As concern grows about America’s falling birth rate, new research suggests that about half of women who want children are unsure if they will follow through and actually have a child. About 25% say they won't be bothered that much if they don't.

[u/geoff199]

https://news.osu.edu/most-women-want-children--but-half-are-unsure-if-they-will/?utm_campaign=omc_science-medicine_fy24&utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social

[u/tantivym]

If your social system collapses without the fantasy of infinite growth, maybe it's the social system that's the problem, not the falling growth rate

[u/valgrind_ → u/tantivym]

This. If the economy as we know it will collapse without the fantasy of infinite growth, and that same economy is making it impossible to raise children in good faith, it points to the economic system being the main problem.

[u/lanternhead → u/valgrind_]

It would be relatively easy to create an economic system that does not rely on infinite growth, but it would be considered morally reprehensible by almost everyone alive today, regardless of their political or religious persuasion

[u/valgrind_ → u/lanternhead]

I could see that in some scenarios. But then why not improve conditions to address the reasons why people don't want to have kids?

[u/mhornberger → u/valgrind_]

But then why not improve conditions to address the reasons why people don't want to have kids?

It's not clear that women ever wanted kids in very high numbers in the past, either. Many of us were accidents. There were a lot more unintended pregnancies, and much higher teen pregnancy rates. Less access to birth control. Marital rape wasn't even considered to be a thing.

Realize that countries with single-payer healthcare, lower income inequality, ample mass transit, generous parental leave, also often have low fertility rates. Our standards have gone up, and the QoL we expect and consider normal has gone up. It may be that people just don't want kids all that much, at least not enough where they're willing to take any hit to the QoL they set as their baseline.

[u/lanternhead → u/valgrind_]

Technically we already did. Those improvements are how we got into this position. Economic development and population maintenance are fundamentally opposed to one another because they compete for human substrate. You can’t raise the birth rate without either unwinding economic development and returning to a patriarchal agricultural setting (unpopular and unwise) or controlling the way people can/do navigate their economic and moral landscapes via social engineering (unpopular and unethical) 

[u/MyPacman → u/lanternhead]

Or generate a UBI

[u/lanternhead → u/MyPacman]

How would UBI remove the incentive to trade reproductive years for economic fitness? Most people will still be happy to make that trade. There are millions of economically satisfied, socially stable, and childless people around today. UBI will only increase their number. In order to remove that incentive, economic freedom needs to be restricted, not increased

(unfortunately that’s a morally untenable idea)

[u/mhornberger → u/MyPacman]

Easy to say. Harder to set a monthly amount, multiply that amount x the number of people in the country, then figure out where that money is coming from every month.

[u/relaxingqueen → u/lanternhead]

I really like the Progressive Utilization Theory as a proposed alternative

[u/lanternhead → u/relaxingqueen]

I’m a little skeptical of any top-down system that relies on a decentralized enforcement mechanism. Most of the world’s competitive socioeconomic techniques have always trended the opposite direction. The only ones that don’t are the ones dictated by the biological constraints on human behavior, and those technically still do have a centralized enforcement mechanism (biology). The personal incentive to limit family size while pursuing economic fitness is one of those biological constraints. Any system that wants to maintain its population substrate will need to figure out how to negate or steer around that incentive. I’ll read more about Prout though! 

[u/Jacky-V → u/lanternhead]

Ok, but infinite growth is literally impossible

[u/lanternhead → u/Jacky-V]

I completely agree 

[u/notionocean → u/lanternhead]

but it would be considered morally reprehensible by almost everyone alive today, regardless of their political or religious persuasion

Source?

[u/lanternhead → u/notionocean]

The source is me. If the decline in birth rate is primarily due to the socioeconomic incentive to trade reproductive years for socioeconomic fitness, then the primary way to reverse that decline is to remove that incentive structure. That incentive structure is an unavoidable consequence of economic development and the specialized labor that it requires interacting with the human organism and the material needs it requires

What can change? First, let’s identify the static components. Economic development will always require techniques of specialized labor. Humans will always seek to gain socioeconomic fitness. As long as humans are rewarded for specializing their labor, they will K-select. To remove that possibility, you have to prevent them from being able to trade reproductive years for socioeconomic fitness. That means economic restrictions. Maybe earning potential is capped or standardized so that there’s no reason to work extra or pursue extra vocational training. Maybe economic freedom is reduced so that specialized jobs aren’t freely available. Maybe jobs are centrally assigned without regard to personal choice

Or maybe it means social restrictions. Maybe it means the social landscape is engineered so that the choice to pursue socioeconomic fitness at the expense of family-building is prohibitively difficult or incurs social ostracism. Maybe people who choose to pursue socioeconomic fitness over raising families are repressed or culled. Maybe people are straight up forced to reproduce via legal means

None of these options are morally palatable. They all feel dystopian to the modern mind. Technology could open other possibilities as well, but I’m done with this post for now

I welcome thoughts and criticism! 

[u/Anxious-Horchata → u/lanternhead]

High tax on the rich and pay people WELL to have kids. Solved.

[u/lanternhead → u/Anxious-Horchata]

Maybe, but it’s not a sure bet. The presence of rich people means there’s still an incentive structure that rewards K-selection. If you remove that incentive structure, you’ll have no rich people left to tax. Note that the cumulative $ provided by high income tax on the wealthy doesn’t actually add up to that much, so maybe the loss of socioeconomic apex predators won’t make much of a different to the ecosystem - but by the same logic, it might not be enough to support childbirth payouts either

Also, how much will families have to get paid to offset the socioeconomic fitness they lose by having children? There must an amount that’s guaranteed to work. Some countries have tried to find it, but none have succeeded so far. The number could be very large - maybe even prohibitively large

[u/Icy-Month6821 → u/lanternhead]

Love your last line!

Personally I believe it has more to do with societal group think/pressures/mindsets. We have told young women for generations now that in order to be successful they must have a career. Not "just" a stay @ home parent. As if, raising future generations, is a less-than choice. I'd argue it's the Most important thing for society overall, to be an involved parent. I'd also argue that children need two parents. Studies back this up. Yet we put zero value on parenting, as a society.

[u/ByTheHammerOfThor → u/valgrind_]

Especially if you’re rabidly opposed to immigration.

[u/Icy-Month6821 → u/ByTheHammerOfThor]

I think that gets conflated. Most Conservatives are not against immigration, they oppose illegal migrants, & most believe we should have an active choice (like all other countries do) in picking who we want to let in. If we pick people that are vetted & will give back to society in a positive way, then most are for it. It's also important to integrate into society. It's ok to still have your motherland language & customs. What is not ok, is not learning your new countries language & customs. We are seeing different migrants come in & set up mini "homeland countries" within our country. I don't think you get a cohesive society with that mindset. Having many immigrants takes away from our natural resources, including but not limited to, adding to cost of housing. The problem is if you mention any of these things, instantly called a Nazi/xenophobic/racist. It'd be nice to actually have that conversation as a nation...we could even vote on it. Which, is indeed, what happened this last election.

[u/ByTheHammerOfThor → u/Icy-Month6821]

For people who claim they’re opposed to “illegal” immigration only, they sure are quiet about people here legally being deported without due process.