[OC] Mothers in the EU are on average 29,7 years old at the birth of their first childSubmitted by 23degrees_io t3_124ifbm in dataisbeautiful
truth123ok t1_je0vlwn wrote
I am all for less babies.....but from an infertility and disease standpoint ...we are basically aging ourselves into extinction. 36 and above is considered a high risk pregnancy, and fertility drops off significantly by age 30. As far as health of the baby....the older the mother and father the higher the risk of birth defects.
Tilapiatitty t1_je1lg12 wrote
There is also a lot of advantages to older parents though. Fewer social and emotional dilemmas for the child, more likely to make better progress in language development, older parents are better at setting boundaries resulting in less behavioral issues and the list goes on.
Parafault t1_je2d1if wrote
That reinforces his point. Societal advantage, biological disadvantage.
JCPRuckus t1_je1zu5b wrote
You must have missed the word "extinction". It doesn't matter how happy and healthy we can raise people to be if the upshot is ultimately no people.
Tilapiatitty t1_je3pjv0 wrote
I think extinction is a lil bit of an exaggeration. The population growth rate is declining, but the population is still growing. There is overpopulation, and by the time we reach 2050, food and other resources such as wood will be scarcer.
I think it’s a great thing women tend to have babies less. This means a better planet, happier babies and happier parents. Win, win, win.
JCPRuckus t1_je4lc7v wrote
>I think extinction is a lil bit of an exaggeration.
Not by much, if at all.
>The population growth rate is declining, but the population is still growing.
It's declining everywhere, and in many countries it is already below replacement. There no reason to believe that it won't eventually drop below replacement everywhere. And no country has ever reversed, or even restabilized a below replacement birthrate.
>There is overpopulation, and by the time we reach 2050, food and other resources such as wood will be scarcer.
No, there is overconsumption. Far better to move to more sustainable lifestyles rather than risk the global population dip into an (as far as we know) unrecoverable spiral.
>I think it’s a great thing women tend to have babies less. This means a better planet, happier babies and happier parents. Win, win, win.
It won't be a win once populations start declining and economies start shrinking.
Tilapiatitty t1_je4tnwh wrote
Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.
So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source
A population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.
truth123ok t1_je4xpof wrote
I think you misunderstood how serious I was NOT being
JCPRuckus t1_je4wvwq wrote
>Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.
Until any country anywhere successfully manages to stabilize or reverse a below replacement birthrate we are, within the next 100 years, on our way to a declining global population. And once the pop starts declining, we obviously can't reverse that with below replacement birthrates.
That observation contains within it the possibility of a change in outcome. But personally, I'd like to see evidence that the change is actually possible before we happily tip ourselves into decline.
>So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source
Links to an article about timber that says the main reason for increased demand is increased urbanization, not increasing population.
>population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.
Links to an article that just says literally the same things they've already said, because it also doesn't acknowledge that "happier" , "better off" people doesn't count for much if the long term cost is NO people... On top of ignoring that once economies start shrinking due to population loss people won't be "happier" or "better off".
truth123ok t1_je4xkii wrote
I was being hyperbolic. Absolutely. But I wonder if our social ideas of when it is best to start a family no longer correlate with our biology.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments