World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Humans have a natural drive to procreate (not just have sex), so if your population doesn’t want to have children, maybe look at what you’re doing to make them avoid this natural proclivity.
I’d argue the only real solution is a longer leave for both parents without affecting their careers. But it’s generally just not doable with their corporate culture.
Source?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4956347/
This is about protecting infants not about drive to procreation.
And how do we get these infants we love protecting?
This doesn't say we have infants because we love protecting them. It says why we protect them once we have them. If you don't understand this there's really nothing to talk about. I will just assume there's no proof for your first statement and it's most probably false.
I’d argue the 8 billion people on this planet suggests it’s true.
In developing countries people have kids because it's an investment. You need kids to help you work the fields, take care of the house and take care of you when you're old. Infant mortality is high so family planning is difficult and people have a lot of kids. Once certain economical level is reached and people can count on social security to take care of them when they are old kids become an expense, not investment and, surprise surprise, people stop having kids. Almost universally in every developed country in the world birth rates are below replacement levels, even in countries with best social programs and highest life satisfaction. So no, it's not true.
Have you considered that developing also means everyone is too busy focused on becoming a productive cog? There are much higher opportunity costs for women even with token benefits from the government. I’m saying that the benefits aren’t nearly enough since every developed country has to compete in the same rat race.
Look at birth rates by income, for those with a very comfortable income, the birth rate is higher.
If you compare Europe with developing countries a lot of people have comfortable incomes and even in the wealthiest countries birth rates are below replacement levels. You can keep coming with reasons like lack of healthcare, childcare, expensive homes and so on but the fact is that people in Africa don't have any of that and they still have more kids. Even in Europe or US people used to have more kids in way worse economic situation than today. The idea that people felt they have "comfortable income" to have 5 kids while working 6 days a week at a coal mine and living in a one bedroom apartment but can't have kids today because they can't put each one in separate room is just silly. People used to have a lot of kids because it was a necessity. Once the necessity was gone they stopped.
A lot of people want to form a family. They want to have a kid or two. Once they do they stop procreating because there's no natural drive to keep having more and more children. They keep having sex because there is natural drive for that but the drive to have kids is just something you made up.
Is it though? The standards are much higher now and there’s a lot more effort put into raising each child. That’s literally a standard people have now.
Isn’t this my original point? I didn’t say everyone wanted to have an entire litter. There are plenty of people who want to have a family without sacrificing opportunity.
Is it? Oh, I though you meant that people want to have as many kids as possible. If you mean people want to have one or two kids I can agree (I think this is societal need, not biological but it's just my opinion). This is still way below replacement levels and just this need will not guarantee long term survival of society. So I guess we agree that natural needs of people will not solve demographic issues developed countries are facing.
I think then it would be a good question to ask why families with 1 or 2 kids why they don’t have more.
I’d say the main reasons would be:
So governments might be able to move the needle a bit with these families by providing extra support.
Makes sense. I guess that's why the poorest people have the least children.
Oh, wait:
That's why I was asking for a source. Your theories have no backing in reality. The truth is that people simply don't want to have a lot of kids because it's a chore. Society puts pressure on people to form a family by constant propaganda in popular media and by using peer pressure (once all your friends have kids all they do is stuff for kids. people without children are left out). My guess is poor people have more kids because they don't have family planning education and resources to do it. Once you satisfy the societal need to form a family unit (usually by having one child) there's no more pressure and people stop having children. I'm sure there are many people that would like to have one child by can't afford it (or they think they can't afford it) and government can help them but no matter what you do people will not go back to having 4 or 5 kids. There's no "natural drive" to do it.
$200k isn’t sufficiently rich:
Do people you know just not like their kids? Parents generally really like their offspring.
There’s definitely some biology involved. For example, women can forget the pain of childbirth.
Interesting. I looks like it starts going up around the 1% threshold again. This is the level where kids are not a chore anymore. People have nannies to take care of the kids when they wake up at night, change diapers, feed them, drive them to school and so on. Maybe you're right. When you hit a level of income that lets you have kids and live your life at the same time people will opt for more kids. You know what? You convinced me. We should aim for making everyone a millionaire. I have no idea if it's economically feasible or how would it work but it's a nice goal to have.
Of course they like their kids but kids are also a major pain in the ass. They are always happy when they can leave kids with grandparents or at childcare. I know a couple where the mother doesn't work and they still leave the kid at childcare. Even during holidays when both of them don't work they still take the kid to childcare. I guess they all aim for the 1% experience of only spending quality time with kids, not having them around all the time.