Spyke
australia·AustraliabyStudSpud The Starchy

Australia's baby recession deepens, new ABS data says

"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.

Australia's baby recession deepens, new ABS data sayshttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-15/australia-s-baby-recession-deepens-new-abs-data-says/105541086Open linkView original on aussie.zone
33
Comments9
Whostosay
sh.itjust.works

They went so far down the wage slave route that we can't even afford to produce more children. It really is a mental illness amount of greed and we have to start treating it that way.

23
Joshi
slrpnk.net

A few months ago John Quiggin posted this and I find his argument pretty compelling

Are pronatalists living on the same planet?

But even in this extreme case, world population in 2100 only falls to 6 billion, the same as in 2000. I was around at the time, and did not feel as if there were too few people about.

What about the need for workers? One unsatisfactory feature of long-running projections like this is the use of outdated statistical concepts such as the “dependency ratio”, that is, the ratio of people aged 15-64 to everyone else. That made sense 50 years ago, when this range represented the period between leaving school and retiring in most industrial societies. But these days (and it will be even more so in 2100) education continues well past 20 and retirement is often deferred to 70 or more. A look at the age group 25-69 shows that it is going to remain more or less stable in absolute numbers declining only marginally relative to the growing population

Also followed up with this

A billion people would be plenty to sustain civilisation …

11
Hanrahan
slrpnk.net

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

1
hanrahanreply
piefed.social

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.

1
Walk_blesseDreply
piefed.blahaj.zone

…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.

1

You reached the end

Australia's baby recession deepens, new ABS data says | Spyke