>It is often said that governments can do little to increase the birth rate. I find this implausible. What's implausible about it? It's very easy for me to bur

>It is often said that governments can do little to increase the birth rate. I find this implausible. What's implausible about it? It's very easy for me to burn my house down, a match and some lighter fluid should do the trick. I've never learnt the trick of unburning it down. Some effects are "one-way". They're ratchets. The theory that is presented only applies to the United States. But governments throughout the world are struggling with falling (plummeting, really) fertility rates, and not all of them have the same irritating car seat laws. I believe that most people would agree that anti-smoking campaigns (through television commercials and media advertisements mostly) work, and there is a measurable reduction in smoking behavior. What most people would be surprised at is that there is another campaign, at least as effective as and maybe moreso, that discourages procreation. Every standup comedian for the past 50 years, every sitcom, every NYT article telling everyone how they need $1 million per child to raise them to adulthood. Certainly this particular campaign isn't deliberate like the other, but it still exists. It may be so that because it isn't deliberate and that there is no one person or organization causing it, that it may be impossible to turn off. I do not have this square on my human extinction bingo card.