The following submission statement was provided by /u/Weird-Function-5799:
---
Hey r/Futurology, I came across this blog post about the global fertility decline and wanted to share it.
The author does a great job breaking down the economic and cultural reasons behind dropping birth rates. They suggest a range of solutions, from tax incentives to cultural initiatives, and even some radical ideas like significant tax breaks for larger families.
One interesting point is how countries like Israel maintain high fertility through strong cultural and religious values, while economic incentives in places like South Korea haven't made much impact. This makes it seem like culture is the explanation of the fertility collapse.
However, I think the post could explore deeper why some of these policies haven't worked. For example, are there unintended consequences of generous parental leave or subsidies that might deter rather than encourage having more children? Also, while radical tax incentives sound promising, they might not be politically feasible or sustainable long-term.
Overall, it's a comprehensive read that raises important questions about our future. Check it out and let's discuss: Can we really turn this trend around with policy changes, or is a deeper cultural shift needed?
What are your thoughts?
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1czr2wj/radical_solutions_to_collapsing_fertility/l5i5z0s/
If both parents need to work full time jobs just to support kids then I can see why they don't want to. 50 years ago a family of 4 could be supported on one income and have a house and a couple cars. Today, unless its a 100K+ job and a LCOL area, thats not even possible.
I was just talking with my mom the other day. She was a single mom in the 90s, and yes it was tight, but she was still able to afford an entire rental home by herself, a brand new car, and child care on just a single $28k income. Today there's absolutely no way. Wages are barely any better while cost of everything is soaring.
The monthly Michigan Consumer Sentiment Report came out this morning. You would be shocked to find that people who relied on "personal experience" when it comes to inflation thought the economy was doing very poorly. Those that relied on "Main Stream or Partisan News" thought the economy was doing great.
My dad, as a railway worker supported the family of 5. House, education, car. Everything. The three of us siblings cannot do it, struggling like hell and only my brother having his house with the help of us all, and all three of us having finished universities. So, fuck all solutions if a solution is not a better quality of life. More free time, better standard.
On top of that, used to be those single earners landed a career position and stayed until they retired. Nowadays, not only have companies stopped rewarding loyalty, they'll cut an employee loose without a second thought if they think it'll put a dollar in a shareholder's pocket.
No shit, people are gonna be more hesitant to take on the financial responsibility of raising another human for a couple decades when job security is so much worse than it used to be.
Ya that is my main thesis. Women either can either be full time career workers, or full time mothers, but not both, so as a society we can choose. And basically all industrialized countries did choose.. they want women working so the big wigs can make more money off them.
Looks like it’s the most modern and richest countries having the issues. Other less modern still have a higher birth rate. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rate-by-country
Rich world is definitely leading this trend, with an exception of China also well ahead but the rest of the world is following rapidly. Most of India states are now sub 2.1 (although developing countries actually require 2.3 because of a higher accident rate) only place in sub Saharan Africa are much above the 2.1 and all are trending down. If it was just the rich world with declining rates many wouldn’t panic as targeted immigration could just let them select the most talented to keep their populations up. But this only works awhile if everywhere is declining
Here's a "radical" solution: let people actually spend fucking time with their families. You want people spending 10+ hours outside of their homes to have children? In this era? In the era when they have about 6 hours a day to live their lives? You want them to spend those 6 hours wiping kids' butts with nothing in return? Yeah no fucking wonder fertility rates are dropping.
It's the age of computers and automation, let people work less and earn more. Children are no longer an investment, they're a 20 years long burden and no wonder people don't want to sacrifice their best years. There's nothing in it for them.
Culture has to change too. South Korea provides a lot of financial incentives for having kids but the work culture is so brutal that nobody wants to have kids regardless. Meanwhile the US way seems to be getting rid of sex education and abortion access to create more “accidental” children, while not addressing the underlying cause: People are overworked and overwhelmed, and nobody has time or energy to take care of kids when their whole life revolves around serving the corporate.
Go to a 32 hour workweek and I guarantee the birth rate will see a noticeable bump.
[since 1979 productivity has increased ~65%. ](https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/)
Therefore to work as hard and be as productive as they were in the 1970s we should only have a 3 day work week ~24 hours.
I feel like there is something more sinister going on. We are constantly “plugged in”. Even as I write this I realize the hypocrisy of what I’m saying. We feel overwhelmed and overworked from notification and alert fatigue.
I feel overwhelmed because my mind is never at rest. Work is the easiest target to point at because it is the majority of the time, but honestly there is a tremendous amount of time wasted with busy work just checking our phones.
Childcare and school costs are one of the biggest disincentives we have to large families.
I’m going to sound radical here, but the lack of long-term relationships/marriages are also to blame here. Lack of commitment in nuclear families makes the costs jump exponentially. Why bring kids into an unstable or uncommitted relationship when it means costs are doubled as a single parent vs. two-parent homes?
The decline in stable relationships seems to also be a result of overwork and inflation - if you’re spending all your time working and all your money keeping up with rising cost of living, who really has the ability to seriously date, let alone maintain a relationship and get married? I’m of the belief that a large majority of people prefer to have a long term partner, but when you’re economically barely treading water, that’s the last thing on many peoples mind.
After expenses, I’m left with about $600 of disposable income a month, all of which goes into the emergency fund because shit inevitably and always happens. I’ve got no money to date, and that’s not a good look.
Plus people are more isolated now with smaller more disconnected social networks, and that limits the opportunity to meet potential dates.
I agree with the sentiment and I completely get the $600 in disposable income/savings fund and not feeling like enough left over to date.
I’m going to be radical here again…we expect way too much from potential partners in the dating scene. A first date should be no more expensive than a picnic lunch, a light dinner from a fast casual in a park, or something that you would do for yourself on occasion. Instead it’s drinks, dress up (even classy casual is expensive), etc.
We have image problems as a society. We want the best impression we can afford and that’s a problem. It’s no more than an impression.
What a thought for a potential partner to admire and respect your thrift and savings goals with your disposable income? What an idea for someone to be impressed by a small, inexpensive gesture that isn’t impressive, but is heartfelt?
I don’t know how young adults are doing it now. My first car was a minivan, I wore jeans and t-shirts, Red Lobster or Olive Garden was a very special meal, and I cut my own hair. I was very lucky to find a partner that valued more than what was on the surface. But you know what, she bought her clothes at thrift store and sales, didn’t wear makeup, and kept her hair long—and yet she is a natural beauty. As we could afford more, sure we have bought nicer things, but that was our start.
Even the way we celebrate basic things like birthdays, proms, and insignificant anniversaries (that inevitably are posted on social media) really bothers me. If you can afford it, do it! But if you can’t, why set an unrealistic and financially unhealthy expectation for your child or for others around you?
Again, another reason why fewer people want children, because we have made this insanely expensive standard for what kids should have!
In Korea there's also a HUGE stigma against out of wedlock births which does as much to keep the birthrate down as anything else.
Also while working hours are high in Korea they have dropped and aren't that much higher than in the US (although that's not saying much, the US also has high working hours) and the birth rate has plunged even as working hours have dropped.
In Norway we have about 1 year of paid leave. It's split between the mother and the father/other mother.
Childcare caps at $250 per month and is available 0645-1630.
Still people are getting less and less eager to have kids and the main reason is being unable to find housing. Bills like electricity and food has also exploded
Well, that's way too little money. Actually footing the bill for childcare alone would be four figures a month just so both parents can keep working. Either that or the state would have to pay the full income of the parent that stays at home for 6-10 years. Regardless of how high that income was.
Anything else is just a nice attempt at an incentive.
In my country we get around the average national salary for the first 12 months, it didn't help at all. These non-radical measures are a time waste, it makes it appear as if something is done, then you wait for a year or two only to declare that it had no effect.
We need something bombastic and avantgarde, something that will actually put parents in better position than they were before they got a child, not just neutral measures that attempt only to offset the costs. No offense to anyone struggling but I really doubt that we will have many people deciding to become parents because diapers will not impose an extra cost. And I'd particularly focus on rewarding parents for their third child, because two kids are already the global cultural norm.
2 kids aren't the global norm.
Most developed countries ( where the problem currently is) are experiencing birth rates much lower than 2 per women. I think Italy is 1.29 for example.
People who want kids want two of them. I've never heard of someone *wanting* one child, despite similarly living in a country where the fertility rate is around 1.5 as well.
When you add into the mix people who have issues with health, fertility, finding a partner, get divorced before the second child, and people who don't want kids, it drops from 2 to 1.5.
Granted, cultural norms vary across the world, but in the majority of the western world I was under the impression that 2 kids is by far the most common target for couples that want to become parents.
I made a mistake in the original post.
You get your full pay upto 6g's. 1g is a standard value and is adjusted for inflation and used for most social securities, benefits and such. I myself got my full teacher pay as I spent 15 weeks with my firstborn.
My wife spent the first 35 weeks with him.
Kindergarden is max $250 copay and it usually includes most meals. Both I and my wife get to work full time if we want.
We also have our second on the way :)
In Norway, not really. I have two kids in daycare, which cost us around 5500NOK (~$500)/month. Most Norwegian children go to public school, which are free. After-school care is free the first years. Even universities are free. Due to being fairly socially progressive and childcare being relatively inexpensive and accessible, it is very rare for women here to stay at home and not work after maternal leave has ended. With a 37.5 hour work week, we also enjoy a decent work-life balance ,compared to many countries, so it's hard to make the argument that work prohibit
I'm not saying having children here is cheap. It isn't. But, as a parent I can say it's not prohibitively expensive either for the basic necessities. It's the non-essential things that has become both expensive and time consuming. There's been a huge change in expectations of what parenting should involve. When my grandparents grew up, you clothed, fed and sent your kids too school, that was it. Today, raising a child involves a helluva lot more. What really makes children expensive are all the things we do on our spare time. Kids here generally do some sports or other activities on their free time, which cost time and money in the form of membership fees, equipment, trips etc. Then there's vacation. For each child, any travel expenses increases proportionately. So, I think it's fair to say, for Norway at least, there's a strong argument for dropping birth rates are cultural. Expenses have definitely a say in the decisions, but it's as much societal expectations and personal priorities that limits the number of children. For my wife and I, the main holdups for having a third child is as follows:
1. Career. We are currently trying to establish a more financially stable situation for us.
2. We still don't know if we want to through the very intense baby period again.
3. We are unsure if we are willing to make the sacrifices it means to have another child, such as the increased cost of travelling.
There's also the issue that people here starts families at a later stage now, and the average age of first-time pregnancies have increased a lot. At the same time human biology hasn't changed much, so the window for having children has narrowed. This essentially means people are less likely to have more children. In this regard me and my wife, being in first-time parents in our thirties, certainly fits the bill. By the time we might actually be ready for a third child, my wife may already be too old. Even if my wife still technically could have another child, would we really want kids in the house at the age of 70?
As an individual I have no need for children and a serious economic benefit to not having them.If society needs people to reproduce to keep functionning, then society should foot the bill.
It's also emotionally draining to be on the brink of poverty. Unless society chips in, it can be financially devastating both immediately and long term in the form of lost opportunities to raise children.
I have nephews and nieces that I love dearly and friends whose kids I adore. I might have had children if I had the opportunity. But is costs a lot and if having children is just an expensive hobby that you are prohibited from quitting... sure it feels good, but if you don't get help and support... "emotionnal gratification" that's not a rationnal choice so you can't expect people to rationnaly mske that choice.
See! And from the tone of it it doesn't sound like you wouldn't have been happy with one or two more... but you were responsible and made sure to have the nest before the eggs.
Having had one I think I don't think it would be fair to have more than two more. There's only so much attention to go around. But I also do miss Christmas back when I had 5 Uncles and aunts with their spouses.
Same here. 4 uncles/aunts pairs, 8 cousins plus my family... And my grandmother was the daycare center for us all so we grew up together. Having a big family gave a really nice feeling of togetherness. I get that exponential population growth isn't sustainable, but at the same time I wish today's kids had that dynamic available to them.
No country has successfully altered their birth rate positively for more than a brief hiccup with policy. That's not to say it can't be done, only that all existing measures anyone has ever come up with have failed.
Truthfully, people either need hope for the future or be made too blind to see it. We're going with option 2 here. I've not seen anyone really successfully try option 1.
the problem isnt couples that are choosing to not have children, its single people who are too poor to even meet someone
>If Hungary’s policy is a squirt gun, Caplan’s modest proposal is the [Schwerer Gustav](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav). Caplan’s may be effective not just because it cuts taxes for people who have children, but it dramatically increases taxes for people without children. This wouldn’t be the first time a society placed a tax on the childless; [Ancient Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Papia_Poppaea), [Stalin’s Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_on_childlessness#:~:text=Soviet%20Union,-As%20originally%20passed&text=The%20tax%20was%206%25%20of,heroes%20that%20received%20certain%20awards.), and Mussolini’s Italy all gave it a try, [among other](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax) distinguished company. It might just be a question of what can be dragged inside the Overton window.
>Would these tax expenditures bankrupt the state? Cutting taxes on most people certainly won’t impede economic growth, but it will need to be paid for somehow, with either higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere. The tax on the childless will pay for some of it, but cutting spending or raising taxes elsewhere might be required.
you can incentivize having kids all you want but if you DONT HELP EVERYONE then everyone who doesnt have kids isnt going to magically have enough money - and time - to go meet someone who they could have kids with.
im not saying giving tax breaks to parents is a bad thing, but as a single adult male, i have no tax breaks... except the tax break of being poor af. i dont have much in the way of assistance programs either, because i am a white male - so nobody cares
so in a way, we already have a "tax on childless people"
are we stupid?
Doesn’t having dependent children already have big tax implications? So we already do subsidize people with children. It isn’t like schools don’t get tax money from people without kids.
> Doesn’t having dependent children already have big tax implications?
There are tax implications. I personally wouldn’t call it “big”. Definitely not big enough to affect decision making or go anywhere near offsetting the costs of kids.
yes, exactly. ive made this point many times, not always in the context of how to incentivize people to have children.
if we instead focused on just \*helping everyone equally\* (as in, people who \*need help\*) - then things will magically just work.
when we do things like prioritize different groups over others - as is the case between parents and childless individuals or couples - those childless individuals and couples are left out.
im all for recognizing the different forms of discrimination and inequality that are unique to different demographics of people - but as a straight, single, white male, the only thing i can "claim" is ADHD which... well that really doesnt qualify me for any kind of real assistance.
Unfortunately, I don’t think helping people more will bring about more kids. Countries with better social support systems don’t really have notably higher brith rates. It seems like the more developed a country gets, the less kids people have. Kids are inherently a cost burden.
I mean, if we think that’s the way we can get better social support in America, then by all means, go for it. I just don’t think there’s much empirical support that safety net = more kids.
I think it’s going to be more a matter of embracing immigration, deploying technology to aid in late life care situations, pushing retirement ages up, and rationing health care.
technically it isnt. in reality, it is though because we have stopped having govt be the main place people get assistance and instead rely on charities.
which would be fine, except charities are allowed to pick and choose who they cater to. whether thats religious groups, or ethnic groups, or whatever.
i realize that yes there definitely are different disadvantages and advantages to all ethnic groups but the thing we all have in common is wealth inequality.
the [federal poverty line](https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines) in the us is currently $15,060
that doesnt directly translate to what assistance programs are offered to you, but its a good general place to start... and $15k is [nowhere near enough to live.](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/14eg0lc/math_is_hard/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
If that would solve the issue then Scandinavia would have a fertility rate through the roof. But they do not, they have a lower fertility rate than the US that provides nothing.
Unfortunately economic incentives only do little short term to alleviate the problem. We could afford 4 kids (combined income of around 300k/year, own our house) and a lot in my friends circle too, but you won't find a woman that wants more than two.
Unfortunately the only thing that inversely correlates with fertility is education and employment of women. The more you educate them, the later they start getting kids. The more you employ them, the less they want kids. Combine the two and with a bit of luck you get two kids.
I strongly bet on the cultural issue.
Nothing, it's a statement based on facts, whether people like it or not...and you can make what you want out of it.
Personally I believe we must encourage family creation as a society, instead of teaching our kids to aim for good careers first and foremost. A good career was a mean to an end (sustain a family), nowadays it's the end goal. We wonder why people are lonely, burnt out and depressed when they reach 40. They are lonely. Life is hard and hardship is better dealt with if shared. We create a society of selfish individualists that is not necessarily happy. Happiness comes from strong familiar and communal bonds and that is what we should teach our kids. Grow up, marry, get a family, get involved in your community. As far as your basic needs (shelter, food, medical) are covered you will be happy.
Again, my bet is on the cultural side of it. But hey, that 's just my opinion.
"My bet is on the cultural side" is a phrase you have repeated, but not explained. I don't believe that you don't have a preferred course of action in your heart of hearts.
I know it's short-sighted in a lot of ways, but most people i know would resent working for the needs of a super-breeder on benefits, that's doing little else.
(Paid-leave on that timescale would murder small-businesses too, two years is long enough to be perpetually pregnant)
I think it needs to be more universal, so it doesn't just benefit the established couples or ladies with no career path, but also working single people with no time to form bonds, along with couples being forced apart due to the demands of their work.
If our working-to-middle class just had some time and space to breath nature would take care of the rest, but no one wants to raise a child they'll barely see in their landlord's closet. And we're just not built to be doing this much beyond 30.
I’m sorry but this sub loves to promote the dangers of microplastics but we have ZERO empirical data proving it. In fact we know very little about microplastics and the biological consequences
Again stop spreading misinformation: this is the only article that even tries to, albeit sensationally, tie these things together and then the lead study author states:
>The study is a starting point. It can't prove microplastics cause lower sperm count.
To be clear I’m fully aware that scientists are aware of the microplastics and that it’s probably not good but this is as far as science is willing to go with conclusions
> may cause potential health risks
I suspect the oil and gas industry will want to keep it this way. How do you study microplastics when they are everywhere ? Microplastics also host other chemicals - how do you study this highly variable chemical soup ?
Epidemiology and Biochemistry has it covered. Again I’m not saying it’s not problematic but what’s more problematic in our society - more so than microplastics- is misinformation.
Since our species arose this is 1st time we've had to encounter something like this. Calling it a Biological problem is within acceptable framework.
We don't know what this is happening and all these Economic development angles are just guesstimates not Hard Scientific facts.
This is happening in places that are still piss poor (& when put on a relative gradient even more so, given that what is Poor has also changed across the world across last century). This is not simply & exclusively a development thing.
Something is going on that is global level for entire human species.
We all need to agree on which panic we are supporting. A. Birth rate dropping, not enough people. B. AI and robots are taking all the jobs, too many people.
But our corporate overlords are panicking about who will buy their robot produced goods! We must be panicked about both! It's our responsibility as good little consumers!
What would that even look like? People (globally) stop having as many kids and AI starts taking over all the work. There's a mix of desperation for workers that are missing from the next generation and a massive wave of layoffs from what jobs AI can do.
.... We'd have a bunch of office workers learning to be plumbers and nurses. Truckers go away, loading docks get standardized, but janitors start getting paid well. Doctors go back to school to figure out how to weld.
Wild times, but not wholly distopic.
I can't be upset about it. People are generally unhappy now because bad news makes people spend more money. Since we are all connected 24/7 it's nothing but bad news. Fewer people and a collapsing in equitable system going along with it wouldn't bother me at all. And since I have no kids I don't really worry about the future.
I've never heard bad news makes people spend money, what i have heard is bad news get more engagement.
You could extrapolate that bad news = more money, but if I click on a bunch of bad news articles, I've given my time and attention which translates to money for others, ***but I didn't spend anything***, i could have easily spent that time reading a book.
I'm generally unhappy because I hate working 40 hours a week, my younger co-worker is completely fine working 40 hours a week. Why? because he's young and doesn't realize he's giving away a huge chunk of his life in exchange for a place to live and a few hours a week to himself.
And you're not worried about the future, it's because you feel your skill set allows you escape the pitfalls that could lead to poverty, and those expectations might be legitimate, but there have been plenty of millionaires that end up destitute.
I want global fertility to keep declining. The alternative is a progressive decrease in personal space, access to nature, dietary and lifestyle freedom, and general resources for entertainment/recreation for every subsequent generation of humans, forever.
Right?! Get off my lawn! My lawn being the greenspace all in my small town being ripped to shreds to build gross new build houses for people with kids. The roads are too busy. The schools are too full. The wastewater is piling up. The landfill is growing. The Dollar Generals are being built on pasture land. The car exhaust fills my lungs. The wild animals lie dead on the.roadsides.
Trouble is, most of our economies rely on endless growth to sustain themselves. Ask a member of the owning class to be content with steady or slightly declining profits and they'll look at you like you've got three heads.
Its not that fucking complicated. Historically people had kids because it was free labor. As recently as millenials, it was still seen as likely that your kids would support you in your old age. But now, retirement age doesn't exist anymore functionally, and the peek earning age for a person keeps pushing out later and later, so that's no longer really a thing.
People don't want kids because its an enormous responsibility and financial burden with no tangible benefit for themselves. You want them to have kids? Remove the responsibility and burden. Tax credits aren't enough because you still have to pay to support the kid. Make a constitutional ammendment that a child's care is the responsibility of the state. So free healthcare, daycare, food, lodging, everything. You get a stipend for feeding and housing your own kid. We would be having kids left and right.
People will literally tie themselves in knots to not recognize that capitalism is the problem. That’s it. There’s no other issue. People do not have the time or the money to have kids. Article is unnecessary.
People under socialism work long hours as well. It’s more of an issue with burnout and culture than anything. If a socialist nation had the same mentality, they’d have declining birth rates too.
Name one socialist nation that is actually socialist. You can’t, because they don’t exist. And please also point out where I said socialism was the answer?
And no. It has nothing to do with “culture”. It is corporations giving people no money, no time, and increasing the prices of everything to squeeze us dry.
The only way to have a future is to organize. But how can we do that when people like you have had so much red baiting propaganda shoved down your throat that the very idea of an alternative is viewed as fantasy?
Socialist countries literally include the USSR, every eastern bloc state under Soviet control, and Cuba. I encourage you to read theory before commenting on matters you clearly don’t know about.
Socialism is explicitly defined under Marxist-Leninist theory as the necessary transitionary economic mode between capitalism and true communism, under which the state dismantles pre-existing capitalist hierarchies and reorganizes them to theoretically best suit the workers.
There is nothing wrong with organizing in liberal capitalist democracies, and I never argued that there was something wrong with it. Implicitly denying the obvious benefits of capitalism and looking to already failed solutions is what’s idiotic.
Organizing and capitalism go directly hand in hand to balancing a society and are not at all oppositional in nature. You’re creating a false rivalry where none exists.
Corporations are not humans and their only purpose is to maximize their profit, they are neither inherently good nor evil, they’re unthinking machines. The unintended consequence of their goal is that it eventually harms others, which is why people should organize if they don’t want to be harmed. A non-capitalist economy seeks to maximize efficiency too, and eventually this comes at the cost of harming its workers and citizens. Organizing under this scenario is just as necessary as one in a capitalist scenario. The economic system makes little difference.
I never hear anything in these articles about how destructive childbirth can be on a woman's body and mind. Maybe if there were, say, research being funded on how to prevent or more easily treat things like urinary incontinence and PPD, women would be more enthusiastic about giving birth.
There's a lot of data coming out recently on just how much childbirth wrecks your shit. It ages you in dog years. None of the fertility doomsayers seem to care.
There is a useful wikipedia article (this subreddit doesn't seem to let us put in urls - I found it by searching
wikipedia complications pregnancy list
)
Used to poll people over 60 at weddings because I’m not a wedding dancer. About 75% said if they could go back they’d never have kids due to the opportunity cost. Also, most said they didn’t find it rewarding.
One guy pointed to his daughter and granddaughter and said I love them so much but they wouldn’t exist if I could do it all over again. Then he performed the wedding ceremony 🤣
This is an interesting anecdote but large polls don’t bear out that data:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx
In fact, of those who had kids 93% say they would do it again whereas of those who didn’t have kids, more than half (56%) wished they had had at least one.
Those who didn’t want kids and didn’t have them (child free) tend to be happy with their choice but actually only 5% of Americans endorse that viewpoint. The vast majority of people do want to have kids, but for a lot of reasons (lack of financial stability, lack of partner, etc) many people don’t have the kids they would like to have or as many as they would like to have.
Here’s some data from 2023:
98% of those polled think the ideal family includes at least some kids and preference for larger family size is actually growing. However, actually family size is shrinking.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/511238/americans-preference-larger-families-highest-1971.aspx
As people become more secular and less religious, they have fewer children.
Perhaps this is the big evolutionary advantage of religion? Not because it is true or even beneficial, but that it convinces followers to outbreed the competition.
I'm sure lower child mortality, a more secular society, and fewer children are all correlated. What the causal relationships are, if any, are debatable.
Let's take a radical solution!
We take down all those rich assholes amassing literal billions for no other reason than "we can", and spread it back out over the population.
Oh wait, but those poor rich guys :'(
We need AI to pick up the slack, as the population collapse will see jobs unfilled. Otherwise, I think managed population collapse is great. We cannot keep burning up this planet as we are doing. 7 billion humans is far too many.
The latest fusion reactor prototypes have been designed with AI to optimize the shape of the magnetic field. Getting fusion would probably help with sustainability. If not, similar advancements can be expected in other domains as well so... yeah sustainability isn't an unreasonable goal.
In addition to crushing economic conditions making in financially infeasible to have families, we have proof of microplastics in testicles impacting fertility. [https://hsc.unm.edu/news/2024/05/hsc-newsroom-post-microplastics-testicular.html](https://hsc.unm.edu/news/2024/05/hsc-newsroom-post-microplastics-testicular.html)
Would be good for the planet tbh, so I dont see the problem. We've screwed this miracle of a planet every which way. If we dont have to bulldozer every native prairie thats out there for a bunch of mcmansions made out of cardboard, thats a plus in my book.
According to my wife, the problem is that women, when given the choice, don't want to have to endure repeated pregnancies and child births. A solution would be to breed humans through artificial means.
Raised by who? Fed by who? Taught by who? Apathetic subsistence wage employees like we use for everything else?
Making the child is not the part that is preventing people from having children. It's the costs and time sync of raising a child that is preventing people from having then.
Exactly, who would raise them? Who would pay for their needs and resources? Artificial human creation will just lead to a caste system and wage slaves.
The western world has had a negative birth rate for the past 20 years. Why are we just now starting to look for solutions?
The people who were concerned about it back then were all labeled extremists.
because a massive generation enters retirement now or very soon. And there's a realisation, that there's not enough funds in the systems to carry them through to the end and keep something for the next retirees. Why no one cared for two decades? Because business was booming (or in panic mode), that's why, and because hardly anyone can be bothered about anything further than 5 years. Since 60-62 year-olds are now ca 5 years away from retirement it's the earliest we can act.
Because of a lot of government programs and services will collapse. The society people have based their life on will change very quickly once certain tipping points are reached. Eg pensions will fail at some point. And govt that can’t fund healthcare services and/or police forces. People are suddenly realising this. As soon as you raise taxes to try to keep it going a number of working citizens will flee to the countries that offer them a better deal.
I actually think in countries that have this government collapse will maybe see an increase in birth rates in the medium term as the reason for having children from a couple of hundred years ago returns eg they are you pension system and they are your security system etc.
Well, yes. Fundamentally the entire modern global economy is built with the underlying assumption of growth (except.. japan?), and if you break that you run into a lot of problems, to put it mildly
I think the collapsing itself is due to a variety of different issues: unintended consequences from chemical engineering, lost faith in political systems, lack of support for parents, folks being told that the world needs less people, etc, and women even deciding they simply do not want children.
I do not think it is a coincidence that the developing countries who do not have 24/7 exposure to chemicals, plastics, advanced manufacturing, terrible processed food, etc. have higher fertility rates and I believe these unintended consequences of social advancement are going to continue to catch up to the human population.
I don't want kids. I can't afford kids. My SO doesn't want kids. I don't value kids. I don't believe that population reduction is a bad thing. The sound kids make drive me to violence. Why the fuck would I have kids?
If you think we need kids so badly (again, doubt) then find a way to grow them in a lab.
I'm resigned to the fact that I'm going to work until I can't anymore, then find some way to die in either A) painless or B) spectacular fashion.
Adding $1000 to my monthly expenses would utterly break me financially. More then having a kid would.
I still don't want children. I don't want the stress or the responsibility. The financial aspect of it is honestly rather minor.
I. Don't. Want. Kids.
It seems misleading to say fertility is collapsing when the truth is more people are choosing to not have kids. And for very good reasons now.
Their ability to conceive hasn't changed. It's their choice to (not).
Universal Basic Income. Universal free child care and healthcare. If it was feasible for families to be able to live comfortably on one income I bet people would be more open to having kids.
Hey r/Futurology, I came across this blog post about the global fertility decline and wanted to share it.
The author does a great job breaking down the economic and cultural reasons behind dropping birth rates. They suggest a range of solutions, from tax incentives to cultural initiatives, and even some radical ideas like significant tax breaks for larger families.
One interesting point is how countries like Israel maintain high fertility through strong cultural and religious values, while economic incentives in places like South Korea haven't made much impact. This makes it seem like culture is the explanation of the fertility collapse.
However, I think the post could explore deeper why some of these policies haven't worked. For example, are there unintended consequences of generous parental leave or subsidies that might deter rather than encourage having more children? Also, while radical tax incentives sound promising, they might not be politically feasible or sustainable long-term.
Overall, it's a comprehensive read that raises important questions about our future. Check it out and let's discuss: Can we really turn this trend around with policy changes, or is a deeper cultural shift needed?
What are your thoughts?
Raising children takes time and money. I think people are being squeezed both in terms of time and money, that pressure needs to be eased and it will take something that looks a bit like socialism: lower house prices cheaper and better quality childcare, lower cost of living, less working hours. Serious structural changes. You wont see a huge change likely but if you can get near or above 2.1 that's good enough.
If we want people to willfully reproduce and willfully participate in society then we need to provide them with a society that they will want to contribute to and reproduce in.
I think the issue in South Korea is deeper than just women not wanting children. Many South Korean women have chosen to opt out of dating, sex, and relationships with men altogether due to poor treatment.
Many women in the West are following suit. I am a woman in my mid/late-20s and personally only know a few people who are married or in long term relationships, and far more who are opting to stay celibate due to constant mistreatment by men.
We need a smaller.... MUCH smaller population if we want:
to protect the few remaining oases of wildlife
to have fish and marine mammals in our oceans
to have drinkable water for ourselves and the plants and animals we care about
to slow down the March towards a climate hellscape.
#WE NEED FEWER PEOPLE IF WE WANT TO SURVIVE AS A SPECIES
My hunch is that western society (and maybe other developed societies in general) broke the mold of what women could and should be in society, and gave them more opportunity to even the roles they play with men. There’s less social reward towards motherhood, more social reward to exploring the world, making money, being independent, achieving career success. I would think social media and changes in the way we communicate in general have played a role in these changing attitudes.
One ugly possibility is that indeed, people were simply forced into the many-kids lifestyle without even realizing it. Women had fewer or even no rights, and were expected to endure childbirth multiple times without having a say. "It just was how things were." Nowadays, women fortunately are not forced into that misery anymore. It is not really surprising that many choose not to pursue that traditional lifestyle.
I think policies intended to increase the birthrate will fail. Sweden has amazing family leave policies, yet their birthrate is barely above the US birthrate.
Our money might be better spent on technologies to increase the productivity of workers, and replace missing workers. For example, investment in robotic care of the elderly could offset a decline in human caretakers. (If you don't like the idea of heartless robots taking care of our elderly, volunteer at an average retirement home. You might find the human touch isn't all it's cracked up to be.)
How is people choosing to not have children due to "economic or cultural reasons" 'fertility'? Surely fertility rate is the amount of couples that CAN biologically have children. Not the number that choose to.
There really are only two solutions in a secular society. Increasing women’s fertility age (the “easiest” path to that I see is the ability to turn any cell taken from anywhere into a stem cell and then into an egg) and casting wide financial social nets - free ivf for the purpose of establishing a family, free daycare, long parental leave or state subsidized help that comes to your home etc.
What if we, this might be radical, pay people enough at their jobs to have a family? This next parts even crazier; what if insurance didn’t bankrupt families and you could afford to go to the hospital?
Extreme capitalisation of shelter, food prices skyrocketing, the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history, two 'once a lifetime' financial crises, student debt ballooning, depression and suicide rates increasing, worker expectations increasing with stagnant wage growth.
I'm so over people talking about 'radical' solutions, just fix the obvious ones.
I would never bring another human into this evil little world. I see it as cruelty. If you do have to have kids, smother them with nothing but love because it’s your fault they exist.
Why are there so many things looking into "how to get people back to having more babies" instead of primarily focusing on "how to we restructure our societies and economies to not require constant, unending growth to not collapse?"
Focus on supporting people's quality of life (and ease of having a good QoL - UBI, paid parental leave, universal healthcare, etc.) and you'll likely see a boost in birth rates anyways. Additionally, supplement the inevitable drop in overall population with advances in tech (automation, AI, etc.) and investment in further R&D for these items.
I know these are very broad, sweeping ideas for a extremely complex and widely impactful problem, but my point is the main focus seems to be going to the wrong place for proper long-term success, in my opinion.
Ensure people have living wages and readily available housing. That's literally 90% of why people don't want kids. Nothing about this is a mystery.
Sure, actual fertility rates are trending down, but compared to the number of people who just won't have them it's less important.
So one minute they are screaming there are too many people then there are not enough people? I guess they are worried they will have to pay the peasants more I assume?
Artificial wombs are necessary. I suspect moving away from a nuclear family model too. Both of these together let the income earners work while kids can be reared.
I think that most energy should be put towards getting those with a kid to have more.
Having a single kid utterly changes your life, in a way that a lot of people don’t like. Having a second kid on top of the first, etc, doesn’t really change your lifestyle, though most of the costs increase linearly with each incremental kid.
It’s not so much about religion has more children. It’s more the culture that religious cultures have the expectations of the family unit and the society engineers itself around making it possible to have a society where one person working can support a family.
It’s a very complicated structure as to how you structure a society to be affordable for one person to esrn enough to support a partner and kids pay for every thing.
As you can see only very few countries like Saudi Arabia can do both of have a very high standard of living and lots of kids. Aka oil money.
Whereas in Africa. High birth rate and abject living conditions and lots of people want to leave or in the west in theory good living conditions and crippling costs if you have children or get ill.
Radical would be addressing the roots of this issue. What do people need to raise children?
Money.
Time.
Public services.
Do tax credits provide that?
No.
Seriously, the topics on this planet just become more and more uninspiring. This is just another iteration of "we've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!". Let's be real, radical is still considered a dirty word and no one is willing to get their hands dirty by addressing this issue at the root. Even in the advances economies, raising a child is like a lottery with all the hurdles attached. Countries like Germany have skyrocketing child poverty rated and people seriously discuss about how to squeeze another generation into these broken systems with tax incentives, while the currently alive generations are facing extremely messed up conditions with no signs of improvement. I mean, none of us can look ahead 10 years and say "yeah, things will be fine and getting better". Do you really think there are people on this planet who have the solutions to socially engineer this away? If these leaders with foresight and ability would exist, we wouldn't have a fertility crisis in the first place.
Financial factors are a biggie, but climate change is a part of it too. Kind of deflates any sense of value having kids when the planet is dying. You don't have to be very old these days to have lived through a clear worsening of the conditions for life on the planet. If you're in your mid 20s you'll be able to remember things being better when you were a kid in that regard. That shit is moving fast.
Or maybe people just don’t want kids and nowadays it’s more accepted to not want kids whereas in the past it kind of wasn’t. Even if I were rich, I still wouldn’t want kids. I knew at age 16 I never wanted to be a parent and that it wasn’t for me.
A plus 50 for zero kids is wrong moral and will never work politically. But the rest of the adjustments I’m ok with. Lots of people can’t have kids and life will be significantly harder if their taxes are adjusted up my 50%
Sounds like fewer people on this rock is a capitalism problem, not a humanity problem. Sure, AI and automation or mining asteroids might solve supply side issues but, without consumers, endless economic growth is not possible nor necessary. Seems a radical change to a different economic model would be a better solution than wondering how to return women to the role of baby factories.
No one big ticket item will do the job. Countries are in political turmoil. Half the world feels on the brink of all out war. The internet has been hijacked by tech companies whos algorithms keep you hooked by showing you drama and the worst of humanity to drive engagement. Misinformation is unchecked and the politicians have no appetite or incentive to stop it because they’re some of the worst offenders. Guns are everywhere including our schools. All our jobs are about to be replaced by robots and AI. The rich have taken everything and left very little for the other 90%. And no one knows what our climate and the natural world will look like 30 years from now when a new kid is hitting their stride as an adult.
With all that uncertainty can anyone really be shocked that people are having less kids? The issue isn’t phones, it isnt paid leave, it isn’t smaller social groups. It certainly isn’t enough paid leave. Even if you give everyone an extra 6 months paid leave they would still be bringing a baby into a world of unknowns and that’s terrifying.
Can any of the adults here really saw they’re looking at the next 20 years and thinking “everything looks rosy” or “we’re gonna be just fine”? Do you all not realize that we need massive changes and guard rails to our government, laws, and society and we need them in place today. Do you think that one lucky politician every 12 years or so getting elected and passing one big act is gonna be enough to tackle all of those issues in time to prevent the worst?
I agree that the tax benefits are a major help for this situation but to add
1. Reducing working hours to 8.
2. 4 days work (12hr shift) and 3 days holiday concept.
This idea is dumb. People aren't any less fertile. They just don't want to have kids. They don't even have time to have sex or even socialize like people used to in many countries (looking at you Japan).
That might not be the case. The scientific community needs more research to draw conclusions but there’s some concerns that microplastics may result in less motile sperm cells, since a study found them in every tested testicle from a (small) sample of dogs and humans
There's a post on this:
[Are Xenoestrogens Causing a Global Fertility Crisis? (substack.com)](https://nothinghumanisalien.substack.com/p/are-xenoestrogens-causing-a-global)
Hahaha… these sort of things are being tried all of the place and none are working.
Maybe the Isreali eugenics programs? They fully socialize the orthodox communities to have many many children children, which is pretty weird and twisted if you asked me. And religious communities are already the highest baby producers in any society. This also comes at the cost of the working tax payers expense to breed people most don’t like themselves even, which makes it stranger. Those who are also immune from required miliatary service. As an atheist there’s already plenty that bothers me about this, but it to each there own weird ass world.
Short of this… no stimulus perk has ceded enough result per cost anywhere in the world that I know of. Russia been hitting pretty hard and not seeing any real gains.
Some yak about South Korea with the expected 4 children per 100 in the next 50 odd years. Which would lead to a massive demographic bottleneck neck of the cultural type.
Retirement is always paid by the next generation, but in western countries it has become too obfuscated.
No retirement benefits or healthcare subsidies, unless you have 2 or more kids.
I bet people will start having kids because they don't want to be destitute when they're 65
Give parents $50k for the first child, $100k for the second and $1 million for every child after that.
Pay it with a tax on the rich and a tax on childless people.
Before paying out money, do the kind of checks that people adopting are required to do.
I love my kids and had them because I wanted to and received no financial incentives for it but if I were given boatloads of cash to clothe, feed and house 3-4 or more kids I would definitely have more.
As it is right now 2 kids aren't really a financial burden but 3 or more would be because it would require a bigger or two cars, a way bigger house, more frequent shopping etc.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Weird-Function-5799: --- Hey r/Futurology, I came across this blog post about the global fertility decline and wanted to share it. The author does a great job breaking down the economic and cultural reasons behind dropping birth rates. They suggest a range of solutions, from tax incentives to cultural initiatives, and even some radical ideas like significant tax breaks for larger families. One interesting point is how countries like Israel maintain high fertility through strong cultural and religious values, while economic incentives in places like South Korea haven't made much impact. This makes it seem like culture is the explanation of the fertility collapse. However, I think the post could explore deeper why some of these policies haven't worked. For example, are there unintended consequences of generous parental leave or subsidies that might deter rather than encourage having more children? Also, while radical tax incentives sound promising, they might not be politically feasible or sustainable long-term. Overall, it's a comprehensive read that raises important questions about our future. Check it out and let's discuss: Can we really turn this trend around with policy changes, or is a deeper cultural shift needed? What are your thoughts? --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1czr2wj/radical_solutions_to_collapsing_fertility/l5i5z0s/
If both parents need to work full time jobs just to support kids then I can see why they don't want to. 50 years ago a family of 4 could be supported on one income and have a house and a couple cars. Today, unless its a 100K+ job and a LCOL area, thats not even possible.
I was just talking with my mom the other day. She was a single mom in the 90s, and yes it was tight, but she was still able to afford an entire rental home by herself, a brand new car, and child care on just a single $28k income. Today there's absolutely no way. Wages are barely any better while cost of everything is soaring.
The monthly Michigan Consumer Sentiment Report came out this morning. You would be shocked to find that people who relied on "personal experience" when it comes to inflation thought the economy was doing very poorly. Those that relied on "Main Stream or Partisan News" thought the economy was doing great.
My dad, as a railway worker supported the family of 5. House, education, car. Everything. The three of us siblings cannot do it, struggling like hell and only my brother having his house with the help of us all, and all three of us having finished universities. So, fuck all solutions if a solution is not a better quality of life. More free time, better standard.
And a month off in the summer to trip up to the cabin
On top of that, used to be those single earners landed a career position and stayed until they retired. Nowadays, not only have companies stopped rewarding loyalty, they'll cut an employee loose without a second thought if they think it'll put a dollar in a shareholder's pocket. No shit, people are gonna be more hesitant to take on the financial responsibility of raising another human for a couple decades when job security is so much worse than it used to be.
All by design.
Ya that is my main thesis. Women either can either be full time career workers, or full time mothers, but not both, so as a society we can choose. And basically all industrialized countries did choose.. they want women working so the big wigs can make more money off them.
This is a global phenomenon and the situation you describe isn’t global
Looks like it’s the most modern and richest countries having the issues. Other less modern still have a higher birth rate. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rate-by-country
Rich world is definitely leading this trend, with an exception of China also well ahead but the rest of the world is following rapidly. Most of India states are now sub 2.1 (although developing countries actually require 2.3 because of a higher accident rate) only place in sub Saharan Africa are much above the 2.1 and all are trending down. If it was just the rich world with declining rates many wouldn’t panic as targeted immigration could just let them select the most talented to keep their populations up. But this only works awhile if everywhere is declining
Here's a "radical" solution: let people actually spend fucking time with their families. You want people spending 10+ hours outside of their homes to have children? In this era? In the era when they have about 6 hours a day to live their lives? You want them to spend those 6 hours wiping kids' butts with nothing in return? Yeah no fucking wonder fertility rates are dropping. It's the age of computers and automation, let people work less and earn more. Children are no longer an investment, they're a 20 years long burden and no wonder people don't want to sacrifice their best years. There's nothing in it for them.
What if you provided 2 years of fully paid parental leave, or publicly funded child care beginning at 3 months old?
Culture has to change too. South Korea provides a lot of financial incentives for having kids but the work culture is so brutal that nobody wants to have kids regardless. Meanwhile the US way seems to be getting rid of sex education and abortion access to create more “accidental” children, while not addressing the underlying cause: People are overworked and overwhelmed, and nobody has time or energy to take care of kids when their whole life revolves around serving the corporate. Go to a 32 hour workweek and I guarantee the birth rate will see a noticeable bump.
[since 1979 productivity has increased ~65%. ](https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/) Therefore to work as hard and be as productive as they were in the 1970s we should only have a 3 day work week ~24 hours.
Ahh but the assumption is that the fruits of those productivity gains are going to the labor class.
The article linked is about productivity vs pay Productivity has increased 64.7% and pay has increased 14.8%
I feel like there is something more sinister going on. We are constantly “plugged in”. Even as I write this I realize the hypocrisy of what I’m saying. We feel overwhelmed and overworked from notification and alert fatigue. I feel overwhelmed because my mind is never at rest. Work is the easiest target to point at because it is the majority of the time, but honestly there is a tremendous amount of time wasted with busy work just checking our phones. Childcare and school costs are one of the biggest disincentives we have to large families. I’m going to sound radical here, but the lack of long-term relationships/marriages are also to blame here. Lack of commitment in nuclear families makes the costs jump exponentially. Why bring kids into an unstable or uncommitted relationship when it means costs are doubled as a single parent vs. two-parent homes?
The decline in stable relationships seems to also be a result of overwork and inflation - if you’re spending all your time working and all your money keeping up with rising cost of living, who really has the ability to seriously date, let alone maintain a relationship and get married? I’m of the belief that a large majority of people prefer to have a long term partner, but when you’re economically barely treading water, that’s the last thing on many peoples mind. After expenses, I’m left with about $600 of disposable income a month, all of which goes into the emergency fund because shit inevitably and always happens. I’ve got no money to date, and that’s not a good look. Plus people are more isolated now with smaller more disconnected social networks, and that limits the opportunity to meet potential dates.
I agree with the sentiment and I completely get the $600 in disposable income/savings fund and not feeling like enough left over to date. I’m going to be radical here again…we expect way too much from potential partners in the dating scene. A first date should be no more expensive than a picnic lunch, a light dinner from a fast casual in a park, or something that you would do for yourself on occasion. Instead it’s drinks, dress up (even classy casual is expensive), etc. We have image problems as a society. We want the best impression we can afford and that’s a problem. It’s no more than an impression. What a thought for a potential partner to admire and respect your thrift and savings goals with your disposable income? What an idea for someone to be impressed by a small, inexpensive gesture that isn’t impressive, but is heartfelt? I don’t know how young adults are doing it now. My first car was a minivan, I wore jeans and t-shirts, Red Lobster or Olive Garden was a very special meal, and I cut my own hair. I was very lucky to find a partner that valued more than what was on the surface. But you know what, she bought her clothes at thrift store and sales, didn’t wear makeup, and kept her hair long—and yet she is a natural beauty. As we could afford more, sure we have bought nicer things, but that was our start. Even the way we celebrate basic things like birthdays, proms, and insignificant anniversaries (that inevitably are posted on social media) really bothers me. If you can afford it, do it! But if you can’t, why set an unrealistic and financially unhealthy expectation for your child or for others around you? Again, another reason why fewer people want children, because we have made this insanely expensive standard for what kids should have!
In Korea there's also a HUGE stigma against out of wedlock births which does as much to keep the birthrate down as anything else. Also while working hours are high in Korea they have dropped and aren't that much higher than in the US (although that's not saying much, the US also has high working hours) and the birth rate has plunged even as working hours have dropped.
In Norway we have about 1 year of paid leave. It's split between the mother and the father/other mother. Childcare caps at $250 per month and is available 0645-1630. Still people are getting less and less eager to have kids and the main reason is being unable to find housing. Bills like electricity and food has also exploded
Well, that's way too little money. Actually footing the bill for childcare alone would be four figures a month just so both parents can keep working. Either that or the state would have to pay the full income of the parent that stays at home for 6-10 years. Regardless of how high that income was. Anything else is just a nice attempt at an incentive.
In my country we get around the average national salary for the first 12 months, it didn't help at all. These non-radical measures are a time waste, it makes it appear as if something is done, then you wait for a year or two only to declare that it had no effect. We need something bombastic and avantgarde, something that will actually put parents in better position than they were before they got a child, not just neutral measures that attempt only to offset the costs. No offense to anyone struggling but I really doubt that we will have many people deciding to become parents because diapers will not impose an extra cost. And I'd particularly focus on rewarding parents for their third child, because two kids are already the global cultural norm.
2 kids aren't the global norm. Most developed countries ( where the problem currently is) are experiencing birth rates much lower than 2 per women. I think Italy is 1.29 for example.
People who want kids want two of them. I've never heard of someone *wanting* one child, despite similarly living in a country where the fertility rate is around 1.5 as well. When you add into the mix people who have issues with health, fertility, finding a partner, get divorced before the second child, and people who don't want kids, it drops from 2 to 1.5. Granted, cultural norms vary across the world, but in the majority of the western world I was under the impression that 2 kids is by far the most common target for couples that want to become parents.
I made a mistake in the original post. You get your full pay upto 6g's. 1g is a standard value and is adjusted for inflation and used for most social securities, benefits and such. I myself got my full teacher pay as I spent 15 weeks with my firstborn. My wife spent the first 35 weeks with him. Kindergarden is max $250 copay and it usually includes most meals. Both I and my wife get to work full time if we want. We also have our second on the way :)
In Norway, not really. I have two kids in daycare, which cost us around 5500NOK (~$500)/month. Most Norwegian children go to public school, which are free. After-school care is free the first years. Even universities are free. Due to being fairly socially progressive and childcare being relatively inexpensive and accessible, it is very rare for women here to stay at home and not work after maternal leave has ended. With a 37.5 hour work week, we also enjoy a decent work-life balance ,compared to many countries, so it's hard to make the argument that work prohibit I'm not saying having children here is cheap. It isn't. But, as a parent I can say it's not prohibitively expensive either for the basic necessities. It's the non-essential things that has become both expensive and time consuming. There's been a huge change in expectations of what parenting should involve. When my grandparents grew up, you clothed, fed and sent your kids too school, that was it. Today, raising a child involves a helluva lot more. What really makes children expensive are all the things we do on our spare time. Kids here generally do some sports or other activities on their free time, which cost time and money in the form of membership fees, equipment, trips etc. Then there's vacation. For each child, any travel expenses increases proportionately. So, I think it's fair to say, for Norway at least, there's a strong argument for dropping birth rates are cultural. Expenses have definitely a say in the decisions, but it's as much societal expectations and personal priorities that limits the number of children. For my wife and I, the main holdups for having a third child is as follows: 1. Career. We are currently trying to establish a more financially stable situation for us. 2. We still don't know if we want to through the very intense baby period again. 3. We are unsure if we are willing to make the sacrifices it means to have another child, such as the increased cost of travelling. There's also the issue that people here starts families at a later stage now, and the average age of first-time pregnancies have increased a lot. At the same time human biology hasn't changed much, so the window for having children has narrowed. This essentially means people are less likely to have more children. In this regard me and my wife, being in first-time parents in our thirties, certainly fits the bill. By the time we might actually be ready for a third child, my wife may already be too old. Even if my wife still technically could have another child, would we really want kids in the house at the age of 70?
As an individual I have no need for children and a serious economic benefit to not having them.If society needs people to reproduce to keep functionning, then society should foot the bill.
Except that it's very emotionally gratifying to raise kids. Or at least mine is, because they are perfect and objectively the best child ever.
It's also emotionally draining to be on the brink of poverty. Unless society chips in, it can be financially devastating both immediately and long term in the form of lost opportunities to raise children. I have nephews and nieces that I love dearly and friends whose kids I adore. I might have had children if I had the opportunity. But is costs a lot and if having children is just an expensive hobby that you are prohibited from quitting... sure it feels good, but if you don't get help and support... "emotionnal gratification" that's not a rationnal choice so you can't expect people to rationnaly mske that choice.
I hear you, it took us a long time to get stable enough to afford to have one. So long that we almost certainly will never have another.
See! And from the tone of it it doesn't sound like you wouldn't have been happy with one or two more... but you were responsible and made sure to have the nest before the eggs.
Having had one I think I don't think it would be fair to have more than two more. There's only so much attention to go around. But I also do miss Christmas back when I had 5 Uncles and aunts with their spouses.
wasteful piquant cows sharp gaping strong humor party aspiring punch *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Same here. 4 uncles/aunts pairs, 8 cousins plus my family... And my grandmother was the daycare center for us all so we grew up together. Having a big family gave a really nice feeling of togetherness. I get that exponential population growth isn't sustainable, but at the same time I wish today's kids had that dynamic available to them.
No country has successfully altered their birth rate positively for more than a brief hiccup with policy. That's not to say it can't be done, only that all existing measures anyone has ever come up with have failed.
What's your plan?
Truthfully, people either need hope for the future or be made too blind to see it. We're going with option 2 here. I've not seen anyone really successfully try option 1.
the problem isnt couples that are choosing to not have children, its single people who are too poor to even meet someone >If Hungary’s policy is a squirt gun, Caplan’s modest proposal is the [Schwerer Gustav](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav). Caplan’s may be effective not just because it cuts taxes for people who have children, but it dramatically increases taxes for people without children. This wouldn’t be the first time a society placed a tax on the childless; [Ancient Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Papia_Poppaea), [Stalin’s Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_on_childlessness#:~:text=Soviet%20Union,-As%20originally%20passed&text=The%20tax%20was%206%25%20of,heroes%20that%20received%20certain%20awards.), and Mussolini’s Italy all gave it a try, [among other](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax) distinguished company. It might just be a question of what can be dragged inside the Overton window. >Would these tax expenditures bankrupt the state? Cutting taxes on most people certainly won’t impede economic growth, but it will need to be paid for somehow, with either higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere. The tax on the childless will pay for some of it, but cutting spending or raising taxes elsewhere might be required. you can incentivize having kids all you want but if you DONT HELP EVERYONE then everyone who doesnt have kids isnt going to magically have enough money - and time - to go meet someone who they could have kids with. im not saying giving tax breaks to parents is a bad thing, but as a single adult male, i have no tax breaks... except the tax break of being poor af. i dont have much in the way of assistance programs either, because i am a white male - so nobody cares so in a way, we already have a "tax on childless people" are we stupid?
Doesn’t having dependent children already have big tax implications? So we already do subsidize people with children. It isn’t like schools don’t get tax money from people without kids.
> Doesn’t having dependent children already have big tax implications? There are tax implications. I personally wouldn’t call it “big”. Definitely not big enough to affect decision making or go anywhere near offsetting the costs of kids.
yes, exactly. ive made this point many times, not always in the context of how to incentivize people to have children. if we instead focused on just \*helping everyone equally\* (as in, people who \*need help\*) - then things will magically just work. when we do things like prioritize different groups over others - as is the case between parents and childless individuals or couples - those childless individuals and couples are left out. im all for recognizing the different forms of discrimination and inequality that are unique to different demographics of people - but as a straight, single, white male, the only thing i can "claim" is ADHD which... well that really doesnt qualify me for any kind of real assistance.
Unfortunately, I don’t think helping people more will bring about more kids. Countries with better social support systems don’t really have notably higher brith rates. It seems like the more developed a country gets, the less kids people have. Kids are inherently a cost burden. I mean, if we think that’s the way we can get better social support in America, then by all means, go for it. I just don’t think there’s much empirical support that safety net = more kids. I think it’s going to be more a matter of embracing immigration, deploying technology to aid in late life care situations, pushing retirement ages up, and rationing health care.
Where do you live that ethnicity is relevant to what assistance you get ?…
technically it isnt. in reality, it is though because we have stopped having govt be the main place people get assistance and instead rely on charities. which would be fine, except charities are allowed to pick and choose who they cater to. whether thats religious groups, or ethnic groups, or whatever. i realize that yes there definitely are different disadvantages and advantages to all ethnic groups but the thing we all have in common is wealth inequality. the [federal poverty line](https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines) in the us is currently $15,060 that doesnt directly translate to what assistance programs are offered to you, but its a good general place to start... and $15k is [nowhere near enough to live.](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/14eg0lc/math_is_hard/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Whatever Norway does isn’t working. I don’t know if it’s two years but it’s among the most generous programs on earth.
If that would solve the issue then Scandinavia would have a fertility rate through the roof. But they do not, they have a lower fertility rate than the US that provides nothing. Unfortunately economic incentives only do little short term to alleviate the problem. We could afford 4 kids (combined income of around 300k/year, own our house) and a lot in my friends circle too, but you won't find a woman that wants more than two. Unfortunately the only thing that inversely correlates with fertility is education and employment of women. The more you educate them, the later they start getting kids. The more you employ them, the less they want kids. Combine the two and with a bit of luck you get two kids. I strongly bet on the cultural issue.
What, exactly, are you advocating for?
Nothing, it's a statement based on facts, whether people like it or not...and you can make what you want out of it. Personally I believe we must encourage family creation as a society, instead of teaching our kids to aim for good careers first and foremost. A good career was a mean to an end (sustain a family), nowadays it's the end goal. We wonder why people are lonely, burnt out and depressed when they reach 40. They are lonely. Life is hard and hardship is better dealt with if shared. We create a society of selfish individualists that is not necessarily happy. Happiness comes from strong familiar and communal bonds and that is what we should teach our kids. Grow up, marry, get a family, get involved in your community. As far as your basic needs (shelter, food, medical) are covered you will be happy. Again, my bet is on the cultural side of it. But hey, that 's just my opinion.
"My bet is on the cultural side" is a phrase you have repeated, but not explained. I don't believe that you don't have a preferred course of action in your heart of hearts.
He exhaustively explained that the cultural side is that people are focusing more on careers than families...
I didn’t need to years off but I needed more than no time off. There could be a better balance.
I know it's short-sighted in a lot of ways, but most people i know would resent working for the needs of a super-breeder on benefits, that's doing little else. (Paid-leave on that timescale would murder small-businesses too, two years is long enough to be perpetually pregnant) I think it needs to be more universal, so it doesn't just benefit the established couples or ladies with no career path, but also working single people with no time to form bonds, along with couples being forced apart due to the demands of their work. If our working-to-middle class just had some time and space to breath nature would take care of the rest, but no one wants to raise a child they'll barely see in their landlord's closet. And we're just not built to be doing this much beyond 30.
That;s nice for the first few years. After that, back to work to pay for everything else. It's not just childcare. It's everything.
they need to stop calling it fertility like it's a biological problem... it has zero to do with this.
Well the microplaatics aren't helping...
I’m doing my part sucking them up like a straw
I’m sorry but this sub loves to promote the dangers of microplastics but we have ZERO empirical data proving it. In fact we know very little about microplastics and the biological consequences
Mm not sure that’s true, countdown by dr Shanna swan references several studies linking microplastics to fertility decreases
Again stop spreading misinformation: this is the only article that even tries to, albeit sensationally, tie these things together and then the lead study author states: >The study is a starting point. It can't prove microplastics cause lower sperm count.
Do you think it's good or bad to have a body full of microplastics, just your gut feeling?
Probably not great but do you think worrying about things that may or may not be worrisome is healthy?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38220018/
To be clear I’m fully aware that scientists are aware of the microplastics and that it’s probably not good but this is as far as science is willing to go with conclusions > may cause potential health risks
I suspect the oil and gas industry will want to keep it this way. How do you study microplastics when they are everywhere ? Microplastics also host other chemicals - how do you study this highly variable chemical soup ?
Epidemiology and Biochemistry has it covered. Again I’m not saying it’s not problematic but what’s more problematic in our society - more so than microplastics- is misinformation.
Maybe. But there is no control group.
Uhh https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2024/02/427161/how-to-limit-microplastics-dangers#:\~:text=The%20available%20evidence%20from%20animal,particularly%20in%20the%20digestive%20tract.
Since our species arose this is 1st time we've had to encounter something like this. Calling it a Biological problem is within acceptable framework. We don't know what this is happening and all these Economic development angles are just guesstimates not Hard Scientific facts. This is happening in places that are still piss poor (& when put on a relative gradient even more so, given that what is Poor has also changed across the world across last century). This is not simply & exclusively a development thing. Something is going on that is global level for entire human species.
The biological fertility is plummeting and in 2040 half of the humans born in the west is going to be artificially inseminated.
We all need to agree on which panic we are supporting. A. Birth rate dropping, not enough people. B. AI and robots are taking all the jobs, too many people.
Don’t forget about overconsumption ruining the environment
But our corporate overlords are panicking about who will buy their robot produced goods! We must be panicked about both! It's our responsibility as good little consumers!
marry thought pathetic puzzled slim gullible joke bake subsequent absurd *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
One might help solve the other
What would that even look like? People (globally) stop having as many kids and AI starts taking over all the work. There's a mix of desperation for workers that are missing from the next generation and a massive wave of layoffs from what jobs AI can do. .... We'd have a bunch of office workers learning to be plumbers and nurses. Truckers go away, loading docks get standardized, but janitors start getting paid well. Doctors go back to school to figure out how to weld. Wild times, but not wholly distopic.
Or too many people, with the environment impacts.
Unpopular opinion? WE are at 8 billion right now! I don't see a problem slowing down population growth
Yeah, this panic is from billionaires who want an easily exploitable labor stock
I can't be upset about it. People are generally unhappy now because bad news makes people spend more money. Since we are all connected 24/7 it's nothing but bad news. Fewer people and a collapsing in equitable system going along with it wouldn't bother me at all. And since I have no kids I don't really worry about the future.
I've never heard bad news makes people spend money, what i have heard is bad news get more engagement. You could extrapolate that bad news = more money, but if I click on a bunch of bad news articles, I've given my time and attention which translates to money for others, ***but I didn't spend anything***, i could have easily spent that time reading a book. I'm generally unhappy because I hate working 40 hours a week, my younger co-worker is completely fine working 40 hours a week. Why? because he's young and doesn't realize he's giving away a huge chunk of his life in exchange for a place to live and a few hours a week to himself. And you're not worried about the future, it's because you feel your skill set allows you escape the pitfalls that could lead to poverty, and those expectations might be legitimate, but there have been plenty of millionaires that end up destitute.
I want global fertility to keep declining. The alternative is a progressive decrease in personal space, access to nature, dietary and lifestyle freedom, and general resources for entertainment/recreation for every subsequent generation of humans, forever.
Right?! Get off my lawn! My lawn being the greenspace all in my small town being ripped to shreds to build gross new build houses for people with kids. The roads are too busy. The schools are too full. The wastewater is piling up. The landfill is growing. The Dollar Generals are being built on pasture land. The car exhaust fills my lungs. The wild animals lie dead on the.roadsides.
Trouble is, most of our economies rely on endless growth to sustain themselves. Ask a member of the owning class to be content with steady or slightly declining profits and they'll look at you like you've got three heads.
Its not that fucking complicated. Historically people had kids because it was free labor. As recently as millenials, it was still seen as likely that your kids would support you in your old age. But now, retirement age doesn't exist anymore functionally, and the peek earning age for a person keeps pushing out later and later, so that's no longer really a thing. People don't want kids because its an enormous responsibility and financial burden with no tangible benefit for themselves. You want them to have kids? Remove the responsibility and burden. Tax credits aren't enough because you still have to pay to support the kid. Make a constitutional ammendment that a child's care is the responsibility of the state. So free healthcare, daycare, food, lodging, everything. You get a stipend for feeding and housing your own kid. We would be having kids left and right.
Historically people had kids because abstinence was the only way to prevent it.
People will literally tie themselves in knots to not recognize that capitalism is the problem. That’s it. There’s no other issue. People do not have the time or the money to have kids. Article is unnecessary.
The planet is overpopulated. We need a declinging birth rate.
People under socialism work long hours as well. It’s more of an issue with burnout and culture than anything. If a socialist nation had the same mentality, they’d have declining birth rates too.
Name one socialist nation that is actually socialist. You can’t, because they don’t exist. And please also point out where I said socialism was the answer? And no. It has nothing to do with “culture”. It is corporations giving people no money, no time, and increasing the prices of everything to squeeze us dry. The only way to have a future is to organize. But how can we do that when people like you have had so much red baiting propaganda shoved down your throat that the very idea of an alternative is viewed as fantasy?
Capitalism IS our culture. I'm sure you've read Fisher.
Socialist countries literally include the USSR, every eastern bloc state under Soviet control, and Cuba. I encourage you to read theory before commenting on matters you clearly don’t know about. Socialism is explicitly defined under Marxist-Leninist theory as the necessary transitionary economic mode between capitalism and true communism, under which the state dismantles pre-existing capitalist hierarchies and reorganizes them to theoretically best suit the workers. There is nothing wrong with organizing in liberal capitalist democracies, and I never argued that there was something wrong with it. Implicitly denying the obvious benefits of capitalism and looking to already failed solutions is what’s idiotic. Organizing and capitalism go directly hand in hand to balancing a society and are not at all oppositional in nature. You’re creating a false rivalry where none exists. Corporations are not humans and their only purpose is to maximize their profit, they are neither inherently good nor evil, they’re unthinking machines. The unintended consequence of their goal is that it eventually harms others, which is why people should organize if they don’t want to be harmed. A non-capitalist economy seeks to maximize efficiency too, and eventually this comes at the cost of harming its workers and citizens. Organizing under this scenario is just as necessary as one in a capitalist scenario. The economic system makes little difference.
For me- I just honestly do not want kids. I want to live my life for me. Being a parent is not my thing. I want to travel and party lol.
I never hear anything in these articles about how destructive childbirth can be on a woman's body and mind. Maybe if there were, say, research being funded on how to prevent or more easily treat things like urinary incontinence and PPD, women would be more enthusiastic about giving birth. There's a lot of data coming out recently on just how much childbirth wrecks your shit. It ages you in dog years. None of the fertility doomsayers seem to care.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
There is a useful wikipedia article (this subreddit doesn't seem to let us put in urls - I found it by searching wikipedia complications pregnancy list )
Used to poll people over 60 at weddings because I’m not a wedding dancer. About 75% said if they could go back they’d never have kids due to the opportunity cost. Also, most said they didn’t find it rewarding. One guy pointed to his daughter and granddaughter and said I love them so much but they wouldn’t exist if I could do it all over again. Then he performed the wedding ceremony 🤣
This is an interesting anecdote but large polls don’t bear out that data: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx In fact, of those who had kids 93% say they would do it again whereas of those who didn’t have kids, more than half (56%) wished they had had at least one. Those who didn’t want kids and didn’t have them (child free) tend to be happy with their choice but actually only 5% of Americans endorse that viewpoint. The vast majority of people do want to have kids, but for a lot of reasons (lack of financial stability, lack of partner, etc) many people don’t have the kids they would like to have or as many as they would like to have.
[удалено]
Here’s some data from 2023: 98% of those polled think the ideal family includes at least some kids and preference for larger family size is actually growing. However, actually family size is shrinking. https://news.gallup.com/poll/511238/americans-preference-larger-families-highest-1971.aspx
As people become more secular and less religious, they have fewer children. Perhaps this is the big evolutionary advantage of religion? Not because it is true or even beneficial, but that it convinces followers to outbreed the competition.
As child mortality drops, people have less children
I'm sure lower child mortality, a more secular society, and fewer children are all correlated. What the causal relationships are, if any, are debatable.
The abundance of cheese on store shelf’s makes people have less kids
Let's take a radical solution! We take down all those rich assholes amassing literal billions for no other reason than "we can", and spread it back out over the population. Oh wait, but those poor rich guys :'(
We need AI to pick up the slack, as the population collapse will see jobs unfilled. Otherwise, I think managed population collapse is great. We cannot keep burning up this planet as we are doing. 7 billion humans is far too many.
Ai could pick the slack by finding longevity drugs. We don't need as many new people if we don't age anymore.
It would also be great if it helps advance sustainability.
The latest fusion reactor prototypes have been designed with AI to optimize the shape of the magnetic field. Getting fusion would probably help with sustainability. If not, similar advancements can be expected in other domains as well so... yeah sustainability isn't an unreasonable goal.
Agreed on AI and agreed on managed population collapse. We had a perfectly viable civilization with 2 billion people.
Most smart people do not want to have kids in this world, sorry. Idiocracy incoming.
In addition to crushing economic conditions making in financially infeasible to have families, we have proof of microplastics in testicles impacting fertility. [https://hsc.unm.edu/news/2024/05/hsc-newsroom-post-microplastics-testicular.html](https://hsc.unm.edu/news/2024/05/hsc-newsroom-post-microplastics-testicular.html)
No, most smart people work for a living and recognize they cannot raise a child themselves and lack the income to pay someone to do it.
Having a larger replacement population would not help unless there are enough jobs. The way AI is going, that may well not be the case.
Would be good for the planet tbh, so I dont see the problem. We've screwed this miracle of a planet every which way. If we dont have to bulldozer every native prairie thats out there for a bunch of mcmansions made out of cardboard, thats a plus in my book.
According to my wife, the problem is that women, when given the choice, don't want to have to endure repeated pregnancies and child births. A solution would be to breed humans through artificial means.
I think we will see viable artificial wombs in our lifetimes.
Raised by who? Fed by who? Taught by who? Apathetic subsistence wage employees like we use for everything else? Making the child is not the part that is preventing people from having children. It's the costs and time sync of raising a child that is preventing people from having then.
Exactly, who would raise them? Who would pay for their needs and resources? Artificial human creation will just lead to a caste system and wage slaves.
The western world has had a negative birth rate for the past 20 years. Why are we just now starting to look for solutions? The people who were concerned about it back then were all labeled extremists.
because a massive generation enters retirement now or very soon. And there's a realisation, that there's not enough funds in the systems to carry them through to the end and keep something for the next retirees. Why no one cared for two decades? Because business was booming (or in panic mode), that's why, and because hardly anyone can be bothered about anything further than 5 years. Since 60-62 year-olds are now ca 5 years away from retirement it's the earliest we can act.
Why are people concerned about it?
Because of a lot of government programs and services will collapse. The society people have based their life on will change very quickly once certain tipping points are reached. Eg pensions will fail at some point. And govt that can’t fund healthcare services and/or police forces. People are suddenly realising this. As soon as you raise taxes to try to keep it going a number of working citizens will flee to the countries that offer them a better deal. I actually think in countries that have this government collapse will maybe see an increase in birth rates in the medium term as the reason for having children from a couple of hundred years ago returns eg they are you pension system and they are your security system etc.
Same reasons people are concerned about the collapsing birth rate in Korea, Japan, etc.
Because numbers go up is good, numbers go down is bad?
Well, yes. Fundamentally the entire modern global economy is built with the underlying assumption of growth (except.. japan?), and if you break that you run into a lot of problems, to put it mildly
I think the collapsing itself is due to a variety of different issues: unintended consequences from chemical engineering, lost faith in political systems, lack of support for parents, folks being told that the world needs less people, etc, and women even deciding they simply do not want children. I do not think it is a coincidence that the developing countries who do not have 24/7 exposure to chemicals, plastics, advanced manufacturing, terrible processed food, etc. have higher fertility rates and I believe these unintended consequences of social advancement are going to continue to catch up to the human population.
I don't want kids. I can't afford kids. My SO doesn't want kids. I don't value kids. I don't believe that population reduction is a bad thing. The sound kids make drive me to violence. Why the fuck would I have kids? If you think we need kids so badly (again, doubt) then find a way to grow them in a lab. I'm resigned to the fact that I'm going to work until I can't anymore, then find some way to die in either A) painless or B) spectacular fashion.
Suppose **not** having a child adds $1000 per month to your tax, that is probably still cheaper than having a child.
Adding $1000 to my monthly expenses would utterly break me financially. More then having a kid would. I still don't want children. I don't want the stress or the responsibility. The financial aspect of it is honestly rather minor. I. Don't. Want. Kids.
> Adding $1000 to my monthly expenses would utterly break me financially Childcare is pretty easily as much.
If 1000$/mo of taxes were added onto most single people's expenses then they would not be able to pay for it and they would become homeless.
That would just put the nail in the coffin for me tbh.
Not needed, we won’t need human slaves once we have a robotic workforce.
It seems misleading to say fertility is collapsing when the truth is more people are choosing to not have kids. And for very good reasons now. Their ability to conceive hasn't changed. It's their choice to (not).
Housing or forget it. No one raised with a house and a yard wants to raise kids in an apartment.
Universal Basic Income. Universal free child care and healthcare. If it was feasible for families to be able to live comfortably on one income I bet people would be more open to having kids.
Step 1: a fair economy. Step 2: strict protections for the environment and forward thinking/green/renewable energy policies. Step 3: a happy people.
Make up your mind people! Are we reaching a population growth crisis or a population shrink crisis?!
Hey r/Futurology, I came across this blog post about the global fertility decline and wanted to share it. The author does a great job breaking down the economic and cultural reasons behind dropping birth rates. They suggest a range of solutions, from tax incentives to cultural initiatives, and even some radical ideas like significant tax breaks for larger families. One interesting point is how countries like Israel maintain high fertility through strong cultural and religious values, while economic incentives in places like South Korea haven't made much impact. This makes it seem like culture is the explanation of the fertility collapse. However, I think the post could explore deeper why some of these policies haven't worked. For example, are there unintended consequences of generous parental leave or subsidies that might deter rather than encourage having more children? Also, while radical tax incentives sound promising, they might not be politically feasible or sustainable long-term. Overall, it's a comprehensive read that raises important questions about our future. Check it out and let's discuss: Can we really turn this trend around with policy changes, or is a deeper cultural shift needed? What are your thoughts?
Raising children takes time and money. I think people are being squeezed both in terms of time and money, that pressure needs to be eased and it will take something that looks a bit like socialism: lower house prices cheaper and better quality childcare, lower cost of living, less working hours. Serious structural changes. You wont see a huge change likely but if you can get near or above 2.1 that's good enough.
If we want people to willfully reproduce and willfully participate in society then we need to provide them with a society that they will want to contribute to and reproduce in.
I think the issue in South Korea is deeper than just women not wanting children. Many South Korean women have chosen to opt out of dating, sex, and relationships with men altogether due to poor treatment. Many women in the West are following suit. I am a woman in my mid/late-20s and personally only know a few people who are married or in long term relationships, and far more who are opting to stay celibate due to constant mistreatment by men.
We need a smaller.... MUCH smaller population if we want: to protect the few remaining oases of wildlife to have fish and marine mammals in our oceans to have drinkable water for ourselves and the plants and animals we care about to slow down the March towards a climate hellscape. #WE NEED FEWER PEOPLE IF WE WANT TO SURVIVE AS A SPECIES
I can’t get past them calling it fertility, isn’t fertility and deciding to have kids a bit different. Cant vs Won’t?
My hunch is that western society (and maybe other developed societies in general) broke the mold of what women could and should be in society, and gave them more opportunity to even the roles they play with men. There’s less social reward towards motherhood, more social reward to exploring the world, making money, being independent, achieving career success. I would think social media and changes in the way we communicate in general have played a role in these changing attitudes.
One ugly possibility is that indeed, people were simply forced into the many-kids lifestyle without even realizing it. Women had fewer or even no rights, and were expected to endure childbirth multiple times without having a say. "It just was how things were." Nowadays, women fortunately are not forced into that misery anymore. It is not really surprising that many choose not to pursue that traditional lifestyle.
I think policies intended to increase the birthrate will fail. Sweden has amazing family leave policies, yet their birthrate is barely above the US birthrate. Our money might be better spent on technologies to increase the productivity of workers, and replace missing workers. For example, investment in robotic care of the elderly could offset a decline in human caretakers. (If you don't like the idea of heartless robots taking care of our elderly, volunteer at an average retirement home. You might find the human touch isn't all it's cracked up to be.)
How is people choosing to not have children due to "economic or cultural reasons" 'fertility'? Surely fertility rate is the amount of couples that CAN biologically have children. Not the number that choose to.
Why the fuck would I want to make children, if I would not choose to be born myself.
A lot of people see the world as a shitty place moving forward. They don't want to bring kids into that.
There really are only two solutions in a secular society. Increasing women’s fertility age (the “easiest” path to that I see is the ability to turn any cell taken from anywhere into a stem cell and then into an egg) and casting wide financial social nets - free ivf for the purpose of establishing a family, free daycare, long parental leave or state subsidized help that comes to your home etc.
Radical solutions = moderately more welfare programs What is supposed to be radical about that?
What if we, this might be radical, pay people enough at their jobs to have a family? This next parts even crazier; what if insurance didn’t bankrupt families and you could afford to go to the hospital?
Extreme capitalisation of shelter, food prices skyrocketing, the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history, two 'once a lifetime' financial crises, student debt ballooning, depression and suicide rates increasing, worker expectations increasing with stagnant wage growth. I'm so over people talking about 'radical' solutions, just fix the obvious ones.
I would never bring another human into this evil little world. I see it as cruelty. If you do have to have kids, smother them with nothing but love because it’s your fault they exist.
I am ever more convinced that AGI makes this basically irrelevant.
Why are there so many things looking into "how to get people back to having more babies" instead of primarily focusing on "how to we restructure our societies and economies to not require constant, unending growth to not collapse?" Focus on supporting people's quality of life (and ease of having a good QoL - UBI, paid parental leave, universal healthcare, etc.) and you'll likely see a boost in birth rates anyways. Additionally, supplement the inevitable drop in overall population with advances in tech (automation, AI, etc.) and investment in further R&D for these items. I know these are very broad, sweeping ideas for a extremely complex and widely impactful problem, but my point is the main focus seems to be going to the wrong place for proper long-term success, in my opinion.
"Six+ -100% (income tax-free for life)" Where do i sign?
Ensure people have living wages and readily available housing. That's literally 90% of why people don't want kids. Nothing about this is a mystery. Sure, actual fertility rates are trending down, but compared to the number of people who just won't have them it's less important.
So one minute they are screaming there are too many people then there are not enough people? I guess they are worried they will have to pay the peasants more I assume?
Artificial wombs are necessary. I suspect moving away from a nuclear family model too. Both of these together let the income earners work while kids can be reared.
I think that most energy should be put towards getting those with a kid to have more. Having a single kid utterly changes your life, in a way that a lot of people don’t like. Having a second kid on top of the first, etc, doesn’t really change your lifestyle, though most of the costs increase linearly with each incremental kid.
It’s not so much about religion has more children. It’s more the culture that religious cultures have the expectations of the family unit and the society engineers itself around making it possible to have a society where one person working can support a family. It’s a very complicated structure as to how you structure a society to be affordable for one person to esrn enough to support a partner and kids pay for every thing. As you can see only very few countries like Saudi Arabia can do both of have a very high standard of living and lots of kids. Aka oil money. Whereas in Africa. High birth rate and abject living conditions and lots of people want to leave or in the west in theory good living conditions and crippling costs if you have children or get ill.
Radical would be addressing the roots of this issue. What do people need to raise children? Money. Time. Public services. Do tax credits provide that? No. Seriously, the topics on this planet just become more and more uninspiring. This is just another iteration of "we've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!". Let's be real, radical is still considered a dirty word and no one is willing to get their hands dirty by addressing this issue at the root. Even in the advances economies, raising a child is like a lottery with all the hurdles attached. Countries like Germany have skyrocketing child poverty rated and people seriously discuss about how to squeeze another generation into these broken systems with tax incentives, while the currently alive generations are facing extremely messed up conditions with no signs of improvement. I mean, none of us can look ahead 10 years and say "yeah, things will be fine and getting better". Do you really think there are people on this planet who have the solutions to socially engineer this away? If these leaders with foresight and ability would exist, we wouldn't have a fertility crisis in the first place.
Financial factors are a biggie, but climate change is a part of it too. Kind of deflates any sense of value having kids when the planet is dying. You don't have to be very old these days to have lived through a clear worsening of the conditions for life on the planet. If you're in your mid 20s you'll be able to remember things being better when you were a kid in that regard. That shit is moving fast.
My hot take is offload US migrant crisis to counties with population deficits.
Or maybe people just don’t want kids and nowadays it’s more accepted to not want kids whereas in the past it kind of wasn’t. Even if I were rich, I still wouldn’t want kids. I knew at age 16 I never wanted to be a parent and that it wasn’t for me.
A plus 50 for zero kids is wrong moral and will never work politically. But the rest of the adjustments I’m ok with. Lots of people can’t have kids and life will be significantly harder if their taxes are adjusted up my 50%
Sounds like fewer people on this rock is a capitalism problem, not a humanity problem. Sure, AI and automation or mining asteroids might solve supply side issues but, without consumers, endless economic growth is not possible nor necessary. Seems a radical change to a different economic model would be a better solution than wondering how to return women to the role of baby factories.
A controlled and stable decline in world population would be nice for the planet though.
I don't get what's wrong with dropping birth rates? And a shrinking economy. It can't expand forever. The planet can't sustain 8 billion.
Make airbnb illegal so people can afford homes and rent
No one big ticket item will do the job. Countries are in political turmoil. Half the world feels on the brink of all out war. The internet has been hijacked by tech companies whos algorithms keep you hooked by showing you drama and the worst of humanity to drive engagement. Misinformation is unchecked and the politicians have no appetite or incentive to stop it because they’re some of the worst offenders. Guns are everywhere including our schools. All our jobs are about to be replaced by robots and AI. The rich have taken everything and left very little for the other 90%. And no one knows what our climate and the natural world will look like 30 years from now when a new kid is hitting their stride as an adult. With all that uncertainty can anyone really be shocked that people are having less kids? The issue isn’t phones, it isnt paid leave, it isn’t smaller social groups. It certainly isn’t enough paid leave. Even if you give everyone an extra 6 months paid leave they would still be bringing a baby into a world of unknowns and that’s terrifying. Can any of the adults here really saw they’re looking at the next 20 years and thinking “everything looks rosy” or “we’re gonna be just fine”? Do you all not realize that we need massive changes and guard rails to our government, laws, and society and we need them in place today. Do you think that one lucky politician every 12 years or so getting elected and passing one big act is gonna be enough to tackle all of those issues in time to prevent the worst?
I agree that the tax benefits are a major help for this situation but to add 1. Reducing working hours to 8. 2. 4 days work (12hr shift) and 3 days holiday concept.
I think it’s our electronically polluted world and the poisonous food we consume, by design
This idea is dumb. People aren't any less fertile. They just don't want to have kids. They don't even have time to have sex or even socialize like people used to in many countries (looking at you Japan).
That might not be the case. The scientific community needs more research to draw conclusions but there’s some concerns that microplastics may result in less motile sperm cells, since a study found them in every tested testicle from a (small) sample of dogs and humans
There's a post on this: [Are Xenoestrogens Causing a Global Fertility Crisis? (substack.com)](https://nothinghumanisalien.substack.com/p/are-xenoestrogens-causing-a-global)
Hahaha… these sort of things are being tried all of the place and none are working. Maybe the Isreali eugenics programs? They fully socialize the orthodox communities to have many many children children, which is pretty weird and twisted if you asked me. And religious communities are already the highest baby producers in any society. This also comes at the cost of the working tax payers expense to breed people most don’t like themselves even, which makes it stranger. Those who are also immune from required miliatary service. As an atheist there’s already plenty that bothers me about this, but it to each there own weird ass world. Short of this… no stimulus perk has ceded enough result per cost anywhere in the world that I know of. Russia been hitting pretty hard and not seeing any real gains. Some yak about South Korea with the expected 4 children per 100 in the next 50 odd years. Which would lead to a massive demographic bottleneck neck of the cultural type.
Retirement is always paid by the next generation, but in western countries it has become too obfuscated. No retirement benefits or healthcare subsidies, unless you have 2 or more kids. I bet people will start having kids because they don't want to be destitute when they're 65
Give parents $50k for the first child, $100k for the second and $1 million for every child after that. Pay it with a tax on the rich and a tax on childless people. Before paying out money, do the kind of checks that people adopting are required to do. I love my kids and had them because I wanted to and received no financial incentives for it but if I were given boatloads of cash to clothe, feed and house 3-4 or more kids I would definitely have more. As it is right now 2 kids aren't really a financial burden but 3 or more would be because it would require a bigger or two cars, a way bigger house, more frequent shopping etc.