Why is Europe losing the will to breed?

Irish Praetorian · 21-01-2017 10:22AM

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

The consumption and therefore damage to the earth of a European child is far greater than that of those born in less wealthy places. So is it really so terrible that there are fewer of us?

Two problems, firstly a European demographic decline is not just some wilful business of more wealth and houses all round overnight, it means a difficult and burdensome demographic transition with more of the population needing to be paid for by what young people remain.

Secondly, those less wealthy places cannot expect to A. be content to live in some idyllic poverty in perpetuity, B. have their societies accept the retarding effect of high birth rates in perpetuity, and C. benefit from the increasing concentration of wealth in a smaller and smaller European population.

IvyTheTerrible · 21-01-2017 10:24AM

Well calling it breeding kills the mood...

Gbear · 21-01-2017 10:30AM

I was wondering what this load of random ****e glued on to the end was about:

Apart from the social pressures that depress birth rates, our civilisation is also under internal assault from postmodern intellectual elites and their acolytes in the mass media, who enthusiastically embrace moral and cultural relativism, multiculturalism and political correctness and attack our values and weaken our will. We must repulse these attacks, regain our confidence and boost birth rates back up to replacement rates.

But then I spotted who wrote it and it made more sense:

William Reville is an emeritus professor of biochemistry at UCC

He's always puzzled me. He's presumably a brilliant man, but some absolute mental stuff is tacked on as well.
That last paragraph has nothing to do with the rest. It's just an unrelated whine, using the usual buzzwords.

The article represents a good question that needs answering but maybe not for the reason that Dr. Reville is thinking.

Because he's coming from the whole Jesus perspective, he's trying to impose a pattern and a design on to the process but thinking there needs to be one is a false assumption that stems from magical religious thinking.

There seemed to be a feedback loop caused by women entering the workforce.
The value of workers has dropped because of the increased supply so the more women joined the workforce, the more they needed to to increase their standards of living.

That has of course had changes on our demographics.

However, the practicalities for us as a species aren't really all that important by themselves.
Women should feel entitled to do whatever they like.
They don't owe anything to the economy.
They don't owe anything to our species and they don't have any debt of offspring to pay.
There is no moral imperitive to keep the human race alive.

What's important here is that people decide what they want, work towards that, and accept the consequencess.
Women can't have it all. That's not an admonishment. They were just the ones who didn't have the access and have only recently taken a full seat at the table so they're having to make that decision now.

Something has to give in our society.
We can't all have fulfilling work, get paid massive wages and have giant families that are all cared for, financially and emotionally. Not without post-scarcity.
We can't have the kind of society where you have two equal partners that both have strong careers but few children and have a massive pyramid scheme of social security to pay for old people.

We don't need to fix the replacement rate. Not unless we're determined to hang on to systems that were designed for it. Then we do.

Mirror game · 21-01-2017 10:34AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

adocholiday wrote: »

Meanwhile many of our non working counterparts are having 2 or 3 kids by their mid 20's, who are being raised with the perpetual hand out for their entitlements. They're not concerned with saving for a mortgage or paying the bills so it's easier (and more financially beneficial) for them to have kids.

Working people need to be incentivised to have kids, and non-contributing people discouraged from having them. The balance is wrong and it will lead to problems down the road.

I'm all for looking at this side of things and totally agree it needs to change. But you're talking about such a large group of people there could be trouble!.
So first, there is something very important and not that difficult that needs to be done.
We need to take money from the super rich to bring about more equality. This is such a small group it shouldn't be that hard.

Permabear · 21-01-2017 10:40AM

This post has been deleted.

Wheeliebin30 · 21-01-2017 10:41AM

listermint wrote: »

Isn't the world over populated anyway.

We are due a global disaster at some point

Yep population control.

Mother nature has always found a way to slow it down.

Mirror game · 21-01-2017 11:02AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd like to see the figures of the rich just to be sure. We have lots of info on the low earners(almost everybody) and nothing on the rich.
Surely it's more important to know what the rich have and what they are earning. I'm talking about all countries getting together so as we have info on all worlds rich.
I look at it like this
0 to 1 million per annum - low earner (almost everyone)
1 million to 365 million- (million a day) -middle earner
365million or more -high earner
Fist we need look at the high earners and reach across into what the have and have a massive redistribution of wealth, then look at the middle and then see where we're at.
I guess first we need to get more info on the high earners.

eviltwin · 21-01-2017 11:06AM

Personally I don't want to produce lots of children. Nothing to do with money or anything like that. I've better things to do with my life, other things I want to do. I suspect for a lot of people it's the same.

R.D. aka MR.D · 21-01-2017 11:07AM

Finnaninho wrote: »

Not all change is good and I would suggest that native people being replaced in their own nation is definitely not a good thing. Be it in Europe or elsewhere.

That's your perspective and you are entitled to it. I agree with you to an extent, for example what happened to Native peoples in the Americas. They were taken over against their will but if people are coming to a country and naturally (through their decisions) the traditions of that country change then I don't see a problem with it. Children of immigrants to Ireland pick up Irish traditions and bring some of their own. I have no problem with that.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Two problems, firstly a European demographic decline is not just some wilful business of more wealth and houses all round overnight, it means a difficult and burdensome demographic transition with more of the population needing to be paid for by what young people remain.

Secondly, those less wealthy places cannot expect to A. be content to live in some idyllic poverty in perpetuity, B. have their societies accept the retarding effect of high birth rates in perpetuity, and C. benefit from the increasing concentration of wealth in a smaller and smaller European population.

Studies have shown that in the US at least the immigrants tend to have as many children as they would in their home country when they first arrive but as they go down the generations their children born there have the same as the average person in their new country. As another poster pointed out the spread of education and opportunities for women will likely result in lower birth rates everywhere.

If you look at Japan who refuse to open their country to immigrants, they are already having huge problems. Way too many old people and Japan as a country will eventually disappear because of it and the last generations will suffer a great burden.

Finnaninho · 21-01-2017 11:11AM

You have no problem with the Irish and other European groups eventually becoming a minority in their own country and their country's culture radically changing?

NiallBoo · 21-01-2017 11:13AM

Why is it always assumed that people want to have children?

There's a lot more to life than progeny.

I find it daft that it's still something expected of people - it's not like we're dying out. Even more daft that people seem to think that you can't want to add to the world or leave it a better place if it's not "for my children".

21-01-2017 11:17AM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

1 day a month if you were brought to bray for chips on the dart you were delighted with life.

Compared to nowadays it just seems more pressure to constantly give the kids something to keep them happy. Ipads for 4 and 5 year olds, it's ridiculous.

Suddenly feeling old when people are reminiscing about day trips in olden times on the DART (opened 1986!). Although in fairness, even then property prices in Dublin were affordable. I know somebody very well who bought a site in Blackrock, Dublin in that year on the gains he made on selling a house in Galway - and he was the only income coming into the family home. Now, the site in Blackrock or anywhere in that area would be at least the same as the entire house price in Galway. It would take two incomes and the overwhelming majority of professional people would be unable to afford it on their combined income. Dublin has steamed ahead of the rest of Ireland in the past 30 years alone and distribution of wealth across this state is now lopsided in favour of the Dublin region.

There has been a huge shift in generational inequality almost entirely due to property prices (although pensions are going to become a major issue for the same generation of professional people who cannot afford a Dublin house now), and the Irish political system is proving wholly incapable of legislating for this - e.g. through spreading the wealth of the state more fairly by, for instance, building up urban centres across Ireland that have declined due to the rise of Dublin. Entirely to stop so much of my income going on property costs, I would love to live outside Dublin, but my job is here and all chances of promotion and other industry jobs are also here. This is the same for very many people and you don't need to be a genius to see what this state will look like in 40 years time if the same lopsided development continues to be encouraged. We need far more state intervention on this issue - but alas all they've done so far is help property developers by making apartment sizes smaller, given handouts to developers in the form of grants to first time buyers which they know will result in house prices increasing and reduced standards and quality controls around housing. The rich get richer, sponsored by our government. In terms of expecting the state to address inequality, they are clearly determined to increase it. (Irish Economy: The housing crisis is all about the politics of debt.

You'd be crazy to have children and all the joy they bring when so much of your income must go to the de facto state-sponsored (read above article) parasites who control the supply of property in Dublin.

21-01-2017 11:21AM

One thing in that article I didn't understand was the following line:

'European societies increasingly are no longer self-sustaining. For example, if current trends continue, every new generation of Spaniards will be 40 per cent smaller than the previous one.'

Why?

R.D. aka MR.D · 21-01-2017 11:24AM

Finnaninho wrote: »

You have no problem with the Irish and other European groups eventually becoming a minority in their own country and their country's culture radically changing?

No, why would I?

Irish culture is already changing. Yes some things that are changing are bad but some things are really good. Culture changes through time. Ireland of the 1920's was different to Ireland of the 1950's and all different from 1617 and 2017.

What makes a country yours? Being born there? Irish people will never be in the minority in Ireland because the people that immigrate and have children will still be Irish.

I understand that people are very nationalist. I just don't agree with it. Each individual country isn't some special snowflake devoid of influence and benefit from another.

The_Kew_Tour · 21-01-2017 11:25AM

eviltwin wrote: »

Personally I don't want to produce lots of children. Nothing to do with money or anything like that. I've better things to do with my life, other things I want to do. I suspect for a lot of people it's the same.

And many people who have kids still act like kids themselves

mailforkev · 21-01-2017 11:25AM

Choice is part of the answer.

Contraception of any sort wasn't freely available here until the 80s, condoms weren't on proper sale until I was in my teens in the 90s.

Within a generation families have dropped from 3,4,5 kids plus to 0,1,2.

Once people have the power to make a choice, it's clear that not everyone actually wants a rake of kids (or any).

Finance deffo is a large factor too though. I don't know any couples with 3 kids who don't have a very high income.

R.D. aka MR.D · 21-01-2017 11:27AM

Gbear wrote: »

Because he's coming from the whole Jesus perspective, he's trying to impose a pattern and a design on to the process but thinking there needs to be one is a false assumption that stems from magical religious thinking.

Really? Now I can see why it immediately made me uncomfortable.

Quandary · 21-01-2017 11:33AM

I work in a disadvantaged school in a particularly rough part of Dublin. In my class this week, one of the boys was telling me about his new baby brother who is the 7th child. The ages of the kids are 0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 - I'm pretty sure the ages are accurate

. The Mam is only 29 too!

This is just one example. There are 18 kids in my class, one only child, and the average number of siblings is 3.5!

They are a lovely family and the kids are all very well raised, never in trouble and very respectful. Now they're not exactly heading off on 2 foreign holidays a year but the kids have everything they need and always seem to have the latest games consoles , flashy football boots, best of clothes etc..

Neither parent is working, they have a sizeable council house, so in terms of paying their way they are not exactly pulling their weight but they are able to live a relatively comfortable life while having a huge family that most working couples could never hope to afford.

Maybe the rest of us are doing something wrong!

Wanderer78 · 21-01-2017 11:36AM

Globalization and neoliberalism have failed and if we don't start addressing these issues fast, I sadly believe we 're inching our way back to a major war

NiallBoo · 21-01-2017 11:38AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One thing in that article I didn't understand was the following line:

Why?

Well...he's rounded up a bit with the numbers(it should be less than 40%), but he's just saying that a below maintenance birth-rate leads to a population reduction.

Of course he's put his racist hat on here and isn't counting immigrants as "Spaniards", and further that the children of immigrants won't be Spaniards either.

fg1406 · 21-01-2017 11:40AM

I got married last year at the ripe "old" age of 35. Myself and my husband have decided not to have children. Firstly because we met a bit later in life we are now in that struggle to top up our individual savings accounts in order to save for a Dublin-sized mortgage while paying Dublin rents on what I can only describe as being non-dublin wages. So we simply cannot afford them. I've been termed "selfish" by some colleagues because I genuinely do not want to give up my body or my job for a child. I don't want to go on maternity leave. I don't want to give birth and I don't want to have to look after another person for up to 22 years. But that all said, there's little financial incentive to have kids if you are a working couple. When I go back home to the sticks to visit the family, out of my old peer groups, a lot of the women with kids opted out of the workforce to stay at home (something I wouldn't consider for fear of ending up in a psychiatric hospital!) or are mothers simply surviving on welfare.

NiallBoo · 21-01-2017 11:45AM

Finnaninho wrote: »

You have no problem with the Irish and other European groups eventually becoming a minority in their own country and their country's culture radically changing?

Who made you king of who's Irish and what constitutes Irish culture?

RayCun · 21-01-2017 11:46AM

When women have the opportunity to get an education and a job, they take it. Naturally.

When women have the opportunity to control their fertility, instead of being constantly pregnant, they take it. Of course.

So families start later and are smaller. Europe is further along this road than some other places, that's all.

Nothing wrong with this, unless you are particularly attached to skin colour.

Faith+1 · 21-01-2017 11:47AM

Love the use of the word breeding......makes us sound like dogs.

Although I know plenty who look like one,myself included!

Faith+1 · 21-01-2017 11:50AM

fg1406 wrote: »

I got married last year at the ripe "old" age of 35. Myself and my husband have decided not to have children. Firstly because we met a bit later in life we are now in that struggle to top up our individual savings accounts in order to save for a Dublin-sized mortgage while paying Dublin rents on what I can only describe as being non-dublin wages. So we simply cannot afford them. I've been termed "selfish" by some colleagues because I genuinely do not want to give up my body or my job for a child. I don't want to go on maternity leave. I don't want to give birth and I don't want to have to look after another person for up to 22 years. But that all said, there's little financial incentive to have kids if you are a working couple. When I go back home to the sticks to visit the family, out of my old peer groups, a lot of the women with kids opted out of the workforce to stay at home (something I wouldn't consider for fear of ending up in a psychiatric hospital!) or are mothers simply surviving on welfare.

Your body, your life. Tell the nay sayers to get a life and mind their fcuking business. Live your life for yourself and your husband.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 21-01-2017 11:51AM

Children really seem like a huge amount of hassle.

Listening to people in work who have children the cost of childcare really is a disgrace, it should be 100% free if you are a worker and covered with taxation but of course nobody in this country wants to pay any tax at all so that's not going to happen.

Although to add to that I can't really see the point of having children if both parents are going to work 9-5 or more and then ship the children off to spend all their time at a childcare centre.

Wanderer78 · 21-01-2017 11:54AM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote:

Listening to people in work who have children the cost of childcare really is a disgrace, it should be 100% free if you are a worker and covered with taxation but of course nobody in this country wants to pay any tax at all so that's not going to happen.

Of course most people would rather not pay taxes but most actually do. Agree with the childcare statement though, it should be free, particularly for workers

ligerdub · 21-01-2017 11:58AM

1960s/70s and beyond in Ireland:

People buy houses for a place to live, be part of a community, and possibly raise a family. The government built housing as part of their existence. Your mortgage was based on a relatively low multiple of the primary earner. People got married younger and could also afford to buy a home younger and mortgages were in the region of 20 years long and started in their 20s. Bank rules were strict so they needed to have discipline and savings first, so they had a stake in their house and less debt. Generally the husband worked, the wife looked after the kids. The husband worked 9-5. They could pay off the mortgage and afford to raise children. Families are strong, people are happy. Single people could afford a house too because essentially there was no disadvantage.

2017:

People buy "starter homes". They don't set down in a place and think about being connected to the area. They haven't had any kids because Johnny and Mary have career aspirations and work far longer than their contract suggest. Mary is sold the lie that her career making spreadsheets about company income trends is as important as raising a family. The bank bases a mortgage off 2 incomes and a higher multiple of it leading to more expensive housing rather than more accessible ones. The higher mortgage means less disposable income. There is nobody to look after their one child when they eventually have one so they use what money they have to send her to an expensive creche. The creche is expensive because some regulation dictates that there can't be a child to minder ratio greater than X. People buy housing for investments. Institutions buy residential housing for investments and the government encourage it. The government do little social housing. Mortgages are 30 to 35 years long and people take them in their 30s. The family is unhappy and less connected.

Johnny and Mary divorce....Johnny lives alone. Single people have no chance of getting a mortgage. Single people look at the above and think "no thanks" and live childless lives with no partner nor dependents.

I appreciate the old days weren't a utopia by any means but I stand by the claim that "progress" hasn't been progress.

bnt · 21-01-2017 12:03PM

Yes, kids today have more "things" than kids in the past, but the costs of a few hi-tech toys pale in comparison to the increased costs of living, property, childcare and so on. I don't have kids myself, and don't want any, but even I can read the numbers and see where the money would go if I did. A couple of posters here are saying "cut back on luxuries, that'll sort out the finances", and those posters really don't get the cost structure of child-rearing.

People with any sense in their heads have toask themselves why they would have kids in the first place. Is it "just what people do"? It's "natural" to have lots of kids, since that's how we've evolved as a species, but that evolution occurred in an epoch where most of those kids would die young, the survivors would have a good chance of dying in battle against other tribes, and the world was largely empty with plenty of space for the victorious tribes to expand. The world is not the same, and our attitute towards procreation has to change too.

Who's offended by terms like "breeding"? When we have sex, we are basically animals. All bodies and hormones, no brains, to claim anything "higher" about it is to delude ourselves. Heck, some animals seem to have more fun in the process than we do. Even been around horses when they're getting it on? I've seen gentler car crashes. :eek:

Elemonator · 21-01-2017 12:04PM

It is not just necessarily money. I found in my own work, that as countries get more developed, that the number of kids seems to go down. Probably because of money as previously mentioned but also access to healthcare, family planning, equal rights in the workplace so both partners out of the house and women tend to have longer careers now. Poorer parts of the world tend to have loads of children for the opposite of these reasons and it is culturally expected and needed for children to be around when the parents get old.

The average amount of kids per family in Germany is likely less than 2 now.

Why is Europe losing the will to breed?

Comments