7 ms·

Wikipedia has a list of ghost towns in the United States.[1] Most rural towns were built to serve surrounding farms and ranches. As farming became less labor-i

Wikipedia has a list of ghost towns in the United States.[1] Most rural towns were built to serve surrounding farms and ranches. As farming became less labor-intensive, the need for those towns went away, and the towns slowly died. See "Depopulation of the Great Plains"[2] It's interesting to note that the depopulated area is the best part of the US for wind power. That could work out OK. Mining towns die when the resource is exhausted. They go fast. Japan, where the population is rapidly declining, has a large number of empty rural towns. There's an incentive program to get young people to move there, but not many are interested. Because Japan's infrastructure is centrally funded, much of the infrastructure is still maintained in areas with very few people. Russia has a declining population and entire abandoned cities. Putin is pushing young people to have kids. There's a "Pregnant at 16" TV show in Russia, which has been re-branded to encourage pregnancy.[3] The countries that are above breakeven (2.1 children per woman) are all in Africa or are dominated by religions which oppress women. And poor.[4] "Peak baby" was in 2013 worldwide. There are two futures, both bad. "Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant", or "Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_ghost_towns_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_ghost_towns_in_the_Un... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_the_Great_Plains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_the_Great_Plai... [3] https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/11/05/as-russia-targets-abortion-and-childfree-propaganda-to-raise-birth-rates-pregnant-at-16-reality-show-rebrands-to-make-motherhood-more-appealing https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/11/05/as-russia-targets-ab... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...

RestartKernel 2y ago
[3] is really interesting. I'm not surprised, but it really feels like history is happening when even the mundane starts to reflect it.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  I don’t think it will work as long as women have access to information and literally anything else to do in life other than making endless babies. I fear there will be a push against women’s freedom of choice, once things become dire enough that can’t be patched with immigration. It’s just a huge opportunity loss if you talk to any young woman, and they’re obviously right. There is no tangible benefit to have more than two children other than “for the humanity!”.
  - Animats 2y ago
    > I don’t think it will work as long as women have access to information and literally anything else to do in life other than making endless babies. Which has happened in Afghanistan. The Taliban has cracked down.[1] "Our analysis shows that by 2026, the impact of leaving 1.1 million girls out of school and 100,000 women out of university correlates to an increase in early childbearing by 45 per cent." [1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1153151 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1153151
  - JackMorgan 2y ago
    I think if everyone in the country could easily afford a 5 bedroom house on one person's salary, and they deeply felt like their kids would grow up safe and healthy environment, we'd have a population explosion. The decline is caused by a population that cannot afford enough and is constantly panicked over global events. Everyone is presented with terror of doom constantly, and squeezed by a major shift of resources from labor to capital holders. The rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer. A family of rabbits without enough quiet, food, shelter, etc will have hardly any babies. The mother will also eat any babies.
    - tokioyoyo 2y ago
      You really think women, on average, would be willing to sacrifice 6+ years at the minimum to have 3 children? It’s easy for us, men, to say that. But all my girl friends around my age group (late 20s-early 40s) are generally happy with 0-2 children. Genuinely nothing is stopping them other than “why do I need to make that sacrifice?” question. I will never blame them either, because I would do exactly the same in their place. It is the most logical thing to do. It’s either we make women’s lives objectively worse, or figure out a way where we can live without everyone going for 3+.
      - lmm 2y ago
        Dig into what exactly is it they would be sacrificing. The actual day-to-day raising of children is fulfilling and positive. The cost is mostly worries that are partly financial and more social - falling behind in your career, not being able to maintain friendships, not being able to spend enough time with your existing kids, not being able to afford to give your new kids a good childhood, not being able to put all your kids through college, not being able to afford retirement.
whartung 2y ago
> Mining towns die when the resource is exhausted. They go fast. In Nevada/Eastern California there was a railroad that went from the Carson City area down toward Owen’s Lake. The interesting part is if you look at the railroad map, pretty much none of the stops exist anymore. It’s a long string of communities that are all long gone from the eastern Owen’s Valley. Even the eventual highways that were to follow ended up coming down the western side of the valley, yet more reason for those late communities to no longer exist. And it’s pretty much all gone. No ghost towns, maybe a few overgrown foundations remnants. But if you had never seen this railroad map, you’d probably never have any idea this land was occupied at all.
- partomniscient 2y ago
  As an outsider looking-in that caught some of this portrays in Pixar/Disney's animated Cars [1] movies its interesting to reflect upon the parallels with its Route 66 references, which originate from and also culturally impacted us locally [2]. It's also ironic that Route 66 [3] was originally in-and-of itself a bypass. As someone that predominantly lived in a capital urban city of a nation still expanding rather than contracting, understanding its equivalent occurence in Bulgaria is even more difficult. [1] https://betweenenglandandiowa.com/2018/02/11/cars-route-66-movie-locations/ https://betweenenglandandiowa.com/2018/02/11/cars-route-66-m... [2] https://route66.com.au/ https://route66.com.au/ [3] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Route-66 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Route-66
- asdff 2y ago
  I think with the owens valley the population mainly agglomerated to the towns that are there today probably reflecting the sorts of jobs around. I’m sure Bishop is bigger than its ever been today.
jdlshore 2y ago
> There are two futures, both bad. Or, more likely, people are extrapolating from current trends, and those trends won’t hold. Not that long ago, people were doing that extrapolation and deciding that overpopulation and worldwide famine were in our future. “The Population Bomb” was a bestselling book along those lines. The population is likely to shrink, easing strain on resources, and people will look back fondly on “the good old days” when folks had big families. Trends will shift and the population will grow again.
- benchmarkist 2y ago
  It's a self-correcting problem. The people who don't have children select themselves out of the gene pool and are replaced by those who do have children.
  - debesyla 2y ago
    It's debatable if choice/want/accident of having children is based on genetics.
    - benchmarkist 2y ago
      It's a tautology. Replicators which do not replicate do not persist in the environment and so are selected out of the pool of replicators. So whatever genes persist in the environment are tautologically the ones that managed to replicate and persist. The people who do not have children are selecting themselves out of the pool of genes that make copies so will be replaced with ones that do make copies. If you're talking about environmental pollution and declining fertility because of it then that's something else but even then, those who manage to survive and persist in a polluted environment will be the ones who pass on copies of their genes.
      - notahacker 2y ago
        > It's a tautology. Replicators which do not replicate do not persist in the environment and so are selected out of the pool of replicators. So whatever genes persist in the environment are tautologically the ones that managed to replicate and persist. The people who do not have children are selecting themselves out of the pool of genes that make copies so will be replaced with ones that do make copies That's.... not how humans work. If people choose to have less children, which has very little to do with their genetics, there are fewer children to replicate, not "replacement" with children who are genetically determined to be fecund.
beAbU 2y ago
> There are two futures, both bad. The more likely scenario is a natural oscillation between these two outcomes, similar to how animals maintain oscillating population equilibrium that's controlled by space, resources and predation.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  I mean one thing many people, myself included, have been clamoring for ages is that people can't afford to live and own property anymore. People can't afford to think about raising kids if they're stressed about your next paycheck and making rent. This is probably oversimplified and naive, but go back to the 80's economically where families could afford a family-raising sized home and a comfortable life on a single income. Bring jobs back to the smaller towns, which are safer and healthier places to raise families.
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    This sentiment is interesting and coexists in a world where real estate is super cheap the second you move out of urban centers. Combine this with the fact that is has never been easier to work remotely. From my perspective it is a matter of preference - people decide that their life style in urban centers is more important than having a resource surplus and starting a family.
    - arlort 2y ago
      > that is has never been easier to work remotely. Which still means it's almost impossible for almost everyone almost everywhere
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    TFR was low even back in the 1980s, and especially the 1970s. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA I am guessing the bump from late 1980s to 2000s was almost entirely due to immigrants, especially Latin American. Similar to a bump seen in other countries where immigrants coming from places with higher TFRs bumped it up, and within a couple decades, even those immigrant populations now have lower TFRs. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab=chart&time=1950..latest&country=USA~CAN~GBR~AUS~FRA~DEU~NOR~SWE~FIN~CHE~ITA~ESP https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab...
elzbardico 2y ago
If I am not mistaken we had other depopulation events in history and we rebounded from it. Especially in the past where surviving the first years was far from guaranteed and nutrition levels and hardship frequently imposed a tax on women’s fertility. Combine this with lower life expectancies and we had the recipe for quite a few depopulation events. The point is. There’s no much you can do if people don’t want to have kids. And this is probably generational, so you won’t change the mind of the current generations. We will need to learn to live without it. Retirement while healthy and capable of work, will probably become a thing of the past. Also, we will probably have to rethink compound interest and inheritance rights. Compound interest on investments require by necessity monotonically increasing economy outputs in the long run.
- moomin 2y ago
  Honestly, I think you could adjust population growth in many western countries by just spending more on schools, providing generous parental leave and generally making having kids less daunting. But it seems like everyone who wants this outcome is entirely comfortable with going full Nazi on the subject.
  - elzbardico 2y ago
    No way, we need to pay interest to the boomers so they can buy Motorhomes, Boats, Harley Davidsons and travel across the world. Stop this school and health care nonsense! This is communism!
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    The data says that the benefits provided by the Scandinavian and European countries are not enough, or that providing benefits is not going to lift TFR to replacement rate. And also TFR was declining a lot all the way back since the 1950s, when kids were not as daunting and real estate costs and schooling costs were lower and people were buying houses on single incomes. I have a suspicion that there is almost no amount of realistic benefits that can incentivize having sufficient kids to the level of replacement rate. The problem is that once sufficient women do not have 2 children, it is unrealistic to expect a sufficient amount of the remaining women to have 3+ children to offset those that have 0 or 1 child. The big change from 100 years ago is that being a couple is now completely optional with no social stigma for being single, so if 30% or even 20% opt out of the compromises required in a relationship (due to their financial independence and safety in society), then you're fighting a losing battle (to keep TFR at replacement rate).
dzink 2y ago
Nope. Look at Israel - their Kibbutz system allows for communal raising of children and that means women have the ability to do more than be stuck at homes. They serve in the IDF, have careers, and population growth is 3 children per woman. Israel has the right model - governments who figure out how to support their mothers with proper childcare and education for the kids will get a developed society with proper population growth.
- TomK32 2y ago
  As usual, religion is to blame for this high rate: > In 2020, the total fertility rate among ultra-Orthodox women in Israel was 6.6, while the rate among Arab women was 3.0, and among secular women, it was 2.0 — still well above the OECD average — according to a report from the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-birth-rate-remains-highest-in-oecd-by-far-at-2-9-children-per-woman/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-birth-rate-remains-hig...
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > They serve in the IDF, have careers, and population growth is 3 children per woman. The women that do the above most certainly have a TFR closer to 2 rather than 3. See table 1 at top of page 7 and figure 2 on page 8. https://www.taubcenter.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Demography-ENG-2023-2.pdf https://www.taubcenter.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Dem...
slibhb 2y ago
> There are two futures, both bad. "Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant", or "Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights." One data point against this dichotomy is that most women in the West generally report wanting more children than they have. A different view is that, in the first world, men and women have become more neurotic and risk averse. E.g. "we can't afford kids with this market"
- jajko 2y ago
  > "we can't afford kids with this market" This seems like a gross simplification. In western world, the pressure is to raise kids well rather than just so-so, since one can easily see how much this helps them with rest of modern complex life. For example emotional stability, maturity and resilience is not something that comes automatically regardless of quality (and quantity) of parenting. This aspect alone is enough to make or break literally any conceivable talent or wealth under our sun. And raising kids well these days is... hard, very hard. If it would be just question of money, rich folks would be all having 10-15 kids yet even those who are pretty horrible parents via ignoring their kids most of the time (with corresponding results later in life) very rarely do so, and if they do its normally the result of their instabilities and mental issues rather than part of a bigger plan.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > If it would be just question of money, rich folks would be all having 10-15 kids Well, Musk certainly does... the thing is, for the really rich, more kids means more complex inheritance schemes and the risk of their wealth going down the drain in inheritance fights. Here in Germany for example, there was a ridiculous multi year fight in the empire of the Albrecht clan (the ones behind Aldi, I think in the US it's Trader Joe's?).
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      The number of kids a man has is irrelevant for population statistics because it simply offsets another man’s child. That’s why total fertility rate only takes into account how many children a woman has, since they are the rate limiting factor.
cryptonector 2y ago
> There are two futures, both bad. "Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant", or "Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights." Overly pessimistic. Our culture and economy have been structured to yield low fertility. That will eventually pass. There's no need for oppression to get replacement rate fertility.
- ralfd 2y ago
  > Overly pessimistic. Our culture and economy have been structured to yield low fertility. That will eventually pass. But I don't see succesful attempts culture/economy changed to be family friendly? Realistically our culture/economy right now "will pass" by being replaced with the virile Amish.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    > But I don't see succesful attempts culture/economy changed to be family friendly? The fertility crisis is fairly new, and the public's consciousness of it is still barely there. That means we've not had enough serious attempts at fixing this. But it will happen. First we're seeing tax policy being altered to incentivize family formation in some places (very few). Second we'll see at some point that newer generations will place more value on early family formation and that will then lead to a change in the culture. That's my prediction, but who knows. > Realistically our culture/economy right now "will pass" by being replaced with the virile Amish. This is just the The Handmaid's Tale fantasy some people have. That's quite clearly not in the cards. And it's not like that's what our culture was like in the past (it wasn't), nor like that's the only way back to replacement level fertility (why would it be?).
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      >That means we've not had enough serious attempts at fixing this. But it will happen. First we're seeing tax policy being altered to incentivize family formation in some places (very few). The biggest problem is that countries want to incentivize good family formation, not just family formation. And that's a seemingly impossible nut to crack with government incentives. You can't just throw cash at people, you would end up with people you don't want having kids raising them to become adults you don't want.
credit_guy 2y ago
Low birth rates happen because it takes effort (and money) to raise children. There is a lot of satisfaction too, but for many couples the breakeven point is at one child, or less. But with the advent of AI, it is quite likely that some of the effort will be gone. Imagine a robot that does the dishes, folds clothes, or changes diapers. Or a robot that teaches patiently a child to speak a foreign language, or teaches them algebra. Maybe with a human (read parent) in the loop. I know this can easily slide into becoming stuff of nightmares (e.g. M3GAN), but with a bit of trial and error I'm sure we'll be able to strike a balance where the AI will be useful but not dangerous. After all, fire can kill yet we use it in our kitchens.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  Do you have kids?
  - credit_guy 2y ago
    I do, but what are you trying to say?
    - pyuser583 2y ago
      I’m trying to figure out if your comments about AI helping raise kids is from experience or speculation. Since you’re a parent, then I’m going to take it a lot more seriously. I’ll reflect on how AI might help in my own parenting. If you weren’t a parent, I’d probably be more dismissive.
      - credit_guy 2y ago
        Well, it's early days of AI. But I can already get some help. My oldest child is in high school, and my wife and I can help him with math and coding. But when it comes to biology, or ELA, or history, our help is quite limited. And in these situations AI can be a real help. Of course, you still need to get involved as a parent, otherwise the kid is tempted to just copy/paste the ChatGPT answers.

RestartKernel 2y ago

[3] is really interesting. I'm not surprised, but it really feels like history is happening when even the mundane starts to reflect it.

tokioyoyo 2y ago
I don’t think it will work as long as women have access to information and literally anything else to do in life other than making endless babies. I fear there will be a push against women’s freedom of choice, once things become dire enough that can’t be patched with immigration. It’s just a huge opportunity loss if you talk to any young woman, and they’re obviously right. There is no tangible benefit to have more than two children other than “for the humanity!”.
- Animats 2y ago
  > I don’t think it will work as long as women have access to information and literally anything else to do in life other than making endless babies. Which has happened in Afghanistan. The Taliban has cracked down.[1] "Our analysis shows that by 2026, the impact of leaving 1.1 million girls out of school and 100,000 women out of university correlates to an increase in early childbearing by 45 per cent." [1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1153151 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1153151
- JackMorgan 2y ago
  I think if everyone in the country could easily afford a 5 bedroom house on one person's salary, and they deeply felt like their kids would grow up safe and healthy environment, we'd have a population explosion. The decline is caused by a population that cannot afford enough and is constantly panicked over global events. Everyone is presented with terror of doom constantly, and squeezed by a major shift of resources from labor to capital holders. The rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer. A family of rabbits without enough quiet, food, shelter, etc will have hardly any babies. The mother will also eat any babies.
  - tokioyoyo 2y ago
    You really think women, on average, would be willing to sacrifice 6+ years at the minimum to have 3 children? It’s easy for us, men, to say that. But all my girl friends around my age group (late 20s-early 40s) are generally happy with 0-2 children. Genuinely nothing is stopping them other than “why do I need to make that sacrifice?” question. I will never blame them either, because I would do exactly the same in their place. It is the most logical thing to do. It’s either we make women’s lives objectively worse, or figure out a way where we can live without everyone going for 3+.
    - lmm 2y ago
      Dig into what exactly is it they would be sacrificing. The actual day-to-day raising of children is fulfilling and positive. The cost is mostly worries that are partly financial and more social - falling behind in your career, not being able to maintain friendships, not being able to spend enough time with your existing kids, not being able to afford to give your new kids a good childhood, not being able to put all your kids through college, not being able to afford retirement.

whartung 2y ago

> Mining towns die when the resource is exhausted. They go fast. In Nevada/Eastern California there was a railroad that went from the Carson City area down toward Owen’s Lake. The interesting part is if you look at the railroad map, pretty much none of the stops exist anymore. It’s a long string of communities that are all long gone from the eastern Owen’s Valley. Even the eventual highways that were to follow ended up coming down the western side of the valley, yet more reason for those late communities to no longer exist. And it’s pretty much all gone. No ghost towns, maybe a few overgrown foundations remnants. But if you had never seen this railroad map, you’d probably never have any idea this land was occupied at all.

partomniscient 2y ago
As an outsider looking-in that caught some of this portrays in Pixar/Disney's animated Cars [1] movies its interesting to reflect upon the parallels with its Route 66 references, which originate from and also culturally impacted us locally [2]. It's also ironic that Route 66 [3] was originally in-and-of itself a bypass. As someone that predominantly lived in a capital urban city of a nation still expanding rather than contracting, understanding its equivalent occurence in Bulgaria is even more difficult. [1] https://betweenenglandandiowa.com/2018/02/11/cars-route-66-movie-locations/ https://betweenenglandandiowa.com/2018/02/11/cars-route-66-m... [2] https://route66.com.au/ https://route66.com.au/ [3] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Route-66 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Route-66
asdff 2y ago
I think with the owens valley the population mainly agglomerated to the towns that are there today probably reflecting the sorts of jobs around. I’m sure Bishop is bigger than its ever been today.

jdlshore 2y ago

> There are two futures, both bad. Or, more likely, people are extrapolating from current trends, and those trends won’t hold. Not that long ago, people were doing that extrapolation and deciding that overpopulation and worldwide famine were in our future. “The Population Bomb” was a bestselling book along those lines. The population is likely to shrink, easing strain on resources, and people will look back fondly on “the good old days” when folks had big families. Trends will shift and the population will grow again.

benchmarkist 2y ago
It's a self-correcting problem. The people who don't have children select themselves out of the gene pool and are replaced by those who do have children.
- debesyla 2y ago
  It's debatable if choice/want/accident of having children is based on genetics.
  - benchmarkist 2y ago
    It's a tautology. Replicators which do not replicate do not persist in the environment and so are selected out of the pool of replicators. So whatever genes persist in the environment are tautologically the ones that managed to replicate and persist. The people who do not have children are selecting themselves out of the pool of genes that make copies so will be replaced with ones that do make copies. If you're talking about environmental pollution and declining fertility because of it then that's something else but even then, those who manage to survive and persist in a polluted environment will be the ones who pass on copies of their genes.
    - notahacker 2y ago
      > It's a tautology. Replicators which do not replicate do not persist in the environment and so are selected out of the pool of replicators. So whatever genes persist in the environment are tautologically the ones that managed to replicate and persist. The people who do not have children are selecting themselves out of the pool of genes that make copies so will be replaced with ones that do make copies That's.... not how humans work. If people choose to have less children, which has very little to do with their genetics, there are fewer children to replicate, not "replacement" with children who are genetically determined to be fecund.

beAbU 2y ago

> There are two futures, both bad. The more likely scenario is a natural oscillation between these two outcomes, similar to how animals maintain oscillating population equilibrium that's controlled by space, resources and predation.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
I mean one thing many people, myself included, have been clamoring for ages is that people can't afford to live and own property anymore. People can't afford to think about raising kids if they're stressed about your next paycheck and making rent. This is probably oversimplified and naive, but go back to the 80's economically where families could afford a family-raising sized home and a comfortable life on a single income. Bring jobs back to the smaller towns, which are safer and healthier places to raise families.
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  This sentiment is interesting and coexists in a world where real estate is super cheap the second you move out of urban centers. Combine this with the fact that is has never been easier to work remotely. From my perspective it is a matter of preference - people decide that their life style in urban centers is more important than having a resource surplus and starting a family.
  - arlort 2y ago
    > that is has never been easier to work remotely. Which still means it's almost impossible for almost everyone almost everywhere
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  TFR was low even back in the 1980s, and especially the 1970s. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA I am guessing the bump from late 1980s to 2000s was almost entirely due to immigrants, especially Latin American. Similar to a bump seen in other countries where immigrants coming from places with higher TFRs bumped it up, and within a couple decades, even those immigrant populations now have lower TFRs. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab=chart&time=1950..latest&country=USA~CAN~GBR~AUS~FRA~DEU~NOR~SWE~FIN~CHE~ITA~ESP https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab...

elzbardico 2y ago

If I am not mistaken we had other depopulation events in history and we rebounded from it. Especially in the past where surviving the first years was far from guaranteed and nutrition levels and hardship frequently imposed a tax on women’s fertility. Combine this with lower life expectancies and we had the recipe for quite a few depopulation events. The point is. There’s no much you can do if people don’t want to have kids. And this is probably generational, so you won’t change the mind of the current generations. We will need to learn to live without it. Retirement while healthy and capable of work, will probably become a thing of the past. Also, we will probably have to rethink compound interest and inheritance rights. Compound interest on investments require by necessity monotonically increasing economy outputs in the long run.

moomin 2y ago
Honestly, I think you could adjust population growth in many western countries by just spending more on schools, providing generous parental leave and generally making having kids less daunting. But it seems like everyone who wants this outcome is entirely comfortable with going full Nazi on the subject.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  No way, we need to pay interest to the boomers so they can buy Motorhomes, Boats, Harley Davidsons and travel across the world. Stop this school and health care nonsense! This is communism!
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  The data says that the benefits provided by the Scandinavian and European countries are not enough, or that providing benefits is not going to lift TFR to replacement rate. And also TFR was declining a lot all the way back since the 1950s, when kids were not as daunting and real estate costs and schooling costs were lower and people were buying houses on single incomes. I have a suspicion that there is almost no amount of realistic benefits that can incentivize having sufficient kids to the level of replacement rate. The problem is that once sufficient women do not have 2 children, it is unrealistic to expect a sufficient amount of the remaining women to have 3+ children to offset those that have 0 or 1 child. The big change from 100 years ago is that being a couple is now completely optional with no social stigma for being single, so if 30% or even 20% opt out of the compromises required in a relationship (due to their financial independence and safety in society), then you're fighting a losing battle (to keep TFR at replacement rate).

dzink 2y ago

Nope. Look at Israel - their Kibbutz system allows for communal raising of children and that means women have the ability to do more than be stuck at homes. They serve in the IDF, have careers, and population growth is 3 children per woman. Israel has the right model - governments who figure out how to support their mothers with proper childcare and education for the kids will get a developed society with proper population growth.

TomK32 2y ago
As usual, religion is to blame for this high rate: > In 2020, the total fertility rate among ultra-Orthodox women in Israel was 6.6, while the rate among Arab women was 3.0, and among secular women, it was 2.0 — still well above the OECD average — according to a report from the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-birth-rate-remains-highest-in-oecd-by-far-at-2-9-children-per-woman/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-birth-rate-remains-hig...
lotsofpulp 2y ago
> They serve in the IDF, have careers, and population growth is 3 children per woman. The women that do the above most certainly have a TFR closer to 2 rather than 3. See table 1 at top of page 7 and figure 2 on page 8. https://www.taubcenter.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Demography-ENG-2023-2.pdf https://www.taubcenter.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Dem...

slibhb 2y ago

> There are two futures, both bad. "Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant", or "Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights." One data point against this dichotomy is that most women in the West generally report wanting more children than they have. A different view is that, in the first world, men and women have become more neurotic and risk averse. E.g. "we can't afford kids with this market"

jajko 2y ago
> "we can't afford kids with this market" This seems like a gross simplification. In western world, the pressure is to raise kids well rather than just so-so, since one can easily see how much this helps them with rest of modern complex life. For example emotional stability, maturity and resilience is not something that comes automatically regardless of quality (and quantity) of parenting. This aspect alone is enough to make or break literally any conceivable talent or wealth under our sun. And raising kids well these days is... hard, very hard. If it would be just question of money, rich folks would be all having 10-15 kids yet even those who are pretty horrible parents via ignoring their kids most of the time (with corresponding results later in life) very rarely do so, and if they do its normally the result of their instabilities and mental issues rather than part of a bigger plan.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > If it would be just question of money, rich folks would be all having 10-15 kids Well, Musk certainly does... the thing is, for the really rich, more kids means more complex inheritance schemes and the risk of their wealth going down the drain in inheritance fights. Here in Germany for example, there was a ridiculous multi year fight in the empire of the Albrecht clan (the ones behind Aldi, I think in the US it's Trader Joe's?).
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    The number of kids a man has is irrelevant for population statistics because it simply offsets another man’s child. That’s why total fertility rate only takes into account how many children a woman has, since they are the rate limiting factor.

cryptonector 2y ago

> There are two futures, both bad. "Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant", or "Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights." Overly pessimistic. Our culture and economy have been structured to yield low fertility. That will eventually pass. There's no need for oppression to get replacement rate fertility.

ralfd 2y ago
> Overly pessimistic. Our culture and economy have been structured to yield low fertility. That will eventually pass. But I don't see succesful attempts culture/economy changed to be family friendly? Realistically our culture/economy right now "will pass" by being replaced with the virile Amish.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  > But I don't see succesful attempts culture/economy changed to be family friendly? The fertility crisis is fairly new, and the public's consciousness of it is still barely there. That means we've not had enough serious attempts at fixing this. But it will happen. First we're seeing tax policy being altered to incentivize family formation in some places (very few). Second we'll see at some point that newer generations will place more value on early family formation and that will then lead to a change in the culture. That's my prediction, but who knows. > Realistically our culture/economy right now "will pass" by being replaced with the virile Amish. This is just the The Handmaid's Tale fantasy some people have. That's quite clearly not in the cards. And it's not like that's what our culture was like in the past (it wasn't), nor like that's the only way back to replacement level fertility (why would it be?).
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    >That means we've not had enough serious attempts at fixing this. But it will happen. First we're seeing tax policy being altered to incentivize family formation in some places (very few). The biggest problem is that countries want to incentivize good family formation, not just family formation. And that's a seemingly impossible nut to crack with government incentives. You can't just throw cash at people, you would end up with people you don't want having kids raising them to become adults you don't want.

credit_guy 2y ago

Low birth rates happen because it takes effort (and money) to raise children. There is a lot of satisfaction too, but for many couples the breakeven point is at one child, or less. But with the advent of AI, it is quite likely that some of the effort will be gone. Imagine a robot that does the dishes, folds clothes, or changes diapers. Or a robot that teaches patiently a child to speak a foreign language, or teaches them algebra. Maybe with a human (read parent) in the loop. I know this can easily slide into becoming stuff of nightmares (e.g. M3GAN), but with a bit of trial and error I'm sure we'll be able to strike a balance where the AI will be useful but not dangerous. After all, fire can kill yet we use it in our kitchens.

pyuser583 2y ago
Do you have kids?
- credit_guy 2y ago
  I do, but what are you trying to say?
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    I’m trying to figure out if your comments about AI helping raise kids is from experience or speculation. Since you’re a parent, then I’m going to take it a lot more seriously. I’ll reflect on how AI might help in my own parenting. If you weren’t a parent, I’d probably be more dismissive.
    - credit_guy 2y ago
      Well, it's early days of AI. But I can already get some help. My oldest child is in high school, and my wife and I can help him with math and coding. But when it comes to biology, or ELA, or history, our help is quite limited. And in these situations AI can be a real help. Of course, you still need to get involved as a parent, otherwise the kid is tempted to just copy/paste the ChatGPT answers.