• Snowclone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    I think this is where a lot of modern civilization is falling apart at. If you want population replacement and growth, you actually have to make it advantageous to have children, and at appropriate age for your society and culture. The GOP thinks they can do it by destroying reproductive rights, civil rights, and marriage laws, if they harm women enough they’ll HAVE to be baby makers! Dehumanized baby factories! And even conservative voters are fighting against it, because it’s insane and it’s against our current culture. It has to work for everyone. It would be more intelligent to create free childcare, better pregnancy and birth leave for both parents, and child tax credits. They could use WIC to absorb the cost of having a child and public education sooner with preschool. If people are hopeful their children will have high education access and a stable life they will be a lot more likely to have kids. Being horrified that your children will live in a fascist theocracy and intentionally kept uneducated and poverty stricken, they might actually voluntarily avoid sex to not have kids.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I think this is where a lot of modern civilization is falling apart at. If you want population replacement and growth, you actually have to make it advantageous to have children, and at appropriate age for your society and culture.

      For most of history it wasn’t advantageous to have children. People just didn’t have many options, and we were used to babies dying all the time so if we wanted any help in our old age we had to have enough to survive into adulthood.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Been there. What are you drinking? I’m sipping on some Bushmills Black (sherry cask). Got a bit project out today. Spent a year writing this beast:

    • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You just can’t hear that hint over the hint of the constant torment of the growing lower class

      • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        For real. Middle class was a low but comfortable bar back in 1987 when I was born. My parents went above and beyond having two incomes, one of them being a small business. I do essentially the same thing as my mom small business wise, and my wife makes arguably more than my old man dad, but the thought of doubling our starter home (or even moving out of it) just hasn’t crossed my mind.

        And we also had kids about three years later on average than my folks did (though compared to my wife’s folks, about five years earlier).

        The '90s were fucking awesome (except for the acid rain, shit had me spooked in first grade when they played the laser disc about it).

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 hours ago

    There was a theory that roughly 15 years after Roe v Wade crime started decreasing because people who weren’t ready for or didn’t want children could now have an abortion. Many of those kids that were previously born “unwanted” were in poor households and so the kids getting to about 15 years old in those conditions would start getting into trouble and start committing crimes.

    For any fuckwit that says “make better decisions then! Use protection!” I’m the result of a broken condom, that shit absolutely happens. I was a “pleasant surprise.” Honestly I wish they’d have just had the abortion.

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      35 minutes ago

      I fail to see how this crime fighting measure involves more cops, guns and racism so I don’t think you’ll be able to convince the “tough on crime” “pro life” GOP supreme court on this.

    • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      7 hours ago

      My sister had her first child because her birth control failed due to another medication making it less effective.

      No one warned her about that being a thing that can happen with that particular med. Not her doctor. Not the pharmacist. No one said a thing… which is super fucked up. She was married at the time, but still. They were not ready for a kid(their words)

      This was almost 20 years ago so I don’t remember which med it was, and I’m hoping the medical community is better about this now.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        It’s really honestly amazing that there are so many people in this world that don’t understand that, A, married couples use birth control and have regular sex and, B, that birth control can fail.

        Are they all incels are something?

        • xorollo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Came here to say this. It’s not some edge case medicine that people rarely encounter. Just you had a sinus infection and now you’re pregnant!

    • Toribor@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      It doesn’t get brought up because it’s not useful to anyone politically. Already support abortion rights? Well then lower crime rates is just a positive unintended side effect of a policy that grants women their inherent right to bodily autonomy. Already oppose abortion rights? Then you probably don’t care about crime rates because you already think that abortion itself is a crime.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Probably not, but I just thought it was interesting to bring up in relation to young age births that may or may not have been intentional.

      • Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Absolutely not, Slovakia saw the same thing. When abortion was strictly outlawed, crime skyrocketed in 18 years due to children being born in awful conditions.

        The prolife movement is a probirth movement only. Because they don’t give a fuck about the kid after birth.

        Edit: Romania not Slovakia

        • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I think you may have the wrong country. I can’t find anything about a complete abortion ban in Slovakia (except for a rejected proposal in 2020), nor a sharp increase in crime, apart from that following promptly after the overthrow of the communists.

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    It was never about stopping abortion. It’s about keeping people in poverty and creating a cycle of uneducated voters that either don’t vote or vote Republican because they don’t know better

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I think it’s fine to have kids if you want them but the government trying to get people to have more kids for economic reasons is sickening

    • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Found the pro-abortionist.

      (For those that don’t get the joke, notice that I didn’t say pro-life or anti-choice. It’s the “flush them all - no exceptions” position.)

    • UNY0N@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      64
      ·
      9 hours ago

      And what then, the human race just dies out? I get the pessimistic feeling, but we may very well be the only sapient species in this galaxy. It would be such a waste to just give up and perish because of momentary hardships.

      We are literally sapient stardust, and I’m certainly not going to give up and throw away the efforts and struggles on millions of ancestors just because of some current corporate greed and fascism is in fashion.

      • P00ptart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Really? Why not? You think the impressive development of an intelligent and aware species is important enough to make that same species suffer more and more to the inevitable extinction anyways? Let’s do it now while it’s still partially habitable so that the end isn’t quite as horrific. Your logic makes no sense.

      • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        68
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        We are in no way at risk of dying out from negative population growth. If we start to go down below a few million, then maybe let’s talk.

        World population is still increasing, and is set to maybe stabilize in a couple decades. Fingers crossed. If we could (gently, without mass starvation) reduce the population down to a more sustainable level, that is an unmitigatedly good thing.

        What might kill us is infertility from pollution or disease, but this won’t do it.

        • MBM@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          gently, without mass starvation

          Even more gently if you want to make sure there’s enough younger people to care for the elderly

          • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            6 hours ago

            A fuckton of people work bullshit jobs that should not exist. We could run the same society with much, much less people working.

            • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Then fix that first instead of delaying it. Climate change is more directly caused by capitalism than it is caused by natalism. It’s easier to (proverbially) eat the rich than it is to tell people to stop having the children you need to wipe your grandparent’s ass.

              • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 hours ago

                I’n not telling anyone to have kids or not, I’m actually saying that having kids is a personal decision, and society should not care beyond making sure those kids grow up safe in loving families.

        • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          5 hours ago

          The Earth can sustain the current population levels. Imagine we decrease those, at what point do we stop?

          The problem with malthusianism is that it doesn’t give any tangible answer to the issues it claims to solve.

          First off, when do we stop that decrease? Secondly, when we reach the coveted equilibrium point, how do we stop the plundering of resources capitalists will still subject us to?

          I’m not arguing for an ever-increasing demography, but I’m against a system that’s unattainable (because, even with violent rule enforcement, people will keep having kids), does not meaningfully address the issue with the plundering of terrestrial resources, and means the lower class will have to bear the brunt of the work of dealing with an aging population.

          • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I don’t think it can sustain the current population levels, at our North American standard of living. If we could distribute resources evenly, sure, we could keep everyone alive, but energy consumption, plastic production, all that adds up to an ecological footprint of resource use that isn’t sustainable.

            World wildlife levels have gone down dramatically. We’re expanding human life at the expense of all other life. The other life on earth isn’t superfluous: it’s an ecosystem that keeps us alive, recycles our waste, provides our medicines and cultural wealth of all sorts.

            We can’t keep our wealthy lifestyle and at the same time tell the poor people of the world that they have to stay poor so that we can remain wealthy.

        • Lowpast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          The real issue is that we have a rapidly aging workforce and there’s not enough young people to replace them. With the average age of parents raising, the gap is getting larger. In the 50s it was 16 workers for every 1 retired. The 70s, 5:1. That number is now almost 2:1. This is bad. Very bad.

          Higher bar for jobs. Lower wage for entry level. Later retiring age. Higher need for migrant and seasonal workers.

          • LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Aw, crapitalism will break because line cannot always go up.

            Cry me a fucking river. Humanity is a cancer, and we need to be about half our current population. Yeah, we’re not gonna like it when we drop that population. Our kids, my daughter, are going to have it fucking tough. But if we want to survive long term… We gotta stop.

        • UNY0N@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I totally agree with you. I just hate all of these “don’t have kids” arguments from liberal people. It’s not a viable solution, because the fascists and the idiots are gong to have kids. We need at least some sane people to continue on.

          But the is all emotional and subjective, I’ll admit that. I’m not really thinking about this topic with a clear head anymore.

          • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            And it doesn’t work, either. When they tell you we need half the population, they don’t tell you how to reach that objective, when the objective is considered to be achieved.

            They might recognize that some people will have to suffer, but they don’t tell you who will suffer and how.

            Malthusianism is yet another unclear ideology that offers vague promises but assured hardships from dilettantes that are spared enough to not feel the full weight of capitalism.

            Nothing that stands rigorous scrutiny.

            • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              That talking point died decades ago. We have a clear path to reducing our population. Well-off people with access to contraceptives don’t have high birth rates. We can roll back the human birth rate to sub-replacement levels and over time, reduce it.

              There will be a problem with increasing population in 2250 or so, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

              The moral thing to do is to ensure that all humans have access to clean water and food, contraceptives, and comfortable lives. The population will naturally go down and we can stabilize it over time.

      • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        9 hours ago

        We’re upright locusts. Stop stroking your ego and look at the state of the world. Humanity doesn’t justify itself.

      • aoidenpa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I don’t share this view. Life is an interesting pattern created by matter, but no need to be spiritual about it. If life ceased to exist, no one would be sad about it. Actually a lot of struggle and pain would be over which is positive in my opinion. In practice, we should value quality of life of conscious beings instead of quantity. Having less is better.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Why would I care if the human race dies out? I won’t be here to notice.

        Let’s instead focus on not burning the place to the ground during our lifetimes.

        • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          This is what we hate boomers for. Short-termism. How about we start being angry at the right culprits? Your peers in the West aren’t having kids anymore already.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Oh come on, it’s a #notallmen moment. Lol

        When people say “stop having kids”, what they mean is stop having unplanned pregnancies. I don’t think that many people want our literal extinction.

        • Asclepiaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I wish all people would stop having kids. I am all for the voluntary human extinction movement. A very key word is voluntary though, which really just makes it an ideology.

            • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 hours ago

              You don’t have to. Turns out, when you give women the option to not shove a watermelon-sized object through their hoohaws at an age when they’re not ready for it, many of them opt not to!

            • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Curiously, it worked too well. China is now desperately offering incentives to get people to have more children.

              (Okay, I’m just being glib. It’s not clear whether it was the one-child policy that was responsible for the birth-rate crash.)

        • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          People can do all that, but you will still have population growth and climate change, which you want to fix. That, and an aging population. How about we stop for advocating for known non-solutions and fix the actual problem already?

        • UNY0N@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I understand that, I’m very aware that my reaction is emotional and subjective. I’m just sick of reading that sentence over and over and over again.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      “Driven” suggest more than half of total pregnancies, which is not true looking at the graph given above. It was solidly thirdfourth* in terms of totals, which is still unsettling, but not as pronounced as your comment suggests.

      *I overlooked 25-29

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Who told you that drivers have to be 51%?

        That’s not what a driver is. Driver is a general term, ten pregnancies are a driver of total birth rate, as they have impacted total fertility significantly.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Less than 20% of a total is “significant”?

          • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Yes. For example, 60 million people in the US (less than 20% of our total population) is a significant amount of people.

            • Ech@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              7 hours ago

              The amount the percentage represents is irrelevant. A billion people could be involved, but if the total is 7 billion, it’s not going to be a significant part of the total trend.

              • Wogi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                6 hours ago

                5% can be a driver if it’s having a decent impact on your results. This is kind of a stats 101 thing man. You might even look for those outliers in your results and find a way to specifically exclude them if you find that the information you’re getting is being skewed. Do that too hard and it’s called P-hacking.

                “We found that the bottom 5% of respondents were driving results negatively and so excluded the top and bottom 5%.”

                Think about it as a literal driver. It’s a driver. It’s not the driver and also half the passengers. You can drive a motorcycle, you can drive a bus, and how much of the occupancy you are of those two things can change dramatically but you’re still a driver.

                • Ech@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  43 minutes ago

                  Obviously even 1 extreme outlier can skew things, but that’s not the case here.

                  In the terms of your analogy, this is about 3 people out of 20 pedaling a (weirdly long) bike and steered by all of them (somehow). Would you say that group of 3 are driving? Or would you concede it’s the two groups of 6 that are mostly driving the bike?

  • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Not to call out OP, but does anyone have this information in anything other than .png format? There’s no timestamps, hyperlinks, or citations anywhere here. I’d love to send this to other people, but I’m not about to copy-pasta something that could be old or inaccurate.

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    216
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Don’t worry, Republicans will solve this by banning abortion and birth control nationwide!

    They are always thinking of the children.

    • kitnaht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Okay, so on an actual serious note – Historically, this has actually been the lever that’s been pulled by government in order to control population growth.

      The problem is that we’ve grown so much as a society that we now realize that bodily-autonomy is a human right.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        9 hours ago

        There are ways they can promote population growth, if that is something we really want. Better and free school lunches would be a start. Childcare. Pre-K education. Free college. Health-care. And generally a more wealthy middle class.

        The biggest reason people are having fewer kids is money.

        • Bilbo_Haggins@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          This 100%. We and many of our peers with a kid are one and done in the current system. But if we could afford college educations for multiple kids, get adequate parental leave, access to early childcare that doesn’t cost an entire paycheck? That would change the decision quite a bit.

          But also I’m happy to have fewer kids and let more immigrant and/or refugee families with young kids move here too. Solves the labor shortage and provides a much needed influx of fresh ideas and culture, not to mention getting some folks out of dangerous situations. Somehow all of the people who want to “save the children” are extremely silent on that front when it’s children moving to another country for a better life.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 hours ago

    What do you know. If it takes two people to pay the rent them two people have to work to pay the rent…

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      While true, this is mostly about teen pregnancy. So it’s moreso that things like education, easy access to contraception, legalizing abortion, etc. were the primary drivers. Not to worry though, the supreme court and fascists are working hard to reverse all that. We need poor children to feed the machine

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 hours ago

    youd have to be pretty narcissistic to bring a child into the current environment