Wild Feed
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
-
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
-
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
-
Post title should be the article headline.
-
No misinformation or bigotry.
-
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
-
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
-
This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. I will moderate direct implications of violence (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) at my discretion.
Tag if needed:
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.
[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.
*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.
*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.
Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.
All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.
Sources posted here include:
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
apnews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us
Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.
Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.
view the rest of the comments
A few things I think about are:
a) what are the economic conditions which allowed for the liberation of women from child rearing and (to a lesser extent) domestic duties? what happens if those conditions are reversed? and is that what is currently driving the regression of rights?
and
b) would enough women, raised to see motherhood as one of many options, choose to have children at replacement rates? Because the stats are looking like there is no amount of government support that makes enough women willing to put with with the demands of child birth and child rearing to sustain populations. We should absolutely provide those supports, but there's an idea that with enough support, we can have sustainable birth rates, and I don't think that is correct. So maybe the policy discussion should switch to how do deal with a declining population instead of trying to dragoon women into breeding.
What stats? No govt is currently providing enough support to make being a parent not an economic burden, so we have no stats on whether that would actually work.
Source
Source
Edit:
Source
I'm not sure what your point is. As I stated, there is no govt that fully compensates for the costs of having a child. None of the examples you've given state otherwise.
There are stats. There isn't an amount of money the government can give to bring birth rates back to where they were before women had more control over their reproductive health and career/educational goals.
Women are choosing to have less children and having children later in life. That's the driving force behind the falling birth rates. Not the only force, but the main one.
Yeah OK, you're just being intentionally obtuse and ignoring my point.
This is your personal opinion. (Not that we need birth rates back where they were, we just need them at a more sustainable level). It should be obvious that most would-be parents today do not have the financial security they would need to have more kids. This applies even in those countries in your examples, because those benefits are a tiny fraction of the costs of raising a child.
That's not in dispute, but the reason for that choice is in part financial.
I'm not ignoring it, the economy being shit does have an impact.
Birth rates are falling even in countries that have strong social programs and wages. It's a multi-faceted problem, but the driving force is that women have access to abortion, birth control, education, and career opportunities that they've never had before.
More money isn't enough to force women to have more children than they desire. When women are given the choice, they choose to have fewer children and they have them later in life.
I've lived in Norway, one of the countries with the best QoL and support for kids. I have family in Singapore. I can assure you 'strong social programs and wages' are nowhere close to what kids actually cost. Finance is a huge factor.
I'm not even disputing that they're factors. Go back to my original post and you'll note the only thing I asserted was WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DATA ON WHETHER ACTUALLY REMOVING THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF KIDS WILL HELP. You're not addressing my point, you're just busy with your own talking point that nobody's disputing.
I posted an article about this topic just recently:
Here's the full paper called "The Downside of Fertility"
You said there are no stats and there are. That's what I responded to - the stats are showing the trend of women's freedoms tied to the falling birth rates. And since women have more options to delay children or not have them at all, the economy will play a factor into them using those options that are available. And despite the economic hardships, women overall are not going to choose to have as many children as they did before gaining those freedoms and medical advancements.
I don't think it's helpful to discuss falling birth rates without acknowledging that access to education, career advancements, and reproductive health options have a huge impact. That's one of the reasons conservatives across the globe are pushing to limit abortion access and take away birth control.
Yeah I'm talking to a stone wall here. You keep pointing to a very different situation and claiming it as data to prove your point when my entire point is that they're very different situations.
They aren't different, they're related. They are intertwined.
I'm having a discussion with you and bringing stats and sources. You don't want to engage in back and forth discussion? Don't push that there's no data or no statistics on this.
There's a lot of stats on this subject.
I'm tapping out. You keep posting your stuff. I'm just rolling my eyes here.
Aw you're no fun. Did you even read any of the sources I gave you?
I'm not even disagreeing with you completely and I haven't been an asshole lol. There's a prevailing idea here that more money will make women want enough children to solve the falling birth rates and I think that doesn't show the full picture.
This oversimplifies and lacks vision.
While the government should be supporting families more and economic conditions do impact people's decision to have children, there is more and more evidence coming through that shows the driving force of the falling birth rate is women having control over when and how many children they have. Access to birth control, abortions, and family planning have had a huge impact.
Edit:
One of many sources saying the same thing.
what are replenishment rates? it depends on who you ask, and for what. the world can not sustain our current levels of population without massive changes in how we live, but at the same time others argue that to maintain our current way of life, we must match the amount of children to keep the current levels… but also to care for the current amount of people, replenishment rates force a forever growth!!
ultimately any argument for reaching certain amount of replenishment is by definition short sighted. anecdotally these arguments have only been made by people who only care about their comfort at the cost of the future.
the real answer is that the current way of life was never capable of sustainment, and as such there is no need to push for replenishment. we should be incentivizing fewer children. best way i see to do that is to keep the populous highly educated and free from the fear of not being able to provide an idealized life and free medical care. I believe Societies who obtain these qualities find slower or reversed population growth with out draconian measures, or relying on war and famine to cull the weak