On the brink of a global demographic catastrophe

14 778 211
On the brink of a global demographic catastrophe


Global demographic problem


In the 1990s and 2000s, people were frightened by the idea that humanity was growing too quickly. That accessible resources, water, and food would soon run out. That the Chinese would overrun the entire Earth.



Now the problem is different: Japan, China, South Korea, and other Southeast Asian countries have begun to rapidly age and die out. In China's major cities, the birth rate has fallen to 0,5–0,7 per woman.

The countries of the Global North—the white race—are rapidly dying out and aging. The Africanization and Arabization of Europe is underway.

They are followed by poor countries in South Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Even in India, half of the states have seen their fertility rates fall below replacement level—approximately 2,1 children per woman.

Only in the poorest countries of Black Africa do people give birth in large numbers, although even there the number of children per woman is no longer 5–10, but 2–4.

Consumer society by Western (American) standards has taken over the planet, degenerating into a society of extermination and self-destruction, disabling the basic human instinct of reproduction: "be fruitful and multiply."

People now prefer to consume, have pleasures, and have cats and dogs instead of children, on whom they spend more resources and attention than on children.

2026 looks set to be the first year in stories humanity, when the birth rate falls below the replacement level. This has never happened before, сообщает Banksta channel.

By the middle of the 21st century, the entire planet will be facing extinction. The question now is how advanced technologies will develop. Cloning, artificial wombs, digitalization of consciousness!? And, accordingly, the problem of dehumanization, the emergence of new species of people.

Demographics of the Greater Far East countries


The scale of the demographic problem in the countries of the Greater Far East (or Southeast Asia) is growing.

The total fertility rate (TFR) has fallen to 0,9–1, meaning less than one child per woman. By comparison, in Russia it's currently 1,3. In megacities with dense populations, the situation is even worse, down to 0,5–0,7. In major cities like Shanghai, it's 0,6, and in Macau, it's less than 0,5.

However, the migration of Asians (for example, Chinese and Vietnamese) to countries within the core capitalist system, that is, to developed countries, hasn't improved the situation. Asian women still don't want to have children. Their TFR is below 1, for example, in Australia and Finland.

Information from the meeting of the Demographic Section of the Central House of Scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences, January 2026: “In Finland, from 2000 to 2024, in the cohorts of mothers with Chinese and Vietnamese languages, the TFR decreased several times to values ​​of 0,7 - 0,91, respectively.”

So the problem isn't just that people in China and Vietnam are worse off than in Finland and the United States. It's also that China's demographics have been undermined by the "One Child" program (the Chinese government's demographic policy, in effect from 1979 to 2015). It's also about the rapid growth of cities, urbanization, and industrialization in Asian countries.

Societies in Korea and China have too quickly transitioned to a "middle-class society," that is, to wealth. Even in the 1960s and 1970s, local Asian peasants—the vast majority of the population—lived practically at the level of medieval European peasants, content with a bowl of rice a day. This level of living can easily be seen in old films starring the famous Chinese actor Jackie Chan.

Endemic poverty, and a hearty meal was a rare treat. A few books and a second pair of shoes were already considered wealth. And so the children of that world of poverty, who had escaped to new cities with glittering shopping malls and skyscrapers, and whose consumption levels began to approach those of the core capitalist world, suffered a psychological breakdown. Tradition was thrown out the window, and consumption began. Eating well and plentifully, buying and buying, saving, traveling, and relaxing instead of working 12-16 hours a day.

Young people now value personal time and personal pleasures over traditional family values. Female graduates from China's top universities do not want to have children at all (more than 70% of girls).

Young Chinese people took it well Western culture of lonelinessIt was quickly decided that it was much more profitable (materially) for a single person or a couple without children to live alone. The principle of "live for yourself" was adopted.

The need for high economic and material status to start a family and have a child has been accepted. A future husband is expected to have an apartment in a good part of the city, a good car, a good job, and promising career prospects. Brides and their parents are now very picky.

All of this quickly became a part of life in other countries, particularly in Russia. Millions of men are losing the opportunity to start a family and continue their family line. And young women flock to wealthy, high-status men, hoping to become their wives, mistresses, or kept women. Simply to be a commodity (an escort) in the world of the rich.

Plus immersion in the virtual world. This happened even earlier in Japan, where they had already officially acknowledged a demographic catastrophe.

Both genders and young people now prefer the virtual world to the real one. Domestic video game sales in China will reach $45 billion in 2024, with mobile games accounting for 73% of the total.

The unprecedented growth of social media and entertainment (hedonism) has led to young people becoming less interested in finding a partner or spouse. Add to this the rapidly expanding reach of pornography and other virtual sexual surrogates.

So the situation is deeper, it is The psychology, culture, and attitudes of a consumer society that has enslaved the world. Women, who are generally more deeply and powerfully immersed in the consumerist, illusory "matrix" than men, believe there's no point in having children if you can live "for yourself," without family or children.

Hence the disintegration of the family institution, the epidemic of "male loneliness" in Asia and the Global North, the rise of cybersex and pornography, the decline in testosterone levels worldwide, and the deactivation of the basic human instinct to "be fruitful and multiply."

In general, the consumer society, which is everywhere degenerating into a society of extermination and self-destruction of humanity, is destroying humanity (Degradation of Humanity and the Society of Extermination).
211 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    27 August 2026 03: 31
    It seems like it was the same in ancient Rome, only they didn't keep dogs, but monkeys, it seems?
    So we must either abandon consumer society, or it will abandon humanity.
    1. +4
      27 August 2026 04: 51
      Quote: Alexander Iloev
      So we must either abandon the consumer society
      This is impossible to do in rich countries. Otherwise, what's the point of the money?
      1. +9
        27 August 2026 07: 49
        1. You can look at the time and territories where the Internet is spreading, where a direct correlation is recorded between Internet accessibility and the decline in the birth rate.
        2. Black Africa is rapidly gaining access to the Internet, and you can see right from the towers how the birth rate is falling.
        3. People see a different world, a world where a modern woman may not give birth every year, where men spend more time having fun than taking care of their families.
        4. And nothing can be changed except to drive women back into slavery, Afghan style.

        P.S. "The Japanese have acknowledged a demographic catastrophe," BUT, they didn't let hundreds of thousands of savages in! They decided to cope on their own, not by reducing security and wages for the Japanese!
        1. + 10
          27 August 2026 09: 58
          What does the internet have to do with this? Why are you repeating the author's nonsense? Our ancestors didn't even think the same way we do, let alone share similar values ​​(including "family" ones) or goals. With today's worldview, we can't reason about how things were then and why they're different now.
          Let's take this point by point. Let's take the 19th century as an example. According to available data, by the end of the century, 30% of children died before the age of 5; at the beginning of the century, the situation was even worse. Accordingly, out of a family of 7 children, 5 survived to age 5! Even fewer lived to 14 (the age of marriage), say 4 (I'm too lazy to look up the data). Next, let's look at the average life expectancy. At the end of that same 19th century in St. Petersburg, the average life expectancy was under 30! Taking into account early mortality, people actually lived longer, but at 40, they were already very old! Today, 35 is the prime age of life! Then there are also social changes - previously, marriage was contracted at 14, and children were born. So, by the age of 18, a person already had more than 10 grandchildren! Today, a person at 14 cannot legally take responsibility for themselves; they're still in school! Moreover, if a girl gets pregnant at 14, it's not only considered marginal, it's illegal! Fathers and families will be saddled with a mountain of problems from the state in the form of child protection! Consequently, the process of generational change is slower, and population growth is further reduced. And finally, there's an increase in labor productivity. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, childhood as we understand it today didn't exist! Children weren't primarily a family's happiness, but rather an additional labor force! Simply because of low labor productivity, peasants worked in the fields around the clock. Today, you can work as a cashier in a "sixth" shop and earn just enough to live on. Even in extremely dire conditions, you can survive, and perhaps live no worse than in the countryside in the 19th century. All of this is called the demographic transition, and it's long been researched and described, yet the author, and you too, blame it all on who knows what... Survival has simply become easier, which is why the birth rate is falling!
          So, to put it simply, two men are to blame for the low birth rate: John Frohlich and Alexander Fleming. One was the first to produce tractors, the other invented antibiotics…
          1. +4
            27 August 2026 10: 01
            Quote: parma
            So, by the age of 18, the man already had more than 10 grandchildren!

            However.. :)
            As for the rest, I agree.
            1. +5
              27 August 2026 10: 05
              Typo... I meant for the eldest child's 18th birthday😂
          2. 0
            27 August 2026 11: 30
            Let's take the 19th century as an example. According to available data, by the end of the century, 30% of children died before age 5; at the beginning of the century, the situation was even worse. Accordingly, out of a family of seven children, only five survived to age five! Even fewer survived to age 14 (the age of marriage), say four (I'm too lazy to look up the data).

            My grandmother was the 11th child in the family...
            1. +2
              27 August 2026 12: 03
              I'd venture to guess she was born in the late 19th or early 20th century. My great-grandfather was the eighth child in the family; he already had four children. My grandmother has two children (she was born in 1932). My cousin and I are the only two children in the family (but we were born in the late 1980s or early 1990s). He has three children, and my wife and I are planning to have two.
              Although it is not correct to think so, the trend that I have outlined (in fact, I spied on it from scientists) is observed.
          3. 0
            27 August 2026 12: 22
            Quote: parma
            All this is called the demographic transition, it has long been researched and described, but the author, and after him you, blame it all on who knows what

            Why write things that are already clear, a base so to speak, the Internet has simply sped up all processes and made incredible, The demographic transition began WITHOUT an economic phase. When people plow by hand and with buffalo, but don't want to have children. That's what I and the author are talking about. A simple example is India. The impoverished population stopped reproducing. All because of the availability of dopamine and a DIFFERENT way of life.

            Minus not mine
            1. +5
              27 August 2026 13: 15
              This reminds me of a line from my favorite movie, Lord of War: “I personally blame MTV for everything.”
              The issue here isn't dopamine per se, but the difficulty of survival and the availability of technology. In "developed" countries, survival (and I mean survival) is relatively simple, as I wrote above—the lowest-paying job allows a person to survive. There's absolutely no vital need to expand the size of a family, etc. And humans are such creatures that if they don't urgently need something, they won't do it. So it turns out that children become more like hobbies, and hobbies are different for everyone.
              In "underdeveloped" countries, the situation is different—technology began to spread much later. While in "developed" countries, tractors and antibiotics appeared over 100 years ago, and the internet 30, today the internet is arriving in the poorest countries simultaneously with some kind of medicine and tractors. Consequently, some people draw the wrong conclusion, thinking that if medicine has reduced infant mortality, and tractors have prevented people from starving, then there must be an explosive birth rate. And if there isn't one, then the internet must be to blame, since it's only for entertainment. So, say, a certain Kenyan watches anime and porn instead of reproducing. But in reality, out of this Kenyan's 10 children, not 4 will survive to 18, but, say, 8, so he can have 5, and that's enough. On the other hand, this Kenyan doesn't need five children to till his field; he doesn't need children as labor at all. The whole village chipped in for a tractor, and he alone could feed the entire village, with time left over for anime and porn. And you're all like, "It's the internet's fault, it's the internet's fault."
              1. +2
                27 August 2026 14: 34
                I tell you about green, and you tell me about left.

                Quote: parma
                In "developed" countries, surviving (precisely surviving) is relatively elementary, as I wrote above - the lowest-paid job allows a person to survive.

                This is about achieving progress with the economy, not demographics.
                Quote: parma
                On the other hand, this Kenyan doesn't need five children to till the field; he doesn't need children as a labor force at all. The whole village chipped in for a tractor, and he alone could feed the entire village, and still have time left over for anime and porn.

                No, he can't and he won't, he doesn't have the money. But he already has enough for anime and porn.
                Quote: parma
                And you all say, “It’s the internet’s fault, it’s the internet’s fault.”

                The demographic transition is, first and foremost, a change in human thinking, not some mechanism or state coercion. So, you're right to justify it primarily by economic conditions (buying a tractor). But because of the spread of the internet, the demographic transition has occurred in countries where those so-called "tractors" never appeared, and it has become a catalyst for a change in thinking. And they will continue to be undernourished. You see the trick. The demographic transition occurs WITHOUT a change in economic conditions. And those countries that didn't manage to enter the Industrial Age immediately fall into the Information Age. I can't even imagine what the consequences will be. But I want to see it. Poverty + internet + population decline.

                A person in a poor country constantly sees how people live in more prosperous places and has access to information about emigration, salaries, and social norms.

                The effect occurs:

                "There is no future here → having children is risky → better to leave."
                1. +2
                  27 August 2026 15: 55
                  Yes, I understand what you mean... it's just that you're trying to divide the economic, technological, and demographic transitions by country, when in fact they're common to the entire world, just stretched out over time for a particular region. Technological change drives economic change, and it doesn't matter whether you're experiencing a technological leap or your neighbor's—the economy drives demographic change. When did the first DP occur? 17th-20th centuries. It was driven by economic growth resulting from the opening of new markets for Europeans in the colonies. When did active colonization begin? In the 16th century, and it was driven by a technological leap!
                  P.S.: I don't like our prospects at all... both world wars were a consequence of the first DP... there were still plenty of young men, and their supplies and weapons were now cheap (compared to earlier times). And today we have many times more combat nuclear warheads than civilian reactors...
                  1. 0
                    13 September 2026 08: 24
                    Quote: parma
                    Both world wars were a consequence of the first DP

                    They weren't. Both wars were the result of capitalism's economic crises. And capitalism is also to blame for the planet's demographic crisis.
                    1. 0
                      14 September 2026 08: 34
                      You've overread Lenin, Marx, and other communists, although you're partly right. I wasn't quite clear—the form both world wars took was determined by the Democratic Party. Countries simply had access to a large pool of young male populations, which they could relatively easily and cheaply extract from their economies, arm, and send to kill each other. For example, during the American Civil War, the combined size of both armies exceeded the combined size of all the combatants during the Napoleonic Wars. And that was just one country, with a population six to seven times smaller than that of Europe during Napoleon's reign, and less than half a century had passed.
                      Or an even more contrasting fact: Romania and Hungary (the actual outsiders and weakest participants in WWII) could put more troops on the battlefield than any participant in the Napoleonic Wars!
                      And for dessert - until 1891, Russian generals didn't even want to hear about a magazine rifle, saying that soldiers would use up all their bullets in a matter of minutes. Before WWI, it was believed that the Tsarist army would have enough 2,5-3 million bullets for everyone, but after the war, it turned out that this was barely enough for a regiment to last a day of fighting!
                      The increase in economic efficiency first led to an increase in the lethality and bloodiness of wars, and then to a decrease in the birth rate.
                2. +1
                  27 August 2026 20: 01
                  Quote: Civil
                  The effect occurs:

                  "There is no future here → having children is risky → better to leave."

                  There's also an exodus of the youngest people, who flee to Europe for social welfare, escaping from plowing with buffalo. There will be a sharp decline in the global population and the desertification of Africa.
          4. +3
            27 August 2026 13: 11
            Quote: parma
            It's simply because of low labor productivity that peasants toiled in the fields day and night. Today, you can work as a cashier in a typical "sixth" building and earn enough to live on. Even in extremely dire conditions, you can survive, and perhaps even live no worse than in the countryside in the 19th century. All of this is called the demographic transition, long studied and described, yet the author, and you too, blame it all on who knows what... Survival has simply become easier, which is why the birth rate is falling!
            So, to put it simply, two men are to blame for the low birth rate: John Frohlich and Alexander Fleming. One was the first to produce tractors, the other invented antibiotics…

            I disagree with you. I see it differently. People emerge and live in their own reality: whether it includes tractors loaded with antibiotics or a digging stick loaded with plantain is irrelevant. What matters is the society that shapes their behavior. With the advent of capitalism, which churned out goods beyond their needs, multi-level and ubiquitous competition within society began. Everyone began to strive to buy in order to meet, if not success, then at least a moderate income. Having children automatically knocks you down a couple of rungs on the "social wealth pyramid." Yes, even at the penultimate rungs, conditions are better than those of 19th-century peasants, but we don't perceive this; we have our own reality. Some Swede walks around upset because his neighbor's house is richer, while some African kid freezes in a tent, happy that he wasn't beaten up by evil men with machine guns today.
            The higher the social segregation, the lower the birth rate.
            1. +2
              27 August 2026 13: 32
              Well then, let's look at the top 5 richest people on the planet and how many children they have, and at the same time compare them with the kings of the Middle Ages.
              Let's start with an old epic:
              Henry II had 10 children, Louis XIV had 19 (!), Louis XV had 10 children, Louis XVI had 4 (but the dynasty ended with him). Now, in the present day: Zuckerberg has 3 children, Bezos has 3 of his own and an adopted child, Brin has 3 children, Page has 2, and then there's Elon Musk, the anomaly who seems to be everything, with 13 confirmed…
              I've specifically considered "legitimate" children—those who were definitely "wanted," not "accidental" (otherwise, the "medievals" would have reported some truly indecent numbers). It would seem that the most influential and wealthy people have no financial, status, or other material limitations on the number of offspring they can have, but for some unknown reason, they don't reproduce like rabbits, even though 300-500 years ago, they were "on the move."
              1. -1
                27 August 2026 21: 41
                Humans aren't rabbits, either, to reproduce frantically, or to consciously refuse to pass on their genome... And the rich don't experience a decline in their dynasties, unlike most of the poor. And something tells me the processes of population decline and gain are controlled.
              2. 0
                13 September 2026 08: 31
                Quote: parma
                It would seem that the most influential and wealthy people have no financial/status or other material limitation on the number of offspring they can have, but for some unknown reason they don’t reproduce like rabbits, although 300-500 years ago they were “only on the way.”

                And yet, it's clear that the rich actually have more children than the average person. This is precisely what the statistics show. Therefore, all this talk about rising prosperity not leading to higher birth rates is complete nonsense.
                1. 0
                  14 September 2026 07: 48
                  Are 2-3 children significantly more than the "norm"? It's a complex statement, and the sample size is only roughly representative of the statistics, but even this sample size shows that material wealth is not the primary reason for declining birth rates.
                  1. 0
                    Today, 15: 40
                    Quote: parma
                    Are 2-3 children significantly more than the "norm"? It's a complex statement, and the sample size is only roughly representative of the statistics, but even this sample size shows that material wealth is not the primary reason for declining birth rates.

                    Quote: parma
                    Are 2-3 children significantly more than the "norm"? It's a complex statement, and the sample size is only roughly representative of the statistics, but even this sample size shows that material wealth is not the primary reason for declining birth rates.

                    If you look at the birth rate in the TFR, which is around 1,5, then 2-3 is quite reasonable. No one ever said that with rising prosperity there would be a birth rate explosion of 10 people per family. In fact, compared to the birth rate with a TFR of 1,5, it's quite reasonable.
          5. 0
            27 August 2026 22: 10
            So, by the age of 18, the man already had more than 10 grandchildren!

            Well, we can't surpass such giants!
          6. 0
            29 August 2026 14: 15
            In the 19th century in Russia, about 600 people out of 1000 lived to the age of 5. When I looked at the statistics, I was absolutely shocked.
        2. +3
          27 August 2026 19: 58
          There's no internet or consumer society in North Korea. And yet, the birth rate, 1,8, is below replacement level. And yet, morality there is simply outrageous and controlled.
          1. 0
            1 September 2026 08: 42
            Quote: Archon
            There's no internet or consumer society in North Korea. And yet, the birth rate, 1,8, is below replacement level. And yet, morality there is simply outrageous and controlled.

            North Korea also went through the Industrial Era, even before the USSR, so everything is on schedule there. And don't think of them as isolated fools.
            1. 0
              3 September 2026 02: 54
              I wasn't writing about any fools. I was saying that it's precisely resource constraints and living in an urbanized environment that lead to reduced population reproduction. All we have to do is alleviate the first point, and things will get better.
          2. 0
            13 September 2026 08: 39
            Quote: Archon
            There's no internet or consumer society in North Korea. And yet, the birth rate, 1,8, is below replacement level. And yet, morality there is simply outrageous and controlled.

            In South Korea, it's 0,8, and in 2023, it was 0,72. The internet definitely has an impact. But it's the economy, not the internet, that has the primary influence. The internet simply facilitates accelerated social change by speeding up information exchange. And consumer society exists in one form or another in the DPRK. Just as it did in the USSR. Granted, it's nowhere near the same extent as in developed capitalist economies, but nonetheless.
        3. +2
          28 August 2026 10: 41
          Quote: Civil
          1. You can look at the time and territories where the Internet is spreading, where a direct correlation is recorded between Internet accessibility and the decline in the birth rate.
          2. Black Africa is rapidly gaining access to the Internet, and you can see right from the towers how the birth rate is falling.
          3. People see a different world, a world where a modern woman may not give birth every year, where men spend more time having fun than taking care of their families.
          4. And nothing can be changed except to drive women back into slavery, Afghan style.

          P.S. "The Japanese have acknowledged a demographic catastrophe," BUT, they didn't let hundreds of thousands of savages in! They decided to cope on their own, not by reducing security and wages for the Japanese!

          The Japanese have many businesses outside the islands; why would they import migrants if it would be easier to open a factory in Indonesia or Vietnam?
          1. 0
            13 September 2026 08: 43
            Quote: Panin (Michman)
            The Japanese have many businesses outside the islands; why would they import migrants if it would be easier to open a factory in Indonesia or Vietnam?

            He's been banned from Google and Yandex. He's simply unaware of this: "According to the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the number of foreigners residing in the country reached 4,031,159 as of January 1, 2026. This is 350,000 more than in 2025."
      2. +2
        27 August 2026 11: 48
        For example, in the post-war United States, there was also a consumer society, but people still had children. It was just that the consumption model was different. Women were married housewives and consumers, not emancipated, childless consumers.
        1. 0
          27 August 2026 12: 25
          Quote: Evil Eye
          For example, in the post-war United States, there was also a consumer society, but people still had children. It was just that the consumption model was different. Women were married housewives and consumers, not emancipated, childless consumers.

          You need to brush up on your subject matter. What is the demographic transition and what happened to it in the Information Age? How the internet catapulted everyone into this era without demand or economic conditions. Afghanistan isn't an example. Sub-Saharan Africa is also retreating as internet penetration increases and becomes cheaper.
          1. +1
            27 August 2026 13: 22
            But the Amish continue to multiply, because they have only one telephone per village, and that's just a street phone. And no internet. These are the kind of people who will define humanity in the future.
            1. +2
              27 August 2026 14: 24
              Quote from Evil Eye
              But the Amish continue to multiply, because they have only one telephone per village, and that's just a street phone. And no internet.

              I told you not to offer Afghanistan, the Amish are the same religious fanatics.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              These are the kind of people who will determine the face of humanity in the future.

              No, they won't; a way to maintain a population without deviations will always be found. Given the current rate of biotechnological progress in the US, and especially in China. But those who are late and stuck in the past await dark years of stagnation on the periphery and oblivion in history.
              1. 0
                27 August 2026 14: 42
                What's there to suggest? "Civilized people" are dying out, religious fanatics are multiplying, all that's left is to add 2+2 and get the obvious answer.

                >> Given the current rate of progress in biotechnology in the US, and especially in China,

                This is all bullshit. If in some kingdom-state it's easier to churn out millions of people from flasks than to convince women to give birth, then I have bad news for you. It's like inventing super-expensive wheelchairs that can climb stairs and step over high curbs for people who could walk but can't be bothered. This isn't "technological progress," it's like having tonsils removed in every other place.
          2. 0
            13 September 2026 08: 48
            Quote: Civil
            Black Africa is also retreating as the Internet becomes more widespread and cheaper.

            Africa is also gradually changing. The economy is developing, albeit at a poor pace. Urbanization is underway there. Therefore, the idea that the internet comes to the hut of a savage with a nose ring and a loincloth is, to put it mildly, incorrect. Although, yes, Africa is still a region of poverty and, for the most part, a backward economy.
        2. +2
          27 August 2026 15: 08
          Quote from Evil Eye
          For example, in the post-war period in the USA there was also a consumer society, but they gave birth
          After a war, there's always a rise in the birth rate. It's an inexplicable reason. And this rise was seen everywhere in the world.
        3. +2
          29 August 2026 14: 18
          That is, married women, for the most part, did not work, but were busy raising children, while the husband could support the family.
          1. +1
            29 August 2026 18: 42
            Well, that's the whole secret.
            But from the elite's perspective, it's more interesting, of course, when the husband earns half as much, and the wife also works. Twice the workforce! And the demographic catastrophe will happen someday, and the beneficiaries won't live to see it.
    2. +9
      27 August 2026 05: 41
      Of course, a twenty-square-meter insula cost more than a legionary's monthly salary. So why didn't people multiply there, in such cramped quarters? what
      In general, there are surveys and a bunch of studies on why the birth rate is low and under what conditions it is growing.
      1. 0
        27 August 2026 09: 10
        And why didn’t the people multiply there, in such cramped conditions?

        Why did people have 10 children in a 10-square-meter African shack? And in Russian villages, families with 7-11 children, plus grandparents, lived in a single hut. It's a question of values, of what comes first. That's what the article is all about.
        1. +5
          27 August 2026 12: 39
          Why did people have 10 children in a 10-square-meter African shack? And in Russian villages, families with 7-11 children, plus grandparents, lived in a single hut.
          How long did they live with 10 children? The population didn't quintuple every 30 years. And even a grown child would get the same housing as their parents when they got married at 15 or 16—the community would come out and build a mud hut in a week. And now, what do you have to do to at least get your own Khrushchev-era apartment by the time you reach adulthood?
          1. -2
            27 August 2026 12: 43
            Somehow the population didn't quintuple every 30 years.

            No, it didn't quintuple. Russia's population growth in the 19th century:
            Beginning of the century. Approximately 36–37 million people.
            Mid-century (around 1850) - approximately 50 million.
            The end of the century (according to the first general census of 1897) - about 125-128 million people. That is, over the course of the century, the population grew by approximately 3,5
            1. +3
              27 August 2026 12: 47
              And that's the survival of just three children. When I was born, a neighbor was still alive who lived on the wild servers, and none of her four children survived to age five; she ended up with only an adopted daughter. Incidentally, increasing the living space in the hut is a piece of cake. And those left without their land went to the cities.
              1. +1
                27 August 2026 12: 54
                Yes, of course, the article only discusses the declining birth rate. But many factors influence demographics. The rate of early death and the overall average age of the population are very similar. Therefore, for some time to come, the declining birth rate will be offset by an increase in the average age of humanity. And with an even greater decline in infant mortality, there is no threat of "extinction."
              2. -3
                27 August 2026 12: 55
                none of the four survived to age 5

                No one survived at all. How did the population grow 3,5 times in 100 years?
                1. +1
                  27 August 2026 12: 59
                  And governments everywhere began to falter at the end of the century—there were many young people, landless peasants, empires were crumbling. But this wasn't the case everywhere. After the defeat of Napoleon, the French passed clever laws that barely increased the population, while the German population grew exponentially. For some reason, they didn't pass such laws. Without any modern contraception.
                2. +2
                  28 August 2026 10: 46
                  Quote: eckons
                  none of the four survived to age 5

                  No one survived at all. How did the population grow 3,5 times in 100 years?

                  Thanks to Central Asia, too. From 1800 to 1900, Russia expanded its territory by approximately a third, including its producers.
                  1. -1
                    28 August 2026 11: 08
                    Due to the same Central Asia

                    You are either deliberately lying or you don’t understand the nonsense you are writing.
                    According to the results of the first general census of the Russian Empire in 1897, there were 7,721,684 inhabitants in the Central Asian possessions of the empire.
                    By 1914, the region's total population, according to later estimates, reached approximately 11 million people.
        2. 0
          3 September 2026 05: 17
          10 gave birth, and 7 were buried from illnesses and injuries.

          Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Peter I's father, had 16 children (including Peter I himself): 9 survived and 7 died. Peter I himself had 12 children, of whom 2 survived and 10 died in childhood or infancy.

          Many famous people had similar experiences. But for ordinary people, the situation was even worse.
    3. -2
      27 August 2026 06: 17
      It is only necessary to note that there is a targeted program of the globalists of the shadow state to reduce the population.
      All international platforms, including the UN, the UNGA, WHO, the WEF, the IMF and others, belong to a narrow layer of super-rich people.
      For example, the wars of the 19th-20th centuries, and let's be honest, the 21st century, are organized by the powers that be.
      In addition, at every WEF forum, the Munich Security Conference, and others, behind-the-scenes meetings are held, after which "green" environmental agendas, LGBT, COVID-19, and others are born, i.e., short-term and long-term planning for the lives of earthlings on the planet is carried out.
      Overall, this fits into the Earth's demography program, where state borders are erased, and instead of people, biomass, AI, and robots appear, controlled by a select few.
      1. -3
        27 August 2026 07: 36
        Can I see the text of the program?
  2. +1
    27 August 2026 03: 35
    Consumer society has existed since the Stone Age, and this hasn't stopped people from reproducing. The main problem is in our heads, but there are a host of other reasons: material, medical, entertainment, and so on.
    Currently, there are only two methods used in the world to increase the birth rate.
    1. Material – maternity capital, benefits, incentives, etc. If used wisely, this can increase the birth rate at least to replacement level; don't expect more.
    2. Relying on religious fanatics. They can reproduce very well, but it's very difficult to integrate such people into modern society.
    1. +4
      27 August 2026 04: 09
      There was no "consumer society since the Stone Age." But if you pay attention, for example, even to Soviet films: they show, for example, a good Soviet family—and they always have one child.
      And what about the ad? It shows a family, and there's always one child.
      In a modern kindergarten, there is a counting rhyme
      "One dad, one mom, one me"
      Yes, from childhood we are programmed to be the only child in the family.
      Also, if you take films or modern children's books, they often describe families with incomes many times higher than the average, which actually fosters morals.
      And people who have never in their lives allowed themselves to fast, even for medicinal purposes, say, “I don’t want to create poverty.”
      No, payments don't solve anything. They only create a temporary illusion, like "the plan is being met ahead of schedule," but everything remains the same. It's all in the mind.
      1. 0
        28 August 2026 11: 54
        I completely agree with "it's all in the brain." Indeed, in our society there is very powerful propaganda for childlessness.
        Consumer society emerged with the advent of goods and trade. Previously, it was simply small-scale consumption, as goods were fewer and less accessible to the majority.
        In the US, there are the Amish; they buy electronics, things, and even Coke. They are typical representatives of a consumer society, but this doesn't stop them from having a high birth rate.
    2. +1
      27 August 2026 09: 36
      Betting on religious fanatics. They can reproduce very well,

      Well, that's just labeling. If someone is religious, they're definitely a fanatic.
      but it is very difficult to integrate such people into modern society

      So, society needs to change. "Modern society" is another misnomer. Any society, regardless of its values, will be modern at any given moment. You're interpreting this concept as referring specifically to the currently established system of Western values. In this sense, "modern society" doesn't mean correct or progressive. So, society's value systems need to change. If large families, respect for the elderly, and other values ​​are socially accepted, rather than greed, then this will have a positive impact on demographics. And to justify such moral principles, religious consciousness isn't necessarily necessary; a purely scientific approach is possible.
      1. -1
        27 August 2026 11: 51
        Well, besides moral principles, we also need an economic foundation. Everything used to be clear about work, career, and retirement, but now it's completely unclear what the future holds. On the one hand, everyone is very insecure, and on the other, there are so many freebies.
        What is needed is a developed industry, a high level of stable employment, and taxes on the incomes of people receiving unreasonably high incomes.
      2. 0
        28 August 2026 12: 14
        When I talk about religious fanatics, I mean exactly that. It's just that religious people have the same birth rate as atheists, maybe a little higher or lower, but generally similar.
        The use of "modern society" is incorrect, I wanted to say a society aimed at progress, development of technology and science.
        I completely agree about changing societal attitudes. Unfortunately, our government officials hardly understand this. What's there to say if they even thought of putting a childless woman in charge of demographics? 🤦
    3. +1
      13 September 2026 08: 55
      Quote: Epifantsev Sergey
      Currently, there are only two methods used in the world to increase the birth rate.

      3. By importing migrants from economically backward and underdeveloped countries where the demographic transition has not yet occurred. But this will only last for a couple of generations, and then everything will converge.
  3. + 19
    27 August 2026 03: 50
    In the past, people had children so that they could help with hard labor, when parents worked from dawn to dusk, and the children helped with the household chores. Now, there is plenty of everything, there is no such need for help. On the contrary, now if you have many children, you are obliged to provide for them all, which many cannot do, so parents prefer to provide for one than to breed poverty.
    1. -1
      27 August 2026 07: 14
      Quote from: miry_mir
      In the past, people had children so that they could help with hard labor, when parents worked from dawn to dusk, and the children helped with the household chores. Now, there is plenty of everything, there is no such need for help. On the contrary, now if you have many children, you are obliged to provide for them all, which many cannot do, so parents prefer to provide for one than to breed poverty.

      Providing everyone with children is precisely the idea imposed on people to reduce the birth rate.
      1. +1
        27 August 2026 07: 38
        That's right, let them grow like weeds. They'll thank you later.
        1. +1
          27 August 2026 11: 34
          That's right, let them grow like weeds.

          “Hard times create strong people, strong people create easy times.
          "Easy times create weak people. Weak people create hard times."
          1. +1
            27 August 2026 11: 54
            Quote: Dedok
            "Hard times create strong people, strong people create easy times. Easy times create weak people. Weak people create hard times."

            "Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. Even if it doesn't work, you can always hit one of those guys on the head." laughing
    2. 0
      27 August 2026 12: 01
      That's why parents prefer to provide for one child rather than to breed poverty.

      In fact, parents often prefer to go to Turkey, buy a new car, an apartment, a dacha, etc., etc. Rarely does the choice come between children and poverty, more often than not it is between children and an increasingly comfortable life.
      1. 0
        13 September 2026 08: 59
        Quote: eckons
        That's why parents prefer to provide for one child rather than to breed poverty.

        In fact, parents often prefer to go to Turkey, buy a new car, an apartment, a dacha, etc., etc. Rarely does the choice come between children and poverty, more often than not it is between children and an increasingly comfortable life.

        Our median is around 65. How many cars, apartments, and dachas can you buy with that money? Don't confuse success with the life of an average person.
        1. 0
          14 September 2026 08: 42
          Don't confuse successful success with the life of an average person.

          A successful outcome of 150 to 250k? You're obviously delirious.
          You're writing on a computer, aren't you, I see? I look around at those around me, and I don't see anyone making less than 120 rubles. But I don't see any large families among them.
          1. 0
            Today, 15: 45
            Quote: eckons
            A successful outcome of 150 to 250k? You're obviously delirious.

            Google the statistics. Then you'll write nonsense. I've heard enough of this nonsense about "everyone around is making over a hundred" from all sorts of idiots. And the median, I repeat, is 65. That means half of the working population makes 65 or LESS. So think about it.
            1. 0
              Today, 16: 03
              I've heard enough from all sorts of fools

              And you should socialize less with your idiot circle. The median salary means that half earns less, and the other half earns more. And the latter half doesn't have many children either. The point is that it's not about money. People choose a more comfortable life over children, regardless of income. And comfort doesn't just mean having material goods, but also the absence of responsibilities that come with having children. Infantile young people (and according to the WHO, 45-year-olds are now considered young) don't want to feed, clothe, or be responsible for anyone. And they'd rather work remotely, sitting by the sea under palm trees. What children are you talking about? And you're always talking about money. No matter how much money you give them, they won't have children.
    3. 0
      28 August 2026 12: 28
      Until age five, a child is fully supported; from five to ten, they're a helper, but still a loss; and only from age ten do they generate income; and after three to five years, they start their own family, so what's the benefit? Or maybe you go hunting in Africa for a couple of hours, then spend the whole day lying in the shade under a tree. What do you need children for?
      But “to breed poverty”, “first study, then a career, a car, an apartment, a dacha, and only then a family and children”, this is typical propaganda of childlessness.
  4. 0
    27 August 2026 04: 02
    In 10-20 years, children will be raised in incubators, but that's for the rich. For the middle class (in wealthy countries), it will be another 10-20 years. These timelines are certainly arbitrary and subject to change. Currently, according to the UN, one in 11 people on Earth is starving.
    However, fewer people, more oxygen.
    1. + 14
      27 August 2026 05: 38
      Do you think pregnancy is the only problem? It's just a few months of carrying a baby and a few hours of labor. But what about when you're 24 and you have to feed and dress a baby? And when he's three, he takes up little space in a one-room apartment, and when he's 16? What about two? What if they're of different genders?
      1. -1
        27 August 2026 06: 04
        Raising children in incubators will allow the state to address the problem of population decline, which could lead to the loss of statehood. Whether women choose to give birth will no longer matter.
        Sperm banks exist and sperm donation is a paid service (donors are paid a monetary reward for tests and biomaterial), which is legally considered compensation and is not subject to income tax.
        There are also egg (oocyte) banks, which operate on the same principle as sperm banks, but store individual female reproductive cells rather than entire ovaries. These storage facilities are usually called reproductive cell cryobanks, or simply cryobanks.
        Now all that remains is to set up production of inexpensive incubators and voila, the birth rate problem is solved.
        The problem has already broken free from its cage; there's no way to force people back in. In China, for example, according to Google, 70% of female students at major universities don't want to have children. And it's not a matter of limited living space or low salaries.
        1. +7
          27 August 2026 10: 20
          Quote: smart fellow
          In China, for example, according to Google, 70% of female students at major universities don't want to have children. And it's not because of limited living space or low salaries.

          Well, yes, the thing is that after devoting 15 years of her life to education (Chinese children practically lack childhood in that wonderful, carefree sense), she will logically seek to monetize all her efforts—a prestigious job, career advancement, and a decent salary. But having children (even just one) sets her back in this frantic race for success, and given China's exorbitant competition, she loses any chance of catching up. The modern approach to life poses a stark question: either/or... Having many children has long been out of the question.
          1. -3
            27 August 2026 11: 54
            What's the obvious conclusion? The ideology of "successful success," competition, the "chicken coop principle," and other products of the fermenting American way of life—these are the main threat to humanity. You're either rich or a loser; there's no middle ground. There should be a society of social justice, but without egalitarianism.
            1. +1
              27 August 2026 18: 51
              Quote from Evil Eye
              The American way of life is the main threat to humanity. You're either rich or you're a loser; there's no middle ground.

              What does the American have to do with this? They didn't come up with this; it's been like this throughout human history since ancient times... except for short-lived moments in certain countries.
              Quote from Evil Eye
              There should be a society of social justice, but without equalization.

              This is a dream, and as we know, it is unattainable, especially for homosapiens.
              1. 0
                28 August 2026 05: 52
                Throughout human history, humanity hasn't had the carrot of suddenly becoming rich. Most people lived a life where if you were born a peasant, you'd die a peasant. Mobility was either very limited (like becoming a craftsman, a soldier, or a monk), or it was limited to very risky groups (like not just soldiers, but conquerors or pirates). Of course, that wasn't good either, so people staged revolutions and fled Europe to America. That's where the idea of ​​"self-made men" came from. Only now, that idea has been distorted beyond recognition.
                1. 0
                  28 August 2026 07: 15
                  Quote from Evil Eye
                  That's how the idea of ​​"self-made men" was born. Only now this idea has been distorted beyond recognition.

                  Well, what can I say? The saying "from rags to riches" wasn't invented today, was it? But I personally know several people from poor families who are quite well off today—through their own efforts and without any freebies (they didn't just fall into the lap of nothing). Yeah, they're not dollar multimillionaires, but they're definitely ruble multimillionaires. So, the theory works, by and large—you can go from zero to riches. The other issue is that in Russia, it's easier to go from zero to riches than from the next level up, but that's a different story.
                  Quote from Evil Eye
                  There should be a society of social justice, but without equalization.

                  People themselves don't need it, in the majority of them... first of all, we need to abolish such a feeling as envy in the masses... do you think this is realistic?
                  1. 0
                    28 August 2026 07: 19
                    "From rags to riches" is usually used in a negative way.
                    Envy flourishes precisely in a society of inequality, when some have shit and others have everything.
                    1. 0
                      28 August 2026 08: 34
                      Quote from Evil Eye
                      Envy flourishes precisely in a society of inequality.

                      There has never been a society without envy among humans, and I don't think Homo sapiens could ever create such a society, based on thousands of years of history... Or is this a reference to the USSR—was there no envy there? There was no less than in other societies... That's the point... such a society is impossible for humans... Only if they were transported to another planet and raised by machines from infancy... and even then, it's not a given that it would work...
                      Quote from Evil Eye
                      From rags to riches

                      I was talking about an example—that this has been the case since ancient times, even before the Americans—and not about the meaning...
                  2. 0
                    13 September 2026 09: 04
                    Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                    people themselves don't need it

                    Based on this logic, it follows that humans are generally incapable of negotiation. But as we see from history, this is, to put it mildly, not the case.
        2. +1
          27 August 2026 12: 44
          And who's going to look after these kids? They'll be rowdy orphans. If half the population is like that, they'll run amok, and it'll make Cossacks, nomads, and Vikings smoke cigarettes.
          In China, for example, according to Google, 70% of female students at major universities don't want to have children. And it's not because of limited living space or low salaries.
          They don't want to because they can't afford it? Housing in China is even less affordable than here, there's no pension system, and to get a decent job you have to be a kindergarten kid.
          1. 0
            27 August 2026 14: 34
            Let's turn to an expert who knows China well.
            Maslov, Alexey Alexandrovich https://w.wiki/Hc5d
            In China, housing is even less affordable than here.

            According to analysis by renowned sinologist Alexei Maslov, as well as official statistics, China significantly outpaces Russia in terms of housing per capita.
            In China, the average housing supply is between 41 and 43 square meters per person. In Russia, the average is around 29,5 to 30 square meters per person.

            there is no pension system

            For years, a myth has been circulating in Russia that China has no pension system and that only a small percentage of Chinese citizens receive pensions. In reality, pension payments for the vast majority of elderly Chinese citizens are more than twice the average Russian pension.
            According to Alexey Maslov, Director of the Institute of Asian and African Studies, the actual pensions of urban pensioners in China, converted into Russian currency, amount to approximately 40–50 rubles. Meanwhile, approximately 65% ​​of China's total population currently lives in cities. Therefore, most Russian pensioners would envy Chinese pensions, with monthly payments half those in China. This undesirable comparison largely explains the persistence of the myth of the absence of pensions in China.
            https://www.ng.ru/economics/2024-01-10/4_8918_pensions.html

            To work properly you have to be a child.

            You're absolutely right; this vivid metaphor accurately describes the Chinese reality. Renowned Russian orientalist Alexei Maslov has repeatedly emphasized in his lectures and interviews that socio-educational competition in China is pervasive and begins from the earliest years.
            This is even more typical in South Korea and a little milder in Japan. One South Korean TV series featured the line: she's smart and graduated from a prestigious university in Japan, while her brother is a fool and was sent to study at an American university.
            1. +2
              27 August 2026 14: 48
              In China, the average housing supply is between 41 and 43 square meters per person. In Russia, the average is around 29,5 to 30 square meters per person.
              And where is this housing? In ghost towns? There's such a thing as housing affordability—how much of an annual salary does it take to buy a place? China is among the anti-leaders.
              In fact, pension payments for the overwhelming majority of elderly Chinese are more than twice the average Russian pension.
              The actual pensions of urban pensioners in China, converted into Russian currency, amount to approximately 40–50 thousand rubles.
              Such a soft clarification—pensions for those who receive pensions and live in the city. It's an obvious manipulation to talk about the pension size of those who receive them. But what percentage of all senior citizens in China is that? And what percentage of them live in rural areas?
              1. +1
                27 August 2026 14: 55
                In ghost towns?

                Empty neighborhoods fill up within 5–15 years as cities grow and transportation accessibility improves.
                What percentage of all senior citizens in China is this? And what percentage of them live in rural areas?

                I wrote that
                At the same time, today about 65% of the total population of China lives in cities.
                Rural residents in China receive a small basic pension, which was only introduced in 2009.
                By the way, the retirement age in China is 50-55 years for women and 60 for men.
                1. +1
                  27 August 2026 17: 42
                  Empty neighborhoods fill up within 5–15 years as cities grow and transportation accessibility improves.
                  or they don't fill out, people still go to Shanghai and Hong Kong
                  I wrote that
                  At the same time, today about 65% of the total population of China lives in cities.
                  And how many pensioners live in the cities where people are flocking en masse now?
                  By the way, the retirement age in China is 50-55 years for women and 60 for men.
                  What proportion of Chinese people over 60 receive that legendary Shanghai pension?
                  1. 0
                    28 August 2026 04: 44
                    or they don't fill out, people still go to Shanghai and Hong Kong

                    The share of vacant and unsold housing in China is about 22 %, while in Russia the official overall vacancy rate of the housing stock is estimated at approximately 19 %.

                    Abandoned or empty cities and districts in China (so-called "ghost towns") are new, pre-built districts with full infrastructure that precede actual human settlement.
                    The main reasons for the emergence of such cities:
                    State planning for the future: Authorities are building new cities in advance, anticipating a large-scale migration of rural populations to megacities. Construction is proceeding faster than actual migration.
                    Supporting the economy and GDP: Construction of housing, roads and infrastructure creates jobs and increases the gross domestic product (GDP), helping the country maintain high rates of economic growth.
                    Real estate investment: Local authorities have special investment companies (UDICs) that take loans from banks and make money by selling land and square meters.
                    Real Estate Cult: In Chinese society, buying an apartment is considered the most reliable way to preserve and increase savings, so investors buy homes for the future, even if no one lives in them.

                    Furthermore, construction companies profited from the housing boom, the most well-known of which is China Evergrande Group, formerly China's largest investment holding and developer, whose financial collapse in the early 2020s became a symbol of the deep crisis in China's real estate market. The company's founder, Hui Ka Yan, was sentenced to life imprisonment in August 2026 for financial fraud and embezzlement.

                    Spot (or infill) development is one of the main features and problems of urban development in modern Russia.
                    The essence of the problem
                    • Use of ready-made. Houses are built on free plots (parks, vacant lots, courtyards) within already established Soviet-era neighborhoods.
                    • Savings for developers. Companies connect new buildings to existing Soviet-era networks to avoid spending money on installing new utilities from scratch.
                    Consequences for infrastructure
                    • Network overload. Soviet utility networks (water supply, sewerage, heating) were designed for a strictly defined number of residents. Additional high-rise buildings cause frequent accidents.
                    • A shortage of social facilities. Population density is growing sharply in the districts. Kindergartens, schools, and clinics built in the USSR are overcrowded.
                    • Transport collapse. The road network and parking lots in old neighborhoods cannot cope with the influx of cars.
                    • Loss of green spaces. New residential complexes are appearing in place of parks, sports fields, and playgrounds.


                    Which approach is better?

                    And one more difference between China and Russia:
                    In China, the construction industry relies on internal migration (peasant workers), while in Russia it relies primarily on external migration (foreign labor).

                    And how many pensioners live in the cities where people are flocking en masse now?

                    Approximately two-thirds. In rural areas, the figure is higher because young people are moving to cities. But the state also relocates older people to cities at "state" expense, and precisely to "ghost towns."
                    What proportion of Chinese people over 60 receive that legendary Shanghai pension?

                    Google AI
                    This privileged group (approximately 20 million people) receives the highest pensions in the country. The average monthly payment is approximately 6000–7000 yuan. Almost 100% of them exceed the 4000–5000 yuan mark.
                    Urban wage earners (~40% of the elderly): this represents approximately 120 million people. The average urban pension nationwide is approximately 3300–3800 yuan. The threshold of 4000–5000 yuan is reached primarily by residents of the most developed and wealthy megacities (such as Shanghai and Beijing, where the average pension already exceeds 4000–5000 yuan), as well as workers with long, continuous work experience. In second- and third-tier cities, the average payment is only approximately 2900 yuan.
                    1. 0
                      28 August 2026 05: 18
                      Corrected the ambiguities in my comment.

                      About 2/3. More in rural areas.

                      This means 2/3 in the city. In rural areas, the percentage of elderly people relative to the total population is higher than in the city.

                      This privileged layer

                      Civil servants.
                      1. 0
                        28 August 2026 14: 35
                        This means 2/3 in the city.
                        And a third of the cities get a fig? Cool!
                        In rural areas, the percentage of elderly people relative to the total population is higher than in the city.
                        So it turns out that pensioners in villages receive a pension of a few hundred yuan, while the few city residents receive a ton. Well, Chubais's pension is also huge. laughing
                        You'd be better off asking an AI about housing affordability; it would tell you how much a Chinese person has to pay for an apartment.
                      2. +1
                        28 August 2026 15: 59
                        And a third of the cities get a fig? Cool!

                        Do I need to explain everything to you word for word? Two-thirds of pensioners live in the city and one-third live in the countryside.
                        So it turns out that pensioners in the villages receive a pension of several hundred yuan, while the few city pensioners receive a lot more.

                        How's your arithmetic? Two-thirds of pensioners live in cities. The average urban pension nationwide is approximately 3300–3800 yuan, or between 42,138 and 48,522 rubles (at an exchange rate of 12,77 rubles per 1 yuan).
                        You'd be better off asking an AI about housing affordability; it would tell you how much a Chinese person has to pay for an apartment.

                        Let's ask the AI:
                        United States of America
                        If you save 100% of your salary: just over 5 years.
                        In Moscow or St. Petersburg, prices for such housing are 2–3 times higher, so the term increases proportionally.
                        China
                        In the provinces: about 4–5 years.
                        In the capital or major financial centers: 12–16 years.
                      3. +1
                        28 August 2026 16: 49
                        Do I need to explain everything to you word for word? Two-thirds of pensioners live in the city and one-third live in the countryside.
                        Are these people receiving a pension or those who have turned 60?
                        In the capital or major financial centers: 12–16 years.
                        that's what I was talking about
                      4. -1
                        28 August 2026 18: 03
                        that's what I was talking about

                        In Moscow, it would take the average Muscovite 8,2 years to buy a 40 sq. m apartment if they save their entire salary for the apartment.

                        To buy a 40-square-meter apartment in a typical new building in Shanghai, the average Shanghai resident would need to work and save their entire salary for approximately 11 to 15 years.
                        But Shanghai is more expensive than Moscow in terms of real estate prices due to the colossal concentration of capital, severe land shortage, and the metropolis' role as China's main financial center.

                        Therefore, we need to compare Moscow (13 million) and, for example, Wuhan (11–13 million).
                        To buy a standard 40 square meter apartment in a new building in Wuhan, the average city resident would need to save for approximately 3,5 to 4,5 years, assuming they put aside their entire salary.

                        The result is: 8 years in Moscow and 4 years in Wuhan in favor of China.
                      5. +1
                        28 August 2026 18: 12
                        But Shanghai is more expensive than Moscow in terms of real estate prices due to the colossal concentration of capital, severe land shortage, and the metropolis' role as China's main financial center.
                        Why would that even be possible? Let's compare Wuhan with Murmansk, then. Moscow has an excessive concentration of finances from all over the world, hordes of students, and so on. And in Murmansk, it would take the average person two years to buy a home.
                      6. 0
                        28 August 2026 18: 16
                        Moscow is the financial center of the Russian Federation, and Shanghai is the financial center of China. China's economy is 7-8 times larger than Russia's. Compare Moscow to New York.
                      7. 0
                        28 August 2026 18: 21
                        Moscow is the financial center of the Russian Federation, and Shanghai is the financial center of China. China's economy is 7-8 times larger than Russia's. Compare Moscow to New York.
                        Yes, that's true, but why did you decide to compare Moscow to Wuhan? Or did the AI ​​think of it for you?
                        As for the size, the population there is also larger and the cities are also larger.
                      8. 0
                        28 August 2026 18: 37
                        Why did you decide to compare Moscow with Wuhan?

                        In terms of population, it is approximately the same.
                        I was watching a "60 Minutes" program about Wuhan, and the hosts were discussing COVID-19 in Wuhan. A Chinese official was invited onto the show. He listened, and when he was finally given the floor, he said, "You have no idea what Wuhan is like—it's slightly smaller in population than Moscow, but significantly larger in the total number of hospitals."
                        Or did the AI ​​think for you?

                        Google AI doesn't think, it helps you find information. Why can't you or don't you want to find objective information?
                      9. +1
                        28 August 2026 16: 03
                        Listen, why are you picking on China? If you're going to push the issue, compare it to housing affordability in Moscow or St. Petersburg. And regarding pensions, your opponent is absolutely right. While their pension system is actively developing without raising the retirement age, ours is rapidly deteriorating.
                      10. 0
                        28 August 2026 16: 51
                        If you're going to push the issue, then compare it with the affordability of housing in Moscow or St. Petersburg.
                        They're not at the peak of unaffordability here at all. As far as I remember, salaries are lower in Crimea and Altai, and the prices are Moscow-style.
                    2. 0
                      28 August 2026 14: 32
                      The share of vacant and unsold housing in China is about 22%.
                      Housing bought by investors where no one lives falls out of the picture.
                      1. -1
                        28 August 2026 15: 45
                        Housing bought by investors where no one lives falls out of the picture.

                        Why would this housing be missing? That's what it's mostly included in.
                      2. +1
                        28 August 2026 18: 23
                        The point is that it's often not housing, but an investment. They're waiting for the price tag to pay off. Like in Tokyo, where all the housing in the Olympic Village is sold out, but no one lives there, and prices aren't being lowered, they're just waiting.
                      3. -1
                        28 August 2026 18: 27
                        First, we're talking about whether vacant and unsold housing is considered an investment. The answer is yes.
                        Secondly, Russia is also investing in housing. What's the difference between China and Russia?
          2. 0
            27 August 2026 14: 48
            These will be some rowdy orphans.

            It depends on how the education and support system is built.
            The children at the Suvorov and Nakhimov schools are disciplined. Currently, orphans and children left without parental care make up approximately 5-15% of the total student population. But initially, in 1943-1945, the schools were created specifically for the children of fallen soldiers, and at that time, the proportion of orphans ranged from 45% to 85%.
            1. 0
              27 August 2026 14: 52
              No one deprived the Suvorov and Nakhimov cadets of their parents, nor took them from the maternity hospital. And those orphans who were never taken in have a very peculiar character. If this happens to be the majority, retaining them will be problematic, especially given the degradation of modern politics.
              1. 0
                27 August 2026 14: 57
                No one deprived Suvorov and Nakhimov cadets of their parents...

                I remembered a joke about a Chukchi: a Chukchi is not a reader, a Chukchi is a writer.
                1. 0
                  27 August 2026 17: 39
                  Well, the rest was ignored.
      2. + 16
        27 August 2026 06: 22
        Consider another aspect. What was it like in the Soviet Union? You raised your children, then came grandchildren, and then you could retire to look after them, taking the burden off your parents. Now, a pension is no longer a sure thing, and it's impossible to live on it. Plus, your children often don't have enough to support their grandchildren, so you have to help financially. Basically, you're a donkey until you die.

        A rough breakdown: a generation multiplies at, say, 25, meaning by 50 you're a grandparent. The woman is on maternity leave for three years, and at 55, the mother or mother-in-law retires, meaning a couple of years to get by, and then you can hand over the grandchildren to her. At least partially. And if you whip up a second child right away, then you'll have a grandparent on the way at 60... It's easier, any way. And now, thanks to the ineffable wisdom of the guarantor, what to do?

        Plus, the school and kindergarten schedules are weird. In my youth, they worked until almost eight o'clock at night, with all the after-school programs and such. Now, they often demand everyone be picked up before five. What kind of work can a mother have here? Who needs one under capitalism? And with today's high prices, one man can hardly support a large family. So what to do? The answer is obvious: don't breed. At least, not more than one.
        1. +1
          27 August 2026 13: 35
          Plus - strange school and kindergarten schedules.
          Plus, they added a year of school. And a year at university. They added it first, and only then started thinking about how to fill the extra year. Almost everyone over forty got their diploma at 22, now they get it at 24. It turns out it's so easy to steal two years of your life...
        2. 0
          28 August 2026 07: 51
          And another thing: before, one man worked and earned the same salary as two. Then industrialization came, and women could work. Now two men work, but they still earn the same salary as two. As we say at work, "That Clara Zetkina, she's made a mess of things, now we all have to work."
      3. -8
        27 August 2026 07: 17
        Quote from alexoff
        Do you think pregnancy is the only problem? It's just a few months of carrying a baby and a few hours of labor. But what about when you're 24 and you have to feed and dress a baby? And when he's three, he takes up little space in a one-room apartment, and when he's 16? What about two? What if they're of different genders?

        And what's the problem with children of different genders? In my time, children lived in the same room and they all grew up normal, having heard stories from developers about the room for each child.
        1. +6
          27 August 2026 07: 41
          In general, normal boys and girls grew up in the caves.
          I'll help you with your further train of thought, if you can. Reverse progress. It's all his fault. And then we'll get on with our lives.
          1. +2
            27 August 2026 07: 57
            Speaking of progress. I probably heard an interview a year ago and thought about it. Many people won't like it. By the way, it was a woman speaking. So, back in the day, like 150 years ago, women were homemakers, had children, and looked after them. Then, suddenly, equality arrived. And women had no time to care for their families; they started pursuing careers...
            1. 0
              27 August 2026 08: 00
              Ask them what they like best.
              1. +2
                27 August 2026 08: 08
                Well, generally speaking, people like to eat sweets and sleep soundly.
                1. -2
                  27 August 2026 08: 41
                  I'm losing the logical flow of your post above. I personally know of cases where women don't really enjoy weekends because the whole family is at home.
                  1. -1
                    27 August 2026 10: 22
                    That's right. I have no time to pay attention to myself, my beloved self, with the kids getting in the way. Otherwise, I could just calmly devour a cupcake and lie on the couch...
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. -1
                      27 August 2026 10: 59
                      There are still children getting in the way here.

                      And where is dad?
                      1. -2
                        27 August 2026 11: 20
                        Oh, and now I have to feed this one too. Do his laundry.
                        Krylov's fable was a hit even in the 80s. Now everyone will ridicule the ant and side with the dragonfly.
            2. +1
              27 August 2026 09: 43
              Indeed... I thought about it and realized one thing. I'm walking down the street - a man with experience, so to speak. I see women.
              So who do I discard and who do I look at (even though I'm married), based on what criteria? It turns out they've changed in recent years. And beauty is no longer the most important factor.
              You used to always stare at a beauty, but now you can immediately tell how much she invests in herself, both time and money. If she invests too much, meaning she loves herself too much, then she's immediately thrown out.
              It's become a reflex, so to speak. And it only took about 10 years. And what about those who are searching? For them, it's probably already an unconditional reflex.
              And all sorts of incurable contagious diseases also frighten people.
              A turning point for civilization.
              So, in a good way, autonomous farms are an alternative to globalist civilization. But one thing is missing for their development.
              1. +1
                28 August 2026 07: 54
                Well, they're already growing organs, and in vitro isn't a problem (there are still restrictions, but people aren't ready), and they can't edit genomes very well yet. But they're working on it.
            3. +1
              27 August 2026 10: 25
              In the past, one working person was enough to provide for a family. Do we remember Grandfather Ulyanov well? How many siblings did he have?
              America, the baby boom generation. How many wives worked? Why should a woman work if her husband can provide for the family?
            4. -1
              27 August 2026 13: 40
              Wars broke out, and men disappeared. Women went to work in factories with equal rights. And if there were men, they couldn't live in luxury. Even in the USSR, clothing for children was a problem. How much did shoes cost in the Soviet Union? For half an engineer's salary?
  5. + 12
    27 August 2026 05: 18
    Basic human needs are food, housing, healthcare, education. And, of course, security. And all of this is becoming more and more expensive. To provide for them, both parents must toil. And I mean toil, not go to work. And even then, it's not a given they can afford it. They have to take on numerous, painful loans of all kinds. In this scenario, many people simply don't want to take on such a burden. Working your whole life until you're exhausted, with the prospect of not being able to pay off your debts even in old age, is hardly appealing to anyone. Especially young people – when will they live? When will they raise children? Spend time with family? Again, if you want to earn money, you have to build a career, or work until late at night, let alone have children, especially many of them. Having children these days is expensive, very expensive. Not everyone can afford it. No one wants to breed poverty with uncertain prospects, especially under the capitalist cult of consumption.

    Want people to multiply? Ensure a sustainable supply of basic needs. Show them a bright future they can bring their children into. But alas, capitalism strives to squeeze maximum profit out of every activity, meaning the chances of this happening are slim.
    1. -1
      27 August 2026 11: 56
      Capitalism has its share of criticism, but without broad social support, capitalism could not exist. Many people are interested in consuming here and now, have inflated expectations (meaning it's not just that everything has become more expensive, but also that their appetites have grown), and, by the way, have inflated expectations for their own children (this is often forgotten)—that's the result.
      1. +2
        27 August 2026 11: 59
        It has long been postulated that the most important and fundamental resource of capitalism, without which it cannot exist in principle, is a sucker...
  6. +5
    27 August 2026 05: 34
    Consumer society was built over a hundred years ago, and people were quite prolific. The birth rate has fallen below replacement level, primarily due to exorbitant real estate prices, the concentration of jobs in the city centers where people sit on top of each other in offices, and the rapidly rising prices of necessities; only electronics are getting cheaper. In the cities, you can only buy a doghouse a couple of hours from work, and you can only sleep at home, and things will only get worse. Why have children if they'll be worse off than today's generation?
    And don't tell me people don't want children. Surveys of women show that if they had all the money they wanted and didn't have to work hard, they would, on average, have more than 2.1 children. But in our country, a family with two children would, in the vast majority of cases, be on the brink of poverty—that's how low our salaries are, which usually add up to the minimum wage plus a bonus.
    1. +1
      27 August 2026 06: 53
      Back in the 1950s, all of Europe was starving. The Marshall Plan only really took off in the 1960s, and then they started consuming, not just surviving.
      1. man
        +3
        27 August 2026 07: 28
        Quote: Gardamir
        Back in the 1950s, all of Europe was starving. The Marshall Plan only really took off in the 1960s, and then they started consuming, not just surviving.

        The West was simply afraid that the USSR's example would be contagious—even the US had a Communist Party—so they forced their alligators to share, creating a very prosperous middle class. After the collapse of the USSR, a natural reversal began...
      2. +1
        28 August 2026 11: 23
        then they began to consume rather than survive.

        And they stopped giving birth.
      3. +2
        28 August 2026 14: 31
        Yes, even in the fifties of the last century, all of Europe was starving.

        I remembered something. I once read to my child the book "Dad, Mom, Grandma, Eight Children, and a Truck" by the Norwegian writer Anne-Katrine Westli. The story centers on the life of a large, close-knit family. They live modestly in a one-room apartment in the city. Dad makes a living transporting things in a truck, and the truck feeds the whole family. Grandma comes to visit from the countryside. However, she has almost no money—not even for a return ticket—and is forced to hitchhike. The book was written in 1957, and was first published in Russian in 1962.
    2. 0
      27 August 2026 11: 57
      That's why communities of cheap townhouses will save the world.
      1. 0
        27 August 2026 12: 52
        Rather, the jobs are scattered far apart. I commuted from a village like this to kindergarten, school, university, graduate school, and work for most of my life. Then you calculate—how many weeks a year did I spend on the commuter train? Nine hours at work, four hours on the road, life just passing me by. sad
        1. 0
          27 August 2026 13: 33
          I've also spent half my life traveling, but that's due to the lack of a comprehensive approach to territorial development. There's absolutely nothing stopping key facilities from being located within reasonable access times.
          Think about where you regularly went and ask yourself what it would look like in an ideal country. For example, a kindergarten or school close to home—the problem here is simply a desire to "save on matches" on staff salaries. And as the birth rate returns to normal, the need for such institutions will decrease somewhat.

          University? That's a bit more serious, but people have been going to truly top universities to study residentially since medieval times. Nothing can be changed about that. Another issue is that there's no point in 90% of the population studying at such universities, and undergraduate education, including remote learning, given modern technologies, can also be moved closer to the people and made more flexible.

          Of course, you can't bring skilled jobs to every village, but this can be solved, essentially, by cheap housing - people will simply have more opportunities to move themselves.

          At the same time, a significant portion of the population could be provided with semi-skilled jobs if we don't simply slap cheap houses on the shelves (as in the US) and then let people find their own way to them (especially considering that, after mortgage speculation, houses are no longer affordable for buyers). And, again, we need to implement comprehensive territorial development.

          Another issue is that such a model will be unable to provide, say, the majority of the population, or even the 30% of "successful Wieners," with a middle-to-upper-class lifestyle. They will have to live more modestly, although that doesn't necessarily mean worse.
          1. +1
            27 August 2026 17: 59
            I've also spent half my life traveling, but that's due to the lack of a comprehensive approach to territorial development. There's absolutely nothing stopping key facilities from being located within reasonable access times.
            So, all the projects were located, but for example, in the Moscow region, for some reason, they all became unprofitable in the early 90s, and commuter trains suddenly became jam-packed. In Lyubertsy and beyond, it seems all work disappeared, and the Vykhino effect began.
            For example, a kindergarten or school near the house
            It's interesting with schools—in Moscow they simply paid twice as much, and finding teachers is still a problem. We had all sorts of weird women working after the teachers' department, and we couldn't even find a physical education teacher for years. Sberbank, by the way, is really interesting—there are two branches within a couple of hundred meters, and one pays twice as much. Why? And the Moscow Ring Road is in between them. request
            University? It's a bit more serious, but people have been going to live-in students at the really cool universities since medieval times.
            Well, at Moscow State University, they told me the dorms are only available in Zone 5, like for those who have already been traveling for three hours. But that's a different story: if most people don't have work nearby, then those who need to will be traveling in a tightrope walkway, not sitting.
            And again, to carry out comprehensive development of territories.
            We have a military review, right? The Moscow region is run by Vorobyov, the son of Shoigu's deputy, our great commander. fellow
            And from the windows of his residence, he can clearly see the growing human nests around him. And it's not just work—the whole city has to fight for the last remaining recreational spots, or they'll build over them. And yet, the Khrushchev-era buildings remain standing, and no one's planning to resettle them.
            1. -1
              28 August 2026 05: 48
              >> in the Moscow region, for some reason, they all became unprofitable in the early 90s

              Well, that's not surprising. Economic decline means declining incomes; people are flocking to a few "oases of prosperity"—there's a shortage of housing per capita—and housing prices are rising.
              The solution, accordingly, is reindustrialization… and cheap townhouses. winked
              But how to avoid a repeat of “territorial bankruptcy” in the future is a political question.

              >> In Moscow they simply paid twice as much

              Moscow simply lives at the expense of the rest of Russia, that’s the whole secret.

              >> Vorobyov is in charge of the Moscow region

              Under him, at least they built some junctions, and that's good news... But we only have one human anthill, and it's not part of the Moscow region. wink

              >> and the whole city has to fight for the last resting places, otherwise they will build over them.

              It's no surprise that if everyone wants to live in the same city, they'll end up living on top of each other. There's no time for public gardens. Just be thankful they don't build super-dense housing with courtyards like in St. Petersburg.

              >> the Khrushchev-era buildings remain as they were, and no one is planning to resettle them.

              Why bother? While the buildings haven't fallen into disrepair, they need to be used. It's a Khrushchev-era way of thinking, you know—like, we'll tear them down if we have to... They need to be modernized, renovated, but not resettled yet.
              1. 0
                28 August 2026 17: 10
                Don't criticize St. Petersburg. All the outskirts are being built up with decent neighborhoods with schools, kindergartens, and infrastructure. There's some infill development in the city, of course, but the bulk of the square footage is coming from these neighborhoods.
              2. 0
                28 August 2026 18: 35
                Moscow simply lives at the expense of the rest of Russia, that’s the whole secret.
                It's all buried deeper somehow. Here, businesses pay like this: they look at job openings in the region and make roughly the same amount. Even if the business is super successful, they won't pay half a million. Sber, for example, pays out of a common fund, but believes that within the Moscow Ring Road (MKAD) they should pay more. I've heard that this is some kind of global agreement between business and the government to avoid disrupting the labor market, so that everyone doesn't flock to one company and end up working everywhere for average wages. And at large export-oriented factories, they appoint Muscovites to top positions on principle—they can be paid well. But I can't prove it; it's like with Kennedy. request
                We only have one anthill growing here, and it's not located in the Moscow region.
                Hmm, Google "Tetris" residential complex, "Myakinskaya Poima," and I wonder what they'll build in place of Snezhkom. And when Urban Group stole all the investors' money, Vorobyov rushed to finish the construction at the state's expense. It's not his pocket, after all.
                Before houses become dilapidated, they should be used.
                So they were declared dilapidated about 15 years ago request
              3. 0
                13 September 2026 09: 15
                Quote from Evil Eye
                The solution, accordingly, lies in reindustrialization…

                Don't you find it funny? Who would do this? And what markets are they targeting, given China's pressure all around them.
                1. 0
                  13 September 2026 09: 27
                  What's funny? What are you suggesting?
                  >> with an eye on which markets if China is now putting pressure on us all?
                  There are positions in the domestic market, Central Asia, and even in Africa.
                  1. 0
                    13 September 2026 09: 37
                    Quote from Evil Eye
                    What's funny? What are you suggesting?

                    I'm not proposing anything. Because right now, any reasonable proposals are pointless. They simply won't work in the current circumstances, in the current system. All that's left is to wait for a major crisis and catastrophe in the near term, which will change the circumstances and provide at least some chance to move in the right direction. Otherwise, everything will continue as it is: the trade in resources, the importation of migrants, the exodus of educated people, the extinction of the indigenous population, half-hearted attempts to make something of a more or less advanced industry with bleak prospects.
                    1. 0
                      13 September 2026 09: 38
                      Everything you write about is highly probable, but not inevitable. That's how it is. There are some positive aspects, though they are few.
                      1. 0
                        13 September 2026 09: 42
                        Quote from Evil Eye
                        Everything you write about is highly probable, but not inevitable. That's how it is. There are some positive aspects, though they are few.

                        Yes, yes. I understand perfectly well that nothing is strictly predetermined. I understand how it's tempting to believe in miracles. Especially if you're doing well in this system. But let's face it.
                      2. 0
                        13 September 2026 09: 44
                        For example, the resource orientation of trade is declining due to circumstances beyond our control.
                      3. 0
                        13 September 2026 09: 49
                        Quote from Evil Eye
                        For example, the resource orientation of trade is declining due to circumstances beyond our control.

                        But there's no visible positive effect from this. And why is that? It's a real mystery.
                      4. 0
                        13 September 2026 09: 54
                        It won't come right away. At first, of course, there will be ideas to "wait and it will return to normal," to raise domestic prices so the cow can milk more and feed less—but sooner or later, logic will prevail.
                      5. 0
                        13 September 2026 10: 14
                        Quote from Evil Eye
                        It won't come right away. At first, of course, there will be ideas to "wait and it will return to normal," to raise domestic prices so the cow can milk more and feed less—but sooner or later, logic will prevail.

                        That's what you think. But how it will actually play out is a big question. Because, firstly, it's not inevitable, as you say. And secondly, there are other logics at work beyond this one. After all, if you look back at history, Rome at the height of its power seemed invincible, with brilliant prospects. And what's the result? Russia is far from at the peak of its power now. More like, by analogy, Rome in its decline.
                      6. 0
                        13 September 2026 10: 21
                        Well, of course, the reality of sanctions cannot be considered inevitable, but nevertheless, lifting sanctions and trading hydrocarbons on good terms no longer seems a realistic option.
                        Even trade with the Third World at elevated prices is unlikely to work for long in the historical perspective.
        2. 0
          28 August 2026 08: 01
          Well, online learning (and in a couple of years, maybe even 3D classes). Medicine—well, paramedic stations (by the way, a program is already underway), with internet access and diagnostics from AI or doctors. The only thing is, it's entertainment. Well, they'll come up with something with digital technology here too. In general, the world of the "15-minute city" is an artificial environment. It was invented back in the 60s, what we see in our lives now.
  7. 0
    27 August 2026 05: 39
    Quote: paul3390
    Show me a bright future to bring children to.

    No problem...children, robots, wife, mistress, home assistant, and so on.
    In five years, there are predictions that a humanoid robot will be able to completely take over human physical labor... in this race with progress, humans will ultimately lose completely to machines.
  8. + 13
    27 August 2026 06: 15
    Why did people give birth or are giving birth to many children?
    1. Low survival rate (high infant mortality)
    2. Hope for children as helpers in the household and in old age.
    In a developed, wealthy society, none of the above points are relevant. Period.
    1. man
      +5
      27 August 2026 07: 35
      Quote from Arifon
      Hope for children as helpers in the household and in old age.

      You're wrong to tell the authorities this; they'll just abolish pensions and say it's for the good of Russia... sad
      1. +2
        27 August 2026 08: 01
        What's there to suggest? Here's my example. Soviet work experience barely counts. They have some weird calculation system, and under Putin, there won't be enough points. So, they'll probably start paying my pension at 69.
        1. man
          0
          27 August 2026 08: 11
          Quote: Gardamir
          Here's my example. My Soviet work experience barely counts. They have some weird calculation system, and under Putin, there won't be enough points. So, they'll probably start paying my pension at 69.

          Hmm... this is outrageous... sad Is this how the local authorities are having fun?
          1. +1
            27 August 2026 08: 26
            Yes, local, State Duma and government.
            If the length of service or pension points required for an insurance pension are insufficient, a social old-age pension is assigned based on Federal Law No. 166-FZ of December 15, 2001, "On State Pension Provision in the Russian Federation" (Article 11). This pension is assigned five years later than the standard retirement age (during the transition period until 2028, the age may be 69 for men, taking into account transitional provisions, and ultimately 70 for men and 65 for women).

            I'll add: if it were easy and simple to work officially, I would. But I worked as best I could. At least with money...
    2. 0
      27 August 2026 09: 23
      Quote from Arifon
      Why did people give birth or are giving birth to many children?
      1. Low survival rate (high infant mortality)
      2. Hope for children as helpers in the household and in old age.
      In a developed, wealthy society, none of the above points are relevant. Period.

      Absolutely right. But you've only described the first demographic transition.
      Most countries are already going through the second one.
      1. Under him, there was a shift in values ​​from family, society, state, etc. to individual ones - freedom, self-realization, career, etc.
      2. There has been a dramatic improvement in the quality of contraceptives. Sex is no longer equal to fertility.
      3. Women's emancipation, i.e. equal rights for women and men, which allows women to study, work, build a career, commit adultery and other rights similar to those originally inherent to men, instead of the traditional Kinder, Kuche, Kirche.
      1. 0
        27 August 2026 11: 43
        Women's emancipation, i.e. equal rights for women and men, which allows women to study, work, build a career, commit adultery, and other rights similar to those originally inherent to men, instead of the traditional Kinder, Kuche, and Kirche.

        here is an interesting article:
        The sexless lives of millennial feminists

        https://unherd.com/2026/08/the-sexless-lives-of-millennial-feminists/
        1. 0
          27 August 2026 12: 07
          Quote: Dedok
          Here is an interesting article

          Yes. Interesting. The funny thing is, these women in the article blame everyone else for "selling them a false dream." The thing is, they sell what they buy... And they themselves happily bought that dream. As the saying goes, don't blame the mirror if your face is crooked.
          I have examples of both quite successful single women pursuing a career, and quite successful women who have achieved fulfillment in their families.
          I earn a fairly good income, and my wife takes care of the house, the child, and herself. Many in my circle of friends are in a similar situation. And our women are quite happy with their lives. They're in their right place, they're in demand, and they feel needed and useful.
          But women who haven't realized themselves specifically from a feminine perspective are, it seems to me, less happy. Although they also feel quite good overall.
          I think gender equality is a wonderful thing. But each gender, in addition to common traits, has its own unique characteristics. And trying to equate them always, everywhere, and in everything is just as much of an overreach as it was before, when women weren't even considered human.
          As the classic said: “...in that village there live one hundred and forty peasant souls, not counting women and children..”
          1. 0
            27 August 2026 14: 08
            Yes. Interesting. What's funny is that these women in the article blame everyone around them for "selling them a false dream."

            exactly like that: "a false dream"
            and when I look around and see people like these, lonely, then for some reason I don’t feel sorry for them...
            but this "business" is alive and well, that's the point...
            i.e. "other people's mistakes" don't teach us anything...
      2. 0
        27 August 2026 12: 00
        Then there will be a third demographic transition—when all "civilized people" die out, and the only ones reproducing will be the most stubborn sectarians, who won't even have cell phones to see on social media that "other life in which women don't give birth every year." I hope we don't live to see that.
        1. +1
          13 September 2026 09: 21
          Quote from Evil Eye
          Then there will be a third demographic transition.

          Then it will be total disaster. Unless, of course, a miracle happens. Because the foundation of our modern life is the vast socialization of labor, with its strong division. That is, if tomorrow the human population begins to plummet, industry will begin to crumble, and with it everything derived from it.
      3. 0
        27 August 2026 13: 45
        During his reign, there was a shift in values ​​from family, society, state, etc. to individual ones - freedom, self-realization, career, etc.
        This happened when the factories closed. When most people went to the nearest factory, careers and freedom weren't important; there was collective work and growth only for the elite.
      4. 0
        28 August 2026 08: 05
        Even now, anyone can work, young or old. Automation and robotics are bearing fruit. And now there's competition between the young and the old for a place in the sun. Previously, everyone had their own niche.
    3. 0
      27 August 2026 11: 59
      In developed, wealthy societies, problems are swept under the rug, which means they'll explode more powerfully, but later. For example, when the population structure becomes like Japan's. But then, changing anything will be more difficult. This is the problem with developed, wealthy societies—they can eat away at their accumulated resilience for decades.
      Dot-dot-comma, the train was late )))
  9. + 16
    27 August 2026 06: 21
    What did I get from the article? "How dare these serfs want a normal life, instead of working 12-14 hours a day and enjoying a second pair of shoes, immediately giving birth to a new generation of slaves for their masters? And a woman isn't even a full-fledged person; her job is to bear children and cook." Did I understand you correctly, dear author? Or maybe the problem is that 90% of the world's production value belongs to 5% of the world's elite? Haven't you thought about that? Maybe the problem is that housing in which one can raise at least two children costs as much as most people earn half a lifetime, in all countries except sub-Saharan Africa, where your much-desired five children are huddled in a shack made of corrugated sheets? No, it's the "servants" who are to blame again; they want to live a normal life, you see.
    1. man
      +3
      27 August 2026 07: 38
      Quote: Stanislav Chernov
      Or maybe the problem is that 90% of the value of global production belongs to 5% of the world's elite?

      These won't get enough even if 100% of them are
    2. -4
      27 August 2026 12: 01
      Or maybe the problem is that the majority of the population, by "housing for at least two children," means an apartment in Moscow or St. Petersburg, and immediately writes off any other options as "slave-like"?
      1. +4
        27 August 2026 16: 20
        Well, yes, well, yes, I live in a town of 50 thousand people in the Krasnodar region, our salary of 45-50 thousand is considered good, but there are plenty of jobs where people earn 25-30, these are nurses, post office, kindergartens, salespeople in small stores, new housing, except for private houses, is not being built at all, an apartment in a building from 1977, a two-room apartment, costs from 4,5 million, a new house of 80 square meters on 3 square meters of land - from 8 million. Do you figure out for yourself how many years you will have to work for it, giving 70% of your earnings to your family, or is that too difficult for you?
  10. +4
    27 August 2026 07: 16
    The problem is imaginary. The planet is already at the brink of depletion in terms of dirt and resources. There's also the problem of porous borders. Families (!) of supposed "guest workers" from the South are seizing territory in Russia and other countries without war. ...The very myth of human "extinction" is globalist propaganda. Nations are harder to rule than an international lumpen proletariat.
    1. 0
      27 August 2026 12: 02
      The paradox is that modern urban individualists actually consume far more resources than rural traditionalists living on a semi-subsistence economy. Which kind of hints at the problem.
  11. +2
    27 August 2026 07: 27
    Thousands of factories, hundreds of hydroelectric power plants, quarries. Thousands of offices, hundreds of organizations dedicated to protecting health and human rights. Destroyed mountains. And all this is aimed at obtaining the same products and goods our ancestors obtained through primitive labor. True, in small quantities. Now there is a surplus of food and goods. Some of them are recycled, some are dumped in landfills, which are growing every year. A war against the birds that have taken a liking to these landfills is underway. Essentially, a fight against excessive consumption. A fight without much success.
  12. +4
    27 August 2026 07: 32
    We (humanity) are not on the brink of extinction—on the contrary, we are reaching a growth plateau. And that's a good thing, because 9 billion (the peak, which is already close) is a critical limit for Earth's fragile biosphere.

    Too quickly, societies in Korea and China have stepped into a “middle-income society,” that is, they have become rich.

    Here we go again! They're saying again that only the poor have children. That's a cliché. No. Oligarchs are more fertile than ordinary citizens hampered by circumstances. And consider the latest statistics: the decline is happening everywhere and quite rapidly – ​​in both rich and poor countries. Even in the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa, where birth rates were once high, there is now a precipitous decline.
  13. 0
    27 August 2026 07: 35
    This is a normal process, and there's certainly no need to worry about humanity. In the 20th century, people were driven into cities, into anthills. Those outside the city try to get into town for work on overcrowded commuter trains or through traffic jams. It's the same on the way back. And they're told: humanity is dying out, we need to have more children. Seriously?
    Yes, a labor shortage could arise. But let's be honest, is it the shortage of labor needed to produce yet another mass-produced product, or is there no one to replace a useless office worker? Demand will shrink, and production will adjust. Especially if we stop producing disposable items; the environment is precisely what we should be concerned about. There might be a desire to replace those who are falling behind with migrants from impoverished countries, where they're accustomed to having children at breakneck speeds, because survival rates are so low. But surely we can do it like the Arabs; they don't have such problems with migrants. They can do it, but others can't? Well, hire Arabs as consultants.
    Yes, there will be an initial shock to the pension system, especially for countries that weren't prepared for it or spent the money on "priority goals" (with guaranteed non-repayment). It will be unpleasant, not short-lived, but humanity has experienced worse.
  14. +1
    27 August 2026 07: 49
    Nothing in this article will help. We need to address the root cause of the low birth rate: WOMEN AS HEAD OF THE FAMILY. The state appoints the head of the family. Today, that head is a woman. We're surrounded by motherhood and childhood, maternity capital, and so on. Fatherhood, the male, has been erased from everything. The man is left to toil, toil, to save for himself, and to die 10+ years before the "poor, unfortunate woman." And who is today's woman? Here's her terminology: the basic minimum, a man should, nails, give me, Pilates, iPhone, a real man, give me, the Maldives, responsibility, provides, the luxurious maximum, buy it, register it in my name, etc. After a divorce (probability about 100%), the man's children are taken away (you won't even be able to see them unless the ex-wife wants it), 50% of the property, part of the apartment that is left to you according to the documents, you will not be able to use, because the wife will simply remain there with the children and it is impossible to exchange it unless the ex-wife wants it (and will also yell that there are children there). In short, wait until the youngest turns 18, and by then the ex will have another child with another man, and you will wait another 18 years, and then the grandchildren will come along, and they are also minors, again the child's rights, and so on in a circle. You will have to pay three types of alimony - traditional, housing, and to the ex until the child turns 3. According to statistics, 25% of children are not born to their husbands. A woman is not a family builder, but a destroyer. And as long as she is the head of the family, there will be no birth rate. She is interested in the aforementioned list, not the family. Note that the birth rate situation is clearly better in Muslim countries, where the man is the head of the family. Even in the Caucasus regions, despite common legislation, their own unwritten laws apply, and the birth rate is completely different from that in Tambov or Pskov. Therefore, no measures will save the country except one: making the head of the family a man again.
  15. +1
    27 August 2026 07: 57
    So, there's practically no help from the government! All you hear is how much they care about people, but they barely put anything in their pockets. And then there's the nonsense that this is only true in the Garant's country, while in other countries it's poverty. OK. Maternity capital is 10000 euros for about two children. Let's take Germany as an example: 250 euros per month for each. 500 euros per month = 6000 euros per year. 6000 euros x 18 years = 108000 euros. Compared to 10000 euros from Garant. And there are tons of examples like this. Come on, guys.
    1. +2
      27 August 2026 08: 11
      Quote: Antony
      This is only in the country where Garant works

      He even earns 17 rubles a month—that's enviable middle class! He said something like that just recently in 2020.
      1. -2
        27 August 2026 08: 14
        And my friends in Russia are outraged by the nonsense about the average salary, even in the provinces, which is already under 150000 stop
    2. +2
      27 August 2026 13: 54
      Quote: Antony
      Let's take Germany as an example - 250 euros per month for each

      Child benefits in Germany are a pittance compared to taxes, which are a negative. Research it. No matter how skilled you are, it's practically impossible to break the 5000 mark net. It's like in the movie "In Time": when people had more time (a means of payment, like money), loans and production quotas immediately increased, and wages fell.
      1. +1
        27 August 2026 19: 09
        Quote: Motorist
        Child benefits in Germany are a pittance compared to the negative taxes. Research it. No matter how skilled you are, it's practically impossible to break the 5000 mark net.

        These are mid-level specialists, engineers, etc. - they earn from 5 to 10 on average... We won't talk about leading engineers and above, these are no longer mass positions... there they earn from 10...
        1. 0
          27 August 2026 19: 16
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          Engineers - receive from 5,5 to 10 on average

          Nicholas, hiDon't confuse "dirty" with "clean." Ten clean is something. I personally know highly qualified specialists, PhDs and DScs, who can't even dream of your numbers. request
        2. 0
          27 August 2026 20: 11
          You edited it, but I'll add something about social assistance. Let's say I'm a "refugee" with two children. I can have two or more net per family. nichrome Without doing anything. Plus, my housing and other benefits are paid for from the budget (the nightstands) where working Germans put their money. We're talking about working people, right? They're the ones who are being hurt by higher taxes and other payments, and the retirement age. hi
          1. +1
            27 August 2026 20: 22
            Quote: Motorist
            You edited it, but I'll add something about social assistance. Let's say I'm a "refugee" with two children. I can have two or more children without doing anything. Plus, my housing and other benefits are paid for out of the budget (the nightstands) where working Germans put their money. We're talking about working people, right? They're the ones who are being hurt by higher taxes and other payments, and the retirement age.

            I agree that refugees are significantly eating into income and social benefits. hi
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. +7
    27 August 2026 08: 48
    Wait, what the hell, demographic catastrophe? There are 8,3 billion people living on the planet.
    At the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, there were less than 300 million of us. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were approximately 1,5 billion. 50 years later, in 1950, there were already 2,5 billion, and no one thought that this was a catastrophe, oh-oh-oh, how few people there are.
    Over 80 years (since 1950) the population has increased 3!!!! times.
    Yes, there is a problem with the birth rate at the level of nation states. We, Koreans, have it in a number of other countries, but this is not the case. world the disaster the author speaks of.
    The familiar way of life is changing, that's a fact. More developed countries are importing savages, and they're destroying that way of life—that's also a fact. The locals don't like it at all; it's certainly a disaster for them.
    But humanity as a species is doing just fine. And a natural population decline of 1-2-3 billion wouldn't even be noticeable.
    It is quite possible that this is not even bad for the planet and for our species; we lead too parasitic a lifestyle, including the very paradigm of consumption mentioned by the author.
    1. 0
      27 August 2026 09: 15
      I completely agree. I'd just like to add that for some reason no one wants to discuss the ultimate goal of this demographic-globalist policy—the creation of a more or less homogeneous global state.
      1. +3
        27 August 2026 09: 41
        Quote: ALARI
        this is the creation of a more or less homogeneous planetary state

        Which isn't a bad thing, if you think about it. People once lived in tribes and clans of several hundred or thousands of people. Then they began living under feudalism, in small entities ruled by a feudal lord, each with several hundred thousand people. Then, in the industrial era, they united into nation-states of millions, and now, in the post-industrial era, it makes sense to unite into some kind of single community and conquer space. After all, each such consolidation has brought about a qualitative leap in human development.
        When scientists around the world can share data without fear of violating state secrecy, when wars and conflicts are reduced to a minimum, when trade occurs without restrictions, embargoes, tariffs, etc.
        After all, the era of feudal fragmentation in Rus' is always remembered with a certain negative connotation, like, "Why did those Russian princes beat each other up instead of working together to drive out the Mongols?" And how is the current situation, with 200+ countries on one planet, any different from these petty princes in their uluses?
        Globally - nothing.
        1. 0
          27 August 2026 09: 59
          Yes, the social evolution of the environment and relationships in which we live is underway. Humanity has survived because it could evolve and change quickly.
    2. -1
      27 August 2026 12: 08
      For reference: a "demographic catastrophe" implies not simply a decline in human numbers (that would be tolerable and even not a bad thing), but a sharp decline in developed countries, leading to an increase in the so-called "demographic burden" (reflecting the share of the working-age population) and rising costs for the elderly, whose proportion is increasing. Taken together, this easily leads to a cascading crisis, with the ratio of old to young worsening each year, making it increasingly difficult to escape this pit.
      And this is against the backdrop of the fact that the so-called "savages," as you called them (a very chauvinistic word, by the way), either continue to reproduce, or at least die out much more slowly.
      They even write about this in old correspondence textbooks.
  18. +1
    27 August 2026 09: 11
    Quote: Civil
    1. You can look at the time and territories where the Internet is spreading, where a direct correlation is recorded between Internet accessibility and the decline in the birth rate.
    2. Black Africa is rapidly gaining access to the Internet, and you can see right from the towers how the birth rate is falling.
    3. People see a different world, a world where a modern woman may not give birth every year, where men spend more time having fun than taking care of their families.
    4. And nothing can be changed except to drive women back into slavery, Afghan style.

    P.S. "The Japanese have acknowledged a demographic catastrophe," BUT, they didn't let hundreds of thousands of savages in! They decided to cope on their own, not by reducing security and wages for the Japanese!

    Here's what Google says: "The share of migrants aged 20-30 in Japan has doubled, now making up 9.5% of the country's total population in this category. The highest proportion is in the prefectures of Gifu, Gunma, and Ibaraki, as well as in Osaka, Kyoto, and Tokyo. In 2015, they accounted for only about 4.1%.

    Young foreigners are filling niches in the labor market where it is already difficult to recruit native Japanese, and their taxes are increasingly contributing to pension payments for older citizens."

    Yes, and you watch videos of production from Japan. And there, guess what! Central Asians.
  19. +1
    27 August 2026 09: 24
    Is capitalism also to blame for the fact that the RSFSR's capital stock fell below the reproduction threshold back in 1964?
    1. -1
      27 August 2026 12: 09
      The calculation method is to blame for this. In 1964, there were still plenty of families with two or three children; just ask your relatives.
  20. 0
    27 August 2026 09: 27
    As far as I know, rich people don't have problems with children.

    That is, the essence is this: take money from the poor, make children, provide them with an advantage.

    And what about the poor ones? Which of the boyars care about them?

    That's where all the problems come from.
    Human anthills (the rich live on Rublyovka and other places)
    Small salaries (the rich have millions, and the average is wow)
    Rising prices on everything (more money for the rich)
    Small apartments, low ceilings, unkempt entrances (why bother for the sake of commoners?)

    And the Central Asian women will give birth and bring more.

    Right?
  21. 0
    27 August 2026 09: 48
    A classic unsolvable problem: the development of robotics and the lack of desire to have children.
    1. 0
      27 August 2026 12: 10
      What does robotics have to do with this? Manufacturing is moving to where the labor force is. Robotics' impact isn't that great.
      1. 0
        27 August 2026 12: 11
        Quote from Evil Eye
        What does robotics have to do with this?

        Given that the growth of robotics development should change the need for human resources, it turns out that it does not change
        1. 0
          27 August 2026 12: 15
          The growth of robotics is not yet high enough to change anything, and is easily offset by the need for labor in other areas.
          The problem isn't robotics, it's globalism. The ideology of globalism is "cost reduction," meaning it's better to have 1000 Chinese working than 200 Europeans, otherwise the owners will lose out on profits. Meanwhile, the 200 Europeans lose stable employment, and the 1000 Chinese are forced into situations where there's no money for children, and if there is money, there's no time for children.
          And that is precisely why the birth rate is falling - this is a long-term project, and profits are needed now.
          1. -1
            27 August 2026 12: 42
            Quote from Evil Eye
            The problem isn't robotics, it's globalism. The ideology of globalism is "cost reduction," meaning it's better to have 1000 Chinese workers than 200 Europeans, otherwise the owners will lose out on profits.

            What's the contradiction? It's better to buy a robotic machine that doesn't sleep, draws power from a power outlet, and runs 1/2 than a team of migrant workers, who still need a supervisor. Look how agriculture has changed: where collective farms used to work, now there are just one or two tractor drivers.
            1. +1
              27 August 2026 13: 24
              How do you know what's "better"? For a machine to run 24/7, you need components, you need specialists to constantly polish it, and that doesn't always pay off. Because "running 24/7" requires confidence that demand will always be there.
              Automation was dreamed of back in the 90s, but it wasn't highly developed Japan that became the industrial giant, but China with its cheap Chinese workers. Japan's markets were shut off, and the entire "Japanese miracle" withered away.
              1. 0
                27 August 2026 15: 50
                Quote from Evil Eye
                How do you know what's "better"? For a machine to run 24/7, you need components, you need specialists to constantly polish it, and that doesn't always pay off. Because "running 24/7" requires confidence that demand will always be there.

                Just as an example, Nevsky Prospect needs to be cleaned up all the time! I'd also install robot police officers and robot tour guides there. It's paying off in China.
                Quote from Evil Eye
                People dreamed about automation back in the 90s, but it wasn't highly developed Japan that became the industrial monster, but China with its cheap Chinese workers.

                Not with cheap Chinese, but with cheap loans and long-term planning opportunities.
  22. 0
    27 August 2026 10: 03
    A small group of non-humans in the West is to blame for this.
  23. +1
    27 August 2026 10: 06
    Well, that's just great! The planet has been so polluted that it will take centuries to recover! Society is already so warped that it's easier to start from scratch. Let everyone die out, and then the reset ones will start all over again, or maybe not, who cares.
    1. +1
      27 August 2026 12: 11
      Well, for example, while there's still a chance to break into near-Earth space and solve all the problems, rather than dump them on future intelligent octopuses who will inherit a planet without coal or oil.
  24. +2
    27 August 2026 10: 27
    I don't give a damn. It's better to live for yourself and enjoy yourself than to carry a load of problems with children. For what purpose?
    Especially in our Russia, where the country is being led in an unknown direction, and to solve the demographic problem, they are not stimulating the population, but bringing in chinks.
  25. 0
    27 August 2026 10: 45
    The lower the stability of life, the higher the threat to the human population, the higher the birth rate, with more boys being born than girls.
  26. 0
    27 August 2026 16: 48
    Not everything is so bad, it seems everything is much, much worse wink In fact, the "virtual world" is a reason for those who don't live in it, but rather in some kind of fantasy. After 91, there was no virtual world, but a population decline throughout the 90s. I believe money and living space solve the problem; nothing else is needed. And since the rental generation, from the US to ours, doesn't want to or is having very few children in rented apartments, it's logical. South Korea, by the way, has seen a rebound for a while, while Korea is at the very bottom of the decline.
  27. 0
    27 August 2026 19: 08
    While the fat one is drying out, the skinny one will die. Whites, in fact, make up no more than 10% of the Earth's population. So, the future belongs to Africans. "Planet of the Apes," that Hollywood movie, seemed stupid...
  28. +1
    27 August 2026 20: 21
    Here's a list of famous people from the 18th and 19th centuries to ponder. In general, the number of children wasn't all that simple. And if you consider unknown people, the situation was even more dire.

    Only children in the family:

    Mikhail Lomonosov (1711–1765) was the only son. His mother had no other children.
    Mikhail Lermontov (1814–1841) is the only child.
    Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828–1889) was the only child.
    Alexander Blok (1880–1921) is the only child.

    One surviving brother or sister:

    Alexander Griboyedov (1795–1829) – younger sister Maria. Died in infancy: 1 brother (Pavel).
    Ivan Turgenev (1818–1883) – elder brother Nikolai. Died in childhood: 1 brother (Sergei).
    Mikhail Speransky (1772–1839) – Sister Marfa. There are no records of infant mortality in the rural priest's family; only two children survived.
    Ivan Krylov (1769–1844) was Lev's younger brother. There were no other children in the family.

    There are no exact statistics on all deaths, but it is known that the parents had many children, most of whom died in infancy. Two surviving siblings (from originally large families):

    Alexander Pushkin (1799–1837) – elder sister Olga and younger brother Lev. Five children (Pavel, Mikhail, Platon, Nikolai, Sofia) died in infancy.
    Fyodor Tyutchev (1803–1873) – elder brother Nikolai and sister Daria. Four children (Dmitry, Vasily, and two other twins) died in infancy.
    Nikolai Karamzin (1766–1826) – elder brother Vasily and sister Ekaterina (from his father's first marriage). Died in infancy: 1 brother (Fyodor).
    Mikhail Glinka (1804–1857) – younger brother Pyotr. Seven children died in infancy.
    Vasily Zhukovsky (1783–1852) – two half-sisters. Eight children died in infancy.
    Nikolai Leskov (1831–1895) – younger brother Alexei and sister Olga. Four children died in infancy.
    Ivan Goncharov (1812–1891) – elder brother Nikolai and sisters Alexandra and Anna. Four children died in infancy.
  29. +1
    27 August 2026 22: 14
    Guys, it's simpler. People have learned to use condoms.
    And there is no need to fly here communication towers, the Internet, spirituality and bonds.
    The era of uncontrolled conceptions is over, that's all.
  30. 0
    28 August 2026 10: 15
    It's true: as the standard of living rises, the birth rate falls. A good article, a must-read for conspiracy theorists seeking to depopulate the planet due to supposed overpopulation. There's no threat... and everything will resolve itself naturally. The degradation of humanity has already begun... The only salvation will be artificial reproduction, in vitro fertilization, and the "gestation" will also be in some kind of high-tech box. And even then, that's just a "crutch," prolonging the agony for a short time. And the finishing touches will be caring humanoid robots, for the price of a washing machine. In other words, humanity has 200-300 years left, tops.
  31. +2
    28 August 2026 12: 21
    The problem is being exaggerated. At current trends, humanity will lose 1 billion of its 8,3 billion population by 2100 alone. Nothing terrible will happen. But what will change significantly is the racial balance. There will be more Arabs and Africans in the world. This will likely affect Europe the most. But they themselves don't mind; at least they certainly won't close it off. Race mixing is the main trend for the next 100 years. Incidentally, this is unlikely to affect us, Russia, much. Although, as we develop and our standard of living improves, more people will want to move here.
  32. +2
    28 August 2026 23: 07
    There will be fewer people, life will go on as usual: some countries will rise, others will decline, and ultimately there will be no global crisis. What the hell is the problem? I don't get it.
  33. 0
    29 August 2026 01: 46
    It seems the author of the article only skims the surface of the problem. The main message is that modern people have become corrupted and want to live for themselves. Well, well!
  34. -1
    29 August 2026 03: 20
    To reboot humanity, we must destroy the majority. No matter how bad or scary that sounds. Or governments must take measures to enter space for further expansion to other planets. Stop this principle of "living for oneself, for pleasure, and for grabs." And in Russia, we need to build larger housing with more rooms. Today's youth don't want to have children because there is nowhere to live! And raise children! We need to decide on the construction of residential buildings at the highest government level! Stop building these human anthills! Develop agriculture. If there is no agriculture, what will we eat? Oil?! Agriculture is a strategic direction! Banks should reduce interest rates on house and housing construction to 1-3%. That will be enough for their salaries!
  35. 0
    6 September 2026 16: 25
    A question that demographic advocates periodically raise: "Aaaah, bad women have stopped giving birth in the fields and are demanding acceptable living conditions! What to do?!"

    Take off your pants and run. Explain to me, a woman, why have ten children in today's world? A hundred years ago, there was no proper contraception, and of the 10-12 children born, at best three or four "breadwinners in old age" survived to adulthood. In other words, the efficiency of "birthing" was around 25-30%. Now, thanks to vaccinations, antibiotics, timely diagnostics, universal medical examinations, and well-established emergency medical care, almost all children born at 30 weeks of gestation and without serious pathologies survive to adulthood. And the question of old-age support (not counting pensions) has shifted from the number of children to the quality of their upbringing and education. Two or three smart and in-demand children will help their parents much faster and better than a dozen hungry, exhausted "Mowglis." Another fact that doesn't support the number is that the peasant way of life required a virtually endless labor force, including children as young as three or four years old. Today's way of life assumes that a child will drain resources from their parents at least until they graduate from university, which means they'll be around 22 or 23 years old. And here's where another fact must be mentioned: all women are different, including in terms of vitality and energy. A century and a half ago, Agrippina Abrikosova gave birth to 22 children and built a business empire that's still alive and well today. And some doctors, both then and now, advise against having even one child. How many women died in childbirth a century ago? Almost every other woman. To this day, pregnancy and childbirth are very resource-intensive for a woman's body, with an unpredictable outcome even in perfect health. And all the risks—dying herself, becoming disabled, or "simply" getting away with poor health—fall on her. So, given even the slightest choice—whether to use contraception or give birth—women themselves will decide. Officials and priests, with their medieval attitudes, will not force anyone to give birth, no matter how loudly they rhetoric and make stupid, out-of-touch statements.