Fertility Rates Drop to Lowest Level Measured in the US, Says the CDC

[Theodarzna]

Correct. And the part that is already coming true is "force them to work beyond age 65".

I am not 65 yet, but it is not far away. I will be working past age 65. The percentage of my peers that can afford to stop working is very very low. Few people are leaving their jobs voluntarily - the only way people stop working these days is when they get laid off.

This will only make things worse. Older people will continue to occupy positions while younger people wait in an ever lengthening Limbo.

[starlord]

You are then thinking idiotically.

Because you are cheering what will be an unmitigated disaster for some and for a considerable amount of time, because a few African countries have lots of kids. But even then it isn't that people have lots of kids its that people waste resources.

i think it would be easier to fix the economic system that relies on lots of younger people than to force people to have more kids.
that or, "relieve the burden", as you said.

[Theodarzna]

Anything that isn't fueling an exponential growth has "crippling effect on economies". Maybe people should take their heads out of their asses and say "that's enough"?

One need not grow exponentially, BUT one does need to maintain replacement rate if you wish to avoid the socioeconomic calamities of contraction and unwinding. Especially if your trying to be KING of the Earth the way America does.

[endersblade]

This isn't a bad thing. The planet is overcrowded as it is.

Exactly how I feel about it. Over the next several hundred years, the human population should dwindle to a much, much smaller level. The earth, in hopes, should be able to regenerate a little bit.

I would imagine this is just like how the earth goes through ice ages. The human population is going to reach a level in which we can't support ourselves indefinitely, and somehow or another our genetics, souls, minds, whatever you want to pin it on, is gonna go 'nope, no more kids for you', and the population will decline. Once we drop below a certain point, the switch will be turned back on. I also think this is why we've seen such an explosion in homosexuality - our species doesn't see the need for more kids, so people are free to pick their own gender to live their lives with.

Humanity just hasn't been around, and in such quantities, for such a thing to take place. No, I have absolutely NO scientific evidence (or spiritual for that matter) to back this up, I'm just guessing. It would be really interesting if such a thing were true - that an entire species, especially one as complicated as humans, can have some form of natural, self-regulating population control.

[Theodarzna]

i think it would be easier to fix the economic system that relies on lots of younger people than to force people to have more kids.
that or, "relieve the burden", as you said.

I think American's especially are not prepared to accept that reality.

The problem of "Youth dependence," is that not only do the young tend to innovate more (Intensely more) they also are more willing to make the huge risks that often reap huge rewards.

They buy more/spend more and one of the major forms of economic activity is providing for children.

An effectively sterile society (Besides going extinct in a generation) would have lower demand for, well everything.

[Charge me Doctor]

One need not grow exponentially, BUT one does need to maintain replacement rate if you wish to avoid the socioeconomic calamities of contraction and unwinding. Especially if your trying to be KING of the Earth the way America does.

Live expectancy goes up exponentially, live quality goes up exponentially, but because of that people stop making kids - because "making kids" isn't something people do for fun, and "modern human" do things only for two reasons: because it makes money, or because it's fun. Kids are neither of that. Kids used to be a needed help for you when you grow old, now they are simply not needed. And what happens to things that are not needed in economy-driven world? It dies off.

There is no incentive in making kids. At all. When people will start dying at age of 50 of "old age" again - that's when we will see fertility rates go up.

For fucks sake, my friends who live 40km off the city in a village have had their 4th kid recently. They are 26. Imagine a modern family having 4 kids at age of 26? It's such a fucking huge investment into nothing in a modern city. Kids are almost useless up until 18 years old, while in a village they are useful at age of 8 and make a huge difference for a family.

[starlord]

I think American's especially are not prepared to accept that reality.

The problem of "Youth dependence," is that not only do the young tend to innovate more (Intensely more) they also are more willing to make the huge risks that often reap huge rewards.

They buy more/spend more and one of the major forms of economic activity is providing for children.

An effectively sterile society (Besides going extinct in a generation) would have lower demand for, well everything.

i think we have already reached the generational shift, many of us child-rearing age folk grew up with bitter relations telling us how much they regret having kids. and until something is done about the enormous financial burden placed on young people (college), this will continue to be a low birth generation. maybe the next one will be different, but i doubt it. i think younger people are already less worried about innovation than just surviving. wages are down, costs go up and everybody wonders why spending is low.

[Theodarzna]

Live expectancy goes up exponentially, live quality goes up exponentially, but because of that people stop making kids - because "making kids" isn't something people do for fun, and "modern human" do things only for two reasons: because it makes money, or because it's fun. Kids are neither of that. Kids used to be a needed help for you when you grow old, now they are simply not needed. And what happens to things that are not needed in economy-driven world? It dies off.

There is no incentive in making kids. At all. When people will start dying at age of 50 of "old age" again - that's when we will see fertility rates go up

It is very possible that life expectancy and quality of life have limits. Idk if you've ever spent time with a 75+ Year old but they aren't exactly living the wild life. Call your grandma or grandpa up and ask them which portion of their life was more exciting.

The problem is, the economy/society DOES need kids. Its another of those paradoxes or contradictions in capitalism. While the entire economy NEEDS them, individually its a better strategy to not have them. It is somewhat how society NEEDS antibiotics but the market logics means they will either not be produced, not be researched OR be overused as drug companies find somewhere to unload them and create more and more antibiotic resistant diseases.

[Charge me Doctor]

It is very possible that life expectancy and quality of life have limits. Idk if you've ever spent time with a 75+ Year old but they aren't exactly living the wild life. Call your grandma or grandpa up and ask them which portion of their life was more exciting.

Well if you want ask me for anecdotes - i visit my grandgrand parents quite regularly, they are 86 and 82 and doing great, living the wild life. The most exciting part of my grandgrand father was the end of the WW2 and basically everything up from this point was great. They don't live in the city tho, and they are very different from people in retirement houses. Not everyone is as lucky as they are (not having huge health problems for one), but i guess that's a benefits of not living in a big city.

[Theodarzna]

i think we have already reached the generational shift, many of us child-rearing age folk grew up with bitter relations telling us how much they regret having kids. and until something is done about the enormous financial burden placed on young people (college), this will continue to be a low birth generation. maybe the next one will be different, but i doubt it. i think younger people are already less worried about innovation than just surviving. wages are down, costs go up and everybody wonders why spending is low.

It's true, our society went through a very strong anti-natalist.

But yes, the tremendous financial burden placed on young people is probably the single biggest factor.

- - - Updated - - -

Well if you want ask me for anecdotes - i visit my grandgrand parents quite regularly, they are 86 and 82 and doing great, living the wild life. The most exciting part of my grandgrand father was the end of the WW2 and basically everything up from this point was great. They don't live in the city tho, and they are very different from people in retirement houses. Not everyone is as lucky as they are (not having huge health problems for one), but i guess that's a benefits of not living in a big city.

My great grandma regularly kick boxes and can beat up Mike Tyson and also works for Nintendo!..... everyone's exceptional on the internet.

[Macaquerie]

The US has always relied on immigration to replenish the labor force, and given that there's no shortage of prospective entrants, we'll be just fine. Also helps that new arrivals also tend to have much higher birth rates themselves, at least for a generation or so.

[Theodarzna]

The US has always relied on immigration to replenish the labor force, and given that there's no shortage of prospective entrants, we'll be just fine. Also helps that new arrivals also tend to have much higher birth rates themselves, at least for a generation or so.

Increasingly there are fewer and fewer countries with such immigrants, fertility is falling rapidly in Latin America, meaning those countries will no longer have the surplus pressure needed for immigrants.

That is however incredibly short term thinking. Fertility decline is increasingly a global phenomena. With more and more of the world plummeting down to sub-replacement and even outright contraction.

Plus its worth inspecting, Why is the US, or indeed most of these Neo-Liberal Capitalist societies basically bottomless pits with which we must constantly shovel in new people like coal into a furnace?

[starlord]

Plus its worth inspecting, Why is the US, or indeed most of these Neo-Liberal Capitalist societies basically bottomless pits with which we must constantly shovel in new people like coal into a furnace?

because they are consumer based societies. best way to consume more is to have more mouths.

[Omega10]

It is very possible that life expectancy and quality of life have limits. Idk if you've ever spent time with a 75+ Year old but they aren't exactly living the wild life. Call your grandma or grandpa up and ask them which portion of their life was more exciting.

Life expectancy gains DO have limits. Right now, as I get closer to being 60, I am acting LONG TERM doing what I can to make it to 100 or even older, but I am also acting SHORT TERM, which means keeping healthy and fit and slim. I, and a lot of others, work a LOT at keeping our weight down - and due to our low metabolisms this means almost no dessert type products. The goal is to "live the wild life".

When I walk with younger people, I have more speed than them, and more stamina. When I compete with them on mental type challenges, or repetitive type challenges, I outlast them. I monitor these types of things as a matter of course. Partially due to ego types of things and pride types of things. But mostly, I use this as a VERY IMPORTANT measure of which parts of me I need to work on. The fear of losing my abilities is huge, because when I am in my 70s, I DO want to live my version of "the wild life". The fact that these types of behaviors makes me a very valuable employee is almost a side benefit.

My mom - who is close to 80 - "plays golf badly" she says. SHE GOLFS And works out, and walks multiple numbers of miles a day. Maybe not exactly "living the wild life", but it sounds like a good life to me!

Before we figure out how to live to 110 or 120, we need to learn how to be in our 70s and 80s and have a good life. We are doing that as we speak. Once we get being 70 and being active mastered, THEN we can work on higher numbers! And I actually am quite optimistic about the successes I think we will have. As you have alluded to, the downside is that there will be no need for people in their upper 60s and 70s to retire, which will have economic consequences. But from a pure economic perspective, we WILL be able to compete - and win - against people much younger than us. This is not because we are trying to punish younger people (where younger is lower than 45), it is because we have to in order to survive.

[Theodarzna]

because they are consumer based societies. best way to consume more is to have more mouths.

Then isn't it a trifle vexing that such an economy cannot itself sustain growth in people? Surely the rich bounty of prosperity would encourage such a thing.

[Saiona]

I really want a kid but we just can't afford it atm. Seems like whites are really not breeding much lately. We gunna go extinct lol

[starlord]

Then isn't it a trifle vexing that such an economy cannot itself sustain growth in people? Surely the rich bounty of prosperity would encourage such a thing.

oh there's a bounty alright. its just going to the proverbial 1%. they have pretty large families (look at the kardashians & the trumps).

[Theodarzna]

oh there's a bounty alright. its just going to the proverbial 1%. they have pretty large families (look at the kardashians & the trumps).

Actually, while those two families and the Romney's are a notable, most of the highly educated upper crust the make up the one percent are as barren as anyone else.

The most fertile remain the incredibly poor.

[Vash The Stampede]

Something that came up in the news is a cure for menopause. They used Platelet-rich plasma which has been known to reverse many things from hair loss/grey hair to menopause. Which is really useful for women who underwent chemotherapy, cause that brings about instant menopause.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...sed-menopause/

[Macaquerie]

Then isn't it a trifle vexing that such an economy cannot itself sustain growth in people? Surely the rich bounty of prosperity would encourage such a thing.

That's never been how population growth has worked. Rich societies always experience stagnation because, even though people have access to greater resources than in poor countries, they consume an even greater share of the pie proportionally. Third World mothers don't see children as a burden because they expend little to raise them and they provide help around the house or on the farm, whereas First World mothers sink substantial sums of money feeding and educating their kids just so they might be able to compete on the job market.