Pretty much all of them? You do realize that marital rape being illegal is a fairly recent thing? Here in the US it only started to be made illegal in the 1970s. Historically a man demanding sex from his wife was “exerting his rights”.
Well, no, that does not work. It did not work in Nazi Germany or in North Korea.
Every-higher economic incentives might work, but in truth this is just doing what has failed before, but double it this time.
As I mentioned, I am stumped.
Endorse Der_Trihs. Women were only permitted to own property in all US states in 1900. New York was an innovator here: they passed a law in 1848. We have plenty of dystopian methods of increasing the birthrate.
I’m dubious about this approach, but it’s true that declining fertility rates have been driven by declines in teen pregnancy rates.
But it did work in Romana and other places. One result of which was overflowing orphanages, because women are less likely to keep a child they never wanted.
Am I being naive to assume that this would be self-correcting? I mean, I’ve heard these concerns for at least a decade now, and can’t really see any significant issues other than a drain on Social Security as fewer workers have to support more older people. Even the “South Korean catastrophe” doesn’t seem to have had any real-world impacts yet.
Surely if there is generational economic contraction due to too few workers then the incentives will rapidly re-align around a system where having more kids is important to support a family, right? And voila, you have exponential growth again.
ETA: That’s basically Smith’s second class of solution - changing culture. Right now there is really no cultural pressure to have more than one kid, and in fact there has been some pressure against large families. But that will change if economic and population realities change.
And aging in general. Purely anecdotally (among the younger GenX crowd), I see three groups:
- Couples that don’t want kids
- Couples that have exactly two kids
- Couples that wanted two kids but they waited too long and now can’t. I know two that waited until they were 40+ and had multiple failed IVF attempts.
Would be nice to do something about group 3. And at least some members of group 2 might have had 3+ kids, but they’d be too old at the time of the third. Like having kids at 33 and 38, and then they want to wait 5 years for the third… but that’s really pushing it for most.
Let’s have college scholarships for parents under 25! An education can wait; biology can’t.
The problem is that if you wait til that point, your demographics and economy could be in such a tough situation that you wouldn’t be able to incentivize the population sufficiently to give birth more without it causing you major economic harm in some way.
Almost every incentive has a price. If you offer generous child subsidies, those must be paid for by taxpayer. If you offer big tax breaks, that may worsen the budget deficit. If you offer free school tuition and free college, that has to be paid by taxpayers as well. And that will be even harder to do if you already have 60% elderly people in your nation who all need their social security or social net. You’d have all the fewer dollars to scrounge by to do any sort of incentivizing.
And children take time. Even if there were a baby boom now, the kids would have to take decades to enter the workforce, etc.
So it makes sense to tackle the problem as early as possible, rather than later.
Things will be fine for at least 25 years. In fact, they might improve. No kids means no spending resources on food/housing/education/healthcare/etc. for a class of people that don’t contribute anything back. More for everyone else! But then you reach a point where you lose the influx of new productive workers and things start to decline.
Or, it will require industrialized countries like Japan, South Korea, and (frankly) the U.S., which have had varying degrees of antipathy towards large-scale legal immigration, to change their minds on this matter. If their citizens aren’t having enough children to keep the economy from collapsing, they’ll need to start recruiting from outside their native-born population.
It’ll only help for so long. Birth rates are collapsing everywhere. Bangladesh went from 6.9 in 1970 to 1.95 in 2022 (below replacement rate).
I think a lot of older people haven’t fully internalized how dramatically things have changed since the 70s. None of the Malthusian stuff said then came to pass.
One way to encourage a higher birth rate would be to discourage or prevent vaccination. Couples had lots more children 100-200 years ago, knowing that some were likely to die of now vaccine-preventable diseases in their early years.
Or nations could adopt elements of the Nazi program to increase the birth rate, which was successful to a limited degree, but of course we could do it better now.
/s
There’s a stigma? 
When I was in high school in the 90s, the message was that you might as well kill yourself if you got pregnant, because no matter what your life was over. Not sure what the impression is for today’s students.
I’m not talking about incentives from the government. I’m talking about the discussions families have when deciding how many children to have. I would imagine in an era of actual falling population, with the associated economic distress, those conversations would be different than they are today.
Yes, I think that’s probably true. And that’s when you will have to rely on immigration to prop up your economy for awhile.
But these trends are pretty slow, right? A quick Google search shows that South Korea (to use the example mentioned upthread) will probably not fall below their 1990 population until 2055. By then I would think the message of “have more kids” will be culturally ingrained in the next generation. So now you have basically one generation to “get through” before things are growing internally again.
To go back to anecdotes, my grandparents were from a generation (born 1928) where the cultural expectation was, generally, to have a passel of kids. They were both from large families (by grandfather was one of 7, I think) and they had 3 kids. My mother was from a generation where larger families were seen as a drain and overpopulation was a concern. She had two. I was also raised in the similar cultural environment, where 1 or 2 kids was standard and anything over 3 was seen as a bit odd.
But now I know multiple of my kids’ peers who are one of 4+ children.
I think the key would be to make sure that having more children, if that’s what you want, isn’t such an economic risk or hardship that families that would otherwise do so are encouraged not to. So heavy investment in childcare, education, and healthcare for children. Increased maternal and paternal leave, as well as guarantees of job access after taking said leave, would also help. Couple a reduction in the incentive to not have children with a slight change in cultural norms and I think we’ll be fine.
Lois McMaster Bujold rings a myriad fascinating changes upon the effects of ‘uterine replicator’ technology in her wonderful-for-many-other-reasons-as-well series of Vorkosigan science fiction novels.
Never saw any of that.
Australia and the US (at least) have a birth rate well below replacement level, BUT are growing due to immigration. As long as the rate is at a manageable level they can take in people from those few countries still growing madly more or less forever, putting aside environmental limits for the sake of this conversation.
The problem with nations like South Korea and Japan and China is they have little to no immigration, for a number of reasons, including cultural hostility verging on (IMO) racism.
Well, maybe. One wonders if the new “tradwife” phenomenon is an early indicator of a cultural rebound. But I see no reason why this must be true. On the other hand, one could easily enter a trap where young workers are so overworked (because so much of their productive output is going to the elderly) that they don’t have the time or inclination to have kids. So things get even worse from there.
I doubt there is a liberal way for governments to increase the birth rate, but policies like child care subsidies can reduce the rate of fertility decline:
Causal Analysis of Policy Effects on Fertility
In the long term, we have no certainty what will happen. My guess is that conservative religious groups, that emphasize fertility, will become a much bigger proportion of the population. If so, moderating, and slowing down, that process, with liberal pro-natal policies, is IMHO highly desirable.
I cannot figure out why someone thinks giving birth is debilitating.
I am not aware of that anywhere.
My health was greatly improved by having a child.
Then you were fortunate. Here are a few statistics for you:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(23)00454-0/fulltext