# 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:** 56
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1101 "2025-05-17T19:40:19Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > That’s a joke, right? No. > **[Economic Development In Antiquity: The Greek World, 800–300 BCE](https://www.hoover.org/research/economic-development-antiquity-greek-world-800-300-bce-0)** > > Economic historians of long-term development tend to focus on the last few hundred years of human history. The reason is obvious: reliable data for earlier periods is scarce and difficult to interpret. Some historians have argued that nothing of... > By 800 bce, Greece had recovered from the collapse of the Late Bronze Age. By 600 bce, it had broken out of the low “premodern normal.” Over the next 300 years, Greece reached peaks of population and consumption unequaled until the early twentieth century. Every available proxy measurement trends in the same direction. The levels of urbanization and infrastructure track other evidence. And meanwhile, at least in the city of Athens, it appears that income inequality was low. The evidence now seems incontrovertible: the ancient Greek world had an exceptionally long efflorescence, prosperity was not monopolized by the elite, and economic growth was closely correlated with the explosion of culture once described as miraculous. To your point though, it was also a period of significant population growth. Current state of affairs? [https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/12/global-income-inequality-gap-report-rich-poor/#:~:text=Income%20and%20wealth%20inequalities%20significant&text=However%2C%20the%20report’s%20authors%20explain,own%2076%25%20of%20all%20wealth.&text=But%2C%20the%20report’s%20authors%20also,time%20period%2C%20the%20report%20found](https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/12/global-income-inequality-gap-report-rich-poor/#:~:text=Income%20and%20wealth%20inequalities%20significant&text=However%2C%20the%20report's%20authors%20explain,own%2076%25%20of%20all%20wealth.&text=But%2C%20the%20report's%20authors%20also,time%20period%2C%20the%20report%20found). > The poorest half of the global population owns just 2% of the global total, while the richest 10% own 76% of all wealth. Don’t get me wrong, globally that actually is progress, even as intra country disparities increase. ---
**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, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1102 "2025-05-17T19:41:13Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Of the Western countries that adopted these principles early enough to gain that initial advantage, it is - of course - the most populous one that has achieved the greatest technological and economic development. That being the United States. And, well, so what? Even if I bought that, much of that is due to it extracting wealth from the rest of the world; not some virtue of its own. And most people only gain minor benefits from it, I don’t benefit from some right guy having nicer toys than the rich guys in some other country. Much less the people in other countries we’ve been exploiting to support our lifestyle. Your argument is like some British guy at the height of their empire looking at Britain’s prosperity and declaring it to be due some innate virtue of the British, instead of them leeching off their conquests. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1103 "2025-05-17T19:45:45Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > No I assume you mean this bit: > [@DSeid](#): > > And meanwhile, at least in the city of Athens, it appears that income inequality was low. Income inequality is an _incredibly_ myopic way to determine that an ancient society was “more equal” than our own. Brett Devereaux has a fascinating breakdown of what Greek city states were like, which dispels this anachronistic myth that they were more democratic or egalitarian than us: > **[Collections: How to Polis, 101, Part I: Component Parts](https://acoup.blog/2023/03/10/collections-how-to-polis-101-part-i-component-parts/)** > > This is the first of a planned three part (I, IIa, IIb, IIc, III) look at the structure of the ancient Greek polis, the self-governing ‘city state,’ as part of a larger series on civic … ---
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1104 "2025-05-17T19:48:42Z")
Classical Greece is a bad example, but there do seem to have been times and places with less inequality than America today. Heck, Denmark today is a good example. I can’t pick “a time” because most times have had some people living in shitty societies. But some of the Pacific Northwest indigenous people did pretty well. (Not all, again, a variety of societies.) For that matter, before the plagues of Europe, some of the north eastern indigenous people of what’s now America seem to have done pretty well, too. But it’s hard, because I’m probably in the top tenth of the US population, so I’m doing okay here and now. A bit worked about the future, gotta admit ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1105 "2025-05-17T19:53:30Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Ok, what’s the hypothetical question? Sorry for not explicitly phrasing in form of a question! Do you appreciate that the fact that an item you wouldn’t be happy with now was the very same item that caused you your greatest happiness in a past time? That your new object being objectively “better” is a poor metric of the happiness it caused? > [@Babale](#): > > It is also imposed by how humans interact with their surrounding reality. Things like availability of shelter, or cancer, or bacterial infections. Yes. Also. And then, historically, often by how we interact based on local limitations of resources compared to population increase demands. Wars over shelter, over hunting and grazing grounds. Over resource availability in general. Cancer has become more of an issue of course, but for the simple reason that it increases with age. Bacterial infections, and many viral ones, are interesting in that for much of the period of civilization advancement and population increase they increased. Crowded conditions, close proximity to crowded livestock with crossover events, and poor infrastructure for sanitation and such. Really the big advancements there are only within roughly a century. And current leadership seems intent on reversing many of those gains. But that would be hijacking the hijack of a hijack! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1106 "2025-05-17T19:58:00Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Not for the humans. Less pollution, more food, less global warming gasses, lower housing prices, etc etc > [@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. You don’t have to give up modern medicines, any technology, or reduce future innovation. (Nonsensical thoughts of innovation occurring like more widgets produced by more bodies dutifully ignored.) Right. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > **DrDeth** and others seem oblivious to the fact that population isn’t the only thing that matters. The distribution of age is critical. So what? We now are healthier longer- i was working FT still long after Social Security age. Even now I work PT. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Since we don’t have said magic wand, we pretty much have to assume that reducing the population by N times will reduce productivity by N times. Not necessarily- more machines, robots and happiers healthier workers produce more. > [@DSeid](#): > > That would be a silly assumption. Per capita productivity has increased over history and dramatically in more recent history. The idea that there is some linear relationship to population size is unmoored from reality Right. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Movies, TV, medicine, music, software, etc. all depend on having _people_. You understand we are not talking about a Thano level of Population decline? Maybe 10%? or even just no more increase. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I’m not convinced that simply “having to work more years” automatically lowers the quality of life. I was earning more in my late 60’s than earlier in life- experience counts. ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1107 "2025-05-17T19:59:14Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Sorry for not explicitly phrasing in form of a question! Do you appreciate that the fact that an item you wouldn’t be happy with now was the very same item that caused you your greatest happiness in a past time? That your new object being objectively “better” is a poor metric of the happiness it caused? Sure, because now I’m older and when you’re a kid everything is fantastic and new and wonderful, and you feel great; and when you’re older, you’ve seen a lot of stuff, and your back hurts, and you are worried about bills. So the past is always rose tinted. So what? ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1108 "2025-05-17T20:02:01Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > But some of the Pacific Northwest indigenous people did pretty well. Pretty well by what standard? How many of their kids died before the age of 5? ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1109 "2025-05-17T20:03:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > > > Since we don’t have said magic wand, we pretty much have to assume that reducing the population by N times will reduce productivity by N times. > > Not necessarily- more machines, robots and happiers healthier workers produce more. The society with more people can make more robots and more machines. And why would workers be happier or healthier in the smaller society? ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1110 "2025-05-17T20:12:39Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > And why would workers be happier or healthier in the smaller society? Because they (potentially) have better prospects for the future, a less devastated environment, more resources, less pollution, and less crowding. ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1111 "2025-05-17T20:42:56Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > But of course that car now wouldn’t make me as happy. Raise the bar and the new height soon becomes not more but just baseline. Well, you’re talking about the hedonism treadmill now. But that argues against your point even further. If we can only change long-term happiness through a constant _rate_ of improvement, then we had better make sure there is a strong excess of knowledge workers _on top of_ the basics. I think the hedonism treadmill is somewhat overplayed and certainly doesn’t apply to all forms of happiness. Even just mathematically speaking, more years of high quality lifespan obviously generates more per-capita happiness than less. Modern medicine (only enabled by having a large population of knowledge workers) has made great improvements here and I expect more to come. ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1112 "2025-05-17T20:57:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > We now are healthier longer And how was that accomplished? Through medical research across the globe, and increasing automation that reduced the need for back-breaking human labor. As well as uncountable smaller developments like sunscreen and OSHA regulations and banning asbestos and… > [@DrDeth](#): > > You understand we are not talking about a Thano level of Population decline? Correct. We’re talking about a **much worse than Thanos** level of decline if trends continue. Again, each generation in South Korea is about a **third** the size of the previous generation. This has not yet caused a reduction in their population because they experienced extreme growth in the near past. But as soon as the new fertility rate filters through their demographics, then they will experience Thanos snapping his fingers and eliminating 2/3 of the population… and then repeating that every 30 years, _forever_. Not every nation is South Korea. But some are getting close, and virtually all are moving in that direction. And we have an actual example of how bad things can get, so it’s important for everyone else to ensure _they_ can’t get that get that bad. ---
**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, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1113 "2025-05-17T21:12:35Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > @Dr.Strangelove, unless I mistook him, is _not_ talking about that. He’s saying that if there are people doing a task, they will come up with new innovations every so often. If you have _more people_ doing _more of the task_, they will come up with _new ways of doing the task_ more often. And when they do come up with an innovation, it can quickly be applied to _everyone_, so the bigger economy gets more productive at a faster rate. That’s right. Or rather, that’s one of the things I’ve been arguing about. Obviously there are some jobs, like barbers, that don’t experience much productivity increase over time. As a fraction of the population, you need just as many if the human population was 8,000 vs. 8 billion. On the other hand, there are jobs where all benefits are trivially replicated to the entire population, like movies or video games. You could not have these things (even if the equipment was still around) in the way they exist today with only 8,000 people. And then there are jobs where it’s somewhere in between, like farming. At any given instant in time, you need so many farmers to produce so much food. But the larger number will innovate more over time, because this innovation is knowledge work, and every individual contribution benefits everyone. ---
**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, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1114 "2025-05-17T21:19:48Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > > [@puzzlegal](#): > > > > But some of the Pacific Northwest indigenous people did pretty well. > > Pretty well by what standard? How many of their kids died before the age of 5? My Google Fu isn’t sufficient to answer that question. Hating to be morbid, but that’s not my top criterion. (I care more about maternal mortality, if we are taking childbirth. And mortality 5-80 than 0-5, for that matter.) ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1115 "2025-05-17T21:19:48Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Sure. Let me pose another hypothetical, then. If there was a portal you could step through at which point you’d be born in some other, earlier time in history, instead of today, would you go through? I think there might be some bias towards our own familiar timeline here. If you could be born in any decade of the 20 or 21st century, which would you pick? Would you swap times with the boomers here? Or vice versa? Or with your own kids? > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Well, you’re talking about the hedonism treadmill now. I was thinking the same thing, reading this. Happiness isn’t the right metric, because we pretty much adjust to current conditions, whatever they are. But some change can still make our lives overall better… or not. I do agree not every new technology necessarily improves our lives, but on balance it’s very positive. > [@DSeid](#): > > Imagine Israel suddenly has, poof, a whole bunch of highly fertile arable land. Magic wand. Do you think Israel would need to devote 25% of its population to agriculture in order to feed itself? Do you think that they would become less productive in science and technology if they were self sufficient in food production or even somehow a net food exporter? It’s not just agriculture. Israel is able to specialise in (according to AI) cybersecurity, software development, telecommunications, and semiconductor manufacturing only because it has a lot of other countries to trade with: hundreds of millions or billions of people to sell those things to, and from whom to buy the raw materials and other products and services that they _don’t_ specialise in producing. That’s a major reason increased trade can make both countries richer, it’s a major reason for common markets like the EU (which Switzerland has access to). I would put money on an increased population increasing productivity more than linearly, because it allows for increased specialisation, as well as a higher rate of innovation. ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1116 "2025-05-17T21:49:15Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. Yes, I’d call it a developmental issue. This varies a lot between country: we are seeing massive entry into the middle class, with “Middle class” defined as people spending $12 per day. That’s $4380 per year which is solidly middle-income country level. Some people’s eyes will pop out at such a characterization, but that only underlines the harshness faced by lower income countries where average output is under $1000 per year. We are seeing rapid increases in the world standard of living due to advances in India and China. Sanitation has increased massively in India, even overthe past decade or so: > The World Health Organization’s Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) tracks the progress nations are making towards improving access to safe sanitation. JMP data shows that in 1990, only 18% of India’s population were using toilets [[15](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10373110/#R15)]. By 2011, the percent of people with a toilet almost doubled to 35% [[15](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10373110/#R15)]. This pace of improvement increased dramatically over the past decade. By 2015, 57% of Indians had a toilet, while 29% were defecating in the open [[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10373110/#R1)]. In 2020, the percent of Indians with a toilet had risen to 71% [[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10373110/#R1)]. Smartphones: > NEW DELHI: During the lockdown, the number of smartphones in rural India surged more than double, as per the latest Annual Survey for Education Report (ASER). In 2018, around 36 per cent of households had a smartphone, which increased to 74.8 per cent in 2022, said the report. My point above was that the transformation from lower income to middle income (still poor by advanced country standards) is a big deal which vastly increases the potential for immigration backing eldercare over the next 20 years or so. > [@Babale](#): > > 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? Honestly, I don’t think _ceterus paribus_ will get you that conclusion. There are a lot of preconditions for broad and ubiquitous societal innovation that is readily perceptible within a lifetime. In most places we didn’t have that prior to 1870 and in all places we didn’t have that prior to 1500. I would say all else being equal if you have two agricultural states one of which has an [agricultural research service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Research_Service) and the other which does not, the one with the agricultural research service will innovate faster. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1117 "2025-05-17T22:30:44Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > 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. Spitballing a global population of 1 billion… While that is _lower_ than our current population there is no way you can describe a population of 1 billion humans as a _low_ population in absolute terms. We can not continue to grow our population endlessly without limit. Eventually we run out of planet. Or, to look at it another way: in 1970 we were sending people into space and inventing transistors and the basis for our modern computers. Yet we “only” had about 3.5 billiion people in the world. So… apparently we can have an advanced, innovating society/civilization with only half our current population. So the population dropping back to that shouldn’t screw up innovation, productivity, etc. But it would put a lot less stress on the planetary ecosystem that sustains us. > [@Babale](#): > > Of the Western countries that adopted these principles early enough to gain that initial advantage, it is - of course - the most populous one that has achieved the greatest technological and economic development. That being the United States. It’s unfair to compare the US as a nation to most other nations because most other nations are so very much _smaller_ than the US. It’s more useful to compare the US to, say, _all of Europe_ for comparison of population, land area, resources, and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2025, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1118 "2025-05-17T22:30:52Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because they (potentially) have better prospects for the future, a less devastated environment, more resources, less pollution, and less crowding. It’s notable that part of the reason people are choosing to have fewer or no children nowadays is concern about leaving them with a world with a ruined environment (which would be less of a problem with fewer people generating pollution and extracting resources) where they have poor prospects of being able to afford their own homes (which would be less of a problem with fewer people generating less demand and thereby causing lower prices). > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > We’re talking about a **much worse than Thanos** level of decline if trends continue. Assuming that trends continue (and for this trend to have sky-is-falling results like a global population of only a few million would require the trend to continue for about half a millenium) is what is basically an ecological system driven by equilibriating factors is like assuming that a fever patient will succumb to spontaneous human combustion. > [@Broomstick](#): > > It’s unfair to compare the US as a nation to most other nations because most other nations are so very much _smaller_ than the US. Note that small geographic size would amplify the various network effects cited as an effect of large population; thus, the 40-50 million inhabitants of Britain, France, and Germany in 1890 should have been _ahead_ of the 60ish-million inhabitants of the US if that were the key factor. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1119 "2025-05-17T22:42:01Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Note that small geographic size would amplify the various network effects cited as an effect of large population; thus, the 40-50 million inhabitants of Britain, France, and Germany in 1890 should have been _ahead_ of the 60ish-million inhabitants of the US if that were the key factor. It’s notable that Great Britain had the problem during both world wars that its population exceeded the number that could be supported by agriculture in the land area of Great Britain. There is a point where population density it too great to be self-sustaining in that footprint. ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655/1120 "2025-05-17T22:46:40Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > That statement assumes that ALL the elderly will become completely helpless. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Not everyone views work as an intolerable burden. > [@puzzlegal](#): > > Umm. No, the very young are a resource suck. Yeah, I’m not playing this game. If I make an obvious, uncontroversial statement like “men are taller than women,” then I don’t actually need to add an infinite number of caveats about how it’s not true for all individuals or all populations or how early hominid men were shorter than modern women or whatever. You can just assume the obvious, uncontroversial interpretation for whatever it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655.md?page=55) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-practical-way-to-increase-the-birthrate/1012655.md?page=57)