> many demographers still believed that the very low fertility rates then prevalent in Europe ... would eventually ... converge close to two children per woman

> many demographers still believed that the very low fertility rates then prevalent in Europe ... would eventually ... converge close to two children per woman Well, wont it? We've not seem European population (as opposed to fertility rate) drop significantly enough for us to determine whether or not there's a bounce-back. > Fertility is plummeting in places as varied as etc. etc. Well, if a country has a lot of people, living in relative concentration (cities), and in various kinds of duress - does that not make sense? In other words, and focusing just on the population size: Why would drops in fertility stop because of its own self rather than the population size/density? > it imposes unmanageable strains on a society. This is a bit like asking whether accelerating your car does not make you worried about relativistic time dilation. I mean, sure, if fertility were to drop to half-replacement for a couple of decades there would be strains; but even those would be manageable. The post is discussing a fantastical situation. Especially since a large drop in _population_ would spur an increase in fertility by the increased availability of accommodation, potential useful work etc. > The question is what happens if young Koreans get accustomed to living single and child-free lives. Ah, now we're getting to the crux of the matter. Well, the author is conflating several things: 1. bearing children or not 2. raising one's children or not 3. being a single adult or living in a couple (or larger sexual-familial arrangement) (1.) and (2.) have always been in merely partial correlation for men, nor have (1.) and (2.) - not even (2.) and (3.), although (2.) does imply not-(3.) almost always. As for women - recent decades have seen a great increase in women raising children alone, for better or for worse. Finally, in many societies, children are raised more communally beyond a certain age. But even having said that - I am willing to acknowledge the theoretical danger of societies cultivating individuals to be emotionally detached, locked in their individual homes, and reclusive sans Internet - leading also to them not having kids. But talk about that, man, don't beat around the bush! > general public is not clamoring for action... people ... are focused on immediate headaches such as inflation, housing costs or employment. That _is_ clamoring for action! And by the way, it's interesting to check whether a part of the cause for reduced fertility is how Capitalist society now squeezes so many more work hours from women. Yes, it's more egalitarian, and that's a good thing IMHO, but instead of having women working for a wage (close to) full time, the (alienated) work week should be lower for both men and women. > On the Left, it is too often dismissed as a non-issue or welcomed as a step toward degrowth – one whose environmental benefits will surely outweigh any social costs. Many, if not most, on the Left [1] is typically quite concerned about the effects of changes such as demographics on individuals and communities. So, even while welcoming population leveling off in general, it's unfair to suggest that social costs are ignored. At least this is an over-generalization. ---- [1] - I don't mean cultural identity-politics like the US democratic party. But then, the question of what constitutes "The Left" can launch a thousand threads.