World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Okay, I spent all of my late teenage years to early adulthood in France so I feel I can chime in: French people, like most Westerners I've met, don't know what they should do with their lives and the burden of responsibility of having children is simply not that appealing compared to having fun, either partying and doing coke or collecting figurines and dakimakuras. Even romance and love is fucked because marriage is seen as outdated and so serious so life long monogamy, for many, is just meh or scary. People don't date for any objective, they just get together cause they're lonely or sexually starved. And if they do understand what they should be doing, they'll be old and weary, and either the psychological scars will stop them from fully commiting to something or biology will have done its thing and now you're 42 trying to have your first kid, of course it's gonna be difficult.
Now, whilst I have my value judgement on it, I'm not making any right now, I'm just describing what I'm seeing. Hedonism, consumerism, and an ideological vacuum, means that people won't be making big commitments like having children. Of course the Muslims will, that makes sense, no surprise over there.
PS: and no, it's not a financial thing. The immigrants with no support or family money that goes back several generations, working shitty min wage jobs, have and want to have children. It's an ideological difference.
PS2: oh yeah and the current wave of redpill and casual misogyny on one side and "sexual liberation" and casual pornography on the other isn't helping either. It just makes both sexes less interested and more cautious, even when there's always good people in the bunch. That's gonna have to be addressed as well.
What a terrible take. Having children doesn't mean someone has their life figured out and has an objective in life. Lots of people have kids just because they think it's something you should do. I keep reading articles about more and more kids going to school without even most basic skills like climbing stairs. Parents just give them phones and ignore them. What objective did they have when they decided to have kids? At the same time people without kids don't just have fun and do coke. Like, WTF? People pursue their interests, study, travel, volunteer... They don't wake up when their 40 with psychological scars realizing they wasted their lives.
Some people have and idea what to do with their lives and some don't. Having kids has nothing to do with it.
Right?? We can't afford coke
I've read recently that coke is really cheap now. €15,000/kg.
We seem to have very different notions of "cheap." Then again, I have absolutely no idea how many noses that are. I'd guess over a thousand, which would still put it at 15€/nose or evening. Not what I'd consider cheap.
It's cheapest it has ever been. And you don't have to snort it all. Stash it and sell when the price goes up again.
You mean coke futures?
I'd guess you have to when buying by acreage
Well, if they don't take parenthood seriously and just have kids because they're not cautious or think "it's the right time", that's not good, of course, but that doesn't invalidate what I'm saying. Parenthood is the decision to make your entire life revolve around your lifelong project, a product of love. Where, even more so than with a partner, you discover the beauty and sweetness of giving, of selflessness, which is virtuous. For me, if you make the conscious decision not to have kids (biological, adopted, or even being the primary caretaker of a nephew for instance), you will never be a fully developed human being, because you never experienced what adulthood is really about: responsibility, and the pleasure of taking it. And of course if you're a categorically bad parent, which kinda makes you a bad person altogether, you are this way because you're not taking this responsibility seriously, and you're also an incomplete human being.
And again, if this was the current Western mentality, these headlines wouldn't be a thing. Now, whether you feel like every population, or even just the European one, should at least be healthily above replacement, or not, that's something else. Personally, idc (perhaps I should but I haven't thought about it much, ngl), but what I do know is that not prioritising childrearing, and not seeing it as a fundamental developmental milestone for every adult, are behind these falling birthrates.
No, you shouldn't have kids until after you're a fully developed adult...
If the your most impressive achievement is have kids to ride the coattails of, you probably didn't do anything that important with your life.
This is the second example ITT of what I was talking about, lol. Again, you're free to have your value judgment on parenthood, just like me. What's undeniable, at least to me, is that the failing birthrates in "developed countries" have this, amongst other perhaps less relevant but still existing characteristics, at its core.
I read different takes on having kids before but this is just... wow. What you're describing is some extremely idealized idea or parenthood that applies to maybe 1% of parents in the world. Most people have kids because they help with work and support you when your old. In developed countries most people have kids because culturally it's just something you do, because it's a status symbol, because they can't afford birth control or simply because they are bored. For many parents it's a completely selfish act, they just want something they can control and use to realize their unfulfilled dreams. At the same time every normal adult has to be responsible all the time, be it at work, with their friends, their partner. Thinking that taking care of a kid is the only way someone is truly responsible is just silly.
I don't know what type of bubble you grew up in but real world doesn't look the way you think it does. Different people have different ideas for life and having kids does not define anyone. Looking at everyone through the prism of parenthood is some really weird obsession.
1% ? Both my mom and my MIL are obsessed with me and my wife, respectively. Same with my brother, her brother. Like, that's not true, that's not what I've seen. My friends with kids are obsessed with them, some to the point of losing their minds on a regular basis in worry, lol. Idk man, I think you're letting your bad, very geographically localized (like you said, "developed countries") experience blind you to a wider, very different reality. And yes, for many, maybe the world's majority, that's how it goes. It doesn't mean they won't have their own psychological pathologies and forgo virtue at times, we're talking about people here, but trust me that for them, having children is their dream come true, the main one, and they would literally rather die than lose them or anything too tragic come to them.
Yeah, if we're talking Korea, Japan, France, Germany, etc, things are different, but that's due to a mixture of trauma and an ideology that rejects responsibility and doesn't value parenthood as much as it values the way less stressful "fun" (which in this case, is sweet labour, but whatever), and you're talking from that perspective so of course we disagree on the value of parenthood, but you cannot disagree (or haven't yet, at least) that those very beliefs are what's at the core of the failing birthrates... which is all I was trying to talk about here, tbh, I wasn't expecting this long of an exchange regarding virtue, parenthood and Western values. 😅 It was nice but I just came from a long shift, lol.
I will explicitly disagree with you here
What you're pointing to as the cause - changing perceptions of children, and them no longer being seen as a milestone - is simply a symptom of the root cause: Children are no longer a boon. They're now a burden
This what the poster above you was saying. Children used to be valuable as a source of labor, and to provide for you when you can no longer work
I don't think this is the only cause, but I do think it's the primary reason for the shift in mentality
Are you telling me that children were only/mostly seen as valuable in the West/developed countries because of the labour they provide? And now that work has changed they simply don't wanna have them and that's at the core of this ? Even I don't wanna believe that about this society.
I'm not going to debate you on your moral stance, nor on your conclusions.
But your own experience is a pretty narrow sample size and your generalization is pretty substantial. I don't think you do justice to the diversity of people out there.
My personal experience with people in France is different, for example, I won't tell you your argument is invalid over that, but it's a sample size as big as your own, so it should be weighed.
That's a very polite way to engage, I appreciate it. Why do you think french people aren't having kids, friend?
In my perspective there are two aspects: social security and secularisation.
People that are uncertain about their being able to support themselves and afford a house are less likely to procreate.
There's less influence of the Catholic church, whose message was to procreate.
Both lead to a more solitary life style and lessen faith in the general direction of society.
Mmm, a very reasonable answer. Secularisation definitely plays a part in the larger ideological differences between this population and others. There's certainly been a very real and drastic economic decline in France since the 70s or something, and my friends' parents have made it very clear several times, lol. But again, the fact that immigrants, which are arguably the poorest group, are perhaps the most fertile of the bunch points toward yet another ideological/psychological difference (maybe not having as much makes them panic more than others that simply think "God will provide"? Idk) that is deeper and more impactful than financials, IMO.
Perhaps the native thinks of their own childhood as the baseline, and feels like they would be unable to provide, while the immigrant came from comparable economic conditions they have now, or even worse, so they don't see issues with it.
There's also the fact that the immigrant is often religious and believes he must have children.
Maybe you're right, but that's a mistaken view by the locals, as seen by the immigrants having kids and not just starving on the streets but surviving and even thriving, perhaps not super comfortably, but still doing so. And yes, belief, ideology, they're at the core of this situation, I agree with you there. 👍
If that's causing the declining birthrate, why is the birthrate in North Korea dropping so rapidly?
Probably other reasons related to the fact it's a hermit kingdom isolated from the world, maybe.
Over here in Estonia, we have observed that it is a financial thing. Research has shown that parental pay (the state pays X% of your previous salary for up to 475 days of being on parental leave - and as a sidenote I think the measure is wrong, because it means the rich and poor get different sums) encouraged people who already had children to have a second or third child.
But the measure had limits. It did not measurably encourage people to have their first child, and the birth rate continues to decline despite the measure.
I don't know the details because I'm not a parent. On personal notes, if suddenly, I discovered myself in a stable relationship and a hypothetical partner asked me if I want a child, I would reply "do I look like a big wheel? I can't afford that".
Hypothesis: today's young people know a bit more about finances than previous generations. They know that one should not have a child before one has stopped renting and bought a place to live in. This being impossible early on, decisions are delayed and the suitable time passes. Grandparents who could potentially help with child care start needing care themselves. Also, people increasingly live at distance from their parents, so grandparents' chances of helping with child care are reduced even if they aren't elderly yet.
As for relationships, research indicates that they break more often. Arguably the reason is that people don't want to remain in a badly functioning relationship, and haven't got the skills to keep it from breaking. (I don't even want to get started about dating sites - it's not profitable for dating sites if people find compatible partners. It's their customer disappearing and stopping to pay.)
Skills could be taught in school. Dating sites could be told to redesign themselves, accounting for sociological knowledge. Social security for parents should be effective enough to support a single parent who is renting their place of living, and should last long enough for a child to reach shool age. Such a policy should have constitutional guarantees (not changeable with 1 parliament). If this was done, population decline would slow over here. Not sure about France.
Finances play a part, sure, but it cannot be the main one because, again, truly poor, barely off the boat immigrants keep the French birthrate from falling dramatically. It cannot just be that, it can be a factor but not the main one. People in Gaza have children and they're occupied, have nothing, and are murdered on a regular basis...
Another hypothesis: people who recently immigrated more typically live in settings where an older family member can help with child care. Could it be true?
As for Gaza, it's not suitable comparison material due to high mortality. What is being sought is a solution that works for low-mortality societies where care for the elderly is a considerable job and budget line.
I think that providing people with total economic certainty of being able to raise a child without risk of poverty, early in their life (before their parents start needing care) might hit a nail. Not sure if it's the only nail, though.
It's not the only nail, and how big that nail is depends a lot on your cultural background. The immigrants have basically nothing, man, they escaped their countries to rebuild because of war, famine or simply economic uncertainty, whilst the locals have or should have strong family ties and more financial ease, and these are the ones not reproducing, usually. I'd say that, for those who want kids, this is certainly an impediment, a deterrent, but for those who don't this doesn't matter and many simply don't. They don't consider it an extremely rewarding, valuable and developmentally necessary part of life, so they don't think about it, and sometimes they do when it's already kinda late too.