Are we in the opening scenes of a post-apocalyptic movie?

[The Brain]

What's wrong with apartments?

[Jacob]

The teeming tenements of the past suggest to me that apartment living is not the cause of declining birthrate.

[DGuller]

The teeming tenements of the past suggest to me that apartment living is not the cause of declining birthrate.

I would say that more generally, I find arguments of the form "people are too poor to have kids" unpersuasive.  If you look at countries sorted by natural growth rates, you have a whole bunch of countries in Africa, followed by Afghanistan, West Bank, and Gaza Strip.  None of those places are known for providing immense material wealth to potential parents on a mass scale.  If anything, it seems like being too well-off makes you so perfectionist when it comes to having kids that you wind up not having any.

[Valmy]

The teeming tenements of the past suggest to me that apartment living is not the cause of declining birthrate.

I would say that more generally, I find arguments of the form "people are too poor to have kids" unpersuasive.  If you look at countries sorted by natural growth rates, you have a whole bunch of countries in Africa, followed by Afghanistan, West Bank, and Gaza Strip.  None of those places are known for providing immense material wealth to potential parents on a mass scale.  If anything, it seems like being too well-off makes you so perfectionist when it comes to having kids that you wind up not having any.

Yeah well those countries are also having crashing birth rates. Everyone is. They are just starting later and from a higher starting point. Whatever is causing it seems to be impacting everyone, no matter the wealth level.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Might be correlated with urbanization and the decrease in people engaged in subsistence agriculture, or any agriculture. Children aren't the go-to hack to increase your production capacity.
Plus a lot of other parameters I guess.

[Josquius]

The teeming tenements of the past suggest to me that apartment living is not the cause of declining birthrate.

I would say that more generally, I find arguments of the form "people are too poor to have kids" unpersuasive.  If you look at countries sorted by natural growth rates, you have a whole bunch of countries in Africa, followed by Afghanistan, West Bank, and Gaza Strip.  None of those places are known for providing immense material wealth to potential parents on a mass scale.  If anything, it seems like being too well-off makes you so perfectionist when it comes to having kids that you wind up not having any.

Education is the key factor.
Education + poverty is a killer synergy.

Gaza strip is quite a unique case with its high birth rate. Such places that were formerly reasonably developed with good education levels but then hit hard times are usually bottom for birth rates. Lots at play there

[Razgovory]

In Gaza they very heavily promote a high birthrate.  A man makes more money at his job for each kid he has.  Having more children is seen as part of the war for liberation.  I think Arafat called it the "War of Cradles".

[Valmy]

In Gaza they very heavily promote a high birthrate.  A man makes more money at his job for each kid he has.  Having more children is seen as part of the war for liberation.  I think Arafat called it the "War of Cradles".

Yeah. And they do the same thing in Israel. The birthrates in that tiny area have always been hilariously unsustainably high as part of their ethnic war.

However even there the birthrate is collapsing. It is now down to 3.5 in the Palestinian territories.

Among Jewish Israelis it is 3, which is incredibly high among developed countries.

So while you are correct they are not some big outlier. They are right in line with global trends.

[crazy canuck]

Too bad we can't ignore the US impact on climate change.

I saw an article the that claimed that more than 90% of the US' new energy capacity in 2025 was renewable, in spite of Trump's efforts.

To be able to understand whether that statistic is meaningful, I would need to know how much new energy was generated in proportion to the existing energy.

I found the answer. The claim was not 90% of new energy but rather 90% of new electricity generation.  All of that was because of a hydro electric plant coming online along with four major solar generators.  Renewables now account for about 30% of all electricity generation in the US. Which means, of course, 70% is still generated using fossil fuels.  And so moving past the 1.5C point is inevitable.

[Valmy]

I found the answer. The claim was not 90% of new energy but rather 90% of new electricity generation.  All of that was because of a hydro electric plant coming online along with four major solar generators.  Renewables now account for about 30% of all electricity generation in the US. Which means, of course, 70% is still generated using fossil fuels.  And so moving past the 1.5C point is inevitable.

The claim was 90% of new energy capacity. And Solar and Wind are rarely operating at top nameplate capacity. I guess I don't understand the distinction you are making. Are renewables normally used for something other than generation?

[crazy canuck]

I found the answer. The claim was not 90% of new energy but rather 90% of new electricity generation.  All of that was because of a hydro electric plant coming online along with four major solar generators.  Renewables now account for about 30% of all electricity generation in the US. Which means, of course, 70% is still generated using fossil fuels.  And so moving past the 1.5C point is inevitable.

The claim was 90% of new energy capacity. And Solar and Wind are rarely operating at top nameplate capacity. I guess I don't understand the distinction you are making. Are renewables normally used for something other than generation?

I'm making the distinction between electricity generation. Which is clearly what solar and wind are being used for and energy generation.  Electricity is obviously part of energy generation, but energy is created and used in a bunch of other ways. For example, internal combustion engines.

90% sounds like a nice number, but it certainly not indicative of the overall energy generated last year. The number of internal combustion engines sold last year far out strips the number of EV's, as just one example.

[Valmy]

I'm making the distinction between electricity generation. Which is clearly what solar and wind are being used for and energy generation.  Electricity is obviously part of energy generation, but energy is created and used in a bunch of other ways. For example, internal combustion engines.

Ok gotcha. I don't think anybody was trying to be misleading because of fuels. When you talk about installation of energy capacity I don't think anybody is confused and think you are talking about fuels. And in any case we are talking about new energy, so changes. The amount of gasoline per person is considerably lower now in the United States than it was 20 years ago.

90% sounds like a nice number, but it certainly not indicative of the overall energy generated last year. The number of internal combustion engines sold last year far out strips the number of EV's, as just one example.

Well yes but not for that reason. Capacity for wind and solar, and even hydro, doesn't tell the whole story since those times of generation are typically generating at well below capacity. They are always going to look misleadingly high if we just go by capacity and not how much is actually being generated.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think anyone was trying to be misleading. I was asking for context for what the 90% figure meant.  I answered my own question. That is all that happened.

Interesting point about capacity versus what is actually generated. Thanks.