5 ms·

We have no known way of increasing birth rate other than letting society collapse and letting whichever society survives to continue. That or something horribl

by Ygg2 5y ago

We have no known way of increasing birth rate other than letting society collapse and letting whichever society survives to continue. That or something horrible like abolishing woman's rights, decreasing rate of survival, etc.

DelightOne 5y ago
> We have no known way of increasing birth rate A blatant generalization, in the face that it wasn't much of a priority for now. Or is there any proof that it was much of a priority, for example in terms of media influence, % of budget, etc?
- Ygg2 5y ago
  Is there any case, where country reversed sub replacement rate to above replacement rate? I've heard of examples that increased it, but only like +0.2 on 1.7 replacement rate. Nothing substantial enough to actually reverse the trend.
  - naravara 5y ago
    Aside from Japan and (very recently) China I don’t know of many countries where it was a big enough deal to care. We’re working with very very tiny sample sizes here within a problem space where almost no sincere effort has been applied.
knuthsat 5y ago
There are belief systems that promote making children (Amish, Islam, etc.). Populations that practice these systems will eventually take over.
- mk81 5y ago
  The absolute most illiberal ideologies. Yay!
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I would be curious to see how the birth rate in those populations would fare if the women in those populations had financial independence.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    That's so obvious that the writers of those religions gave women little to no financial independence.
  - tenpies 5y ago
    Probably just as well? That seems like a page from the usual Western feminist perspective that if a woman isn't pursuing STEM, wanting to be a corporate "girl-Boss", or a she-preneur; she's surely a victim of a barbaric sexist culture instead of an individual actor just avoiding pursuits that she doesn't find appealing. I mean you're talking about religion here. It's almost a universal that religion takes some of the best and brightest people it has and then has them dedicate their lives to something that has no material rewards, much less "financial independence".
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      There is a vast difference in birth rates in cultures where women have 3+ kids as the norm and cultures where women have 1 or 2 kids as the norm. I do not know any aunts or cousins that wanted to have more than 2 kids, maybe one or two that had 3. And almost all came from moms or grandmas that has 3+ kids, usually 4 or 5. It has nothing to do with Western feminist or STEM or whatever political nonsense, it is simply a result of giving birth and breastfeeding being a very costly event with very real risks for almost all women.
      - klipt 5y ago
        > giving birth and breastfeeding being a very costly event with very real risks for almost all women. Natural selection suggests that women who find giving birth and breastfeeding more difficult than average women, will die off over time and be replaced by the descendents of those women who found it easier than average women.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  First there was B.1, then there was delta, then there was omicron.
- watwut 5y ago
  Christianity too. On the extreme side, quiverful or evangelicals.
cbzbc 5y ago
There are a number of studies that show that the provision of cheap/free childcare can increase birth rate.
- pm90 5y ago
  Yep, plus increasing/making benefits such as maternity/paternity leave, tax deductions for parents, investing in school districts so parents don’t have to move to a good school district, build more housing… I guess just making it a lot easier to be a parent. Because currently it’s not.
  - martindbp 5y ago
    Instead the general trend seems to be that single/child-free people despise any privilege or help parents may recieve in the corporate world, or by the government (coming out of their taxes). Having children is now a "selfish" activity. Apparently, the correct response to the hopelessness of saving our civilization in the face of climate change and other challenges is to... not have children so that our civilization ends for sure, but at least on our terms?
    - pm90 5y ago
      The general trend afaik has been reactions to certain employers attempting to provide these benefits to parents while their other employees are being left out to dry. I do think it’s unfair for eg a company to provide generous leave to parents and then expect non-parents to pick up the slack; the correct approach here is making these benefits universal and fair by law, so that employers need to both provide these benefits to parents and hire enough workers to pick up slack when they’re away. Also most of these benefits can’t be provided on a per employer basis, they need to be mandated across City/State/Country for it to have systemic effects on the society at large (eg building more housing or funding school districts better).
      - martindbp 5y ago
        > I do think it’s unfair for eg a company to provide generous leave to parents and then expect non-parents to pick up the slack I do think it's unfair, and untenable, to leave this to companies. My perspective is from Sweden where things mostly work as you describe. But whether companies or the government do it, the money will come out of everyone's pockets in the end. I don't see how it being government-led would make it any cheaper, but maybe you could clarify?

by Ygg2 5y ago

DelightOne 5y ago

> We have no known way of increasing birth rate A blatant generalization, in the face that it wasn't much of a priority for now. Or is there any proof that it was much of a priority, for example in terms of media influence, % of budget, etc?

Ygg2 5y ago
Is there any case, where country reversed sub replacement rate to above replacement rate? I've heard of examples that increased it, but only like +0.2 on 1.7 replacement rate. Nothing substantial enough to actually reverse the trend.
- naravara 5y ago
  Aside from Japan and (very recently) China I don’t know of many countries where it was a big enough deal to care. We’re working with very very tiny sample sizes here within a problem space where almost no sincere effort has been applied.

knuthsat 5y ago

There are belief systems that promote making children (Amish, Islam, etc.). Populations that practice these systems will eventually take over.

mk81 5y ago
The absolute most illiberal ideologies. Yay!
lotsofpulp 5y ago
I would be curious to see how the birth rate in those populations would fare if the women in those populations had financial independence.
- brigandish 5y ago
  That's so obvious that the writers of those religions gave women little to no financial independence.
- tenpies 5y ago
  Probably just as well? That seems like a page from the usual Western feminist perspective that if a woman isn't pursuing STEM, wanting to be a corporate "girl-Boss", or a she-preneur; she's surely a victim of a barbaric sexist culture instead of an individual actor just avoiding pursuits that she doesn't find appealing. I mean you're talking about religion here. It's almost a universal that religion takes some of the best and brightest people it has and then has them dedicate their lives to something that has no material rewards, much less "financial independence".
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    There is a vast difference in birth rates in cultures where women have 3+ kids as the norm and cultures where women have 1 or 2 kids as the norm. I do not know any aunts or cousins that wanted to have more than 2 kids, maybe one or two that had 3. And almost all came from moms or grandmas that has 3+ kids, usually 4 or 5. It has nothing to do with Western feminist or STEM or whatever political nonsense, it is simply a result of giving birth and breastfeeding being a very costly event with very real risks for almost all women.
    - klipt 5y ago
      > giving birth and breastfeeding being a very costly event with very real risks for almost all women. Natural selection suggests that women who find giving birth and breastfeeding more difficult than average women, will die off over time and be replaced by the descendents of those women who found it easier than average women.
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
First there was B.1, then there was delta, then there was omicron.
watwut 5y ago
Christianity too. On the extreme side, quiverful or evangelicals.

cbzbc 5y ago

There are a number of studies that show that the provision of cheap/free childcare can increase birth rate.

pm90 5y ago
Yep, plus increasing/making benefits such as maternity/paternity leave, tax deductions for parents, investing in school districts so parents don’t have to move to a good school district, build more housing… I guess just making it a lot easier to be a parent. Because currently it’s not.
- martindbp 5y ago
  Instead the general trend seems to be that single/child-free people despise any privilege or help parents may recieve in the corporate world, or by the government (coming out of their taxes). Having children is now a "selfish" activity. Apparently, the correct response to the hopelessness of saving our civilization in the face of climate change and other challenges is to... not have children so that our civilization ends for sure, but at least on our terms?
  - pm90 5y ago
    The general trend afaik has been reactions to certain employers attempting to provide these benefits to parents while their other employees are being left out to dry. I do think it’s unfair for eg a company to provide generous leave to parents and then expect non-parents to pick up the slack; the correct approach here is making these benefits universal and fair by law, so that employers need to both provide these benefits to parents and hire enough workers to pick up slack when they’re away. Also most of these benefits can’t be provided on a per employer basis, they need to be mandated across City/State/Country for it to have systemic effects on the society at large (eg building more housing or funding school districts better).
    - martindbp 5y ago
      > I do think it’s unfair for eg a company to provide generous leave to parents and then expect non-parents to pick up the slack I do think it's unfair, and untenable, to leave this to companies. My perspective is from Sweden where things mostly work as you describe. But whether companies or the government do it, the money will come out of everyone's pockets in the end. I don't see how it being government-led would make it any cheaper, but maybe you could clarify?