To tell you that if a UK woman has not had her first child by 28, there is a 50% probability she will never have children.

[RetiredMan]

I just watched the documentary linked below, about falling birth-rates, released on Youtube yesterday, by the guy who did the research.

(The fact in the subject is from an interview, the documentary itself only give the statistic for Japan, where the equivalent age is 26.)

Some factoids for those who won't watch the video (some are from the documentary, some are from two interviews with the maker that I've also watched.)

Birth-rates are below the level needed to keep population stable everywhere except sub-Saharan Africa. (It looks like only a matter of time until it's true there as well.)

That the invention of the pill is causing this is disproved by the fact that rates fell suddenly in Japan 20 years before the pill became legal there. They fell at the same time as birth-rates in multiple other countries, so it's not that Japan has a different cause.

Women who do become mothers are not having fewer children than before, the issue is that suddenly a large chunk of women are having no children at all. In other words, the problem is not smaller families, the problem is fewer families. (If I remember rightly, Japan went from 1 in 30 women childless to 1 in 5, in the space of three years. It's now 1 in 3.)

I think I caught a statistic somewhere that 40% of US women are now destined to be childless. (Presumably that is among those becoming adult now. But I might be wrong about this statistic, may have misheard/misunderstood.)

One reason childlessness is a problem is that 4 out of 5 women who never have children are biologically fertile and would have liked to have had children, but just never made it happen. Obviously there will also be economic issues, if each 20-year-old entering the job market has to generate enough economic output to support multiple 70-year-olds.

Even though birth-rates are falling. generations already born before births peaked will caused older age brackets to have increasing numbers of people, so for a few decades, overall population will still increase despite births decreasing.

The birth-rate of a population can be 90% predicted by the average age at which a women has her first child. The exact figure has not yet been researched, but it appears to be the case that population will inevitably decline if women who want children do not have their first child by their mid-twenties.

Immigration will not be able to solve the economic problems caused by falling population. There will be nowhere with a people surplus for them to come from. (There was a jokey interview claim that India already has ghost villages, they need immigrants!)

The cause of the decline seems to be a failure of couples to get together in time to have children. The data shows a big drop in birth-rates every time there is a major economic crisis. In response to the crisis, people postpone having children, but once society has shifted to aiming to have children at an older age, it never shifts back to having them at the original age.

A metaphor that explains why couple-formation is down. Imagine you live in a village with a dance-hall that is open for three hours on a Saturday evening. Every young person is there for the whole three hours, and gets to see every other person they could potentially marry had have children with. Now imagine the opening hours are changed to six hours, but most people still only have the energy to go for three hours. Some people leave before the person they should have met and married arrives. Some people are half-way through getting to know one person when another person enters and catches there eye, one courtship is interrupted by a new possibility. Perhaps this disruption kills one potential relationship. If the time-period during which most men and women think they need to mate has changed from maybe as little as five years to as long as 20 years, the likelihood that any potential pair will be on the same page at the same time goes down.

I don’t know how but while I know of many never-married women in their 40s/50s, I don’t know any men.

That’s interesting. I know plenty of never married men (without kids) in their 40s. And I have a never married uncle in his 70s!
I guess everyone moves in different circles.

I do feel for all this talk of women having to persuade men to commit to them, actually men know marriage favours them really and are more likely to settle down with a woman by a certain age even if they are not that thrilled with them as a person.

Which may explain some male behaviour within a lot of marriages and the infidelity and divorce rate etc

Women can often be a lot more “fussy” (for want of a better word) nowadays which is a good thing IMO they are looking deeper at compatibility in values, characters, long term goals, how emotionally intelligent the man is etc. it’s no longer enough for the man to have a nice smile and a decent bank balance. They want more!

Like you will win the lottery next week, either you will or you won’t.

I do hope that was posted in jest.

A lot of women have realised that it's not worth it to make an effort to get men to commit.

It's men, not women, who need to up their game and do their share.

It’s not that long ago that it was the norm that 18/19 year olds would get married and have children. I was married at 17. I know many who married younger.
Even in my dc’s friend groups there are a handful who by the time they turned 20 had 1,2 or 3 children with their partners

Unfortunately the normal now is to funnel children into A levels and a degree
and join in with this infantilization for a few more years.

The fact that you can’t see that getting a husband/partner, getting a place to live and starting a family at 18/19 years old is beyond possible confirms my point

I had a childfree aunty and childfree uncle so I think without realising it, they normalised the idea of not having children to me from a young age, although I don’t think my aunt was exactly child free by choice.

She married in her late 40s because I think she was holding out for the right man who didn’t come in time for her to have kids, despite her having a lot of admirers in her 20s and 30s.

I don’t know if she regrets holding out but if I compare her and my mum she’s infinitely happier, more fulfilled and less stressed than her sister who married and had 3 kids with the deadbeat that was my dad.

Yabu because:

• the chief purpose of a woman is not to bear children. That's misogynistic wank. A woman without children is of no lesser value and has many ways toto be proud of a life well lived. Oprah Winfrey, Rosa Parks and Katherine Hepburn to name a few.
• most women have not yet met a decent reliable man by age 28. I'd like to see a graph which plots maternal age at a child's birth against the probability that the child's parents are still together when the child is 12. I bet that would tell a significant story too
• I'd also like to see a graph showing the probability that a woman will be living in poverty in old age plotted against the age she was when she first gave birth because a woman who has her family before establishing a career is significantly less likely to have a decent pension.

Parenthood is hard, it's easier when you have the maturity, resources and networks in place to tackle its challenges.

Meanwhile statistics like that in the op are disingenuous, deliberately crafted to strike fear and cause guilt rather than present a balanced view. Any argument can be supported by a sufficiently bised statistician.

Most women are intelligent enough to make their own choices about when their life is sufficiently stable and secure to bring children into the world and don't need scare tactics like this to push them towards embarking on such a journey too soon and unprepared.

women changed, they go to work, take much of the financial load nowadays, men not so much - it’s your turn now, share the load, step up, judge differently

This is the crux of it really, women have evolved and stepped up. Many men haven't and women don't need them.

I haven't read all the responses so maybe someone has already mentioned it, but fun fact: In John Calhoun’s famous Universe 25 experiment (in the 60s, I think), mice were given unlimited food, water, and shelter. And the population still went extinct. At first the population grew rapidly, but then males became aggressive and later withdrawn, while many females stopped raising young and took over male "jobs". Both sexes had no interest in mating despite perfect resources, fertility collapsed and the population went extinct.

Calhoun concluded that social stress and overcrowding alone can drive population failure. This has been later criticized as too simplistic, further research has been more focused on social stress. But it's interesting when you think about humans, in many developed societies, birth rates fall as density and social pressures rise (urbanisation, housing costs, competition, career stress). So maybe we're just programmed not to overcrowd the planet?

I think only 2 of my friends had kids before they turned 30. People who go to uni don’t graduate until they’re 21/22 then living in a new place, flat sharing, working towards professional qualifications etc, most weren’t in a position to start a family before 28 and with the cost of living now I can even less doing!

I met DH at uni, we didn't have a dc until 30. Our relationship in our 20s was strong but we focused on careers and getting a property. I wanted to be in a position where I was secure before I considered it.

*@GameWheelsAlarm

• the chief purpose of a woman is not to bear children. That's misogynistic wank. A woman without children is of no lesser value and has many ways toto be proud of a life well lived. Oprah Winfrey, Rosa Parks and Katherine Hepburn to name a few.*”

So true!

I feel some men (usually men over 30) are basically saying now “oh you should start thinking about popping out babies from age 25 or you might never have one” and women are like “okay we might never have one” shrugs and heading out to live their best lives.

And the men are like “huh? Wait that’s not how that chat was meant to go waaaah blah blah misogynist twaddle something something”

I will walk over hot coals before I allow my DD to marry at 17.

It's not about infantilisation, it's about having time to learn who you are, what your passions and interests are and to build your independence and career prospects before your wings are clipped by the day-to-day drudgery of having to focus on meeting the needs of others. To know that you yourself are worth investing in.

There's a reason why highly controlling and misogynistic societies are usually in favour of marrying young girls off early. Keep them powerless, limit their economic independence and ensure they're easy to control.

I’d completely forgotten about that - thanks for the reminder!

Generational stretch will also lead to falling population because if 2 women born in Year 0 have children at 33 vs 20 ( just examples) then within 100 years there will be 5 generations born vs 3. Therefore even if family size and proportion of women who never have children stays the same, population growth is lower under an older mother scenario ( assuming life expectancy the same in both scenarios)

It is men who need to be better educated so that they reach maturity in their 20s as well-rounded human beings who will be dependable, kind, helpful and considerate. They will not be looking at porn or eyeing other women. They will offer to help out around the house without being asked. We are sadly lacking such mature men who are strong in character without being lazy and demanding, who do not raise their fists against women because they want their own way but instead protect their family unit. Women would then feel more secure to go ahead and have children when at the moment they either do not or end up aborting their unborn child because of this or that concern.

Interesting that the focus is always on the women, not the men who IME of being single and childless (but not by choice) run away from responsibility and commitment. Too many Peter Pan men.

Yeah it’s not a good thing for teens/children to be getting married. To go straight from childhood to parenthood seems ill advised and unnecessary in today’s world where life expectancy is 75+

What about some time to develop as a single/unmarried adult?

There are exceptions but these super young marriages have such a high rate of breakdown and no wonder. So many people are very different between say 17 and 24. And many regret the abrupt end of their childhood.

It’s also not great for girls /women specifically as realistically speaking they are the ones often left carrying the children, and possessing little qualifications or work experience if/when their husband leaves them in their 30s and 40s.

That said I know 3 couples from my childhood church married before 21 (both the man and woman were of a similar age in each couple) I wouldn’t advise marriage for 16-21 year olds generally and usually from what I’ve seen it’s a shit show. However what I liked about how these 3 couples did it is they didn’t have kids until way into their late 20s or even early 30s.

So despite coupling young they still enjoyed that romance and life of a couple without kids and each being able to focus on their careers and personal development, so they were in a great place to be parents when the time came. Some went to uni, some traveled together, set up business etc before they had kids.

And they also got a really good chance to assess if their partner was worthy of being a father/ mother to their future kids! Because having kids will tie to you to a person forever far more than marrying will.

It’s not infantilisation but young people are extending their youth into their late twenties sometimes with the popularity of travel, gap years, university (this wasn’t always an option for most). This is fact.

It’s interesting you threw in the ‘men have the upper hand in dating when women hit 30’ trope. This is a manosphere line. See also ‘men age like wine and women age like milk’ and ‘women hit the wall at 35’.

None of which are true. Men do not stop bothering women after 30. The age range of the men simply changes. Women do not have trouble dating at any age. What changes is women who have not settled and had children become wiser and see the way men routinely treat women and often decide, with all the additional economic pressure modern life brings, that taking on kids, a full time job and a man that likely won’t pull his weight and cheats is simply not worth it.

Men are telling women they ‘hit the wall at 35’ and they’d better hurry up but fail to consider women don’t stop getting older because they get married. Women don’t want to be cheated on and left carrying the baby. Especially with the utter disdain single mothers are spoken about by men.

Women have more choice and we are choosing better. It’s really that simple.

One reason childlessness is a problem is that 4 out of 5 women who never have children are biologically fertile and would have liked to have had children, but just never made it happen.

This doesn't ring true for me. I know quite a few childless women, some who are single and some in long term relationships. I only know one who wanted children and wasn't able to have any. It's very much been a considered choice for the remainder.

Thank you. I think exactly the same as this. There are plenty of people, the pressure they put on the environment is insane. The problem is economics. We're fixated on a model that might have worked when it was set up but doesn't now. We need to think again about how to finance our changing population. An ever growing population is not the answer.

What the actual fuck am I reading??

All these men want children but don’t want to be parents.

Good for them! Young women aren't baby-making machines. They should be encouraged to live for themselves as well as others.

Having children is a huge commitment and our society is set up in a way that means that many women struggle to get to the gym after having a baby, even if they'd like to go, let alone to a weekend away with friends. Travelling is usually out of the question.

Yes, these didn't used to be options but now they are and young people have the freedom to have all sorts of experiences that wouldn't previously have been available. Why shouldn't they grasp them when the alternative is drudgery, a stressful job and a huge mortgage for a tiny home?

Whether we call it infantilisation, exploring your passions or extending youth I think it’s great women are choosing not to settle down with kids and a partner at a time where it doesn’t feel right for them .

And whether that’s because they don’t desire that or it’s because they know they haven’t found the right partner or they don’t like the state of the world - I’m grateful for the options we all have.

ETA: same applies to men too actually! If they don’t want kids yet I’d rather they didn’t instead of having them THEN deciding they want a year of solo travel lol