4 ms·

this is fantastic news. Yes, we don’t know how to properly adapt yet, but this planet resources are limited and we aren’t good at sharing them. What worries me

by option 6y ago

this is fantastic news. Yes, we don’t know how to properly adapt yet, but this planet resources are limited and we aren’t good at sharing them. What worries me is that long term this can be reversed just like current trend is reversing away from population growth. Current trend seems to be driven by job prospects, education and costs of raising kids. But what if in a future we all had basic income? No need to worry about food, shelter or education for your children. Won’t this lead to population growing again?

Arn_Thor 6y ago
Why would it? Do you imagine people enjoy raising four kids or more? Children used to be old-age insurance. You needed so many to be certain some of them would survive, thrive, and take care of you in old age. If your needs are met, either through a good pension or UBI, you can have as many kids as you prefer. And by all indications, for most people that's actually around the natural replacement level, or fewer.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > for most people that's actually around the natural replacement level, or fewer. Not sure where that number comes from. 2.5 is probably closer to the natural trend. Physical constraints (food, disease, etc) limited human expansion previously. The economic constraints that cause a min-max of not having kids will never be A. universal, B. persistent. A couple generations of baby recession won't impact the fate of humanity one bit. Not sure why there's so much faux concern over a fixable (and likely temporary) situation. You give a tax break of 50% on capital gains per child and the kids will be popping from the higher economic rungs.
  - Arn_Thor 6y ago
    > You give a tax break of 50% on capital gains per child and the kids will be popping from the higher economic rungs Of course, with a perversely positive incentive like that. But it tells us nothing of the natural impulse in a neutral environment. In a lot of the western world there is plenty of support for having kids. Ample child care leave, solid monetary support, free or affordable child care and schooling. And in the countries which have most of this, the birth rate is low but not catastrophically so. (see Germany, the Nordics..) Whereas in the US and Japan, for example, there are certainly structural factors that now weigh against having kids. But it does not tell us much about the "default state"
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      I don’t think there is such a thing as a default state. What would a neutral environment even look like?

by option 6y ago

Arn_Thor 6y ago

Why would it? Do you imagine people enjoy raising four kids or more? Children used to be old-age insurance. You needed so many to be certain some of them would survive, thrive, and take care of you in old age. If your needs are met, either through a good pension or UBI, you can have as many kids as you prefer. And by all indications, for most people that's actually around the natural replacement level, or fewer.

Supermancho 6y ago
> for most people that's actually around the natural replacement level, or fewer. Not sure where that number comes from. 2.5 is probably closer to the natural trend. Physical constraints (food, disease, etc) limited human expansion previously. The economic constraints that cause a min-max of not having kids will never be A. universal, B. persistent. A couple generations of baby recession won't impact the fate of humanity one bit. Not sure why there's so much faux concern over a fixable (and likely temporary) situation. You give a tax break of 50% on capital gains per child and the kids will be popping from the higher economic rungs.
- Arn_Thor 6y ago
  > You give a tax break of 50% on capital gains per child and the kids will be popping from the higher economic rungs Of course, with a perversely positive incentive like that. But it tells us nothing of the natural impulse in a neutral environment. In a lot of the western world there is plenty of support for having kids. Ample child care leave, solid monetary support, free or affordable child care and schooling. And in the countries which have most of this, the birth rate is low but not catastrophically so. (see Germany, the Nordics..) Whereas in the US and Japan, for example, there are certainly structural factors that now weigh against having kids. But it does not tell us much about the "default state"
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    I don’t think there is such a thing as a default state. What would a neutral environment even look like?