“Notably, Chang’s report claims that biological females develop earlier than males do, so requiring girls to enter school at younger ages will create classes in which the two sexes are of more equal maturity as they age. This, the author posits, makes it more likely that those classmates will be attracted to each other, and marry and have children further down the line.”

(…)

“The report does not include evidence of any correlation between female students’ early enrollment and the success rate of their romantic relationships with men. The author also does not detail specific mechanisms by which his proposed policy would increase romantic attraction or birthrates.”

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Won’t fix it, unless women want to stop working and stay at home, couples aren’t having more kids.

    The solution is better population distribution, we’ve got overpopulated countries and countries where the birthrate isn’t high enough, no need to be a genius to get it.

    Edit: Thanks for the downvotes, how about you propose an actual realistic solution? It’s not 1850 anymore, people have goals other than making sure their family name lives on, no matter how easy you make it to have kids, more and more people just don’t want to have them because it’s socially acceptable and they don’t want the burden. What then? Let the population go down until the average age is over 70? There’s not a single birth policy that respects people’s freedom of choice that has achieved the objective of making the local population have its birthrate go back over 2.1, none.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      How does that fix anything? You keep some parts of the world as human breeding mills and send them to the places where quality of work/life balance is so bad that they can’t have kids there either?

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        No, at some point the human population won’t be able to increase forever and as conditions are improving in poorer nations their birthrate is decreasing, I’m just pointing out the obvious, immigration is the solution to birthrate problems in some parts of the world and it’s the solution to overpopulation in other parts.

        Heck, that’s exactly what multicultural countries are doing, it’s an issue with Asian countries that refuse to welcome people of other cultures.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 months ago

          the human population won’t be able to increase forever

          Just gonna point out that this isn’t a problem.

          • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I would argue it is a problem in a capitalist society where constant and eternal economic growth is necessary.

            Then again, I would also argue that capitalism is the problem.

            • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              4 months ago

              Correct. If the masses benefitted from industrialization rather than just the corporations, we could have a high quality of life for everyone, population growth be damned.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Never said it was, but it’s ridiculous to think it’s normal to let certain territories become empty out of nationalistic pride when people are suffering out of lack of resources in other territories.

        • bean@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Just to chime in. I was interested to randomly see in my feed the other day about how divorce between an American husband and Japanese wife, is at a lower rate than is between Japanese citizens.

          I found it interesting that some cultures might be slightly more compatible with each other.

          Anyway.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not surprising, Americans living in Japan don’t tend to adopt the crazy work schedule that’s considered normal over there.

    • Triasha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Raise the price of labor to the point that a working family can afford to have children at the standard they consider socially acceptable.

      That would devalue investment accounts though, so it won’t happen until there is suffering on a scale not seen outside of major wars.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It won’t make people have enough kids to renew the population though otherwise birthrate would have been higher than it was in the 70s and 80s

        • Triasha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          In what country?

          I’m talking about raising wages by 40-70% in the US.

          Pipe dream, but if it happened the fertility rate would increase.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It’s the same story in all countries as they become developed, access to birth control and people having other more interesting shit to do means they don’t want to have kids, no matter how easy it is for them.

            Finland: 1910 to 1930 4.7 to 2.4, 1950 to 1975 3.4 to 1.6, between 1.5 and 1.9 since then.

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033730/fertility-rate-finland-1800-2020/

            Look at Canada’s numbers the second the pill becomes available in the 60s (years before Reaganomics and at a time where people were still able to make it on a single income)

            https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2024001-eng.htm

            UK, going down since the end of the industrial revolution

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033074/fertility-rate-uk-1800-2020/

            People just don’t want enough kids to renew the population when they’re given the choice to do something else, it’s that simple.

            Heck, increased income is associated with decreased fertility, it’s been known for decades at this point! How come the rich don’t have tons of kids? They don’t have to stress about money, right? How come poor people have more kids than the middle class? It’s not as if they have a surplus of cash or can afford to only have one parent working, right?