12 ms·

Lower fertility is changing the world for the better

48 points by l0stman 17y ago

bh23ha 17y ago
Is it too early to start a media panic about the shrinking humanity? In all seriousness, I've always looked at birth control and education and affluence as a virus which drastically reduces fertility. But obviously some people, besides their sex drive, have another not so common drive. Despite money, education and condoms they really, really want, not sex, but kids. And over time this trait will become more widespread in the population. We better have colonized space by then.
- mseebach 17y ago
  What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. Another trait is that of children-less lifestyles (sexual, medical or otherwise). If we're to keep up with the replacement-rate, that obviously means that someone needs to have more kids.
  - bh23ha 17y ago
    Think of it as a virus that impacts fertility. Some people will be child-less, others will have just one, maybe 2 kids. A few will strongly want to and will have 3,4 and more. It's basic natural selection in practice. Wealth and the pill are still very recent, fertility will stay low in the industrialized world for quite a while, a few generations at least, but things will turn around.
    - mseebach 17y ago
      You just restate your theory as fact. What makes you think that wealthy families in developed countries with suddenly decide to have many more children? The article offers a theory that in rural societies, children are basically life-insurance, and the more the better (probably to a limit). But a tractor is much more reliable than a kid, and as a family grows wealthy, kids turn into "liabilities" that you have to provide food, shelter and education for, with little in return (not talking about love and family, talking about having someone to give you food and shelter when you're old and/or sick).
      - bh23ha 17y ago
        I am not implying anyone will suddenly decide to have many more children. I know wealthy, well of, educated people with 5 kids, who have gone on to fertility treatments to get another couple as they age. It's rare but it's not unknown. There ARE wealthy families in developed countries who absolutely had to, and do have, lots of kids. That's not speculation or conjecture.
        mseebach 17y ago
        You wrote: > Wealth and the pill are still very recent, fertility will stay low in the industrialized world for quite a while, a few generations at least, but things will turn around. Why will things turn around? Of course there are wealthy families that have many children, but why will exactly that trait become dominant?
        bh23ha 17y ago
        Of course there are wealthy families that have many children, but why will exactly that trait become dominant? I wish I could make this point more clear, but words fail me. From some of your discussions with others in this thread, I see they are also having difficulty communicating the basics of evolution. Pardon me, I have to abandon this discussion now.
        mseebach 17y ago
        OK, now I've probably got it narrowed down to misunderstanding the word trait. I'm not a native English speaker, so please excuse the confusion. I do understand why a biological hereditary preference to have many kids will multiply quickly, but my question is: Why do you think that this is a biological trait? The statistics in the article seems to suggest that we adjust reproduction to environmental factors, in this case wealth and urbanisation, which also makes sense from a evolution perspective: if we reproduce too quickly, there won't be enough resources to go around.
        17y ago
  - xiaoma 17y ago
    >What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. Evolution. Right now, most people aren't that well adapted (in a Darwinian sense) to life in an affluent society. There's no reason to assume this will always be the case. The current speed of human evolution is over 100 times what it was in prehistoric times. Extreme environmental changes invariably lead to evolutionary changes.
    - mseebach 17y ago
      > Evolution What biological advantage does a large family have over a small family in an affluent society?
      - Freebytes 17y ago
        The large family will have more offspring which will result in more offspring. If this is a biologically motivated desire to have more children, there will be more children with that desire to produce more offspring, and the cycle will continue.
        mseebach 17y ago
        That's true, but that's a pretty big assumption. In past agrarian cultures, a large family wasn't just an advantage, it was required due to high mortality. My girlfriends mother is one of eight, all girls. None of her aunts, and none of their children have an above-average number of children, and between them I think they're below average. On the other hand, my sister and I are out of a ridiculously small family, and she just had her third baby. Plans for more are uncertain, but not ruled out. It's a sample of two, but if nothing else, it shows that if it's a biological trait, it's pretty weak.
      - fh 17y ago
        For the species or society, likely none. But consider the individual gene. Assume there's a gene X, that causes a desire to have many children. Let's say people with gene X have twice as many children on average as people without it. The society is affluent, so all of those children survive and spread the gene further. Eventually gene X will become dominant in the gene pool. (The fate of such a gene is quite different if food is scarce and there's a danger of starvation, which has been the case for most of human history.)
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. We do know of examples of high-income (and high-education) groups with high fertility, though. Mormons come to mind. There was a recent discussion about this I found interesting here: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/future-fertility.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/future-fertility.html
    - mseebach 17y ago
      Yeah, of course. But I don't see any indications that that kind of lifestyles are on the rise -- on the contrary, they seem to be increasingly at odds with "modern society".
      - ptomato 17y ago
        Except to the extent that they are inherited traits, which could be significant.
      - donaldc 17y ago
        If the lifestyles you're speaking of involve a significantly higher-than-average birthrate, then they're almost by definition on the rise...
  - araneae 17y ago
    If the desire to have children has a genetic component, and those with this genetic component are more likely to have offspring that survive until adulthood, then the trait will spread. Given that plenty of heritable traits (like religiosity) are correlated with increased brood size, I'd say it's pretty likely. Also, given that in first world countries even the offspring of poorer folks survive to adulthood, that removes any benefit of giving birth to fewer children.
- tybris 17y ago
  Mankind evolves itself.
  - bh23ha 17y ago
    Hey, we're not the only ones. A known form of specialisation is when a mutant female prefers a slightly different kind of male. And her daughters have the same preference, and eventually you end up with reproductively isolated populations.
    - nfnaaron 17y ago
      I'm slightly different. Maybe I should go for the mutants.
ramidarigaz 17y ago
This is pure speculation, and I have no facts to back this up, but I suspect that if humanity begins to shrink, it will become an age of robotics. I think the biggest boost to robotics will happen when the number of people available for hard/simple labor drops off. But that's just speculation.
- bh23ha 17y ago
  I think it's more then speculation. Japan very anti immigrant has relied on much more robotics. The rest of the industrialized world, especially the US, prefers immigration.
  - radu_floricica 17y ago
    Japan does something else which is very interesting and less known: starts hiring at _very_ low ages. My Japanese teacher told me her first job interview was in secondary school, and it is pretty standard for somebody her age.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  I don't understand why you're downvoted. America relies on outsourcing and immigration, Europe relies heavily on immigration (see the muslim immigrants issues)... it's pretty obvious that when those countries that provide immigration and/or cheap labor become developed there will be a huge increase in robotic labor. Not because the humanity will be shrinking (it won't for a while), but because the active population vs retired will force it.
- mr_dbr 17y ago
  Futurama proposes a different reasoning for the inevitably changing human-robot ratio (I couldn't find a clip of it, so.. use your imagination): Fry: Well, so what if I love a robot? It's not hurting anybody. Hermes: My God! He never took middle school hygiene. He never saw the propaganda film. Farnsworth: It's just lucky I keep a copy in the VCR at all times. [He presses a button and a film title, I Dated A Robot!, appears on the screen. In the movie a couple sit in a cafe and stare into each other's eyes. A narrator walks into the scene.] Narrator: [in movie] Ordinary human dating. It's enjoyable and it serves an important purpose. [He turns the table over and a crying baby appears. He turns it back again.] But when a human dates an artificial mate, there is no purpose. Only enjoyment. And that leads to ... tragedy. [The woman behind him turns into a blank robot and the man downloads a celebrity onto it.] Billy: [in movie] Neat-o! A Marilyn Monroe-bot! Monroe-bot: [in movie] Ooh! You're a real dreamboat, (mechanical voice) Billy Everyteen. Narrator: [in movie] Harmless fun? Let's see what happens next. [The scene cuts to Billy's bedroom where he kisses the Monroe-bot. His mother walks through the door.] Billy's Mom: [in movie] Billy, do you want to walk your dog? Billy: [in movie] No thanks, Mom. I'd rather make out with my Monroe-bot. [Enter his dad.] Billy's Dad: [in movie] Billy, do want to get a paper route and earn some extra cash? Billy: [in movie] No thanks, Dad. I'd rather make out with my Monroe-bot. [The girl from the cafe, Mavis, walks in.] Mavis: [in movie] Billy, do you want to come over tonight? We can make out together. Billy: [in movie] Gee, Mavis, your house is across the street. That's an awfully long way to go for making out. Narrator: [in movie] Did you notice what went wrong in that scene? Ordinarily, Billy would work hard to make money from his paper route. Then he'd use the money to buy dinner for Mavis, thus earning the slim chance to perform the reproductive act. But in a world where teens can date robots, why should he bother? Why should anyone bother? Let's take a look at Billy's planet a year later. [The scene changes and a foam hand rolls across an empty football field.] Where are all the football stars? [The foam hand drifts across an empty laboratory.] And where are the biochemists? [The scene changes to a split screen of human and robot couples making out on beds.] They're trapped! Trapped in a soft, vice-like grip of robot lips. All civilisation was just an effort to impress the opposite sex ... and sometimes the same sex. Now, let's skip forward 80 years into the future. Where is Billy? [The scene changes to a post-apocalyptic world. Billy is an aged man but still with his Monroe-bot and still making out with her.] Billy: [in movie] Farewell! [He dies.] Narrator: [in movie] The next day, Billy's planet was destroyed by aliens. [A fleet of flying saucers destroy buildings with laser shots.] Have you guessed the name of Billy's planet? It was Earth. Don't date robots! [A "Don't Date Robots!" caption appears on the screen and the movie ends. The Space Pope is displayed on the screen with "Crocodylus Pontiflex" written around him in English and alien.] Announcer: [voice-over; in movie] Brought to you by the Space Pope. (stolen from http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/3acv15.shtml http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/3acv15.shtml )
patrickgzill 17y ago
There is a lot wrong with this article, but I don't have the patience to go through all of the unstated assumptions; so I will just use one point as an example: "And everywhere, it is changing traditional family life by enabling women to work and children to be educated." How is it that women working outside the home is better than women working inside the home? There is an unstated assumption that working outside is better; an assertion unsupported by any data. Concerning children's education, one need only point to US literacy rates from 1850 to the present to see that the two (women working, children educated) are not connected. As a secondary point I will point out that demographics are not mentioned in this article, apparently the author has never viewed the movie "Idiocracy" ...
- bh23ha 17y ago
  How is it that women working outside the home is better than women working inside the home? Depends on your definition of better. Ignoring difficult to measure benefits and focusing on easy to measure ones like economic output, it is easy to see how outside the home there's more opportunity to produce a lot more toasters, cars, etc, then inside the home. Unless you happen to live in a factory! Concerning children's education, one need only point to US literacy rates from 1850 to the present to see that the two (women working, children educated) are not connected. Really? And isn't comparing "work" before 1925 (arbitrarily picked) and after kind of like comparing apples and oranges?
  - patrickgzill 17y ago
    The reason I chose 1850 to the present is that it was well past the chaos of the American Revolution and yet far enough away in time to show a trend. Further this time period covers the change from nearly all women working inside the home (or working on the family farm), to many working outside the home. Many posters seem to have missed my point; perhaps I could have stated it clearer. To restate it, there is little causation between women working outside the home and whether or not children are educated; and if there is, the Economist article quotes no sources to establish that.
- kungfooey 17y ago

48 points by l0stman 17y ago

Is it too early to start a media panic about the shrinking humanity? In all seriousness, I've always looked at birth control and education and affluence as a virus which drastically reduces fertility. But obviously some people, besides their sex drive, have another not so common drive. Despite money, education and condoms they really, really want, not sex, but kids. And over time this trait will become more widespread in the population. We better have colonized space by then.

mseebach 17y ago
What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. Another trait is that of children-less lifestyles (sexual, medical or otherwise). If we're to keep up with the replacement-rate, that obviously means that someone needs to have more kids.
- bh23ha 17y ago
  Think of it as a virus that impacts fertility. Some people will be child-less, others will have just one, maybe 2 kids. A few will strongly want to and will have 3,4 and more. It's basic natural selection in practice. Wealth and the pill are still very recent, fertility will stay low in the industrialized world for quite a while, a few generations at least, but things will turn around.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    You just restate your theory as fact. What makes you think that wealthy families in developed countries with suddenly decide to have many more children? The article offers a theory that in rural societies, children are basically life-insurance, and the more the better (probably to a limit). But a tractor is much more reliable than a kid, and as a family grows wealthy, kids turn into "liabilities" that you have to provide food, shelter and education for, with little in return (not talking about love and family, talking about having someone to give you food and shelter when you're old and/or sick).
    - bh23ha 17y ago
      I am not implying anyone will suddenly decide to have many more children. I know wealthy, well of, educated people with 5 kids, who have gone on to fertility treatments to get another couple as they age. It's rare but it's not unknown. There ARE wealthy families in developed countries who absolutely had to, and do have, lots of kids. That's not speculation or conjecture.
      - mseebach 17y ago
        You wrote: > Wealth and the pill are still very recent, fertility will stay low in the industrialized world for quite a while, a few generations at least, but things will turn around. Why will things turn around? Of course there are wealthy families that have many children, but why will exactly that trait become dominant?
        bh23ha 17y ago
        Of course there are wealthy families that have many children, but why will exactly that trait become dominant? I wish I could make this point more clear, but words fail me. From some of your discussions with others in this thread, I see they are also having difficulty communicating the basics of evolution. Pardon me, I have to abandon this discussion now.
        mseebach 17y ago
        OK, now I've probably got it narrowed down to misunderstanding the word trait. I'm not a native English speaker, so please excuse the confusion. I do understand why a biological hereditary preference to have many kids will multiply quickly, but my question is: Why do you think that this is a biological trait? The statistics in the article seems to suggest that we adjust reproduction to environmental factors, in this case wealth and urbanisation, which also makes sense from a evolution perspective: if we reproduce too quickly, there won't be enough resources to go around.
        17y ago
- xiaoma 17y ago
  >What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. Evolution. Right now, most people aren't that well adapted (in a Darwinian sense) to life in an affluent society. There's no reason to assume this will always be the case. The current speed of human evolution is over 100 times what it was in prehistoric times. Extreme environmental changes invariably lead to evolutionary changes.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    > Evolution What biological advantage does a large family have over a small family in an affluent society?
    - Freebytes 17y ago
      The large family will have more offspring which will result in more offspring. If this is a biologically motivated desire to have more children, there will be more children with that desire to produce more offspring, and the cycle will continue.
      - mseebach 17y ago
        That's true, but that's a pretty big assumption. In past agrarian cultures, a large family wasn't just an advantage, it was required due to high mortality. My girlfriends mother is one of eight, all girls. None of her aunts, and none of their children have an above-average number of children, and between them I think they're below average. On the other hand, my sister and I are out of a ridiculously small family, and she just had her third baby. Plans for more are uncertain, but not ruled out. It's a sample of two, but if nothing else, it shows that if it's a biological trait, it's pretty weak.
    - fh 17y ago
      For the species or society, likely none. But consider the individual gene. Assume there's a gene X, that causes a desire to have many children. Let's say people with gene X have twice as many children on average as people without it. The society is affluent, so all of those children survive and spread the gene further. Eventually gene X will become dominant in the gene pool. (The fate of such a gene is quite different if food is scarce and there's a danger of starvation, which has been the case for most of human history.)
- randallsquared 17y ago
  What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. We do know of examples of high-income (and high-education) groups with high fertility, though. Mormons come to mind. There was a recent discussion about this I found interesting here: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/future-fertility.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/future-fertility.html
  - mseebach 17y ago
    Yeah, of course. But I don't see any indications that that kind of lifestyles are on the rise -- on the contrary, they seem to be increasingly at odds with "modern society".
    - ptomato 17y ago
      Except to the extent that they are inherited traits, which could be significant.
    - donaldc 17y ago
      If the lifestyles you're speaking of involve a significantly higher-than-average birthrate, then they're almost by definition on the rise...
- araneae 17y ago
  If the desire to have children has a genetic component, and those with this genetic component are more likely to have offspring that survive until adulthood, then the trait will spread. Given that plenty of heritable traits (like religiosity) are correlated with increased brood size, I'd say it's pretty likely. Also, given that in first world countries even the offspring of poorer folks survive to adulthood, that removes any benefit of giving birth to fewer children.
tybris 17y ago
Mankind evolves itself.
- bh23ha 17y ago
  Hey, we're not the only ones. A known form of specialisation is when a mutant female prefers a slightly different kind of male. And her daughters have the same preference, and eventually you end up with reproductively isolated populations.
  - nfnaaron 17y ago
    I'm slightly different. Maybe I should go for the mutants.

ramidarigaz 17y ago

This is pure speculation, and I have no facts to back this up, but I suspect that if humanity begins to shrink, it will become an age of robotics. I think the biggest boost to robotics will happen when the number of people available for hard/simple labor drops off. But that's just speculation.

bh23ha 17y ago
I think it's more then speculation. Japan very anti immigrant has relied on much more robotics. The rest of the industrialized world, especially the US, prefers immigration.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Japan does something else which is very interesting and less known: starts hiring at _very_ low ages. My Japanese teacher told me her first job interview was in secondary school, and it is pretty standard for somebody her age.
radu_floricica 17y ago
I don't understand why you're downvoted. America relies on outsourcing and immigration, Europe relies heavily on immigration (see the muslim immigrants issues)... it's pretty obvious that when those countries that provide immigration and/or cheap labor become developed there will be a huge increase in robotic labor. Not because the humanity will be shrinking (it won't for a while), but because the active population vs retired will force it.
mr_dbr 17y ago
Futurama proposes a different reasoning for the inevitably changing human-robot ratio (I couldn't find a clip of it, so.. use your imagination): Fry: Well, so what if I love a robot? It's not hurting anybody. Hermes: My God! He never took middle school hygiene. He never saw the propaganda film. Farnsworth: It's just lucky I keep a copy in the VCR at all times. [He presses a button and a film title, I Dated A Robot!, appears on the screen. In the movie a couple sit in a cafe and stare into each other's eyes. A narrator walks into the scene.] Narrator: [in movie] Ordinary human dating. It's enjoyable and it serves an important purpose. [He turns the table over and a crying baby appears. He turns it back again.] But when a human dates an artificial mate, there is no purpose. Only enjoyment. And that leads to ... tragedy. [The woman behind him turns into a blank robot and the man downloads a celebrity onto it.] Billy: [in movie] Neat-o! A Marilyn Monroe-bot! Monroe-bot: [in movie] Ooh! You're a real dreamboat, (mechanical voice) Billy Everyteen. Narrator: [in movie] Harmless fun? Let's see what happens next. [The scene cuts to Billy's bedroom where he kisses the Monroe-bot. His mother walks through the door.] Billy's Mom: [in movie] Billy, do you want to walk your dog? Billy: [in movie] No thanks, Mom. I'd rather make out with my Monroe-bot. [Enter his dad.] Billy's Dad: [in movie] Billy, do want to get a paper route and earn some extra cash? Billy: [in movie] No thanks, Dad. I'd rather make out with my Monroe-bot. [The girl from the cafe, Mavis, walks in.] Mavis: [in movie] Billy, do you want to come over tonight? We can make out together. Billy: [in movie] Gee, Mavis, your house is across the street. That's an awfully long way to go for making out. Narrator: [in movie] Did you notice what went wrong in that scene? Ordinarily, Billy would work hard to make money from his paper route. Then he'd use the money to buy dinner for Mavis, thus earning the slim chance to perform the reproductive act. But in a world where teens can date robots, why should he bother? Why should anyone bother? Let's take a look at Billy's planet a year later. [The scene changes and a foam hand rolls across an empty football field.] Where are all the football stars? [The foam hand drifts across an empty laboratory.] And where are the biochemists? [The scene changes to a split screen of human and robot couples making out on beds.] They're trapped! Trapped in a soft, vice-like grip of robot lips. All civilisation was just an effort to impress the opposite sex ... and sometimes the same sex. Now, let's skip forward 80 years into the future. Where is Billy? [The scene changes to a post-apocalyptic world. Billy is an aged man but still with his Monroe-bot and still making out with her.] Billy: [in movie] Farewell! [He dies.] Narrator: [in movie] The next day, Billy's planet was destroyed by aliens. [A fleet of flying saucers destroy buildings with laser shots.] Have you guessed the name of Billy's planet? It was Earth. Don't date robots! [A "Don't Date Robots!" caption appears on the screen and the movie ends. The Space Pope is displayed on the screen with "Crocodylus Pontiflex" written around him in English and alien.] Announcer: [voice-over; in movie] Brought to you by the Space Pope. (stolen from http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/3acv15.shtml http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/3acv15.shtml )

patrickgzill 17y ago

There is a lot wrong with this article, but I don't have the patience to go through all of the unstated assumptions; so I will just use one point as an example: "And everywhere, it is changing traditional family life by enabling women to work and children to be educated." How is it that women working outside the home is better than women working inside the home? There is an unstated assumption that working outside is better; an assertion unsupported by any data. Concerning children's education, one need only point to US literacy rates from 1850 to the present to see that the two (women working, children educated) are not connected. As a secondary point I will point out that demographics are not mentioned in this article, apparently the author has never viewed the movie "Idiocracy" ...

bh23ha 17y ago
How is it that women working outside the home is better than women working inside the home? Depends on your definition of better. Ignoring difficult to measure benefits and focusing on easy to measure ones like economic output, it is easy to see how outside the home there's more opportunity to produce a lot more toasters, cars, etc, then inside the home. Unless you happen to live in a factory! Concerning children's education, one need only point to US literacy rates from 1850 to the present to see that the two (women working, children educated) are not connected. Really? And isn't comparing "work" before 1925 (arbitrarily picked) and after kind of like comparing apples and oranges?
- patrickgzill 17y ago
  The reason I chose 1850 to the present is that it was well past the chaos of the American Revolution and yet far enough away in time to show a trend. Further this time period covers the change from nearly all women working inside the home (or working on the family farm), to many working outside the home. Many posters seem to have missed my point; perhaps I could have stated it clearer. To restate it, there is little causation between women working outside the home and whether or not children are educated; and if there is, the Economist article quotes no sources to establish that.
kungfooey 17y ago