All over the West birth rates are plunging well below the 2.1 children per woman to maintain the existing population size. Everyone knows that the long-term economic and social implications are potentially disastrous in a society increasingly burdened by supporting those in advanced old age. But if you thought we were in trouble, South Korea is staring at a precipitous and potentially terminal catastrophe in face, says the Daily Mail. It seems young women are rejecting both sex and marriage in their droves, often inspired by influential young female role models like the pop star Soyou:
Behind the nation’s glossy image – with its famous beauty culture, films and music – lie sharp divisions and dissatisfaction for many women, both at home and in the workplace, over some of the most stark gender inequalities of any developed country.
The disgruntlement has sparked relationship boycott groups with thousands of women vowing to stay single forever – symbolised by the 4B movement, whose members pledge to reject marriage, childbirth, dating or heterosexual sex for life. “We just want to build a world where women can live free of men,” says one activist.
South Korea’s fertility rate – the average number of babies born to each woman – is just 0.8, provoking profound fears for its future, since this is far below the 2.1 level needed to ensure population stability without immigration.
The nation has become the most striking example of the global decline in birth rates, a decline that has left two-thirds of people living in countries with fertility rates below this critical level. There is concern that half of South Korea’s rapidly ageing population will be pensioners within three decades, making its population the oldest in human history.
Driven, it seems, by increasingly bitter resentment at being forced to choose between having a career or a family, South Korea’s women of childbearing age are increasingly plumping for the former:
Kindergartens are being converted into care homes, while at least 150 elementary schools had no new pupils when the academic year started last month. The number of children entering education in the capital Seoul – home to a fifth of the population – has fallen 8% on the previous year.
But in a bizarre twist (or is it?) these women are taking on dogs and cats in ever-increasing numbers and investing in the same sort of paraphernalia they might once have purchased for children:
Sales of prams for dogs now outsell those for babies. And with so many childless households, the number of registered dogs and cats – child substitutes, perhaps – has almost tripled over the past decade. “We’re so busy right now,” said one firm making £850 pet buggies.
Before you choke on your tea or coffee with disbelief, it doesn’t take much looking around in the UK to see increasing numbers of pampered dogs being pushed around parks in prams or treated to ludicrous indulgences and luxuries. Only last month the Telegraph had a piece about mutts having thousands spent on them by their gurning ‘pet parents’. One of them, a 36 year-old woman with a medical condition (unspecified) that prevents her from travelling alone, just knows her Pembroke Welsh Corgi is worth it:
When it was time to test Winston on his first flight, Frances booked a flight from Colorado to Las Vegas on a private jet. “He loved it,” she says. “I have a video of him coming down the stairs to a royal trumpet.”
The experience cost $16,000 (£12,000). Now, if Frances tries to take Winston on a budget airline, his reaction is “total disgust”.
Winston’s wardrobe is another expense Frances is happy to splurge on, with jumpers from Gucci and Louis Vuitton. His collar is £600 from Goyard.
She also has custom outfits – including a pilot outfit and a Guards outfit – made for him, which range from £45 to £75 per look.
In South Korea, the problems resulting from voluntary childlessness are far more widespread, but Europe is fast catching up, says the Mail:
The latest data for England and Wales show fertility rates plunging from 1.94 in 2010 to a record low of 1.41 in 2024, sparking fears over the funding of health and welfare systems from a reduced younger workforce as our society gets older. Scotland faces greater problems, with a rate of 1.25.
Spain, Italy, Greece and Poland are grappling with some of Europe’s worst fertility problems – all with lower rates than Scotland – while the US disclosed this month that its birth rates have dropped almost one-quarter in just two decades.
But it is South Korea where the problem is greatest. Many of the concerns facing its women are familiar to us in Britain, such as soaring housing costs, workplace sexism and the trade-off between a career and motherhood.
Yet in South Korea, many of the pressures are more extreme. It is the world’s most expensive place to raise a child. Its women are the most highly educated of those in OECD countries, yet endure the worst gender pay gap and share of household duties. Korea also has the longest working hours of any advanced nation.
Fundamental to this is an increasing determination of South Korean young women to live without men:
Among them is Moon Young-one, 24, a maths tutor and leader of a rapidly growing group of 4B followers called Wolves in the Hell (WITH), which boasts 550 members and claims to be one of many such communities.
“It is really hard to survive as a woman here,” she said. “Our movement is not about rejecting men – I don’t want to spend my limited time alive hating men – but against a patriarchal system. It’s about cherishing women. And it is ok not to have a man.”
4B is shorthand for four Korean words that start with bi – meaning ‘no’: bihon (rejection of marriage), biyeonae (no dating), bisekseu (abstaining from sex) and bichulsan (refusal of childbirth). Many other women declare themselves ‘bihon’, denoting their choice to remain single forever.
This movement flared up in the wake of outrage after the 2016 murder in a Seoul subway station lavatory of a 23 year-old woman by a man who told police he felt “ignored and belittled” by females. Another subway station murder – of a 28 year-old stabbed by her long-term stalker three years ago – ignited fresh dismay and fury.
Unsurprisingly, the 4B movement has led to an aggressive male backlash, with young men believing they are discriminated against and thereby virulently oppose feminism.
Whatever the tensions, the potential outcome is clear for one of the world’s most successful economies and is a warning to the West. North Korea is not far behind, where economic shortages have encouraged a decline in childbirth because not having as many children temporarily boosts living standards, particularly on a household level. It’s also a place where there is little chance of dogs being pampered as substitutes. Dog meat is a sought-after delicacy in North Korea. Conversely, in 2024 South Korea banned dog meat for human consumption from 2027.
The Mail’s piece is worth reading in full.


Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
My brother who is 45 has just had is first (and liberal wife declared only) child, nursery is going to cost 2500 a month.
Wife and I are trying for a first, mortgage of 2400 a month already. Its insane how expensive it will be and financial concern is the only real limiter to to most couples our age, though a handful of the wives are agnostic about children, perhaps something in the water is removing the urge?
Plus/minus the circumstances for raising children have never been better than today because our standard of living is still higher than it ever used to be before. It’s obviously still expensive and time-consuming and that why people usually chose not to. And the outcome is: Replacement of the people who chose to die out for their own earthly comfort by others making different choices. Evolution at work, simple as that.
Its good to see that the biggest part of the comments on here are by males, sexism is alive and well, maybe you can persaude your new “women” to have children for you(apart from the obs flaw), the population in this country wont drop, a certain demographic are taking care of that, shame I wont be around to see who pays for all of them🙂
It’s known as deathbed demographics
I read a report where someone did the maths. It claimed the with a reproduction rate of 1.1, 100 women will have 6 grandchildren between them
This shows a lack of faith in the world we are creating.
Good luck getting a toy poodle to change the tyre on your Hyundai, missus.
The key is in one word, which is usually left out of information about this “4B” movement: they are not rejecting sex, but only HETEROSEXUAL sex.
“The disgruntlement has sparked relationship boycott groups with thousands of women vowing to stay single forever – symbolised by the 4B movement, whose members pledge to reject marriage, childbirth, dating or HETEROSEXUAL sex for life.”
This, combined with cutting their hair short like lesbians, and becoming “Dog Nutters”, indicates that the whole movement is secretly veering toward all types of Sodomy, which means unnatural sexual relations between Males with Males, Females with Females, and Humans with Animals.
This type of Sodomy called “Bestiality” is also becoming a huge problem in the West, with increasing numbers of perverts raping their own pet cats or dogs, in addition to the Pakistani Muslims and Saudis who were found by a Google survey to have the most Google searches in the world for sex with every possible type of animal.
This is all part of the Satanic Globalist plan to create Hell on Earth, with humans running around in a naked frenzy like zombies, raping and sodomizing everything in sight, even rocks and trees, just like Gilgamesh of… Read more »
I think that’s a bit exaggerated but I certainly like the story. The gist of this is about right.
Trees?! The sap is rising.
I’m sure when South Korea doesn’t need the space so much the North Koreans will find a use for it. They’ll probably even offer to “take care of” the South Koreans’ elderly.
A side issue is the number of desperately average women who think they’re a ten in the beauty stakes and have an over-inflated idea of just what they bring to a relationship that’s worth having… although, to be fair, some men too are guilty of this!
And yet ‘everyone’ should consider how quickly the people in advanced old age (I speak as one myself) will fade from the system. A couple of decades of people in advanced old age being supported in dormitories by robot carers, and then there will be plenty of housing and less pressure on resources.
This is so obviously stupid (American) “feminist’s” propaganda that it’s certainly not worth a read. Incel off, dear non-ladies. And build whatever you like because we don’t want you, either.
I’m so over this fixation on ‘replacement rates’ and people doing their ‘Chicken Licken’ impersonations, running around like the human species is on the verge of extinction. There’s actually a lot to be said for the benefits of a smaller population size. Although the reasons for people having fewer babies are many and varied, I feel stopping with this godawful mass immigration lark and deporting the shedloads of people who shouldn’t be here would do the country ( well, many countries, obv ), its economy and its society the world of good.
I concur with this psychologist chap;
”Replacement rate rhetoric is misguided and ego-centric: Western nations do not need perpetual population growth or strict 2.1 fertility to thrive; developed economies can sustain (or even improve) per-capita prosperity through productivity gains, automation, capital deepening, and reformed retirement systems, making endless “replacement” unnecessary.
Nature shows fluctuation, not mandates: Populations in the wild rise, stabilize, or gently decline in response to real conditions and carrying capacity—no species is required to hit exact generational replacement. Human societies should follow the same adaptive logic instead of imposing artificial demographic targets.
Governments helped create the problem they now diagnose: Policies on housing (restrictive zoning), labor… Read more »
It’s not only that they don’t need perpetual population growth, it’s that they can’t have it because eventually it has to collapse… even yeast on a petri dish understands this.
“Even yeast on a petri dish understands this.” 🤣
People aren’t chosing fewer babies but no babies almost all of the time. They’re doing this because they can and because babies are considered to be luxury good without any benefits only irresponsible people would ever desire to have.
“They’re doing this because they can..”
As is their right, and I don’t judge people who make different life choices to me, because everybody is an individual with free will and must therefore decide how best to live their own lives.
For almost all of human history people didn’t have the luxury of choice. They reproduced out of necessity and/or duty. Nowadays people no longer have these same external pressures and therefore are not compelled to breed unless they choose to, and I’d much rather people think seriously and have a baby only if they genuinely want to, without any outside interference, coercion or a misguided need to conform.
There are already enough people who are dysfunctional wrecks, who make disastrous parents, and it’s ultimately the child that suffers.
People always had this choice because sexual encounters occur by choice. Unlike other animals, we’re not entirely driven by our instincts.
Unfortunately, people also cannot choose to breed. They can choose to have sex without doing their utmost to ensure that this won’t result in a pregnancy. For social reasons, this will usually be well (a decade or two) after the time where both men and women were at the prime of their fertility. This strongly suggests that the set of people who stopped – at least temporarily – to do their utmost to ensure offpsring-less sex is larger than the set of people who actually ever get any children.
So far, there’s no reason to assume that the unmitigated disaster called medical contraception can somehow be mitigated in future. Christianity regarded children as a gift of God and its most radical form, considered sex a sin unless it was meant to produce children. We regard children as a curse of nature we’ve thankfully overcome. And that’s why we’re set to be replaced by religious types of a different kind who still adhere to the view that was traditionally also our own. And I’m decidedly not looking forward to… Read more »
”People always had this choice because sexual encounters occur by choice.”
Did you just come down with the last shower? To give but one example: rape within marriage was only declared a criminal act in the UK as recently as 1991. On top of that, marriage has been basically mandated ( not always by law, but by social convention ) in the West for most of human history, given that having children outside of marriage was hugely scandalous. Brave people who might have chosen to remain single would’ve been stigmatized and likely ostracized from society, outcast from their families, so societal norms right throughout the ages ( unless one was going to be a nun or join the priesthood ) dictated men and women be married, with the expectation procreation would be the result.
”the unmitigated disaster called medical contraception”
Tell me: what is it about women being in control of their own reproductivity that upsets you so much? What kind of man would have a problem with women exercising their right to bodily autonomy and choosing to have a baby only if/when they’re ready? Not a man who has a great deal of respect for the opposite sex… Read more »
I’m going to restrict myself to replying to the last paragraph as only one that’s at least somewhat related to what I actually wrote:
Attaching attributions like archaic or belongs to a museum to the belief that occurences outside of human control – such as sex resulting in a pregancy – happen because of the will of God just emphasizes that you despise people who believe in such a God. But this doesn’t make an argument.
The fact is still that the decline of this belief and the corresponding rise of the cult of the golden sex life we must all dance around all day (allusion to the golden calf of the bible is obviously intentional) has led to a situation where our “green and pleasant countries” will be overwhelming populated my Muslims (and possibly also, Hindus) in the not to distant future because – at least so far – they haven’t picked up our decadent¹ views about this topic. And that’s not something I’m looking forward to, because our society was – at least in my opinion – already a lot better before ethnic suicide by side effect became the only socially acceptable modus operandi.
¹ Still using Nietzsche’s… Read more »
The 19th century’s calling☎️. They want their attitude towards sex back.😳
I feel the urge to ask you to lie on my couch and tell me about your mother…👩⚕️✍
“…just emphasizes that you despise people who believe in such a God.”
That’s an impressive but classic example of ‘misrepresentation’. But not to worry. It only happens to me on this site on days with a ‘y’ in them.
Must be my resting bitch face again….🤔👹
That’s not a misrepresentation because calling something archaic and belongs into a museum is a strong expression of disapproval framed in the classic lefty way: History is a linear progress from worse to better and hence, whatever used to be done in the past must be so infinitely worse than what’s being done today that not even difference of opinion are allowed anymore: I fornicate, therefore I am! Anything else belongs onto the scrapheap of history and that a bunch of OAPs in wheelchairs waving printed copies of the UK immigration law won’t be able to stop a foreign invasion of young men seeking to take whatever they can – positive proof of that: It’s already happening – is something nobody’s allowed to mention.
Patholoigization of dissent is also typically lefy.
Your idea of history is also way off. That’s not the 19th century calling but the 20th century before the 1960s.
You made the assumption that I “despise people who believe in such a God.” If you choose to feel affronted based on the terminology I use then that’s your prerogative. But you misrepresent my sentiment in doing so because I don’t despise anyone who believes in a god. On the contrary: thats the religious folk who continuously judge and denigrate us non-believers with their holier-than-thou sanctimonious attitude. I’m very much a “live and let live” person and am happy to stay in my own lane. Respect, much like free speech, should be reciprocal.
I made no such assumption because you’ve expressed your strong disapproval clearly. A dictionary definition of archaic is
and this isn’t a positive qualification. It’s a strongly negative one.
I disagree with your viewpoint, which is completely independent of whether you believe in God or not. And I’m exercising my right to freedom of speech. I’m here to express my opinions, not people-please.🤷♀️
This doesn’t make sense anymore and I haven’t written anything about my religious convictions. I also haven’t disputed your right to have a certain standpoint, I’ve just pointed out the consequences of this standpoint and that you ought to own them.
PS: Singles, at least male singles, are ostracized by “sex life society” because it’s assumed that they cannot possibly be interested in anything else and because of this, they’re considered to be a priori socially intolerable. This used to be much less vitriolic in former times, at least insofar historical records are correct.
Saturday two weeks ago, I was on a concert in London which turned out to be a not-so-covert BDSM pre-party. I left after the first band because the enormous amount of demonstratively unfriendly/ aggressive female half-couples was simply intolerable. I then had a pleasant walk back from Camden to Paddingtion station instead of having to cope with a room full of people constantly glaring at me.
They reproduced out of necessity and/or duty
No, they reproduced because… nature willed it.
Aka: There was no contraception available and women had no right to bodily autonomy. See my above comment about marital rape. Sex was just another of her ‘wifely duties’, whether she consented or not.
Societal norms and expectations, largely driven by religion, dictated there must be marriage before sex and that that institution must produce children. Some couples will have reproduced willingly through choice but it’s inevitable some will have done so under duress.
Women have rights to protect them now, are able to take responsibility for our own reproductive systems using birth control and external pressures from society no longer exist.
Enjoying a healthy sex life within a loving relationship is what is considered normal nowadays. Not having sex only with the intention of making a baby where one person is dehumanised, their rights or wishes not taken into account.
You seem to be attributing nearly all of human reproduction to rape historically, a truly bizarre fixation and totally departed from reality. Most women historically considered child rearing to be their vocation and happiest thing one could do with ones life.
Nope, you’re another doing that misrepresenting thing yet again. If you were born into a cult, you would only know the rules and normal goings on of the society within that cult because that’s all you’ve been exposed to. This would be your cultural norm and you would abide by this. People born in bygone eras ( so most of human history ) would only know that society, which consisted of very rigid, different rules, constraints and stereotypes for each sex. If women never had the exposure to the choices and opportunities women have today ( and men, for that matter ), major ones including being able to control when/if you had a baby and laws protecting your rights, stating you didn’t need to get married and submit to your husband, how many less children do you think would’ve been born historically?
This is why comparing the present day to previous eras and expecting we should somehow aim for certain aspects of that is futile. They had neither the rights nor the opportunities available to us nowadays, so isn’t it inevitable there would be less babies being born? Unless one is living under Sharia Law or is an orthodox Jew,… Read more »
I just think that women happen to enjoy sex just as much as men do.
If more children is what government really want, then the simple solution would be massive tax relief for young people to have children, because it is purely for financial reasons that they don’t. —-But instead what we get is the Mass Immigration solution because that way they can kill two birds with the one stone. —-They get more people in and destroy National Identity in the drive to Global Governance. ——Mass Immigration is a Globalist pincer movement
“We just want to build a world where women can live free of men,” says one
activistdeath-cultist.Good luck building “a world where women can be free of men”. Quite difficult to see how that Utopia is meant to sustain itself beyond one generation, mind you.
Hard to see how it will sustain itself once the first heavy object needs to be placed or removed from the top shelf.
Absolutely spot on! Feminists view men as sperm banks, cashpoint machines, and heavy lifters.
To be fair Tonka, one stud man could be used to artificially inseminate an awful lot of women, keeping the population at sustainable levels, if they were determined to go down that route.
Of course they’d then have to find something that remove spiders from baths…
Imagine the genetic defects down the line as half-siblings mate…
Oh wait, we’re not allowed to point that out anymore as per “advice” from the NHS. -10 Social Credit points for me!
We evolved to NEED EACH OTHER. ——-You only have to look at any married couple. The wife does a whole lot of stuff and the husband does a whole lot of different stuff. eg do we really want the wife climbing up ladders to clean the canopy? Do we really want them laying under the car to fit a new starter motor? ——-Get real —-The wife does a lot of great things, like admin and keeping the family ticking over and we do all the heavy stuff
I hope they don’t cheat on their dogs behind their dogs back.
This horrific fashion of people secretly raping their own pets, even openly treating them as sexual partners sleeping in their beds, is sometimes discussed on the only website for people who don’t like dogs: the “Dogfree” site on Reddit, in case anyone is interested in their views. If the site demands that you “Prove your Humanity” first, just close down the page, and then go onto the website again.
Dogfree: We Don’t Like Dogs
An indication of how Dog Nutters view beaches is given in this article today:
Best UK beaches to allow dogs all-year as ban comes into force soon | UK | Travel | Express.co.uk