# Is There Any Practical Way to Increase the Birthrate? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 6, 2025, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655 "2025-01-06T20:41:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 54
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1061 "2025-05-17T03:56:47Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > That’s not the default assumption among economists, at least as they define productivity. I’m just using the word in a general English sense, not an academic one. But you’re right, I should have said “output” there instead of “productivity”. Flipping your equation around, you get: output = labor productivity \* manpower Which is what I was saying, allowing for some sloppiness in terminology. Productivity/output can’t be looked at in isolation. At any given instant in time, if you double the people working on something, you get twice the output. But over time, twice the number of people will improve the _rate_ at which improvements come. And so years layer they will have _more_ than twice the output. An isolated, shrinking nation can depend on the rest of the world for the technological innovation that drives productivity increases. But that doesn’t work if everyone is shrinking, or if the high-tech nations are preferentially shrinking. Or if they aren’t shrinking yet, but a smaller fraction of them are in the years where they contribute most to progress. The output of information is shared among everyone, so there’s a compounding effect. Twice the people in the movie industry means _everyone_ gets twice as many movies. Same for software and drugs and really the majority of things in modern society. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1062 "2025-05-17T04:08:48Z")
Ok thanks: I honestly wasn’t clear. The standard (Cobb-Douglas) equation would be something like this: Q = A\*((L^alpha)\*(K^(1-alpha)) So yes, output rises with labor. But we shouldn’t really care about output _per se_. What we should care about is per capita output or Q/Population. That ignores information, which has [public good characteristics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). There _is_ an economist who argues that Q/P scales with population. But he in no way represents to the consensus. I suspect most economists put a heavier weight on resource depletion defined broadly so that clean air is a resource. I suspect you are familiar with this cite: > **[The Ultimate Resource](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource)** > > The Ultimate Resource is a 1981 book written by Julian Lincoln Simon challenging the notion that humanity was running out of natural resources. It was updated in 1996 as The Ultimate Resource 2. > The overarching thesis on why there is no resource crisis is that as a particular resource becomes more scarce, its price rises. This price rise creates an incentive for people to discover more of the resource, ration and recycle it, and eventually, develop substitutes. The "ultimate resource" is not any... > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > But over time, twice the number of people will improve the _rate_ at which improvements come. And so years layer they will have _more_ than twice the output. You are describing [scale economies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale) and they are a big part of intro economics, not to mention a few Nobels. They can be rising, declining, or constant. I wouldn’t assume that they invariably are increasing: if that was the case we wouldn’t see middling productivity growth in the service sector. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1063 "2025-05-17T04:14:16Z")
Huh? My position is > [@DSeid](#): > > There is no a priori reason that a future world with a fraction of humans in it cannot be one with a larger fraction being happier and fewer suffering. Your response was > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > we pretty much have to assume that reducing the population by N times will reduce productivity by N times No. We don’t have to assume that. There is no reason to assume that. It certainly has NOT been the case to date that multiplying a population by N over time changes productivity times N. Yes because innovation non linearly begets innovation no matter the absolute population size. Now possibly pertinent to this thread is a different take: Will a working population dominated by older workers be as likely to be coming up with the new and different approaches? Or do the big ideas in arts and science and industry generally come by middle age? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1064 "2025-05-17T04:16:21Z")
I’m guessing it would be difficult to produce iPhones with a world population of 10 million. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1065 "2025-05-17T04:18:00Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I wouldn’t assume that they invariably are increasing: if that was the case we wouldn’t see middling productivity growth in the service sector. Certainly there are areas of the economy where there is no growth. After the invention of the electric razor, how much has barber productivity increased? I suspect it’s not much. Maybe not much even with the electric razor. It’s a few people per hour today and it was a few people an hour a millennium ago. But farming is like 100x better. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I suspect you are familiar with this cite: Somewhat, though I haven’t actually read it. Interestingly, recycling lithium-ion batteries (like for an electric car) is now _more_ than 100% efficient. Since newer batteries store more energy using the same materials, and recycling an old battery recovers practically all of the inputs, you can get more than 1 kWh of new battery out of 1 kWh of old battery. This won’t stay true forever, but it’s a neat fact for now. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > so that clean air is a resource Well, you can always weight certain factors to make things look bad. There’s nothing wrong with counting pollution as a negative per se. But you should probably do it by counting lost life-hours or something rather than putting an arbitrary scale factor on it. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1066 "2025-05-17T04:18:23Z")
To the point though, would that world overall be less happy because the iPhone was not around? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1067 "2025-05-17T04:26:06Z")
Overall? Yes, massively. And we’re better for having both iPhone and Android to choose from. At the same time, clearly we’re going through some adjustment when it comes to education and other effects. So “smartphones are a tremendous good” can still coexist with “smartphones don’t belong in the classroom,” for example (I don’t _know_ that the latter is true, but it might be). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1068 "2025-05-17T04:29:41Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I think the more interesting question is whether certain technologies have a minimum scale that a population half the existing size would preclude. Or a quarter. Or a tenth. Or a hundredth. I doubt it , or rather I suspect the proper measure is a minimum middle/upper class population base. Maybe a hundredth? Size definitely _matters_ since you need to have enough people to learn the various specialties needs for the research and production of advanced technology. If the population was small enough there just wouldn’t be enough warm bodies to fill the needed slots. But that’s more an “establishing a space colony” or “rebuilding after an apocalypse” problem than anything else. Also, there’s the issue that resources, education and opportunities are _nowhere near_ equally distributed, so we aren’t even close to fully utilizing the human capital we already have. A more socially just society could be significantly smaller and still have just as many well-educated specialists as ours. Or more. People working in sweatshops because those a re the only jobs available aren’t going to be doing scientific research no matter how smart they are. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1069 "2025-05-17T05:39:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Also, there’s the issue that resources, education and opportunities are _nowhere near_ equally distributed, so we aren’t even close to fully utilizing the human capital we already have Yes, there are a lot of moving parts here. For perspective the global consumer class (_very_ broadly defined) is suppose to increase 25% between 2023 and 2031. The population during that interval only rises by 7.5%. It’s possible that rapid development will create a pool of capable immigrants from Africa that will fill eldercare positions over the next 20 years or so. The Economist seems to think so. World fertility is currently at 2.24, so we’re above replacement (though pop growth is slowing). That’s not a process that can go on forever, but it could plausibly kick the can down the road until we learn to manipulate fertility rates better. That will be a necessity over the long run. [Once cite](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/113-million-people-middle-class-2024/#google_vignette) [Another](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-projections/). [One more](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate). > [@DSeid](#): > > To the point though, would that world overall be less happy because the iPhone was not around? We’d be less happy if chip fabrication plants were not viable businesses because of a lack of a sufficient market. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1070 "2025-05-17T06:48:17Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > We’d be less happy if chip fabrication plants were not viable businesses because of a lack of a sufficient market. But that’s another thing that’s if anything more of a social justice issue. Poor people don’t consume much if the way of unessential consumer products; they’re lucky if they can afford basics like food and shelter. Wealth being more equally shared means more consumption outside of the narrow luxury market for the wealthy, which _does_ make it more practical to have such things as a healthy demand for consumer electronics. And a better economy in general. Of course this is another politically intransigent issue. The Right hates poor people and thinks the middle class shouldn’t exist. And the modern Left are largely misanthropes that lean toward a flagellant attitude of “consumption is bad, humans are wicked parasites, everyone should have the bare minimum to survive and hate themselves for how evil they are for wanting more”. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1071 "2025-05-17T10:39:31Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Take it to the absurd extreme: immortality. Always functional and productive. Clearly any fertility rate eventually produces too many people for the one planet to support. Well, no - you said immortal, not indestructible. We’d continue to lose people to accidents (and likely the occasional suicide) > [@DSeid](#): > > But the least absurd hypothetical is not prolonging lifespan much at all, just prolonging healthspan to the point that people are able and interested in staying productive significantly longer. Even if they’re not “productive” in the sense of being employed full time, keeping people healthy enough to take care of themselves, stay in their own home, able to cook/clean/go up and down a flight of stairs and so on greatly reduces the burden on society as a whole. Even better if we can avoid, put off, or reduce the burden of things like type II diabetes. At this point we can reap savings from increasing the _healthspan_, and reduce suffering at the last portion of the lifespan. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > This will lower quality of life for all those people for some combination of reasons, like having to work more years or giving up luxuries because more resources have to go to caring for the elderly. Not everyone views work as an intolerable burden. There are numerous retirees who _go back_ to work. What is needed for the older cohort is neither full time work nor complete idleness but options more in line with their physical limitations (even the healthiest and most fit will not be as strong or have as much stamina as in their youth), part time work in particular. And if we can keep the elderly _healthy and fit,_ that is, increase the _healthspan_, then neither the elderly nor the youth will have to sacrifice as much, or possibly anything at all, to “take care of the elderly”. I would prefer a world where the majority of the elderly can _take care of themselves._ There will, of course, be some that do need care, the goal here is not perfection but improvement. We already know how to do some of this but, like adjusting the birthrate to an ideal, the problem is getting people to actually do what is desirable. Weight control, management of chronic conditions that do arise, healthcare that focuses more on prevention and maintenance of health… But “eat right, exercise moderately, and take your pill for X chronic condition” just isn’t sexy enough I guess. > [@Kimstu](#): > > This suggests that we should maybe be focusing our efforts on reforming, rather than abolishing, paid work for late-life workers. Some kind of career shift to work they consider fulfilling, with shorter hours and less physically taxing tasks, might actually make most retirees more happy than just quitting work altogether. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > If that’s the case, then we should be doing that _today_, gaining the benefits of productivity and happiness. Yes, yes, we SHOULD be doing that today. I could name a half dozen of my current co-workers who are _exactly_ those people - retirees who continue to work part-time at jobs that are not physically taxing. Two of them are in frail health (one has had part of a foot amputated due, I suspect, to diabetic complications, the other is simply frail) but the other three are fit and healthy. Oddly enough, both the fit and the frail want 1) extra money 2) structure to their lives and 3 interaction with people. The company I work for has a number of people in their 80’s still working, from door greeter through management through the executive level. Also has people as young at 16 working for them. That strikes me as a healthy “society”, where people are allowed to contribute for as long as they are able to do so and where there isn’t an arbitrary cut-off based solely on the calendar. Yes, on average the elderly need more care. On the other hand, NOT using the elderly to the extent they can be productive doesn’t reduce that burden, but allowing opportunities for them to contribute offsets some of that burden. Just because someone has health or mobility problems doesn’t mean they can’t do anything, that’s ableism. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > And that’s if the youth aren’t spending all their spare hours taking care of grandma. That statement assumes that ALL the elderly will become completely helpless. Maybe if we put more effort into maintaining _health_ we’ll have 80 and 90 year olds still capable of living on their own, managing their affairs, wiping their own butts, cooking their own meals, and requiring minimal help with tasks requiring physical effort. Some of them might even continue working in some capacity. Not everyone old is feeble. Ideally, you want to push “feeble” to the far end of the lifespan and minimize how much time is spent in that condition. If we extend the health and productivity of people past traditional retirement age and into their 70’s and 80’s that will reduce the burden on the younger part of society and alleviate some of the ills brought about by an inverted demographic pyramid. Is that the whole answer? No. But it will alleviate some problems _and_ improve lives towards the end of the lifespan so that strikes me as two good things. That still leaves the issue of replacement-rate births and what is the “ideal” population for the planet and our civilization, but buying time to work that out is, in my opinion, another good thing. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1072 "2025-05-17T12:10:28Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > If that’s the case, then we should be doing that _today_, gaining the benefits of productivity and happiness. Yes, we should. Now that there are more healthy old people in the world, we should adjust our standards to better use and better serve that part of the population. Whether or not the birthrate changes. (Fyi, i just unretired for a very part time job. It’s too early to say how that’s going.) ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1073 "2025-05-17T12:14:23Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > But overall, it’s obvious that the overall flow of resources goes from the young to the old. And as a population ages, this flow will increase unless something else changes. Umm. No, the very young are a resource suck. Increasing the birth rate increases this effect. And _that’s one of the reasons people don’t have more kids_. Because that resource suck mostly falls on the parents. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1074 "2025-05-17T12:22:02Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Now possibly pertinent to this thread is a different take: Will a working population dominated by older workers be as likely to be coming up with the new and different approaches? Or do the big ideas in arts and science and industry generally come by middle age? Yes, i think we need a certain amount of young adults, who have access to a certain amount of resources, to invent new stuff. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1075 "2025-05-17T12:28:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Also, there’s the issue that resources, education and opportunities are _nowhere near_ equally distributed, so we aren’t even close to fully utilizing the human capital we already have. A more socially just society could be significantly smaller and still have just as many well-educated specialists as ours. Or more. Yes, there are so many levers other than birthrate. I don’t deny that South Korea appears to be headed towards a demographic disaster. I do deny that the US is, and i deny that the world is. There are so many other levers. And world population growth is still slightly positive. We have a _lot_ of time to adjust. We don’t need to push Americans to have more babies. And to state the obvious, a bunch of people who don’t live in Korea, and don’t understand Korean culture, are not going to solve Korea’s demographic problems. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1076 "2025-05-17T13:04:21Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Overall? Yes, massively. Okay. We have a fundamental disconnect here. I don’t think we are as individuals happier because our tools and toys are one thing then or another thing now that was not even imagined of in the past. I strongly suspect my grandfather seeing a silent movie was as happy with the experience as I am seeing a movie on IMax. > [@Broomstick](#): > > We’d continue to lose people to accidents (and likely the occasional suicide) Yes. (And I once tried to start a discussion with a “what if” of a Methuselah medication hypothetical and tolerance for risk.) > [@Broomstick](#): > > the far end of the lifespan and minimize how much time is spent in that condition. > > If we extend the health and productivity of people past traditional retirement age and into their 70’s and 80’s that will reduce the burden on the younger part of society and alleviate some of the ills brought about by an inverted demographic pyramid. Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1077 "2025-05-17T13:31:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I honestly do not believe Americans are overall happier now than they were when they had lots less stuff overall. What year are you thinking of there? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1078 "2025-05-17T13:38:19Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Is Switzerland less innovative or productive per capita because it has a smaller population? Is Israel? Has Japan been despite their being of much smaller population than China or India? Switzerland and Israel are great examples. Both countries _could_ be self sufficient on their own, in the sense that they’d just about be able to feed everyone. But they _certainly_ wouldn’t be centers of innovation in that scenario. In Switzerland, 1.8% of the population works in agriculture. In Israel, the number is 0.7. Worldwide, the number is higher than 25%. Innovation is possible in small countries _because they are highly specialized_. They can be highly specialized _because they are tiny, and feeding them is a rounding error for big countries._ Specialized technological societies rely on large numbers of people outside the country providing basic goods and raw materials. They are _not_ proof that you can be innovative with a low _total_ population. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1079 "2025-05-17T13:40:22Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Anyway, if productivity increased with population substantially we’d see either the largest population countries be the richest ones (not the case) or accelerating growth as the population gets larger. Or maybe it’s a small effect that’s drowned out by others. But in that case, we aren’t reliant on population to produce technology, at least to one order of magnitude. Not if those countries specialize in making cheap stuff and raw materials while smaller, more developed countries specialize in innovation. In that case, you’d see that smaller countries are richer and more productive per capita, but those countries _could not exist as they do_ without trading with the bigger, poorer countries. And in fact, that’s _precisely_ what we see. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1080 "2025-05-17T13:45:00Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > So yes, output rises with labor. But we shouldn’t really care about output _per se_. What we should care about is per capita output or Q/Population. That ignores information, which has [public good characteristics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good). Isn’t @Dr.Strangelove just saying that if you have 100 farmers in one valley and 10,000 farmers in the other, _all else being equal_, the valley with more farmers will innovate faster? Which is exactly what you say - information is a public good? Both societies might eventually discover crop rotation techniques, for example. But the larger society will likely do so _first_, because there are more people thinking about the problem. And this has knock on effects. Now that the big society has crop rotation, they need fewer farmers to feed the same population, so more people become pottery makers and the society discovers pottery techniques faster too. Etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655.md?page=53) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655.md?page=55)