5 ms·

Same in Finland, and from what I've heard, in most of the developed world. Many young people simply don't want to get kids, and there's probably a demographic c

by ahje 8y ago

Same in Finland, and from what I've heard, in most of the developed world. Many young people simply don't want to get kids, and there's probably a demographic crisis looming over the horizon. Migration will probably be used to keep increasing the population initially, but at some point we will run out of immigrants. The way I see it, there are two ways out: 1) We accept that the population cannot keep growing forever, and prepare ourselves for a society where older people are going to be increasingly common. 2) We coerce, or force young people start breeding. I don't really know how that could be done without massive human rights violations. There is, of course, the idea of vat-grown children, but that seems somewhat far-fetched.

mcv 8y ago
I'm used to people worrying about overpopulation and too much immigration. The opposite is rather refreshing. A lot of countries subsidise child care to some extent. That seems reasonable way to enable people to have children despite having jobs. Although obviously jobs shouldn't take up too much time either; 40 hour work weeks should be the max, and I'd really prefer to move to shorter work weeks. Otherwise what's the point of our increased productivity? But beyond that, I think it's a good idea to prepare for a smaller population; the world population is pretty big. Figuring out a way to live here with less people doesn't seem so bad, it's just the transition we need to get used to.
- throwaway24301 8y ago
  Sure, maybe if you are Finland or Sweden you might be fine with your population being replaced. Countries without a strong culture have little to lose. As a Southern European, it gives me shivers to think of a Mosque being built in the middle of Rome or Salamanca.
  - unmole 8y ago
    Is your culture really 'strong' if a new mosque scares you?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Arguably, yes; strong personal revulsion to things outside the culture are often an element of a strong culture; its a component of what might be termed a cultural immune response.
      - mcv 8y ago
        Some of those cultural immune responses behave more like an allergy than a response to an actual threat, though. In some cases, the immune response is a bigger threat to the culture than the outside influence.
        throwaway42901 8y ago
        Are you so out of thought with reality that you don't consider mass-immigration a threat? Our language, or architecture, our art, or connection as a people are way too great to see it be destroyed by a "modern idea" that has never been proven to work. I think people who think mass-immigration is a good thing should arrange visas for whoever they want to bring, under the condition that they are economically responsible for them. But don't put the responsibility on the general population. Enough with the hypocrisy. At least where I live, most people aren't interested as the electoral votes increasingly show. Part of the problem (if not the main one) is the concept of economies of scale and the constant desire for growth. This concept is a Northern/Anglo-Saxon invention that is alien to our own Southern European idiosyncrasy. It's a vicious circle because if we don't play the "game", we'll be either conquered by force or through cultural influences. Until all countries decide to "calm down", we have to continue this madness or be gone. Everything for efficiency and growth, the most crude way to live a life.
        ahje 8y ago
        There are plenty of other problems caused by the mass-immigration policies in certain countries but people abandoning their own culture is not one of them. After all people didn't stop going to church because someone else built a mosque. Replacing local customs and traditions with crappy Hollywood blockbusters and the US music industry is something that people have managed on their own, and it's been going on since WW2.
michaelt 8y ago
We coerce, or force young people start breeding. I don't really know how that could be done without massive human rights violations. At least in my country, there are certainly non-coercive options that could make having children more attractive. For example, house prices are extremely high in areas with good employment prospects. In London there are literally people in their late 20s and early 30s who can't even afford to rent a flat to themselves. Let alone buy a property with a spare bedroom. Interventions like lowering house prices in high-demand areas would allow younger couples to start having children with no human rights violations needed.
- ahje 8y ago
  The real problem is that many people simply don't want children. There are plenty of incentives to have children here as well, but that will only change the minds of those who want children but can't afford them.
userulluipeste 8y ago
Here's another "way out": 3) Reverse the changes that led to the arrest of the population growth.
deogeo 8y ago
> at some point we will run out of immigrants. We won't. Preachy, US-centered source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
romeoEtJoliet 8y ago
For 2) a country could implement economic incentives in the form of a graduated tax penalty for each 'missing' child under the country's replacement rate, and a tax credit for each registered dependent counting towards the rate with the taxes from the former supporting a program to fund childcare, fertility treatments, a parental stipend, etc.

by ahje 8y ago

mcv 8y ago

I'm used to people worrying about overpopulation and too much immigration. The opposite is rather refreshing. A lot of countries subsidise child care to some extent. That seems reasonable way to enable people to have children despite having jobs. Although obviously jobs shouldn't take up too much time either; 40 hour work weeks should be the max, and I'd really prefer to move to shorter work weeks. Otherwise what's the point of our increased productivity? But beyond that, I think it's a good idea to prepare for a smaller population; the world population is pretty big. Figuring out a way to live here with less people doesn't seem so bad, it's just the transition we need to get used to.

throwaway24301 8y ago
Sure, maybe if you are Finland or Sweden you might be fine with your population being replaced. Countries without a strong culture have little to lose. As a Southern European, it gives me shivers to think of a Mosque being built in the middle of Rome or Salamanca.
- unmole 8y ago
  Is your culture really 'strong' if a new mosque scares you?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Arguably, yes; strong personal revulsion to things outside the culture are often an element of a strong culture; its a component of what might be termed a cultural immune response.
    - mcv 8y ago
      Some of those cultural immune responses behave more like an allergy than a response to an actual threat, though. In some cases, the immune response is a bigger threat to the culture than the outside influence.
      - throwaway42901 8y ago
        Are you so out of thought with reality that you don't consider mass-immigration a threat? Our language, or architecture, our art, or connection as a people are way too great to see it be destroyed by a "modern idea" that has never been proven to work. I think people who think mass-immigration is a good thing should arrange visas for whoever they want to bring, under the condition that they are economically responsible for them. But don't put the responsibility on the general population. Enough with the hypocrisy. At least where I live, most people aren't interested as the electoral votes increasingly show. Part of the problem (if not the main one) is the concept of economies of scale and the constant desire for growth. This concept is a Northern/Anglo-Saxon invention that is alien to our own Southern European idiosyncrasy. It's a vicious circle because if we don't play the "game", we'll be either conquered by force or through cultural influences. Until all countries decide to "calm down", we have to continue this madness or be gone. Everything for efficiency and growth, the most crude way to live a life.
        ahje 8y ago
        There are plenty of other problems caused by the mass-immigration policies in certain countries but people abandoning their own culture is not one of them. After all people didn't stop going to church because someone else built a mosque. Replacing local customs and traditions with crappy Hollywood blockbusters and the US music industry is something that people have managed on their own, and it's been going on since WW2.

michaelt 8y ago

We coerce, or force young people start breeding. I don't really know how that could be done without massive human rights violations. At least in my country, there are certainly non-coercive options that could make having children more attractive. For example, house prices are extremely high in areas with good employment prospects. In London there are literally people in their late 20s and early 30s who can't even afford to rent a flat to themselves. Let alone buy a property with a spare bedroom. Interventions like lowering house prices in high-demand areas would allow younger couples to start having children with no human rights violations needed.

ahje 8y ago
The real problem is that many people simply don't want children. There are plenty of incentives to have children here as well, but that will only change the minds of those who want children but can't afford them.

userulluipeste 8y ago

Here's another "way out": 3) Reverse the changes that led to the arrest of the population growth.

deogeo 8y ago

> at some point we will run out of immigrants. We won't. Preachy, US-centered source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

romeoEtJoliet 8y ago

For 2) a country could implement economic incentives in the form of a graduated tax penalty for each 'missing' child under the country's replacement rate, and a tax credit for each registered dependent counting towards the rate with the taxes from the former supporting a program to fund childcare, fertility treatments, a parental stipend, etc.