4 ms·

Outside of high-tech solutions (external wombs, anti-aging) there's one social: a totalitarian country forcing women to have kids. The only country I could see

Outside of high-tech solutions (external wombs, anti-aging) there's one social: a totalitarian country forcing women to have kids. The only country I could see it happening is China. In the absence of one of the three solutions, technological civilization will peak this century. It's not poverty or culture that leads to not having kids, it's industrialization. Any culture that automates agriculture to a sufficient level will eventually go extinct in the absence of a technological solution. Totalitarianism can work for a while but it's inherently brittle - at best it can give more time for a real technological solution. Maybe it's the great filter. >Even if life extension technology does begin to roll out, any model we can conjure for its use based on current economic systems will limit access to the top fraction of a percent of the population, socioeconomically speaking, and thus be irrelevant in combating the above trend. Completely unsupported assumption. In theory antiaging could even be delivered via a virus that infects almost everyone.

DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
> Any culture that automates agriculture to a sufficient level will eventually go extinct in the absence of a technological solution Sample size: zero. Apart from that I doubt a society should reduce agricultural and horticultural occupations to zero. This is not healthy. We're already using by far too much machinery in developed countries.
- nootropicat 4y ago
  >Sample size: zero. By that logic it's impossible to say that any species is going extinct before it actually disappears. The entire developed world is slowly going extinct, and drastic changes are needed to stop that. Some countries like South Korea are collapsing faster than others. I'm not saying humanity itself will go extinct - because the industrial civilization will collapse first, stopping the demographic collapse - but under the current trend the culture will be gone, most likely viewed as degeneracy of the arrogant ancients.
  - DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
    Your logic is flawless, not every statement with a sample size of zero is false just because no such event has happened before. However, there are a number of causal relationships being made in the original statement with no reasoning offered and no hint why those causal relationships should hold; as such, it amounts to an unfounded assertion. What does seem to hold is that people see less value in having more children when affluence, welfare and education are in reach. But we have yet to see people stopping to get children altogether because of this. And again, I think that calling South Korea a 'collapsing' society is quite dramatic. According to the projection offered by https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/south-korea-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/south-korea-popu... they will take to the year 2100 or so (~80 years from now) to undo the population growth sustained since 1960 (~60 years before now), going back from ~52m to ~25m (observe that the curve shown at the address is not zero-grounded so somewhat misleading at first sight); this means going from a bit over 500 people per km² today (rank 26 of 234 regions, so rather high) to 250 people per km² in 2100 (rank 50 in today's terms), roughly equivalent to the population densities of Luxemburg, between the UK (278p/km²) and Germany (233p/km²). So instead of talking about a 'collapsing South Korean population' without coming forth with any figures we should rather take note that South Korea is thought to have settled on a demographic course that will bring them to a state resembling today's UK, Luxemburg or Germany, within a time span of three to four generations. Whether that will indeed happen is, of course, like any prediction about the future, in principle open; fertility rates could go up or down in the future, and, yes, logically speaking, in theory some day in the future could see the last elderly Korean passing away because no-one cared to reproduce anymore; the Korean Dolly Pentreath so to speak. That's one possibility, however unlikely. However, for those who shudder in the light of such bleak predictions, let me offer the following observations: * As noted, South Korea had ~25m inhabitants in 1960. Theirs was a time of population growth, so a time with plenty of young labor force entering the market who could on a yearly basis get educated to enter the many budding businesses and technologies that are responsible for the Korean Wirtschaftswunder. True, but even so, if those 25m had been growing slower or had just stayed at that number, one would assume that South Korea's rise might have slowed to a less meteoric rise, given its unprecedented clip (caveat: 'unprecedented' is own assumption). * Now if South Korea should maintain its predicted course for some decades, it will be up to the Koreans at that time in the future to decide on their fertility numbers. With the country having to feed and shelter that many less people—be it in the hundreds of thousands or millions—there will be space for more people if need be or the wish arises. Conversely, since unbounded demographic growth is a dead end (because at some point the country will have no more space or offer tolerable living conditions), such growth will simply force the only humane option onto the people of the future, to have fewer or no children, and do it fast. Seeing as one of the more densely populated places on Earth is embarking on a journey to a less-densely populated future should be seen as a sign of hope, not despair.
oneoff786 4y ago
What about a strong democratic country that simply pays people to have kids
- jtbayly 4y ago
  Look at France’s and a few other countries’ attempts along these lines.
Qem 4y ago
Outside high tech solutions, we could just make raising children cheap again. The cost of raising children into adulthood skyrocketed in the last century. No surprise people gave up on being parents. Just make sure housing is affordable, and subside public daycare, education up to university, and health assistance for would be parents, and a lot of people would proudly step forward.
- sim1collins 4y ago
  We address this somewhat in the document. It seems the effect affordable childcare has is more limited than one would hope, though it certainly helps! That said, having kids above repopulation rate might not just be about making things affordable. If people don't have a strong reason to have more than two kids, and if kids don't have tactical value like they did when they contributed to the family business (e.g. did farm labor, helped around a household, provided old-age care), then it can be difficult to justify having more than two even if raising kids is totally cost neutral (simply because it's more complicated to have a larger family—more of a logistical and mental burden).
- nootropicat 4y ago
  How cheap kids are is irrelevant. Population grew much faster when people lived in abject poverty. People empirically don't want kids, full stop. Raising them could be free and tfr would still be below 2. "I can't afford kids" is an excuse used by people who don't want kids but are unable to admit that. You can't actually afford kids if they would be under a real risk of starvation - which is a real risk in North Korea, not any Western country. Don't read me wrong, I'm not saying here having kids is an obligation.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  Children are expensive because the environment they enter is highly competitive. If you want to make kids cheap, you have to reduce the competition for resources, or increase resource abundance. Neither one is particularly achievable through bureaucratic policy.

DemocracyFTW2 4y ago

> Any culture that automates agriculture to a sufficient level will eventually go extinct in the absence of a technological solution Sample size: zero. Apart from that I doubt a society should reduce agricultural and horticultural occupations to zero. This is not healthy. We're already using by far too much machinery in developed countries.

nootropicat 4y ago
>Sample size: zero. By that logic it's impossible to say that any species is going extinct before it actually disappears. The entire developed world is slowly going extinct, and drastic changes are needed to stop that. Some countries like South Korea are collapsing faster than others. I'm not saying humanity itself will go extinct - because the industrial civilization will collapse first, stopping the demographic collapse - but under the current trend the culture will be gone, most likely viewed as degeneracy of the arrogant ancients.
- DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
  Your logic is flawless, not every statement with a sample size of zero is false just because no such event has happened before. However, there are a number of causal relationships being made in the original statement with no reasoning offered and no hint why those causal relationships should hold; as such, it amounts to an unfounded assertion. What does seem to hold is that people see less value in having more children when affluence, welfare and education are in reach. But we have yet to see people stopping to get children altogether because of this. And again, I think that calling South Korea a 'collapsing' society is quite dramatic. According to the projection offered by https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/south-korea-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/south-korea-popu... they will take to the year 2100 or so (~80 years from now) to undo the population growth sustained since 1960 (~60 years before now), going back from ~52m to ~25m (observe that the curve shown at the address is not zero-grounded so somewhat misleading at first sight); this means going from a bit over 500 people per km² today (rank 26 of 234 regions, so rather high) to 250 people per km² in 2100 (rank 50 in today's terms), roughly equivalent to the population densities of Luxemburg, between the UK (278p/km²) and Germany (233p/km²). So instead of talking about a 'collapsing South Korean population' without coming forth with any figures we should rather take note that South Korea is thought to have settled on a demographic course that will bring them to a state resembling today's UK, Luxemburg or Germany, within a time span of three to four generations. Whether that will indeed happen is, of course, like any prediction about the future, in principle open; fertility rates could go up or down in the future, and, yes, logically speaking, in theory some day in the future could see the last elderly Korean passing away because no-one cared to reproduce anymore; the Korean Dolly Pentreath so to speak. That's one possibility, however unlikely. However, for those who shudder in the light of such bleak predictions, let me offer the following observations: * As noted, South Korea had ~25m inhabitants in 1960. Theirs was a time of population growth, so a time with plenty of young labor force entering the market who could on a yearly basis get educated to enter the many budding businesses and technologies that are responsible for the Korean Wirtschaftswunder. True, but even so, if those 25m had been growing slower or had just stayed at that number, one would assume that South Korea's rise might have slowed to a less meteoric rise, given its unprecedented clip (caveat: 'unprecedented' is own assumption). * Now if South Korea should maintain its predicted course for some decades, it will be up to the Koreans at that time in the future to decide on their fertility numbers. With the country having to feed and shelter that many less people—be it in the hundreds of thousands or millions—there will be space for more people if need be or the wish arises. Conversely, since unbounded demographic growth is a dead end (because at some point the country will have no more space or offer tolerable living conditions), such growth will simply force the only humane option onto the people of the future, to have fewer or no children, and do it fast. Seeing as one of the more densely populated places on Earth is embarking on a journey to a less-densely populated future should be seen as a sign of hope, not despair.

oneoff786 4y ago

What about a strong democratic country that simply pays people to have kids

jtbayly 4y ago
Look at France’s and a few other countries’ attempts along these lines.

Qem 4y ago

Outside high tech solutions, we could just make raising children cheap again. The cost of raising children into adulthood skyrocketed in the last century. No surprise people gave up on being parents. Just make sure housing is affordable, and subside public daycare, education up to university, and health assistance for would be parents, and a lot of people would proudly step forward.

sim1collins 4y ago
We address this somewhat in the document. It seems the effect affordable childcare has is more limited than one would hope, though it certainly helps! That said, having kids above repopulation rate might not just be about making things affordable. If people don't have a strong reason to have more than two kids, and if kids don't have tactical value like they did when they contributed to the family business (e.g. did farm labor, helped around a household, provided old-age care), then it can be difficult to justify having more than two even if raising kids is totally cost neutral (simply because it's more complicated to have a larger family—more of a logistical and mental burden).
nootropicat 4y ago
How cheap kids are is irrelevant. Population grew much faster when people lived in abject poverty. People empirically don't want kids, full stop. Raising them could be free and tfr would still be below 2. "I can't afford kids" is an excuse used by people who don't want kids but are unable to admit that. You can't actually afford kids if they would be under a real risk of starvation - which is a real risk in North Korea, not any Western country. Don't read me wrong, I'm not saying here having kids is an obligation.
antisthenes 4y ago
Children are expensive because the environment they enter is highly competitive. If you want to make kids cheap, you have to reduce the competition for resources, or increase resource abundance. Neither one is particularly achievable through bureaucratic policy.