Jump to content

Birth rates / Fertility


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

 


A lot of people still rely on relatives for care - I have several friends and relatives who are carers, some full time, for parents or other family members.

 

I know mate, i meant people having kids to help contribute to the family ( except from when they were very young obviously)  was definitely a thing in the past and still is in parts of the world - the ones with the higher birthrates usualy

that and the fact that contraception is now widely available, well understood and its cultural and religious taboos ( in the west at least ) are now negligible, probably explains where we are now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thread, I think first of all I find it fascinating that both low birth rates and overpopulation are simultaneously on the UK political agenda. The former is fact based, and the latter right wing hand ringing, but still.

The Economist had a good article on it this week, the number of young people is broadly increasing in cities but dramatically decreasing in rural areas. Norwich is used as an example of a city with a growing youth culture, whilst the areas surrounding it are almost all 60+.

This has a number of weird societal effects. The UK probably is suffering overpopulation in certain areas, especially in the South East, but most of the country (and certainly most of Scotland) suffers the opposite. It's a clear reason why the UK should have a differentiated immigration policy - something newish nations like Australia achieve fairly easily.

Secondly, the idea that the world would starve once we got to 1bn people was the scientific consensus for most of the 19th century (like Global Warming is now). Human ingenuity got us out of that, we can certainly feed 7bn people. In 1947 around half the world lived in absolute poverty, without enough calories per day to eat, now this is around 1-2% (still far too much of course). What the world certainly cannot support is 7bn people living like those in the Europe or (especially) the US do. Still my favourite stat - only 20% of the world have ever been on an airplane before.

In that context, the well known correlation between wealth and declining birth rates is actually a good thing for the planet as a whole, even if it is clearly bad for the countries affected. In general more people means more ideas, the whole world should focus on educating the billions of poor young people around the world - they are the future for all of us.

I've always wanted to have kids and hope to in the next 5-10 years. It hopefully won't be in the UK though, and having spent the last few years in countries where live in domestic helpers are common it's definitely an attractive model if available. Sadly, these jobs are far better than the alternatives for many of the domestic workers in question. I don't disagree it's a bit of a cop out, but would help if me and my partner want to work full time. I'm also not adverse to going full time dad at some point in the future.

To quote Homer Simpson - "Kids are great. You can teach them to hate what you hate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Thorongil said:

I don’t want support from my children in my old age. I will organise my life and affairs to make sure it is not required. 

Too often I have seen parents feeling that their adult children “owe” them in some way. My children owe me nothing and never will. It was not their choice to come into the world, it was mine and my wife’s.

So you wouldn't be upset or sad if your children didn't visit you at all in your old age? If they didn't bring their own children over so you could meet your grandkids? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Good thread, I think first of all I find it fascinating that both low birth rates and overpopulation are simultaneously on the UK political agenda. The former is fact based, and the latter right wing hand ringing, but still.

The Economist had a good article on it this week, the number of young people is broadly increasing in cities but dramatically decreasing in rural areas. Norwich is used as an example of a city with a growing youth culture, whilst the areas surrounding it are almost all 60+.

This has a number of weird societal effects. The UK probably is suffering overpopulation in certain areas, especially in the South East, but most of the country (and certainly most of Scotland) suffers the opposite. It's a clear reason why the UK should have a differentiated immigration policy - something newish nations like Australia achieve fairly easily.

Secondly, the idea that the world would starve once we got to 1bn people was the scientific consensus for most of the 19th century (like Global Warming is now). Human ingenuity got us out of that, we can certainly feed 7bn people. In 1947 around half the world lived in absolute poverty, without enough calories per day to eat, now this is around 1-2% (still far too much of course). What the world certainly cannot support is 7bn people living like those in the Europe or (especially) the US do. Still my favourite stat - only 20% of the world have ever been on an airplane before.

In that context, the well known correlation between wealth and declining birth rates is actually a good thing for the planet as a whole, even if it is clearly bad for the countries affected. In general more people means more ideas, the whole world should focus on educating the billions of poor young people around the world - they are the future for all of us.

I've always wanted to have kids and hope to in the next 5-10 years. It hopefully won't be in the UK though, and having spent the last few years in countries where live in domestic helpers are common it's definitely an attractive model if available. Sadly, these jobs are far better than the alternatives for many of the domestic workers in question. I don't disagree it's a bit of a cop out, but would help if me and my partner want to work full time. I'm also not adverse to going full time dad at some point in the future.

To quote Homer Simpson - "Kids are great. You can teach them to hate what you hate".

Outstanding post until the Aldous Huxleyan penultimate paragraph. 

Edited for clarification: the inference of you offering the domestic something slightly better than abject poverty reeks of exploitation. Hardly progressive.

Edited by badgerthewitness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of interest can one of the posters going down the route of not being a burden explain how they hope to achieve this? Not suggesting it's not a noble aim, just wondering how it's done in practice.

Edited by Alert Mongoose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Out of interest can one of the posters going down the route of not being a burden explain how they hope to achieve this? Not suggesting it's not a noble aim, just wondering how it's done in practice.

image.jpeg.38d9dec10b18d444ce619ac10bad46f4.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Out of interest can one of the posters going down the route of not being a burden explain how they hope to achieve this? Not suggesting it's not a noble aim, just wondering how it's done in practice.

The answer will be, "be rich", with an edgelord slice of, "I'd rather top myself than be a burden".

Self-aggrandising fantasy bollocks, in other words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, DMCs said:

So you wouldn't be upset or sad if your children didn't visit you at all in your old age? If they didn't bring their own children over so you could meet your grandkids? 

If that were to come to pass I would need to consider my own role in creating such a scenario. 

I hope very much that I have good relationships with my adult children, but it should never be on account of obligation on their part. If they as adults like me and want to spend time with me, great, I’ll be delighted. 

If it doesn’t work out that way I certainly won’t be guilt tripping them into coming to see their “poor old Dad”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Out of interest can one of the posters going down the route of not being a burden explain how they hope to achieve this? Not suggesting it's not a noble aim, just wondering how it's done in practice.

Seems as practical as you chaining up your sprogs in the basement every night so that they'll be around to clean your drool tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BFTD said:

The answer will be, "be rich", with an edgelord slice of, "I'd rather top myself than be a burden".

Self-aggrandising fantasy bollocks, in other words.

Well, I’d definitely rather be a burden than top myself personally, but to each his own. 
 

it’s not really an either/or though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BFTD said:

The answer will be, "be rich", with an edgelord slice of, "I'd rather top myself than be a burden".

Self-aggrandising fantasy bollocks, in other words.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHS 50 years hence takes that decision out of our hands. Once you've exhausted your assets you'll be released into the wild or offered a surfeit of diamorphine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHS 50 years hence takes that decision out of our hands. Once you've exhausted your assets you'll be released into the wild or offered a surfeit of diamorphine. 

The way things are going, folk at the bottom of society will be asking for the sweet release of Futurama's suicide booths long before old age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Absolutely agree.

I've already told my kids that when my time comes, my time comes.

I couldn't live with myself knowing I was a burden on them and that they'd had to sacrifice their own adult lives to wipe my arse or feed me through a straw. That's all on me as far as I'm concerned.

They owe me nothing and I've made sure they understand that.

When they visit or keep in touch, they know I only want them to do so if they want to do it. Otherwise they are insulting me and wasting their own time. Of course it's always lovely to hear from them. If there's a void in my life since they left home, that's my problem and I have no business hassling them to keep me from feeling lost. BTW, it turned out to be a lot harder than I expected but it's not their problem to fix.

How does Thursday or Friday suit you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

If that were to come to pass I would need to consider my own role in creating such a scenario. 

I hope very much that I have good relationships with my adult children, but it should never be on account of obligation on their part. If they as adults like me and want to spend time with me, great, 

Really,what are the chances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, badgerthewitness said:

Outstanding post until the Aldous Huxleyan penultimate paragraph. 

Edited for clarification: the inference of you offering the domestic something slightly better than abject poverty reeks of exploitation. Hardly progressive.

Its not slightly better, it's much better, and they can support extended families with their wages.

I don't have one (bit pointless in my current situation) but I have seen how it is economically beneficial to the individual involved.

I might have thought the same as you, until I saw plenty of first hand examples directly contradicting that perspective.

Do you think the moral choice would be not hiring a domestic worker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Some excellent drivel in evidence about family members owing each other absolutely nothing.

Even Thatcher acknowledged that such obligations exist.  It was just society that apparently didn't.

Of course Thatcher 'acknowledged' (read: peddled) this, because it fits entirely with the right-wing neoliberal vision of self-contained nuclear families looking out for themselves only and sod the community around them. 

It also abdicated the responsibility of the state to fund a social care service and so allowed for Thatcherite tax cuts for the rich. And so here we are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...