/b/ - Random

Birthrate is dropping not due to women choice, but because having a family became financially unsustainable for a lot of people.
Now they just get a pet and believe it's a child, which is pretty depressing.

>>269046
Aren't duel income households generally more stable?
There are obviously many factors that influence the birthrate, but I refuse to believe that it's primarily a finance issue.
It just makes more sense to me that women slowly realize how retarded of a decision it is to shackle themselves to a moid.

>>269047
(And they now have the option not to)

probabely…. probabely…

>>269046
country with on of the lowest birthrates, South Korea, has a whole popular feminist 4B movement dedicated to not getting involved with men. Taiwan, also with the lowest birthrate, is also having problems because of patriarchal expectations of women. I don't think it's a coincidence, I think it's a major issue in developed countries. This and financial problems will surely shrink population in size.

>>269176
>movement dedicated to not getting involved with men
holy based
Why don't we have something like that in the west?

>>269176
Actually has family in Korea reporting in: the 4b movement is a meme. A based meme, but a meme all the same. It is extremely small. It's not culturally insignificant because it does highlight real problems with the culture there that I witnessed first hand but it is a tiny part of the population. The real reasons why SK's birth rates are so low are extremely diminished economic opportunity as well as promethian problems with drugs that literally just get swept because the government can't/won't do anything about it.
There is no where on earth where decline in birth rates are socially driven phenomenon. That is a neo-liberal myth.

>>269191
Unlike africa and latin america where the living conditions are so good that they have babies all the time. Social phenomena have nothing to do with this, clearly

>>269193
Yea, but it's not the nominal cost that makes kids financially difficult, it's the relative opportunity cost. In Africa (Latin America is at or below sustainment rate too now), the cost to have kids is low, and they can even help with fields and housework. In richer countries. So, the opportunity cost is low. You don't have to invest in your kids beyond feeding and housing them, which is not a big increase in household cost, and they can pay back too. In a rich country, your kids can't help you at your accountant job, so they can't benefit you like they could in a poorer country, and you have to educate (expensive) in addition to other normal childrearing costs.

>>269194
Their purchasing power is still lower than europeans even if their kids help them in their business or whatever. Doesnt make sense.

If it was mainly because of financial reasons, the poorest areas of Europe would be in yellow and not green. The upper class of european countries would have a higher birth rate also, but when you look at the data you see that they're about the same as the poorer people and sometimes the poorest deciles have an even higher birth rate than the richer people, in the same country.

Hell, even if you look at the birth rates of different ethnic minorities in the same european country, you will find that the natives have the smallest birth rate while the immigrants that come from muslim countries usually have the highest birth rate, even though they are poorer than the natives.
Financial reasons do have an impact but it's not the main reason.

>>269196
Poor people have more children and have always had as a sort safety measure, they can help with work and take care of you when you're old and can no longer work.

Middle class people and rich ones don't have this mindset, but they do have the mindset of providing a life better than what they enjoyed for their kid. When both partners are working all the time, living alright but not exactly with financial security and barely having time for their own hobbies then having a child doesn't make sense to them.

And to keep it on topic, I guess most people do want a moid as a child, they're after all still the privileged gender, with better chances to succeed in most cultures.

>>269047
even in poorer countries (where the birthrate is higher) they have dropping birthrates where they typically didn't before. it's definitely due to feminism and it's widespread effect due to technology, not wholly finances.
>feminism and the consequences of becoming aware of the male nature (and reality of being female)

>>269198
>Poor people have more children and have always had as a sort safety measure, they can help with work and take care of you when you're old and can no longer work.

>Middle class people and rich ones don't have this mindset, but they do have the mindset of providing a life better than what they enjoyed for their kid. When both partners are working all the time, living alright but not exactly with financial security and barely having time for their own hobbies then having a child doesn't make sense to them.
You've conceded the point then

Countries industrialized in the 19th century fam.
Birth rate systemically dropped below replacement after hormonal contraception became publicly available in the 60ies

>>269193
Again, the 4b movement is tiny there. And as other nonas pointed out: the birth rates are in decline globally, but you know what's growing rapant globally? Addiction. Drugs, gambling, porn, probably are where larger amoints of people's money are going everywhere. There's definitely more of a causality between that and declining QoL (and birth rates along with it) than feminism.

>>269201
What i meant by industrialized was simply nations with a decentish level of development.
Sorry for choosing a suboptimal word, but my point stands. It seems that whenever women have access to birth control(which they do in developed countries), women use it to preseve their independence.
Even the ones cursed with heterosexuality largely wait until they have at least a mid tier moid, and it seems there's not enough of those to keep the birthrate at a sufficiently high level.

>>269044
I think I read somewhere that the birth rate is declining because in the past, women were just supposed to nurture children and do housework. It also stated that the birth rate and the population will stabilize after a while where everyone in the genetic pool would be so much better.

>>269207
>everyone in the genetic pool would be so much better.
I wonder lol
Moids have been horrible all throughout history and despite wars constantly purging aggressive ones from the gene pool, they're still horrific monsters.
I just don't see them changing anytime soon(if ever), meanwhile entertainment to fill the void will only get better.

>>269200
None of that derives from feminism or women choosing anything, it's late stage capitalism and not much else.

As >>269207 it will probably revert once upward mobility becomes a viable thing again, whether it is because of a natural decline in population or because the earth decides to decimate us doing some much needed maintenance.

>>269214
>None of that derives from feminism or women choosing anything
You do realize women fought hard to enter the workforce, right?
Before capitalism women had little choice but to marry some moid, because not doing so would leave you broke, and get you ostracised by your entire community.

Yes, this is population control, all of you will and must not reproduce, the plan has been a success, earth resources will be ownes by the rich and a few remaining cattle slaves that happen to survive what is to come.
Thanks for helping

We'll end up killing ourselves and maybe a few thousand other species at worst, but the planet has been through worse than a bunch of stupid apes with fire

>>269229
Schizonona is losing it..

>>269242
Who cares about the planet though?
We're all that matters.

Is humanity fall something really bad?
After all, all species will go extinct one day, humans aren't being an exception.
Decline is slow process, so no one is this thread will witness apocalypse tomorrow, so I don't see reasons to worry. (unless some moid s decide to nuke each other, but there's nothing we can do about it)

yeah the industrial revolution and it's consequences have been disastrous for the human race

>>269249
>the industrial revolution and it's consequences have been disastrous for the human race
Moid mindset.
Modern society is infinitely better for women than anything that came before it.

>>269217
No, they work hard for worker rights
Even children were working before that. I know you hate moids and all but most women would be happy to start a family if they consider to be financially secure, right now that's not the case, the threshold is too high

I think humanity will continue to exist, world population will just level out once resources get too tight for comfort (picrel). Certain countries may depopulate but I trust that humans will not be driven to extinction by the continued existence of singles and childfree couples: someone people actually want babies and will have them despite the circumstances.

What we should actually be worried about is how governments are going to prevent stagnation. Even if humanity don’t need to constantly growth or to even stay at replacement levels, our economic system literally relies on it. Abortion bans and birth control restrictions are just the start, buckle up ladies.

>>269206
Which just means each and every time women do get liberation, thay society is doomed to collapse and the patriarichal immigrant cultures inevitably replace it.
Given the current rate we're probably going to live to see that.
What's the solution?

>>269248
Not all societies are falling at the same time. That's the problem. It isn't extinction, it's the rapist societies enduring while the industrialized ones go under. And in the current model import from the rapist ones.

>>269269
Is that a good thing?

>>269193
it's also happening in latin america. it's because having babies costs way too much and you have to interact with a moid to make one. women here have realized the psycho nature of moids and the chance of ending up with an abusive or stalker one is way too high and justice wouldn't do shit

>>269269
the industrial revolution is literally the cause of majority of the problems we face today but of course you immediately went to talking about womens rights as if that's what i'm arguing against lmao

>>269981
>thread about moids being too gross to get a partner, now that women have a choice
>women being able to choose hinges on technological progress, because nature decided to make moids much stronger physically(negated by machines), and thought it was funny to randomly cripple women for 9 months if they have intercourse(negated by birth control).
>>the industrial revolution and it's consequences have been disastrous for the human race
>hurr durr why are you mentioning women??
It's funny how you're making it sound like the world is worse today, as compared to the time before the industrial revolution.
Even if you ignore the whole womens liberation angle, life today is infinitely better than before.
Sure there are problems, but those are barely a factor when you consider all the improvements technological progress has given us.

>>269207
>where everyone in the genetic pool would be so much better.

Sorry, we are getting Idiocracy instead

Twst