No one here has argued that global birthrates should increase. The discussions have been regarding individual countries with significantly below replacement levels and the consequences. Please do not misrepresent.
Those countries having their economies crater due to upside down demographics is a recipe to increase global existential risk. You want global catastrophe that’s how you speed up getting there. People worrying about the roof over their head and food on their table today don’t want to invest much to prevent future global climate change. And they are more supportive of war to gain resources. They are less welcoming of immigration of any sort.
I feel like countries are less likely to go to war if they have a shortage of young men. And also that population growth is largely a global, not a regional issue. And that it’s mostly wealthy nations that use a lot of resources, so shrinking population in wealthy nations is disproportionately helpful in reducing our burden on the environment.
But all this is a hijack from the subject matter. And what influences the birth rate is certainly an interesting question. So I’ll bow out.
I’m still failing to see how immigration doesn’t solve all the problems stated. It is almost always young people who immigrate. Nations that wither and die rather than confront their own racism might not be worth saving.
It is clearly both. What happens to South Korea as the extreme case is not dependent on the birthrate globally. The globe is not a homogeneous pot. And the worse the economy in the “haves” countries, the higher the walls.
Overwhelmingly, the poorer countries that most immigrants come from also have declining birthrates - with less competition/more opportunity at home, subsequent generations will have less incentive to leave their homes for more opportunity.
Also, of course, that leaves those countries screwed for elder care (depending on to what degree they are rich enough to have people grow old).
I’d be interested in seeing support for that statement.
My impression is that come from regions that are very unstable, for a variety of reasons: conflict based on religion or profit or both; problems related to climate change likely to be an increasing cause; so on.
In the EU are huge number from Ukraine and Belarus, and on the illegal side I thought Syria led the pack, and then a host of African nations. Syria runs twice the birthrate of the US and many African nations even higher.
For the United States, true that the major source countries are in Latin America; their birthrates are higher than the United States but have dropped below replacement levels.
The attempted emigration from those countries clearly preceded recent drops in birthrate. More kids won’t fix the problems that drive it.
So some of the source countries have recently joined the crowd of below replacement levels; it is definitely not overwhelmingly so.
The comments are depressing. “Why do we need more kids?” “Overpopulation”, “Just replace everyone with immigrants”.
Then there’s the one I saw on Twitter today: “Wanting someone to care for/about you in old age is a terrible reason to have kids. If that’s your reason, you shouldn’t have any”. So many people infected with antinatalist memes (in the Dawkins sense). How to even begin to change that?
Top five countries for foreign born US residents, with 2022 TFR:
Mexico - 1.8
India - 2.01 (and falling)
China - 1.18
Philippines - 2.72
El Salvador - 1.78
I guess you can keep getting immigrants from the Philippines for a while.
There’re also a lot of immigrants from elsewhere in LatAm. Average TFR for Latin America and the Caribbean: 1.85
Give people reasons to think having children is desirable; right now it just isn’t. The costs physically and financially are huge, there’s no benefit besides the children themselves, and the future looks worse all the time. We rely almost entirely on people being driven to reproduce by instinct and accident against their better judgement, and that’s not enough to reach replacement rate.
Instead we are headed in the opposite direction. We’re making it less and less sensible to want children.
I do wonder if some of these countries are going to start forbidding young people to leave, in the same way the Soviet bloc did. Especially the sort of educated and skilled workers who would be most desirable as immigrants.
What’s wrong with ‘getting immigrants from’ Africa, I wonder? Many countries there are still well above replacement levels. Africa will overtake Asia as the most populous continent by 2100.
Nationalism is a disgusting concept, and hopefully it will be eliminated like the cancer it is before we all destroy ourselves.
The problem is that it’s exactly the least educated and liberal countries, and the least educated and liberal people within those countries, who are having the most children. They’ll be bringing in the foreign equivalent of poor fundamentalist Mississippians, instead of college educated Indians.
And Latinos, Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos are?
Tribalism is deeply embedded in human nature. The only way we’ll ever stop hating each other is finding some bigger enemy (aliens, or more likely AI).
“No benefit besides the children themselves” is like saying there’s no benefit to a romantic relationship besides getting to spend your life with someone who loves you. That’s kind of the point. Yes, it’s a lot of work and expense, but you get a whole new family member who you love, and who loves you.
And it also gives people a reason to care about the future, about building and growing and making things better, rather than shrugging and saying ‘I hope I’m dead before climate change really bites’. Having nieces and nephews is a reason too, but if the birth rate keeps dropping, there will be an increasing number of people without even that.
If people emphasised the negatives of other common life experiences like they do kids, there would be a lot fewer people going to college, getting jobs, getting married, and travelling.
I don’t see how that sentiment is “antinatalist”, in the sense of being actually opposed to people having kids.
What the comment is criticizing is what the commenter perceives as a selfish reason for having kids.
And I can kind of see their point. It does seem a bit selfish and exploitative for someone’s parenthood choices to be motivated solely, or even primarily, by the desire to benefit from financial and/or emotional support from their offspring in their old age.
I hope and trust that most parents are far more concerned with helping their children to establish happy and fulfilling lives of their own than with schemes for extracting support from their children as they age. But if somebody really was motivated to have kids primarily or solely by that latter motive, I’d be side-eyeing them a bit too. I wouldn’t say that that makes me “anti-natalist”.