TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Australian women are having fewer children, later in life

37 点作者 cup超过 9 年前

7 条评论

lkrubner超过 9 年前
The demographic transition began in the developed nations around 1850:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Demographic_transition" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Demographic_transition</a><p>My great-grandmother (mom&#x27;s mom&#x27;s mom) had 16 children. My mom had 4. My mom&#x27;s 4 children are done having children, and my mom currently has 3 grandchildren.<p>Life expectancy at birth has increased 6 hours every day since 1850. That trend has been surprisingly steady, despite a few World Wars and depressions. 6 hours every day. That works out to 2.5 years per decade, and over 16 decades, that works out to 40 years. Thus the average lifespan has moved from around the age of 40 to around the age of 80.<p>Occasionally I read an article with a sensational headline such as &quot;A new baby boom!&quot; because fertility has moved from some small number to some slightly larger, but still small, number. Or other times the sensational headline goes the other way: &quot;Baby Bust! Is your retirement fund in peril?&quot;<p>Against all such minor variations in the medium-term trend, it is worth remembering that the the long-term trend has been down. In 16 decades, the only really serious, world-wide break from the trend was 1945 to 1953, and that was clearly a response to the war.<p>The most interesting break from the trend was the so-called English-speaking Baby Boom, which occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain and the USA. It started in the late 1930s, then stopped due to the war, then started again in 1945, and the birth rate climbed until 1958, and it remained high till the mid 1960s.<p>Outside of that one major deviation, the trend has been down for a very long time.<p>Meanwhile, the Earth&#x27;s overall population has had its biggest run ever. The last time the human population of the Earth fell is thought to have been the Great Plague of 1347 to 1350, but the boom since 1800 has no precedent. There were 1 billion humans alive in 1800, 2 billion in 1900, 3 billion in 1950, 4 billion in the 1970s.<p>There are roughly 7 billion people alive today.<p>Try to keep all that in mind when you read about variations in the birth trend.
评论 #10648009 未加载
ps4fanboy超过 9 年前
Most of the western world has had falling fertility rates, it would also help explain the push for immigration in those countries, politicians are quietly worried about the stability of their population growth &#x2F; consumption economies.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com.au&#x2F;publicdata&#x2F;explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&amp;met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&amp;idim=country:AUS:USA:CAN:FRA:GBR" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com.au&#x2F;publicdata&#x2F;explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f...</a><p>EDIT: why downvote? I am not saying immigration is wrong. I was saying its the only way western countries will maintain their growth rates. If you think immigration is wrong or right is irrelevant to what I am saying.
colmvp超过 9 年前
Not a surprise.<p>Trends show that women in the U.S. and Canada are also having fewer children than in generations past and trending towards having children at a later age.<p>Canada<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statcan.gc.ca&#x2F;pub&#x2F;11-630-x&#x2F;11-630-x2014002-eng.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statcan.gc.ca&#x2F;pub&#x2F;11-630-x&#x2F;11-630-x2014002-eng.ht...</a><p>U.S.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pewresearch.org&#x2F;fact-tank&#x2F;2013&#x2F;07&#x2F;03&#x2F;birth-rates-hit-record-low-for-those-under-25-still-on-the-rise-for-those-40&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pewresearch.org&#x2F;fact-tank&#x2F;2013&#x2F;07&#x2F;03&#x2F;birth-rates-...</a>
dboreham超过 9 年前
Ugh. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w</a>
评论 #10647545 未加载
评论 #10647547 未加载
评论 #10647548 未加载
thehacker005263超过 9 年前
(not serious) First thing I remembered just after reading the title:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=hL1-340ODCM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=hL1-340ODCM</a>
评论 #10647540 未加载
TulliusCicero超过 9 年前
In a developed economy, having kids is financially stupid. <i>Deeply</i> stupid. It costs individuals a ton, but the benefits accrue to society. Classic tragedy of the commons.<p>If we want people to have more kids, say, up to the replacement rate, then that means subsidies. Cheaper childcare seems to be the main thing that encourages more kids: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;international&#x2F;21659763-people-rich-countries-can-be-coaxed-having-more-children-lazy-husbands-and" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;international&#x2F;21659763-people-...</a>
评论 #10647980 未加载
评论 #10648048 未加载
评论 #10648154 未加载
评论 #10647910 未加载
评论 #10647912 未加载
评论 #10647988 未加载
williamsiddall超过 9 年前
fewer, not less
评论 #10647585 未加载
评论 #10647193 未加载
评论 #10647351 未加载
评论 #10648008 未加载
评论 #10647432 未加载