9 ms·

Suddenly There Aren't Enough Babies. The Whole World Is Alarmed

30 points by jseliger 2y ago

jseliger 2y ago
https://archive.ph/dQdUP https://archive.ph/dQdUP
anonzzzies 2y ago
Besides feeding the economy (and by that, I mean buying consumerist stuff from large corps) and providing the army with cannon fodder, I still haven’t haven’t heard a lot of good arguments for having these babies. Humanity would shrink (I think this is calculated to start after 2050 or so), but besides those two reasons, does that matter? Where is the foundation of the argument that we must have population growth to sustain? Or where is the research that shows if we halve the population, everything will be terrible?
- paulus_magnus2 2y ago
  That's not the 1st time I see this thinking fallacy. please talk to your grandparents about the topic and report back to us.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Grandparents who lived lot more poorly or had their siblings die as babies? Lot more babies survive and their living standards are much higher. Maybe that is reasonable trade-off...
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    My grandparents are dead, but I doubt they would have much to say about it; they had kids (in the 1940s) because their parents would not accept anything less; religion + marriage + kids. They often told me and my parents they didn't want kids and they were supposed to have as many as possible but they only had one and promised to have more but never did. But what great insights would they come up with pray tell? In those days (it was WOII) it was to work the land (economy), cannon fodder and pension plan (have them take care of you). What else?
    - thinkingemote 2y ago
      If it wasn't for your grandparents you wouldn't be here. That's what is else, your very existence! I'm sure you would agree, your life has value and meaning beyond a utilitarian or disposable cog in a wheel. By extension therefore all lives are equally valuable and necessary.
      - anonzzzies 2y ago
        > Your life has value It does? Measured by what? That's what I say; I'm a consumer, but beyond that, how am I valuable? How are you? > By extension all lives are equally valuable and necessary. You are a vegan? Are plants lives lives? Also, putting too much pressure on the planet with over population makes it the opposite of valuable.
        thinkingemote 2y ago
        By any measurement you care to make yourself. You value your own life.
        anonzzzies 2y ago
        > You value your own life. We are an accidental blib in a cold vast cosmos; nothing and no-one would think of us or remember us if the earth explodes today (or if someone hits the nuke button). I 'value' my life in so far that I am not in pain and I was born in the right location with the right interests (math + computing) to do whatever I want to sit it out until I die. How is any of it a reason to make more babies though or a sign we have a shortage just because we make less than we need to create a population equilibrium or growth?
      - card_zero 2y ago
        "You, an existing person, find you prefer to stay alive" is not an argument for "more babies are always better". If the reason that there are fewer babies is that potential parents don't want them, then it's possible that there are exactly the right amount of babies, and the ensuing problems should be solved by other means than pressuring these unenthused couples to reproduce. I think that creating more happy people is better, not more people per se.
- gattilorenz 2y ago
  An aging population that lives longer and longer + shrinking workforce means - the pension system can't be sustained, but also - more and more people need support of doctors, nurses, care homes, etc. but can't find it or it becomes more and more expensive (but see problem above regarding their pensions). Historically children take care of their parents when they are old and in need; in the past century more and more of this has been delegated to society at large. In both cases though you need young people.
  - zelos 2y ago
    There has to be a system where pensions and elderly care can be sustained at replacement birth rates, doesn't there? Otherwise we're in real trouble.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      It is also question of what level of care and investment to elderly is accepted. Many of us want to live as long as possible, but maybe there needs to be some qualitative cut off. Age and situation this happens varies but at some point society can't pay things like life support forever...
    - johngladtj 2y ago
      Sure, that is not this system though. If you'd like to implement it you're welcome to go tell your largest voting bloc that your primary objective is to almost completely remove their entitlements and leave them to starve to death. Who knows, maybe after they are finished lynching you you might get elected.
    - gattilorenz 2y ago
      As johngladtj says, there might be one, but it's not the current one. And the articles states that "some estimates now put the number of babies each woman has below the global replacement rate of about 2.2. The U.S. long ago passed that level." - so even finding one that works at replacement birth rates could not be enough.
- GeoAtreides 2y ago
  > I still haven’t haven’t heard a lot of good arguments for having these babies. A larger population means bigger numbers on the everything that's on a normal distribution, like intelligence. That one genius in a 100 million? With 1B population, you only have 10 of them. With 8B population, there are 80. That's 8x more chances one of them does or finds something revolutionary, 8x chances that person is not perishing somewhere in a cobalt mine as a kid. It slashes times waiting for a genius to appear 8x. A bigger population also enables extreme specialisation in very niche fields. It enables bigger recruitment pools for complex processes and manufacturers like, for example, ASML. It's, in a short word, massive parallelism. Now, a counter-argument to everything I said is looking at the demographics of geniuses, revolutionaries, specialists and noticing most of them were well-fed, well-educated and raised in stable, liberal societies (liberal as opposed to, say, taliban-like societies). So, in theory, we could get by with a smaller population, if it was a rich, western-like, population. In that case, the only constraint would become genetics; so an 100M population would have to wait a couple of generations for their genius, instead of a 8B pop potentially getting them all at once.
  - netsharc 2y ago
    Seems like a balancing act... If all 8B people have western living standards, we'll boil the planet up even more quickly than at the current rate...
    - GeoAtreides 2y ago
      Well-fed, well-educated and safe doesn't necessary imply western living standards.
      - Arnt 2y ago
        Not clear to me that Western living standards really imply Western resource usage. Like: flying costs a lot in terms of resources, but is it more than 1% of the perceived living standards?
      - r00fus 2y ago
        See China.
- Arnt 2y ago
  The change is a problem. If you expect x plumbers to be needed in year y and x/2 not many years later (within the span of a plumber's working life), how many should choose to become plumbers in each year? How about buildings and other infrastructure with long lifetimes? Rapid change makes those things difficult. Don't want random home owners to have to speculate on that, and for some of them to lose their shirts when the population is too low to find a buyer for their home.
  - CogitoCogito 2y ago
    How haven't these problems _always_ existed? What do they have to do with drop in overall population? If change is the problem, then both population growth and movement of populations are already problems and always have been.
    - Arnt 2y ago
      They always exist. Sometimes they're a minor problem, the steepness of the expected change makes them a major problem in some areas. But this kind of thing always exists. For example, logistics companies have problems hiring in some countries right now because young people don't see driving trucks as a viable career for forty years, but the logistics companies need drivers for the next ten years or more.
- atonse 2y ago
  It doesn’t have to be growth vs reduction. It can be slower growth or let’s stay close to replacement rates? Others have listed why this will be bad.
- d1sxeyes 2y ago
  Because we're idiots and terrible at forward planning. Currently pensions and retirement ages are based on the idea that there will be some large cohort of people working to pay the pensions of the folks that are retired. In fact, governments are even borrowing against future pension contributions made by that cohort, so it's not even that the future cohort needs to pay for the current cohort, they need to cover it and some to make up for the lending. Realistically, this is never going to happen, and this is where fiscal policy starts to deviate from mathematical first principles. In case there is some kind of reduction in the workforce, then we do not have a plan to care for our elderly. Already, young adults are finding it difficult to afford homes for themselves, even with a higher proportion of families with two incomes. We would see an increase in the chasm between the rich and poor, as those able to own property would be able to both look after themselves and their families, and would be able to continue to grow their wealth by charging rent to those who are unable to afford to buy. This especially would be accentuated if population decline were gradual, as then the rich would be able to continue to snap up the homes that come onto the market and rent them out. A short sharp halving of the population would likely leave a surplus of homes on the market, at affordable prices for everyone, and would perhaps even lead to a better quality of life for most. But that's not an organic process, and certainly leads to a worse quality of life for the unlucky half...
- Balgair 2y ago
  More people generally is better. I do some fantasy world-building in the little free time I have. The setting is diesel-punk/atom-punk, so 1950s era. A little bit of disco-punk mixed in too. Essentially, modern post-war USA. So, when I try to model a city, or a country in this era, you gotta go after the data. Because we actually have it for this setting. Medieval data is just horrible in comparison. The high fantasy settings will get a little bit of data on city dynamics and some on 'nation' level data and the like. But most of the modeling is starting from pretty much guessing with wide errorbars. But in the atom-punk setting I have, there is just mountains of data from all over the world. It makes modeling really easy and you can get really fine-grained about it (much to the detriment of story-telling, I get lost in those tables and charts, happily so). One thing that really stands out in trying to model this data is that population is literally everything. How grimy a city is, how tall the skyscrapers are, the walking speed of people in the city, the talking speed of bank tellers, the number of patents per capita, the monthly charge for sewer access, tonnage of warships, the length of subway track and it's heights, etc. Pretty much every metric will correlate best with the population of the area. It's not just cities, it's states and countries and smaller towns too. Really anything about the setting and world-building is best modeled by looking at the population first and then working from there. To be clear here, not the population density. The only metric I could find in my notes that better correlated with population-density was the number of subway stops on a line. I'm sure there are other examples, too. But, in the years that I've been doing this, the number one thing that seems to pop out to me is: Raw population is everything. Now, I'm mostly interested in themes and settings and the like. But most of the data is coming from the motivation of trying to increase the quality of life of people. So I get to stare at that a lot and make graphs. And I can say from my eyeballing of all this data over the last few years: More people = better. Most of the metrics we use to quantify if things are 'good' or 'bad' will correlate with more people = better. It's not, by any means, a 1-1 thing. This is human population stuff, If you see a r2 value of, like, 0.6, that's pretty darn good. There is a lot of noise here and the stats that are taken have just huge issues with them. I'm not going to be able to really prove this, I'm just mucking around with a setting and world-building. But from the years that I have been staring at my poorly organized notes and the various governmental and NGO data tables, the underlying message is that things get better with more people around.
beardyw 2y ago
The societies we live in are a precarious balance based on assumptions like we can grow food and we don't all try to kill each other. One part has become: our population continues to grow. It is less dramatic than those others, but it's impact should not be ignored.
michaelhoney 2y ago
"the whole world": - economists & businesspeople who can't conceive of a world without growth - religious people who think God wants them to be fruitful and multiply - atheists who think we have some kind of evolutionary imperative - parents who think that being childfree is an affront to their choices
- atonse 2y ago
  wow, that’s really quite reductive. It sounds more like this might be a choice you feel strongly about but are projecting selfishness on to others? This can be a totally fine choice for someone to make personally (which I support), but also not good for society as a whole. Both things can objectively be true.
  - CogitoCogito 2y ago
    Are you saying it's selfish to not have kids? Other than accidental parents, I've never met any who didn't have kids because they wanted them. How were they not acting selfishly?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - CogitoCogito 2y ago
      It's interesting to see this comment downvoted. I'm honestly curious as to the thinking here. How are parents having kids because they want them not acting selfishly?
      - RestlessMind 2y ago
        Actually both parents and non-parents exhibit selfishness, just of different flavors. Parents have natural urges to have kids (literally, evolution!). So it is self-explanatory. Non-parents will need a younger generation when they grow old for satisfying all the Maslow hierarchies of needs (food, medical care, entertainment, funding social safety nets etc). So the ones who are not producing any kids by choice are consciously offloading their old-age care and hence act selfishly. People in both categories may not be aware of their own flavor of selfishness.
michaelhoney 2y ago
Archived version: https://archive.is/dQdUP https://archive.is/dQdUP
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Massively subsidize the first child to get people over the fear hump, and then you’ll find people starting larger families.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
wpguy 2y ago
Kids are expensive. I get a break on daycare from family friends. I dont know what I would do if I had to pay full price. If everyone is so worried they should subsidize childcare and make having children less financially stressful. Edited for grammar.
iteratethis 2y ago
Sometimes the simplest explanation is best. In record time, we went from a situation where having children is required at the personal level to a situation where it is a personal choice. When given the choice, most still want children. How many? 2. As some want 0 or 1, this averages out to the typical 1.5 - 2.0 range as seen in most countries. Which is below replacement. Most people maxing out at 2 children makes sense. Two children already give a full and rich family experience, both the joy and its burdens. There's no incentive to go for 3, 4, 5. You may not have space for them in your home, car or schedule. A cold thing to say perhaps, but there's diminishing returns. Money doesn't fix this, it doesn't move the needle. Yet people will passionately argue that if only homes were cheaper and childcare free, we'd boost that number. It makes little difference. There is no quick policy fix for this. It's also extremely hard to get people to care about this because for anybody alive today, they'll experience the world as getting ever more crowded for another 4 decades. Fundamentally, I think individualism is at the root of the problem. We've sacrificed the institute of family and community to the economy. Modern couples are increasingly financially independent workers. We outsource childcare to strangers so that we can maximize work. There's no neighborhood or community support network because they are at work too. We outsource elderly care, again so that we can maximize work. The irony of a dual income career culture is that it drives up the cost of living but an even more counter-intuitive effect is that it's a major cause of worker shortages. Why? Because all the wealth this labor produces fuels an ever growing demand, of which much is consumerist bullshit. We won't change though. We will have all our bells and whistles and double down on this path.
Mewit 2y ago
The other day my boss said something along the lines of "there's too many people in the world", and seemed genuinely surprised when I pointed out articles like this one showing overall humanity is on the road to start shrinking over the next few decades. I think a lot of people still believe we're in the population bomb scenario Ehrlich painted in 1968, when actually we're looking more like a sad "Children of Men" scenario, particularly in developed countries. I wonder what the end game of this decline is. The population of countries couldn't go to zero (right?). So at some point fertility rate must rebound. But at what point? 50% of the current population? 20%? 5%? Could we (or our great grand children, if we have any) see a world with just 2 million people living in Japan, finally beginning to grow again? It seems to me if there is ANY sub group in the country reproducing above the 2.1 replacement rate, eventually they will come to dominate the population, if they pass this inclination on to their children. The "bottoming out" of the population might be determined by the relative size of that sub group today, and how much over replacement rate they are reproducing at. So maybe in America, the population bottoms out at 100 million people, with Mormons making up 50% of those, and as time goes on the population slowly grows and becomes more and more Mormon. The other thing I think may happen, at least in more authoritarian countries like China, is that the state steps in directly. If offering tax breaks and free day care just aren't moving the needle (which they haven't so far), governments set up, for lack of a better term, "baby farms". Giving birth is turned into a full time job, completely separate from raising the children, which is done by some other state institution, and the population is stabilized that way.
- oliwarner 2y ago
  Just a few jabs at your opening paragraph. We can simultaneously have "too many people" and be on the verge of decline. We aren't there yet. Most countries are still growing, just at a decelerating rate. And the reason isn't a Children of Men biological fertility collapse. We've spent 60 years telling women to get jobs, everyone to defer employment for higher education and housing age childcare are both the most scarce and expensive they've ever been. This isn't a mystery collapse. It's money. Always has been.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
Works where archive.ph is blocked: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/suddenly-there-aren-t-enough-babies-the-whole-world-is-alarmed/ar-BB1mhbxT https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/suddenly-there-aren-t... JSON-only, no cruft: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/BB1mhbxT https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/BB1mhbxT

30 points by jseliger 2y ago

https://archive.ph/dQdUP https://archive.ph/dQdUP

Besides feeding the economy (and by that, I mean buying consumerist stuff from large corps) and providing the army with cannon fodder, I still haven’t haven’t heard a lot of good arguments for having these babies. Humanity would shrink (I think this is calculated to start after 2050 or so), but besides those two reasons, does that matter? Where is the foundation of the argument that we must have population growth to sustain? Or where is the research that shows if we halve the population, everything will be terrible?

paulus_magnus2 2y ago
That's not the 1st time I see this thinking fallacy. please talk to your grandparents about the topic and report back to us.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Grandparents who lived lot more poorly or had their siblings die as babies? Lot more babies survive and their living standards are much higher. Maybe that is reasonable trade-off...
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  My grandparents are dead, but I doubt they would have much to say about it; they had kids (in the 1940s) because their parents would not accept anything less; religion + marriage + kids. They often told me and my parents they didn't want kids and they were supposed to have as many as possible but they only had one and promised to have more but never did. But what great insights would they come up with pray tell? In those days (it was WOII) it was to work the land (economy), cannon fodder and pension plan (have them take care of you). What else?
  - thinkingemote 2y ago
    If it wasn't for your grandparents you wouldn't be here. That's what is else, your very existence! I'm sure you would agree, your life has value and meaning beyond a utilitarian or disposable cog in a wheel. By extension therefore all lives are equally valuable and necessary.
    - anonzzzies 2y ago
      > Your life has value It does? Measured by what? That's what I say; I'm a consumer, but beyond that, how am I valuable? How are you? > By extension all lives are equally valuable and necessary. You are a vegan? Are plants lives lives? Also, putting too much pressure on the planet with over population makes it the opposite of valuable.
      - thinkingemote 2y ago
        By any measurement you care to make yourself. You value your own life.
        anonzzzies 2y ago
        > You value your own life. We are an accidental blib in a cold vast cosmos; nothing and no-one would think of us or remember us if the earth explodes today (or if someone hits the nuke button). I 'value' my life in so far that I am not in pain and I was born in the right location with the right interests (math + computing) to do whatever I want to sit it out until I die. How is any of it a reason to make more babies though or a sign we have a shortage just because we make less than we need to create a population equilibrium or growth?
    - card_zero 2y ago
      "You, an existing person, find you prefer to stay alive" is not an argument for "more babies are always better". If the reason that there are fewer babies is that potential parents don't want them, then it's possible that there are exactly the right amount of babies, and the ensuing problems should be solved by other means than pressuring these unenthused couples to reproduce. I think that creating more happy people is better, not more people per se.
gattilorenz 2y ago
An aging population that lives longer and longer + shrinking workforce means - the pension system can't be sustained, but also - more and more people need support of doctors, nurses, care homes, etc. but can't find it or it becomes more and more expensive (but see problem above regarding their pensions). Historically children take care of their parents when they are old and in need; in the past century more and more of this has been delegated to society at large. In both cases though you need young people.
- zelos 2y ago
  There has to be a system where pensions and elderly care can be sustained at replacement birth rates, doesn't there? Otherwise we're in real trouble.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    It is also question of what level of care and investment to elderly is accepted. Many of us want to live as long as possible, but maybe there needs to be some qualitative cut off. Age and situation this happens varies but at some point society can't pay things like life support forever...
  - johngladtj 2y ago
    Sure, that is not this system though. If you'd like to implement it you're welcome to go tell your largest voting bloc that your primary objective is to almost completely remove their entitlements and leave them to starve to death. Who knows, maybe after they are finished lynching you you might get elected.
  - gattilorenz 2y ago
    As johngladtj says, there might be one, but it's not the current one. And the articles states that "some estimates now put the number of babies each woman has below the global replacement rate of about 2.2. The U.S. long ago passed that level." - so even finding one that works at replacement birth rates could not be enough.
GeoAtreides 2y ago
> I still haven’t haven’t heard a lot of good arguments for having these babies. A larger population means bigger numbers on the everything that's on a normal distribution, like intelligence. That one genius in a 100 million? With 1B population, you only have 10 of them. With 8B population, there are 80. That's 8x more chances one of them does or finds something revolutionary, 8x chances that person is not perishing somewhere in a cobalt mine as a kid. It slashes times waiting for a genius to appear 8x. A bigger population also enables extreme specialisation in very niche fields. It enables bigger recruitment pools for complex processes and manufacturers like, for example, ASML. It's, in a short word, massive parallelism. Now, a counter-argument to everything I said is looking at the demographics of geniuses, revolutionaries, specialists and noticing most of them were well-fed, well-educated and raised in stable, liberal societies (liberal as opposed to, say, taliban-like societies). So, in theory, we could get by with a smaller population, if it was a rich, western-like, population. In that case, the only constraint would become genetics; so an 100M population would have to wait a couple of generations for their genius, instead of a 8B pop potentially getting them all at once.
- netsharc 2y ago
  Seems like a balancing act... If all 8B people have western living standards, we'll boil the planet up even more quickly than at the current rate...
  - GeoAtreides 2y ago
    Well-fed, well-educated and safe doesn't necessary imply western living standards.
    - Arnt 2y ago
      Not clear to me that Western living standards really imply Western resource usage. Like: flying costs a lot in terms of resources, but is it more than 1% of the perceived living standards?
    - r00fus 2y ago
      See China.
Arnt 2y ago
The change is a problem. If you expect x plumbers to be needed in year y and x/2 not many years later (within the span of a plumber's working life), how many should choose to become plumbers in each year? How about buildings and other infrastructure with long lifetimes? Rapid change makes those things difficult. Don't want random home owners to have to speculate on that, and for some of them to lose their shirts when the population is too low to find a buyer for their home.
- CogitoCogito 2y ago
  How haven't these problems _always_ existed? What do they have to do with drop in overall population? If change is the problem, then both population growth and movement of populations are already problems and always have been.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    They always exist. Sometimes they're a minor problem, the steepness of the expected change makes them a major problem in some areas. But this kind of thing always exists. For example, logistics companies have problems hiring in some countries right now because young people don't see driving trucks as a viable career for forty years, but the logistics companies need drivers for the next ten years or more.
atonse 2y ago
It doesn’t have to be growth vs reduction. It can be slower growth or let’s stay close to replacement rates? Others have listed why this will be bad.
d1sxeyes 2y ago
Because we're idiots and terrible at forward planning. Currently pensions and retirement ages are based on the idea that there will be some large cohort of people working to pay the pensions of the folks that are retired. In fact, governments are even borrowing against future pension contributions made by that cohort, so it's not even that the future cohort needs to pay for the current cohort, they need to cover it and some to make up for the lending. Realistically, this is never going to happen, and this is where fiscal policy starts to deviate from mathematical first principles. In case there is some kind of reduction in the workforce, then we do not have a plan to care for our elderly. Already, young adults are finding it difficult to afford homes for themselves, even with a higher proportion of families with two incomes. We would see an increase in the chasm between the rich and poor, as those able to own property would be able to both look after themselves and their families, and would be able to continue to grow their wealth by charging rent to those who are unable to afford to buy. This especially would be accentuated if population decline were gradual, as then the rich would be able to continue to snap up the homes that come onto the market and rent them out. A short sharp halving of the population would likely leave a surplus of homes on the market, at affordable prices for everyone, and would perhaps even lead to a better quality of life for most. But that's not an organic process, and certainly leads to a worse quality of life for the unlucky half...
Balgair 2y ago
More people generally is better. I do some fantasy world-building in the little free time I have. The setting is diesel-punk/atom-punk, so 1950s era. A little bit of disco-punk mixed in too. Essentially, modern post-war USA. So, when I try to model a city, or a country in this era, you gotta go after the data. Because we actually have it for this setting. Medieval data is just horrible in comparison. The high fantasy settings will get a little bit of data on city dynamics and some on 'nation' level data and the like. But most of the modeling is starting from pretty much guessing with wide errorbars. But in the atom-punk setting I have, there is just mountains of data from all over the world. It makes modeling really easy and you can get really fine-grained about it (much to the detriment of story-telling, I get lost in those tables and charts, happily so). One thing that really stands out in trying to model this data is that population is literally everything. How grimy a city is, how tall the skyscrapers are, the walking speed of people in the city, the talking speed of bank tellers, the number of patents per capita, the monthly charge for sewer access, tonnage of warships, the length of subway track and it's heights, etc. Pretty much every metric will correlate best with the population of the area. It's not just cities, it's states and countries and smaller towns too. Really anything about the setting and world-building is best modeled by looking at the population first and then working from there. To be clear here, not the population density. The only metric I could find in my notes that better correlated with population-density was the number of subway stops on a line. I'm sure there are other examples, too. But, in the years that I've been doing this, the number one thing that seems to pop out to me is: Raw population is everything. Now, I'm mostly interested in themes and settings and the like. But most of the data is coming from the motivation of trying to increase the quality of life of people. So I get to stare at that a lot and make graphs. And I can say from my eyeballing of all this data over the last few years: More people = better. Most of the metrics we use to quantify if things are 'good' or 'bad' will correlate with more people = better. It's not, by any means, a 1-1 thing. This is human population stuff, If you see a r2 value of, like, 0.6, that's pretty darn good. There is a lot of noise here and the stats that are taken have just huge issues with them. I'm not going to be able to really prove this, I'm just mucking around with a setting and world-building. But from the years that I have been staring at my poorly organized notes and the various governmental and NGO data tables, the underlying message is that things get better with more people around.

beardyw 2y ago

The societies we live in are a precarious balance based on assumptions like we can grow food and we don't all try to kill each other. One part has become: our population continues to grow. It is less dramatic than those others, but it's impact should not be ignored.

michaelhoney 2y ago

"the whole world": - economists & businesspeople who can't conceive of a world without growth - religious people who think God wants them to be fruitful and multiply - atheists who think we have some kind of evolutionary imperative - parents who think that being childfree is an affront to their choices

atonse 2y ago
wow, that’s really quite reductive. It sounds more like this might be a choice you feel strongly about but are projecting selfishness on to others? This can be a totally fine choice for someone to make personally (which I support), but also not good for society as a whole. Both things can objectively be true.
- CogitoCogito 2y ago
  Are you saying it's selfish to not have kids? Other than accidental parents, I've never met any who didn't have kids because they wanted them. How were they not acting selfishly?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - CogitoCogito 2y ago
    It's interesting to see this comment downvoted. I'm honestly curious as to the thinking here. How are parents having kids because they want them not acting selfishly?
    - RestlessMind 2y ago
      Actually both parents and non-parents exhibit selfishness, just of different flavors. Parents have natural urges to have kids (literally, evolution!). So it is self-explanatory. Non-parents will need a younger generation when they grow old for satisfying all the Maslow hierarchies of needs (food, medical care, entertainment, funding social safety nets etc). So the ones who are not producing any kids by choice are consciously offloading their old-age care and hence act selfishly. People in both categories may not be aware of their own flavor of selfishness.

michaelhoney 2y ago

Archived version: https://archive.is/dQdUP https://archive.is/dQdUP

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Massively subsidize the first child to get people over the fear hump, and then you’ll find people starting larger families.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

wpguy 2y ago

Kids are expensive. I get a break on daycare from family friends. I dont know what I would do if I had to pay full price. If everyone is so worried they should subsidize childcare and make having children less financially stressful. Edited for grammar.

iteratethis 2y ago

Sometimes the simplest explanation is best. In record time, we went from a situation where having children is required at the personal level to a situation where it is a personal choice. When given the choice, most still want children. How many? 2. As some want 0 or 1, this averages out to the typical 1.5 - 2.0 range as seen in most countries. Which is below replacement. Most people maxing out at 2 children makes sense. Two children already give a full and rich family experience, both the joy and its burdens. There's no incentive to go for 3, 4, 5. You may not have space for them in your home, car or schedule. A cold thing to say perhaps, but there's diminishing returns. Money doesn't fix this, it doesn't move the needle. Yet people will passionately argue that if only homes were cheaper and childcare free, we'd boost that number. It makes little difference. There is no quick policy fix for this. It's also extremely hard to get people to care about this because for anybody alive today, they'll experience the world as getting ever more crowded for another 4 decades. Fundamentally, I think individualism is at the root of the problem. We've sacrificed the institute of family and community to the economy. Modern couples are increasingly financially independent workers. We outsource childcare to strangers so that we can maximize work. There's no neighborhood or community support network because they are at work too. We outsource elderly care, again so that we can maximize work. The irony of a dual income career culture is that it drives up the cost of living but an even more counter-intuitive effect is that it's a major cause of worker shortages. Why? Because all the wealth this labor produces fuels an ever growing demand, of which much is consumerist bullshit. We won't change though. We will have all our bells and whistles and double down on this path.

Mewit 2y ago

The other day my boss said something along the lines of "there's too many people in the world", and seemed genuinely surprised when I pointed out articles like this one showing overall humanity is on the road to start shrinking over the next few decades. I think a lot of people still believe we're in the population bomb scenario Ehrlich painted in 1968, when actually we're looking more like a sad "Children of Men" scenario, particularly in developed countries. I wonder what the end game of this decline is. The population of countries couldn't go to zero (right?). So at some point fertility rate must rebound. But at what point? 50% of the current population? 20%? 5%? Could we (or our great grand children, if we have any) see a world with just 2 million people living in Japan, finally beginning to grow again? It seems to me if there is ANY sub group in the country reproducing above the 2.1 replacement rate, eventually they will come to dominate the population, if they pass this inclination on to their children. The "bottoming out" of the population might be determined by the relative size of that sub group today, and how much over replacement rate they are reproducing at. So maybe in America, the population bottoms out at 100 million people, with Mormons making up 50% of those, and as time goes on the population slowly grows and becomes more and more Mormon. The other thing I think may happen, at least in more authoritarian countries like China, is that the state steps in directly. If offering tax breaks and free day care just aren't moving the needle (which they haven't so far), governments set up, for lack of a better term, "baby farms". Giving birth is turned into a full time job, completely separate from raising the children, which is done by some other state institution, and the population is stabilized that way.

oliwarner 2y ago
Just a few jabs at your opening paragraph. We can simultaneously have "too many people" and be on the verge of decline. We aren't there yet. Most countries are still growing, just at a decelerating rate. And the reason isn't a Children of Men biological fertility collapse. We've spent 60 years telling women to get jobs, everyone to defer employment for higher education and housing age childcare are both the most scarce and expensive they've ever been. This isn't a mystery collapse. It's money. Always has been.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

Works where archive.ph is blocked: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/suddenly-there-aren-t-enough-babies-the-whole-world-is-alarmed/ar-BB1mhbxT https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/suddenly-there-aren-t... JSON-only, no cruft: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/BB1mhbxT https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/BB1mhbxT