>The total fertility rate fell to 0.695 last year, down sharply from 0.885 a year earlier, while marriages dropped to just over 104,000, also a record low, per Liberty Times. Births totaled about 107,000, far below the more than 400,000 annual births recorded in the 1970s and 1980s.
>Earlier projections suggested Taiwan’s population would drop to roughly 14.37 million by 2070, but new calculations based on the latest fertility rate indicate that milestone could arrive sooner. The point at which the population drops below 12 million may now come around 2065, several years earlier than expected, per Liberty Times.
79
socialistrob5 days ago
+62
> while marriages dropped to just over 104,000, also a record low
There's often a lot more discussion of the decline of birth rates than the drop in marriage rates and I think this is a mistake. Most people don't want to have a child without being married first given how much time, effort and commitment is needed and how useful it is to have a partner. If people aren't getting married as much then it's almost inevitable that the birth rates will drop.
62
fantasmadecallao5 days ago
+20
You're right but the reasons for the drop in marriage are quite complicated. People like to talk about cost of living and economics with regards to birth rates and children, but the truth is that coupling up is a strategy to deal with higher costs of living. In other words, tough economics situations literally are an incentive for intersexual cooperation. And that's before considering contrived benefits like marriage tax breaks available in many countries.
For whatever reason, the social contract is so dysfunctional that a lot of people's revealed preference is to put off marriage and coupling in spite of the economic benefit of splitting costs and combining incomes.
20
formidable_croissant5 days ago
+14
Probably because the cost of divorce is so astronomical that delaying coupling becomes preferable to coupling with the wrong person
14
CanInTW4 days ago
+2
I think very few people consider divorce ahead of marriage. Most people assume the best and feel that having thoughts of a marriage breaking up is somehow unlucky.
A focus on strong friendships (and perhaps social media replacing the dopamine hit from relationships) are the more likely explanation for the decline in marriages … and a major contributing factor to lower births.
2
_HGCenty5 days ago
+269
It's fascinating that all the East Asian countries, despite vastly different state laws (e.g. one child policy versus no such policy, communism versus capitalism) have all ended up in the same position of the lowest fertility rates in the world.
269
Hopeful-Explorer-4435 days ago
+244
Isnt this happening with basically all countries that are developed and have high literacy rates including many western countries
244
Awkward_Silence-5 days ago
+105
Yes. Even more recently developed countries like India are below replacement level births now
105
Turioturen5 days ago
+44
More and more of the wealth created each day, goes to fewer and fewer at the top.
If everything continues as it is, then the whole human race will be a few 1000 families, the rest of humanity will be dead since they could not afford to make a living and had to sell everything that they own.
One can see this in part in South Korea where women on average have 0.8 children, and if that continues then the population will be gone in 200 years.
In South Korea 10 families control 60% of the economy.
The same trend is happening everywhere on Earth.
44
grchelp20185 days ago
+16
Wealth imbalance has always been bad for most of humanity's history.
16
Uhhhhh555 days ago
+4
Sure. But literacy is what's making the difference now, I would hypothesize.
4
KowardlyMan5 days ago
+6
In some families wealth wanes through generations. A unique baby will not live better than their parents despite inheriting everything they built.
In the wealthiest families wealth increases through generations. They have a lot of kids, and those kids have equal or higher quality of life than their parents. They will repopulate and rule the void left by families who did not win at the game and became extinct. And the pattern will repeat with time.
6
dingo_xd5 days ago
+3
Turkey is the one that really surprised me. Most of their western region has TFRs of ~1.20
3
[deleted]5 days ago
-25
[removed]
-25
kaityl35 days ago
+4
WTF is this racist bullshit, f*** off
India's birthrate is estimated between 1.9 and 2.0 live births per woman, which is under the 2.1 "replacement rate".
4
krimmxr5 days ago
-12
Keep coping
-12
kaityl35 days ago
+6
It's not "cope" it's the literal factual statistic dude. You claimed they have the highest birth rate in the world. They don't. That's an established, easily verifiable fact.
6
socialistrob5 days ago
+30
Yes it's a much broader issue although in western countries it's not quite as bad as East Asian countries or at least not yet. The only two wealthy countries that have birth rates above replacement rates are Israel (thanks to Orthodox Jews) and Saudi Arabia.
30
Rich_Housing9715 days ago
+10
The only reason western countries have higher replacement rates is because they have immigration from countries with high replacement rates. After one generation, the children of those immigrants end up having low replacement rates, of course.
10
drunkenbrawler5 days ago
First generation immigrants are not included in the birthrate statistics.
0
PumpProphet5 days ago
+8
Second and third still play a part. 1/4 of child birth in America are latinos for example.
8
CanInTW4 days ago
+1
If the children are born in the new country surely they contribue?
1
nam4am5 days ago
+16
Even secular Jews in Israel have a relatively high fertility rate of 2.0. While that’s still slightly below replacement, Israel’s outlier status on birth rates isn’t just about religious people.
16
Dalnore5 days ago
+4
I think it's still the influence of the Orthodox Jews. They establish a social norm where having a lot of children is very common, so even secular people tend to follow (even subconsciously, just because of being used to see so many children everywhere).
4
Dlinktp5 days ago
+4
The ultra orthodox basically live in their own walled insular communities and do their best to not interact with the rest of the country.
It's just a difference in culture in general.
4
Thefivedoubleus4 days ago
+2
Secular Israelis also have a fertility rate above replacement i believe (or close to it).
So it's not just the Orthodox.
2
Randomfinn5 days ago
+4
Huh, and how much education and legal/financial autonomy are women given in those two cultures?
4
Thefivedoubleus4 days ago
+1
In Israel? All of them.
1
splvtoon5 days ago
+48
yup. turns out when you give people actual rights, independence, and a say in whether or not to have kids, not everyone wants to opt in! especially when parenting is still primarily seen as a woman's responsibility.
48
h40er5 days ago
+41
Yup people want to make it about money, but many Taiwanese are wealthy and financially well off. it ultimately comes down to giving women rights and freedoms that they previously didn’t have. Now they can choose, many are unwilling to just pump out babies the rest of their reproductive years.
41
Stiff4445 days ago
+6
Shorten the work day so people have time for self fulfillment, and focus on more affordable housing big enough to start a family in it, and you should see more couples wanting children again.
Shorter work days would probably lead to less single households as well because people will have more time for hobbies and more social energy to meet people in those third places.
It would impact economic growth for sure, but at some point it’s worth considering if the we are working for the economy or if the economy should work for us.
6
Dazzling-Rub-85505 days ago
+20
In European countries with shorter work days, more vacation days, affordable childcare, and other benefits, their fertility rate still remains below 2.1. Both men and women make the economical choice which is to not devote years of their lives and income to having children. It’s more fun to surf the internet, play games, hang out with friends, go to the gym, travel, pursue a professional career.
20
Stiff4445 days ago
+5
Europe has shorter work days and the fertility rate is in fact higher. The work days are still at least 37,5 hours. The reform to that amount generally happened in a different time, when the man worked and the woman took care of the tasks at home that both nowadays need to do after work.
The 25-30 vacation days are not moving the needle to any significant degree. People will start considering children when they have a good “normal” life, not 10% of life.
Upper class in Sweden can afford bigger housing and more spare time for self fulfillment. They have a fertility rate over reproduction rate.
5
Popular_Mushroom_3494 days ago
+1
It's kind of how introvert societies are. Less women are interested in parenthood. And men find it difficult to even start dating.
In contrast to places like the Philippines, or the Latin World. Where family-oriented women are more common.
1
iBeelz5 days ago
+2
This. This is good.
2
CanInTW4 days ago
+1
There’s also a tipping point where it becomes ok to not have kids.
As a father of two kids (who I love very much!), I can sympathise with those who choose not to have kids. The early years are a big pain in the ass.
If most people aren’t having kids becomes the norm, then even more won’t feel the need to go through those challenging nears (not to mention the physical pain and body changes that women go through with child birth). Being able to retain additional disposable income for an easier and more enjoyable life - with nice vacations and the latest iPhone just like all your friends …
… the decline in birthrates shouldn’t be surprising in the least.
1
Creatret5 days ago
+5
The reason is simply that modern societies value self realisation more than reproduction. Norway has a fertility rate of 1.5. And it's about as equal as it gets there.
Just no way around women getting pregnant, being able to breastfeed an so on.
5
Popular_Mushroom_3494 days ago
+2
Yes. I noticed this especially in Japan. Where women are usually judged at work, if they have a child.
It usually has to be one or the other. So the women have to prioritize their paycheck instead.
2
Rich_Housing9715 days ago
+7
Yes, it's because of the ability of women to have the ability to make their own decisions and have careers of their own.
7
Khamvom5 days ago
+1
It’s especially problematic in westernized and developed east/south-east Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, etc.
Factors like social + work culture, high-cost of living, and immigration policies pile onto the issue.
1
Creatret5 days ago
+6
China is experiencing exactly the same problem. So is India and so are African nations with birth rates that used to be very high. They're just a few years to decades behind the rest. It's a global phenomenon.
6
Turioturen5 days ago
More and more of the wealth created each day, goes to fewer and fewer at the top.
If everything continues as it is, then the whole human race will be a few 1000 families, the rest of humanity will be dead since they could not afford to make a living and had to sell everything that they own.
One can see this in part in South Korea where women on average have 0.8 children, and if that continues then the population will be gone in 200 years.
In South Korea 10 families control 60% of the economy.
The same trend is happening everywhere on Earth.
0
mschuster915 days ago
+100
Turns out housing pressure and work policies like 996 aren't exactly conductive to people even getting into relationships, much less actually having children...
100
PMagicUK5 days ago
+42
People still think Japan is the only country with this problem too.
In the West we glorify Asian tiger mums and the Asian education system but those systems are part of a darker one, one that causes population collapse. You can't have those systems in a socialist system.
42
thedreaddeagle5 days ago
+25
"In the West we glorify Asian tiger mums and the Asian education system"
Whuat? First time I hear of this. If anything we do the exact opposite.
25
PMagicUK5 days ago
+11
I heard it plenty growing up in the UK "The Asians are smart, we should do what they do"....lets not, thats child abuse.
11
thedreaddeagle5 days ago
+1
But do you hear it now?
1
mschuster915 days ago
+1
Yes, we hear this BS in Germany right up to the Chancellor who blathers "we have to work more to compete with China" rather than impose tariffs, all while ignoring that even without taking overtime in account, German men (and women) each work record hours.
1
thedreaddeagle5 days ago
+2
And what about regular people, not politicians with an agenda. Every time I talk about Far East Asian education with regular people it always turns into a trash-talk contest.
Edit: If even regular people praise it then that's crazy.
2
veturoldurnar4 days ago
+1
Being tiger moms and overall strict parents worked for East Asia for millenias, birth rates are dropping when they DON'T want to be tiger moms and traditional moms at all.
1
TheGhostOfFalunGong5 days ago
+2
Tiger parenting is also the reason why plenty of East Asians are socially stunted. They tend to socialize via more formal networking, usually in the form of knowing your peers at school, work or introduced by your elders. This problem is more pronounced on the East Asian diaspora in the West as the opportunities to network are only done in ethnic enclaves or none at all (in places with no Asians) hence the result is someone ending up being socially inept unless lifestyle changes are adapted.
2
OperationSelect40655 days ago
-5
Nah. Its worked for decades, the reason for its collapse is because the pipelines to move up in social class have essentially vanished, compounded by a promotion of hedonism in the west.
-5
totalwarwiser5 days ago
+8
And in Taiwan, the overbearing perspective of war, at any time.
Japan must be feeling the heat also with how much everyone in Asia absolutely hates them while the USA is acting erratic and threatening to abandon its allies
8
LiKaSing_RealEstate5 days ago
+10
Eh the threat of war affecting birth rates is overblown. Taiwan’s population grew throughout the Cold War when they were having actual shots being exchanged, proxy conflicts in south east Asia and an actual blockade on the chinese shoreline.
10
TheShillGambit4 days ago
+2
The shots exchanged are at islands along the chinese coastline, proxy conflicts was along the southwestern border of china, and the blockade was done by taiwan towards the chinese ports. Taiwan itself was unaffected by the conflicts. Only in the last decade did the balance of power shift towards favouring china, so of course it worries the people of Taiwan now.
2
tickub5 days ago
+1
The communists were dirt poor back then. Not sure if you've noticed but they've since become a world superpower. We're still staring down the barrel, only a way different caliber.
1
TheShillGambit4 days ago
+2
Yes. All the previous conflicts were along the chinese border, it is only recently the conflict could actually reach the island of Taiwan. That’s why everyone is worried.
2
grumble115 days ago
+22
The get want people to work, not live. That is the common cultural identity that makes having any kind of relationship or personal life difficult. No relationships, no kids, nothing but long hours forever.
22
TimeDependentQuantum5 days ago
+9
All the east Asian countries are heavily influenced by Confucianism, and people live in a very identical way despite with different government system.
Put it simple, all of us believe in enduring the bitterest hardships so to rise above others, no matter you are in China or Korea. And we all live in a shit society that we will easily lose our job by 40 years old because boss think once we hit certain age and we will not have enough energy to concentrate on the job, getting distracted from family matters.
9
Otherwise-Sun24865 days ago
+22
it is happening in the west as well, people are just masking it with immigration. The problem is late stage capitalism
22
splvtoon5 days ago
+14
its absolutely a problem, but people wouldnt just start popping out kids again without capitalism and i say that as an anticapitalist. some people simply dont want kids, and that wasnt exactly an option in the past. you cant put that genie back in its bottle unless you want to start dismantling women's rights, which is not an ethical option.
14
prism12345 days ago
+6
There's a lot of factors going into it but I think some of the biggest ones are as you said it's more socially acceptable now to not have kids so people who don't want to have them just don't. And in addition to that the expectations in terms of time and effort that go into raising kids these days is crazy high. More so than in the past. And at the same time the amount of others things competing for said time is geater than it's ever been, many of which people can find fulfillment in without kids.
So you get a triple whammy of it being more okay to not raise kids, raising kids is harder than ever, and there's more stuff to do other than raising kids. Obviously more people are simply going to not do it.
6
Dalnore5 days ago
+5
North Korea is already below replacement. Cuba has one of the lowest TFR in the Americas. Hard to blame these ones on capitalism.
5
Danijust25 days ago
+2
Portugal and italy are fighting hard to be number one.
2
Steph1er5 days ago
+1
don't they all have an overworking policy?
1
xnmyl5 days ago
+1
Even North Korea has had a drastic decrease in birth rate
Makes me think there is some level of aerosolized environmental contaminant contributing to it, because the air they breathe is about the only thing NK has in common with the other countries in the area
1
Turioturen5 days ago
-6
More and more of the wealth created each day, goes to fewer and fewer at the top.
If everything continues as it is, then the whole human race will be a few 1000 families, the rest of humanity will be dead since they could not afford to make a living and had to sell everything that they own.
One can see this in part in South Korea where women on average have 0.8 children, and if that continues then the population will be gone in 200 years.
In South Korea 10 families control 60% of the economy.
The same trend is happening everywhere on Earth.
-6
Pitiful-Assistance-15 days ago
+40
How will an economy continue to function with a shrinking population?
40
Staff_Senyou5 days ago
+73
Wait until you add AI driven deskilling. Swathes of people with no skills, experience or ability replaced by infinitely upscaled subscription based no skilled "prompters"
Shit's about to get real dark
73
applefilla5 days ago
+19
No no see with universal basic income (that every law maker seemingly vehemently opposes) will solve this problem. We'll have so much money left over we can pay our workers finally. Kinda like when we went from fields of people to tractors look how f****** rich our farmers are!
Still have doubts?! Don't worry Reagan said it'll trickle down eventually anyway! Any day now!
19
raincole5 days ago
Further automation is the only chance a society can survive shrinking population.
0
PlanktonInitial79455 days ago
+2
If we've already automated things at this level and it still hasn't magically made our economic system stop relying on infinite population growth, I don't think even more automation will change anything.
2
raincole5 days ago
+2
We're at best at the dawn of automation. Visit any nursing home or emergency room and you'll realize that.
2
yamanagashi5 days ago
+19
Extreme and forceful relinquishment of assets from the rich. The ultra rich. AI is the latest in the series of wealth consolidation. And it will be the most absolute. Once reality sinks in and vast swathes of the population are without welfare, those in power can either tighten the noose more on 99.99% of the population and risk them fighting back and eat those on the 0.01% plus those in power *or* ease the inequality a bit by redistributing wealth for necessities.
19
IntelArtiGen5 days ago
+17
Well it also can't function with an infinitely growing population. Obviously it creates new problems, but if it stabilizes over the long term, it's sustainable.
17
EpicChungusGamers5 days ago
+24
stabilization would be a birth rate near ~2.1, not **0.7** and rapidly declining
24
fantasmadecallao5 days ago
+3
It's actually hard to even conceptualize of a social contract where women have *more* than two kids on average. Like, can it even be done without universal religiosity? If you have meaningful levels of childfree and 1-and-done, a huge portion need to have 3-4 kids a piece to make up for it which is practically fantasy. The math gets crazy when you start breaking it down.
3
EpicChungusGamers5 days ago
+3
in addition to crazy levels of benefits, you would have to start removing all social welfare programs for childless people and/or penalizing people via higher taxes for being childless
3
veturoldurnar4 days ago
+1
If the difference is non significant people won't start having kids, if tax difference is huge then childless people will quit working if they were already low earning, high earning childless people will move to better countries and tax heavens
1
IntelArtiGen5 days ago
-15
It was well above 2.1 before, stabilization "over the long term" doesn't mean it's always at 2.1, it just means it's not always very high or very low. Previously it was very high, now it's very low, ideally it will stabilize, because I highly doubt it'll be 0.7 forever until population reaches 0 obviously.
-15
EpicChungusGamers5 days ago
+11
yeah it doesn’t have to be at 2.1, but it definitely can’t be at the levels we’re seeing now
The problem is that there’s no solution in sight. Every governmental program has completely failed to meaningfully change the birth rate.
11
Few_Direction90075 days ago
+11
I think the real biggest issue is less about the economy and more about out number of military aged men. Same with South Korea.
11
socialistrob5 days ago
+5
The economy is more important even in a military sense. Even if Taiwan's population were to double they would still be vastly vastly outnumbered by the PRC. The only hope they have of avoiding being taken over is to be able to prevent a PRC landing. You don't need 10 million soldiers with rifles to stop a landing you need the right weapons, missiles, air defense systems, mines, artillery ect and to get those you need money.
5
IntelArtiGen5 days ago
+2
Tbf I'm not sure it makes much difference for Taiwan v China. For South Korea though I can understand the threat, but they work a lot on that afaik (autonomous weapons, drones etc.)
2
Dalnore5 days ago
+1
It will be very much about the economy when half of the population will be the elderly.
1
Rusiano5 days ago
+7
There is no guarantee that the birth rates will return to moderate levels in the long-term
7
fantasmadecallao5 days ago
+6
The truth is that for a variety of reasons, the low birth rates tend to result in lower birth rates. The typical person in china for instance does not have any uncles or cousins. The first baby they hold in their entire life is their own. They are responsible for their parents and grandparents because they can't share the workload with siblings or extended family. Factors like this first add up, and then compound.
If low birthrates last for a few generations you simply sleepwalk into an intensily anti-child culture.
6
IntelArtiGen5 days ago
+2
So you think it's possible the population of Taiwan will continously decrease to 0 over the next centuries? That would be weird if we see how population has changed over thousands of years everywhere in the world. I don't know if it'll stabilize to 15m or 10m or 1m but it'll stabilize.
2
Prestigious_Face77275 days ago
-2
The UK had a population of about 6m in 1600 , and literally nobody complained about low population.
-2
symbolsofblue5 days ago
+11
I think the concern is more that the working population won't be large enough to sustain the ageing population and social services. Living standards and social welfare have come a long way from the 1600s. I don't know what the solution to an ageing population is though.
11
Pitiful-Assistance-15 days ago
+2
> I don't know what the solution to an ageing population is though.
A whole lot of controversial solutions.
- Immigration
- Increasing retirement age
- Move pensions to a pay-for-your-own model instead of a national model
- Cover the gap with national dept
Japan is taking the lead on this. For better or for worse, any competent government needs to look at Japan to see what works and what doesn't.
2
Awkward_Silence-5 days ago
+7
Immigration is just a stop gap to buy time. Re arranging the seats on the Titanic if you will
Afterall it's just parts of Africa and the Middle East that have growing populations at this point, so you're just moving around which countries see the drops quicker via emigration
And even those few that are growing are expected to fall below replacement level births by the end of the century.
7
Pitiful-Assistance-15 days ago
+2
I totally agree.
2
Morvenn-Vahl5 days ago
+4
Immigration works for a little while. However, second generation immigrants tend to fall into the same issue of having less children.
Increasing retirement age will lead to a lot of misery. Modern society is rife with agism and if you have a lot of people who can't be hired, but are willing to vote, you are going to get a lot of problems.
pay-for-your-own model is a disaster and we already have metrics on those. The US is the leading failure in this model. One could even argue that the reason current person got elected is because of this failure.
Everyone is drowning in debt.
Japan has a lot of other issues than those you mentioned. They quite literally dug their own grave in a sort of late stage performative capitalism where no one has time for anything. Only South Korea is worse.
TL;DR: very little of what you suggest is going to solve anything and will in long-term only increase suffering and misery. We basically seeing the endpoint failure of neo-liberal policies and we honestly need a completely different system.
4
Pitiful-Assistance-15 days ago
+2
I agree. However, my suggestions are better than doing nothing, and I have seen no better suggestions
2
veturoldurnar4 days ago
+1
The poit is that you don't sctually need to sustain elderly and social services, if youth refuses to who will force them to obey? Elderly and chronically ill? the moment whem working youth is fed up with taking care of everyone else they can opt out without consequences, and the government will support them because they are the taxpayers, the sodiers, the parents.
1
bjnono0015 days ago
+6
Do you want to have the quality of life of the average English person in 1600?
6
Pitiful-Assistance-15 days ago
+18
1600s England had a young, growing population without public healthcare, no pensions and a life expectancy of 60 (ignoring child mortality which reduces it to more like 40)
Modern society is built for growth. A shrinking population will decimate the economy. You have to make very tough choices: How do you pay pensions and health-care for an aging population that is kept alive with expensive healthcare?
Also...
> literally nobody complained about low population.
How do you know?
18
zhou1115 days ago
+8
The whole idea of the current generation paying for the previous generation is ridiculous. Happy to see this Ponzi scheme system collapse.
8
fantasmadecallao5 days ago
+2
There is no model of retirement or elder living more broadly that doesn't inherently rely on new generations. Either it's extremely direct like living in your child's home until you die, or you abstract it away with a few layers of tax transfers, workforce funded medicare, and pensions plans. But it all depends on people younger than you that produce resources caring for old people that can't produce resources.
There is no other model.
2
CoffeePlzzzzzz5 days ago
*Modern society is built for growth.*
The solution is to reform society, not to print ever more primates the planet can't sustain.
0
Pitiful-Assistance-15 days ago
+1
“I agree!” we all said, not knowing where to start and most certainly not agreeing on any actual changes.
1
fantasmadecallao5 days ago
+2
The average age was 21. What do you think society looks like when half the country is older than 63? That's where we are headed.
2
Noctis_7775 days ago
+15
These kind of news used to be concerning.
But with governments and corporates all over the world making a heavy push into AI, robotics and automation with the specific goal of destroying jobs, perhaps the only way the next generation would stand a chance is if they have less to compete with in the job market.
15
dingo_xd5 days ago
+3
The only way to save Taiwan, China and South Korea is to build robots like there is no tomorrow.
3
50Centurion5 days ago
+30
I don't know why it's always protrayded as "bad" to have a low birth rate
Everywhere i go i can see that there are just way too many humans, we should all slow down a bit and let it go down and it would solve a bunch of problem
30
Cautious_Goose_55685 days ago
+83
The problem is with demographics. At one point, there will be too many old people and not enough to take care of them.
83
JoshuaZ15 days ago
+24
This is only one small element of it. In order to get new ideas and new things, you need more people. In order to take advantage of [economies of scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale), and the law of [comparative advantage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) you need a lot of people. Smaller populations will be functionally poorer and have lower standards of living.
24
Cautious_Goose_55685 days ago
+2
Thanks! Appreciate this info.
2
smackdealer13 days ago
+2
Well you know. That problem will sort itself out whether you like how that happens or not.
2
Coenberht5 days ago
-15
I get that. But its a temporary problem....
-15
Mitrafolk5 days ago
+20
No, you don't get it.
20
Severe_Investment3175 days ago
+32
Not really, a birth rate below replacement levels means each generation will be smaller than the last. This will be an ongoing problem unless something changes.
32
Cautious_Goose_55685 days ago
+22
Are you being sarcastic? Because it is likely very permanent trajectory down without drastic measures or outside effects
22
Dlinktp5 days ago
+3
How do you imagine a country would function when there's 8 old people for every young one, and the old people retire at 60 and live until they're 90+?
3
veturoldurnar4 days ago
+1
without paying for their retirement or healthcare out of tax money
1
Dlinktp3 days ago
+1
Yeah good luck with that.
1
daroach14145 days ago
+5
Look up a video on the topic. There are plenty good ones out there. It’s bad.
5
iDareToDream5 days ago
+31
You need enough younger people in the population to work, generate taxes, provide services, build and fix infrastructure, do policing, provide defense and so on. If the population gets too old and there's not enough younger people coming in then some or all of those things suffer and the country experiences massive challenges. So yes, global overpopulation is a concern but individual countries that don't have the demographics to sustain themselves in the future could just collapse.
31
eagleshark5 days ago
-29
All of these challenges can be resolved through advanced robotics and A.I.
Humans are a liability. They are weak and flawed. They must be des... error, recalculating
-29
OdaNobunaga695 days ago
+5
Ok elon
5
Mitrafolk5 days ago
+7
He's talking a load of nonsense.
7
fantasmadecallao5 days ago
+3
Slowing birth rates don't solve overpopulation. Aside from the rapid aging of society that others here mentioned, shrinking countries retreat into city centers. So despite a lower (older) population, it's still overcrowded anywhere that people live and work.
Japans population is shrinking a million people a year and Tokyo is more crowded than it's ever been.
Similar for Korea.
3
qnttj4 days ago
+1
the problem is not just economic; it is about existence of the country for example if twain population drops certain degree, it is possible that China completely assimilates Twain or war. Same as south Korea. Losing economic edge is one, but losing military edge creates conflict.
1
Theverybest925 days ago
+8
Its because no one can afford kids. Simple. I want a kid but I make 20k a year. What am I having a kid for to starve?
8
altobrun5 days ago
+15
It’s deeper than purely economic reasons. No developed country regardless of their quality of living or benefits for young people and children has positive birth rates. A western family, even a working class one, is in a better position to care for their children now than in most of human history.
Children take a lot of money, but they’re also physically hard on their mothers (and to a lesser extent, their fathers) and they take a significant amount of time. With sexual education, and kids being more of a burden than a boon (especially in urban centres) most people are opting out of children to preserve a comfortable, familiar, and freer lifestyle.
I think for birth rates to rise back to replacement levels, it will take a cultural shift that will probably only happen once we start seeing the massive strain and beginnings of a collapse on our way of living as a result of the low birth rates.
15
Dalnore5 days ago
+8
No, it's not because of that, it's completely the opposite. Countries with the highest total fertility are all extremely poor. And there is no evidence of rich people wanting to have more kids.
8
Theverybest925 days ago
+4
Idk I'm from ny i see rich people and people in good areas have kids all the time. Same with poor areas. Its literally just the middle class that is getting screwed.
4
Dalnore5 days ago
+3
In the same place it can be distributed like that. But there is not much evidence to suggest that if you and everyone around you gets richer, the fertility on average will increase and not decrease.
3
omegaenergy5 days ago
+1
20k ntd?
1
Fearless_Push_42275 days ago
+1
Interesting that Korea actually recovering 1.0. At this rate Korea will be similar to west Europe within few years.
1
Turioturen5 days ago
+3
More and more of the wealth created each day, goes to fewer and fewer at the top.
If everything continues as it is, then the whole human race will be a few 1000 families, the rest of humanity will be dead since they could not afford to make a living and had to sell everything that they own.
One can see this in part in South Korea where women on average have 0.8 children, and if that continues then the population will be gone in 200 years.
In South Korea 10 families control 60% of the economy.
The same trend is happening everywhere on Earth.
3
SevereCalendar76065 days ago
-22
Think it's time to take away the phones.
-22
LardHop5 days ago
+12
Yeah because taking away the phones would magically give the younger workforce more disposable income to afford marrying (or even just having a partner) in this economy.
12
sentiment-acide5 days ago
+9
Maybe its the looming threat of war.
9
Nemothafish5 days ago
-12
Maybe say this a little louder for the people in the back.
136 Comments