3 ms·

> Two kids max. Luckily, it's becoming increasingly clear that that part will sort itself out without any kind of draconian China-style laws to forcibly limit

by gspr 6y ago

> Two kids max. Luckily, it's becoming increasingly clear that that part will sort itself out without any kind of draconian China-style laws to forcibly limit family sizes: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 That the population is developing in manageable ways in most of the world is one of the good news that will really help us on our way. The recipe is well-known by now: give women control over their own bodies and their own lives, and provide a social safety net that at a minimum is strong enough that having a large amount of children as an insurance stops making sense. IT WORKS :-)

raxxorrax 6y ago
He, this is realized in the country I live in and we import migrants to stabilize our heavily ailing pension system.
lopmotr 6y ago
It's not manageable, it's below replacement which is a risk of disaster if it's not increased. It seems we need poverty to make new humans and we're running out of poverty.
- gspr 6y ago
  What? The Earth has plenty of humans. We're decades away from a falling population globally, and even then we probably have centuries to bring birth rates back up before disaster strikes (well, disaster with underpopulation as its cause). Also, bringing the rates back up should be easy enough when needed.
- jl6 6y ago
  2 is only just below replacement rate, which means a manageable gradual reduction rather than the demographic cliff-edge of 0 or 1 or the unsustainable boundless growth of 3+. At that rate it will be centuries before the world starts running out of people - plenty of time to anticipate and start planning more kids again.
neutronicus 6y ago
I don't that is "clear" at all. In a growth-growth-growth economy, you miss out on a bunch of consumption by having kids young. So people wait, travel the world, eat at fancy restaurants, climb the ladder, and then have one or two right at 30 so that they can get back to climbing the ladder ASAP, afford their nice house, etc. What happens when the economy isn't growing, you're in the same job for 40 years, air travel is prohibitively expensive, big houses with yards are illegal, etc
- gspr 6y ago
  I think you and I have a very different understanding of why people postpone having children. And what makes you think people will go back to having the same job for 40 years? What indicators show that air travel will become prohibitively expensive? Why would big houses become illegal? And for the last part, big houses have been inaccessible to most urbanites for a while now. Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.
  - neutronicus 6y ago
    We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat). It also involves a lot less economic growth. And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience. Sure, maybe you'll be a little more respected, but chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees. > Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap. People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
    - gspr 6y ago
      > We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat). Sure. Perhaps not international travel, but let's say we agree for the sake of further discussion. > It also involves a lot less economic growth. Perhaps. > And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience. I can't speak for everyone, but neither I nor most of my peers find a "leadership role" desireable at all. This idea that one must "rise through the ranks" to be "successful" seems like a sad americanism to me. > chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees. So what? I'm struggling to see the relation to what you were saying before about "staying in the same job for 40 years". > People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city. Fair enough. I still don't understand your argument one bit.

by gspr 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago

He, this is realized in the country I live in and we import migrants to stabilize our heavily ailing pension system.

lopmotr 6y ago

It's not manageable, it's below replacement which is a risk of disaster if it's not increased. It seems we need poverty to make new humans and we're running out of poverty.

gspr 6y ago
What? The Earth has plenty of humans. We're decades away from a falling population globally, and even then we probably have centuries to bring birth rates back up before disaster strikes (well, disaster with underpopulation as its cause). Also, bringing the rates back up should be easy enough when needed.
jl6 6y ago
2 is only just below replacement rate, which means a manageable gradual reduction rather than the demographic cliff-edge of 0 or 1 or the unsustainable boundless growth of 3+. At that rate it will be centuries before the world starts running out of people - plenty of time to anticipate and start planning more kids again.

neutronicus 6y ago

I don't that is "clear" at all. In a growth-growth-growth economy, you miss out on a bunch of consumption by having kids young. So people wait, travel the world, eat at fancy restaurants, climb the ladder, and then have one or two right at 30 so that they can get back to climbing the ladder ASAP, afford their nice house, etc. What happens when the economy isn't growing, you're in the same job for 40 years, air travel is prohibitively expensive, big houses with yards are illegal, etc

gspr 6y ago
I think you and I have a very different understanding of why people postpone having children. And what makes you think people will go back to having the same job for 40 years? What indicators show that air travel will become prohibitively expensive? Why would big houses become illegal? And for the last part, big houses have been inaccessible to most urbanites for a while now. Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.
- neutronicus 6y ago
  We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat). It also involves a lot less economic growth. And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience. Sure, maybe you'll be a little more respected, but chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees. > Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap. People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
  - gspr 6y ago
    > We're discussing long-term planning for a sustainable future. This involves scaling back our most environmentally-damaging activities: big houses, big families, international travel, eating anything resource-intensive (notably meat, but it won't just be meat). Sure. Perhaps not international travel, but let's say we agree for the sake of further discussion. > It also involves a lot less economic growth. Perhaps. > And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience. I can't speak for everyone, but neither I nor most of my peers find a "leadership role" desireable at all. This idea that one must "rise through the ranks" to be "successful" seems like a sad americanism to me. > chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees. So what? I'm struggling to see the relation to what you were saying before about "staying in the same job for 40 years". > People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city. Fair enough. I still don't understand your argument one bit.