3 ms·

The good faith answer is that they believed their own projections. This article mentions that the UN projections just somehow assumed everybody's fertility rate

The good faith answer is that they believed their own projections. This article mentions that the UN projections just somehow assumed everybody's fertility rates would decline and then kick into a mediocre but closer to sustainable level for a slow bleed. This topic has been a pet obsession of mine for years now because these data made no sense. Why would everybody's fertility rates suddenly trend to 1.69, as per the article's numbers? The more logical path has always seemed an ongoing extrapolation of current trends, and that leads to quite terrifying outcomes on very short timeframes. And as more people seem to realize that's where we're indeed headed, it's long since past time for a sharp 180 on this topic. On top of incorrect projections, I also think most don't understand the math of how fertility rates affect populations. It's an exponential system, so extreme outcomes are entirely possible with rates that seem 'bad' but not that bad, like e.g. a fertility rate of 1. Such a fertility rate, if shared among an entire population, would result in an exponential 50% decline in your population per 20 years. And alongside that you get social chaos, screwed up age ratios, economic chaos, and more. All on an extremely rapid timeframe. I think this is a self correcting problem, but it's likely far wiser to fix it before it starts fixing itself.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> I think this is a self correcting problem, My fear is the correction will involve rolling back women’s rights.
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  Typically the method used is to encourage immigration from countries that have high birth rates. This works for countries like Australia that are already multi-cultural, but is nearly impossible for China and Japan. In the case of China is because they’re too huge, and the language barrier is too steep a hurdle. For both China and Japan, they’re also extremely racist compared to other countries. They won’t accept foreigners, and even if that attitude changes over time, it’ll be too little too late.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Immigration won't work because of the scale of the problem. It's another concept that was probably based on the flawed UN projections this article talks about. Take a fertility rate of 1 for an easy math example. Most countries aren't this low yet, but it's fair to say that this is the trendline. Once we reach the 'equilibrium point', where your entire population has this fertility rate or, in other words, when the last high fertility rate generation dies off, this would result in your population declining by 50% every ~20 years. And this is an exponential system - you lose 50%, and then 50% of what remains indefinitely every 20 years. And this continues until you go extinct, or start having children again. So consider what this would look do to a nation's population over just a single human lifetime - 80 years. China would go from 1.4 billion -> 0.7 -> 0.35 -> 0.175 -> 0.0875 billion. That's China going from 1.4 billion to 87.5 million, the size of Germany, in a single human lifetime. The US would go from 330 million -> 165 -> 82.5 -> 41.25 -> 20.625, the size of Chile, over the same time frame. And this process doesn't stop, it just keeps going. You would need to essentially replace your entire population with immigrants. And of course you don't just need massive amounts of warm bodies. You need skilled, educated, sex ratio balanced (which means more women than men due to differing mortality rates - men get themselves killed far more frequently), people who are capable of speaking at least reasonable English. There simply aren't enough people in the world to fulfill this in practical terms. And this is just speaking from a technical point of view in terms of scale of the problem. I'm intentionally avoiding the more controversial social, cultural, and other aspects involved in such a process. It's all just a nonsolution. Immigration can briefly help patch a small-scale problem, but at scale it's like trying to keep a sinking boat afloat with a bucket.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  I don't really think there's any reason to expect this. I'd look to the USSR - not that they are an ideal to strive for, but because they are relevant on this topic. The USSR was exceptionally over-educated to the point that Russia remains literally the most educated country in the world, at least as of 2014. [1] And the USSR was (largely excepting the Stalin era) also huge on social justice, women's rights, and so on. They even had gender quotas for various government positions. Yet they had a relatively healthy fertility rate up until about the time of their collapse. In fact when you look at any typical modern fertility correlation explanation, they all really just fall apart under the slightest of scrutiny. Education/income stuff? Look at Thailand - extremely low education, extremely low income, extremely low fertility - even lower than Japan! So what is the real driving factor? It seems clear that if people believe 'true happiness' is just one 'thing' away, then they are motivated to continue chasing those things. Children don't really have a place in this sort of world - as they simply imperil your ability to pursue that sort of perceived happiness. And governments and companies alike have every motivation in the world to push this 'thing based' worldview, consumerism in other words, because it generates income, increases GDP, and so on. This is the only fertility correlate that explains literally everything in a clean and consistent fashion. For instance the bell curve of income:fertility (very poor and very rich have far more children than the middle class) can be easily explained - both the very poor and very rich are unable to participate in consumerism. The former because of too little money, the latter because they have too much. Thailand? Yes, it's very poor yet there is also rampant consumerism at all levels, and it's even a place when walking into the most mainstream mall in the capitol you're immediately greeted with a literal lambo dealership. And so on for the countless other issues and counter-examples that contemporary fertility correlates fail to explain. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_...
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    > In fact when you look at any typical modern fertility correlation explanation, they all really just fall apart under the slightest of scrutiny. Education/income stuff? Look at Thailand - extremely low education, extremely low income, extremely low fertility - even lower than Japan! So what is the real driving factor? It seems clear that if people believe 'true happiness' is just one 'thing' away, then they are motivated to continue chasing those things. Children don't really have a place in this sort of world - as they simply imperil your ability to pursue that sort of perceived happiness. Don’t they correlate with access women’s rights and access to contraception? I see a very strong correlation with the ability for a woman to live on her own and/or the ability for a woman to access healthcare that prevents her from having to give birth with fertility rate declines. There is clearly a mismatch between the near term costs of pregnancy/childbirth/infant rearing and the long term benefits of having kids. Humans are unique in that they are the only species (I think) that can analyze and opt out of the mechanism by which evolution propagates the species. I also don’t know how representative Russia is because broad availability and use of very effective and “easy” birth control (IUD/pills) took place in more recent decades. And according to Wikipedia, Russia did roll back women’s rights to only allowing abortion at 12 weeks (passed 2011): > During the 2000s, Russia's steadily falling population (due to both negative birthrates and low life expectancy) became a major source of concern, even forcing the military to curtail conscription due to shortages of young males. On 21 October 2011, the Russian Parliament passed a law restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with an exception up to 22 weeks if the pregnancy was the result of rape, and for medical necessity it can be performed at any point during pregnancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia

lotsofpulp 2y ago

> I think this is a self correcting problem, My fear is the correction will involve rolling back women’s rights.

jiggawatts 2y ago
Typically the method used is to encourage immigration from countries that have high birth rates. This works for countries like Australia that are already multi-cultural, but is nearly impossible for China and Japan. In the case of China is because they’re too huge, and the language barrier is too steep a hurdle. For both China and Japan, they’re also extremely racist compared to other countries. They won’t accept foreigners, and even if that attitude changes over time, it’ll be too little too late.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Immigration won't work because of the scale of the problem. It's another concept that was probably based on the flawed UN projections this article talks about. Take a fertility rate of 1 for an easy math example. Most countries aren't this low yet, but it's fair to say that this is the trendline. Once we reach the 'equilibrium point', where your entire population has this fertility rate or, in other words, when the last high fertility rate generation dies off, this would result in your population declining by 50% every ~20 years. And this is an exponential system - you lose 50%, and then 50% of what remains indefinitely every 20 years. And this continues until you go extinct, or start having children again. So consider what this would look do to a nation's population over just a single human lifetime - 80 years. China would go from 1.4 billion -> 0.7 -> 0.35 -> 0.175 -> 0.0875 billion. That's China going from 1.4 billion to 87.5 million, the size of Germany, in a single human lifetime. The US would go from 330 million -> 165 -> 82.5 -> 41.25 -> 20.625, the size of Chile, over the same time frame. And this process doesn't stop, it just keeps going. You would need to essentially replace your entire population with immigrants. And of course you don't just need massive amounts of warm bodies. You need skilled, educated, sex ratio balanced (which means more women than men due to differing mortality rates - men get themselves killed far more frequently), people who are capable of speaking at least reasonable English. There simply aren't enough people in the world to fulfill this in practical terms. And this is just speaking from a technical point of view in terms of scale of the problem. I'm intentionally avoiding the more controversial social, cultural, and other aspects involved in such a process. It's all just a nonsolution. Immigration can briefly help patch a small-scale problem, but at scale it's like trying to keep a sinking boat afloat with a bucket.
somenameforme 2y ago
I don't really think there's any reason to expect this. I'd look to the USSR - not that they are an ideal to strive for, but because they are relevant on this topic. The USSR was exceptionally over-educated to the point that Russia remains literally the most educated country in the world, at least as of 2014. [1] And the USSR was (largely excepting the Stalin era) also huge on social justice, women's rights, and so on. They even had gender quotas for various government positions. Yet they had a relatively healthy fertility rate up until about the time of their collapse. In fact when you look at any typical modern fertility correlation explanation, they all really just fall apart under the slightest of scrutiny. Education/income stuff? Look at Thailand - extremely low education, extremely low income, extremely low fertility - even lower than Japan! So what is the real driving factor? It seems clear that if people believe 'true happiness' is just one 'thing' away, then they are motivated to continue chasing those things. Children don't really have a place in this sort of world - as they simply imperil your ability to pursue that sort of perceived happiness. And governments and companies alike have every motivation in the world to push this 'thing based' worldview, consumerism in other words, because it generates income, increases GDP, and so on. This is the only fertility correlate that explains literally everything in a clean and consistent fashion. For instance the bell curve of income:fertility (very poor and very rich have far more children than the middle class) can be easily explained - both the very poor and very rich are unable to participate in consumerism. The former because of too little money, the latter because they have too much. Thailand? Yes, it's very poor yet there is also rampant consumerism at all levels, and it's even a place when walking into the most mainstream mall in the capitol you're immediately greeted with a literal lambo dealership. And so on for the countless other issues and counter-examples that contemporary fertility correlates fail to explain. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_...
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > In fact when you look at any typical modern fertility correlation explanation, they all really just fall apart under the slightest of scrutiny. Education/income stuff? Look at Thailand - extremely low education, extremely low income, extremely low fertility - even lower than Japan! So what is the real driving factor? It seems clear that if people believe 'true happiness' is just one 'thing' away, then they are motivated to continue chasing those things. Children don't really have a place in this sort of world - as they simply imperil your ability to pursue that sort of perceived happiness. Don’t they correlate with access women’s rights and access to contraception? I see a very strong correlation with the ability for a woman to live on her own and/or the ability for a woman to access healthcare that prevents her from having to give birth with fertility rate declines. There is clearly a mismatch between the near term costs of pregnancy/childbirth/infant rearing and the long term benefits of having kids. Humans are unique in that they are the only species (I think) that can analyze and opt out of the mechanism by which evolution propagates the species. I also don’t know how representative Russia is because broad availability and use of very effective and “easy” birth control (IUD/pills) took place in more recent decades. And according to Wikipedia, Russia did roll back women’s rights to only allowing abortion at 12 weeks (passed 2011): > During the 2000s, Russia's steadily falling population (due to both negative birthrates and low life expectancy) became a major source of concern, even forcing the military to curtail conscription due to shortages of young males. On 21 October 2011, the Russian Parliament passed a law restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with an exception up to 22 weeks if the pregnancy was the result of rape, and for medical necessity it can be performed at any point during pregnancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia