Here’s 1500+ generally very thoughtful posts from a year-ish ago about deliberate efforts to raise birthrates. Not so much whether we should or should not (although that topic gets picked over too), but how well various efforts to date have or have not worked. [Narrator: Almost total failure everywhere every time.]
I’m debating for the middle against both sides.
It’s morally bad to tinker with the birthrate because it necessarily involves diminishing women’s choice. It’s pragmatically bad because it never produces any good results. Instead - no matter whether they try to increase or decrease the birthrate - all it produces is extra social stresses.
The global depression of the 30s and the global war of the 40s artificially lowered birthrates in many countries. In urbanized countries children are expenses rather than work resources as in rural areas. Lack of money plus uncertainty - and men away from home - put pressure on families not to have children. Reversing those conditions helped the population boom. Prosperity, child support, and peace will increase birthrates very quietly.
Since that won’t happen, immigration, immigration, immigration.
Indirectly being the key word. The motivation and goal of social and economic policies should be the well-being of everyone in society. Birthrate should not be the primary purpose in setting policies. The birthrate will adjust itself as long as society in general is healthy.
In mine opinion, the solution to much of the world’s societal problems could be substantially solved by empowering women.
-
Too many or too few people?
Let women decide for themselves how many children to have. -
Poor economic and financial conditions?
Let women earn, spend, and save money. -
Widespread illiteracy and innumeracy?
Let women educate themselves and their children. -
Corrupt and short-sighted leadership?
Let women lead.
Women might be able to do these things with the help of men, but they need to be able to do these things without men.
Of course, some men do not have these things either and that needs to be fixed as well, but often the most disadvantaged men are oppressed until women are empowered. How a society treats women is the best indicator of how everyone is treated.
-
Does your society have a distorted population distribution?
Your women don’t control their reproduction. -
Does your society have economic disparities?
Your women don’t earn from their own economic value. -
Is your society letting its talented people languish in unproductive ignorance?
Your women don’t get sufficient education. -
Are your society’s governments and businesses ineffective and self-dealing?
Your women don’t lead.
Whether or not women are getting “opportunities”, if they are not actually doing it, your society is suffering for it.
That thread is the reason why I’ve been thinking about starting this thread since last year. I felt prompted to go ahead with it today to head off a hijack about tourists in Japan in the Pit.
Reading that thread last year, seeing arguments from both pro-natalists and anti-natalists, convinced me that they’re both wrong and dangerous and crystallized my views on the matter.
There it is, thank you. You said it better than I did. This is exactly my point.
That’s a temporary fix, though, because it’s a world wide issue.
in the relatively short run, however, there are going to be plenty of people wanting to immigrate; if only because we’re in process of rendering portions of the planet increasingly unlikely to remain habitable.
How many of them will continue to want to immigrate into the USA may be another question; though some are likely to wind up with no good choices.
@Johanna. Thank you for the two clarifications. It all makes sense to me now.
The birthrate, and hence eventual population headcount, is an output variable of everything about the society.
If anyone wants some different output, they need to be ready to make pretty big changes to their society. And if the word “society” is going mean anything beyond a euphemism for a prison, those changes need to be bottom up, and in the direction of greater welfare of the general populace, and women in particular.
I completely disagree. Having babies is nothing like leaving shopping carts in parking lots. All indications are that women’s free choice makes the birth rate self-adjusting.
Genuinely asking -
In your view, is government mandated parental leave coercive, or is the absence of it coercive in your view.
If the absence of leave is coercive, then is something like leave for the birthing parent but less or no leave benefit for domestic partners coercive? Are restrictions on what it means to be a domestic partner for the benefit coercive?
My view is that parental leave reduces the barrier imposed by capitalism to having kids so they give more freedom to all groups that are historically marginalizedin terms of making their own decisions about families, but having the benefit forces the government to make rules on how it works with domestic partners and as a result invariably entrenches societal expectations about families. So there’s essentially no way for the government to simply play a neutral role and allow women (or anyone for that matter) to have an entirely uncoerced decision.
I disagree only because free choice is influenced by a societal/economic/technological environment that may be at odds with a positive self regulated outcome.
Guaranteeing parental leave is a positive benefit for the parents. It improves their quality of life. That’s why it should be done.
“Entrenching societal expectations” is too soft and squishy to support your argument about coercion. No, that isn’t coercion.
why do you think this would happen? Or more accurately, what circumstances do you think will make population drop to a more “reasonable level” naturally?
but this is not the same thing as arguing that leaving things up to individual choice will result in the best collective outcome. Individuals make choices for personal reasons, which may make them the best choices for themselves, but doesn’t guarantee, in the aggregate, the best outcome for society at large.
I’m not them; but in my view, pregnancy and childbirth are unpleasant and unhealthy enough that given the choice, women will have few enough children that the population rate will drop. Nothing else need be done.
Your bit about domestic partner specifics is a red herring.
The expectant mother designates one live human to be their pregnancy / post-birth leave partner. The government complies with her decision and ensures any other agencies or companies do the same. Not so hard, not so complicated.
There’s only coercion where somebody in a policy-making position decides they want to exert coercion. So don’t let people like that near policy decisions.
I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with governments trying to encourage an increase or decrease in the birthrate. That can be as simple as literally just saying “Hey, you should all have more kids, please”, or things like tax benefits to having children. But trying to force it up or down is definitely both immoral and counterproductive.
People say that, but the Scandinavian countries have some of the highest birthrates in Europe. Higher than Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany, Austria…
Ireland, France, Luxemburg, and Netherlands are the only European countries that are in the same ballpark.
No, they aren’t having babies at replacement level, but i don’t think they are staring in the face of a population collapse, like Japan and South Korea, either
True, birthrates are going down in all western countries. Iceland has the highest births per 1000 at #125 in your link. (Unless you count South Africa as western, which I wouldn’t for this particular example. And Monaco is too small a place to have meaningfully comparable numbers.) I agree with @LSLGuy that woman-friendly government policies correlate highly with less diminished rates, though I suggest that a prosperous economy is also correlated with both.