Canada’s birth rate has dropped off a cliff (and it’s likely because nobody can afford housing)
Canada’s birth rate has dropped off a cliff (and it’s likely because nobody can afford housing)
More than a third of young people say they are foregoing children because they can't afford a proper home for them
Statistics Canada confirmed last week that 351,679 babies were born in 2022 — the lowest number of live births since 345,044 births were recorded in 2005.
The disparity is all the more notable given that Canada had just 32 million people in 2005, as compared to the 40 million it counted by the end of 2022. In 2005, it was already at historic lows for Canada to have a fertility rate of 1.57 births per woman. But given the 2022 figures, that fertility rate has now sunk to 1.33.
...
Of Canadians in their 20s, Statistics Canada found that 38 per cent of them “did not believe they could afford to have a child in the next three years” — with about that same number (32 per cent) saying they doubted they’d be able to find “suitable housing” in which to care for a baby.
...
A January survey by the Angus Reid Group asked women to list the ideal size of their family against its actual size, and concluded that the average Canadian woman reached the end of their childbearing years with 0.5 fewer children than they would have wanted
“In Canada, unlike many other countries, fertility rates and desires rise with income: richer Canadians have more children,” it read.
You're viewing a single thread.
There’s too many people on this planet anyways.
By what measure? Industry and a small minority of extremely wealthy people are setting the agenda to destroy the planet, not average people.
Look at what we did to the planet with the current (and smaller) population sizes. You think adding MORE people isn’t going to become an issue?
We are, in the near future, going to have a mass migration of people away from no longer inhabitable land.
Those people you’re talking about aren’t going to give up power and let “average people” right the ship. And those same “average people” have been placated and conditioned to buy shiny trinkets and celebrate touchdowns and home runs instead of organizing and uprooting the real problem makers.
By just about every measure? Would you rather have a smaller population and the same standard of living, or a larger population and a considerably lower standard of living? The earth's resources and abilities to heal itself are finite. The more people we have, the more restrictive our quality of life needs to be. Instead of having a house on some usable land, a garden, and some chickens, you're forced into a stacked box, with one window, and no yard, surrounded by other stacked boxes. Plus the impact of everything you do is magnified. Oh, you want to drive to the store? Better walk 20 blocks instead, because we're already at our carbon capacity. That last example was hyperbole, but it's not that far fetched. Basically a lower population gives us a lot more leeway to live our lives comfortably.
The fact the nearest store is 20 blocks away is a consequence of bad urban planning
Yes, but that knowledge doesn't change the distance you need to travel to go there.
There are more people on the planet than ever and QOL is up overall. Resources are not the problem, it's resource allocation and wealth inequality.
QOL is not up overall. Well I guess it depends on your standards for QOL. Sure, entertainment options are plentiful and you can get well made products delivered to your door in 12 hours. But housing affordability is at an all-time low, cost of living near all-time highs, and we're hitting record high and low weather events every single freaking day. These are all fallouts from rapid population expansion and using old systems to maintain an ever changing reality. An influx of 1 million people into an area that only builds a few thousand houses per year is going to cause massive spikes in demand, which attracts the attention of investment bankers, who then fund real estate acquisition, further exacerbating the problem. The carbon footprint of 8 billion people is more than double the carbon footprint of 4 billion people. Sure, many issues still remain with a smaller population, but every issue is magnified by a larger one. There are some benefits to large populations, but I think we're beyond sustainable now.
Totally agree. We should have <1B people living like kings, not 10B people living like peasants. A lot of environmentally unsustainable things become perfectly sustainable if there are fewer people on the planet. Like, we shouldn't have to be worried about the impact of beef production or overfishing - the planet should be able to sustain the number of humans that want to eat those things. At 8-10B it obviously can't.
Amputation doesn't cure a systemic disease. Very little has to change about most people's status of living in order for the vast majority of people to live comfortably without being forced into buying plastic, driving everywhere, etc. These are bad planning and poor oversight issues that have nothing to do with numbers of people in a population.
The majority of the remedy that would solve the issue long-term is opportunities and competition in green tech (which is being held back in favour of propping up a few fossil fuel giants), refusing to excuse wasteful and damaging industry practices, fugitive emissions, wastes of resources, etc. The ones who would be most likely to see significant change to their lives are the ones who are also individually wasting the most resources (with private jets, yachts, powering multiple homes, etc.)
But sure, give that small minority of super-wasteful people an excuse to waste even more and kill people off (since we don't have time for natural causes or accidental deaths to make a difference) to prop up their lifestyle.
Yes I agree, those are all good strategies. But to implement all of those things on a global scale takes generations. In the meantime, we're stuck with an old system, designed for a much smaller populace. Our growth outpaced our progress.
Edit: and to be clear I never said a damned thing about killing people. You added that. Choosing to not have kids is not even remotely similar to killing people.
By what measure?
Literally every objective measure of our planet's health? We are permanently changing the atmosphere, simultaneously causing a mass extinction event, and virtually every environmental preserve and tourist attraction is facing huge damage from overuse.
Every human being has a carbon cost, none of us are carbon negative or neutral, until we build systems that change that, every extra human we add is destroying our planet faster.
I mean if you're concerned about the actual planet then don't worry the Earth will survive with or without humans lol. If your concern is our survival as a species then that's a different story.
...should we eat them?
Yes
Yes
There's also the fact that heavily developed nations with declining birth rates are also overwhelmingly responsible for climate change.
Ugh, I hate this argument. I always wonder: so what do you propose ? Many countries' retirement system are built on the active population paying for the retired population. What do you think happens when there are more retired than actives?
Low birth rate is a real serious issue for many countries. The problem is not overpopulation, it's poverty and how we manage our resources.
Capitalism and retirement is set up as a pyramid scheme. We shouldn't be looking at situations that were recklessly arranged assuming endless growth and saying "how do we prevent population contraction" - that's insanity. We need to figure out how to retool society for a post-growth world.
If the only way to prevent the music from stopping is a pyramid scheme, we're all fucked.
No there's not. There's too many people for capitalism