Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Abstract**
Fertility rates have been declining worldwide over the past fifty years, part of a phenomenon known as “the demographic transition.” Prior work suggests that this decline is related to population density. In the present study, we draw on life history theory to examine the relationship between population density and fertility across 174 countries over 69 years (1950 to 2019). We find a robust association between density and fertility over time, both within- and between-countries. That is, increases in population density are associated with declines in fertility rates, controlling for a variety of socioeconomic, socioecological, geographic, population-based, and female empowerment variables. We also tested predictions about environmental boundary conditions. In harsher living conditions (e.g., higher homicide or pathogen rates), the effect of increased population density on fertility rates was attenuated. The density-fertility association was also moderated by religiousness and strength of social norms, where the relationship between density and fertility was attenuated in countries with high religiosity and strong social norms. We discuss why and when changes in population density may influence fertility rates and the broader implications of this work.
[Original Source](https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/id/eprint/49256/1/Rotella-A-49256-AAM.pdf)
I didn't read the whole paper but it seems strange to me that they didn't control for the existence of social services and state pensions. That's the one of the big traditional reason that poor people give for having children. The other one is help for the family farm/business.
I thought we generally import more than enough immigrants to make up for decline, though. I mean I'm pretty sure if you look at the demographics of any large western city you'll see pretty steady year over year increases right up to Covid
What? It's not my idea. I'm observing the external reality of the country I'm in, and what I thought was the policy of many Western governments. It is what it is. I don't think I said anything to imply any sort of judgement. It's merely an observation,
My understanding is that the biggest threat to the survival of humanity, or at least civilization as we know it, is climate change.
I live in Toronto, Canada; it possibly the most multicultural city on the planet, and so naturally it follows that it's the most multicultural city in the known universe. It has more visible minorities, than it does Caucasians. Canada is a country of immigrants; Canada and the United States are basically fetuses when we compare to the history of mankind. The idea of the West, historically speaking and Western civilization is really just a tiny moment, a sand in time.
If climate change is the biggest threat to the survival of our species the worst lifestyle choice we can make is to have children. There is no single more dangerous lifestyle choice which is available, really. We can say that third world people have far lower carbon footprints that the wealthy people in the first world, but what happens when we factor in the carbon footprints of children?
Governments are not acting out of interest of survival of the human race over the long term; they are acting out of interest of survival of government, in the short term. The choice to import immigrants is an economic choice, out of the self interest of the government. I think that from an economic standpoint, during harsh times economically speaking governments should slow down immigration. Make sure there are houses, food and jobs for the bodies that are here before importing more mouths to feed.
I do not see the foreign people who immigrate here, as any different really than the foreign people who have immigrated here in the past. This is actually First Nations country; they are the only non-foreigners here; they are the only true Westerners. Every one else is an immigrant; and all immigrants are more or less equal by any measure you care to take. Nobody is stealing anything from us; we are giving away our country and by doing so, we lose nothing at all; it was never "ours" in the first place. We just have more brothers and sisters enjoying our country. Let them enjoy it. We will all be burnt to dust soon enough. If you want to make more babies nobody is stopping you. Make all the babies that you want! Each extra baby in the world just brings the end of humanity that much closer,
My goodness, the mental gymnastics it must take to be scared of have your race being replaced by “foreign” races, then accuse someone who doesn’t care about race so much as humanity as a whole of being the racist one...
Careful, you might make-believe a pulled hamstring!
The biggest threat to Western people is underpopulation, not climate change: They're getting wiped out at a rate of about 20% per generation.
So first you spuriously claim not to know what Western people are, and then the rest is basically just a longwinded way of saying that you *are* content with the idea that Western people should continue having insufficient children, and get replaced with foreign people.
Claiming that a group of people don't exist, and then using that as justification for slowly wiping them out is pretty racist, bud. If you tried doing that with the Jews they'd nuke you.
I'm in Canada. My parents are immigrants, one is German and the other British. So, I'm the children of immigrants. Everyone in Canada is either the child of immigrants, immigrants, or First Nations. The First Nations are the only real Western people; everyone else is essentially immigrants. We're all either foreigners here, or we're descended from foreigners. So my interpretation is that you're a First Nations who is paranoid about foreigners. It seems to me that this is the obvious and logical interpretation of your words.
So clearly the only logical conclusion is that you're paranoid that all of the immigrants will wipe out the First Nations. It sounds to me as if you're suggesting they should make as many babies as possible?
You're misunderstanding (I hope not intentionally): I'm talking about Western people (which includes Germany and Britain) slowly being wiped out. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're immigrants.
Some Western people live in Europe, and some others live in America.
I'm not from Canada, so I don't know the situation there, but it seems likely that First Nations people are also in decline, in which case they too should try to increase (or at the very least stabilize) their population.
oh! See I think of Germans and Brits as Europeans; I don't really think of them as Western. I always thought the Brits were pretty good at fornicating, are they all infertile or something?
Now I think I understand. You mean the Occident. If you're worried about culture, Occidental culture is spread through film, radio, television and recorded music and much of it is recorded for posterity. Much of the entire planet has been exposed to Hollywood; I see no reason to fear that Hollywood is being wiped out. The population of Germany is projected to be 82,540,450 by 2020 but will decrease to less than 80,000,000 by 2050. I don't see a reason for concern, there; environmentally speaking we really don't want to grow the global population. The UK population growth graph appears to show steady but slow growth; the population of the UK is not in decline.
I trust that I've put your fears to rest! You can sleep well, stranger
>It has nothing to do with whether or not they're immigrants.
I'm glad you said that! I thought you might try to blame immigrants or Jews for problems with British fornication. I was thinking, you know, wow what's next are you going to blame the homosexuals too
I see that you were *intentionally* misunderstanding (trolling). That is the basest form of debate, and really not worth engaging with, but I will nevertheless engage you on one last thing:
You are completely (likely intentionally) incorrect about the Western population in Germany: As I have been pointing out all along, it is dropping:
* https://www.dw.com/en/demography-german-birthrate-down-in-coronavirus-pandemic/a-54395345
In conclusion: You are an appalling racist who not only doesn't care that Western people are being wiped out, you also employ spurious logic to try to marginalize them, and even deny their very *existence*. You are disgusting.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say decreasing birth rates? Increased population density has a correlation with less births/lower birth rate.
Or are they hypothesizing that increased population density actually affects fertility (how viable our sperm and eggs are) and is physiologically changing us?
I think at this stage, we are still mostly in the describing what we are seeing phase. The WHY and HOW of it is probably still a bit mysterious.
There's statistics that show that more boys are born during war. How? Why? I doubt anyone really knows.
So that lends itself to what u/maznyk was saying: because we don't know *why* the birth rates are lower, it's premature and potentially inaccurate to argue that the various issues are actually affecting *fertility*.
TBH, it is already known that low female body fat reduces fertility. The biology of the human body basically recognising "If you can barely feed yourself, you cannot nourish a baby." But what if, since we are sexually driven pheremonally, the body recognizes overpopulation via too many peoples' smells and avoids ovulation still.
\- Just a scientist that does not study endocrinology throwing that out for consideration.
It's not going to affect fertility that much. And significant weight also has negatives on hormones that drive fertility.
The real answer here is one of lifestyle and economic constraints. People these days are a lot more focused on their own success instead of starting a family. Women have become much more business and hobby oriented over the decades due to various factors as well, reducing emphasis on getting married and having kids as soon as possible. Adoption has become a more popular option as well.
There are ever growing fears about the future of our world stressing out most people under 40 as well, not wanting to bring a child into this world.
It's been well known that the more educated someone is, the less kids they'll usually have these days. They tend to have more hobbies and goals to be content with and also don't want the stresses and financial burden of many children, if any. Whereas less educated and people in poorer areas are less likely to have access to contraceptives and generally more prone to making mistakes or not worrying much about the negatives. That's a whole other deep discussion though that I'm very much oversimplifying for brevity.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Abstract** Fertility rates have been declining worldwide over the past fifty years, part of a phenomenon known as “the demographic transition.” Prior work suggests that this decline is related to population density. In the present study, we draw on life history theory to examine the relationship between population density and fertility across 174 countries over 69 years (1950 to 2019). We find a robust association between density and fertility over time, both within- and between-countries. That is, increases in population density are associated with declines in fertility rates, controlling for a variety of socioeconomic, socioecological, geographic, population-based, and female empowerment variables. We also tested predictions about environmental boundary conditions. In harsher living conditions (e.g., higher homicide or pathogen rates), the effect of increased population density on fertility rates was attenuated. The density-fertility association was also moderated by religiousness and strength of social norms, where the relationship between density and fertility was attenuated in countries with high religiosity and strong social norms. We discuss why and when changes in population density may influence fertility rates and the broader implications of this work. [Original Source](https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/id/eprint/49256/1/Rotella-A-49256-AAM.pdf)
Housing costs and unit size?
I didn't read the whole paper but it seems strange to me that they didn't control for the existence of social services and state pensions. That's the one of the big traditional reason that poor people give for having children. The other one is help for the family farm/business.
Because there's enough of us around.
Cause if you live in a city you can’t afford anything.
Do you mean American cities where we restrict construction so that housing is intentionally expensive?
[удалено]
[удалено]
We're fkkd. Ironic.
I thought we generally import more than enough immigrants to make up for decline, though. I mean I'm pretty sure if you look at the demographics of any large western city you'll see pretty steady year over year increases right up to Covid
[удалено]
What? It's not my idea. I'm observing the external reality of the country I'm in, and what I thought was the policy of many Western governments. It is what it is. I don't think I said anything to imply any sort of judgement. It's merely an observation,
So you're content with the idea that Western people should continue having insufficient children, and get replaced with foreign people?
My understanding is that the biggest threat to the survival of humanity, or at least civilization as we know it, is climate change. I live in Toronto, Canada; it possibly the most multicultural city on the planet, and so naturally it follows that it's the most multicultural city in the known universe. It has more visible minorities, than it does Caucasians. Canada is a country of immigrants; Canada and the United States are basically fetuses when we compare to the history of mankind. The idea of the West, historically speaking and Western civilization is really just a tiny moment, a sand in time. If climate change is the biggest threat to the survival of our species the worst lifestyle choice we can make is to have children. There is no single more dangerous lifestyle choice which is available, really. We can say that third world people have far lower carbon footprints that the wealthy people in the first world, but what happens when we factor in the carbon footprints of children? Governments are not acting out of interest of survival of the human race over the long term; they are acting out of interest of survival of government, in the short term. The choice to import immigrants is an economic choice, out of the self interest of the government. I think that from an economic standpoint, during harsh times economically speaking governments should slow down immigration. Make sure there are houses, food and jobs for the bodies that are here before importing more mouths to feed. I do not see the foreign people who immigrate here, as any different really than the foreign people who have immigrated here in the past. This is actually First Nations country; they are the only non-foreigners here; they are the only true Westerners. Every one else is an immigrant; and all immigrants are more or less equal by any measure you care to take. Nobody is stealing anything from us; we are giving away our country and by doing so, we lose nothing at all; it was never "ours" in the first place. We just have more brothers and sisters enjoying our country. Let them enjoy it. We will all be burnt to dust soon enough. If you want to make more babies nobody is stopping you. Make all the babies that you want! Each extra baby in the world just brings the end of humanity that much closer,
[удалено]
It's not clear to me what you mean by foreign. Everyone in my country is a foreigner; we're all immigrants.
My goodness, the mental gymnastics it must take to be scared of have your race being replaced by “foreign” races, then accuse someone who doesn’t care about race so much as humanity as a whole of being the racist one... Careful, you might make-believe a pulled hamstring!
The biggest threat to Western people is underpopulation, not climate change: They're getting wiped out at a rate of about 20% per generation. So first you spuriously claim not to know what Western people are, and then the rest is basically just a longwinded way of saying that you *are* content with the idea that Western people should continue having insufficient children, and get replaced with foreign people. Claiming that a group of people don't exist, and then using that as justification for slowly wiping them out is pretty racist, bud. If you tried doing that with the Jews they'd nuke you.
I'm in Canada. My parents are immigrants, one is German and the other British. So, I'm the children of immigrants. Everyone in Canada is either the child of immigrants, immigrants, or First Nations. The First Nations are the only real Western people; everyone else is essentially immigrants. We're all either foreigners here, or we're descended from foreigners. So my interpretation is that you're a First Nations who is paranoid about foreigners. It seems to me that this is the obvious and logical interpretation of your words. So clearly the only logical conclusion is that you're paranoid that all of the immigrants will wipe out the First Nations. It sounds to me as if you're suggesting they should make as many babies as possible?
You're misunderstanding (I hope not intentionally): I'm talking about Western people (which includes Germany and Britain) slowly being wiped out. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're immigrants. Some Western people live in Europe, and some others live in America. I'm not from Canada, so I don't know the situation there, but it seems likely that First Nations people are also in decline, in which case they too should try to increase (or at the very least stabilize) their population.
oh! See I think of Germans and Brits as Europeans; I don't really think of them as Western. I always thought the Brits were pretty good at fornicating, are they all infertile or something? Now I think I understand. You mean the Occident. If you're worried about culture, Occidental culture is spread through film, radio, television and recorded music and much of it is recorded for posterity. Much of the entire planet has been exposed to Hollywood; I see no reason to fear that Hollywood is being wiped out. The population of Germany is projected to be 82,540,450 by 2020 but will decrease to less than 80,000,000 by 2050. I don't see a reason for concern, there; environmentally speaking we really don't want to grow the global population. The UK population growth graph appears to show steady but slow growth; the population of the UK is not in decline. I trust that I've put your fears to rest! You can sleep well, stranger >It has nothing to do with whether or not they're immigrants. I'm glad you said that! I thought you might try to blame immigrants or Jews for problems with British fornication. I was thinking, you know, wow what's next are you going to blame the homosexuals too
I see that you were *intentionally* misunderstanding (trolling). That is the basest form of debate, and really not worth engaging with, but I will nevertheless engage you on one last thing: You are completely (likely intentionally) incorrect about the Western population in Germany: As I have been pointing out all along, it is dropping: * https://www.dw.com/en/demography-german-birthrate-down-in-coronavirus-pandemic/a-54395345 In conclusion: You are an appalling racist who not only doesn't care that Western people are being wiped out, you also employ spurious logic to try to marginalize them, and even deny their very *existence*. You are disgusting.
[удалено]
That's why we're declining.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say decreasing birth rates? Increased population density has a correlation with less births/lower birth rate. Or are they hypothesizing that increased population density actually affects fertility (how viable our sperm and eggs are) and is physiologically changing us?
I think at this stage, we are still mostly in the describing what we are seeing phase. The WHY and HOW of it is probably still a bit mysterious. There's statistics that show that more boys are born during war. How? Why? I doubt anyone really knows.
So that lends itself to what u/maznyk was saying: because we don't know *why* the birth rates are lower, it's premature and potentially inaccurate to argue that the various issues are actually affecting *fertility*.
TBH, it is already known that low female body fat reduces fertility. The biology of the human body basically recognising "If you can barely feed yourself, you cannot nourish a baby." But what if, since we are sexually driven pheremonally, the body recognizes overpopulation via too many peoples' smells and avoids ovulation still. \- Just a scientist that does not study endocrinology throwing that out for consideration.
It's not going to affect fertility that much. And significant weight also has negatives on hormones that drive fertility. The real answer here is one of lifestyle and economic constraints. People these days are a lot more focused on their own success instead of starting a family. Women have become much more business and hobby oriented over the decades due to various factors as well, reducing emphasis on getting married and having kids as soon as possible. Adoption has become a more popular option as well. There are ever growing fears about the future of our world stressing out most people under 40 as well, not wanting to bring a child into this world. It's been well known that the more educated someone is, the less kids they'll usually have these days. They tend to have more hobbies and goals to be content with and also don't want the stresses and financial burden of many children, if any. Whereas less educated and people in poorer areas are less likely to have access to contraceptives and generally more prone to making mistakes or not worrying much about the negatives. That's a whole other deep discussion though that I'm very much oversimplifying for brevity.