3 ms·

Strongly disagree with that take. Genetics can only have a minor influence on number of offspring, because the genetic makeup of basically every industrialized

Strongly disagree with that take. Genetics can only have a minor influence on number of offspring, because the genetic makeup of basically every industrialized nation did not change completely within 20 years. If there was no other factor apart from genetics, it is decidedly unclear if that could stabilize population numbers on its own. But it won't have to, almost for certain, because non-genetic mechanisms will balance this in all likelyhood ("organized" incentives from states and also emerging ressource over-supply), and those mechanisms will work MUCH faster than genetics ever could.

ANewFormation 2y ago
He's not saying that genetics caused the problem, but that natural selection will solve the problem. Natural selection also need not be obviously genetic. For example certain religious groups maintain very healthy fertility rates, while secular populations tend to have quite poor fertility rates. So this logically leads to an outcome very few would intuitively expect - the percent of humanity that is religious will likely increase over the coming decades and centuries. Also collapsing populations will lead to resource scarcity. One of the many negatives of low fertility is that you end up with far more elderly than working age people. Any given market will also naturally decrease in size, all other things being equal. These factors, amongst others, will completely wreck economies which may well end up creating a vicious cycle against fertility. Another reason I think 'organized incentives' will be unlikely to achieve much is that Scandinavia had been at the forefront of fertility collapse in Europe and they have both an exremely strong social safety net as well as great minimum maternity benefits. Clearly there are other factors than economic inability driving people to go childless or to only have 1.
Animats 2y ago
Japan and France have tried incentives, with little effect. Japan is even cutting their social security payments to pay for increased subsidies for children.[1] France has a benefit scheme for parents with two or more children.[2] It's about EUR75 per month, so not that big. [1] https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/06/3918e2481936-japan-enacts-child-care-law-to-tackle-declining-birthrate.html https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/06/3918e2481936-japa... [2] https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13213?lang=en https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13213?...
- sebastiennight 2y ago
  The math on the French website seems to indicate EUR 75 "per child" (~150 total) per month for 2 kids, 110+ per child per month for 3.
- dopidopHN 2y ago
  IIRC France has a higher fertility rate than neiboors.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Because France has more Muslim immigrants, not because of their policies. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-grow...

ANewFormation 2y ago

He's not saying that genetics caused the problem, but that natural selection will solve the problem. Natural selection also need not be obviously genetic. For example certain religious groups maintain very healthy fertility rates, while secular populations tend to have quite poor fertility rates. So this logically leads to an outcome very few would intuitively expect - the percent of humanity that is religious will likely increase over the coming decades and centuries. Also collapsing populations will lead to resource scarcity. One of the many negatives of low fertility is that you end up with far more elderly than working age people. Any given market will also naturally decrease in size, all other things being equal. These factors, amongst others, will completely wreck economies which may well end up creating a vicious cycle against fertility. Another reason I think 'organized incentives' will be unlikely to achieve much is that Scandinavia had been at the forefront of fertility collapse in Europe and they have both an exremely strong social safety net as well as great minimum maternity benefits. Clearly there are other factors than economic inability driving people to go childless or to only have 1.

Animats 2y ago

Japan and France have tried incentives, with little effect. Japan is even cutting their social security payments to pay for increased subsidies for children.[1] France has a benefit scheme for parents with two or more children.[2] It's about EUR75 per month, so not that big. [1] https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/06/3918e2481936-japan-enacts-child-care-law-to-tackle-declining-birthrate.html https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/06/3918e2481936-japa... [2] https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13213?lang=en https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13213?...

sebastiennight 2y ago
The math on the French website seems to indicate EUR 75 "per child" (~150 total) per month for 2 kids, 110+ per child per month for 3.
dopidopHN 2y ago
IIRC France has a higher fertility rate than neiboors.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Because France has more Muslim immigrants, not because of their policies. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-grow...