10 ms·

> I predict these issues will cause bigger problems than population expansion ever did. I think that unfettered population growth would have caused massive iss

> I predict these issues will cause bigger problems than population expansion ever did. I think that unfettered population growth would have caused massive issues -- you could say that global warming is one of its legacies. But there will be a whole host of new issues as we face this new challenge of moving towards sustainable fertility. I suspect we will see a lot of government intervention with incentives towards larger families (increases bonuses as you have more children) and starting families earlier (rather than delaying to to their 30s.)

mastax 5y ago
Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates - with the possible exception of the Czech Republic. I agree though that governments are going to try, and they may find a way to do it. There was a good episode of The Weeds podcast, "Baby making vibes," which talked about this. Some of it is focused on the American political lens of Liberal vs Conservative birth rates, but much is broadly applicable discussion of policy and the more "vibes focused" angle that conservatives tend to take with the issue.
- rowanG077 5y ago
  Isn't the simple explanation for child birth falling so rapidly being the participation of women in the workforce? I didn't do any research but I just always assumed that it is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I am curious what the market rate for pregnancy, giving birth, and breastfeeding will end up being. After seeing what it is like, if I was a woman, even the best current European benefits would not be enough.
  - bhouston 5y ago
    In Hungary, if you do it four times you are exempt from paying taxes for the rest of your life: "Hungarian women with four children or more will be exempted for life from paying income tax, the prime minister has said, unveiling plans designed to boost the number of babies being born." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47192612 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47192612
    - ativzzz 5y ago
      Women with four children will most likely be full time moms for the majority of their productive lives so that's a pointless benefit, unless this policy manages to somehow reverse gender roles as well.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        Even if said lady only rejoins the workforce for 20 years, the savings are fairly significant. Also, knowing Hungary, this is probably intended as a subtle disincentive for the local Roma ghetto population. All the Central and Eastern European states fiddle with their welfare systems not to incentivize higher birthrates among the Roma ghetto population, even if they do not want to state this aloud. That is why the benefits target taxes, which you only pay if you actually work.
        akudha 5y ago
        Not familiar with Roma, whats wrong with them?
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        Recently (1940s-1950s) forcibly settled former nomads whose culture hasn't yet made the necessary switch. To be fair, it took our Neolithic ancestors much longer than a few generations to adapt, too. Basically, not enough education and a lot of crime in the community. Combined with enormous brain drain, because whoever manages to succeed a bit, moves away and marries into the majority population, thus disappearing as a potential positive influence. This is one of the notorious ghettos in Slovakia, a neighbourhood called Luník IX: https://goo.gl/maps/KPnGTyBtX3NDTpdP6 https://goo.gl/maps/KPnGTyBtX3NDTpdP6
- ako 5y ago
  European countries may have generous benefits for raising children, but they’re not even close to covering the costs of children. I doubt there are many people who will decide to have children based on these benefits.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - distances 5y ago
    I agree, I wouldn't talk of extremely generous before the benefits cover a larger apartment to house the kids, and other indirect expenses. Unlikely to happen!
    - Beaver117 5y ago
      I'm sure some people are happy to move to the countryside for cheap larger housing if the government pays them
      - lemoncookiechip 5y ago
        Living in the countryside, isn't going to put food on the table for most. People are living the countryside to find jobs and a better life, not the other way around unfortunately.
- praptak 5y ago
  Are these benefits generous enough to make one feel safe with the crappy job market and the raising costs of living?
- nradov 5y ago
  The incentives in France have also been somewhat effective relative to peer countries, however they're still below replacement rate.
- akudha 5y ago
  Today we are at over 7 Billion. Suppose the population falls to say, 2 Billion or something like that. Is that a big problem? Like, what is the optimal number of people that this planet can support, without wreaking havoc on other species that also live here? 2 Billion is still a very large number... This might sound cruel, but the less humans the better.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    The issue is not the number. The issue is the rate of change.
    - pzo 5y ago
      I would stay both: rate of change (up or down) and overall size of population - there has to be a ceiling somewhere - if you start filling your bucket with water even slowly at one point it will start overflowing.
      - vidarh 5y ago
        There has to be some sort of ceiling, sure, but the point of focusing on a rate of change is that the ceiling is constantly moving too, no matter what you consider the "ceiling". There are many ceilings. E.g. there's the carrying capacity of earth. But that carrying capacity changes with technological improvements. There's the carrying capacity of the solar system that changes as we get the technology to settle more and more other planets. There's the number of housing units currently available, and the amount of food currently produced, and so on. But a lot of these current ceilings are highly malleable given time to address them, which is why what matters is the rate of change. Even if one assumes there is a hard ceiling on capacity for earth that no technological advance can overcome, as long as the rate of change is low enough we can bypass that by building off-earth colonies fast enough . So ultimately, while you're right there are ceilings, it's still the rate of change that matters: We can build or obtain more buckets to move water to, but we need enough time to do so.
  - rowanG077 5y ago
    It seems you answered your own question with: > This might sound cruel, but the less humans the better. Honestly any species will ALWAYS displace some other species. Nature doesn't just let usable energy lay around on long timescales.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates Yeah because even in Germany the Kindergeld of ~220€ per child per month isn't nearly enough to cover the extra cost in rent, much less the actual expenses that a child brings with it. When most people below 30 struggle to make rent, even without children, and actual ownership of a decent sized home is even more unrealistic, they won't have children.
soperj 5y ago
>you could say that global warming is one of its legacies Considering that the majority of emissions came from a select few countries(over half from the EU & USA) that don't make up the majority of the population, and they majority of those emissions have happened while there's been smaller population growth, I don't think it's unfettered population growth that's the problem.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I assume people not consuming as much as the people in the EU and USA have a goal of consuming as much as the people in the EU and USA.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    They very much do, but now they have to pay "carbon tax" invented by people who were responsible for most of the pollution until China
    - downWidOutaFite 5y ago
      History isn't fair but this resentment is going to destroy humanity.
      - sangnoir 5y ago
        I think it's the "Screw you, I got mine" race-to-the-bottom attitude will destroy us faster. Pointing out this ongoing problem is not resentment - no one wants to talk about per-capita carbon footprint, or have binding targets, because everyone is selfish.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Well, no, it wouldn’t be the resentment destroying humanity, it would be the people who caused all the emissions destroying humanity.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
naravara 5y ago
Wealth inequality is one of the drivers of reducing family size. As well-compensated, high-status professions require either high up-front costs in education and socialization or high risk early investment the rationale shifts from "needing a lot of hands to keep the family firm going" to "needing to dedicate a lot of resources to set the kids up for success." In other words, the economic incentives today are to "go tall" rather than "go wide" with your kids if family wealth and status is the aim. If inequality is high this becomes more pronounced because the top of the heap will be more desirable and more competitive. Really I think it'll depend on how good the robots end up being. If they're very good at replacing humans then labor won't be able to bid up its pay rates. If the robots are shitty, though, it might work out okay.
- pokstad 5y ago
  Not sure this makes sense. The biggest driver of family size seems to be lack of birth control or religious beliefs. Wealthy people avoid having children because they either expect too much for their kids or are enjoying their child free lifestyles. Meanwhile, in the US many children are born to the poorest portion of the population.
jay_kyburz 5y ago
It will be much easier to meet carbon emission targets when your population is shrinking rapidly. :)
mytailorisrich 5y ago
Massive population is causing massive issues. The root cause of all current environmental issues is the massive population growth we've been experiencing. Even topping out at 9-10 billion seems very challenging. Ideally, in order to protect the climate, environment at large, and quality of life we should aim to bring population down by a few billions...

mastax 5y ago

Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates - with the possible exception of the Czech Republic. I agree though that governments are going to try, and they may find a way to do it. There was a good episode of The Weeds podcast, "Baby making vibes," which talked about this. Some of it is focused on the American political lens of Liberal vs Conservative birth rates, but much is broadly applicable discussion of policy and the more "vibes focused" angle that conservatives tend to take with the issue.

rowanG077 5y ago
Isn't the simple explanation for child birth falling so rapidly being the participation of women in the workforce? I didn't do any research but I just always assumed that it is.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 5y ago
I am curious what the market rate for pregnancy, giving birth, and breastfeeding will end up being. After seeing what it is like, if I was a woman, even the best current European benefits would not be enough.
- bhouston 5y ago
  In Hungary, if you do it four times you are exempt from paying taxes for the rest of your life: "Hungarian women with four children or more will be exempted for life from paying income tax, the prime minister has said, unveiling plans designed to boost the number of babies being born." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47192612 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47192612
  - ativzzz 5y ago
    Women with four children will most likely be full time moms for the majority of their productive lives so that's a pointless benefit, unless this policy manages to somehow reverse gender roles as well.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      Even if said lady only rejoins the workforce for 20 years, the savings are fairly significant. Also, knowing Hungary, this is probably intended as a subtle disincentive for the local Roma ghetto population. All the Central and Eastern European states fiddle with their welfare systems not to incentivize higher birthrates among the Roma ghetto population, even if they do not want to state this aloud. That is why the benefits target taxes, which you only pay if you actually work.
      - akudha 5y ago
        Not familiar with Roma, whats wrong with them?
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        Recently (1940s-1950s) forcibly settled former nomads whose culture hasn't yet made the necessary switch. To be fair, it took our Neolithic ancestors much longer than a few generations to adapt, too. Basically, not enough education and a lot of crime in the community. Combined with enormous brain drain, because whoever manages to succeed a bit, moves away and marries into the majority population, thus disappearing as a potential positive influence. This is one of the notorious ghettos in Slovakia, a neighbourhood called Luník IX: https://goo.gl/maps/KPnGTyBtX3NDTpdP6 https://goo.gl/maps/KPnGTyBtX3NDTpdP6
ako 5y ago
European countries may have generous benefits for raising children, but they’re not even close to covering the costs of children. I doubt there are many people who will decide to have children based on these benefits.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- distances 5y ago
  I agree, I wouldn't talk of extremely generous before the benefits cover a larger apartment to house the kids, and other indirect expenses. Unlikely to happen!
  - Beaver117 5y ago
    I'm sure some people are happy to move to the countryside for cheap larger housing if the government pays them
    - lemoncookiechip 5y ago
      Living in the countryside, isn't going to put food on the table for most. People are living the countryside to find jobs and a better life, not the other way around unfortunately.
praptak 5y ago
Are these benefits generous enough to make one feel safe with the crappy job market and the raising costs of living?
nradov 5y ago
The incentives in France have also been somewhat effective relative to peer countries, however they're still below replacement rate.
akudha 5y ago
Today we are at over 7 Billion. Suppose the population falls to say, 2 Billion or something like that. Is that a big problem? Like, what is the optimal number of people that this planet can support, without wreaking havoc on other species that also live here? 2 Billion is still a very large number... This might sound cruel, but the less humans the better.
- vidarh 5y ago
  The issue is not the number. The issue is the rate of change.
  - pzo 5y ago
    I would stay both: rate of change (up or down) and overall size of population - there has to be a ceiling somewhere - if you start filling your bucket with water even slowly at one point it will start overflowing.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      There has to be some sort of ceiling, sure, but the point of focusing on a rate of change is that the ceiling is constantly moving too, no matter what you consider the "ceiling". There are many ceilings. E.g. there's the carrying capacity of earth. But that carrying capacity changes with technological improvements. There's the carrying capacity of the solar system that changes as we get the technology to settle more and more other planets. There's the number of housing units currently available, and the amount of food currently produced, and so on. But a lot of these current ceilings are highly malleable given time to address them, which is why what matters is the rate of change. Even if one assumes there is a hard ceiling on capacity for earth that no technological advance can overcome, as long as the rate of change is low enough we can bypass that by building off-earth colonies fast enough . So ultimately, while you're right there are ceilings, it's still the rate of change that matters: We can build or obtain more buckets to move water to, but we need enough time to do so.
- rowanG077 5y ago
  It seems you answered your own question with: > This might sound cruel, but the less humans the better. Honestly any species will ALWAYS displace some other species. Nature doesn't just let usable energy lay around on long timescales.
mschuster91 5y ago
> Many European countries have extremely generous benefits for raising children, but it has been broadly ineffective at raising birth rates Yeah because even in Germany the Kindergeld of ~220€ per child per month isn't nearly enough to cover the extra cost in rent, much less the actual expenses that a child brings with it. When most people below 30 struggle to make rent, even without children, and actual ownership of a decent sized home is even more unrealistic, they won't have children.

soperj 5y ago

>you could say that global warming is one of its legacies Considering that the majority of emissions came from a select few countries(over half from the EU & USA) that don't make up the majority of the population, and they majority of those emissions have happened while there's been smaller population growth, I don't think it's unfettered population growth that's the problem.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I assume people not consuming as much as the people in the EU and USA have a goal of consuming as much as the people in the EU and USA.
- baybal2 5y ago
  They very much do, but now they have to pay "carbon tax" invented by people who were responsible for most of the pollution until China
  - downWidOutaFite 5y ago
    History isn't fair but this resentment is going to destroy humanity.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      I think it's the "Screw you, I got mine" race-to-the-bottom attitude will destroy us faster. Pointing out this ongoing problem is not resentment - no one wants to talk about per-capita carbon footprint, or have binding targets, because everyone is selfish.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Well, no, it wouldn’t be the resentment destroying humanity, it would be the people who caused all the emissions destroying humanity.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago

naravara 5y ago

Wealth inequality is one of the drivers of reducing family size. As well-compensated, high-status professions require either high up-front costs in education and socialization or high risk early investment the rationale shifts from "needing a lot of hands to keep the family firm going" to "needing to dedicate a lot of resources to set the kids up for success." In other words, the economic incentives today are to "go tall" rather than "go wide" with your kids if family wealth and status is the aim. If inequality is high this becomes more pronounced because the top of the heap will be more desirable and more competitive. Really I think it'll depend on how good the robots end up being. If they're very good at replacing humans then labor won't be able to bid up its pay rates. If the robots are shitty, though, it might work out okay.

pokstad 5y ago
Not sure this makes sense. The biggest driver of family size seems to be lack of birth control or religious beliefs. Wealthy people avoid having children because they either expect too much for their kids or are enjoying their child free lifestyles. Meanwhile, in the US many children are born to the poorest portion of the population.

jay_kyburz 5y ago

It will be much easier to meet carbon emission targets when your population is shrinking rapidly. :)

mytailorisrich 5y ago

Massive population is causing massive issues. The root cause of all current environmental issues is the massive population growth we've been experiencing. Even topping out at 9-10 billion seems very challenging. Ideally, in order to protect the climate, environment at large, and quality of life we should aim to bring population down by a few billions...