3 ms·

The United States has had a below-replacement total fertility rate for a decade+: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org

The United States has had a below-replacement total fertility rate for a decade+: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA Japan's total fertility rate has been consistently below-replacement since 1975: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN Nonetheless, it took until 2010 for Japan's total population to peak and begin to decline. It's estimated to take until 2042 for Japan's population to fall lower than it was in 1975: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population/ That's a 67 year lag between a country reducing birth rates below replacement and the country actually having more space available per capita. So I downvoted you on two counts: 1) You seemed to be unaware that the US is already reproducing less, to the extent that its population will eventually decline without immigration. 2) "Reproduce less" takes a very long time to reduce total population. It takes many decades even if there is no immigration. Its influence is far too slow to help today's young adults afford their own living spaces.

seph-reed 7y ago
> the US is already reproducing less, I am aware. Every civilization thus far has done this as technology advances. But it's a lot more happenstance than intentional. We're not actively trying to have less children for the sake of making anything better. > "Reproduce less" takes a very long time Pretty much every real solution to any problem I have ever seen takes generations. If the point of more housing is to mitigate suffering while these changes take root, that sounds realistic and responsible. As it is, it sounds like nobody has any thoughts at all about when we should realistically cap ourselves and I don't think that's responsible.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  There's only a dereliction of responsibility if a trend is going in the wrong direction and nobody thinks about how it can be reversed. If something that you want to happen is already happening, and you understand that it's going to take a long time regardless of how much active planning is involved, you don't need to do anything but wait.
  - seph-reed 7y ago
    > There's only a dereliction of responsibility if a trend is going in the wrong direction and nobody thinks about how it can be reversed It appears your argument is that reproducing less is good, but we're already doing it (though not on purpose), so therefore me saying we should do it on purpose is wrong?

seph-reed 7y ago

> the US is already reproducing less, I am aware. Every civilization thus far has done this as technology advances. But it's a lot more happenstance than intentional. We're not actively trying to have less children for the sake of making anything better. > "Reproduce less" takes a very long time Pretty much every real solution to any problem I have ever seen takes generations. If the point of more housing is to mitigate suffering while these changes take root, that sounds realistic and responsible. As it is, it sounds like nobody has any thoughts at all about when we should realistically cap ourselves and I don't think that's responsible.

philipkglass 7y ago
There's only a dereliction of responsibility if a trend is going in the wrong direction and nobody thinks about how it can be reversed. If something that you want to happen is already happening, and you understand that it's going to take a long time regardless of how much active planning is involved, you don't need to do anything but wait.
- seph-reed 7y ago
  > There's only a dereliction of responsibility if a trend is going in the wrong direction and nobody thinks about how it can be reversed It appears your argument is that reproducing less is good, but we're already doing it (though not on purpose), so therefore me saying we should do it on purpose is wrong?