4 ms·

birth rates in pretty much every developed nation are below replacement level. Some countries are using migration as a sort of band-aid fixed but the worst fear

birth rates in pretty much every developed nation are below replacement level. Some countries are using migration as a sort of band-aid fixed but the worst fears are starting to come true recently. Previously some people had thought or hoped that falling birthrates was/is a natural concequence of becoming rich enough, that as countries develop kids are seen as less of a necessity. But iirc newer data shows falling birthrates even in poorer nations that are stagnant/not developing. They are still well above replacement rate for now but its not a good trend. As for reasons why: nobody has one single cause, but a major one is that current economies mean children are more of a cost than a benefit, and even the most ambitious incentive programs dont make up for the toll of both working a job and taking care of a helpless human. As for why this is a bad thing: There are a lot of inbuilt assumptions to the way society is structured that will begin to break down. Things like: there are more workers than retirees. There are more students than teachers. There are more juior employees than managers. When these kinds of things start to change, we will have to adapt society or things will just fall apart. You're already starting to see previews of this sort of crisis in sectors where few young people join, like becoming merchant ship captains. People having to be called back from retirement, buisnesses failing not from lack of buisness but from lack of employees

noelwelsh 3y ago
The human population cannot grow indefinitely without moving to other planets, which is very much infeasible now and probably infeasible into the foreseeable future. Society just has to adapt. The problem I see is our current leaders are only interested in pushing the problem down the road. Declining population (which won't actually decline till 2080-ish IIRC) is not in itself a problem.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  I agree. This is a transitory state, where a lot of assumption built into the social contract will break down. If we can fix them (and presumably we will... eventually), there is nothing inherently bad about a declining population. But in the meantime things may get interesting.
- kiba 3y ago
  We still have plenty of room on this planet, and upcoming medical technology may change the equation on the number of people dying. I hope to start a family before people start imposing measure to limit population growth.
  - RugnirViking 3y ago
    it is extrodinarily unlikely anyone will do such as thing. As I noted earlier. the birth rate is below replacement rate in almost all developed countries. If not for immigrants population would be shrinking. If anything they would demand more children...
    - kiba 3y ago
      It is because the elderly are dying, same as they always been dying through out the ages. The older you get the more likely you are to die. The current demographic trend is based on this assumption. It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death.
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        > It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death. What does “Meaningfully reducing the probability of death” mean? I thought death is certain. Do you mean pushing death further into to future, say by hundreds or thousands of years?
        kiba 3y ago
        The probability of death is correlated to your chronological age. The older you are, the more likely you are to die. Eliminating or reducing the probability of death correlated to chronological age means our average lifespan is likely to be thousand of years, but not unlimited since we will die to other causes, likely involving accidents and natural disaster.
  - thatfrenchguy 3y ago
- cma 3y ago
  Growing at a fixed percentage each year can never go on without growing faster than can fit in our light cone.
kaashif 3y ago
But smaller developed countries can turn on the immigration taps a bit and continue population growth even as world population drastically shrinks. This won't work forever, but it may buy a century or so.
throwaway03626 3y ago
In my opinion it could be solved by simply making it more attractive to have children, but it would require more equality and redistribution of wealth to cover the costs. There would still be billionaires, but the number of ultra-rich may be reduced. Women wants careers and equal opportunities. That means they wait longer and longer before they get children because they want to make sure they have a career to go back to. That is the single most important problem that we need to solve. 1. Provide a decent parental leave (1 year minimum) with full pay. 2. Women often end up as the primary care giver who has to take care of the child when it is sick or attend parental meetings. This often hurts their career. We should incentivise men to take an equal part in raising a child, so that this is more accepted in work situations. 3. Provide free child care and health care. Many simply can't afford the additional financial burden of a child. 4. Provide free education including University. (see point 3) 5. Reduce the financial risk by creating a good safety net. If one or both of the parents are not able to cover their part, the government needs to provide enough support. Simply put, the choice of having a child should not hurt families financially, or hurt their careers. Humans are "programmed" to want to reproduce, so if we remove the financial barriers Yes, this will be expensive but it will be less expensive than a future without enough young people to take care of the old. You are free to ask "Why should my money go to others", but then you don't get to complain when you are 90 years old and only get to shower once a month because they don't have enough people to help you.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Norway is close to providing all of what you describe and still seeing well below replacement fertility rates. It maybe be a start, and it produces a far more pleasant society, but it's not enough.
  - throwaway03626 3y ago
    There are other concerns as well related to cost of living. Even though we would like people to live outside the cities, cities attract a lot of potential parents. They end up in a situation where they have a long education and start their careers late and don't have the financial capability to get a decent family friendly apartment in the city. Many wait until it's almost too late, and having more than 1 or 2 is definitely not something most wants The average age of first-time mothers is over 30 years old. A single child may be something the family can handle, but more than 1 or 2 forces the families to move outside the cities to be able to afford a house in addition to hurting the mother's career. Tldr: - Cost of living in the cities are too high - If a second (or third) child forces them to move out of the city, many increasingly choose the cities - Having more than one child after 30 will have a negative impact on the career as they simply can't work as many hours and has to spend long periods away from work

noelwelsh 3y ago

The human population cannot grow indefinitely without moving to other planets, which is very much infeasible now and probably infeasible into the foreseeable future. Society just has to adapt. The problem I see is our current leaders are only interested in pushing the problem down the road. Declining population (which won't actually decline till 2080-ish IIRC) is not in itself a problem.

RugnirViking 3y ago
I agree. This is a transitory state, where a lot of assumption built into the social contract will break down. If we can fix them (and presumably we will... eventually), there is nothing inherently bad about a declining population. But in the meantime things may get interesting.
kiba 3y ago
We still have plenty of room on this planet, and upcoming medical technology may change the equation on the number of people dying. I hope to start a family before people start imposing measure to limit population growth.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  it is extrodinarily unlikely anyone will do such as thing. As I noted earlier. the birth rate is below replacement rate in almost all developed countries. If not for immigrants population would be shrinking. If anything they would demand more children...
  - kiba 3y ago
    It is because the elderly are dying, same as they always been dying through out the ages. The older you get the more likely you are to die. The current demographic trend is based on this assumption. It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death. What does “Meaningfully reducing the probability of death” mean? I thought death is certain. Do you mean pushing death further into to future, say by hundreds or thousands of years?
      - kiba 3y ago
        The probability of death is correlated to your chronological age. The older you are, the more likely you are to die. Eliminating or reducing the probability of death correlated to chronological age means our average lifespan is likely to be thousand of years, but not unlimited since we will die to other causes, likely involving accidents and natural disaster.
- thatfrenchguy 3y ago
cma 3y ago
Growing at a fixed percentage each year can never go on without growing faster than can fit in our light cone.

kaashif 3y ago

But smaller developed countries can turn on the immigration taps a bit and continue population growth even as world population drastically shrinks. This won't work forever, but it may buy a century or so.

throwaway03626 3y ago

In my opinion it could be solved by simply making it more attractive to have children, but it would require more equality and redistribution of wealth to cover the costs. There would still be billionaires, but the number of ultra-rich may be reduced. Women wants careers and equal opportunities. That means they wait longer and longer before they get children because they want to make sure they have a career to go back to. That is the single most important problem that we need to solve. 1. Provide a decent parental leave (1 year minimum) with full pay. 2. Women often end up as the primary care giver who has to take care of the child when it is sick or attend parental meetings. This often hurts their career. We should incentivise men to take an equal part in raising a child, so that this is more accepted in work situations. 3. Provide free child care and health care. Many simply can't afford the additional financial burden of a child. 4. Provide free education including University. (see point 3) 5. Reduce the financial risk by creating a good safety net. If one or both of the parents are not able to cover their part, the government needs to provide enough support. Simply put, the choice of having a child should not hurt families financially, or hurt their careers. Humans are "programmed" to want to reproduce, so if we remove the financial barriers Yes, this will be expensive but it will be less expensive than a future without enough young people to take care of the old. You are free to ask "Why should my money go to others", but then you don't get to complain when you are 90 years old and only get to shower once a month because they don't have enough people to help you.

vidarh 3y ago
Norway is close to providing all of what you describe and still seeing well below replacement fertility rates. It maybe be a start, and it produces a far more pleasant society, but it's not enough.
- throwaway03626 3y ago
  There are other concerns as well related to cost of living. Even though we would like people to live outside the cities, cities attract a lot of potential parents. They end up in a situation where they have a long education and start their careers late and don't have the financial capability to get a decent family friendly apartment in the city. Many wait until it's almost too late, and having more than 1 or 2 is definitely not something most wants The average age of first-time mothers is over 30 years old. A single child may be something the family can handle, but more than 1 or 2 forces the families to move outside the cities to be able to afford a house in addition to hurting the mother's career. Tldr: - Cost of living in the cities are too high - If a second (or third) child forces them to move out of the city, many increasingly choose the cities - Having more than one child after 30 will have a negative impact on the career as they simply can't work as many hours and has to spend long periods away from work