3 ms·

From the societal point of view, the difference between TFR 1,5 and 1,8 might be quite crucial. Both translate towards an aging and shrinking population, but on

From the societal point of view, the difference between TFR 1,5 and 1,8 might be quite crucial. Both translate towards an aging and shrinking population, but one of the slopes is much less steep and more manageable. Putting political labels aside, the main current problem with fertility is the length of education and career start. For someone who wants to have a good job, it means spending your twenties without actually making money and obtaining property. In the 30s, when this platform is finally built, plenty of people suddenly find that their fertility is no longer sufficient to produce the desired number of offspring. Given that we are not likely to see shorter career starts anytime soon, IVF improvements seem to be the only way to partially escape this trap. Also, gametes produced by this method could be cheaper in the long run. Classical stimulation involves a lot of doctors and procedures. Maybe this process could be automated and streamlined; it matters way less if you produce "only" 400 ova out of 500 possible than if you get 4 instead of 5 ova from a living person.

mschuster91 3y ago
> Putting political labels aside, the main current problem with fertility is the length of education and career start. For someone who wants to have a good job, it means spending your twenties without actually making money and obtaining property. In the 30s, when this platform is finally built, plenty of people suddenly find that their fertility is no longer sufficient to produce the desired number of offspring. A big part of that is rising life expectancy. I'm 31, and my parents (probably and hopefully) won't die until I'm 60+ myself - which means unlike the generation prior to mine that had a reasonable hope of inheriting some wealth as a kickstarter (i.e. a downpayment or a place to live without having to pay shitloads in rent), I and many others of my generation will not have that. Related to this is that so fucking many Boomers can't leave the workforce - some (more so in the US) because they literally can't afford to live otherwise, but here in the EU more because they are completely unable to imagine a life without work. The result is that all upper layers of management are filled with old people, and young ones can't rise (and earn more money). Just look at the German Mittelstand - the amount of 80+ year olds still running their companies is utterly insane.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  You are right, healthcare improvements have translated into enormous slowdown of generation exchange on the top. The average age of CEOs of the largest 500 companies in the world at hire has grown 14 years between 2005-2019 [0], i.e. no generation exchange at all. Looking at the American politics, the combined age of Trump and Biden exceeded 150 in the last election, first such event in American history. Given that they both may be running again ... oh, well. And in the Czech presidential election, the winner (61 y.o., with a grandfatherly gray mane) defeated a 68-y.o. challenger. Putin is over 70, Xi is over 70, the Pope is over 80, the freshly crowned British king only stopped being "prince" at 74. Now add some more longevity progress onto the table and the once-famously geriatric Brezhnev politburo may start looking like a kindergarten. I can definitely see some members of the American Senate or SCOTUS exceeding 100 by 2050. [0] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/ceo-ages-at-hire.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/ce...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nonameiguess 3y ago
    We already had a 100 year-old Senator 20 years ago, Strom Thurmond. He was a good illustration of the stultifying effect of gerontocracy on change, too. A man who had supported Jim Crow and ran for president on a segregationist platform still serving as Senate Pro Tem in 2003.
- CorrectHorseBat 3y ago
  >A big part of that is rising life expectancy. I'm 31, and my parents (probably and hopefully) won't die until I'm 60+ myself - which means unlike the generation prior to mine that had a reasonable hope of inheriting some wealth as a kickstarter (i.e. a downpayment or a place to live without having to pay shitloads in rent), I and many others of my generation will not have that. I'm of a similar age as you but I don't see how that is any different than the previous generation?
  - 3y ago
bradleyjg 3y ago
> Given that we are not likely to see shorter career starts anytime soon I think you are right but it’s a big indictment of the scoliotic nature of our current culture that it’s inconceivable that we could make even medium sized changes to how things work because they are producing suboptimal results. We are at the civilizational stage where we have massive fights over tiny tweaks at the edges and no longer even dream utopic dreams. I don’t think that’s a healthy sign.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  I think it is mostly a matter of coordination. It is much easier to develop a new fertilization technology than to get 150+ countries of the world to agree (and actually implement that agreement) that they will limit schooling of their youth and give them career opportunities sooner, so that their fertility rises.
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    Why do all 150 countries have to do the same thing? Why can’t the Swedish people decide they are sick and tired of the Washington consensus with its effects on fertility, among other things, and try something different? It was less than 100 years ago that a small but not trivial number of people conceived and founded kibbutzim. Not the somewhat pathetic version that exists today, but the original radical version. I’m not saying it was a great idea but they believed that something different was possible and tried to build it. Who does that today?
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      It is a bit of a Red Queen problem. Surely you can individually opt out of a certain secular trend, but there may be serious adverse consequences. Same as if you decide not to employ, say, gunpowder or the printing press; how many such societies survived the pressure of their neighbours?

mschuster91 3y ago

> Putting political labels aside, the main current problem with fertility is the length of education and career start. For someone who wants to have a good job, it means spending your twenties without actually making money and obtaining property. In the 30s, when this platform is finally built, plenty of people suddenly find that their fertility is no longer sufficient to produce the desired number of offspring. A big part of that is rising life expectancy. I'm 31, and my parents (probably and hopefully) won't die until I'm 60+ myself - which means unlike the generation prior to mine that had a reasonable hope of inheriting some wealth as a kickstarter (i.e. a downpayment or a place to live without having to pay shitloads in rent), I and many others of my generation will not have that. Related to this is that so fucking many Boomers can't leave the workforce - some (more so in the US) because they literally can't afford to live otherwise, but here in the EU more because they are completely unable to imagine a life without work. The result is that all upper layers of management are filled with old people, and young ones can't rise (and earn more money). Just look at the German Mittelstand - the amount of 80+ year olds still running their companies is utterly insane.

inglor_cz 3y ago
You are right, healthcare improvements have translated into enormous slowdown of generation exchange on the top. The average age of CEOs of the largest 500 companies in the world at hire has grown 14 years between 2005-2019 [0], i.e. no generation exchange at all. Looking at the American politics, the combined age of Trump and Biden exceeded 150 in the last election, first such event in American history. Given that they both may be running again ... oh, well. And in the Czech presidential election, the winner (61 y.o., with a grandfatherly gray mane) defeated a 68-y.o. challenger. Putin is over 70, Xi is over 70, the Pope is over 80, the freshly crowned British king only stopped being "prince" at 74. Now add some more longevity progress onto the table and the once-famously geriatric Brezhnev politburo may start looking like a kindergarten. I can definitely see some members of the American Senate or SCOTUS exceeding 100 by 2050. [0] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/ceo-ages-at-hire.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/ce...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nonameiguess 3y ago
  We already had a 100 year-old Senator 20 years ago, Strom Thurmond. He was a good illustration of the stultifying effect of gerontocracy on change, too. A man who had supported Jim Crow and ran for president on a segregationist platform still serving as Senate Pro Tem in 2003.
CorrectHorseBat 3y ago
>A big part of that is rising life expectancy. I'm 31, and my parents (probably and hopefully) won't die until I'm 60+ myself - which means unlike the generation prior to mine that had a reasonable hope of inheriting some wealth as a kickstarter (i.e. a downpayment or a place to live without having to pay shitloads in rent), I and many others of my generation will not have that. I'm of a similar age as you but I don't see how that is any different than the previous generation?
- 3y ago

bradleyjg 3y ago

> Given that we are not likely to see shorter career starts anytime soon I think you are right but it’s a big indictment of the scoliotic nature of our current culture that it’s inconceivable that we could make even medium sized changes to how things work because they are producing suboptimal results. We are at the civilizational stage where we have massive fights over tiny tweaks at the edges and no longer even dream utopic dreams. I don’t think that’s a healthy sign.

inglor_cz 3y ago
I think it is mostly a matter of coordination. It is much easier to develop a new fertilization technology than to get 150+ countries of the world to agree (and actually implement that agreement) that they will limit schooling of their youth and give them career opportunities sooner, so that their fertility rises.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  Why do all 150 countries have to do the same thing? Why can’t the Swedish people decide they are sick and tired of the Washington consensus with its effects on fertility, among other things, and try something different? It was less than 100 years ago that a small but not trivial number of people conceived and founded kibbutzim. Not the somewhat pathetic version that exists today, but the original radical version. I’m not saying it was a great idea but they believed that something different was possible and tried to build it. Who does that today?
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    It is a bit of a Red Queen problem. Surely you can individually opt out of a certain secular trend, but there may be serious adverse consequences. Same as if you decide not to employ, say, gunpowder or the printing press; how many such societies survived the pressure of their neighbours?