Germany Joins EU's 'Ultra-Low' Fertility Club 148
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.
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.
obligatory SG-1 reference.... (Score:5, Funny)
People with wealth are less likely to reproduce (Score:5, Insightful)
We've effectively outsourced reproduction to poor nations. Good job middle and upper class!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true, since increasing wealth and education is the only common element in falling birth rates.
Re: People with wealth are less likely to reproduc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: People with wealth are less likely to reprodu (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe wealth is enabling men to become hopelessly addicted to porn of one sort or another to the point that even when single women with jobs want to have children, the only thing available is a sperm bank.
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically, empowering women. Bangladesh is a great example of that. Teaching women about birth control, and empowering them to control their own fertility, has brought the rate down to near replacement levels.
Re: People with wealth are less likely to reproduc (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: People with wealth are less likely to reproduc (Score:2)
The same middle class that is barely existing?
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
We've effectively outsourced reproduction to poor nations. Good job middle and upper class!
Translation: Less white babies. Everyone panic!
Re: (Score:3)
When you are poor, children are an asset you can exploit: they perform labor to sustain the family. More are better.
When you are middle class, children are an expense: you pay to feed, shelter, and educate them to benefit society. Fewer children means you can spend more on each child, giving them a better chance to succeed.
When you are wealthy, children are a threat to your legacy: too many children dilute the wealth and power of the family. An heir, and a spare as they say.
This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
The Reality of Automation/AI Impact. (Score:4, Insightful)
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 one (and yet most everyone) saw that coming. It’s ironic the jobs we need AI to replace first and most (from obscenely paid CEOs to corrupt insider-trading lawmakers), will likely be replaced last. Or never. For Greed reasons of course.
TL;DR - AI will bring less options for humans. Not more. UBI will be little more than the new-age welfare check. We’ll be lucky if we don’t destroy ourselves over the transition, which will move at the speed of Greeds voracity. Sorry to burst your bubble. - History
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: This is a good thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: This is a good thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That means not enough humans for technical civilization
That's not what we are looking at, though. Overall, human population will be increasing to 2080, and then is likely to gradually reduce thereafter.
no care for elderly or sick or children without parents or single mothers
Only in your strawman scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple cheat to increase birth rate. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: A simple cheat to increase birth rate. (Score:2)
Re: A simple cheat to increase birth rate. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:2)
Not tech, just space filler as usual.
Guess where all those Bayern chemicals are made (Score:2)
That can't be a coincidence with Germany being the top producer of all kinds of nasty chemicals.
Women have more options (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Lot of jobs dont pay enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except people with the lowest paying jobs are having the most kids.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I blame Netflix (Score:2)
...and Prime, and ...
Migration? (Score:2)
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.
Clickbait (Score:2)
Birth rates are falling everywhere (Score:2)
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
Universe 25 by Dr Calhoun, "Behavioral sink" (Score:2)
I would suggest learning about Universe 25 and see if you can find similarities today.
Children used to be cheap labor ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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.
From a religious perspective (Score:2)
There they're proud of being "child-free" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The idea that childbirth equals slave production is one of many reasons why it's impossible to discuss depopulation.
Re: oh noes! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those aren't slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Until we can discuss depopulation in context of producing slaves, there is very little point in having a discussion. Having babies comes with a voluntary indenture for the parents, who may or may not have a way out. It also comes with an involuntary indenture to the children. It's an inherently immoral act, unless you have a lot of money. In the United States, the price of your indenture is somewhere around $3M plus or minus, depending on what lifestyle you and your partner are willing to accept. If you hav
At least the article is on target (Score:4, Informative)
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 care, birth, child cost, etc. articles.
- It has limited appeals for more government spending on child programs and acknowledges that spending more money does not equate to higher childbirth
- It does not blame the politically right or a widening political gulf between men and women
It misses that there have been severe economic issues in Germany with energy production, manufacturing plants closing, etc. in the last few years.
History - Man the house rule (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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:2)
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: Nordic paradox and low birthrates (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-natalist? Is that another way of saying, abortion?
Re: Nordic paradox and low birthrates (Score:2)
No, they are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Nordic paradox and low birthrates (Score:4, Insightful)
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 it along and being the end? With not experiencing that normal part of life that is raising children, and then going personally extinct? This question goes BEFORE economics, not after. You don't think, 'gee, I could save money by not eating food and just dying.' This is that. Just on on a longer timescale.
All that said, it certainly is the individual's choice to make. Any talk about forced procreation is just another deflection. And so long as the values and ideals that are nonviable are only extinguishing themselves, it's not such a bad thing - it's what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between what you wrote and "being grateful for being alive". And again: why should you be grateful for being forced to live in an unfree society?
Re: (Score:2)
But the original question was whether it makes sense to abandon your existence or that of your descendants for this reason? I say no. If nothing else, it's illogical. By choosing not to exist we would be destroying ALL freedom. Even the c
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom is not a grayscale. Either you are free or you are not free. You are not free in society today.
Well, it is humans who violates freedom so your "logical" argument is invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if my genes are passed on or not. I care what I contribute to the world and to the people I love. For many children are a big part of that, but I'm indifferent.
Cats are more my thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can thank the intention of contraception for that.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
There are two kinds of people, rational people and people that are controlled by their emotions. I have no problems convincing the first group, but you belong to the second group. That is your problem, not mine.
Rape language? What are you talking about?
Yes, you are forcing yourself upon your children. You force them to grow up with you, you force them to grow up wherever you live, you forced them to follow you when you went somewhere, you forced them to be citizens of a state etc etc. So yes, you forced you
Re:At least the article is on target (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Rich men have more babies.
Rich women have fewer.
Musk, Trump, and Jobs had their kids from multiple mothers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who else would you name as famous rich people on a nerd site?
I didn't go looking for rich people with lots of kids, I went for literally the richest people I could name.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality disagrees with you: https://www.barrons.com/news/d... [barrons.com]
And this isn't news: https://apnews.com/article/ger... [apnews.com]
Even Greenpeace saw it 2.5 years ago: https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: At least the article is on target (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> It misses that there have been severe economic issues in Germany with energy production, manufacturing plants closing, etc. in the last few years.
The cheap Russian gas was very addictive and created a small manufacturing boom.
That being said, the issues with energy production are home-made. Shutting down all nuclear reactors in the middle of an energy crisis turns out to be madness, and it caught the electricity markets across Europe off balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Tom Nicholas recently released a decent video essay on this. It's called called "Baby Bust: Why Conservatives are Obsessed with Birth Rates Now [youtube.com]" and framed around one of the latest right-wing foaming-at-the-mouth topics, pronatalism, but it explores the myriad facets of the complex topic of declining birth rates.
Re: oh noes! (Score:2)
Re: oh noes! (Score:3)
Re: oh noes! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surveys show that men want more children than women.
Men more likely to want children [www.cbc.ca].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They succeeded in stealing everyone's money through inflation to the point families are breaking down, people can't afford kids
Except the poor people who had their money stolen have the most kids, and the rich people who stole it have the fewest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I trust the data, not my own eyes"
My eyes agree with the data.
I know rich people, and I know people who live in trailer parks.
I see a lot more kids in the trailer parks.
Re:What about immigration? (Score:5, Interesting)
What about reinstating the Merkel Doctrine and allowing for more immigration?
The problem with Merkel's policy is that most of the immigrants are male.
Unattached young men don't have babies. They engage in crime, violence, and extremism.
This is how the US keeps its population numbers from declining
Immigrants to America are 52% female.
Re: (Score:2)
Unattached young men don't have babies. They engage in crime, violence, and extremism.
Well the facts are actually the opposite. Most immigrants to a nation form the base load of labour. Immigrants have typically been some of the hardest working people in any nation. Crime, violence and extremism are for the most part cherry picked news reporting or down right lies.
Lets looks at the USA. Irish, Scottish and German immigrants at the turn of 1900 were considered to be exactly what you describe. They were viewed as criminals, lazy etc. In reality they contributed to some of the greatest gains in productivity and standard of living that any nation has ever seen.
We are currently in a time of demonising cultures immigrating to our various nations that do not have the same roots as the leading cultures in our nations. It is the exact same pattern as 100 years ago.
And since when do unattached men not find female partners?
Immigrants to America are 52% female.
Meh could be argued in either direction. But it's basically 50/50 depending on how you look at the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the facts are actually the opposite. Most immigrants to a nation form the base load of labour. Immigrants have typically been some of the hardest working people in any nation. Crime, violence and extremism are for the most part cherry picked news reporting or down right lies.
Don't mix up normal immigration with the refugee crisis. The demographics of the people coming in couldn't be more different.
It's true that there are always prejudices against immigrants. But it's not that simple.
And since when do unattached men not find female partners?
When their culture is incompatible with the culture they moved to. For example when they are coming from extremely patriarchal societies with female oppression being the cultural norm into a society of liberal, self-reliant women. Go and ask your female friends how interested they are to become sta
Re: (Score:2)
Unattached young men don't have babies. They engage in crime, violence, and extremism.
Typical racist horseshit from you. In reality multiple studies have been done over the years in Germany and they have all found that immigrants and refugees have a crime rate below the German national average. Also the biggest crimes they do commit are fare dodging and minor drug offences. In actual crime stats there are differences from national heritage, with certain groups (e.g. Iraqis) being over represented in criminal stats, but to get to that conclusion you need to include German nationals and second
Re: (Score:2)
What is the rate of ethnic Germans driving into Christmas markets?
Your claims are wrong, and have been wrong. https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com] is from 2018, and points or that in 2017, non-naturalized immigrants were 2% of the population but 8.5% of suspects in non-immigration crimes, but even higher fractions for serious crimes like murder or if you include immigration violations. Statistics from 2023 are even more brutal: non-citizens committed more than 40% of crimes. (I would link to the Police Crim
Re: (Score:2)