4 ms·

I’m glad someone is comparing this to overpopulation mania. It’s the same fallacy of assuming that present trends will continue indefinitely. I can absolutely

by api 2y ago

I’m glad someone is comparing this to overpopulation mania. It’s the same fallacy of assuming that present trends will continue indefinitely. I can absolutely imagine having big families coming back into fashion. In fact depopulation is likely to cause the conditions for this by making real estate cheap again among other things. Cultural, religious, and ideological shifts could also occur as well as technological advances.

thechao 2y ago
People, in general, are most likely the descendants of people who have lots of kids.
- api 2y ago
  Yet another reason the trend might reverse. If there are any genetic factors that influence the desire to have kids we are selecting very hard for those right now. In two or three generations we might have a world full of people who love kids and have crazy biological clocks.
Mistletoe 2y ago
I can see lots of reasons people would stop having children as they become industrialized. What’s the reasoning for them starting to have lots of kids again and do we see that happening anywhere on earth? I can say that all the young people I know would rather serve prison time than have children right now. This doesn’t look good for fertility. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA USA is 1.66 now and Japan is 1.3. You need 2.1 to even tread water.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- philipkglass 2y ago
  The graph you linked shows that the total fertility rate was nearly 3.7 in 1960 but kept dropping to reach as low as 1.7 in 1976. Afterward it gradually, irregularly went up to reach 2.1 in 2006 and 2007. Since then it has gone down again. Or to look at a time series covering more history, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-u... the American TFR dropped continuously in the 140 years between 1800 and 1940. But it went up again after 1940 to reach that new local Baby Boom peak in 1960 where your graph starts. I'm sure there are arguments to believe that "this time it's different" and that fertility won't go up again, but it has dropped and then risen again before.
  - Mistletoe 2y ago
    I feel like 2006-7 was the last hurrah before the financial crisis happened and people lost that optimism that things were going to be ok environmentally and society-wise again where they wanted to have children. I don't know if that is coming back. But again they were only treading water in 2006-7 and keeping population steady. For it to go above 2.1 and actually increase the population would take something happening that we haven't seen since 1971. We seem to always go back to 1971. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
    - api 2y ago
      Things are better in many many ways than they were then. We just have a media and a political propaganda industry that runs on rage and fear bait. The political parties have a vested interest in convincing you that civilization is about to collapse or driving you into a rage because turnout decides elections.
chiefalchemist 2y ago
> by making real estate cheap again among other things If this happens at scale, the system collapses. There's a reason The US Federal Reserve's target is positive 2% inflation. Why not 0? Why not negative 2%? The reason is the financial system is dependent on "appreciation". Imagine a bank approving a loan and the collateral falls in value? And asset the loan acquired falls in value. Boom! The whole system is under water. The USA has a housing supply problem for similar reasons. Property owners want the value of their assets to appreciate. Increase supply and that slows or stops. Like it or not it's a Ponzi Scheme, and this is why the population crunch is a concern. I went to a book tour stop of for this author + book and Princeton Univ a few months ago. Definitively recommended. https://www.lynalden.com/broken-money/ https://www.lynalden.com/broken-money/
- NikkiA 2y ago
  > Imagine a bank approving a loan and the collateral falls in value? And asset the loan acquired falls in value. Boom! The whole system is under water. Not really, you just have to use different collateral. After all personal loans are already based on taking a loan against a different collateral.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    Yes, really. Those assets are falling in value as well. Banks can't write down everything. Banks don't like such ugliness on their balance sheets. The Feds target is 2% because it's a CYA for the entire system. Note: 2% inflation - if they are lucky enough to stay on target - will cut your spending power in *half* in ~35 yrs. Let that sink in. The Fed's stated goal is to cut you in half every 35 yrs. Why? Because in the context of the current system 0 or less would be a disaster.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      As someone who lived through both 1979 (14% inflation) and 2008 (fear of a deflationary collapse), I'll take 2% inflation any day. If you can't see that that's the least-bad option, I don't know what to tell you. Yeah, if I don't invest my money that grows in value, it will lose half its value in 35 years. Yes, that's not ideal. No, it's not the catastrophe that you're making it sound.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thatfrenchguy 2y ago
Eh, I mean, the more time passes the more you want to spend time with your children to educate them. This mechanically makes people have less kids, as each one of them require a tremendous amount of energy to raise.

by api 2y ago

thechao 2y ago

People, in general, are most likely the descendants of people who have lots of kids.

api 2y ago
Yet another reason the trend might reverse. If there are any genetic factors that influence the desire to have kids we are selecting very hard for those right now. In two or three generations we might have a world full of people who love kids and have crazy biological clocks.

Mistletoe 2y ago

I can see lots of reasons people would stop having children as they become industrialized. What’s the reasoning for them starting to have lots of kids again and do we see that happening anywhere on earth? I can say that all the young people I know would rather serve prison time than have children right now. This doesn’t look good for fertility. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA USA is 1.66 now and Japan is 1.3. You need 2.1 to even tread water.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
philipkglass 2y ago
The graph you linked shows that the total fertility rate was nearly 3.7 in 1960 but kept dropping to reach as low as 1.7 in 1976. Afterward it gradually, irregularly went up to reach 2.1 in 2006 and 2007. Since then it has gone down again. Or to look at a time series covering more history, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-us-1800-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033027/fertility-rate-u... the American TFR dropped continuously in the 140 years between 1800 and 1940. But it went up again after 1940 to reach that new local Baby Boom peak in 1960 where your graph starts. I'm sure there are arguments to believe that "this time it's different" and that fertility won't go up again, but it has dropped and then risen again before.
- Mistletoe 2y ago
  I feel like 2006-7 was the last hurrah before the financial crisis happened and people lost that optimism that things were going to be ok environmentally and society-wise again where they wanted to have children. I don't know if that is coming back. But again they were only treading water in 2006-7 and keeping population steady. For it to go above 2.1 and actually increase the population would take something happening that we haven't seen since 1971. We seem to always go back to 1971. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
  - api 2y ago
    Things are better in many many ways than they were then. We just have a media and a political propaganda industry that runs on rage and fear bait. The political parties have a vested interest in convincing you that civilization is about to collapse or driving you into a rage because turnout decides elections.

chiefalchemist 2y ago

> by making real estate cheap again among other things If this happens at scale, the system collapses. There's a reason The US Federal Reserve's target is positive 2% inflation. Why not 0? Why not negative 2%? The reason is the financial system is dependent on "appreciation". Imagine a bank approving a loan and the collateral falls in value? And asset the loan acquired falls in value. Boom! The whole system is under water. The USA has a housing supply problem for similar reasons. Property owners want the value of their assets to appreciate. Increase supply and that slows or stops. Like it or not it's a Ponzi Scheme, and this is why the population crunch is a concern. I went to a book tour stop of for this author + book and Princeton Univ a few months ago. Definitively recommended. https://www.lynalden.com/broken-money/ https://www.lynalden.com/broken-money/

NikkiA 2y ago
> Imagine a bank approving a loan and the collateral falls in value? And asset the loan acquired falls in value. Boom! The whole system is under water. Not really, you just have to use different collateral. After all personal loans are already based on taking a loan against a different collateral.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Yes, really. Those assets are falling in value as well. Banks can't write down everything. Banks don't like such ugliness on their balance sheets. The Feds target is 2% because it's a CYA for the entire system. Note: 2% inflation - if they are lucky enough to stay on target - will cut your spending power in *half* in ~35 yrs. Let that sink in. The Fed's stated goal is to cut you in half every 35 yrs. Why? Because in the context of the current system 0 or less would be a disaster.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    As someone who lived through both 1979 (14% inflation) and 2008 (fear of a deflationary collapse), I'll take 2% inflation any day. If you can't see that that's the least-bad option, I don't know what to tell you. Yeah, if I don't invest my money that grows in value, it will lose half its value in 35 years. Yes, that's not ideal. No, it's not the catastrophe that you're making it sound.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

thatfrenchguy 2y ago

Eh, I mean, the more time passes the more you want to spend time with your children to educate them. This mechanically makes people have less kids, as each one of them require a tremendous amount of energy to raise.