Social change and rising ages for having first child

[mackthefork]

Delaying babies 'defies nature' (bbc)

Relates to United Kingdom

The article states that the average age for women having first babies has risen from 26 to 29 over the last 20 years, also that biology hasn't changed, so complications happen more often. We all know that medicine has advanced over this time as well, but we also know that this isn't the main reason why women are choosing to wait until later before having children. The main reason is the social changes regarding womens more prominent place in the workforce, the decision to develop a career and have children later, which I suppose is made easier by an improved confidence in medical science.

[ QUOTE ]
In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of IVF may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner and concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable living standard."



[/ QUOTE ]

My questions to the forum...

1) Do you think it matters that more women decide to wait?

2) If this trend were to continue, what are the likely effects?

3) Is it possible birth rates could drop so low, that the population could go into (possibly permanent) decline?

4) Do you think this is a sign of women valuing family less than in the past and money more, or do they just simply see that it is now possible to have both?

5) I'm not sure of whether this compares to US society at all so bear with me, but here women are virtually forced into work (it's possible this is partly to do with the shorter working hours in the UK). It is almost seen as failure by society for a woman to stay at home and raise a family, does this need to change or is it unimportant?

Any comments appreciated, I know this is long my apologies for that fact.

Regards Mack

[Matty]

It is common knowledge that populations will decrease in europe, southeast asia, and north america (although less-so for the U.S. due to immigration).

Also the average age will increase, causing very severe economic problems a few decades from now especially for Japan which doesn't allow much immigration, but almost not at all for the U.S. which allows a lot of immigration.

As the third world develops, their birthrates will decrease as well. In fact, it is theorized that the chief cause of the boom of economies of southeast countries was decreased birthrates. The age makeup of your country makes an enormous difference in the resources that need to be spent, and the revenue coming in.

I would predict that as soon as the male pill comes out, you'll see these trends speed up dramatically.

[lehighguy]

People have less kids in a developed economy. The reasons for it are far beyond me. But it's definately an empiracle trend.

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]
I would predict that as soon as the male pill comes out, you'll see these trends speed up dramatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really expect men to remember to take this everyday, myself included? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would predict that as soon as the male pill comes out, you'll see these trends speed up dramatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really expect men to remember to take this everyday, myself included? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]My son is my daily reminder. =]

[wh1t3bread]

[ QUOTE ]
My son is my daily reminder. =]

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. Yeah, I don't have one of those.

[Exsubmariner]

The reasons are pretty simple. In a developed economy, kids are more expensive. In the US today, a child will typically not become a producer in the economy until they are high school or college graduates. If you are talking about a Masters or PHD level education, that means as late as the late 20's. In underdeveloped parts of the world, particularly countries without child labor laws, children can work much earlier. In agririan societies, more children mean more workers on the family farm. This was the situation in the US until the late 1800's. In some parts of the country, into the 1940's and fifties.

Of course, if you develop a permanent welfare class, who get paid government stipends according to the number of children they have, their population will buck the trend and expand.

X

[newfant]

I like this trend. The world is overpopulatd already. I foresee no problems with declining birth rates other than temporary economic ones due to demographic shifts.

Most people that have large families are either religious nuts or poor. The poor have lots of kids because they are trying to fill the void that a lack of money creates and the religious nuts do it because God (through the church) tells them to.

Decreasing birthin' rates are a good thing.

[lehighguy]

That's a pretty good reason, but I bet it goes beyond just economics. Even rich people aren't having as many kids, it has to be social as well.

[Darryl_P]

Very good questions IMO -- the type more people should be thinking about...my take:

1) Absolutely. Not only are there population decline issues like some have mentioned (with immigration not being a satisfactory solution because of the erosion of national identity and unity, not to mention racial issues), but there are also quality issues...

Women get more and more desperate to have children as their biological clock runs out so they are sacrificing a lot on quality. They know they can't hold out for the ideal man so they make big compromises and hence lesser genes get multiplied than if they focused on mate selection in their younger years. The men also let their standards down because women are having less sex than in the old days so some will even shag an old hag to get action.

Babies are getting born based on huge compromises, or more bluntly -- the parents barely want them.

Not good for the future of humanity IMO.


2 and 3) Major economic problems will happen once the baby boomers retire which will lead to WW3, and after that
things will return to normal under a new system IMO.

4) Definitely an erosion of family values, but not just by women. It takes two to tango so men are equally at fault. We could decide to only shag family-oriented women and to the extent we don't, we're responsible too.

The roots of it are related to the system itself which promotes collectivism. If you spread your soul among the entire population like the system wants you to do, then the delineation between one family and another fades away and so does the family concept itself.

5) Absolutely needs to change, but I can't see it happening any other way than via a major war unfortunately. Too many diverging interests and complicating factors are at work here to do it by simple persuasion.