3 ms·

You're assuming that 1) we need more children, and 2) all countries should be making it easier. China is the perfect example to show how ridiculous this is - e

You're assuming that 1) we need more children, and 2) all countries should be making it easier. China is the perfect example to show how ridiculous this is - even with the 1-child policy for 30 years, China's population is 1.4 billion people. Imagine what that would be if such a policy hadn't been enacted. For many countries (and the Earth as a whole), making it easier and less expensive to have more children is exactly the wrong thing to do.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
atomicnumber3 6y ago
China is, to a large degree, still a developing nation. Fertility rates being very high is only a problem is developing nations, where infrastructure and sanitation can't support the rapidly growing population. Look at a developed economy. Look at Japan. Their economy has been struggling for almost three decades, their central bank struggles to create a healthy level of inflation (it is historically too low), frighteningly large swathes of their population between the ages of 18 and 35 have little interest, time, or money for dating, marriage, and having children. Their fertility rate is well below replacement rate. And all of these things are interconnected (too expensive to have kids = no kids = fewer workers = fewer taxpayers and contracting economy etc). Modern economies are still largely a Ponzi scheme that relies in there being more younger people than older. Technology is changing this to a small degree, but not enough and not fast enough. If the US doesn't want a Lost Decade of their own, we're going to need to look hard at how we can keep our fertility rate at least at replacement. Immigration is a potential solution but relies on being able to import the labor at all skill levels, and unfortunately at the higher end, I worry the US's monopoly on foreign university students is beginning to wane too.
zwkrt 6y ago
Every single person on this earth has a right to children, not just the right kind of rich person. Normally it’s wealthier people who decide not to have kids anyway, so why not make it less economically straining for those who do!?
baybal2 6y ago
China's population count might be overreported by tens of millions by officials collecting "dead souls" to embezzle state funds allocated proportionally to headcount.
jacobr1 6y ago
Apparently without the one-child policy the population would have been ... roughly the same? Looks like most the demographic trends were already locked in before and didn't change much after it ended either. But really, the population-level malthusians have it wrong. Greater population has both helped drive innovation, economies of scale and innovation. What we need to do is direct our attention and fiscal polices to where this fails. Like pollution, carbon emissions, overfishing, etc ... If we can either tax these failures, or set up sustainable markets, or innovate our way out of them we should. We should be putting tremendous amounts of time and money to these problems (and we are, but clearly not enough). If the price the trust cost of the problems, you'll get behavioral changes throughout the economy. That will include choices like how many children to have, but also industrial policies and practices that probably have more direct impacts on our ability to sustainably thrive on this planet.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > But really, the population-level malthusians have it wrong. They were not wrong at all if their goal was to stem all of what you listed. They just knew from the beginning that all of what they said is not true. What they were saying was a lie. The Population Council, eugenics freaks, and other yellow menace panickers were funded by the very same people who were running natalist policies in the West, and were trying to ban abortion, and women rights movements. It's not correct to call them "Malthusians." The best name for them will be Luddites, and massive beneficiaries of economic status quo classes.
  - someperson 6y ago
    You're making a big accusation / conspiracy theory: that the proponents of "population bomb" arguments were also domestically anti-abortion and womens rights to increase the number of births in the West and decrease it in Asia (and presumably, Africa) due to reasons of race and racism. Such a comment needs a lot more supporting evidence to be considered anything but an outlandish conspiracy theory.
    - baybal2 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

atomicnumber3 6y ago

China is, to a large degree, still a developing nation. Fertility rates being very high is only a problem is developing nations, where infrastructure and sanitation can't support the rapidly growing population. Look at a developed economy. Look at Japan. Their economy has been struggling for almost three decades, their central bank struggles to create a healthy level of inflation (it is historically too low), frighteningly large swathes of their population between the ages of 18 and 35 have little interest, time, or money for dating, marriage, and having children. Their fertility rate is well below replacement rate. And all of these things are interconnected (too expensive to have kids = no kids = fewer workers = fewer taxpayers and contracting economy etc). Modern economies are still largely a Ponzi scheme that relies in there being more younger people than older. Technology is changing this to a small degree, but not enough and not fast enough. If the US doesn't want a Lost Decade of their own, we're going to need to look hard at how we can keep our fertility rate at least at replacement. Immigration is a potential solution but relies on being able to import the labor at all skill levels, and unfortunately at the higher end, I worry the US's monopoly on foreign university students is beginning to wane too.

zwkrt 6y ago

Every single person on this earth has a right to children, not just the right kind of rich person. Normally it’s wealthier people who decide not to have kids anyway, so why not make it less economically straining for those who do!?

baybal2 6y ago

China's population count might be overreported by tens of millions by officials collecting "dead souls" to embezzle state funds allocated proportionally to headcount.

jacobr1 6y ago

Apparently without the one-child policy the population would have been ... roughly the same? Looks like most the demographic trends were already locked in before and didn't change much after it ended either. But really, the population-level malthusians have it wrong. Greater population has both helped drive innovation, economies of scale and innovation. What we need to do is direct our attention and fiscal polices to where this fails. Like pollution, carbon emissions, overfishing, etc ... If we can either tax these failures, or set up sustainable markets, or innovate our way out of them we should. We should be putting tremendous amounts of time and money to these problems (and we are, but clearly not enough). If the price the trust cost of the problems, you'll get behavioral changes throughout the economy. That will include choices like how many children to have, but also industrial policies and practices that probably have more direct impacts on our ability to sustainably thrive on this planet.

baybal2 6y ago
> But really, the population-level malthusians have it wrong. They were not wrong at all if their goal was to stem all of what you listed. They just knew from the beginning that all of what they said is not true. What they were saying was a lie. The Population Council, eugenics freaks, and other yellow menace panickers were funded by the very same people who were running natalist policies in the West, and were trying to ban abortion, and women rights movements. It's not correct to call them "Malthusians." The best name for them will be Luddites, and massive beneficiaries of economic status quo classes.
- someperson 6y ago
  You're making a big accusation / conspiracy theory: that the proponents of "population bomb" arguments were also domestically anti-abortion and womens rights to increase the number of births in the West and decrease it in Asia (and presumably, Africa) due to reasons of race and racism. Such a comment needs a lot more supporting evidence to be considered anything but an outlandish conspiracy theory.
  - baybal2 6y ago