Source : Eurostat

Tool: app.23degrees.io

Check out the interactive visualisation here

You can see the same interactive map straight from the source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/DEMO_FIND__custom_5503295/bookmark/map?lang=en&bookmarkId=ccc500e8-49c5-4b8c-ba90-564f7bcb8df2

I'm guessing this is double what it was a few hundred years ago.

And there is a fuller picture (more countries and a look at past data) available in this OECD paper.

It’s the second graph in the paper.

https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF_2_3_Age_mothers_childbirth.pdf

Boebert would be shocked: "your 30's is when you become grandparents!". Anyways...

I was checking some complementary data about marriages and it seems like the age is about the same as the 1st child which sounds logical.

I wonder if that means longer marriage. I'd expect that because it's supposed to be a more matured decision and people tend to change less after a while. You know yourself better in your 30's than in your 20's...

Are they using a comma as the decimal point?

Fathers are up in the 40s, I bet

Yes, Germans do that afaik

Yes, it’s common in French speaking countries, unfortunately I cannot speak on other languages .

Oh no, this tots lines up with other junk that ladies are super picky until they hit 29.

Countries who use decimal comma as decimal separator are in fact in majority.

In the Netherlands, yes. And we also use the point for thousands etc. 1.000,50 euros for example.

[removed]

[removed]

Nope. In the 1600s marriage was in the mid-20s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

If anyone is curious about the US, we are on average ~30:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/motherhood-deferred-us-median-age-giving-birth-hits-30-rcna27827

Up from 27 not that long ago:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db232.htm

Like in Europe there are big gaps between areas (this is outdated but the geo-patterns are still probably relevant):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/04/upshot/up-birth-age-gap.html

I always find things like this fascinating... I was exactly the average age of a first-time mother in my county, when I had my first child.

wow i wold have never thought that

I am all for less babies.....but from an infertility and disease standpoint ...we are basically aging ourselves into extinction. 36 and above is considered a high risk pregnancy, and fertility drops off significantly by age 30. As far as health of the baby....the older the mother and father the higher the risk of birth defects.

Same in Italy

There is also a lot of advantages to older parents though. Fewer social and emotional dilemmas for the child, more likely to make better progress in language development, older parents are better at setting boundaries resulting in less behavioral issues and the list goes on.

Source

[removed]

We do it in North America too... a cookie for the correct guess...

You must have missed the word "extinction". It doesn't matter how happy and healthy we can raise people to be if the upshot is ultimately no people.

That reinforces his point. Societal advantage, biological disadvantage.

I think extinction is a lil bit of an exaggeration. The population growth rate is declining, but the population is still growing. There is overpopulation, and by the time we reach 2050, food and other resources such as wood will be scarcer.

I think it’s a great thing women tend to have babies less. This means a better planet, happier babies and happier parents. Win, win, win.

>I think extinction is a lil bit of an exaggeration.

Not by much, if at all.

>The population growth rate is declining, but the population is still growing.

It's declining everywhere, and in many countries it is already below replacement. There no reason to believe that it won't eventually drop below replacement everywhere. And no country has ever reversed, or even restabilized a below replacement birthrate.

>There is overpopulation, and by the time we reach 2050, food and other resources such as wood will be scarcer.

No, there is overconsumption. Far better to move to more sustainable lifestyles rather than risk the global population dip into an (as far as we know) unrecoverable spiral.

>I think it’s a great thing women tend to have babies less. This means a better planet, happier babies and happier parents. Win, win, win.

It won't be a win once populations start declining and economies start shrinking.

Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.

So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source

A population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.

>Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.

Until any country anywhere successfully manages to stabilize or reverse a below replacement birthrate we are, within the next 100 years, on our way to a declining global population. And once the pop starts declining, we obviously can't reverse that with below replacement birthrates.

That observation contains within it the possibility of a change in outcome. But personally, I'd like to see evidence that the change is actually possible before we happily tip ourselves into decline.

>So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source

Links to an article about timber that says the main reason for increased demand is increased urbanization, not increasing population.

>population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.

Links to an article that just says literally the same things they've already said, because it also doesn't acknowledge that "happier" , "better off" people doesn't count for much if the long term cost is NO people... On top of ignoring that once economies start shrinking due to population loss people won't be "happier" or "better off".

I was being hyperbolic. Absolutely. But I wonder if our social ideas of when it is best to start a family no longer correlate with our biology.

I think you misunderstood how serious I was NOT being