43

Namrata Nangia and her husband have been toying with the idea of having another child since their five-year-old daughter was born.

But it always comes back to one question: 'Can we afford it?'

She lives in Mumbai and works in pharmaceuticals, her husband works at a tyre company. But the costs of having one child are already overwhelming - school fees, the school bus, swimming lessons, even going to the GP is expensive.

It was different when Namrata was growing up. "We just used to go to school, nothing extracurricular, but now you have to send your kid to swimming, you have to send them to drawing, you have to see what else they can do."

According to a new report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency for reproductive rights, Namrata's situation is becoming a global norm.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] grasshopper_mouse@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

I love my kids so much I chose not to bring them into this fucked up world.

[-] Alloi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

ive been saying that exact sentance for my entire adult life. lol.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Life is just too hard, I can't even get a dog because I'm so busy/exhausted all the time, the thought of caring for a child is just too much. Hard pass, I've only got one life and I'd rather live it on my terms.

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

My wife and I made the same decision. We joke that Octomom had our kids.

8 billion people call Earth home. As another commentor has said, we probably should have half that. Your choice and our choice not to have kids enables that, even if only stupid people reproduce. With how the world is turning out right now, I think we both made the right choice.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, with what the assholes have done to our trajectory, I think I’m fine leaving the world that’s coming to the stupid people and their stupid kids.

[-] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Honestly thats another reason. I know how hard I've worked to get a decent life and I can only see it getting harder. It feels like it costs $300/day just to exist, I can't do that to another person.

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago
[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I know this is in jest, but it's definitely something the shitheads would push. And my answer goes thusly:

No. The Economy hasn't done a damn thing for me, and it's done less for my wife. I'm treading water, unable to afford a house or a car on what was once an unfathomable sum of money when I was younger. It has done less for my wife, who relies on my job to keep a roof over her head. You want us to have kids? Reassure us that our kids will have a better life, and stop vampire-squidding us and sucking down every loose dollar.

[-] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago
[-] wabafee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago
[-] selkiesidhe@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

Good. We elect fucking fascists and let people murder our world, we as a race deserve to die out.

[-] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

The reason there are fewer child births in the US since the 90s is mainly the reduction of pregnancies in the demographic "25 and younger". They didn't made a conscious choice, looking at their abacus and evaluating the state of the world. They slipped into it and were forced to make it work. Interestingly, they then still had children later in life as well, for more complex and personal reasons.

It seems to me, that if you give woman the choice, they choose not be pregnant at the cost of their career.

[-] SecretSauces@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Loss of biodiversity, climate change, more extreme weather events, ocean acidification, Gulfstream collapse, microplastics in literally everything, the rise of fascism, constant wars/oppression/genocides, everything being politicized and radicalized, capitalistic exploitation of consumers in every market, the mega-rich using their money to cause misery for profits, even more than I can think of right now.

Want more reasons why I don't want to raise my children into the world we are heading towards?

One could argue that the Internet and how we are now so interconnected is the cause of a lot of these things, but I think the biggest reason for it all stems from a lack of compassion. Compassion for fellow humans, compassion for fellow living creatures, compassion for the planet at live on.

[-] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I would never subject a child to the same life I have had to live

It's abuse

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 4 points 1 month ago

This warms my heart. A rare bit of good news these days.

[-] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

We do need to reduce the human population. About 4-5 billion would be ideal.
On the negative side, we don't know how to handle this situation of declining population. The entire human history is one of non-stop growth interrupted only by catastrophic pandemics, which were the only way the population dropped so far.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

You're right, there is no economic system for dealing with this.

We are royally screwed. Global warming will only exacerbate the population drop, both through weather related deaths and less willingness to produce children.

If you're young, I'd suggest you learn to grow food. Not even joking.

[-] tomenzgg@midwest.social -1 points 1 month ago

Periodic reminder that overpopulation (which is why, I'm assuming, you say we need to reduce the population; I apologize if that assumption is erroneous) is an ecofascist, classist, and racist myth. It's convenient for systems such as capitalism and conveniently penalizes "Third World" countries but does not address the real causes of the ills that overpopulation purports to solve.

https://greenisthenewblack.com/opinion-the-overpopulation-myth-example-ecofascism/

[-] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

I disagree with the conclusion of the article, although the contents do touch on some important points.

The article itself claims there aren't enough resources for everyone to live a "developed country lifestyle", which is connected to higher emissions per capita.
One way forward is to reduce the consumption. But the other way is to reduce the population so there is enough for everyone to be at least somewhat wasteful. Imo, the best would be both.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

A lot of things happen in the developed world that serve no purpose besides economics. Phones could be made to last twice as long, and aren't getting dramatically better from one generation to the next. We could build houses to last a century instead of 50 years for little more cash. We could make clothes that last longer, but then fashion would have to take a back seat to function. We have much more efficient lighting, but they are also designed to break more often than they could so more light bulbs can be sold. Cars could be made more efficient, and non-car transportation could be incentivized. We could fix food supply/distribution issues so there is less food waste. We could use more efficient, non-fossil methods of heating and cooling our homes, which should also be better insulated so they also cost less to heat or cool.

We may not be able to have 8 billion people living in the lap of luxury, but we could have 8 billion people with a place to live, food to eat, access to a green space to enjoy the outdoors, and access to the rest of the world through modern communications.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago
[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

When business is the world's first priority, why does it come as a surprise that people don't feel like bringing an innocent life into the orphan crushing machine?

[-] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.kya.moe 2 points 1 month ago

Great news. Now, time to focus on automating as much of elderly care as possible (and beyond) before it all goes to hell.

[-] nullPointer@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

i think there is a difference between low fertility rate and low birth rate. Its not like these people CANT have children, they are CHOOSING not to.

[-] codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

Aside from the psychological/sociological side of it, PFAS and microolastics have been shown in some studies to reduce women's fertility and to mess with sperm. So environmental damage is also poisoning us and destroying our ability to procreate. Go team!

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

The rich will fix it by putting out disinformation campaigns telling you it's all fake.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I was intrigued to see this issue written about in an international context, as usually, the articles I see on this are US-centric and from right-wing sources who really, really want the poors to birth the next generation of exploitable labor and inexplicably ignore that the people they want to birth and parent these children are themselves being exploited and exceedingly impoverished too.

[-] CircaV@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

Maybe life shouldn’t be that expensive (food/shelter), and IVF programs be free.

[-] DerArzt@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Damn dirty communist out here demanding

Checks notes

Affordable living and healthcare

Just despicable!

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, what are those damn commies going to demand next, human rights?

[-] DerArzt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago
[-] CircaV@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago
[-] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 0 points 1 month ago

Fertility rates and what influences them have been discusses a lot. It's something influences by a multitude of factors, and each region in the world has a different mix or ratio of factors, so that makes it hard to disentangle. Income, inequality, living cost, childcare cost, housing cost, societal expectations, double income families, commuting, urbanization and environment less suitable for children, pressure to be productive, promotions as status, prioritization of spending money on goods and travel, change in gender roles, dating and marriage changed, more single people, pressure to monitor and invest more time in children, economic instability, the increasing threat of AI and robots taking job ... The list continues.

The main problem for modern society is that these things can't be changed without modifying society itself and/or lots of money is involved. So policy makers are stuck. They're under pressure to increase fertility rate but only in a way that it doesn't cost employers money and makes sure that consumption of goods doesn't drop. They also have to make sure there are enough workers but increasing immigration is problematic. The end result is that they do some token gestures and just let it play out. They probably hope that big tech arrives with their AI and robots to do the jobs and help with elderly care.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

They’re under pressure to increase fertility rate but only in a way that it doesn’t cost employers money

That's what is wild to me. Boiled down to the basics, the quandary we're facing is having a functional society or a few hundred billionaires; and the billionaires are our priority.

[-] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 1 points 1 month ago

Money is power in this society, and billionaires have the most money. See also climate change what is again the choice between a few hundred billionaires and a livable planet, and the billionaires are winning.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

As someone else said. Are we talking birth rate? Or fertility rate?

Choosing to not have a kid is different from wanting to have a kid and not physically being able to.

[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

Population increase is only important to employers.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It's important to everyone, including you. As the population ages, and fewer young people move into the economy, the tax base shrinks. Who is going to pay for government?

Also, employers will have to compete for the remaining workers, raising wages. That's good to a point, and then everything becomes too expensive, now you're in a depression. It's an economic death spiral.

Taxing the rich only works to a point. Their wealth is mostly in the global stock markets, which will eventually crash. As well, the value of those publicly traded companies will nosedive as fewer and fewer workers are available to produce the goods and services.

We're facing the global equivalent of the fall of Rome. Nation states will splinter into smaller and smaller, self-dependent groups and the riches we enjoy today will be memories of a better time. If you want a contemporary version of that, look at China restricting rare earths. That's impacting about every other country on Earth. Now imagine international trade utterly collapsing.

[-] Killer57@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Humanity desperately needs to move away from capitalism, if it wants any chance of survival. Either that or we install a Universal base income system.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Neither of those proposals answer the issues I brought up. But they're very good for lemmy upvotes!

[-] kazaika@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No its important for wellfare video

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I look at long term trends where the global population peaks in a few decades then heads down all too quickly, and find it important to act to stabilize that at a level a bit below here we are now

[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 month ago

It will collapse because we don't regulate intake. Look at population collapse for rabbits as an example. We're overconsuming and need to regulate now.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The problem is we’re over-consuming now, over-populating now, but will feel the effects of lower birth rates in 50+ years. There’s extremely delayed feedback on population trends, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

Even conservatives sometime start from a point of truth. The problem is their solution is to turn back rights for women, opportunities for women. Technically correct, if you have no morals or empathy.

For the rest of us concerned about this possibility, society needs to change a lot to remove obstacles from people who do choose to have children. And this would take a couple generations to take effect so we need to start now, to stabilize the dropping population in 50-100 years

this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
43 points (97.8% liked)

World News

48571 readers
431 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS