3 ms·

Please explain how a population that sees its fertility rate voluntarily drop below replacement will ever have it raise back up to replacement level. No little

Please explain how a population that sees its fertility rate voluntarily drop below replacement will ever have it raise back up to replacement level. No little girl who grows up seeing few, if any women, have children will think to herself "I want 2.1 when I grow up!". But, all must do this, or fertility rates never recover. If not all girls do that, then some must instead say "I want 4.5 when I grow up" or "I want 8.9 when I am a woman"... which seems even less likely. It's an inevitable, inescapable mathematical fact.

LUmBULtERA 3y ago
People are responding to incentives. Costs, including opportunity costs, increase substantially when we're beyond the equilibrium population. As population declines and constraints ease, the costs of having children will decrease, and fertility rates will increase. All women will not need to have 2+ children for an equilibrium. Some women and families will want 0 or 1, and some will want more. But in any case, people obviously respond to incentives, and the people who think there is an "inescapable mathematical fact" that population will simply continue trending to 0 ignore this fact entirely.
- twelve40 3y ago
  this has never been done for any sustained period in any society ever, despite incentives of all kinds that were tried in the past. All human experience so far has been: this trend is irreversible. But, you came up with this random idea that a little economic reshuffling will quickly fix things when needed. How do you know that? You also came up with the idea that it's really no big deal, even though the prime minister of Japan and other authorities publicly say that they are losing their ability to function as a society and this trend is hurting them very much already. So much for "not a huge problem" and "it's just silly fearmongering".
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    He seems to think that the "constraints will ease" as the Japanese economy implodes even further. It might even be true that with the right incentives, they could convince the childless to have children. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to get that just because there is a theoretical incentive that could work doesn't mean that same theoretical incentive is anything anyone could hope to afford.
  - GloomyBoots 3y ago
    > this has never been done for any sustained period in any society ever, despite incentives of all kinds that were tried in the past Assuming that fertility decline is irreversible, this would mean that you should have specific examples of entire populations that have died not of disease or conquest, but reproductive ennui. I don’t think so.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      1. There's a first time for everything. 2. The "ennui" as you refer to it, is clearly a modern phenomenon. It couldn't have happened before now. 3. We've already seen this verified experimentally with animal models, multiple times. Despite having unlimited food, water, and entertainment, the populations crash and never recover. If you don't think so, it's just because you haven't bothered to think about it.
      - GloomyBoots 3y ago
        1 and 2 directly contradict the point I was responding to. If you want to claim that this is a novel phenomenon, fine (I agree at least in part). But I was directly addressing the claim that this is a historical one. I don’t think so because, as you agree, it hasn’t happened before. I’m somewhat familiar with Calhoun’s studies if that’s what you’re referencing, but I don’t think they’re perfectly applicable to human societies where there’s no outside force maintaining everything for us. Reproduction slows, accompanied by economic stagnation and infrastructural failures, and all of a sudden we’re not in our little mouse utopia anymore. These little collapses aren’t necessarily bad. It’s artificially pushing onward in the name of GDP that I think leads to even bigger collapses down the road.
    - twelve40 3y ago
      > you should have specific examples no i shouldn't you should give examples of this trend reversed, the original claim is "this is easy", "humans respond to incentives". but guess what? there are no examples of this trend reversed. Briefly, for a decade, Iran maybe. Your turn to defend the original claim that "just give them some incentives and everything will be just fine".
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Unless everyone feels exactly the same way, natural selection will dominate and behavior will change. In 50 years, the childless people will be dead, and the children of breeders will be alive with children of their own. Rinse and repeat every 50 years. Unless every person on earth is in agreement to not have children, the problem solves itself.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  None of this happens in isolation. The people who have no children don't hide in their basements... they're out there in public, teaching the children of others how awesome it is to be childless. Or, if I'm less hyperbolic, being the wrong sort of role model. If they convert children more quickly than others can have them, then this still goes downhill. How do you even model that? Is it fertility rate - conversion rate = 2.1? I suspect that conversion rate to be significant. I'd be shocked if it's not closing in on 1.0 (or already blown past it). We can do a gutcheck mental exercise here. The Duggars have 20ish children. Will they reach 400 grandchildren, or even come close?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Talk with people might not be in basements, but I think they'll have less impact on children then the parents of those children Duggars might not have 400 grandchildren, but I bet big money that they'll have more than 2.1 grandchildren.
GloomyBoots 3y ago
> Please explain how a population that sees its fertility rate voluntarily drop below replacement will ever have it raise back up to replacement level. Fertility rates tend to fluctuate in relation to stressors like resource availability. > No little girl who grows up seeing few, if any women, have children will think to herself "I want 2.1 when I grow up!". Why not? Baby booms are very real. This is normal human behavior. Edit: Just one example would be the short-lived COVID baby boom. Remarkable how responsive people are to changes when you think that this is mathematically impossible.

LUmBULtERA 3y ago

People are responding to incentives. Costs, including opportunity costs, increase substantially when we're beyond the equilibrium population. As population declines and constraints ease, the costs of having children will decrease, and fertility rates will increase. All women will not need to have 2+ children for an equilibrium. Some women and families will want 0 or 1, and some will want more. But in any case, people obviously respond to incentives, and the people who think there is an "inescapable mathematical fact" that population will simply continue trending to 0 ignore this fact entirely.

twelve40 3y ago
this has never been done for any sustained period in any society ever, despite incentives of all kinds that were tried in the past. All human experience so far has been: this trend is irreversible. But, you came up with this random idea that a little economic reshuffling will quickly fix things when needed. How do you know that? You also came up with the idea that it's really no big deal, even though the prime minister of Japan and other authorities publicly say that they are losing their ability to function as a society and this trend is hurting them very much already. So much for "not a huge problem" and "it's just silly fearmongering".
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  He seems to think that the "constraints will ease" as the Japanese economy implodes even further. It might even be true that with the right incentives, they could convince the childless to have children. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to get that just because there is a theoretical incentive that could work doesn't mean that same theoretical incentive is anything anyone could hope to afford.
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  > this has never been done for any sustained period in any society ever, despite incentives of all kinds that were tried in the past Assuming that fertility decline is irreversible, this would mean that you should have specific examples of entire populations that have died not of disease or conquest, but reproductive ennui. I don’t think so.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    1. There's a first time for everything. 2. The "ennui" as you refer to it, is clearly a modern phenomenon. It couldn't have happened before now. 3. We've already seen this verified experimentally with animal models, multiple times. Despite having unlimited food, water, and entertainment, the populations crash and never recover. If you don't think so, it's just because you haven't bothered to think about it.
    - GloomyBoots 3y ago
      1 and 2 directly contradict the point I was responding to. If you want to claim that this is a novel phenomenon, fine (I agree at least in part). But I was directly addressing the claim that this is a historical one. I don’t think so because, as you agree, it hasn’t happened before. I’m somewhat familiar with Calhoun’s studies if that’s what you’re referencing, but I don’t think they’re perfectly applicable to human societies where there’s no outside force maintaining everything for us. Reproduction slows, accompanied by economic stagnation and infrastructural failures, and all of a sudden we’re not in our little mouse utopia anymore. These little collapses aren’t necessarily bad. It’s artificially pushing onward in the name of GDP that I think leads to even bigger collapses down the road.
  - twelve40 3y ago
    > you should have specific examples no i shouldn't you should give examples of this trend reversed, the original claim is "this is easy", "humans respond to incentives". but guess what? there are no examples of this trend reversed. Briefly, for a decade, Iran maybe. Your turn to defend the original claim that "just give them some incentives and everything will be just fine".

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Unless everyone feels exactly the same way, natural selection will dominate and behavior will change. In 50 years, the childless people will be dead, and the children of breeders will be alive with children of their own. Rinse and repeat every 50 years. Unless every person on earth is in agreement to not have children, the problem solves itself.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
None of this happens in isolation. The people who have no children don't hide in their basements... they're out there in public, teaching the children of others how awesome it is to be childless. Or, if I'm less hyperbolic, being the wrong sort of role model. If they convert children more quickly than others can have them, then this still goes downhill. How do you even model that? Is it fertility rate - conversion rate = 2.1? I suspect that conversion rate to be significant. I'd be shocked if it's not closing in on 1.0 (or already blown past it). We can do a gutcheck mental exercise here. The Duggars have 20ish children. Will they reach 400 grandchildren, or even come close?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Talk with people might not be in basements, but I think they'll have less impact on children then the parents of those children Duggars might not have 400 grandchildren, but I bet big money that they'll have more than 2.1 grandchildren.

GloomyBoots 3y ago

> Please explain how a population that sees its fertility rate voluntarily drop below replacement will ever have it raise back up to replacement level. Fertility rates tend to fluctuate in relation to stressors like resource availability. > No little girl who grows up seeing few, if any women, have children will think to herself "I want 2.1 when I grow up!". Why not? Baby booms are very real. This is normal human behavior. Edit: Just one example would be the short-lived COVID baby boom. Remarkable how responsive people are to changes when you think that this is mathematically impossible.