend their lives drinking soda, Gatorade, Powerade, energy drinks, sports drinks, Monster drinks, Red Bull, Rock Star, etc, etc.

This leads to obesity and highly-uncontrolled diabetes, and all the co-morbidities that come with them; hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, kidney disease, heart disease, fatty liver disease, etc.

It's no secret that the cheapest and most easily accessible foods and beverages are the ones that are the most unhealthy. Combine this with expensive and un-reliable healthcare and a low, unlivable wage, and you have a permanent economic underclass too overworked, too tired, and too unhealthy to ever challenge the ruling classes.

The good news is, since 2010, consumption of high fructose corn syrup in the form of sugary beverages has decreased in this country, probably because medical providers like me are telling our patients how bad these things are for them. I've lost count of how many patients have expressed surprise that Gatorade and Powerade are unhealthy, when they have million-dollar athletes hawking the stuff on TV.

In the U.S., keeping people poor and without hope of betterment is a feature, not a bug, in political and economic policies fomented by the rich.

[smirkymonkey]

36. Thanks for that info. That makes a lot of sense and I suppose in economically

deprived areas (more common in red states) you will see more of this.

I don't imagine there is a way in this country to limit the sale of such beverages or even foods containing high-fructose corn syrup, which seems to be in so many processed foods and drinks these days. I remember when Bloomberg tried to limit the sale of huge soft-drinks in NYC and people had a fit. I suppose people get addicted to things after a while and it's hard to take them away.

[Aristus]

39. In the novel "Like Water For Chocolate", the main character asks her mother for permission to marry.

Her mother forbids it, citing the family tradition that the youngest daughter will take care of the mother until the mother's death. The mother in question seems perfectly able to care for herself, but she leans into the "tradition" thing so she doesn't have to do anything for herself, and has a family member to wait on her hand and foot.

[Jirel]

38. The "economic impact" argument is a red herring.

There will be plenty of people to care for the elderly, then, as now, if the service is appropriately valued and the workers are adequately paid. It is not a child's job (read: female child's job, generally) to care for their parents or other aging relatives. A family and an economic system that assumes that are not only wrong, but immoral.

There will always be plenty of people to do the tasks that get mentioned in these alarmist responses. Why do we have a nursing or teacher shortage? Because the smart people who do those jobs take other jobs that pay better and are less stressful. Why do we have a shortage of elder care? Same reason. Why does "nobody want to work" in cashiering, fast food, retail, and other low-paying, high-stress jobs? Because they do want to work, but they don't need to work for abusive, cheap companies. Good employers in those industries are doing just fine.

The world would be JUST FINE if half the population simply evaporated tomorrow. The only people who would necessarily get shafted would be the richest bastards who own the megastores and their suppliers, as their customer base would be halved. I'm not crying for billionaires. The rest of the economy would go through a shock for a year or two as people readjusted to new jobs that took care of actual needs in the new normal, and forced that new work to be valued appropriately. Economic models that require perpetual growth are by nature a fantasy, since the world can not support that.

[jeffreyi]

24. Thank you.

To all the non-replicators, everywhere!

[betsuni]

3. I love how a lot of Japanese women decided not to have kids or get married and the men in charge

of everything were completely clueless as to why this would happen because they're idiots.

[3Hotdogs]

4. Random thoughts.... Book, The Population Bomb," warned about the effects of population growth on

the ecosystem. It was printed at the time of the first Earth Day. (Urf Day for Rush's ditto heads. Sometimes referred to as dildo heads.) Anyway, the population drop will lessen the damage to Earth.

Japan has a significant "Failure to launch" with numbers of maternity age women staying at home and not starting families.

China has a similar "Lie flat" phenomena. People are refusing to seek work, just staying home Lying flat in bed. (although I doubt they spend their days in bed --- bad for your health. This movement started with a post from a Chinese man who advised people to leave the stress filled, overworked job market and just lie flat. Encouraging this practice is now illegal in China.

Abortion in R.C. countries is certainly affecting world population.

[Ollie Garkie]

5. Is this why

The repigs are suddenly serious about doing away with abortion. Rights?

[2naSalit]

13. That and guaranteed...

Impoverishment for women and POC for the purpose of controlling their behavior while they provide a population of "less-thans" who are there to satisfy the evil whims of those in control.

If individual life is cheap, it is easier to be abusive with little or no consequence.

[Walleye]

6. It has a lot to do with the education of women and girls. And it's a good thing

[2naSalit]

10. Plus...

We need to reduce the population of our species somehow, slowing down the production line seems most sensible.

I have been actively talking friends and relatives out of bearing children for decades and been rather successful in doing so. So far, only half of my siblings and I had children and those only had two each. Of their offspring, only two have had children at this point and it looks like that's going to be it for them. Several of my friends who had been thinking of having kids thought better of it when I pointed out that they would be responsible for making someone else live through the decline in quality of life for their young, two adopted instead.

[Celerity]

8. Not in Africa, most of the continent is a dystopian nightmare in terms of crazy high birthrates

2.1 is replacement level.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/total-fertility-rate

Total Fertility Rate 2022
Show Sources
Rank
Country
Fertility Rate

1 Niger 6.9
2 DR Congo 5.9
3 Mali 5.9
4 Chad 5.7
5 Angola 5.5
6 Nigeria 5.4
7 Burundi 5.4
8 Burkina Faso 5.2
9 Gambia 5.2
10 Uganda 5
11 Tanzania 4.9
12 Mozambique 4.9
13 Benin 4.8
14 Guinea 4.7
15 South Sudan 4.7
16 Central African Republic 4.7
17 Cameroon 4.6
18 Ivory Coast 4.6
19 Zambia 4.6
20 Senegal 4.6
21 Mauritania 4.6

22 Afghanistan 4.5 Highest Non African

23 Guinea Bissau 4.5
24 Equatorial Guinea 4.5
25 Sudan 4.4
26 Republic of the Congo 4.4
28 Togo 4.3
29 Sierra Leone 4.3
30 Liberia 4.3
31 Sao Tome And Principe 4.3
32 Ethiopia 4.2
33 Malawi 4.2
34 Comoros 4.2
35 Madagascar 4.1
36 Eritrea 4.1
37 Rwanda 4
38 Gabon 4
41 Ghana 3.9
46 Zimbabwe 3.6
52 Kenya 3.5
53 Namibia 3.4
54 Egypt 3.3
57 Lesotho 3.1
59 Algeria 3
60 Eswatini 3
65 Botswana 2.9
73 Djibouti 2.7
79 South Africa 2.4
80 Morocco 2.4
96 Tunisia 2.2
97 Libya 2.2

The highest European nation is France, 2nd highest is Sweden (we here in Sweden have had large programmes to raise it up in the past, but both here and France, it is non European descent Swedes and French who are raising it higher, with the amounts of non European immigrants in Sweden being a fairly new thing, only really happening in the last 20-25 years or so to any truly large degree, other than Persians and Chileans, who came here due to the US empiric CIA coup d'etats in 1953 and 1973, respectively, plus small amounts from other various post WWII US empiric wars and coups before the big ones (and I mean non European conflicts, not talking about the Balkans in the 1990's, which really impacted Sweden too) hit in the 2000s onward)

117 France 1.9
126 Sweden 1.8

132 China 1.7
133 United States 1.7
134 Brazil 1.7
135 United Kingdom 1.7

The lowest

178 Italy 1.3
179 Spain 1.3
180 Ukraine 1.3
181 Moldova 1.3
182 Bosnia And Herzegovina 1.3
183 Cyprus 1.3
184 Andorra 1.3
185 Macau 1.2
186 Malta 1.2
187 Hong Kong 1.1
188 Singapore 1.1
189 South Korea 1

[Demovictory9]

12. this chart would cause MAGAs to wet their pants

[smirkymonkey]

14. And I think one of the main reasons for that is that women have very few rights

or control over their fertility in those countries that you mentioned. They are educationally and economically disempowered. That really needs to change if those nations are to ever improve and catch up with the standards of the first world.

I read on another site where, in many of those countries, it was a matter of masculine pride to have a large amount of children, and that they saw children as people who could work to bring in money for the family.

However I think that is a sick and backward way to think. Children should not be seen as "assets" or a means for parents to get free labor. If given a choice (hypothetically) I would rather not be brought into this world than be born into a life of poverty and menial labor.

People who think that way are just selfish and cruel and don't deserve to have children.

[misanthrope]

28. In short, their traditional cultures

Those tenets you describe -- masculinity in virility, keeping women suppressed -- were the norm here as well not so very long ago.

[smirkymonkey]

31. And it seems to be coming around again.

We saw how many Islamic cultures started to modernize and then the dinosaurs took them back to the middle ages where women had no rights or freedom. That is exactly what our Christo-fascists want to happen in this country, but i would rather fight to the death than live like that.

[progree]

17. Thanks for putting that together. There's also a fabulous colored map at your link

with colors corresponding to fertility levels.

At first I was a little po'd that it didn't pop up a country's fertility when I moused over a country, but then noticed it shows up on a line below the map

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/total-fertility-rate

Latin America: I notice that Mexico is 2.1 fertility (exactly at replacement) and Brazil at 1.7, to take the two largest (I think) population Latin American countries, although population momentum will result in growing population for some time to come.

The billion people's club: China: 1.7, India: 2.2

South Korea: fertliity rate 1.0, hmm.

[Celerity]

18. snapshot, and I posted an OP on this study 9 months ago

The billion people's club: China: 1.7, India: 2.2

they are in for massive drops by the time we get to 78 years from now IF this study is accurate:

Researchers Say Earth Is Headed for "Jaw-Dropping" Population Decline

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213773273

In the reference scenario, the global population was projected to peak in 2064 at 9·73 billion (8·84–10·9) people and decline to 8·79 billion (6·83–11·8) in 2100. The reference projections for the five largest countries in 2100 were

India (1·09 billion [0·72–1·71]

Nigeria (791 million [594–1056]) HORRIFYING, 800, 900 million in that small land area is MADNESS, think Bangladesh on nuclear steroids

China (732 million [456–1499])

the USA (336 million [248–456])

Pakistan (248 million [151–427])



the snapshot from the link you posted




random pics of Bangladesh now






















then there was this

100,000 gather for funeral in Bangladesh, defying lockdown and sparking outbreak fears

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/more-100000-ignore-coronavirus-lockdown-21894302

20 Apr 2020

[progree]

19. Thanks much. I swiped your population density map and learned all about "forecasted" at your

link https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213773273
"Forecasted" - https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213773273#post47



I had no idea that South America, except for the northwestern part, was sparsely populated.

And someone at your link pointed out the small land area of Bangladesh. I noticed also that S. Korea is also stand-out densely populated, I didn't know that.

I used to live in Nigeria (Lagos, Victoria Island) in parts of 1967-1970 -- Nigeria's population was 56 million in 1970, 216 million now https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/NGA/nigeria/population-growth-rate

[Demovictory9]

22. Crowded countries, the people migrate out... think about China and India...their people are everywhe

everywhere. An Indian making a new life in America told me that India has too many people / too much competition. Nigerians are migrating now... They will flee Nigeria as the population swells and populate the emptying Western countries.

[smirkymonkey]

26. Many of these countries will be the most susceptible victims of climate change and disease.

Unfortunately, other nations will not be able to absorb their migration fully so they will most likely perish.

I know it is a harsh outlook, but poor and vulnerable countries cannot continue to allow population growth to go unchecked without expecting nature to eventually "check" them back. They must take some responsibility now or suffer the consequences.

[NickB79]

37. Those African numbers are actually a serious improvement over the last 50 years

I recall reading of some of those countries approaching 10 before birth control and education became more available!

[smirkymonkey]

9. I think this is a good thing.

Why not reorganize society for this reality?

What is this obsession with endless economic growth, anyway? It's unrealistic and unfeasible on a planet with finite resources. It is time for a major economic and social paradigm shift.

[2naSalit]

11. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++!!!!!

Been asking that for a few decades for the same reasons. If we don't change, it will be the end of us sooner rather than later and it will be extremely ugly.

[love_katz]

16. Plus a gazillion.

The Earth can't sustain endless population growth. We need new models of economy and society. Sustainability, not uncontrolled growth like cancer cells. We can look at indigenous cultures around the world for ideas and methods. And many movements like permaculture and Bioneers, organic gardening and farming, etc. Like one permaculture group says, what people need is hope and a plan. And we need to say a very strong No! to the religious fanatics who are trying to make forced birth the law of the land.

[paleotn]

21. Exactly.

The only sensible plan on a finite planet. Develop off world resources, where environmental degradation isn't an issue with extraction? Sure. Lots of mineral resources out there, but with even remotely feasible technology, they're factors of 10 more expensive than gold to exploit. Unless someone comes up with something as paradigm shattering as steam or internal combustion engines in the near term, it isn't going to happen for a long, long time. In the mean time, we have to learn to live within our environmental and resource means.

[MissMillie]

15. that why there's a push to limit access to birth control

Can't have those girls controlling their own destiny!

[Wounded Bear]

20. It's already known that as societies advances and improve, birth rates decline...

especially in those societies where women develop more freedom and power to direct their own lives and make their own choices.

This is an indicator of a good thing. The best way to slow population growth is to improve the lives of people, and especially women.

[XanaDUer2]

23. Good nt

[Deep State Witch]

29. Climate Refugees

We're already seeing a lot of climate change refugees from places like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Instead of blocking immigration, we need to expand it. Enable people to move away from overcrowded, environmentally stressed areas to those with better climate prospects.

Frankly, I'll take the Central American refugees over a lot of Americans these days.

[meadowlander]

33. Thanks Supernanny!