3 ms·

The End of Children

3 points by Tomte 2y ago

oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
mytailorisrich 2y ago
> Liberals are right to point to immigration as the obvious way to mitigate the economic effects of demographic contraction. And the key is "economic effects" while ignoring all the other effects of high immigration, that will ultimately destroy a country's cultural and ethnic fabric (perhaps that's the aim). Anyway, as the article rightly points out this is not a solution, it just kicks the ball (a wrecking ball in this case) down the road. Ultimately we need to adapt to a decreasing population and aim for a stable population at a significantly lower level than we have now. There's no escaping that but on the plus side it will allow us to have a sutainable presence on this planet while enjoying good living standards and individual freedoms.
- beardyw 2y ago
  > immigration, that will ultimately destroy a country's cultural and ethnic fabric I may have it wrong, but aren't most Americans there as a result of immigration?
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    This article isn't about the USA... The USA were an empty continent so used immigration to fill it quickly and build the country but on historical terms this was arelatively homogeneous immigration (mostly Northern European, then European at large). The USA also ended up with high communitarism, which is not something known in many/most other countries. But look at Korea (most of the article refers to South Korea) and the situation is very different and more representative of an 'average' country.
  - api 2y ago
    This has been true for millennia: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528734-400-americas-saw-three-waves-of-ancient-settlers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528734-400-americas...
- api 2y ago
  Saying it's the aim is a ridiculous caricature along the same lines as people on the left who say that MAGA is a Russian-backed fifth column deliberately trying to destroy America. My own position is in the now-forbidden middle. There does seem to be such thing as a socially sustainable rate of immigration, and exceeding it clearly seems to cause problems. That means immigration can help some with declining population, but there's a limit to how much lifting it can do without causing a backlash or other issues. It also probably matters a lot where the immigrants are coming from and why they are coming. People who immigrate because they want to join your country and do productive things are great. Refugees who are just fleeing something are going to be harder to assimilate and probably will impose costs, while immigrants who want to come usually impose a net gain. I'm generally in favor of helping refugees if we are able for humanitarian reasons, but I think governments allowing such people in have to be realistic about what kind of support they need to provide. Just dropping them off on the street en masse doesn't seem to work out well.
abouzahra_me 2y ago
[dead]
sylens 2y ago
Any politician that suggests solutions to declining birth rates that do not tackle the economic realities facing most couples of childbearing age should be immediately ignored. You can’t raise children when you’re underwater on student loans or unable to afford a house down payment or can’t afford the cost of childcare.
- api 2y ago
  Add to that insane workaholic culture, like the "996" culture that pervades China and South Korea. Look into South Korea's birth rates for an extreme example of what this does. People don't have time to even date, let alone marry or raise kids. Japan's "salaryman" culture is another example. Note that many of the loudest population decline doomers (e.g. Musk) also push exactly this work culture, and are generally opposed to social welfare of the sort that would make it easier for people to have children. Their solution seems to be to take rights away from women. Not only do I find this odious, but I don't think it will work either. I think it will result in something like the also South Korean 4B movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement -- which will further depress birth rates. People who have tasted freedom do not go back without a fight. If you tell women they have to give up their rights and have babies, they will respond by refusing to have babies. Then there's the fact that men who actually care about their wives, sisters, and daughters, will not support this either. The root problem with birth rates is this: modern society transforms children from an asset into an economic burden. In un-developed societies children are needed as both labor and old age insurance. In developed societies both of these can be obtained more easily, or are supplied by the economy and/or the state. I can sit here and write code and obtain both of those alone. I don't even need a spouse to do it, let alone kids. It's a direct consequence of societal wealth, which is why you see birth rates decline in all wealthier societies regardless of culture, language, ethnicity, or religion. This neatly disproves the far right's idea that pushing trad right bullshit will raise birth rates. Birth rates are as low in Orban's Hungary and Putin's Russia as they are in the rest of Europe. Very Catholic Poland has a lower birth rate than much less religious Sweden (as of 2023). Very Islamic Iran's birth rate is the same as the Bahamas and lower than less religious Argentina. Birth rates are declining in Africa as it develops. If we want higher birth rates, we will probably have to do what we do with other things the free market is inadequate at providing: directly subsidize birth and child raising. It's the same reason we directly subsidize infrastructure and defense, other things the free market isn't great at providing. A start would be to greatly increase the child tax credit, provide free birth and post-natal care, free preschool, and do something about the runaway cost of college. Start by making it easy for people who want to have kids to have them. Then, if that's not enough, consider even more direct subsidies. Maybe the Social Security system in the US could be reimagined as a demographic support system that funds both ends of the curve: free health care and support for birth and child raising, and end of life support and care. They're connected of course. You need the former to keep providing the latter.

3 points by Tomte 2y ago

[dead]

> Liberals are right to point to immigration as the obvious way to mitigate the economic effects of demographic contraction. And the key is "economic effects" while ignoring all the other effects of high immigration, that will ultimately destroy a country's cultural and ethnic fabric (perhaps that's the aim). Anyway, as the article rightly points out this is not a solution, it just kicks the ball (a wrecking ball in this case) down the road. Ultimately we need to adapt to a decreasing population and aim for a stable population at a significantly lower level than we have now. There's no escaping that but on the plus side it will allow us to have a sutainable presence on this planet while enjoying good living standards and individual freedoms.

beardyw 2y ago
> immigration, that will ultimately destroy a country's cultural and ethnic fabric I may have it wrong, but aren't most Americans there as a result of immigration?
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  This article isn't about the USA... The USA were an empty continent so used immigration to fill it quickly and build the country but on historical terms this was arelatively homogeneous immigration (mostly Northern European, then European at large). The USA also ended up with high communitarism, which is not something known in many/most other countries. But look at Korea (most of the article refers to South Korea) and the situation is very different and more representative of an 'average' country.
- api 2y ago
  This has been true for millennia: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528734-400-americas-saw-three-waves-of-ancient-settlers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528734-400-americas...
api 2y ago
Saying it's the aim is a ridiculous caricature along the same lines as people on the left who say that MAGA is a Russian-backed fifth column deliberately trying to destroy America. My own position is in the now-forbidden middle. There does seem to be such thing as a socially sustainable rate of immigration, and exceeding it clearly seems to cause problems. That means immigration can help some with declining population, but there's a limit to how much lifting it can do without causing a backlash or other issues. It also probably matters a lot where the immigrants are coming from and why they are coming. People who immigrate because they want to join your country and do productive things are great. Refugees who are just fleeing something are going to be harder to assimilate and probably will impose costs, while immigrants who want to come usually impose a net gain. I'm generally in favor of helping refugees if we are able for humanitarian reasons, but I think governments allowing such people in have to be realistic about what kind of support they need to provide. Just dropping them off on the street en masse doesn't seem to work out well.

abouzahra_me 2y ago

[dead]

sylens 2y ago

Any politician that suggests solutions to declining birth rates that do not tackle the economic realities facing most couples of childbearing age should be immediately ignored. You can’t raise children when you’re underwater on student loans or unable to afford a house down payment or can’t afford the cost of childcare.

api 2y ago
Add to that insane workaholic culture, like the "996" culture that pervades China and South Korea. Look into South Korea's birth rates for an extreme example of what this does. People don't have time to even date, let alone marry or raise kids. Japan's "salaryman" culture is another example. Note that many of the loudest population decline doomers (e.g. Musk) also push exactly this work culture, and are generally opposed to social welfare of the sort that would make it easier for people to have children. Their solution seems to be to take rights away from women. Not only do I find this odious, but I don't think it will work either. I think it will result in something like the also South Korean 4B movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4B_movement -- which will further depress birth rates. People who have tasted freedom do not go back without a fight. If you tell women they have to give up their rights and have babies, they will respond by refusing to have babies. Then there's the fact that men who actually care about their wives, sisters, and daughters, will not support this either. The root problem with birth rates is this: modern society transforms children from an asset into an economic burden. In un-developed societies children are needed as both labor and old age insurance. In developed societies both of these can be obtained more easily, or are supplied by the economy and/or the state. I can sit here and write code and obtain both of those alone. I don't even need a spouse to do it, let alone kids. It's a direct consequence of societal wealth, which is why you see birth rates decline in all wealthier societies regardless of culture, language, ethnicity, or religion. This neatly disproves the far right's idea that pushing trad right bullshit will raise birth rates. Birth rates are as low in Orban's Hungary and Putin's Russia as they are in the rest of Europe. Very Catholic Poland has a lower birth rate than much less religious Sweden (as of 2023). Very Islamic Iran's birth rate is the same as the Bahamas and lower than less religious Argentina. Birth rates are declining in Africa as it develops. If we want higher birth rates, we will probably have to do what we do with other things the free market is inadequate at providing: directly subsidize birth and child raising. It's the same reason we directly subsidize infrastructure and defense, other things the free market isn't great at providing. A start would be to greatly increase the child tax credit, provide free birth and post-natal care, free preschool, and do something about the runaway cost of college. Start by making it easy for people who want to have kids to have them. Then, if that's not enough, consider even more direct subsidies. Maybe the Social Security system in the US could be reimagined as a demographic support system that funds both ends of the curve: free health care and support for birth and child raising, and end of life support and care. They're connected of course. You need the former to keep providing the latter.