this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2026
0 points (NaN% liked)

GenZedong

5178 readers
12 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hi everyone, I'm only interested in hearing from comrades so that's why I thought this could be a good community to post, but if you think this is the wrong community please direct me somewhere else!

Today I was talking to someone somewhat close to me, he mentioned countries like Germany have an aging population and a falling birth rate and I pointed out that I believe it's connected to the cost of living crisis (especially with the expensive energy imports and with governments happily destroying the welfare state) and my friend said that he doesn't buy it and that in his opinion it's hedonism (?).

I find that kind of argument unprovable and moralistic, but it caught me off guard and I figured I'd take this as a learning opportunity. Have you heard this kind of argumentation? Am I right to assume it's just a reactionary thing? Is this worth engaging with, even if it's just for criticism, and if so how? Or should I just move on? I can't cut contact with him but I can just change the topic again if it comes to that lol.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm not well versed in the causes (and am curious what sources people may have on them), but I do want to say, a curious part of any conversation about birth rates to me is how common the assumption is that "falling birth rates = bad". On reflection, I find it to be kind of odd because we're living on a planet with billions of people. I do sort of get that logistically, you don't want to have a country with a disproportionately aging population and not enough youth to take over the roles they were doing. But also, if a society is organized more around need than expansion, it should be somewhat feasible to pull back on what is built out and so on, especially with the increasing capability of automated tools.

I don't know, maybe there's something I'm missing, some factor as to why it'd "of course be a bad thing". But although I don't believe in the "overpopulation" narrative as a climate change issue, I also don't see how birth rates staying the same / going up is inherently a good thing. My most pressing concern is the people who are alive and what world they have to deal with, and so much of the pain in that has so much to do with where resources are going rather than how many people are alive to do the labor. Like in countries where resources are going to military rather than public services, is it even worth talking about birth rates? What difference does it make (toward a humane, sustainable society) how many are being born if resources are not going to people's needs anyway? I don't mean that as a shutdown of talking about it; just questioning where the narrative on it typically arises from and for whose interests.

But I would like to hear from people who know more on the subject.

[–] mao_dun@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was under the impression that birth rates lowering to only approaching replacement rate was just a phenomenon that happens across the board/world at certain levels of economic development, a significant factor being access to family planning and an array of intersections to do with women - women's social expectations in child rearing stagnating behind other advancements, women in more intensive careers, women deciding to start having children (thus timeframe is shortened for more kids) at later ages, single mothers being more prevalent - women having more equality, choices, and autonomy is good, but access to these is only made available thru technological and economic development, as well as design/implementation of social structures meant to facilitate an easier time to parenthood - access to affordable childcare and maternal/paternal leave being just some of the visible parts of that iceberg.

unholy run on sentence sorry

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Interesting, makes sense to me.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

“falling birth rates = bad” is often said with a hint of "great replacement theory" hidden away in the person saying it.

On the other side of that is nations like south korea where it is actually really bad. South Korea has terminal case of low birth rate. By 2045 there will be 60 people over 65 for every 100 working age people. The death to birth ratio is projected to be like 3:1. This is baked in at this point, it is too late to do anything. They could import a bunch of workers but they need like 2% of the population every year over the next 20 years to avoid demographic collapse. They couldn't assimilate them fast enough to avoid a "Ship of Theseisnt" situation.

Where things go after 2045 is anyone's guess but my guess is Korea will probably be reunified because capitalism isn't sexy enough.

[–] davel@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

The burden of proof is on the claimant, and dollars to donuts they have nothing to back up their vibes-based assertion.

[–] shreditdude0@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Ask them to elaborate. What's their proof of hedonism being the culprit for it?

[–] qba@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

It's an idealistic argument to believe that hedonism, a symptom, is the primary cause. It individualizes a structural problem that stems from the material base, since it doesn't question the fundamental causes: real estate speculation, which makes it almost impossible (unless you're saddled with debt for life) to access housing, and therefore impossible to settle down and form a family. Unemployment, precarious, almost slave-like working conditions. Geopolitical tensions and economic blockades that scarce resources and increase their price, thus increasing the price of services and the cost of living.

Before blaming people for prioritizing immediate pleasure, which becomes a cultural problem (superstructure), we must examine how decadent the material base truly is.

[–] pyromaiden@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Completely nonsensical take.

Hedonism means more sex and more sex means more babies (also more STDs). Hedonists aren't the type to care about protection.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Unless we're talking about teenagers or blackout drunk people at clubs, "hedonists" and sex workers absolutely lead the charge in caring about protection. The HIV/AIDS crisis made sure of that. IUDs, condoms, oral dams, and regular STD checks are par for the course for groups that commonly engage in "hedonistic" sex. While a little anecdotal, from my experience in the furry fandom, good luck hooking up with anyone unless you've gotten an STD test in the past week, and are taking protection seriously if pregnancy is possible.

[–] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

The counter to the cost of living explanation is that people were poorer a hundred years ago and still had kids. This does not factor in that those people 100 years ago were mostly doing slightly better than their parents. Having children while being downwardly mobile feels irresponsible, like you’re betraying those children by being unable to provide for them the advantages and experiences that you had.

Also, as others have pointed out, the current generation crop of young adults is objectively less hedonistic than the previous three. Less sex, less booze, less friends, less partying, less dancing, less music.

[–] MasterBlaster@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Also, as others have pointed out, the current generation crop of young adults is objectively less hedonistic than the previous three. Less sex, less booze, less friends, less partying, less dancing, less music.

Could this not be because addictive social media overindulgence is the norm? I think this plays some small part tbh. No time or motivation for parties, alcohol, etc if you're getting everything you need being terminally online, which is hedonism all the same.

[–] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don’t have any data to back this up, but I think social media addiction is a symptom, and the root cause is real estate prices. Younger adults have been priced out of cities, so they don’t go out as much for the same reason that previous generations stopped going out as much after they would move back to the suburbs to buy a house. Where are you gonna go to meet your partner or party with friends? The Applebee’s? Cant drink too much cause you gotta drive to get anywhere, cant take anyone home with you because there’s a good chance you live with your parent, cant even go have a kegger in the woods because even small wooded areas have been cleared for more investment housing. So the only private space available to these young adults is digital.

Social behaviour follows the path of least resistance and our societal infrastructure funnels kids into online spaces instead of real world spaces where they would meet someone they wanna have a kid with.

[–] demeritum@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

They also didn't have contraceptions, child labor was normalized, the agricultural sector employed a larger section of the populace and social pressure was higher to conceive, in contrast the communal aspect was also higher.

I don't believe kids nowadays get taken care of by their neighbors if the parents are working. Stranger Danger and Kidnapping mass panic blew up since the 80s-90s.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The demand for child labour and the simple fact that sex is fun seem far more likely as reasons for the massive quantities of children people had a hundred years ago.

If you're poor, and can barely afford necessities, let alone entertainment or luxuries, what else are you going to do for fun other than have sex?

[–] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh, wow. I was expecting this conversation to go the completely opposite way, because usually pregnancy results from hedonism.

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hedonism and sexual pleasure are two distinct entities, and ironically the more hedonistic someone is, the greater the preventative measures that person usually takes against pregnancy. Couples engaging in occasional intercourse are hardly being hedonistic.

Barring societal controls banning birth control, abortions, and other reproductive rights, if people engage in unprotected sex, they usually understand the associated risks.

[–] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yea, they say hedonism, but I think they meant degeneracy.

They're definitely a cryptofascist.

[–] Bronstein_Tardigrade@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wow, that's quite the leap.

[–] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Generally speaking, when someone talks about culture or degeneracy, especially when they bring it up as a topic of conversation, usually it’s because they’re a fascist or they’re listening to fascists.

Like that palentir manifesto

Like, they might, they might not. But it is something to look out for

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Its not about cost of living as much as it is the amount of wage labor expected. Wage labor takes people away from their homes and partners for a significant part of the day. All that time apart means less time to do the deed and less social bonding.

On top of that the rise of dual income homes means all the unpaid labor of house work has to get done in the 8 waking hours not spent doing wage labor or sleeping. So instead of the "bread winner" coming home from work and relaxing while the house spouse does the unpaid labor of cooking and cleaning they have to do that after putting in a day at work. No time to rest means no energy to get frisky.

[–] demeritum@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Homeowner rate in Germany is low, very sexist when it comes to working mothers, single moms even more so (basically a ticket to poverty), unflexible work culture, low capacities of adequate childcare facilities, anti-family society in general --> These are all reasons for the aging population, not hedonism.

The USA, Israel, and gulf monarchies are hedonistic societies and until recently the first had high birthrates.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

The US had its high birth rates because of immigrants. The zionist entity has it because of the orthodox jews.

Spot on regarding Germany tho, shit sucks here.

[–] Kultronx@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Your opponent's argument is not a very good one, because the issue isn't millenials/genz not having enough kids, it goes back to our parents and grandparents not having enough kids, etc. The cost of living argument is also suspect because like others have said, richer countries are having less kids while underdeveloped ones are having more. So, I don't have an answer either.

[–] MasterDeeLuke@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

I think the primary driver of low birth rates is stress. When you are a subsistence farmer in a rural undeveloped country, things are simple and having children doesn't complicate things very much. In a modern industrialized country having children clashes with rigid time demands of 9-5 jobs and there is a lot more legal headache to worry about. Even if the government subsidizes the money issues that doesn't make up for the loss of communal support and lack of time to adequately tack care of children.

I think you'll have to get them to define their meaning of hedonism. Do they mean Caligula-style orgies or someone eating a gummy after work and vegging out in front of a video game? Are you seeing hedonism as a bad thing and why? Who sets the standards of "acceptable" behavior? Cost of living versus hedonism sounds like an interesting conversation/debate to me, and definitely not one you should try to avoid.

Capitalists are framing a low birth rate as an economic disaster, racists as a problem of numbers for their tribe, but is it actually a bad thing from a communist viewpoint?

[–] lil_tank@hexbear.net 0 points 1 week ago

This is a really wierd analysis given that hedonistic behaviour is what has been making babies since forever... like, we have biological reward systems in our bodies for mating.

Also protecting against and cancelling accidental pregnancies demands an effort and a sense of long-term thinking that is quiet the opposite of hedonism.

Given that any industrialised country has declining birthrates, even socialist ones, my theory about lowering births is simply that people don't see having kids as the only accomplishment and source of happiness available to them.

[–] HaSch@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Germany in particular is at a breaking point where it cannot really support more people living the big cities without a major national housing initiative. If you don't want to raise your kid in the boondocks of Lower Saxony, tough luck