3 ms·

There have been scientific studies done by anthropologists, but they're a different clique to economists and they basically "don't talk to each other". Essenti

There have been scientific studies done by anthropologists, but they're a different clique to economists and they basically "don't talk to each other". Essentially, there's a sort-of phase diagram for the optimal human reproduction strategy where the axes are things like "income inequality" and "environmental stress". You can then color in patches of the diagram with what strategy members of a society will settle on. For example, high-stress, high-inequality societies practice polygamy. The game-theoretic logic is that women need a partner that can provide consistent excess calories. If you can't feed your kids in just one year out of twenty, they die. It doesn't matter what the average income is, just how steady the income is. In societies like that, only the richest 10% of men can provide this, so they all have 10 wives. The other 90% of men remain bachelors and often participate in tribal warfare, exacerbating the problem. Saudi Arabia used to be like this, and parts of Africa still is. Similarly, in "one corner" of this graph is super rich men in stable societies, where their optimal reproduction strategy is serial monogamy to young wives. Look at Hollywood A-listers or billionaries to see this play out in real life. Japan got stuck in a part of the phase diagram where the optimal reproduction strategy is "don't."

dalyons 2y ago
im always kinda skeptical of these evolutionary game theory type theories when applying them to modern developed societies. Maybe they were true in the past, but we have largely removed ourselves from natural selection in any of the traditional ways. It doesn't mean there arent other game selection mechanisms, but they're likely very different to 1000s of years ago. Like, for example broadly no-one is having their kids all starve to death in modern japan.
lazide 2y ago
This is all post-facto rationalization to avoid a more glaring truth. Women aren’t having kids - because they can avoid having kids. While still having sex and having societal benefits, including retirement. That is a very, very new and unusual situation when looking at the span of human history. Birth control is a pretty new invention (mid 60’s approximately), and societies globally have been steadily rolling it out/making it available more easily. Childbirth is dangerous (especially the first time), usually ruins one’s figure (and hence ‘market value’), and is economically very expensive. At a minimum 4-6 months of ‘non productive’ work time per pregnancy, not counting the several years of near constant caretaking for a newborn. Which kills normal careers, where taking ‘time off’ pretty much guarantees you’ll be surpassed by all your competition - and 2-2.5 years pretty much guarantees it. And that is for an office job, not labor. Before birth control, the only way to do that would have required celibacy or constant abortions - and good luck suppressing that drive for most people! It’s like wondering why almost everyone is fat and out of shape when there is no public transit, everyone has to drive everywhere (and gets stuck in traffic), food is terrible and junky, jobs are mostly sedentary, etc. Of course that’s how folks will be on average when that’s the environment! And birth rates are by definition based on the average behavior. Coupled with the fact it’s relatively easy to survive/live in society without kids now, and it’s a double whammy. At least until the consequences of having no kids for a long time come home to roost - then everyone is going to be fucked. Figuratively.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  > including retirement I think social safety nets are an under-reported cause of this. 80 years ago, children were your retirement plan. Long term stable value pensions and 401ks, along with government ensured healthcare and social security, weren't a thing. If you got to 70 without kids, you would eventually not be able to work and probably die poor. Now, almost everyone thinks not having kids could be an option, because of course they'll have some savings (the rest of society's labor), and government healthcare, and the government won't let them become destitute.
  - lazide 2y ago
    The issue of course being that when there is a population crunch, there is no ‘rest of societies labor’ free, like there would be with a normal population age curve. If the crunch is big enough, anyway. Same with the tax base used to fund gov’t healthcare and similar programs. That said, Japan has… problems. But they aren’t apocalyptic. At least not yet.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > The issue of course being that when there is a population crunch, there is no ‘rest of societies labor’ free, like there would be with a normal population age curve. Yeah. For that reason, old age pensions should be tied to how many kids you've had, not how much money you paid into the system during your working years. If you have no kids, you get no pension. If you want to support in old age, you need to contribute to the next generation's labor pool to provide that support. Otherwise, you need to work to support yourself.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Hah, and I thought ‘forced natalism’ was the controversial one! Or, the more subtle approach - inflation. Hmm, wait a minute….
  - anonporridge 2y ago
    Yep. This is the problem I've been zeroing in on as well. Socialized retirement destroys most of the incentive to sacrifice your youth to grow and raise new people. Why sacrifice your youth and money being a parent when you can leech off the labor of other people's kids in retirement? I think we'll need to eventually experiment with things that try to give some disproportionate benefit to people who have kids. e.g. everyone gets some minimal socialized retirement and healthcare, but your benefits increase above that baseline in proportion to how many children you raised. Maybe your benefits increase at 3+ kids and decrease with 0-1 kids.

dalyons 2y ago

im always kinda skeptical of these evolutionary game theory type theories when applying them to modern developed societies. Maybe they were true in the past, but we have largely removed ourselves from natural selection in any of the traditional ways. It doesn't mean there arent other game selection mechanisms, but they're likely very different to 1000s of years ago. Like, for example broadly no-one is having their kids all starve to death in modern japan.

lazide 2y ago

This is all post-facto rationalization to avoid a more glaring truth. Women aren’t having kids - because they can avoid having kids. While still having sex and having societal benefits, including retirement. That is a very, very new and unusual situation when looking at the span of human history. Birth control is a pretty new invention (mid 60’s approximately), and societies globally have been steadily rolling it out/making it available more easily. Childbirth is dangerous (especially the first time), usually ruins one’s figure (and hence ‘market value’), and is economically very expensive. At a minimum 4-6 months of ‘non productive’ work time per pregnancy, not counting the several years of near constant caretaking for a newborn. Which kills normal careers, where taking ‘time off’ pretty much guarantees you’ll be surpassed by all your competition - and 2-2.5 years pretty much guarantees it. And that is for an office job, not labor. Before birth control, the only way to do that would have required celibacy or constant abortions - and good luck suppressing that drive for most people! It’s like wondering why almost everyone is fat and out of shape when there is no public transit, everyone has to drive everywhere (and gets stuck in traffic), food is terrible and junky, jobs are mostly sedentary, etc. Of course that’s how folks will be on average when that’s the environment! And birth rates are by definition based on the average behavior. Coupled with the fact it’s relatively easy to survive/live in society without kids now, and it’s a double whammy. At least until the consequences of having no kids for a long time come home to roost - then everyone is going to be fucked. Figuratively.

reducesuffering 2y ago
> including retirement I think social safety nets are an under-reported cause of this. 80 years ago, children were your retirement plan. Long term stable value pensions and 401ks, along with government ensured healthcare and social security, weren't a thing. If you got to 70 without kids, you would eventually not be able to work and probably die poor. Now, almost everyone thinks not having kids could be an option, because of course they'll have some savings (the rest of society's labor), and government healthcare, and the government won't let them become destitute.
- lazide 2y ago
  The issue of course being that when there is a population crunch, there is no ‘rest of societies labor’ free, like there would be with a normal population age curve. If the crunch is big enough, anyway. Same with the tax base used to fund gov’t healthcare and similar programs. That said, Japan has… problems. But they aren’t apocalyptic. At least not yet.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > The issue of course being that when there is a population crunch, there is no ‘rest of societies labor’ free, like there would be with a normal population age curve. Yeah. For that reason, old age pensions should be tied to how many kids you've had, not how much money you paid into the system during your working years. If you have no kids, you get no pension. If you want to support in old age, you need to contribute to the next generation's labor pool to provide that support. Otherwise, you need to work to support yourself.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Hah, and I thought ‘forced natalism’ was the controversial one! Or, the more subtle approach - inflation. Hmm, wait a minute….
- anonporridge 2y ago
  Yep. This is the problem I've been zeroing in on as well. Socialized retirement destroys most of the incentive to sacrifice your youth to grow and raise new people. Why sacrifice your youth and money being a parent when you can leech off the labor of other people's kids in retirement? I think we'll need to eventually experiment with things that try to give some disproportionate benefit to people who have kids. e.g. everyone gets some minimal socialized retirement and healthcare, but your benefits increase above that baseline in proportion to how many children you raised. Maybe your benefits increase at 3+ kids and decrease with 0-1 kids.