3 ms·

It's probably too simplistic to just look at a global average. Developed countries (largely Western and Asian ones) have fertility rates well below their replac

It's probably too simplistic to just look at a global average. Developed countries (largely Western and Asian ones) have fertility rates well below their replacement levels, while sub-Saharan African nations (many of which are on food aid) have fertility well above replacement levels. These don't cancel one another out in terms of effects on humanity. Not economically, not culturally, not geopolitically.

gtvwill 2y ago
Well pretty sure we know how to fix that. Go have some kids! Seriously folks need to breed more. You wanna spread your ideals? Have a family. Wanna sway politics in the long run to your ideals? Tell your kids to have big families too. Religions have been doing this for yonks. It's not rocket science. It strikes me as absurd the academic class hasn't worked this out.
- threatofrain 2y ago
  A lot of people want to have families... you're making it sound like there's a marketing problem, but the conversation is on whether or not there's the right platform for the middle class to have children; i.e. childcare, family, home, money, etc. People want to maintain their station in life while having children. But somehow you're looking at the problem like "why don't people know they could achieve religious and political gain by having more kids?" Gosh, these dumb academics haven't figured it out. And who is thinking that academics even has serious political sway on these matters?
  - gtvwill 2y ago
    Hey look I'm poor as I've ever been and have 3 step kids. Gonna send it for another two kids soon regardless of our finances. Why? Well because we want to and we're not getting any younger! Mate childcare, house sizes, money. Eh well make it work. No point worrying about problem that might not even happen. It is a marketing problem largely. People got too high a expectations these days. They expect everything to be perfect and are largely massively selfish in doing it. We might be poor, we might be cramped in a tiny house. But the kids are fed, clothed and are in a loving family. It's better than a lot of wealthy fams I know where the kids are depressed because the parents rarely cross the giant house to have a chat or hang out with them. Everybody is hidden behind thousands of dollars of screens. The middle class has a massive marketing problem re. Having kids and families.
- 0xcafefood 2y ago
  I think what you're proposing will happen, but over time. Birth control has separated sex from reproduction, for anyone with access to it and the desire to use it. So nature's former trick of making sex enjoyable in order to incentivize reproduction doesn't work as well any longer. The next trick will have to be an actual desire to have children, instead of a desire to have sex with the results also including children. That desire may be genetic or memetic (e.g. in the form of a religion), or most likely a synthesis of the two.
- gumby 2y ago
  > Seriously folks need to breed more. People who want to are welcome to -- you be you. People who don't want to should not be pressured to do so.
gumby 2y ago
The usual complaint is that the pyramid scheme stops working (not enough people working to pay the pensions of the old people). This is simplistic: the real problem is that there aren't enough doctors/garbos/crop-harvesters etc as a proportion of the population. Either way the fix is straightforward: bring in some people who'd like a job. Some rethinking is required -- in the USA Social Security was put in place when the typical recipient was expected to receive a payout for...less than three years. I have friends in the "reduce the birth rate" community, and they are at least as thoughless if not more than the "birth rate too low" crowd. In the former case their "diagnosis" is inevitably that the wrong people are having too many kids though they hate it when you point that out. A higher birth rate in sub saharan africa is hardly a crisis: every person in the US emits 5X the CO2 of a person in Africa. Dropping population in the rich, polluting countries can be a step in the right direction. (Personally I'm pretty indifferent to either position. As Herb Stein famously put it: "if something cannot go on forever it will stop". Sure, the latency in this case is quite high but people deal with worse all the time.)
- tivert 2y ago
  > This is simplistic: the real problem is that there aren't enough doctors/garbos/crop-harvesters etc as a proportion of the population. Either way the fix is straightforward: bring in some people who'd like a job. That "fix" doesn't work when the birthrate problem is widespread. It just moves the problem around so it hits the poorest the hardest. > Some rethinking is required -- in the USA Social Security was put in place when the typical recipient was expected to receive a payout for...less than three years. Yes. Social security's payout formula should factor in the number offspring. Anyone who has less than two gets a significantly reduced or no payout, because they didn't sufficiently contribute to the next generation's labor pool to provide the goods and services they payout would be used to buy. The tax payments would be kept but re-conceptualized as support for elderly parents. To make it fair, the government should pay for fertility treatments, and count a certain number of good-faith attempts as children in the formula.
  - gumby 2y ago
    > It just moves the problem around so it hits the poorest the hardest. Could you expand on this? I can’t think of a scenario where that is the case. > Social security's payout formula should factor in the number offspring. Ha, how will you track it? I have no offspring in this country (USA) bc they decided things are better elsewhere. But they were born here. Germany just does it directly: when your kids are little you have to support them (assuming you can); when you are old and decrepit your kids have some responsibility for your wellbeing.
TheCleric 2y ago
If only there was a way for people to move from one country to the other…
- 0xcafefood 2y ago
  Historically, periods of mass migration have also been periods of immense turmoil and even violence. What will make the proposal to try it again, this time on absolutely unprecedented scale, go better?
  - TheCleric 2y ago
    I dispute your assertion. The late 19th and early 20th century USA had a population boom largely from immigration. There was no immense turmoil and violence.
    - 0xcafefood 2y ago
      But there was violence. Between Protestants and Catholics, between English-Americans and the newcomers from Ireland, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc. Lutheran Churches were firebombed during the First World War. For example, many German-Americans today don't even know this, but there was immense pressure to severe ties with Germany, e.g. to stop speaking German, to Anglicize their names, to adopt a more "American" cuisine, etc. Immigration was more or less halted for the half century between 1924 and 1965 due to a great deal of this turmoil. And that's just describing inter-ethnic conflicts among White Americans. These groups have histories that intertwine extending back to their homelands in Europe. There was also a great deal a inter-racial violence and tension. I don't blame you for not knowing about any of this. It's just not something the United States really touts about its own history. And knowledge of the problems it caused 100 years ago raises uncomfortable questions about the current levels of immigration into the US. So it's something that goes largely undiscussed today.
      - TheCleric 2y ago
        I’m not claiming that there was no violence. However there is no evidence that the rate of violence went up during this time. The Dillingham Commission (who weren’t open borders types) even concluded during that there was no substantial evidence for immigrants as a source of increased crime. However it’s very clear you’ve made your mind up and everyone else is uninformed. Enjoy your enlightenment. Have a nice day.

gtvwill 2y ago

Well pretty sure we know how to fix that. Go have some kids! Seriously folks need to breed more. You wanna spread your ideals? Have a family. Wanna sway politics in the long run to your ideals? Tell your kids to have big families too. Religions have been doing this for yonks. It's not rocket science. It strikes me as absurd the academic class hasn't worked this out.

threatofrain 2y ago
A lot of people want to have families... you're making it sound like there's a marketing problem, but the conversation is on whether or not there's the right platform for the middle class to have children; i.e. childcare, family, home, money, etc. People want to maintain their station in life while having children. But somehow you're looking at the problem like "why don't people know they could achieve religious and political gain by having more kids?" Gosh, these dumb academics haven't figured it out. And who is thinking that academics even has serious political sway on these matters?
- gtvwill 2y ago
  Hey look I'm poor as I've ever been and have 3 step kids. Gonna send it for another two kids soon regardless of our finances. Why? Well because we want to and we're not getting any younger! Mate childcare, house sizes, money. Eh well make it work. No point worrying about problem that might not even happen. It is a marketing problem largely. People got too high a expectations these days. They expect everything to be perfect and are largely massively selfish in doing it. We might be poor, we might be cramped in a tiny house. But the kids are fed, clothed and are in a loving family. It's better than a lot of wealthy fams I know where the kids are depressed because the parents rarely cross the giant house to have a chat or hang out with them. Everybody is hidden behind thousands of dollars of screens. The middle class has a massive marketing problem re. Having kids and families.
0xcafefood 2y ago
I think what you're proposing will happen, but over time. Birth control has separated sex from reproduction, for anyone with access to it and the desire to use it. So nature's former trick of making sex enjoyable in order to incentivize reproduction doesn't work as well any longer. The next trick will have to be an actual desire to have children, instead of a desire to have sex with the results also including children. That desire may be genetic or memetic (e.g. in the form of a religion), or most likely a synthesis of the two.
gumby 2y ago
> Seriously folks need to breed more. People who want to are welcome to -- you be you. People who don't want to should not be pressured to do so.

gumby 2y ago

The usual complaint is that the pyramid scheme stops working (not enough people working to pay the pensions of the old people). This is simplistic: the real problem is that there aren't enough doctors/garbos/crop-harvesters etc as a proportion of the population. Either way the fix is straightforward: bring in some people who'd like a job. Some rethinking is required -- in the USA Social Security was put in place when the typical recipient was expected to receive a payout for...less than three years. I have friends in the "reduce the birth rate" community, and they are at least as thoughless if not more than the "birth rate too low" crowd. In the former case their "diagnosis" is inevitably that the wrong people are having too many kids though they hate it when you point that out. A higher birth rate in sub saharan africa is hardly a crisis: every person in the US emits 5X the CO2 of a person in Africa. Dropping population in the rich, polluting countries can be a step in the right direction. (Personally I'm pretty indifferent to either position. As Herb Stein famously put it: "if something cannot go on forever it will stop". Sure, the latency in this case is quite high but people deal with worse all the time.)

tivert 2y ago
> This is simplistic: the real problem is that there aren't enough doctors/garbos/crop-harvesters etc as a proportion of the population. Either way the fix is straightforward: bring in some people who'd like a job. That "fix" doesn't work when the birthrate problem is widespread. It just moves the problem around so it hits the poorest the hardest. > Some rethinking is required -- in the USA Social Security was put in place when the typical recipient was expected to receive a payout for...less than three years. Yes. Social security's payout formula should factor in the number offspring. Anyone who has less than two gets a significantly reduced or no payout, because they didn't sufficiently contribute to the next generation's labor pool to provide the goods and services they payout would be used to buy. The tax payments would be kept but re-conceptualized as support for elderly parents. To make it fair, the government should pay for fertility treatments, and count a certain number of good-faith attempts as children in the formula.
- gumby 2y ago
  > It just moves the problem around so it hits the poorest the hardest. Could you expand on this? I can’t think of a scenario where that is the case. > Social security's payout formula should factor in the number offspring. Ha, how will you track it? I have no offspring in this country (USA) bc they decided things are better elsewhere. But they were born here. Germany just does it directly: when your kids are little you have to support them (assuming you can); when you are old and decrepit your kids have some responsibility for your wellbeing.

TheCleric 2y ago

If only there was a way for people to move from one country to the other…

0xcafefood 2y ago
Historically, periods of mass migration have also been periods of immense turmoil and even violence. What will make the proposal to try it again, this time on absolutely unprecedented scale, go better?
- TheCleric 2y ago
  I dispute your assertion. The late 19th and early 20th century USA had a population boom largely from immigration. There was no immense turmoil and violence.
  - 0xcafefood 2y ago
    But there was violence. Between Protestants and Catholics, between English-Americans and the newcomers from Ireland, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc. Lutheran Churches were firebombed during the First World War. For example, many German-Americans today don't even know this, but there was immense pressure to severe ties with Germany, e.g. to stop speaking German, to Anglicize their names, to adopt a more "American" cuisine, etc. Immigration was more or less halted for the half century between 1924 and 1965 due to a great deal of this turmoil. And that's just describing inter-ethnic conflicts among White Americans. These groups have histories that intertwine extending back to their homelands in Europe. There was also a great deal a inter-racial violence and tension. I don't blame you for not knowing about any of this. It's just not something the United States really touts about its own history. And knowledge of the problems it caused 100 years ago raises uncomfortable questions about the current levels of immigration into the US. So it's something that goes largely undiscussed today.
    - TheCleric 2y ago
      I’m not claiming that there was no violence. However there is no evidence that the rate of violence went up during this time. The Dillingham Commission (who weren’t open borders types) even concluded during that there was no substantial evidence for immigrants as a source of increased crime. However it’s very clear you’ve made your mind up and everyone else is uninformed. Enjoy your enlightenment. Have a nice day.