
Women and the slowing global population - anotherevan
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/women-and-the-slowing-global-population
======
rayiner
> Although fertility has stabilised at levels above two children per woman in
> some countries, in the countries of Central Asia, the fertility rate (which
> had been close to two) has risen to around three children per woman. This is
> linked to the fact that many women there are having the number of children
> they want to have.

That last fact is interesting. The average ideal family size reported by
adults in the US is 2.7, with 40% believing that three or more is ideal:
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/236696/americans-theory-
think-l...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/236696/americans-theory-think-larger-
families-ideal.aspx). The birth rate is quite a bit below that. In countries
like Spain or Germany where the birth rate is below 1.5, the ideal number of
children is 2.2+.

~~~
toasterlovin
My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life. More
specifically, there is something about the information environment that
scrambles whatever mechanism we have for determining if we are doing well
enough to bring more children into the world. I mean, it has to be that, since
objectively speaking families in the developed world are able to provide for
children at a level higher than anywhere else in the world, both past and
present, yet we are having less children than we want.

~~~
Rinzler89
_> families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level
higher than anywhere else in the world, both past and present, yet we are
having less children than we want._

Answer in 3 words: Real estate prices.

If you're a couple in the developed world you probably want to give your kids
living standards to match. Fat chance doing that unless you and your partner
aren't high earners

~~~
ethbro
Among other things. Ability to "provide for children" seems highly subjective,
according to our surrounding conditions.

Having 2 goats in a town with no goats = able to provide.

Having a McMansion in a town with bigger McMansions = worried about ability to
provide.

~~~
zepto
Depends if you took out a mortgage for the goats.

------
OctoberThoughts
Posting from a throwaway account for privacy on this one.

For me personally it's never seemed worth it, even though I am well off and
healthy. I've never been with a man I trusted enough to feel safe with, like
he could protect me or take care of me while I was in the vulnerable state of
pregnancy / early motherhood. Partly this is emotional and not rational, I'm
capable of taking of myself. The men, on the other hand, have all had chronic
depression.

I told each of them fairly early on in each relationship that I did not want
to have children, but I never told them why. It's a harsh thing to say, right?
"I don't want to have your children because you have depression and so it'd be
worse than raising kids alone."

But I would rather never have children than try to raise them with someone who
can't get themselves to work on a regular basis. My partner right now already
needs so much from me, if we had children there'd be nothing left of my life.

He is a brilliant, loving person, but if it weren't for birth control I'd
never risk a relationship at all with someone like him.

All this exposition is for my point: which is that even if you have food and
shelter, there's reasons to not be willing to bear the responsibility of a(n
additional) child.

~~~
pdimitar
You have a lot of respect from me and all men who appreciate honesty! There's
a lot of us out there, trust me -- and we are able to handle ourselves and
aging parents quite adequately as well.

I was also very open with my wife when we sat and discussed whether we should
live together (4-5 months into a very successful and passionate relationship
where absolutely nothing was ever wrong -- that was 4 years ago). I told her
in very plain terms that since she is yet to invent herself -- she is still
very young -- and since only I provide the money, then I am not willing to
increase the stress and responsibilities on myself just because. I was very
upfront and told her outright that if her plans include kids then we should
just remain casual passtionate lovers and not seek a deeper relationship.

She agreed with me on the no-kids policy -- and we started living together --
because she feels that where we live (Eastern Europe) life is way too hard and
economically unstable to bring a kid into. She is quite a bit younger than
myself but already suffered a lot and our relationship naturally evolved into
this sacred island where we both find comfort, love, passion, friendship and
time for ourselves. We feel ZERO desire to have kids even 4.5 years into the
relationship.

My wife, like your partner, is also a brilliant and loving person but I don't
know how much more years I can provide for both of us (and my widowed mother)
before I collapse. We are both well aware that the modern civilization is as
unnatural and hostile to the human soul as it can get and that many people
simply cannot adapt and end up being an endless drag on somebody else... but
she knows that she eventually has to adapt. I take a lot of bullets for her in
the hopes of her repaying the favor one day but if it doesn't happen then we
could eventually part ways.

...I am way too chatty these days. Sorry.

What I am getting at is this: IMO your partner should have some direction and
goal. It's a very good strategy against depression and is recommended in many
therapies. Receiving a soft ultimatum from your loved one -- "I am giving you
5 years to reinvent yourself and start participating in the family's finances"
\-- might sound harsh but definitely lands people right back in reality. Money
does not grow on trees. Depression is a b1tch but you need a strong partner
standing right beside you and not always behind you. Your partner must be
aware of that.

Don't take this as an unsolicited advice. I am mostly saying that I strongly
relate with you and I am sharing my thoughts on the topic. Keep going!

------
Cthulhu_
I get the feeling this article is conflating birth rate with actual population
growth. One reason why people have less children is that more of them survive.
Happy to be shown I'm wrong though.

~~~
qubax
> I get the feeling this article is conflating birth rate with actual
> population growth.

It's not. Fertility rate for the US and the developed world is below
replacement. And in the developing world, it has been dropping consistently.

> One reason why people have less children is that more of them survive.

That's a reason why women don't have 5 or 6 children, but that's not a reason
why women has less than 2 on average.

~~~
lev99
In an agricultural society children are an asset. In an industrial or service
based economy children are a sacrifice. This has always been my view on why
birthrates are declining.

~~~
Shaddox
I share your view. I believe it was during the industrial revolution where the
family was redefined from an economic unit to a loving unit. Kind of strange
how nowadays it feels like it has always been this way.

~~~
jdbernard
It reminds me of the fact that despite how permanent our life patterns feel,
we're never more than two or three generations from completely changing our
social norms and life patterns.

------
belorn
> But - big picture - what’s important is that reproductive rights are
> extended to all women and men.

Reproductive rights for men as consistently ended at the point of conception,
with the modern feminist movement seemingly being one of the strongest voice
against men having any rights beyond that point. Did Professor Peter McDonald
just mistype when he includes men in this part off the article?

~~~
annabellish
I don't think this is a fair analysis of either current feminist thought or
the current state of affairs. The reproductive rights of men are important and
there's no suggestion any should be removed, but that doesn't mean that in a
sexually dimorphic society both members of a childbearing couple (or more
generally, all members of a childbearing group) have the same _options_.

Men and women both have the right of bodily autonomy. In a "traditional"
childbearing couple of one straight, cisgender man and one straight, cisgender
woman, this identical right expresses itself in very different ways between
them, but that doesn't mean that "reproductive rights for men are ended at the
point of conception" unless you really, _really_ try.

~~~
belorn
Talking about bodily autonomy to be the start and end of reproductive rights
is a bit unfair to the concept at large. Planned parenthood is not "planned
bodily autonomy", except given a different name. Planned parenthood, pro-
choice, and similar initiatives talk about the choice to be a parent and the
benefit in society where children are born from adults that want to have
children. There is no physical reason why a sexually dimorphic society can not
provide planned parenthood that gives both adults the same choices, rights and
responsibilities regardless of gender or if its woman - man, woman - woman or
man - man. In Sweden we even have a new law where the state will sponsoring
single women that want to become single mothers through artificial
insemination.

After the point of conception what rights do men in general have? Its not
their signature on the paper that specify who the parents to the child are.
They can't decide if they will become a parent or not. All rights and
responsibilities are exclusively decided by the mother, as the law dictate.
Bodily autonomy has nothing to do with those laws, and the human right of
bodily autonomy doesn't need to end simply because men are given the choice to
decide if they want to take the responsibility to be a parent and raise a
child.

~~~
annabellish
Making that about women vs men is missing the point entirely, which is part of
why i was explicit about alternate childbearing groups. If you have two woman
in a childbearing group, then the one who is pregnant has the option to
terminate or continue the pregnancy, while the one who is not pregnant does
not have these options. It is entirely about bodily autonomy - you cannot
force anybody to either undergo an abortion or not undergo an abortion. It is
a medical process with side effects, effects on one's mood and mind, deeply
personal implications depending on how "human" exactly you feel a fetus is, et
cetera.

Drawing that as "men have no rights" is deeply reductive, because it isn't
about men vs women, it's about the childbearing person vs the non childbearing
person(s), and fundamentally does come down to that the same rights have very
different implications depending on a person's position.

You have the old joke, "this law isn't discriminatory, both rich and poor are
banned from sleeping on the streets!", and in this case it essentially holds
true. What you're seeing isn't discrimination, both the childbearing person
and the non-childbearing person(s) have the same right to not be compelled
into or out of an abortion, it just isn't a right which helps very much if you
aren't pregnant.

It does work out that the average man in a childbearing couple doesn't have an
"out", but there's no way to implement that "out" without imposing on the
rights of somebody else, whether it be by compelling action, or by suddenly
threatening to revoke a promise of support that a new childbearing parent
desperately needs for them and their child.

~~~
belorn
> you cannot force anybody to either undergo an abortion or not undergo an
> abortion

No one is arguing for forcing someone to do anything. Forced abortion or non-
abortion would be the opposite of having reproductive rights and bodily
autonomy as human rights. Every human rights advocate are against this and
rightly so.

> but there's no way to implement that "out" without imposing on the rights of
> somebody else

There is. It is called paper abortion, or simply the concept that naming
yourself as a parent to a child should be a voluntary act by an adult.
Conception is no more a promise of support than conception is the promise to
give birth to a child. We don't say that women have made a promise to give
birth to a child just because they had sex, so it seem strange to say men in
contrast does make such promise. The only promise of support should come from
society at large to give every child the same possibility in life regardless
of how much money their parent or parents has.

Human rights. Human liberty. Choice and freedom. Not about forcing someone to
do something against their will. The benefit of adults that want to bring a
child into the world compared to adults that are forced by culture or law is
very striking and as the article points out essential progress in society.

> If you have two woman in a childbearing group, then the one who is pregnant
> has the option to terminate or continue the pregnancy, while the one who is
> not pregnant does not have these options

Just a side note, but I don't think there is a legal system that I know which
would force the other woman to pay child-support against her will. The child-
bearing mother can't write on the paper that the other woman is the child's
second parent, and instead the law forces the non-bearing woman to voluntary
request to be the second parent. It is indistinguishable from the process that
reproductive rights for men would be, and operates as a clear example of how
it would work in practice.

~~~
annabellish
It's a... difficult area, for sure. The scenario where some guy and some girl
have a one night stand and then nine months later he's on the hook for a whole
tonne of money is a Very Bad scenario, because obviously there's no promise of
support inherent in that, and I'm not gonna pretend that scenario has never
happened, and in cases where it has it's difficult to suggest that more nuance
shouldn't have been taken.

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that "paper abortion" is a workable
concept in the general case, though. If a couple is a couple and they break up
eight months into the pregnancy, then suddenly you have one person who is
about to lose their financial support _and_ their ability to financially
provide for themselves, but "Child Support" as a concept isn't there for the
parent, but the child.

The main difference between actual abortion in this case and paper abortion is
that paper abortion still involves a child, and you can't get away from that.
That child needs supporting, and permitting the "provider" member of a
traditional "provider/childbearer" childbearing couple to vanish late in the
process totally screws over the child, and that's what child support laws are
there to avoid. There's definitely cases where this goes wrong, but I don't
think I've seen much evidence that those are anything but a tiny minority.

>Just a side note, but I don't think there is a legal system that I know which
would force the other woman to pay child-support against her will.

I think that's probably true, unfortunately, and I think that's very silly and
needs fixing. A two-woman pair is effectively identical to a man-woman pair
(save obviously for usually requiring artificial insemination).

>The only promise of support should come from society at large to give every
child the same possibility in life regardless of how much money their parent
or parents has.

This, though, I can agree with wholeheartedly. I would be 100% behind
abolishing child support as the current concept in order to replace it with a
general child support system not dependant on the financial situation of
either parent - kind of like UBI but for the child. We don't have that yet,
though, so we're just kind of working with what we have, and what we have is a
very imperfect system that prioritises the child above the parents, because
the child has no choices in anything and is in need of far more protection.

~~~
belorn
> If a couple is a couple and they break up eight months into the pregnancy

Since a woman is not allowed to wait eight months and then decide to have an
abortion there is a argument to make that men should have to follow the same
time limit. This is not about giving men _more_ rights then women, but rather
equal reproductive rights.

> I would be 100% behind abolishing child support as the current concept in
> order to replace it with a general child support system not dependant on the
> financial situation of either parent - kind of like UBI but for the child.

Here in Sweden I would claim that we have such support system already but the
political climate is as hostile to giving men reproductive right as it is in
countries without it. Every child is guarantied housing, food, school and
about 125$ per month as a form of UBI until the age of 18 that by law must
exclusively go to support the individual childs needs for everyday items like
clothing. There is also an addition to the UBI per child if a family has
multiple children.

> a very imperfect system that prioritises the child above the parents,
> because the child has no choices in anything and is in need of far more
> protection

The concept that children is at risk or worse when they only have a single
parent is not very consistent in political discussions. In the last years the
support grown very large that single women should be allowed to start a family
through artificial insemination (paid by the government), and I have not seen
any political opposition that talks about the child must have two parents. The
outcome for the child is identical to that of paper abortion, but politically
it is very different.

------
jatsign
Ethical question - is it unethical to contribute to a
charity/foundation/whatnot that works towards people having fewer children,
given that such would inevitably be most effective in third-world countries
where the birth rate is highest? Or would that be western imperialism pushing
our values on the less developed world?

~~~
namanyayg
Such a charity would possibly educate women or increase access to safe sex,
how is that a problem? Speaking as a citizen of a developing country, I
personally wouldn't mind at all.

~~~
llampx
To quote Idiocracy, the people seeking out contraception are the ones we want
reproducing, either because of their values or their genes.

------
conscion
I think a lot of these articles miss an important consideration. The
underlying economies of the world have functioned on an unseen assumption: the
population (i.e. consumers & producers) always increase. This has been true
for the entirety of modern history. There should be some discussion on how
that changes once the population either stops increasing, or declines.

This is somewhat discussed with the aging baby boomer generation being larger
than their childrens, but that dynamic will likely become the new norm in many
countries. Japan in particular is experiencing this first hand with one of the
lowest birth rates.

------
kazinator
The problem is that this slowing of birth rates due to the improvement in
women's status will basically destroy those societies. Those societies where
women have low status shall inherit the Earth while the rest peter out. Too
bad that a good thing has to be self-defeating.

------
epx
That was the only one thing me and my wife were in complete agreement - 0.5
sons (either 0 or 1). Did vasectomy 2 months after kid was born, because I
knew she would change her mind :D And no, I won't reverse, I am deadly afraid
of needles and doctors.

~~~
beerlord
Highly intelligent and conscientious people (which I presume as a HN reader
you are) having fewer children leads merely to Idiocracy :-(

Look up the work of Richard Lynn, get that reversal, and do it for
civilisation :-)

~~~
epx
Yeah, I have heard that argument from many friends. This is the failure mode
of current civilization - child rearing has been made too damn expensive and
even a legal liability for responsible people, while irresponsible people
reproduce like rats and that's ok then. I see that happening, but I won't
change the tide and I won't pey the personal cost.

~~~
pdimitar
Agreed. Our local gypsies exchange the same babies on queues for social help
and never have to be worried about not having money for food while I have to
bust my health and reduce my life expectancy to not be thrown out of my rented
flat and have food in the fridge. And I have to produce kids so I can help the
world?

 _No._

I refuse to bring kids in such an uncertainty. I don't "owe" our civilization
nothing. I can die tomorrow and it never did anything for me except demand
more and more bills and trying to scam me into yet another loan or an
expensive buy that I don't need. That civilization is not entitled to dictate
anything personal in my life.

------
mihaifm
I would argue that the exponential increase in population in the 20th century
was a "bubble", explained by the discovery of antibiotics and other advances
in medicine. People that were not expected to live past the life expectancy
(which was 40 years or so) lived on, thus overlapping with the next
generations.

If there won't be any other similar breakthroughs in medicine, I don't think
the exponential growth can last much longer, people will be born and die in a
more predictable pattern.

------
gottebp
A wise person here once suggested viewing the world population as a parallel
computer, with each human mind working to move us forward. With this view in
mind, as soon as space travel opens the solar system Malthusian philosophy
dies forever -- we are going to need as many people as possible both to
colonize and to discover answers to all the new problems that will arise. What
would technological growth look like with a trillion minds across the Galaxy
inventing and discovering?

~~~
sbarker
War.

~~~
drdeadringer
Please expand upon whatever you mean by this one-word comment.

------
lmm
Why the assumption that a smaller global population is better?

Most of the things that make life good come from other people. People are
moving to cities because, on balance, it's better to live around more other
people than fewer. Prices for natural resources continue to fall in real
terms, because we have more than enough - the most limited resource that
modern civilization depends on is human ingenuity.

~~~
Oowee1Ee
> the most limited resource that modern civilization depends on is human
> ingenuity

The most limited resource are ecospheres. We currently only have one of those.
Overtax that one up and things go downhill.

------
evunveot
>Imagine a world with double the amount of people living in it.

I find it mildly disturbing that the author assumes everyone reading this
sentence is going to agree that it's an ominous prospect. Obviously, the
implication is that it would be a world of fourteen billion people the vast
majority of whom are on the brink of starvation, but we've (as a species)
overcome Malthusian obstacles before. Why shouldn't having as many thriving
human lives as possible be a goal worth striving for? If every human life has
intrinsic (not to mention economic and cultural) value, then declining
reproductive rates are a form of opportunity cost, not "one of the most
important ... achievements in human history." And if we can't agree (or at
least agree to act as if) every human life has intrinsic value, we're on our
way to undermining the foundations of peaceful coexistence.

~~~
quotemstr
FWIW, this idea is what philosophers call "the repugnant conclusion", and the
problem it presents is largely unsolved in normative ethics. It's one reason
that I don't think formal ethical reasoning is a useful activity: in the end,
we do what feels right or wrong, and we can't reason ourselves into a feeling.

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-
conclusion/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/)

