Australia's baby recession deepens as fertility rates hit record low
www.abc.net.au
The baby recession in Australia is deepening as cost of living pressures make the decision for people to have children less of a choice.

“The latest research by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) showed the fertility rate was 1.48 babies per woman in 2024, down from 2023 figures.”

“Housing affordability, economic security, gender inequality and climate change were the four big things that were not being earnestly tackled by government, Dr Allen said.”

No shit.

  • Hanrahan@slrpnk.netEnglish
    54·
    14 days ago

    So this is goos news. On a planet that should have around 100-500 milluon at most

      • hanrahan@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        11 days ago

        So you never actually read Malthus ?

        That aside, better with 20 billion ? 100 billion? Presumably you have a line where u think " mmmm maybe too many people " So what informs that number for you, assuming some number less than 100 billion ?

        My thoughts are we should let science inform us rather then them random feelings amd also allow other species to exist. But go right ahead, tell is why some random number is best ?

        EO Wilson oponed 250 Million was about all the planet could support with a resource intensive lifestyle.

        • Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          1·
          11 days ago

          …with a resource intensive lifestyle.

          Idk bud, maybe that’s what should change instead of imposing arbitrary pop caps 🤦‍♀️ Besides, who tf is this EO Wilson, anyway? Let’s see…

          Oh, here we go…

          Sociobiology: The New Synthesis was initially met with praise by most biologists. After substantial criticism of the book was launched by the Sociobiology Study Group, associated with the organization Science for the People, a major controversy known as the “sociobiology debate” ensued, and Wilson was accused of racism, misogyny, and support for eugenics. Several of Wilson’s colleagues at Harvard, such as Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, both members of the Group, were strongly opposed. Both focused their criticism mostly on Wilson’s sociobiological writings. Gould, Lewontin, and other members, wrote “Against ‘Sociobiology’” in an open letter criticizing Wilson’s “deterministic view of human society and human action”. Other public lectures, reading groups, and press releases were organized criticizing Wilson’s work. In response, Wilson produced a discussion article entitled “Academic Vigilantism and the Political Significance of Sociobiology” in BioScience.

          Lol. Lmao. Please tell me you’re joking

          Wilson said in reference to ants that “Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species”. He asserted that individual ants and other eusocial species were able to reach higher Darwinian fitness putting the needs of the colony above their own needs as individuals because they lack reproductive independence: individual ants cannot reproduce without a queen, so they can only increase their fitness by working to enhance the fitness of the colony as a whole. Humans, however, do possess reproductive independence, and so individual humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness by looking after their own survival and having their own offspring.

          Now I’m really curious as to how he came up with 250M number (if you can point me to where he said it). This should be be a laugh.