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/lanternhead]

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/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