Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7954
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by ray245 »

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opi ... committing
As a newly married man in Singapore many years ago, my hairdresser once asked me when my wife and I were going to have our first child. I replied, like many people do even today, that it was too expensive to have a child and to bring one up. He said that people who were earning a fraction of what we were and living in a one-room flat were still able to have two children and bring them up, and so could we.
It is a truism that we put up with hardships to do things we want to do while making a lot of excuses to justify what we don’t want to do.
Travelling between northeast Asian countries such as Japan and Hong Kong and Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia and the Philippines, one is struck by children running all over the place in public places in the generally poorer Southeast Asian nations and the grim old people walking stiffly in north Asian societies. Affluent Singapore, though in Southeast Asia, is an exception, but even within Singapore it is the less affluent Singaporeans who seem to be having more children.

Personal experience and statistics show that merely giving a bigger flat to an average Hong Kong family won’t solve the problem of demographic extinction that is looming over the city, which has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, at 1.2.
Societies are like individuals, too; some are energetic and outward-looking during periods of their life, while at other times, “anomie” takes over. That’s when individuals and societies go through life depressed and fearful while trying to hide it with empty indulgences, whether it is drinking or shopping, which one American philosopher called “joyless hedonism”.

Until this value system changes, many “affluent” societies of today will become so depressed that they will commit demographic suicide.

The rich and powerful, as those who have read about the ancient feudal male rulers with their large harems will know, used to take delight in fathering as many children as possible. Genghis Khan seems to have fathered so many children that his genetic marker is said to be found in about 10 per cent of the population within the old Mongol empire.
Female queens such as Elizabeth I, who died childless, do not seem to have shared the desires of male despots to breed aggressively.
Perhaps the main reason why modern societies, still dominated by men, are not increasing even at replacement levels must be that the “affluent” world still has not found a way to reorganise itself into a “female” and therefore “family” friendly way.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and South African President Jacob Zuma openly flaunt their multiple relationships. Yet in the European Union – where an entire continent seems to be marching like lemmings to demographic suicide – many leaders are childless and may therefore be less likely to promote child-friendly policies. Among the current European leaders without children are Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Theresa May, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and Jean-Claude Juncker, president of European Commission.
Children are even seen as a nuisance by some in Northern Europe. As one of my European friends pointed out, many restaurants in Germany will not allow children in but are happy to accommodate pet owners and their dogs! However, it is something of a mystery why Italy, where the “Italian Mother” is celebrated and whose main religion is Catholicism, also has a low birth rate.
We read about war-devastated societies such as Germany and Japan or post-war Vietnam springing back to life in a couple of decades, only to seem to lose the will to reproduce within a generation. It really does seem that T.S. Eliot was right and that end of the world will come not with a bang but a whimper, but it will not be a whimper from a baby.

There have also been societies slowly committing suicide while competing to raise tall structures. No, we are not talking about Hong Kong but, rather, remote Easter Island in the Pacific and the haunting stone structures that are the only ones left behind after that society committed suicide by cutting down all its trees while trying to raise ever more tall stone structures. History records that the population collapsed after the trees were gone and the few who were left behind were taken by slave ships to work in the mines of Latin America.
When asked about the meaning of life and civilisation, Karl Marx, known for getting to the point quickly, said that it is “production and reproduction”. Modern societies have succeeded spectacularly on the production front but have failed equally spectacularly on the “reproduction” front. Hong Kong is only an extreme and concentrated example of what will happen in other societies soon.
For the record, I should state that we have just one child, therefore not enough for replacement and even lower than Hong Kong’s average of 1.2 per woman. We did try to beat the average, but without success.
N. Balakrishnan is a former foreign correspondent and an entrepreneur in Southeast Asia and India
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as:
Rich and childless march on
I'm really unsure if there is indeed a true correlation between wealth and having fewer kids. If anything, America is an example that kind of dispute this.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28723
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Broomstick »

Yes and no - a significant part of America's replacement/population growth is coming from the immigrant communities. Basically, the US is importing new people in place of producing them on its own.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Patroklos »

There is also a demographic hiccup in the rapidity of the trend from children in your twenties to children in you thirties. Among my friends and family we are not having less kids than our parents, we are just had them far later in life. That will show up as a drastic decline in birthrates for a decade plus but if this establishes itself as a norm the curve will rebound. This of course has the problem of some people just not being able to conceive having waited so long and some health risks for those who waited a very long time.

I am curious to see what the average millennial family looks like when the last of them hit 40. Personally I am one of those who has had their first child (and plans on another two) in their 30s. I consider this a good thing as I have the resources to better raise them at this point in my life. There is really no reason to rush to have kids in your 20s (or earlier) if your family does not require their physical labor to exist. There is also no reason to have kids that early if your life expectancy is not 30 like 10,000 years ago and giving birth past 30 is not a virtual death sentence for most mom's and kids due to current heath care tech like it was 10,000 years ago. If you want to start a family early go for it, but there is no real economic or health reason that makes this a requirement at this point in civilization.
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16285
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Gandalf »

ray245 wrote:Children are even seen as a nuisance by some in Northern Europe. As one of my European friends pointed out, many restaurants in Germany will not allow children in but are happy to accommodate pet owners and their dogs!
I don't see why this is controversial. There are places for children, and places where they simply don't belong.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28723
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Broomstick »

Patroklos wrote:Personally I am one of those who has had their first child (and plans on another two) in their 30s. I consider this a good thing as I have the resources to better raise them at this point in my life. There is really no reason to rush to have kids in your 20s (or earlier) if your family does not require their physical labor to exist. There is also no reason to have kids that early if your life expectancy is not 30 like 10,000 years ago and giving birth past 30 is not a virtual death sentence for most mom's and kids due to current heath care tech like it was 10,000 years ago. If you want to start a family early go for it, but there is no real economic or health reason that makes this a requirement at this point in civilization.
While true for men, this is untrue for women.

The majority of women really are better off having children in their 20's. Fertility rates start to drop at 30-32 and really start falling off the cliff at 35. The rates of gestational diabetes, complications like placenta praevia and placental abruption start climbing - and even today either of those can kill a woman and her baby. The rate of certain birth defects climbs steeply after 35.

If having a child(ren) is really, really important to a woman she really should start having them in her 20's. That's one of the major factors in the different between birth rates in affluent vs. poor societies: poor women start having kids sooner.

The fact that the affluent societies are set up for young adults to concentrate on education then career in their late teens and through their 20's and to discourage early parenthood is a major, major factor in declining birth rates and the lack of environments at universities and work that truly accommodate pregnant women does not help at all. It's not merely providing leave and things like a place to pump breastmilk, it's also the attitude that women can delay reproduction into their 30's with no consequence. No, they can't. It's a lie. Biology is an ageist bastard. Human women have a limited window in which to reproduce, and it's a much smaller window than what the men have.

Sure, there are women who conceive naturally even in their late 40's and successfully give birth to healthy children... but they are not the norm. They should not be held up as the norm.

It's sad that otherwise well educated people often don't know this.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7954
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by ray245 »

Broomstick wrote:
Patroklos wrote:Personally I am one of those who has had their first child (and plans on another two) in their 30s. I consider this a good thing as I have the resources to better raise them at this point in my life. There is really no reason to rush to have kids in your 20s (or earlier) if your family does not require their physical labor to exist. There is also no reason to have kids that early if your life expectancy is not 30 like 10,000 years ago and giving birth past 30 is not a virtual death sentence for most mom's and kids due to current heath care tech like it was 10,000 years ago. If you want to start a family early go for it, but there is no real economic or health reason that makes this a requirement at this point in civilization.
While true for men, this is untrue for women.

The majority of women really are better off having children in their 20's. Fertility rates start to drop at 30-32 and really start falling off the cliff at 35. The rates of gestational diabetes, complications like placenta praevia and placental abruption start climbing - and even today either of those can kill a woman and her baby. The rate of certain birth defects climbs steeply after 35.

If having a child(ren) is really, really important to a woman she really should start having them in her 20's. That's one of the major factors in the different between birth rates in affluent vs. poor societies: poor women start having kids sooner.

The fact that the affluent societies are set up for young adults to concentrate on education then career in their late teens and through their 20's and to discourage early parenthood is a major, major factor in declining birth rates and the lack of environments at universities and work that truly accommodate pregnant women does not help at all. It's not merely providing leave and things like a place to pump breastmilk, it's also the attitude that women can delay reproduction into their 30's with no consequence. No, they can't. It's a lie. Biology is an ageist bastard. Human women have a limited window in which to reproduce, and it's a much smaller window than what the men have.

Sure, there are women who conceive naturally even in their late 40's and successfully give birth to healthy children... but they are not the norm. They should not be held up as the norm.

It's sad that otherwise well educated people often don't know this.
I think people are aware of this. It's just that women seeking to achieve financial independence would pretty much have to study and build their careers in their early 20s. I think it also doesn't help that some of the countries experiencing these problems have problems with youth unemployment(Japan), and relatively weak social safety net ( Singapore).
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28723
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Broomstick »

Actually, I've known a number of women who had their kids in their 20's when then went to school and built a career after the little ones started their own schooling. The downside to this approach is that society penalizes people who start their careers later than 20-25. And that's what I mean by "unfriendly". Women have to choose between a peak career or having multiple children because the system is set up for men's biology where delaying reproduction to the 30's or even 40's has little effect on fertility.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Zixinus »

The main problem is that women and men have to work both, and there is such a strain on them on just one child that a second would be an unfathomable burden. Never mind having three, which would be what is required to keep the population growing (if not four). A single child is also incredible expensive, more expensive than cars or even houses, in sum. It is a large output of energy, money, time, all valuable things to someone working. Things that an average person would also devote to entertainment, aspirations or just their own home. Unless having children is an aspiration, it is saved away until both would-be parents feel financially secure. It is getting harder and harder to feel financially secure than it once was.

The problem is partly because we spent the last few thousands years with overproducing children, due to infant mortality and lack of contraception. Now that women have a choice and where you don't need to overcompensate, they usually don't want as many children as in the past.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16285
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Gandalf »

Broomstick wrote:Actually, I've known a number of women who had their kids in their 20's when then went to school and built a career after the little ones started their own schooling. The downside to this approach is that society penalizes people who start their careers later than 20-25. And that's what I mean by "unfriendly". Women have to choose between a peak career or having multiple children because the system is set up for men's biology where delaying reproduction to the 30's or even 40's has little effect on fertility.
The other issue there is that there is a belief that women who have children are unreliable employees, as they'll occasionally have to run off with little/no notice to attend to child stuff. I've known a few employers who don't like hiring mothers for that reason.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Simon_Jester »

Gandalf wrote:
ray245 wrote:Children are even seen as a nuisance by some in Northern Europe. As one of my European friends pointed out, many restaurants in Germany will not allow children in but are happy to accommodate pet owners and their dogs!
I don't see why this is controversial. There are places for children, and places where they simply don't belong.
Most of the places where a child is genuinely going to be a problem because they're disruptive, a dog is also potentially disruptive.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Ralin
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4329
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Ralin »

Simon_Jester wrote:Most of the places where a child is genuinely going to be a problem because they're disruptive, a dog is also potentially disruptive.
Off the top of my head, I've never seen someone bring a poorly trained and ill-behaved dog to a restaurant. And that's not an especially uncommon thing to do where I live. The same is not true of people who bring their children to restaurants.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Simon_Jester »

I've had experiences along those lines.

I suppose I also think that, quite simply, it is more reasonable to ask people to tolerate child-related disruptions than dog-related disruptions. It is in the collective interest of all humans that children exist and be a part of our society; the collective interest in the promotion of dogs is much weaker. People who find children personally annoying have no more right, and arguably less right, to expect child-free zones than people who find dogs personally annoying (or allergenic, or terrifying because of childhood trauma, etc.) have to expect dog-free zones.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Ralin
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4329
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by Ralin »

Simon_Jester wrote:I've had experiences along those lines.

I suppose I also think that, quite simply, it is more reasonable to ask people to tolerate child-related disruptions than dog-related disruptions. It is in the collective interest of all humans that children exist and be a part of our society; the collective interest in the promotion of dogs is much weaker. People who find children personally annoying have no more right, and arguably less right, to expect child-free zones than people who find dogs personally annoying (or allergenic, or terrifying because of childhood trauma, etc.) have to expect dog-free zones.
Dog owners who get kicked out because their dog is aggressive, annoying or generally an asshole are a lot less likely to go complain about it on Facebook and have it go viral and hurt the restaurant's business than child owners.
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by mr friendly guy »

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and South African President Jacob Zuma openly flaunt their multiple relationships. Yet in the European Union – where an entire continent seems to be marching like lemmings to demographic suicide – many leaders are childless and may therefore be less likely to promote child-friendly policies. Among the current European leaders without children are Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Theresa May, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and Jean-Claude Juncker, president of European Commission.
What an awesome argument. :lol:

Duterte has 4 children from 2 spouses, and has claimed to have 2 girlfriends as of 2015. There is most probably more throughout Duterte's life. That's like 0.5 children per woman, well below Germany's fertility rate of 1.39 children per woman.

Jacob Zuma does better at 24 children with 11 women (there might be another one as he was supposed to have another fiancee, but lets ignore that for the moment). So that's 2.18 children per woman. That's certainly sufficient for the replacement rate in an industrialised country (around 2), however we need 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries due to the higher mortality rate. Guess what country is Zuma from.

First moral of the story, if you're going to talk about multiple relationships and demographic replacement, there is no point having multiple relationships if you don't have kids. Author seems to have not realised this.

Second moral of the story. There is a reason replacement rate is measured by children per woman, and not children per man. A man can have 100 kids with 100 different women, but that will still have less kids than 100 women who each have 2 kids with a single man.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: Baby dearth: why rich societies like Hong Kong are committing demographic suicide

Post by mr friendly guy »

mr friendly guy wrote:
Duterte has 4 children from 2 spouses, and has claimed to have 2 girlfriends as of 2015. There is most probably more throughout Duterte's life. That's like 0.5 children per woman, well below Germany's fertility rate of 1.39 children per woman.
Typo time. It should read that's 1 child per woman.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Post Reply