The world population is still increasing, so no need to increase the birthrate at that level yet.
Now if we’re talking about the U.S., the solution is obvious, even if half the population is against it: immigration from poorer countries. The population will continue to increase, so we won’t need higher birthrates.
And has anyone looked at why the U.S. birth rate has fallen? The answer is, because girls and women 24 years old and younger aren’t having kids the way they used to.
Scroll down to Table 1 at this Census report on the change in fertility rates between 1990 and 2019. Assuming trends haven’t reversed since 2019, the fertility rate among 15-19 year olds has plummeted by 73%, and among 20-24 year olds, it’s dropped by 43%. But taken as a whole, women 25+ are having more babies than they used to - just not by enough to make up for younger women and girls quite fortunately having fewer kids.
We don’t want women to have babies before they’re ready. So we don’t want to reverse that drop. But the likelihood of getting women 25 or older to have enough babies to make up for the enormous drop in fertility on the part of women and girls under 25 is just about nil, regardless of incentives.
So immigration is the answer, both for America and for the European countries where populations are shrinking. But of course most European countries dislike immigration even more than Americans do. Well, that’s their problem.
Meanwhile, here in the U.S., somebody’s got to pick the strawberries, somebody’s got to work in the chicken processing plants, etc. So people will still come into this country to do the shit jobs that few Americans will do. Tyson’s and agribusiness will bribe Trump to not round up their workers, just like he caved on H-1B.
[quote=“bump, post:70, topic:1012655”]…I mean, I suspect that a lot of women who are really gung-ho about having careers, making their own way, etc… might change their minds if they made considerably more money by having a kid, and had most of the concerns like healthcare, babysitting, etc… taken care of.
[/quote]
What about men? Would men be less “gung ho” about having careers, making their own way, etc if they made more money by having a kid, and had healthcare, babysitting, etc taken care of? Obviously only (cis)women can bear children, but men are just as capable of everything that follows. It’s that stuff, not so much pregnancy, that forces women to make choices that men don’t have to.
Do they got to, though? Sounds like the kind of thing a robot could do (I say this because there already are robots for the former, and ones under current development for the latter)
Great point - I was a stay-at-home father for a while (first 4 years), and it certainly enabled my wife to realise her academic and career goals in a way she wouldn’t have if we’d both been working, never mind if she’d been a full-time stay-at-home mom.
My husband was a stay at home dad for several years. It was great! Well, it was great for me and for the kids. I’m not sure it was great for him. But he did okay.
It’s funny how many SAHD’s (poor acronym) have told me how great it was not just for the kids but for them. Our society undervalues men’s nurturing desires and abilities.
Gotcha, we are evil because we have the power to destroy the planet and are in the process of doing it, whereas wolves would if they could but do not have the power.
While it seems a bit inconsistent that the morality of a species depends on their power it’s also not completely out of whack, nobody cares for potential evil, humanity’s evil is being realized as we speak, while the wolves’ evil is just hipothetical.
This statement highlights a cultural problem: having children is not considered to be an ambition or a form of self-actualization. Until our society changes so that having children is an acceptable ambition and considered a form of self actualization, some people won’t have children or as many. (This applies to both men and women.)
Huh? It’s been both for almost as long as I can remember.
Wanting to have children is almost universally considered to be a Good Thing unless your friends and family have reason to think you’re not ready for that yet. So it’s not just an acceptable ambition, it’s a generally laudable one.
And these days, it’s far more about self-actualization than it was sixty years ago, when people were expected to get married and have kids (and of course sex all but directly led to kids, back then before The Pill came along.) Nowadays most parents choose to be parents because it’s something they really want for themselves, because they feel their lives would be much emptier without kids.
Do they got to, though? Sounds like the kind of thing a robot could do (I say this because there already are robots for the former, and ones under current development for the latter)
I remember reading in the Atlantic about the ability of robots to pick strawberries, but the growers kept on using human labor anyway - can’t remember the reason, because this was ~20 years ago, since it’s been nearly that long since I last subscribed to that rag. So maybe robots can do that job, but the growers clearly would prefer humans.
Doesn’t change the logic though - immigration is an available solution for advanced countries as long as other parts of the world have excess people to send us.
Well yeah, but they do so not because society considers parenting to be a less than acceptable ambition, or a legitimate form of self-actualization.
There are many, many avenues of self-actualization that are highly regarded that only a minority of people pursue, since after all there are many such avenues, but one person or couple can only pursue so many of them. So the reality that many couples do not choose to pursue parenthood as an avenue of self-actualization doesn’t mean that it’s not well regarded as such.
The gotcha though is that a constant population requires every man and every woman to do their 2.1 kids bit.
At least on average. When typical family sizes are 6 kids that live to reproduce (so 8 or 9 born), a hefty fraction of the others could choose to sit out, be infertile, be killed by disease or war, etc., and a steady population results.
When very few of the people who choose to be parents have more than 2, and many just have 1, then nearly every couple who has the physical capability to reproduce needs to add their own 2.1 kids to the cohort. Or else the population must decline.
Said another way, small average family sizes require that parenting not be a choice, but rather an obligation. Which really turns the idea of personal choice and self actualization on its ear.
I am skeptical that that number has changed so much.
There are fewer who are having children as teens and then having many of them without planning. Or otherwise having more than the number they would ideally want.
There are more who because of the ability to plan are delaying having children until much later than in generations past and who then have difficulty conceiving, possibly then averaging one child instead of two or more.
There are fewer children being born per woman overall. But I am not so sure there are many more women not having any children because having no children is their ideal.
Regardless of the number of children they consider to be ideal, nine in 10 U.S. adults have children or would like to. This includes 69% who already have children, 15% who are aged 18 to 40 and are not yet parents but say they want to be someday, and 6% who are aged 41 and older and do not have children but wish they did. Just 8% of U.S. adults indicate no intent or longing to have children.
Anecdatally ( ) I will suggest that a lot more men are comfortable choosing not have kids than heretofore.
In my own life, my late first wife never really wanted kids. My now-ex second wife had two with her first husband, but overall it seemed to me like her attitude then was more complying with duty / expectation than genuine a priori desire. My current semi-serious GF is past her childbearing years but never had and never wanted any.
Do I just attract that sort unknowingly? Hellifino.
That long ago? Probably crap at it, and super expensive. The modern robots use very sophisticated tech to determine if the berry is ripe, and are a lot cheaper - not cheap, mind you (one model is $250 000) but cheap enough that it makes sense for some operations that it wouldn’t have before, no doubt. And both the price and the accuracy are going to improve, I’m sure.
…and you need them. That’s my point, immigration only works if the people are available and wanted. Some have argued that the aging developed countries will be forced to take them, I’m not so sure that will always be the case.
) I will suggest that a lot more men are comfortable choosing not have kids than heretofore.