4 ms·

TFR is already way below replacement all over the world. In some countries (e.g. Chile, S.Korea,) it's under 1.0. In others (e.g. Germany, Italy,) TFR has bee

TFR is already way below replacement all over the world. In some countries (e.g. Chile, S.Korea,) it's under 1.0. In others (e.g. Germany, Italy,) TFR has been consistently sub-replacement for over 50 years. This should give us all pause. The very last thing the world needs is another way to reduce fertility. This invention is worse than that "powdered alcohol" thing from a few years ago. If anything, given declining sperm fitness in men worldwide, governments ought to consider finding the reverse of this molecule -- a STK33 activator -- and adding it to the water supply.

tecleandor 2y ago
This is for people who do NOT want to have children. Are you suggesting to force people into having children?
- keiferski 2y ago
  This is a viewpoint that always comes up in these discussions, and I find it to be one entirely lacking in nuance. Society is not comprised of entirely free individuals that evaluate every decision rationally and carefully before making any action. It is full of powerful forces (corporate, religious, ideological, political, etc.) that seek to influence people and push them toward one thing or another - or merely to make everything more chaotic. This state of affairs has gotten even more complicated in the last ~half century, where we now have billion dollar corporations entirely focused on influencing your behavior. It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that society could be more conducive to having children, promote ideas that encourage having children, not fund things that discourage having children, and so forth - without that somehow being equivalent to “forcing people to have children.”
  - bruce343434 2y ago
    > without that somehow being equivalent to “forcing people to have children.” Are we reading the same comment chain? Quoting GP: > governments ought to consider finding the reverse of this molecule -- a STK33 activator -- and adding it to the water supply.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nkrisc 2y ago
You want people to have more children? Pay for child care and make wages (single income households) keep up with costs.
- lambdaxyzw 2y ago
  I don't agree with the GP at all, but I think it was pretty much established that money is not the primary reason people have less children. Perhaps obvious example, in general it's the rich countries that have problems with replacement rate and the poor countries pick up the slack (and not the other way around). For a more direct example, the populist government in my country started giving out money, no strings attached, to people with children, and the fertility didn't change at all (even declined a bit). So I think it's pretty clear we need other solution if we want to fix that.
  - dxdm 2y ago
    > the populist government in my country started giving out money, no strings attached, to people with children, and the fertility didn't change at all (even declined a bit) That doesn't say much on its own. We don't know how the birth rate would have behaved without that money. And even if that supposed stimulus did have no effect, it could also mean that it's simply not enough money to offset whatever factors cause people to have fewer children. I think the conclusion to draw is that wealth and economics likely play a role, but it's more complicated than can be sufficiently addressed with these kinds of cash handouts.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Throwing cash at a lack of babby has consistently failed to increase babby time and time again, regardless which country. There is quite literally not a single success story to cite. Whatever the factors are, throwing cash at the issue at best does nothing and at worst exacerbates it.
kiloreven 2y ago
This comment scares me a little, having recently re-watched The Handmaid's Tale... I don't really understand the premise. We're already pushing several limits for global sustainability due to the human (over-)population (climate change, food supply, loss of fauna diversity). Why is it not a good thing to reduce the population size? Why should we not work towards a sub-2 TFR for a few generations, to reduce human impact on our planet a little? Why should governments actively work against people's right to choose whether to have a child or not, by increasing fertility through additives to the drinking water?
- thefz 2y ago
  > I don't really understand the premise. We're already pushing several limits for global sustainability due to the human (over-)population (climate change, food supply, loss of fauna diversity). > Why is it not a good thing to reduce the population size? Because the shareholders expect constant growth (of their investments)
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  Fertility is not a heritable trait; it is a norms-based, cultural trait. This was recently highlighted in a good paper by Greg Clark, author of A Farewell to Alms: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X24000352 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X2... Once fertility declines, it's extremely hard to reverse the decline without a massive cultural shift. Countries like S.Korea and Hungary have made heroic efforts -- without much success. People raised in a generational culture of small families tend to have small families themselves. So either your culture shifts, or your culture is quickly replaced by high-fertility subcultures such as the Amish, Quiverfull, and Haredim. ("Quickly" in generational terms, of course.) My thinking is that if you value your culture and its values, you should want to see it persist. The only way for it to persist in meaningful terms is for it to reproduce to at least a replacement level. The alternative -- which might be better for the environment in the short term, but not on very long timescales -- represents not a temporary lull but probably a permanent cultural decline.
elric 2y ago
Sigh. Low birth rates are not caused by reduced sperm quality. They are caused by economic issues. Wealthier populations typically have fewer offspring. The negative trends in places like Japan (and presumably Korea) are caused by the high cost of living, the lack of support for parents (lacking or overly expensive childcare etc). No one is suggesting turning off sperm production in every male.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I agree with you that being richer means less children, but what you proceed to say makes no sense: The rich can't afford to live?
  - Coffeewine 2y ago
    To an extent it tracks. No one wants their children to have fewer opportunities than they did, so a ‘rich’ person will probably have to plan on expensive tuitions and other activities. Obviously once you hit the ultra rich this is a rounding error, but for the middle class I see this dynamic at play. I can afford one private school tuition, I can’t afford 3. Obviously that’s not a requirement for life, but I went to an expensive private school, do I not want my kids to have similar opportunities? Etc.
  - elric 2y ago
    Who's talking about the rich? Wealtht countries have uneven wealth distributions. The rich certainly can afford housekeepers and nannies and private tutors. A couple of middle school teachers cannot.
- Tade0 2y ago
  Can we truly say that these populations are wealthy then?
  - elric 2y ago
    Is that a philosophical question? I would argue that most countries with <1 birthrates are objectively wealthy. Doesn't mean the wealth is necessarily spread equitably, or even that the countries have their priorities right...
iloveitaly 2y ago
This is a big problem, but not allowing a new invention or regulating it won't fix the issue. Decreasing freedom doesn't fix anything. I have four kids. Without a Christian worldview it's tough to justify having kids. Kids are an incredible amount of work and require being willing to live for others, and not yourself, which only really makes sense with a Christian worldview (at least, to my knowledge; would love to understand where and how I am wrong here). Sure, kids have some natural benefits and bring joy, but you get most of that with a single kid. Why have more than a single kid if your primary goal is optimizing for happiness here on earth?
- defrost 2y ago
  Christians, by the data, are middle of the road re: large families by religion: Pew Research Center analyzed data on six religious groups – Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and people with no religious affiliation. Globally, the average Muslim lives in the biggest household (6.4 people), followed by the average Hindu (5.7), Christian (4.5), Buddhist (3.9), “none” (3.7) and Jew (3.7) https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/12/12/household-patterns-by-religion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/12/12/household-pa... Many of the pronatalist altruists are more rich than religious; eg Musk and others: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/may/25/american-pronatalists-malcolm-and-simone-collins https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/may/25... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40473060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40473060 It doesn't seem that a Christian worldview is neccesary for many with large families.
  - iloveitaly 2y ago
    This is a stellar point. Appreciate the response. I don't understand the Muslim, Hindu, and Buddist worldview/culture. I'd love to. What causes them to have large families? Why is it baked into the culture? Additionally, I'd be curiuous how they tested for religious affiliation. i.e. just asking someone if they are Christian, Hindu, etc isn't a great test of if they are a "true believer". Lots of folks have a cultural affiliation to a religion that doesn't impact their decision making. For instance, Catholics do not allow any birth control: most Catholics ignore this and therefore are not truly Catholic. I'm sure there is a similar filter you could apply to other religions. My argument here would be that those are are "true believers" in a religion that has a strong articulation of an afterlife or valuing self-sacrifice as an important element of life have much bigger families. I'd agree that many of the public/popular/rich pronatalist are not religious. However, if you remove the the public/popular/rich flag there are many more which are not rich in any way (the folks with the biggest families—8, 9, 10 kids—are very much not wealthy and don't care to be, in my experience). In other words, the fact that some popular folks are pronatalist and not religious doesn't change my thinking here: there will be exceptions. You've changed my mind here: a Christian worldview isn't required, but a religious/supernatural worldview is. i.e. why put all of the effort required into having kids without believing that (a) self-sacrifice is valuable in and of itself and (b) a strong theology or belief in an afterlife? I'm sure there are some rationalists that would choose to have more kids because of the future of humanity (i.e. Elon, etc) but my argument would be these would be extremely rare as it conflicts with the hedonistic worldview (why care about the future of humanity if nothing happens when you die?). In any case, it's really interesting to think about this stuff and I'd love to refine my thinking here and understand where I am wrong. Feel free to DM me to chat more!
keiferski 2y ago
It’s unfortunate that you’re being mindlessly downvoted, as this is a complex topic that is worth discussing. The actual reality, though, is that the future is comprised of people that don’t engage with these kinds of reproductive-limiting technologies and worldviews. So in an ironic sense, it almost doesn’t matter - evolution will march on and doesn’t have much use for ideologies. It’s a sort of filter for the future, not an abstract evaluation of freedom and rights.
- quonn 2y ago
  The future could also be comprised of the few that do engage with these technologies having one child lording over the many with 10 kids. Not saying it will, but I want to point out the flaws in your logic.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    There is actually evidence that rich families are having more children than middle class ones - which is what was the case historically. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-12/the-rich-are-starting-to-have-more-babies-than-the-poor-again https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-12/the-ri...
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >mindlessly downvoted I downvoted him because what he said doesn't make sense. Namely, his argument that rich people can't afford costs of living. That is straight up hypocrisy. Otherwise I agree that richer people have less children. Money is a problem factor, but it's not because someone doesn't have enough of it.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    I don’t see anything in the parent comment about money.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Emphasis mine: >They are caused by economic issues. Wealthier populations typically have fewer offspring. The negative trends in places like Japan (and presumably Korea) are caused by the high cost of living, the lack of support for parents (lacking or overly expensive childcare etc). Money.

tecleandor 2y ago

This is for people who do NOT want to have children. Are you suggesting to force people into having children?

keiferski 2y ago
This is a viewpoint that always comes up in these discussions, and I find it to be one entirely lacking in nuance. Society is not comprised of entirely free individuals that evaluate every decision rationally and carefully before making any action. It is full of powerful forces (corporate, religious, ideological, political, etc.) that seek to influence people and push them toward one thing or another - or merely to make everything more chaotic. This state of affairs has gotten even more complicated in the last ~half century, where we now have billion dollar corporations entirely focused on influencing your behavior. It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that society could be more conducive to having children, promote ideas that encourage having children, not fund things that discourage having children, and so forth - without that somehow being equivalent to “forcing people to have children.”
- bruce343434 2y ago
  > without that somehow being equivalent to “forcing people to have children.” Are we reading the same comment chain? Quoting GP: > governments ought to consider finding the reverse of this molecule -- a STK33 activator -- and adding it to the water supply.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

nkrisc 2y ago

You want people to have more children? Pay for child care and make wages (single income households) keep up with costs.

lambdaxyzw 2y ago
I don't agree with the GP at all, but I think it was pretty much established that money is not the primary reason people have less children. Perhaps obvious example, in general it's the rich countries that have problems with replacement rate and the poor countries pick up the slack (and not the other way around). For a more direct example, the populist government in my country started giving out money, no strings attached, to people with children, and the fertility didn't change at all (even declined a bit). So I think it's pretty clear we need other solution if we want to fix that.
- dxdm 2y ago
  > the populist government in my country started giving out money, no strings attached, to people with children, and the fertility didn't change at all (even declined a bit) That doesn't say much on its own. We don't know how the birth rate would have behaved without that money. And even if that supposed stimulus did have no effect, it could also mean that it's simply not enough money to offset whatever factors cause people to have fewer children. I think the conclusion to draw is that wealth and economics likely play a role, but it's more complicated than can be sufficiently addressed with these kinds of cash handouts.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Throwing cash at a lack of babby has consistently failed to increase babby time and time again, regardless which country. There is quite literally not a single success story to cite. Whatever the factors are, throwing cash at the issue at best does nothing and at worst exacerbates it.

kiloreven 2y ago

This comment scares me a little, having recently re-watched The Handmaid's Tale... I don't really understand the premise. We're already pushing several limits for global sustainability due to the human (over-)population (climate change, food supply, loss of fauna diversity). Why is it not a good thing to reduce the population size? Why should we not work towards a sub-2 TFR for a few generations, to reduce human impact on our planet a little? Why should governments actively work against people's right to choose whether to have a child or not, by increasing fertility through additives to the drinking water?

thefz 2y ago
> I don't really understand the premise. We're already pushing several limits for global sustainability due to the human (over-)population (climate change, food supply, loss of fauna diversity). > Why is it not a good thing to reduce the population size? Because the shareholders expect constant growth (of their investments)
A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
Fertility is not a heritable trait; it is a norms-based, cultural trait. This was recently highlighted in a good paper by Greg Clark, author of A Farewell to Alms: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X24000352 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X2... Once fertility declines, it's extremely hard to reverse the decline without a massive cultural shift. Countries like S.Korea and Hungary have made heroic efforts -- without much success. People raised in a generational culture of small families tend to have small families themselves. So either your culture shifts, or your culture is quickly replaced by high-fertility subcultures such as the Amish, Quiverfull, and Haredim. ("Quickly" in generational terms, of course.) My thinking is that if you value your culture and its values, you should want to see it persist. The only way for it to persist in meaningful terms is for it to reproduce to at least a replacement level. The alternative -- which might be better for the environment in the short term, but not on very long timescales -- represents not a temporary lull but probably a permanent cultural decline.

elric 2y ago

Sigh. Low birth rates are not caused by reduced sperm quality. They are caused by economic issues. Wealthier populations typically have fewer offspring. The negative trends in places like Japan (and presumably Korea) are caused by the high cost of living, the lack of support for parents (lacking or overly expensive childcare etc). No one is suggesting turning off sperm production in every male.

Dalewyn 2y ago
I agree with you that being richer means less children, but what you proceed to say makes no sense: The rich can't afford to live?
- Coffeewine 2y ago
  To an extent it tracks. No one wants their children to have fewer opportunities than they did, so a ‘rich’ person will probably have to plan on expensive tuitions and other activities. Obviously once you hit the ultra rich this is a rounding error, but for the middle class I see this dynamic at play. I can afford one private school tuition, I can’t afford 3. Obviously that’s not a requirement for life, but I went to an expensive private school, do I not want my kids to have similar opportunities? Etc.
- elric 2y ago
  Who's talking about the rich? Wealtht countries have uneven wealth distributions. The rich certainly can afford housekeepers and nannies and private tutors. A couple of middle school teachers cannot.
Tade0 2y ago
Can we truly say that these populations are wealthy then?
- elric 2y ago
  Is that a philosophical question? I would argue that most countries with <1 birthrates are objectively wealthy. Doesn't mean the wealth is necessarily spread equitably, or even that the countries have their priorities right...

iloveitaly 2y ago

This is a big problem, but not allowing a new invention or regulating it won't fix the issue. Decreasing freedom doesn't fix anything. I have four kids. Without a Christian worldview it's tough to justify having kids. Kids are an incredible amount of work and require being willing to live for others, and not yourself, which only really makes sense with a Christian worldview (at least, to my knowledge; would love to understand where and how I am wrong here). Sure, kids have some natural benefits and bring joy, but you get most of that with a single kid. Why have more than a single kid if your primary goal is optimizing for happiness here on earth?

defrost 2y ago
Christians, by the data, are middle of the road re: large families by religion: Pew Research Center analyzed data on six religious groups – Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and people with no religious affiliation. Globally, the average Muslim lives in the biggest household (6.4 people), followed by the average Hindu (5.7), Christian (4.5), Buddhist (3.9), “none” (3.7) and Jew (3.7) https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/12/12/household-patterns-by-religion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/12/12/household-pa... Many of the pronatalist altruists are more rich than religious; eg Musk and others: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/may/25/american-pronatalists-malcolm-and-simone-collins https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/may/25... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40473060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40473060 It doesn't seem that a Christian worldview is neccesary for many with large families.
- iloveitaly 2y ago
  This is a stellar point. Appreciate the response. I don't understand the Muslim, Hindu, and Buddist worldview/culture. I'd love to. What causes them to have large families? Why is it baked into the culture? Additionally, I'd be curiuous how they tested for religious affiliation. i.e. just asking someone if they are Christian, Hindu, etc isn't a great test of if they are a "true believer". Lots of folks have a cultural affiliation to a religion that doesn't impact their decision making. For instance, Catholics do not allow any birth control: most Catholics ignore this and therefore are not truly Catholic. I'm sure there is a similar filter you could apply to other religions. My argument here would be that those are are "true believers" in a religion that has a strong articulation of an afterlife or valuing self-sacrifice as an important element of life have much bigger families. I'd agree that many of the public/popular/rich pronatalist are not religious. However, if you remove the the public/popular/rich flag there are many more which are not rich in any way (the folks with the biggest families—8, 9, 10 kids—are very much not wealthy and don't care to be, in my experience). In other words, the fact that some popular folks are pronatalist and not religious doesn't change my thinking here: there will be exceptions. You've changed my mind here: a Christian worldview isn't required, but a religious/supernatural worldview is. i.e. why put all of the effort required into having kids without believing that (a) self-sacrifice is valuable in and of itself and (b) a strong theology or belief in an afterlife? I'm sure there are some rationalists that would choose to have more kids because of the future of humanity (i.e. Elon, etc) but my argument would be these would be extremely rare as it conflicts with the hedonistic worldview (why care about the future of humanity if nothing happens when you die?). In any case, it's really interesting to think about this stuff and I'd love to refine my thinking here and understand where I am wrong. Feel free to DM me to chat more!

keiferski 2y ago

It’s unfortunate that you’re being mindlessly downvoted, as this is a complex topic that is worth discussing. The actual reality, though, is that the future is comprised of people that don’t engage with these kinds of reproductive-limiting technologies and worldviews. So in an ironic sense, it almost doesn’t matter - evolution will march on and doesn’t have much use for ideologies. It’s a sort of filter for the future, not an abstract evaluation of freedom and rights.

quonn 2y ago
The future could also be comprised of the few that do engage with these technologies having one child lording over the many with 10 kids. Not saying it will, but I want to point out the flaws in your logic.
- keiferski 2y ago
  There is actually evidence that rich families are having more children than middle class ones - which is what was the case historically. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-12/the-rich-are-starting-to-have-more-babies-than-the-poor-again https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-12/the-ri...
Dalewyn 2y ago
>mindlessly downvoted I downvoted him because what he said doesn't make sense. Namely, his argument that rich people can't afford costs of living. That is straight up hypocrisy. Otherwise I agree that richer people have less children. Money is a problem factor, but it's not because someone doesn't have enough of it.
- keiferski 2y ago
  I don’t see anything in the parent comment about money.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Emphasis mine: >They are caused by economic issues. Wealthier populations typically have fewer offspring. The negative trends in places like Japan (and presumably Korea) are caused by the high cost of living, the lack of support for parents (lacking or overly expensive childcare etc). Money.