this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
278 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51547 readers
3251 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
 

More than 4,000 elementary, middle and high schools across Korea have shut their doors as the country’s student population shrinks, new data shows.

According to the Ministry of Education’s latest figures, revealed on Sunday by Rep. Jin Sun-mee of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea, since 1980, 4,008 schools under 17 regional education offices nationwide have closed as of March this year. During the period, the number of enrolled students decreased from 9.9 million to 5.07 million.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I think it has a very simple explanation, but I doubt many people will agree with me.

I think it proves that humans simply do not have an inherent urge to procreate. Humans have the urge to have sex, sure, and for a long time having sex carried the consequence of having children, but they are not the same thing. When people are able to survive without children and have the CHOICE to not have children, many simply don't want to.

In the past people needed many children, because many of them died before adulthood, and they needed the rest to take care of them in old age. Women didn't have the right to say no and many needed husbands to provide for them, since they couldn't own their own property or even have jobs. When men wanted sex, women had to comply and without birth control they automatically got pregnant, whether they wanted to or not.

I think not having the option to choose, people had children because.. that's just the way it was.

Now people have a choice. And we see what choices they make.

I'm sure many people are going to argue that it is too expensive to have kids, but let's be honest here. Most humans on earth today are orders of magnitude more prosperous than 400 years ago, for example. If people really wanted kids, they'd have them.

Many people simply don't want kids and maybe it's time we finally acknowledge it.

There are only a few groups of people who still have lots of children: the very poor in underdeveloped countries and the very religious. And note that in many of these cases people don't really have a choice.

People who want to have kids don't have money, and people who don't want, do have money.

[–] Rainbowblite@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or people just can't afford to have them. Or they don't have reliable access to childcare. Or they are too afraid of the future to subject chuldren to whatever is coming. Or any number of social issue that could be fixed.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Housing used to be cheap enough that you could just have enough to have a family and without worrying about space, now housing yourself is a burden because we're forced to subsidize the lifestyles of the super rich

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

But poor people used to have plenty of kids. And it's not like every child had a bright and happy future full of hope and certainty hundreds of years ago, what with wars, plagues, famines and whatever else. Terrible infant and maternal mortality rates. People still had kids. Because they kinda sorta didn't have a choice. Now they do.

Poor people are still poor. The world is still fucked up. Humans are still hating and murdering each other over bullshit. The specific situations may be different but it's pretty much the same shit. The difference is choice.

Edit: I am not saying that cost matters not at all, for everyone, but if it was really about cost then rich people would have more children than poor people and they most definitely don't.

[–] C1pher@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Fucking nailed it.