Taiwan has the lowest birthrate in the world. In the CIA’s latest report on the total fertility rate (TFR), which assesses the average number of children women in a given country are expected to have during their childbearing years, Taiwan was ranked last out of 227 countries at 1.07 children per woman. The countries with the next four lowest birth rates are all in Asia: South Korea at 1.09, Singapore at 1.15, Macau at 1.21, and Hong Kong at 1.22. Replacement level fertility is the total fertility rate—the average number of children born per woman—at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next, without migration. This rate is roughly 2.1 children per woman for most countries, although it may modestly vary with mortality rates.
130 out of 227 countries are below replacement level fertility. These countries also include China, Vietnam, Indonesia, most of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Canada and many more.
Canada and some other countries are using high levels of immigration to offset low birthrates.
Sub-replacement fertility does not automatically translate into a population decline because of increasing life expectancy and population momentum. This is why some nations with sub-replacement fertility still have a growing population, because a relatively large fraction of their population are still of child-bearing age.
Natalist policies to attempt to encourage more women to have children. Measures include increasing tax allowances for working parents, improving child-care provision, reducing working hours/weekend working in female-dominated professions such as healthcare and a stricter enforcement of anti-discrimination measures to prevent professional women’s promotion prospects being hindered when they take time off work to care for children. These measures have helped the fertility rate to increase to around 2.0 in France and 1.9 in Britain and some other northern European countries.
There also needs to be free medical care for Invitro fertilization treatment.
Japan is among the countries experiencing accelerating population decline.
About 127 million people live in Japan. The population could drop below the 100 million mark by 2049. Japanese people are aging out of the workforce. By 2036, one in three people will be elderly. Japanese researchers found that among unmarried people between the ages of 18 and 34, nearly 70 percent of men and 60 percent of women were not in a relationship.
There needs to be a focus on helping fostering human connection.
The problem has many issues.
A society where people do not have economic stability and security has problems. The cratering population levels and the underlying reasons for it need to be solved or mitigated.
SOURCES – Taiwan News, CIA
Written by Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
105 thoughts on “Pro-Baby Policies Are Needed”
TableStakes, that's actually a valid point. But it's pretty important for those countries not just grow their population, but also care about the babies, and provide specific policies, which would defend all the rights of such babies and their parents. It's also important to provide parents by products, that they and their kids deserve, with stuff like breast pumps. For example, here is a bellababy breast pump review and you know, it's not so easy to find such breast pumps in every country and every city. It should be more accessible, in my opinion.
Wealthy countries tend to have lower birth rates. When manual labor is no longer needed for survival, having 12 kids to help run the family farm is no longer a necessity.
China's One Child policy destroyed their demography. They're already past the point of recovery any time soon.
The aging population will require an ever-increasing share of resources to keep alive. Eventually some world leader is going to watch Logan's Run and get a great grinchy idea. Just kill off everyone over 30.
This will, of course, cause many other problems.
Well, I guess I'd chose the safer option lol. And maybe you are right that perhaps it is better for a lot of people to go solo. My thing is that once you get comfortable with it, you don't wanna go back. I was not planning on rolling solo – it happened as a result of seeing so many marriages failing. It was uncomfortable to be alone – at first. However, now I would not go back to the idea of marriage – even if the risks are, by some magic, eliminated overnight. Freedom is the best thing there is for me. I would not rule out having a girlfriend, and I am always honest about my intentions, but I will not even co-habitat with her. Like Bill Maher was explaining to Joe Rogan why he never got married, I like all of my time and enjoy my own company. Cheers!
If you are unattractive for women, you could just hire a hooker. Fly to EU where it's legal. I mean if sex is a big deal for you. It is good to have it a few dozen times at least in your life to get it out of your system. Once you do, maybe you will decide whether you wanna have a wife or go MGTOW.
If you wanna have a wife, you could go to Asia or former USSR countries where there is plenty supply of females. If you are from the States, you are a wealthy men for them. Women will select you over their guys.
For me personally, MGTOW is a better option. I can do an occasional hookup here and there and sex is not a big deal for me. Keeping my ca$$$h and playing chess. But, as they say, to each their own.
We can still do an occasional hookup or fly to Europe to hire a professional, lol. Way cheaper. Besides, the adult sites are there too. Good ways for one to entertain himself. No need for a wife.
Maybe most guys can't handle being alone, but I am rather comfortable with that. Some others are too. It's like what Bill Maher said on Joe Rogan why he never married. I feel the same way. Rather avoid the risks while enjoying my life.
Well, I hope that your second marriage works out bud. Me, I ain't taking the risks. Because stories like yours are already common knowledge, a lot of guys like me are reading up and opting out. The information is out there and we are making the logical choices. The way I see it, hope is not a strategy. I guess I don't mind "winning." I just don't want to lose. Draw is enough – speaking in chess terms. 🙂
Research suggest that, in order to achieve meaningful results, pro-natal policies tend to be prohibitively expensive.
They also seem to have their greatest impact on the poorest segments of society, which is a whole 'nuther raft of issues.
Oh, this is that weirdo USA student debt thing. Yeah I don't know anything about that. So you're saying that it IS a higher price for a useful degree?
But the fact that most countries don't have that problem makes it a particular political choice that most countries can ignore.
It's like assuming that the British House of Lords is a universal feature of democracies and that future projections will have to work out how to deal with it.
"…hardly difficult to have 3 kids all get decent professional degrees.."
interesting. most are taking on the $100k+ 4-yr debt enslavement single-handedly, i presume.
Hope the medium family-size/high success ratio is the case and then the long-lived, tax-base 'positive' participants can accelerate us toward the 'optimum equilirium'.
But it's hardly difficult to have 3 kids all get decent professional degrees. Not if they were going to tertiary education in the first place.
Is this something based on the USA's messed up educational system where it costs more to do engineering than business at university?
I can see that sending all 10 of your spawn to MIT will be beyond most people, but that's hardly on the cards as a realistic fertility rate these days.
agreed. real planning is rare.
ahh the problems of the world's top 10%.
As stated elsewhere (sort of): Is it: better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at All? I think that it is not unreasonable to believe that genetics plus lifestyle/upbringing have a huge say on the 'success' potential of many. Too many are just not pre-disposed, experienced, and wired correctly for 'Giving Relationships'. They say that they choose to not seek commitment and the risk — but often they are just not good at it and never will be — and sadly, the world is better for having them stay alone, possibly, partly becuase they are attracted only to those who would naturally conflict with them. Connection is rare. Relationships are a lot more work and way more luck than people would realize.
agreed, IQ is very culturally focussed. Some may argue that being a facilitator (high EQ) has greater wealth and community-building potential. The productive and humane generalist over the intense brilliant introvert.
agreed. private professionals working 40-year careers, having one kid in their 40s, living healthily into their 90s without public pension or UI or debt, paying their kid's education and house down-payment and first car- thereby reducing that kid's exposure to debt and unnecessary interest — who then perpetuates the exploding web of wealth and success similarily. Can you imagine the success and stability and crazy growth and low taxes and sumptuous services of an economy of 50% of this type of demographic? Like Simpson's Cypress Creek writ large.
agreed. your 20s and 30s should be your career productivity era. Kids in your 40s, with stability and security, as long they are finally gone by retirement and mortgage paid – perfect.
Probably depends a lot of the productivity of the environment — a denser and dynamic city as an engine of productivity vs small, quiet town. With increased urbanization (except for last 12 months) increased productivity and creativity will likely spread faster.
I would guess that it is the 'quantity vs quality' argument. Increasing hordes of kids with no interest in STEM education or even technical-based university/ college/ vocationals at all. Fearing the debt, lacking the ambition, risk averse, financially retarded, valuing group comfort over individual striving. Many quantify this as the 'wealth multiplier effect' or 'networked achievement' gone awry — increasing quantities of people with little ability/ interest to pursue achievement, wealth, and knowledge which would have otherwise ultimately lead to the multiplying and spreading of consumption, experiences, and advancements. Many public companies track the ratio of labor costs to revenue/profit, with several engineering firms, at least in my field having 2.5 – 5x multipliers – mechatronics and semiconductors even more. Track this concept across an entire economy – some may point to the ratio of for-profit employees vs others as indicators of regional success. Better to have one child engineer working a 40-year career than 3 sales and communications or business majors floating about with 20 – 25 years of sporadic experience and devoted employment each. Population productivity. Employment participation. Quality citizens not quantity citizens — and that is not easy if the focus is not on each individual child as compared to the 3 – 4 kid litter — too much room for improvement and investment in the first child of today's family.
I always stand for strong assertions backed by nothing.
Last I heard, my ex was a cat lady. I was seriously mad at her for a while, now I just pity her.
But I did learn from the experience that I absolutely was meant to be married, I just had to take a lot more care in who I did it with. Fortunately I found a filipina 21 years my junior who was in the market for a good "fixer upper opportunity", and we've been happily married for 14 years now.
Sure, if you got there gradually. Not so much if you got there by population implosion, and just passed 5 billion on your way down. Total fertility below 1.5 or so drastically skews age demographics, and not in a good way.
*Maybe* life extension advances will render that less of a problem, but it seems rather risky to count on it.
It takes a special crew with certain supplies, equipment, and skills, to sanitize and rehabilitate a house or an apartment after someone has died there and not been discovered for a considerable period of time.
From what I read, Japan is getting quite good at this.
I hear that. My first was perfect, until she developed a rather serious personality disorder. In layman's terms, she went crazy (yeah, I know, almost every ex will tell you that, but I've actually got the documentation–although I only found it among her things, 12 years after the divorce, when she'd done all the emotional and financial damage she could possibly do, and then did herself in). I'd always heard it took two to make a divorce, but that is not true.
Yet, despite everything, the hoarder house, the behavior, her own family reporting her to DHS multiple times, my daughters running away from her to come live with me, the law remained firmly on her side (she was not in prison). I would never have won custody no matter how many fortunes I spent (and she had already spent those). I made an informal deal to keep paying child support if she left the kids with me, but that was only possible because the sheriff refused to intercede and return the kids to her.
If you get a woman pregnant in the US, she owns you for a long time. And, try as you like, some men will goof or just get unlucky. But you want to win, you got to play.
I was married at 24, divorced at 36, and didn't get married again until 50, and to a woman my own age. All those women in their 20s and early 30s that wanted to get involved with a divorced man in his 40s scared the bejeezus out of me. That said, I love my daughters, I love my grandchildren, and I love my wife (and my life).
Actually, by Republican standards he IS a bleeding heart liberal. Even 20 years ago, the present Mitt Romney would have fit right into the Democratic party in the US.
"Our biology was also pushing us in that direction. However, unlike animals, we Humans are in a position to choose a different path. We can think and analyze."
Yes, we can chose to tell the biology, "no". But that doesn't make the biology go away. The biology is reality: You are a biological organism, with hardwired drives, and when you frustrate them, you WILL pay a price. It may not be immediate, but it will be cumulative.
Just remember: Until they find a way to upload you to a computer, you ARE the biology. Ignore it at your peril.
I highly recommend Philippine online dating. Believe me, you'll be much happier.
Same reason why we refer to accelerating down as "falling", but not accelerating up. The direction you're going matters.
I feel like it makes sense. We've evolved to pick up social traits and develop social standards from our neighbors (especially those that seem to be doing better than us), and evolution never had to differentiate between TV 'neighbors' and real ones before. It's a cognitive loophole.
For good cinematic reasons the industry fills the screen with hot people, and it makes them improbably accomplished at the same time. Somehow a waitress can afford a luxury apartment in New York, that sort of thing. So our standards go up and we decide we need to spend more time accumulating accomplishments to measure up (or we give up). Somehow, despite rising wealth, we all feel like the cost of raising a child has gone through the roof. It isn't the cost that went up, but what we expect for ourselves and the kids.
Add to this the fact that nearly everyone on TV is single. By the end of the movie they get together, but by the sequel they've already broken up (only to get back together again at the end of that movie). Again this happens for good reasons – the romantic tension is better, people in stable relationships don't go on dangerous adventures, etc – but it means that a lot of our time is spent fascinated with these sexy successful neighbors who never manage to model any roles beyond the dating phase.
The study I read called out soap operas specifically, but I think most TV has this problem.
There was actually a study in Brazil correlating the introduction of television to different regions to the decline in birthrate.
At first the assumption was that birthrates decline after the introduction of electricity, but they had some regions where television access trailed electricity by a substantial time and the television hypothesis was better supported.
You're assuming that it is men who are deciding not to have children. Any data to support that?
In my personal experience it's women who decide to have kids or not.
errr… what's a G7?
You mean someone from one of the G7 countries? ( Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States)
But that's not obvious at all. Many people are convinced the exact opposite is true: children replacement is close to the MOST important contributor to the long term stability.
What's your argument for saying that it's very minor?
THough, to be fair, who exactly was "doing well before hand" when they decided to throw it all away and go full communist?
(You never go full communist.)
We can point to some places that were "doing well before hand" when they decided to go socialist. Post WWII Britain for example. They were "doing well" by the standards of most of the planet and history, even if they were somewhat crippled compared to the state of 1913. But they eventually saw the light and voted in Thatcher to get them functional again.
I can't think of anyone who went from "doing well" to actually reaching the point of no return and flipping to hard core communism.
We all know communism is bad (well, all the grownups know this) but feudal China and Russia were also pretty messed up. That's what led to people being desperate enough to adopt something like marxism.
No. No. Hands are the wrong approach. This could be the the cause of the problem.
I read that as robot gigantic nurses and I still think that's the correct reading.
My Brazilian friends had an expression, that the TV was the best form of birth control ever invented. Take away entertainment, maybe spice it up with government supported free alcohol, and watch the population boom!
Banning birth control might help as well. I am not a religious conservative by any stretch, but banning birth control and abortions may have a secular point in populations with shrinking birth rates. High marriage rates when people are young seem to help as well, since as we see populations who are highly religious and actively push this social model are reproductively successful. We throw rice at weddings for a reason.
LOL – in all seriousness, that is the only reason states are worried about decline in population as that means less human capital to generate wealth.
Why does everyone refer to a population halving as dying out? Does no one understand that all of these nations were once half their size and doing just fine? We are at a dangerous point where population could suddenly drop too quickly as inertia runs out and we may be too slow to respond and we could begin a series of wild oscillations as we try to adjust. A population control board is likely to become a real thing if we don't try to make some kind of organized response. If we don't use our intellect nature will cull us the same it culls all other creatures with starvation or social collapse. We have already supplied rats with unlimited food in experiments and their behavior became much like ours is becoming. The question is are we going to be just as ignorant as the rats?
easy to say, i guess: "better to NOT have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."
perhaps. but it is one thing to be Free to Choose and another to be aimless and unconcerned with the bigger picture. Many during the Industrial Revolution brought their families to big cities seeking opportunities which, at a certain level of density, then contributed to outbreaks, hazards, and unstable access to basic services. Zoning, economic scarcity, etc., provides a certain degree of reality to those who always 'do as they see fit' to everyone's mutual discomfort and hazard. Failure to Heed: "Tragedy of the Commons", to everyone's risk.
larger population ==(theoretically)== larger resource of productivity, creativity, and wisdom — though, it may be true that for each increase, there is possibly a diminishing return, even with continued tech and increased peace.
Though I don't think anything you indicated is untrue on its face, it is certainly fraught with generalization, simplification, and a tendency to focus/ nudge people or societies into a specific type of mid-20th century, western-capitalism-family-oriented methodology/ mind-set. It is a snapshot of a demographic of people which one then works backward to find a pattern, leaving us with an urgency to continue people on that narrow path. We deserve better. Productive and creative personalities come in a wide range of flavours and backgrounds and goals. The key is the productive and creative, hopefully technocratic, hopefully socially adept. It is the happy inclusion and assemblage of such driven and resourceful and self-motivated individuals for which great societies coalesce – possibly associated to a kind of Network Effect.
There's a saying – love is grand, divorce is hundred grand. 🙂
I like saving the hundred grand. 🙂
The first step to getting a divorce is getting married.
Guys, just accept the fact the fertility is going into the crapper for all time and get on with it. It is not only sociological factors. But it is also the xenoestrogens (mostly from agriculture) and too many childhood vaccinations that are causing infertility. Natural childbirth will become a thing of the past by 2045.
You know what you do? You get on with doing DIY life extension. That's what I'm doing. If it works and you make it to LEV, then you do wine and cheese on your favorite beach in 2045.
That's my plan.
all is well and dandy until you reach old age…
Myself, I am an incel, 42 years old and have only had sex a couple of times in my life. So I will not be having any children I guess.
What they need to do is stop the anti-family business practices. Let employees have time for their families. Stop the 7×16 hrs work weeks.
Where I come from, poor women with four kids already don't pay income tax, so I can see why this would be a progressive benefit.
IQ is not simply a reflection of intelligence. It perfectly correlates with crime, divorce rates, number of children you have, number of degrees, scores in the SAT, income levels; all metrics of civilization. Lowest IQ group has the highest crime, most children, least amount of education, highest drop rate, lowest income etc etc. Then every race perfectly corresponds in order of these metrics with their group IQ. Surprise surprise evolution in humans didn’t magically stop.
Just allow subsahrans in to replace the population of Japan and S. Korea. They can handle the high tech jobs and keep up the low levels of crime and high degree of educational infrastructure. What could go wrong?
Yes. Yes. Like Major Briggs and his Son in Twin Peaks – best Fathering Ever.
Right. My favourite are the fathers from the 40s to 60s+ that insist that their sons refer to them as 'sir'. I'm sure all those kids grew up well-adjusted and very attuned to community and close, personal friendships – – as they say: "your kid is not your friend. Their hate will be your validation of good parenting" – bizarre. We can certainly look to BF Skinner for thoughts…
Your info is outdated . France has a TFR of 1.8 and UK 1.65 (before COVID!). That’s 2019 data. Better than many developed nations but below replacement.
Not to mention the TFR for the native population would be lower still. The situation anywhere in Europe, even in pro-natalist Denmark, is nearing catastrophe.
Still of course it can’t hold a candle to the doom that is East Asia. S. Korea’s youth will decrease by half every generation. They have started mass replacement of their rural population with mass importation of Southeast Asian wives. Surprisingly this is rarely talked about anywhere. I assume people outside of Korea haven't noticed. They may become minority- Korean by mid-century.
children's ability to persevere, strive, and overcome adversity, while still maintaining ambition and civility, is always the responsibility of the parent 75% to instill, the teacher 15% to reinforce, and the surrounding community 10% to not blatantly undermine. It is why Coaches coach and Drill Sergeants drill. Having a kid is a significant time and money investment – if you don't have it – don't do it. Luckily, helicopter parents can out-source this to tough nannies, ruthless tutors, and stuffy private schooling. For the rest of us – good luck.
Females have really used the men and abused the system to their advantage over the last 2-3 decadades. Now men are waking up, sharing their stories and walking away. Even if the laws are, by some magic, made just overnight, many of us will not go back.
But I think having less people is not necessarily a bad thing. Earth with 5 billion people could be quite great.
I agree with you William. I approach to it from my perspective as a man – there are many legal liabilities dealing with women and raising kids these days too. Once more people are aware of it, they re-evaluate of wheter it is worth it or not. And then you get used to the peace, quiet, and freedom and enjoy your life for yourself and on your terms.
We Gaijin just don't understand!
Who would want to be responsible for the care, and feeding of children when the future is so uncertain? Besides, there is no shortage of homo sapiens.
So yea, I would not trade my peaceful and comfortable life for too much social or romantic engagements. Minimal, positive engagement is ok, but nothing beyond that. Certainly no co-habitation, wife and no kids. More and more guys are evolving into this type of lifestyle. You can travel, enjoy your hobbies and such. It is all good. No animosity towards others – to each their own I say. Peace.
I am going to pass on the marriage bud. You see, from childhood we all were pretty much indoctrinated that it was the right thing to do. Our biology was also pushing us in that direction. However, unlike animals, we Humans are in a position to choose a different path. We can think and analyze.
Well, I thought on the matter for quite a while, analyzed logically the risk and reward scenarios of marriage and kids and decided that it is not worth it. What's also great is that I grew to appreciate a peaceful life. Peace, Quiet, Freedom. A very nice life indeed. Living mostly on my terms. Was able to override biology. I would not rule out to have honest friends with benefits type of relationships with females, or even "dating" without co-habitation and such but that is pretty much it. Females can bring a lot of chaos and uncertainty, not to mention legal liability. Same with friends by the way – the more socially engaged one is, the less he is at peace. Virtual reality can help people communicate – like we are doing now. Playing cards, pool, tennis, chess or video games with your pals and limiting interaction at that can be good – without being too engaged. I call it the strategy of minimal engagement – isn't that something? 🙂 It works for me and, from what I see more and more guys are coming to similar conclusions. Some may think that such life is a sad one (and at the starting and adjustment periods it can be such) but, once you make it a habit, you grow quite comfortable.
South Korea is even worse than this. Official tfr just dropped to 0.84. At that tfr each generation would be only 40% the size of the previous. That will lead to near extinction within a century. So yes, something needs to be done to encourage more babies.
That usually occurs when children are no longer an economic asset. Perhaps a law barring women from higher education and making religion mandatory.
First it was the over population loons, now it's these hysterical nervous nellies seeing possible population extinction around every corner.
The world population was 3 billion in 1960, where was this terror over population size. The world population was 1 billion in 1804, where was this terror over population size.
Everyone should look to their own family planning and leave others to do as they see fit.
Thanks to the rise in secularization and extended-adolescence. Children requires sacrifice (in certain aspects), and most today aren't willing to make any sacrifices. People cloak it in all sorts of pseudo-intellectual claptrap about saving the planet, but it comes down to making sacrifices.
though I too have worked the non-profits, these 'chasms of human deterioration' actually do provide a great source of refuge and cameraderie to many, with individuals who will make the time to listen and support. The key question is how much funding/ space/ support to allow for these small to medium neighborhoods of high-maintenance stability?
forget-not the 'promotability' of the slightly greying family man. A family has a certain 'air of certainty and stability' very much in demand in middle management. Trophy wives are a nonsense, but a stable and happy partnership makes work all the more survivable.
If you constantly consider men and women as separate species that only interact for dating, you are doomed to failure, statistically speaking. Befriend and legitimately relate before dating. Speed dating is the worst crime on this Earth (jokes). One shouldn't generalize to the 'dating experience'. As one very wise Rick Sanchez, once said:"Listen Morty, I hate to break it to you, but what people call “love” is just a chemical reaction that compels animals to breed. It hits hard, Morty, then it slowly fades, leaving you stranded in a failing marriage. I did it. Your parents are gonna do it. Break the cycle, Morty. Rise above. Focus on science."
Goodness. Well. I have always wanted to marry my best friend – which, if you reverse-engineer, means that you knew them and cared about them before the first date. High school and college sweethearts that could've been – but glad to have remained in touch. Standards and expectations too high? – who knows, but never married. Regrets? When compared to friends who despise their spouses and just waiting to bail -amicably- after the kid is out of high school — i guess not. Considered often The Big Chill scenario – genes passed on out of wedlock, but seemed fraught with drama. Bottom line – no pre-nup means one should be glad of paying 10%+ of settlement to a Killer Domestic Attorney. Never be a cheap skate on Murder and Divorce Lawyers. Note the UpVote for Support, not cheering on a Bad Run.
To my original comment I may add a few more points…
Men are increasingly unattractive to women and the other way around. From women's standpoint, men are not making enough money to their taste, do not exercise enough and all that. To men, women seem spoiled and entitled. There is A TON of obesity (pun intended, lol) in both sexes (at least in the United States).
So, there you have it folks. Not only marriage and kids are declining but also dating and long-term relationships and co-habitation. In a World where both sides stick to their guns and are increasingly selfish, there is little room for common ground.
Those of you who find common ground, have families and kids – good luck. I hope y'all will do things right. There is going to be a decline in fertility in this century. Perhaps it is not such a bad thing after all. In an age where the machines will be doing more of the Human tasks, we do not need to have many people. I would not mind Earth returning to a nice 5 billion population and things becoming more environmentally sustainable. I guess by not reproducing I am doing my part and living a peaceful life. It's a win-win! 🙂
There you go Bryan Y, what Brett said. Lucky for me, I have seen enough of these stories and now thanks to the Internet read and hear more married and divorced men talking about theirs. I may not be a very smart guy but I can state with pride that I am smart enough to never get married and/or have kids. And I won't be feeding the divorce attorneys and the corrupt court system either. Me and my brother are still a minority but more men are waking up. Cheers, MGTOW for the win! 🙂
I have found the best way to deal with this issue is to adapt to it personally. In my case, this means DIY life extension efforts such as those found on Longecity.org/forums as well as other stuff I have done. I did the first version of the mitochondrial fission/fusion protocol early last year and will do the new one this summer. I am finishing up chelation with ALA (Alpha LIpoic Acid) for the forth time (six months this time). Heavy metal accumulation is one cause of aging. There is a stem cell regeneration with senolytics protocol also over on the Longecity forums that I have no plan to do anytime soon. But it is reassuring that it is available down the road when I do decide to do it. I would say the next step in DIY life extension is to develop an effective method of invivo partial cellular reprogramming (aka epigenetic reprogramming). I know guys who are working on this. Remember, your mission (if you choose to accept it) is to make it to LEV. Your second mission is to make as much money as possible.
Heck, I thought my (first) wife was my friend, and we had mutual affection. A year later, after I'd refinanced my house to pay off her credit card debts, I learned I was just a get out of debt quick scheme.
The divorce court was just fine with her emptying all our joint accounts and walking off debt free with all our accumulated savings, except for my 401-K, (Which she'd had no way to get at.) I guess because the transactions all took place before she filed.
Took years for me to recover to the point where I could marry my current wife, and have one child before being rendered sterile by cancer surgery. I expect I'd have had several if we'd met sooner, we both wanted kids.
A bit more equity in divorce laws and practice would have likely resulted in more children in MY case.
It is the universe way to balance out China regressive dictatorial and expansionist regime. There is a racial genetic element to East Asian low fertility rate, coupled with China One Child policy. Like Japan, China will end up with docile economic growth and militarism in a generation. Thank you Universe!
of course, i mean fertility execution (birth) not capital punishment
only some of my top 25% G7 friends have such a thoughtful/ rational attitude and feel such a 'pressure'… typically its unexpected/but not an unwanted pregnancy -and/or- the unending pressure of Nana (for the rest of the G7s and all others) — whether it is affordable or timely or not. My sense is that 50%+ of G7s and many, many more of the rest — they simply 'adapt' to the new mouth to feed – without much thought about whether the world is 'a great place right now' or if opportunities are there. That being said, many covid-related 'postponements' have certainly happened.
Ooh them US Southern folk. Can fertility tech and 'execution' thrive in such a place?
A lot more are going the fertility route. It is very uncertain, pricey, and poorly regulated. Like the idea of saving your jam/pits for future use – many programs allow for Ws over 45 now. Savings and 'planned' families could benefit this way.
well. if your spouse is not your friend and the original relationship is not based on mutual respect/ affection, you are playing russian roulette. I have known many with duty marriages and other such pre-arranged nonsense… it is certainly cultural baggage in some cases. When in doubt don't propose – and always pre-nup.
What I will write below may seem offensive to some so I apologize in advance. Being offensive is not my intent.
No amount of pro-baby policies will ever help if the laws are heavily anti-male when it comes to divorce and children. There are simply less and less males wanting to take this risks in the Western countries. As the awareness about the legal system grows, so does the MGTOW movement/philosophy. It is not about hating women but rather seeing the reality as it is and not thru rose glasses. Men are simply not stepping up. I know this quite well because I am one such man.
Immigration will work to a degree but immigrants too will learn the reality and steer clear of marriage and having children. I am an immigrant by the way. Neither I nor my brother want to get married or have kids at this point. We are very much aware of the situation. Very much red pilled. Now, granted, most of our friends from our home country are married or getting close to doing so, but they are still not fully aware of the risks and they found more or less decent gals. We prefer our relationships with women to be short term dating but we don't even want to co-habitate with them. We are in our 30s, doing well and have too much to lose.
The funny thing is that even if you fix the laws and make them fair for both sexes, I don't think I will marry or have kids. I got used to my minimalist comfortable life, drinking a cup of coffee in the morning and playing chess online. Life is nice and peaceful.
People will have kids for whatever reason, if it's affordable, more if it's convenient for them to have them.
Our current world is strongly inimical with people having kids, burdening with a lot more costs and expectations of success.
Make things easier on them in any way you can, and the desire to have kids will return. Which is kind of the point made by Brian.
"..People as a resource…" made me think of the human batteries from the matrix.
not convinced that people have kids to ensure their legacy as much as nothing to do on a Saturday night
perhaps better to limit and foster self-reliance of these 'systems' than financially or regulatorily crush them. Artists and their ilk need a place to 'get their muse'
agreed. population stability is a function of the quality of the living environment – immigration, long-lived people, availability of movement, opportunity for advancement, diverse industries and tech, etc… all attract/ keep quality constituents and increase likelihood of excellent child development.
Though: if we are talking about maintaining a recurring tax base for those more likely to draw upon it — children-replacement is very much a minor contributor to the financial stability of a system long-term. Can't do without them, but not a main factor in the huge list of other ways to 'optimize' our use of the tax pile.
True, but not this one.
Older poorer societies had a lot of turmoil and they popped out babies at a faster pace than us.
If anything, we know lack of development and a lack of our modern culture and its expectations made humans breed more, not less. It was the only way to ensure there is a future for you and your kin.
Our problem seems to be a bit philosophical as well as economic. Most people I know in breeding age defer doing so because "it's too expensive". Having a home, lots of life experiences, a nice car, a career, all of these things are made riding on debt and years, paid late in life. While people of old simply received a part of the family's land, or went to settle and moved out to make their home themselves as soon as they felt the urge, that is, very young.
Also in such societies, kids were used for tending crops and doing farm work. the more you had, the more you could do and earn as a family. Nowadays kids are a just long term expenses, requiring several decades of education and maintenance out of your pocket.
I'm not suggesting we return to make kids work, just that we should make them an economic asset. Kind of what the French have done , paying parents a monthly stipend per kid, which can also help parents pay the rent and other expenses.
The philosophical problem is more thorny, because it means fighting with the whole "Humans are a blight" late-green mindset.
Leading to children and family design — oooh, controversial. Especially in times of women's rights pregnancy rollbacks – urk.
Sorry, but Mitt Romney is not a bleeding heart liberal, and he supports "UBI for kids".
Craziness. Lived and worked on many of these heavily-subsidized family/ community/ non-profit enclaves and they are nothing but a declining pit of deteriorating values, work ethic, and self-reliability – truly miserable. The turn-over on support staff/ maintenance and precipitating funding use and non-existent comraderie is a sight to behold. These pseudo-kibbutz, co-operative, co-habitations are a dead-end of role modeling and individual development. Worst place in the civilized world to raise children, provide supportive rearing-community, and allow for healthy life experience/ opportunity. A cautionary-tale of mis-guided values on conservation, shared purpose, technological-integration, and left-leaning non-successful communities. At least New Age communities and intergrated Urban design values make some pretense to economic sustainability and self-motivation. Even the northern nanny states have abandoned non-conditional UBI as chasms of human deterioration.
People as a resource is going to come to an end as automated technologies increase.
Bleeding-Heart Liberal Nonsense.
Children are about an investment in the future and should be treated as such. Opportunity and choice in a pro-development, pro-technology world will provide better people, better regions for living and working, and the economic growth that comes with it; which then solves All problem, economic, natural, and cultural.
A more rational approach does not mean a planned or top-down or centrally-regulated approach. Models are very short on predicting, assuming cultural norms, and understanding geo-political maneuverings. Creating opportunities for all citizens thtough pro-development/ pro-tech means creating opportunities for children choice.
I think their plan is more along the line of robot geriatric nurses, and eventually, bioroids programed to be cuturally Japanese.
" Having 100 million starving people had a huge impact. "
But that didn't actually call for a one child policy, it called for a "give up on communism" policy. You ALWAYS get starving people once you opt for communism, even if you were doing well before hand.
I agree with this and I would suggest that Mitt Romney's idea of "UBI for kids" is a great approach. Give parents a monthly stipend to thank them for all the work and expense they bear for raising the next generation. Right now, society free-rides on the unpaid labor of parents to a ridiculous degree.
It's also just as important to deal with the atomization and loss of community life in developed countries, as that is a big factor weighing down birthrates. People no longer have the dense network of life-long friends and multi-generational extended families living near them, upon whom they could place some of the burden of childcare when needed. The loss of community has also driven many people into lives of dead-end consumerism and addiction/compulsive-type behaviors.
agree. part-agree. agree. always with the child vats?
that 'razzies'-great 'idiocracy' makes a great case for not having too many more children 'arbitrarily'. That being said, family culture is a very sacred and fraught issue; not easily 'nudged' by economic and technological policy – often with unintended consequences. The best incentive to have a family is to have a world worth contributing such rugrats to. Incentives that contribute to optimizing a child may be better than polcies which incentivize bulk children production.
Why do you think the one child policy was enacted in China? Having 100 million starving people had a huge impact. When it comes to pollution and resources and water etc the population should be limited and not allowed to go to 100 million as you propose.
Need a more sophisticated analysis.
Why do we need a growing population (i want it, but haven't heard compelling reason to go one way or the other – what is the larger or stabilized population for))?
– one-child families are more likely able to invest in 'maximizing' that one child – therefore a more educated and success-driven 'percentage' of population (i.e. less kids, but better kids)
– increasing numbers to support the old folks is a function of how long people want to live, work (even part-time), and how much they they spend during their less productive years – age increases of 5, 10, 20+ years may need a lesser population increase to stabilize
– fewer, better kids mean more efficient schools, better land use (family size and numbers dictates zoning, etc), and jobs that will be more likely made and focussed on a smart population (i.e. the inverse of the movie 'idiocracy')
– I still feel clones, child vats, fertilization improvements, and surrogates could have a small but significant impact on optimizing child growth along with a more standardized approach to child-rearing that 'impacts' parents less (i.e. do we need traditional family units to raise children?)
The bottom line is that there is very little vision and a whole lot of technological and cultural baggage and assumptions that need to be figured out before we just blanket say "some/ all places need more kids, but not too many more kids"
Gets to the issue of creating the ideal 'rearing' (bizarre word) community.
"A sustained Earht cannot sustain 10 billion people." Do you have studies to back that up? Otherwise it is just a guess, and I can pair up another guess that the Earth can sustain 100 billion people without issue.
The *actual* problem is not that there are 10 billion or 100 billion or even 1 billion. The actual problem is that populational inertia will guarantee that whatever population level you imagine is the "ideal" number of humans on the planet, by next Century when our population is shrinking back we will cross that threshold running and never look back, until there aren't enough people to sustain our technological civilisation, which is maintained by virtue of a great amount of separate specialisations. Eventually there won't be enough people to know everything we need to know to keep up our infrastructure. And the population will continue to decline, because we'll still have the idea that children are a burden.
Unless you think that the "ideal" number of humans on the planet is zero; then we will hit that number and stay there.
I like the policies of Hungary. Sure, they are still at a low total fertility level and will probably stay there for a long time, but I really like the policies anyway. First off, they seem to work.
Second, they are not incentivizing just poor people having more kids, but it's more neutral with respect to income. A woman that has had four kids will be freed from all future income tax. I like it!
If this policy is allowed to continue for some decades, then you will actually select for competent women in Hungary. In the west, you see the opposite correlation: high income for women is strongly anti correlated to the number of children. Who knows, perhaps the hungarians will become the new Ashkenazim Jews of Europe?
I am will to lend a"hand" so to speak, if someone will hold my pants.
Less crowd for the crowd haters.
Really concerning thing is fact that biggest drops we see in countries with highest IQ (Europeans, South Korea, Japan, China, Singapore). It's really worrying
Assuming that IQ is a real thing, I am not 100% sure.
I've never understood people worrying about overpopulation, underpopulation is a problem, not other way around. Less brains = less collective brain power = slower progress, maybe even stagnation.
The only hope for us is figuring out Artificial General Intelligence and after that ASI.
If we will crack it and it will start reasoning in similar way like human with 140IQ(or higher) then not only we can copy it as many times as we want, it will also be 'thinking' one million times faster than human chemical brain.
GPT 4 is rumored to have 30trillion parameters and to be released within weeks/months.
(human brain has around 100T 'parameters')
Let's hope that some proto or even sophisticated reasoning will emerge with all that complexity(30T)
"A society where people do not have economic stability and security has problems." As do societies that drill in the notions of limited future, declining environment and resources. While many techno solutions are proposed, none handles all the issues quite as well as "The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, which sparked a grassroots movement to build Earth-like habitats in space in order to solve Earth's
greatest crises. " Starting with Space Solar, the first step.
On the up side, shrinking population is a strong argument for longevity research. Too bad Japan isn't taking the lead on that.
Comments are closed.