this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
221 points (97.8% liked)

World News

47515 readers
2390 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Namrata Nangia and her husband have been toying with the idea of having another child since their five-year-old daughter was born.

But it always comes back to one question: 'Can we afford it?'

She lives in Mumbai and works in pharmaceuticals, her husband works at a tyre company. But the costs of having one child are already overwhelming - school fees, the school bus, swimming lessons, even going to the GP is expensive.

It was different when Namrata was growing up. "We just used to go to school, nothing extracurricular, but now you have to send your kid to swimming, you have to send them to drawing, you have to see what else they can do."

According to a new report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency for reproductive rights, Namrata's situation is becoming a global norm.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 101 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Life is just too hard, I can't even get a dog because I'm so busy/exhausted all the time, the thought of caring for a child is just too much. Hard pass, I've only got one life and I'd rather live it on my terms.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 29 points 6 days ago (3 children)

My wife and I made the same decision. We joke that Octomom had our kids.

8 billion people call Earth home. As another commentor has said, we probably should have half that. Your choice and our choice not to have kids enables that, even if only stupid people reproduce. With how the world is turning out right now, I think we both made the right choice.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 20 points 6 days ago

Yeah, with what the assholes have done to our trajectory, I think I’m fine leaving the world that’s coming to the stupid people and their stupid kids.

[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

Honestly thats another reason. I know how hard I've worked to get a decent life and I can only see it getting harder. It feels like it costs $300/day just to exist, I can't do that to another person.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

I know this is in jest, but it's definitely something the shitheads would push. And my answer goes thusly:

No. The Economy hasn't done a damn thing for me, and it's done less for my wife. I'm treading water, unable to afford a house or a car on what was once an unfathomable sum of money when I was younger. It has done less for my wife, who relies on my job to keep a roof over her head. You want us to have kids? Reassure us that our kids will have a better life, and stop vampire-squidding us and sucking down every loose dollar.

[–] ddash@lemmy.dbzer0.com 74 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Not an English native speaker so this is probably on me, but I find it weird to call it a fertility decline. Like, fertility of people is probably going down but the reasons people don't have more kids are purely economical, as the article also says.

For me a better descriptor would be something like birthing rate or whatever. Fertility decline sounds to me like people are really at it like rabbits and just cannot get any pregnancies.

[–] RampageDon@lemmy.ca 28 points 6 days ago

Not on you. Your evaluation and understanding are indeed correct.

[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago

No, you're correct, most articles of this type define fertility as "births/women" - whether the outcome is by choice or not. However, there is also a decline in what we might refer to as biological fertility (or "fecundity").

[–] grasshopper_mouse@lemmy.world 68 points 5 days ago (5 children)

I love my kids so much I chose not to bring them into this fucked up world.

[–] Alloi@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

ive been saying that exact sentance for my entire adult life. lol.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 48 points 6 days ago (4 children)

We do need to reduce the human population. About 4-5 billion would be ideal.
On the negative side, we don't know how to handle this situation of declining population. The entire human history is one of non-stop growth interrupted only by catastrophic pandemics, which were the only way the population dropped so far.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago

You're right, there is no economic system for dealing with this.

We are royally screwed. Global warming will only exacerbate the population drop, both through weather related deaths and less willingness to produce children.

If you're young, I'd suggest you learn to grow food. Not even joking.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] selkiesidhe@lemm.ee 35 points 5 days ago

Good. We elect fucking fascists and let people murder our world, we as a race deserve to die out.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 32 points 5 days ago

When business is the world's first priority, why does it come as a surprise that people don't feel like bringing an innocent life into the orphan crushing machine?

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago

I was intrigued to see this issue written about in an international context, as usually, the articles I see on this are US-centric and from right-wing sources who really, really want the poors to birth the next generation of exploitable labor and inexplicably ignore that the people they want to birth and parent these children are themselves being exploited and exceedingly impoverished too.

[–] nullPointer@programming.dev 20 points 6 days ago

i think there is a difference between low fertility rate and low birth rate. Its not like these people CANT have children, they are CHOOSING not to.

[–] SecretSauces@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Loss of biodiversity, climate change, more extreme weather events, ocean acidification, Gulfstream collapse, microplastics in literally everything, the rise of fascism, constant wars/oppression/genocides, everything being politicized and radicalized, capitalistic exploitation of consumers in every market, the mega-rich using their money to cause misery for profits, even more than I can think of right now.

Want more reasons why I don't want to raise my children into the world we are heading towards?

One could argue that the Internet and how we are now so interconnected is the cause of a lot of these things, but I think the biggest reason for it all stems from a lack of compassion. Compassion for fellow humans, compassion for fellow living creatures, compassion for the planet at live on.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Population increase is only important to employers.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

It's important to everyone, including you. As the population ages, and fewer young people move into the economy, the tax base shrinks. Who is going to pay for government?

Also, employers will have to compete for the remaining workers, raising wages. That's good to a point, and then everything becomes too expensive, now you're in a depression. It's an economic death spiral.

Taxing the rich only works to a point. Their wealth is mostly in the global stock markets, which will eventually crash. As well, the value of those publicly traded companies will nosedive as fewer and fewer workers are available to produce the goods and services.

We're facing the global equivalent of the fall of Rome. Nation states will splinter into smaller and smaller, self-dependent groups and the riches we enjoy today will be memories of a better time. If you want a contemporary version of that, look at China restricting rare earths. That's impacting about every other country on Earth. Now imagine international trade utterly collapsing.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Sure but you can't have an endless increase in population. Whatever the problems of declining or stabilizing the population are, they need to be tackled, not ignored, yes. You can't fix them by saying just keep the pyramid scheme going.

The real problem is more like how many workers for each retired person. So there are other ways to fix that. Personally I'm down with working more years so that people don't have to have kids if they don't want to. I can't imagine forcing people to have children.

And you know what? Employers having to face a tight labor market doesn't sound like it's worse than employees having to find scarce jobs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Killer57@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Humanity desperately needs to move away from capitalism, if it wants any chance of survival. Either that or we install a Universal base income system.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Neither of those proposals answer the issues I brought up. But they're very good for lemmy upvotes!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Maybe life shouldn’t be that expensive (food/shelter), and IVF programs be free.

[–] DerArzt@lemmy.world 19 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Damn dirty communist out here demanding

Checks notes

Affordable living and healthcare

Just despicable!

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, what are those damn commies going to demand next, human rights?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fingolfinz@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

Fuck yeah. I got my nads snipped

[–] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

The reason there are fewer child births in the US since the 90s is mainly the reduction of pregnancies in the demographic "25 and younger". They didn't made a conscious choice, looking at their abacus and evaluating the state of the world. They slipped into it and were forced to make it work. Interestingly, they then still had children later in life as well, for more complex and personal reasons.

It seems to me, that if you give woman the choice, they choose not be pregnant at the cost of their career.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

Fucking good.

[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] wabafee@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago
[–] ConstantPain@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Capitalism needs to choose if it wants everybody to work to exhaustion with slavery wages or if it wants people to have healthy relationships and kids. Can't have both.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 days ago

Ah, but there's the third option, just outlaw contraception and abortions. Capitalism is only incompatible with kids if you give your slaves the ability to choose if and when to have them.

[–] codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Aside from the psychological/sociological side of it, PFAS and microolastics have been shown in some studies to reduce women's fertility and to mess with sperm. So environmental damage is also poisoning us and destroying our ability to procreate. Go team!

[–] lobut@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 days ago

The rich will fix it by putting out disinformation campaigns telling you it's all fake.

[–] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 6 points 6 days ago

It's fine if rich people's children suffer retribution for the world their parents helped create.

Think about all the lineages of regular people that don't get to carry on because it's too expensive.

They're literally breeding us out of the gene pool.

Their kids are in for a rude awakening.

[–] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.kya.moe 5 points 4 days ago

Great news. Now, time to focus on automating as much of elderly care as possible (and beyond) before it all goes to hell.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago
[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 5 points 4 days ago

This warms my heart. A rare bit of good news these days.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Fertility rates and what influences them have been discusses a lot. It's something influences by a multitude of factors, and each region in the world has a different mix or ratio of factors, so that makes it hard to disentangle. Income, inequality, living cost, childcare cost, housing cost, societal expectations, double income families, commuting, urbanization and environment less suitable for children, pressure to be productive, promotions as status, prioritization of spending money on goods and travel, change in gender roles, dating and marriage changed, more single people, pressure to monitor and invest more time in children, economic instability, the increasing threat of AI and robots taking job ... The list continues.

The main problem for modern society is that these things can't be changed without modifying society itself and/or lots of money is involved. So policy makers are stuck. They're under pressure to increase fertility rate but only in a way that it doesn't cost employers money and makes sure that consumption of goods doesn't drop. They also have to make sure there are enough workers but increasing immigration is problematic. The end result is that they do some token gestures and just let it play out. They probably hope that big tech arrives with their AI and robots to do the jobs and help with elderly care.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (3 children)

They’re under pressure to increase fertility rate but only in a way that it doesn’t cost employers money

That's what is wild to me. Boiled down to the basics, the quandary we're facing is having a functional society or a few hundred billionaires; and the billionaires are our priority.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 9 points 6 days ago

Money is power in this society, and billionaires have the most money. See also climate change what is again the choice between a few hundred billionaires and a livable planet, and the billionaires are winning.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

There's this possible ending in Cyberpunk 2077 that I think speaks to how Billionaires view the world. The leader of the Japanese megacorp Arasaka is arguably the most powerful man in Japan, more-so than even the Japanese emperor. His company's security forces includes an aircraft carrier, not to mention endless drones and faceless goons equipped with ... if not the best technology on the planet, then the second best. And they've unlocked the technology of digitising a person's consciousness and storing it.

The CEO's son is a bit of a rebel, trying to undermine his father. He eventually gets very hands-on (integral part of the plot that your character witnesses first-hand early in the game) and bumps his father off and takes over Arasaka. And if you play the game a certain way, you reach an ending where the daughter of the CEO assists her dead father in ... coopting the son's body, displacing his consciousness, and 'reincarnating' in the son's body, to continue his centuries of ownership of Arasaka.

This is fiction, but Cyberpunk is all about assuming the worst of our corporate overlords. I don't think it's an overreach.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

As someone else said. Are we talking birth rate? Or fertility rate?

Choosing to not have a kid is different from wanting to have a kid and not physically being able to.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

US has the cheap solution: higher immigration than most developed countries. I’m sure we’re going to encourage that while we try to figure out how to make having children more appealing. No one would mess that up, right?

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

That is one smug-looking baby.

load more comments
view more: next ›