Why is Europe losing the will to breed?

Dr Crayfish

Yourself isit wrote: »

Not really. We just need slightly more than 2 children per couple but we need more couples wanting or having children.

We also have immigration

flutered

long working hours, contribute to tierdness, so loss appatite for the so called national past time, choose between ones social life and pregnancy, then saying feck it i am great as it is, add on low wages high cost of everything, add the cost of pregnacy, rearing a kid, then the cost of another pregnacy

Lone Stone

the elite of the world know automated work forces are coming and have been trying to wind down the plebs population ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY REPTILLIAN ROBOT OVERLORDS FROM SPACE.. I Mean ehm il get some people pregnant if they want im free all week pm me for sperm.

ScumLord

Parchment wrote: »

This is a great post. Humans think the planet is all about them but its not, its a finite resource thats suppose to be shared not abused.

That's a very human centric viewpoint though. At no point did nature sit all the animals and plants down and teach us the value of sharing. Nature set us all against each other in a battle to the death. At its most basic, life's only goal is to consume enough energy to reproduce. Everything beyond that is gravy.

Gbear wrote: »

With genetic engineering, hydroponics, lab-grown meat and whatever the next wacky invention is after that there's not really any hard limit on what the planet could support.

We might have to start mining asteroids at some point or have energy cheap enough for transmutation and mass desalinisation, but there's plenty of space.

It does mean gouging the earth for everything it's got though. The solutions to all humanity's problems is to move into space. We can move all the production we'd need to survive into space, with things like lab grown meats we are almost at the stage where we could survive off what we find in the solar system and send all excess populations off planet with no need for earth to support them in any way..

It's the only way to save earth, because we're not able to stop.

mzungu

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

You could probably fit a billion people in ireland if you build enough tower blocks.

If we did, we would end up looking like something from the Soviet Union!

Dr Crayfish

mzungu wrote: »

If we did, we would end up looking like something from the Soviet Union!

It's better than this!

511

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

It's better than this!

A lot of tax money wasted on those one-off bungalows. They're draining the economy.

monkeysnapper

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.

Good on you....

I know loads of parents that do feck all with their kids because they carry on their own life style they had before kids.... Use your brains!!!!

I had kids for the reason I wanted to continue to play with trains and scaletrix . its a job prising the toys off the kids sometimes .

Parchment

ScumLord wrote: »

That's a very human centric viewpoint though. At no point did nature sit all the animals and plants down and teach us the value of sharing. Nature set us all against each other in a battle to the death. At its most basic, life's only goal is to consume enough energy to reproduce. Everything beyond that is gravy.

You seem to have a very human centric viewpoint - i meant shared with the animals/fish that are here too, many who were here before us.

Dr Crayfish

511 wrote: »

A lot of tax money wasted on those one-off bungalows. They're draining the economy.

It's absolutely disgusting. Take a train through the English countryside and it's just way nicer looking than ours, we shat all over our own backyard.

wakka12

cdeb wrote: »

Comparing it to other human settlements isn't the way to do it anyway.

Dr Crayfish's point is far more valid - no natural wilderness left in the country at all.

Can also add in that many native wild animals have been completely wiped out - the wolf being the obvious one (ok, Cromwell helped, but still, if he didn't do it, someone would)

So a land where one species has completely wiped out other native species, and indeed natural habitats, is one I'd call overpopulated.

That was an active effort to exterminate the species because of the negative effect it had on livestock, not because of natural encroachment on their habitat as human settlement increased

wakka12

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

You could probably fit a billion people in ireland if you build enough tower blocks.

The entire worlds population could be fit into Texas quite comfortably with a house per family. Theres nowhere in the world that is over populated in terms of absolute landmass taken up by human settlement, even China with its billions has vast swathes of uninhabited land. Overpopulated would more accurately describe a country/regiojn/area which cannot support the livelihoods of the people living within it, water,food, housing etc

RayCun

daithi7 wrote: »

There are a few big issues with declining birth rates that make me a bit uneasy
1. Aging populations=> more old people being supported by less working people => lower quality of life for all than otherwise = not good

2. By funding those on welfare& benefits to have unlimited kids, & since those higher up the socio-economic scales are not reproducing themselves at a sufficient rate, we are (like it or loathe it) ensuring the next generation has more tracksuit wearing knackers than well educated, good mannered bright things.

There is a simple solution to the first issue

Allow people to move to Ireland. That means more young people, a balance for the old people.

The second issue also has an easy solution. Education. Put money into schools.

Both of these "problems " come from the idea that change is impossible.

We can't let other people into Ireland because they aren't Irish. No, but their kids will be. Just like lots of Irish people today are descended from immigrants, and just like lots of Americans, Australians, whatever are descended from irish people. When you grow up in a country, go to school and play with people from that country, speak that language and watch that tv, that becomes your country.

And people aren't born stupid. If their schools are bad, and they have no prospects in life, sure, they are not likely to become model citizens. But give people opportunities and they will take them

cdeb

wakka12 wrote: »

That was an active effort to exterminate the species because of the negative effect it had on livestock, not because of natural encroachment on their habitat as human settlement increased

So humans were occupying so much of the country they actively chose to eradicate another species rather than live with it?

Sounds to me like that's a good definition of overpopulation.

Help!!!!

Finnaninho wrote: »

Why is Europe losing the will to breed? http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-is-europe-losing-the-will-to-breed-1.2644169

Children are now a luxury. The average cost to raise a child to adulthood is upwards of £200,000. It's nearly impossible for the middle classes to live and work in a European city without drastically sacrificing quality of life and comfort.

What we're doing now isn't enough and we need to change something fast. Preferably before our public budgets collapse under public spending on healthcare and pensions.

You wont need to worry about that anymore now that the rabbits refugees have come

cbreeze

511 wrote: »

A lot of tax money wasted on those one-off bungalows. They're draining the economy.

Plus the owners need at least one car to get to work/schools/shops/socializing/doctors/dentist etc. These homes are unsustainable.

cdeb

RayCun wrote: »

There is a simple solution to the first issue

Allow people to move to Ireland. That means more young people, a balance for the old people.

I don't think that's a solution at all tbh.

It's evident from elsewhere that immigrant children don't necessarily see themselves as being from the country of their birth. And it's creating big social problems.

In any event, what your suggestion says it's that a country can't function without am infinitely increasing population. There's an obvious issue with that.

Sooner or later we need to work out how to operate an economy with a stable or shrinking population.

ScumLord

Parchment wrote: »

You seem to have a very human centric viewpoint

How so?

- i meant shared with the animals/fish that are here too, many who were here before us.

I know you meant shared with animals and fish.

We've only recently realised just how much of an effect we're having on our environment. We're trying to change a common behaviour that's developed over billions of years. We're the first animal in history to do this and it's a pretty monumental task. It's a logical decision that flies in the face of nature though. Nature doesn't care which animal came first, if an animal can't survive it's gone, and nothing outside of us will ever care it's gone.

Arcade_Tryer

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

It's absolutely disgusting. Take a train through the English countryside and it's just way nicer looking than ours, we shat all over our own backyard.

Nice looking is overrated. You sound like a heritage activist. Or an An Bord Pleanala worker..*Shudder*

Dr Crayfish

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Nice looking is overrated. You sound like a heritage activist. Or an An Bord Pleanala worker..*Shudder*

Ok lets continue destroying our countryside with ugly mansions!
I would have thought it was An Bord Pleanala who created our ugly countryside in the first place?

Hexen

Finnaninho wrote: »

Why is Europe losing the will to breed? http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-is-europe-losing-the-will-to-breed-1.2644169

Children are now a luxury. The average cost to raise a child to adulthood is upwards of £200,000. It's nearly impossible for the middle classes to live and work in a European city without drastically sacrificing quality of life and comfort.

What we're doing now isn't enough and we need to change something fast. Preferably before our public budgets collapse under public spending on healthcare and pensions.

Bizarre, sub-Samuel Huntingdon, ideological screed from this scientist. So far as I know there is no credible thesis linking fertility transition to a civilisation's 'loss of faith' in itself. Given these declines can be observed in some European regions from the late 18th century - i.e. this is a long-term, historical process, resting on changing social structures - I doubt that postmodernism or cultural relativism has much to do with. If they did, it would be hard to explain the rather extraordinary levels of fertility transition in countries such as Iran (from 7.0 births per woman in the early 1980s to 1.9 per woman in 2006). The article also misses the point that fertility transition is now a global phenomenon.

RayCun

cdeb wrote: »

I don't think that's a solution at all tbh.

It's evident from elsewhere that immigrant children don't necessarily see themselves as being from the country of their birth. And it's creating big social problems.

In any event, what your suggestion says it's that a country can't function without am infinitely increasing population. There's an obvious issue with that.

Sooner or later we need to work out how to operate an economy with a stable or shrinking population.

1. If you give people the message that they are not welcome, that they are not irish, that they are other and outside of society, they will believe you. If you give people the message that they are equally part of this society, and equally important, they will believe that.

So, what message are we sending?

Start with schools, are we going to segregate people there or are we going to integrate? Are we going to divide people based on religion, or have kids inherit places in schools from their parents? Or will we have equal access to secular education?

2. I'm not suggesting the population needs to keep expanding. But we could improve the balance between old and young by allowing more young people in, and ease the demographic transition.

Geuze

adocholiday wrote: »

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.

Would this help?

Cut cash child benefit, and introduce a child tax credit against tax bills?

Gbear

cdeb wrote: »

Another who doesn't realise the world isn't just for humans...

Nonsense.
The effect we're having on the planet isn't an issue of numbers.
The poorest half of the population are contributing a lot less than half the environmental impact.

It's a technological, logistics and engineering problem. Not one of demographics.

We can stagnate our population if we want but it's not a better solution than applying modern agriculture around the world, improving transportation of the food we already produce, using more efficient types of agriculture, or seeing what new technological developments are in store for us, from ones that are essentially proven, like genetic engineering, to more far-flung tech like matter manipulation.

We could support twice the current population with a fraction of the environmental impact. It's just a question of applying what we already know everywhere and the embracing further technological developments.

The notion of overpopulation trotted out isn't some carefully considered theoretical limit of the number of humans.

It's just saying we're currently at a point where we're really **** at living sustainably.

Irish Praetorian

RayCun wrote: »

There is a simple solution to the first issue

Allow people to move to Ireland. That means more young people, a balance for the old people.

The second issue also has an easy solution. Education. Put money into schools.

Both of these "problems " come from the idea that change is impossible.

We can't let other people into Ireland because they aren't Irish. No, but their kids will be. Just like lots of Irish people today are descended from immigrants, and just like lots of Americans, Australians, whatever are descended from irish people. When you grow up in a country, go to school and play with people from that country, speak that language and watch that tv, that becomes your country.

And people aren't born stupid. If their schools are bad, and they have no prospects in life, sure, they are not likely to become model citizens. But give people opportunities and they will take them

It's like a glimpse of social attitudes a decade ago, no conception that any difficulty might arise from mass importation of people from an utterly alien culture and religion, and if there are any problems, it's just the fault of the locals for being too racist/not spending enough money.

The entire reason for this thread is that people have looked at developments over the last ten years and realized that the 'answer' you've described may well be worse than the problem itself. The contentions you've laid out, that given enough money and time everyone is going to want to become a model citizen of a Western country, has in many cases proven not to be the case. Ireland, being able to observe what has been tried in Europe, should learn from the mistakes made and not repeat them.

Anesthetize

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

It's better than this!

Is this a suburb or a rural area? I can't even tell. One-off housing is the legacy of poor planning in this country.

cdeb

RayCun wrote: »

1. If you give people the message that they are not welcome, that they are not irish, that they are other and outside of society, they will believe you. If you give people the message that they are equally part of this society, and equally important, they will believe that.

I don't want to drag the thread off topic with stuff that belongs in other threads, but other countries (the Nordic ones in particular) have tried that approach, but are now rowing back on immigration policies.

So it sounds lovely in theory, but doesn't work in the real world. And it's largely not the fault of the existing population.

Similarly, I don't think anyone can really agree with gbear's suggestion that the world could cope with 15bn people. The amount of natural resources, space, agriculture, energy, travel and associated pollution, construction, etc, that would cause would be immense.

Yes, it's possible to live more efficiently than we do now. If we could get rid of the need for personal cars, for example, that would be a help. But it doesn't follow that by being more efficient, 15bn humans wouldn't be overcrowding.

Hexen

Geuze wrote: »

Would this help?

Cut cash child benefit, and introduce a child tax credit against tax bills?

Pronatalist policies tend not to work (much).

Emme

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

It's better than this!

For all you know the people who live in those houses couldn't afford to buy a house in a city and are living in the countryside instead. They could be up at the crack of dawn commuting to work and getting home after 7 or 8 in the evening.

Dr Crayfish

Emme wrote: »

For all you know the people who live in those houses couldn't afford to buy a house in a city and are living in the countryside instead. They could be up at the crack of dawn commuting to work and getting home after 7 or 8 in the evening.

Right but why don't they live in towns or villages? Why the need for horrible mansions to be plastered all over what should be scenic areas? The work involved in hooking up water and electricity alone to these places must be an awful trek.

Arcade_Tryer

Anesthetize wrote: »

Is this a suburb or a rural area? I can't even tell. One-off housing is the legacy of poor planning in this country.

Reading the post above and others and it's like people forget that Ireland is a RURAL country.

Dr Crayfish

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Reading the post above and others and it's like people forget that Ireland is a RURAL country.

What the hell is a rural country?

Stealthfins

If we didn't get influenced by Christianity and kept our pagan ways and were progressive,I think life here might have been better.

Christianity and the influence of Roman Catholicism was an invasion on our ansestors.

I'm not into sociology, but I wonder what it would have been like if we were more pagan than Christian.

I read about brehon law's, they're very interesting.

Arcade_Tryer

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

What the hell is a rural country?

One in which a very high share of the population live in rural areas.

gordongekko

Deleted User wrote: »

When two incomes are needed to buy a house that one income would have bought in 1970 you know our priorities are so messed up. How are we supposed to have 4 kids or such when both parents must work outside home simply to pay for the property/mortgage? In my local crèche it's over €1,000 per child per month. This is on top of the mortgage. The sums do not add up, to put it mildly.

I just let the hired help raise my kids.

RayCun

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

It's like a glimpse of social attitudes a decade ago, no conception that any difficulty might arise from mass importation of people from an utterly alien culture and religion

I'm reminded of the complaints in the US, over a century ago.

How could the country possibly withstand the effects of mass immigration from Ireland and Italy, ignorant superstitious peasants swarming across the ocean in their unwashed masses?

And what happens then? When something goes wrong, will it be blamed on this enemy within, stabbing us in the back?

cdeb

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

One in which a very high share of the population live in rural areas.

Ireland is not a rural country any more.

It's more rural than most other European countries maybe, but still not rural.

RayCun

cdeb wrote: »

I don't want to drag the thread off topic with stuff that belongs in other threads, but other countries (the Nordic ones in particular) have tried that approach, but are now rowing back on immigration policies.

So it sounds lovely in theory, but doesn't work in the real world. And it's largely not the fault of the existing population.

When I think of terrorist attacks related to immigration in Nordic countries, the obvious one to come to mind was a mass shooting by a right winger

Dirty Dingus McGee

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

It's better than this!

Quite nice if you're living in one of those houses.

Life isn't all about the amount of economic output we can get out of everything.

cdeb

RayCun wrote: »

When I think of terrorist attacks related to immigration in Nordic countries, the obvious one to come to mind was a mass shooting by a right winger

Yup.

But it would be silly to try use one point to dismiss a while argument. There's a lot more stuff there as well. Even relatively small stuff like increased crime, domestic violence, sexual assaults, etc.

The notion that everything is ok with immigration if people just welcome immigrants with open arms has been proven to be false.

Going back to the original post, I stand by my point that we need to find a way to make shrinking economies work sooner rather than later.

Dr Crayfish

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Quite nice if you're living in one of those houses.

Life isn't all about the amount of economic output we can get out of everything.

The fact you think that looks nice explains a lot about the terrible short sighted planning in this country

Dirty Dingus McGee

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

The fact you think that looks nice explains a lot about the terrible short sighted planning in this country

Who cares what it looks like.The countryside does not exist simply as something for people to gawk at.A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping that.

I again reiterate that it must be quite nice for the people living there.

Anesthetize

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Quite nice if you're living in one of those houses.

Life isn't all about the amount of economic output we can get out of everything.

The main issues with one-off housing are not to do with economics, but rather environmental and social issues. I don't understand why small rural towns and villages can't be properly planned and thought out so that everyone is within walking distance to schools, shops and pubs. Instead of allowing people to build houses miles from anywhere and then having to drive their kids to school or just to pick up a few cartons of milk.

Irish Praetorian

RayCun wrote: »

I'm reminded of the complaints in the US, over a century ago.

How could the country possibly withstand the effects of mass immigration from Ireland and Italy, ignorant superstitious peasants swarming across the ocean in their unwashed masses?

And what happens then? When something goes wrong, will it be blamed on this enemy within, stabbing us in the back?

I imagine the native American's tell a slightly different tale?

But of course, Latin speaking migrants with the same or similar religion, history, cultural points of contact, all ready to be settled on virgin soil freshly cleared of the inconvenient locals, in a society that regarded public welfare as a curious diversion of some churches - CLEARLY, entirely the same affair.

Irish Praetorian

Stealthfins wrote: »

If we didn't get influenced by Christianity and kept our pagan ways and were progressive,I think life here might have been better.

Christianity and the influence of Roman Catholicism was an invasion on our ansestors.

I'm not into sociology, but I wonder what it would have been like if we were more pagan than Christian.

I read about brehon law's, they're very interesting.

Aye, slavery, agnatic inheritance, class system, poetry; all the makings of a good night out

Dr Crayfish

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Who cares what it looks like.The countryside does not exist simply as something for people to gawk at.A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping that.

I again reiterate that it must be quite nice for the people living there.

Having absolutely nothing at your door step sounds like hell to me

RayCun

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I imagine the native American's tell a slightly different tale?

But of course, Latin speaking migrants with the same or similar religion, history, cultural points of contact, all ready to be settled on virgin soil freshly cleared of the inconvenient locals, in a society that regarded public welfare as a curious diversion of some churches - CLEARLY, entirely the same affair.

We're the native Americans now? Sense of proportion, ever heard of one.

If you look at the complaints about irish and Italian immigration, they touch exactly the same points.
Different race
Different culture
Different religion
Congenitally incapable of living up to the demands of civilized, democratic society.

Those complaints seem ridiculous now, because now we don't see the societies as particularly different, but people were losing their minds about the collapse of white civilization.

And in 100 years, people will be saying "sure Syrians are practically European, another religion of the book, language has many connections to European languages, of course integration was possible. But these Chinese, they have nothing in common with us! "

People are people.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Having absolutely nothing at your door step sounds like hell to me

Some people like having peace and quiet.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Anesthetize wrote: »

The main issues with one-off housing are not to do with economics, but rather environmental and social issues. I don't understand why small rural towns and villages can't be properly planned and thought out so that everyone is within walking distance to schools, shops and pubs. Instead of allowing people to build houses miles from anywhere and then having to drive their kids to school or just to pick up a few cartons of milk.

People like living in the countryside because they like the peace and quiet and a nice garden.You don't get that if you live in a housing estate in a town or village.

Hexen

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Reading the post above and others and it's like people forget that Ireland is a RURAL country.

Less and less true. 36.5 per cent of the population are currently classified as rural. Anyway, argument should be about why planning system has allowed such unsustainable forms of development.