Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Earth

Germany Joins EU's 'Ultra-Low' Fertility Club 116

Posted by msmash from the growing-challenge dept.
Three more EU member states -- including the most populous, Germany -- have joined the list of countries with "ultra-low" fertility rates [non-paywalled source], highlighting the extent of the region's demographic challenges. Financial Times: Official statistics show Germany's birth rate fell to 1.35 children per woman in 2023, below the UN's "ultra-low" threshold of 1.4 -- characterising a scenario where falling birth rates become tough to reverse.

Estonia and Austria also passed under the 1.4 threshold, joining the nine EU countries -- including Spain, Greece and Italy -- that in 2022 had fertility rates below 1.4 children per woman. The fall in birth rates partially reflects the "postponement of parenthood until the 30s," which involves a "higher likelihood that you will not have as many children as you would like because of the biological clock," said Willem Adema, senior economist at the OECD.

Germany Joins EU's 'Ultra-Low' Fertility Club More | Reply

Germany Joins EU's 'Ultra-Low' Fertility Club

Comments Filter:

  • oh noes! (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 )

    It will be upon those with all the wealth to provide all the children, the rest of us are tapped out and don't want to produce slaves.

    • The idea that childbirth equals slave production is one of many reasons why it's impossible to discuss depopulation.

      • Slaves ? You mean the production of new human resources in corporate language ?

      • Overpopulation is not a problem among ethnic Germans. In fact, they are dying out. And look, it's happening everywhere in the first world:

        The fall in birth rates partially reflects the "postponement of parenthood until the 30s," which involves a "higher likelihood that you will not have as many children as you would like because of the biological clock," said Willem Adema, senior economist at the OECD.

        They blame working women -- essentially that women wait longer to have kids so that they can get degrees an

        • Yes, put your woman in her place and don't let her leave the house. In fact, she should probably cover her entire body while she's being submissive.

    • The Financial Times did a reasonable job on the falling / low birth rate article.

      The on target parts:
      - It doesn't blame the men for not 'stepping up', 'earning more', 'growing up'
      - It mentions child care and cost to raise a child but does not make this the central point of the article
      - It does not put 100% of the blame on high housing costs as a reason low childbirth rates
      - It does not have multiple rounds of emotional appeal quotes from single mothers. Single fathers are nearly nonexistent quoted in child

      • History - Man the house rule (Score:5, Informative)

        by will4 ( 7250692 ) on Thursday December 26, 2024 @02:15AM (#65039817)

        An example from the US, where a government aid program had the net effect of splitting families apart leading to worse social outcomes, multi-generational single parent households.

        This started with government transfer and aid payments requiring men to not live in the house with their own children. Splitting poor families apart, creating bureaucratic jobs, higher crime rates, and a growing population of people requiring government spending, from children in poverty, single-parent households, juveniles in the legal system, jail and prison inmates, school lunch and breakfast programs and a large amount of government workers for inspection, enforcement and administration.

        The Man in the House Rule also had the effect of creating a large reliable voting block for the Democrat party.

        Man in the house rule
        https://www.encyclopedia.com/l... [encyclopedia.com]
        A regulation that was formerly applied in certain jurisdictions that denied poor families welfare payments in the event that a man resided under the same roof with them. Under the man-in-the-house rule, a child who otherwise qualified for welfare benefits was denied those benefits if the child's mother was living with, or having relations with, any single or married able-bodied male. The man was considered a substitute father, even if the man was not supporting the child. Before 1968 administrative agencies in many states created and enforced the man-in-the-house rule.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
        Aid to Families with Dependent Children
        A number of states enacted so called "man-in-the-house" rules, which disqualified families if there was any adult male present in the household whatsoever. This was part of a broader attempt to discourage welfare dependency by the undeserving, in particular black families where the man didn't have work or where the woman had a relationship with men who didn't take care of the family.[8]

      • The problem with the "high cost" theory is that rich people have the fewest children and poor people the most.

        That's the exact opposite of what would be expected if affordability was the problem.

        • Nordic paradox and low birthrates (Score:5, Informative)

          by will4 ( 7250692 ) on Thursday December 26, 2024 @02:58AM (#65039859)

          The Nordic countries have high social spending and high levels of support for parents and childcare, yet have very low birth rates.

          It's the "Nordic Paradox" example that increasing spending on child care, more parental leave does not end up with higher birth rates.

          https://politics.stackexchange... [stackexchange.com]

          The UN also finds the "Nordic Paradox"
          https://www.un.org/development... [un.org]

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 )

            There's no paradox. You're seeing a 1:1 result of anti-human anti-natalist philosophy in action. This is the end result of generations that have been told their very existence is inherently unforgivably evil.

            • Drove through Norway once. They are a well balanced people. Little anti humanity rethoric. On the contrary. Maybe pay the country a visit to see for yourselve?

            • It is indeed immoral to have children. Adults forcing themselves upon children for their OWN gain (meaning and purpose in life or something like that) - why should we excuse that?

              It is like Plato says about politician (it is questionable if the approximate quote is true but he presents these ideas in The Republic): "Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it."

              • Bizarre take. I say, it's better to live than not to live.

                I think your reaction is the result of indoctrination that always pivots the question of procreation towards economics, and then to a marxist critique about how the real issue is the bad rich people wanting to create a labor for or an army.

                I say the real issue is whether your would-be offspring get to live. After thousands of generations of life being handed down from one generation to the next, culminating in you, are you OK with not passing i

                • No it is completely logical. The Western society is based on voluntary relationships. Forced relationships (e.g., abuse, robbery, rape etc) are generally illegal. This has nothing to do with money. You are philosophically shallow who think that.

                  There is an unspoken premise in your argument: that you should be grateful for being alive. Why? Western society isn't free (other societies are even less free). Why do you want to live an unfree life? Your premise is wrong, therefore your whole argument that is base

              • It is indeed immoral to have children. Adults forcing themselves upon children for their OWN gain (meaning and purpose in life or something like that) - why should we excuse that?

                It is like Plato says about politician (it is questionable if the approximate quote is true but he presents these ideas in The Republic): "Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it."

                By your definition, all of nature is immoral...and thus your concept of morality is meaningless. Look, having kids is not for you...fine...you're an outlier...accept it...don't push your STUPID STUPID STUPID beliefs on the rest of us. You clearly are a fucked up person. That's OK...most of us have issues in one form or another...but you're pushing your mental illness on others and presenting it as a morally superior choice.

                You're not morally superior...not one bit...you're just someone too fucked up t

                • Nature doesn't have a moral, duh! Humans do (and possibly some of the more intelligent animals).

                  No, I am not "fucked up" - the one who is "fucked up" is you who think it is ok for an adult to force him-/herself upon on child to get purpose and meaning in his/her OWN life. You have the burden of proof here. You forced your children into an unfree society. Why would anyone do that?

                  Yes, I am morally superior. I am consequent and consistent. I don't do to others what I would accept that others did to me. You OT

                  • No, I am not "fucked up" - the one who is "fucked up" is you who think it is ok for an adult to force him-/herself upon on child to get purpose and meaning in his/her OWN life. You have the burden of proof here. You forced your children into an unfree society. Why would anyone do that?

                    Yes, I am morally superior. I am consequent and consistent. I don't do to others what I would accept that others did to me. You OTOH is a hypocrite. You wouldn't accept, e.g., a forced marriage but that is exactly what you do upon your children.

                    Keep talking, you're persuading everyone you're a sane, well-balanced person who thought out his ideas and created a belief system that makes sense and is applicable to others. You also have a weird fixation on rape language. Forcing myself onto my children? What kind of sick fucked up fantasy is going on in your head that you need to use rape language for the universal experience of birth and procreation. My kids are fine and clearly happier and more well-balanced and mentally healthy than you...don't

            • Anti-natalist? Is that another way of saying, abortion?

            • There's no paradox. You're seeing a 1:1 result of anti-human anti-natalist philosophy in action. This is the end result of generations that have been told their very existence is inherently unforgivably evil.

              *Citation needed

          • You are mixing things up. There is no "Nordic paradox", you are referring to the "Gender-equality paradox" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox). None of your links contain the word "paradox".

          • The people from Nordic countries are part of the same monetary ecosystem as everyone else in the West. EVERYONE can see that the game is rigged and all work is entirely useless other than for survival. Nobody wants to live like this, and yet here we are, with even the Nordic countries choosing to not have babies.

            Maybe humans aren't meant to be slaves? Hiding the fact that we are slaves doesn't change the reality that we keep bumping up against.

        • Re:At least the article is on target (Score:5, Informative)

          by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Thursday December 26, 2024 @03:05AM (#65039865) Homepage Journal

          Looking up some rich people that come to mind:
          Elon Musk: 12 kids.
          Donald Trump: 5 kids
          Jeff Bezos: 4 kids
          Bill Gates: 3
          Steve Jobs: 4
          Zuckerberg: 3

          Both are well above average. I'm seeing information that the truly well off tend to have more kids, and the trend is increasing:

          https://ifstudies.org/blog/mor... [ifstudies.org]

          I think that you have a spike at the low end because birth control costs money and screwing is fun. Then you get a lowered birth rate for those who are "in the rat race" and doing things like going to college - because to get the higher income, they have to sacrifice.

          Once you get past that to where college education doesn't matter as much, you see more kids again.
          Solve the "rat race", fix the fertility problem.

          • Rich men have more babies.

            Rich women have fewer.

            Musk, Trump, and Jobs had their kids from multiple mothers.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
              Indeed, statistics are quoted as children per woman. But anyway, anecdotes or a few cherry-picked examples aren't data. I'm sure anyone could find a list of rich people with zero children each.
        • The world's population growth rate has been slowing since 1963, especially in developed countries.

          The population of 63 countries and territories has already peaked. And the world's population is expected to peak in the 2080s at 10.3 billion, according to the UN.

          That said, due to environmental concerns such as biodiversity loss and global warming, reducing the world's population to a manageable level is a good thing. IMHO.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        It misses that there have been severe economic issues in Germany with energy production, manufacturing plants closing, etc. in the last few years.

        I do not think that is a factor. The drop was not sharp. It basically fell off to near the current rate 1965-1975 and only had minor variations since then. Pretty standard for a modern, industrialized nation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          Interestingly, in China it fell just before the one child policy. The correlation seems to have been with factors such as prosperity, education, access to family planning. This seems pretty universal.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sique ( 173459 )

        It misses that there have been severe economic issues in Germany with energy production, manufacturing plants closing, etc. in the last few years.

        It might have to do with the fact that Germany's energy production crisis only exist as a right-wing talking point, and not in reality.

      • Birth rates were higher when housing took up an even greater proportion of household income 150 years ago, so you can't blame just s single factor.
    • We went for two kids for various reasons. We never considered them to be future "slaves of the system". We have an expensive but effective social security system here. A lot of us are slaves to that system. Especially the richer than middle class but not rich enough to have a po box on some low tax island people. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you all. Two weeks Holliday!
    • Statistically, it's the ultra pro that have the most kids. Then they get checks from the government and everyone pays for them anyways.
      • ultra poor* HEY SLASHDOT, isn't it time for an edit button and yes, it was meant to be yelling! The lameness filter should provide that.

  • obligatory SG-1 reference.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by CommunityMember ( 6662188 ) on Thursday December 26, 2024 @12:25AM (#65039717)
    So the Aschen eventually succeeded....

  • People with wealth are less likely to reproduce (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Thursday December 26, 2024 @12:27AM (#65039721)

    We've effectively outsourced reproduction to poor nations. Good job middle and upper class!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's a lack of wealth that is the problem. Wages too low, cost of living too high. All the advice is to not have more children than you can afford.

      Another issue is the breakdown of families and long term stable relationships, because women are no longer pressured into staying in bad relationships. We need to do more education on relationships.

      • It's a lack of wealth that is the problem. Wages too low, cost of living too high.

        That's the exact opposite of reality.

        Rich people have the fewest children. Poor people have the most.

        Rich countries have the fewest children. Poor countries have the most.

        Everywhere we look, wealth reduces birthrates.

        • No, the pursuit of wealth produces fewer children. Actual wealthy people have no problem procreating, just ask Musk's 12 kids. It's the lower middle class prioritising an attempt to get to upper class that ignores procreation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I dunno, Musk has a lot kids...

          Joking aside, it's not wealth, it's opportunity. As opportunity decreases for younger generations compared to their parents, they have fewer kids. They might be relatively wealthy compared to developing nations, although not compared to their parents.

        • The middle class in well-off countries has few children. The really rich tend to procreate a lot.

      • Not entirely true, since increasing wealth and education is the only common element in falling birth rates.

      • We get more child support if we have more kids. A few years ago it still went up spectacularly when you had more kids. That has changed to a linear amount.
        I see more and more couples that decide kids are not their thing. In fact most of my friends do not have any kids (Very different in my wife's circle of friends). It is not for financial reasons. They have a point. Your life is much simpler. You can focus on yourself. Sure they miss out on a lot as well. (maturity clearly suffers, a lot of them seem to b
      • The wealthy seem to have plenty of children. Currently, there is a big push in society to minimize risk. Children are a risky proposition.

    • The same middle class that is barely existing?

    • Because having children ruins your life. Just like boring work, which we also have outsourced.

      https://www.bps.org.uk/psychol... [bps.org.uk]

      "Think again, suggests Nattavudh Powdthavee – you’re experiencing a focusing illusion."

      Why would any adult want to spend a lot of time with a 3- or 13-year old child instead of spending that time with another adult (or a dog - even dogs are more rewarding than children).

    • We've effectively outsourced reproduction to poor nations. Good job middle and upper class!

      Translation: Less white babies. Everyone panic!

  • This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Thursday December 26, 2024 @12:45AM (#65039737)

    Endless growth is impossible. We need steady-state sustainability.
    It's interesting that it's happening at the same time as the rise in automation.
    Seems like a lucky coincidence, less jobs, less people

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Actually, for a few centuries, we need population reduction. And the predictions say we will get them, even without climate change. Not too fast if we can manage because that leads to really bad problems. Although _with_ climate change, that may be impossible to avoid.

    • Endless growth is impossible. We need steady-state sustainability. It's interesting that it's happening at the same time as the rise in automation. Seems like a lucky coincidence, less jobs, less people

      If Greed gets its hands on even halfway-decent AI and good-enough automation, you really think the massive spike in unemployment is going to make you or anyone else living in that new world feel..lucky?

      What do you think happens when those lucky humans realize they’re not just unemployed, but unemployable?

      A massive spike in crime and chaos ensued after that because sponsored Greed in Government didn’t give a shit about any effect other than stock price? What a coincidence. I’m sure no

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      1.4 is not steady-state, though. It's a pretty fast decline of population. It makes an 80 million population into a 56 million population in just one generation, and then into a 39.2 million in two. Or in simpler terms: It means that two generations out, the population has halved. (not exactly because the previous generations don't disappear that fast, so strictly speaking, the 3rd generation will be half as large, not the nation's entire population, but on a large scale that's nitpicking)

      Now given that a v

      • You're missing another critical part of this: That 1.4 birth rate is only among the actual native population. Those same countries have a growing population overall because they're importing staggering numbers of young radicalized men from countries where women are property and genocide is a moral obligation.

    • No it is not. You clearly haven't understood what growth is. Every day through practise, people become a little bit better on what they do, and since we have books etc, the next generation don't have to reinvent the wheel. "A little bit better" can be exchanged for time. Less and less people are required to produce a certain goods, which frees up resources for producing other goods. Goods don't have to be physical, but can also be services. Services can be more or less advanced - developing software is much

  • Men are the gatekeepers of relationships, and men finally have more options to limit their fertility and still have sex. And men increasingly aren't wanting what's in the catalogue. Even if sperm quality wasn't declining [smithsonianmag.com] you would see a decrease in birth rates and this decrease will continue until men are either held at gunpoint for their sperm, forced at gunpoint to be active fathers and fined the resulting enormous expense of raising a baby or society finds the wealth to raise most of the babies and the w
    • Your link is talking about America, but the story is talking about Germany. I'm not sure your complaints apply there.

    • Surveys show that men want more children than women.

      Men more likely to want children [www.cbc.ca].

      • This distinction obviously doesn't matter if you just care about the resulting fertility rate; but given the (inevitably higher when it comes to the placental mammal aspects; very commonly though not absolutely necessarily higher when it comes to household division of labor, earnings and career trajectories, etc.) effectively higher price women pay for children the fact that the numbers are as close as they are for people saying 'yes' or 'no' suggests pretty substantial 'want' for children among women; just

  • A simple cheat to increase birth rate. (Score:4, Informative)

    by upuv ( 1201447 ) on Thursday December 26, 2024 @02:01AM (#65039807) Journal

    This of course will never fly these days. But it would work. Historical records have proven this out.

    Simply turn the power off for 2 days.

    That's it. Take power away from homes for 2 days and you will see a spike in the birthrate.
    No lights, no TV, no wifi

    Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going to happen.

    • Well.. at least it beats Fornication Under Command of the King (F.U.C.K.)
    • In one town in Belgium (Aalst), birth rate goes up 9 months after carnaval. No need to cut the power. Companies do close for a few days because if they don't, half their staff will not show up. It is a tradition that is considered world cultural inheritance by UNESCO. A friend of mine lives there. He invited me once on a few conditions. I had to wear breasts and he would not keep track of me. I had to follow him wherever he went. My first son lives there. (last sentence is not true.)

    • That is just stupid. You suggesting in the absence of the internet that people will just decide to not use condoms, or maybe you're hoping in the dark the woman can't find her pill?

      The countries in question don't have a sex problem. They have a birthrate problem. Every woman in her 30s I know is either on the pill or has an implant.

    • That's it. Take power away from homes for 2 days and you will see a spike in the birthrate.
      No lights, no TV, no wifi

      That is what they said about COVID too... and they were just as wrong then as you are now.

      But that brings up another question: Why would you want to 'force' people to have more children when they clearly do NOT want to bring anymore children into this fucking stupid ass world?

  • "postponement of parenthood until the 30s," which involves a "higher likelihood that you will not have as many children as you would like because of the biological clock,"
    Those people already decided in their teens: I (as for the mother) do not want children, or if my partner insists: only one.
    And same for the father. I < decided somewhere around 15, that I do not want children. Except a super woman wants a single one, which might have convinced me. No biological clock involved. And in our times a woman

    • Sorry, dude. You don't get your own facts [statista.com] The longer you wait the more medical intervention you'll need and the higher the chance of miscarriage or birth defect. By the time she hits 40 you'll be out of luck, 45 if you're rich and desperate enough to accept a high chance of stillbirth [nih.gov] And have you considered what it's like for a 40 year old woman trying to take care of two kids in their early teens? If she started early the older could take care of the younger. That doesn't work if you start late. You do y

  • Not tech, just space filler as usual.

  • That can't be a coincidence with Germany being the top producer of all kinds of nasty chemicals.

  • The modern world gives people more life options than just being parents. Women can be mothers if they want, but they can also be CEOs , pilots, scientists, etc. Given more options, fewer will choose motherhood.

    More options is good! If course some women can be mothers and have exciting careers but that takes a lot of extra effort

  • To have the daddy be the breadwinner while mom stays at home to raise the children, i lay the blame on the powers that run the warehouses and delivery trucks (looking at you Amazon) the factories, construction companies, they all dont pay enough to cover the expense, so you have both man & woman working to afford the household and they know they canâ(TM)t afford to raise children,

    • Except people with the lowest paying jobs are having the most kids.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tom ( 822 )

        Which is explained by less access to education, health care, birth control and social security, rather than income.

        This is not just between classes, but also between nations. The countries with the fastest growing populations are generally the ones where you need children as a personal pension fund, to support you when you are old. Countries with working pension systems have fewer children, and the wealthy don't need their children at all, they can comfortably live off their investments.

        • So it's not a lack of money, but a lack of the means to buy stuff.

          I'm not sure if that's a meaningful distinction.

  • ...and Prime, and ...

  • Didnt German politicians keep saying they absolutely need uncontrolled, unrestricted immigration and all refugees welcome, because that will surely bring enough kids?
    Well, 10 years later and turns out that was a damn lie, and integration still does not work in Germany.

  • It is NOT "fertility." It is choices. Fertility is actually going up. China, on the other hand, has an actual fertility problem due to all the illegal meat additives and pollution. Look up rates of ovarian cysts there. Look up the number of fertility clinics per person. That's why they really need to stop with the Children of Men clickbait BS and tell the truth. It's a birthrate crisis.

  • Birth rates are falling everywhere [ourworldindata.org], even in countries with traditionally very high birth rates.

    For example, Nigeria's fertility rate was 6.9 births per woman in 1978 and is now 4.5... still well above replacement rate, but the trend is clear.

    The US fertility rate is currently 1.6... not all that much higher than Germany.

    I have three kids, but I am reasonably confident none of my kids will have kids, and to be honest... I don't blame them. Having kids is expensive and a ton of work, and even more so now

  • When the stress of over population, happens before actual resource over population and gets to a point behavioral changes happen. That is what is happening now. Wealth inequality, Climate Change, Cost of children is creating stress on the population. The next stage is increased violence in the population in general and personal isolation for some portion of the population. .

    I would suggest learning about Universe 25 and see if you can find similarities today.

  • Children used to be cheap labor ... (Score:3)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Thursday December 26, 2024 @12:14PM (#65040817)

    ... now they are ultra-expensive pets.

    No amount of social programs is going to change that.

    We need some updated cult that emphasizes producing children as some noble cause in itself.

    Sadly, feminism is failing at that sort of matriarchy too. Men will likely have to pick up the slack on this one too.

Slashdot Top Deals

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan

Close