[TangoTrotFox]

I'm curious about one thing. Like the article alludes to there is currently an extremely strong connection between fertility and low education, low income, and high religiosity. This [1] is a list of nations by net natural population growth. So births - deaths. From the top (according to UN predictions for 2015-2020): Uganda, Angola, Mali, Somalia, Tanzania, etc. From the bottom on nations that are collectively dying: Bulgaria, Latvia, Ukraine, Hungary, Lithuana, Romania, Portugal, Greece, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.

One of the facts is that 137,000 people/day have been escaping 'extreme poverty'. But what happens when the part of society that is living in economically stable and educated households is not even reproducing to the point of replacing itself, while those living in low education and low income households are massively reproducing?

The natural response here is that if we can just improve the situation of places such as Africa then this situation ought resolve itself with birth rates starting to become comparable thus preventing a condemnation of the next generation. There are two problems with this view. The first is that this relies exclusively on a correlation which to date has proved less than predictive of African fertility levels. More importantly this effect is not just international but also intranational. Those who earn the most in the US have the fewest children with households earning less than $10,000 having a 50% greater fertility rate than those earning $200,000+. [2] It seems we're creating a society where each new birth is more and more likely to come into this world in some of the least appropriate households.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_i...

[2a] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

[2b] - https://www.census.gov/topics/health/fertility.html (the link to statista presents this data in a cleaner format - also adding this as just a more reliable source)

[radicalbyte]

Within a nation this is a very good argument for taxation and wealth redistribution. You have to give those kids born to poorer parents a chance. It's better for them, it's better for you, it's better for everyone.

It's also what Gates is kind of doing - redistributing his wealth to help the people who most need it.

[TangoTrotFox]

This seems reasonable but there are some issues here as well. For instance it seems that if you gave somebody a huge amount of money, that they'd likely be able to pull themselves out of poverty. I mean, by definition, they are immediately placed in the upper or middle upper class. Unfortunately this has shown to be ineffective. For instance of all individuals who receive large windfalls of money, or win the lottery, some 70% [1] manage to end up bankrupt!

Giving money to people is not really enough to solve problems. We can see this same problem in our education system for instance. US education has been slipping quite severely by most metrics, yet we spend much more per student than most of anywhere in the world excepting something like 3 nations (Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway IIRC).

While obviously the wealth of wealthy households is undoubtedly useful for child rearing, I think more important is the education that these households instill in their children. I grew up very poor and in an urban area. And I know that, undoubtedly, what helped me more than anything else was the 'Big Brothers and Big Sisters' program. I think the lessons and learning from there set me up for success far more so than having some money splashed my parent's way would have.

[1] - https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/01/why_do_...

[acuster]

Your 'one thing' is exactly what Thomas Malthus originally wrote about in the first well-known book on population growth!

His thesis, glibly summarized, was that population growth gives the rich a structural problem: given that reproduction is inherently exponential and the poor reproduce more than the rich, the only logical consequence is that poor people will overwhelm the rich.

[Wintamute]

You're completely correct to highlight this, it's a coming challenge to be sure. Developed nations need to fine a way to increase indigenous fertility rates without simply replacing their own populations and culture with immigration. For my part I think the solution is multi-pronged:

- Make child rearing more financially feasible (big tax cuts for families)

- Foster reliance on family and local social networks, rather than reliance on the state

- Nudge younger generations to take responsibility for the future of their nation, rather that the nihilistic individualism that currently pervades our culture

- Etc

[BerislavLopac]

> But what happens when the part of society that is living in economically stable and educated households > is not even reproducing to the point of replacing itself, while those living in low education and low > income households are massively reproducing?

Migration is what happens. Followed by integration.

[TangoTrotFox]

Can you explain how you see this as a solution?

We can view this problem on any scale as it seems to be applicable everywhere. On a world scale the fundamental issue is that people who are of low education, low income, and high religiosity are increasingly the ones primarily repopulating our planet. This means that any given child is more and more likely to be born into this sort of circumstance. And many of these characteristics tend to pass from parent to child. It matters not what chunk of land they call home.

[icebraining]

low education, low income, and high religiosity

This describes much of Europe less than a century ago. None of my grandparents had more than four years of schooling. The local priest had enough power to imprison people. People were punished for homossexual acts until quite recently (e.g. Turing). In Ireland, divorce only became legal in 1995.

Low income and education is not a genetic characteristic, it can and is changeable.

[TangoTrotFox]

Right, but the problem is once people do obtain a healthy income and good education, they are not reproducing even to the point of sustainability. Because of this we end up taking 1 step forward, but then 2 steps back. You bring x units of population to education, out of poverty, and so on. But then they fail to reproduce to the point of sustainability. At the same time, some number much larger than x units that remains in poverty is reproducing like there is no tomorrow.

This is a new factor in an old problem. People reproducing beyond their means of sustenance is nothing new. What is new is that those of means are now failing to reproduce.

[frockington]

Why not let people in prosperous regions have a smaller population. I would love a country of smaller cities and increased prosperity

[TangoTrotFox]

These are again the tangential issues. I think you as well as the person I was initially responding to are conflating this issue with the one of decreasing population. I agree with you - I do not see population decline as a problem in and of itself.

The problem is population dynamics. Those that are more well to do and most capable of producing productive offspring are not doing so. By contrast those least able to care for and produce productive offspring are multiplying. Imagine we start with a nation that's incredibly prosperous - there are 9 wealthy families and one poor family. But each generation the wealthy families only have 1.6 children on average - 80% of what's necessary to maintain their population. By contrast the poor family has an average of 3 children - 150% of what's necessary to maintain their population.

Generation 1: 9 wealthy, 1 poor

Generation 2: 7.2 wealthy, 1.5 poor

Generation 3: 5.76 wealthy, 2.25 poor

Generation 4: 4.6 wealthy, 3.38 poor

Generation 5: 3.68 wealthy, 5.06 poor

Generation 6: 2.94 wealthy, 7.59 poor

Of course as has been mentioned some of the poor will become wealthy and some of the wealthy will become poor, but all things being equal even in very socially balanced nations the parents' income is strongly correlated with the child's. People of no means reproducing beyond their ability to sustain themselves is not a new problem, and is something people have pondered for centuries. But what is new here is that people of means are no longer producing enough to even sustain their population. When you combine these effects together, it turns poverty into a sort of virus that spreads and expands rapidly. Our utopia where 90% of people are wealthy (somehow.. that doesn't even make sense if you consider the connotation of wealthy, but that's another topic) ended up being a nation that was heavily impoverished in just 6 generations.

I also think a somewhat interesting pattern to observe in those numbers is that there was a population decline during periods of prosperity, but as the nation became more impoverished its population began to rapidly grow. The generation where the poor greatly outnumber the wealthy being the first generation to have a greater total population than we started with at generation 1.

The whole point here is that all the work in the world against poverty means nothing if those that escape poverty do not reproduce, while those that remain within it do!

[haltingthoughts]

Immigrants have nearly identical views to other citizens:

https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulle...

[BerislavLopac]

> Can you explain how you see this as a solution?

I don't. It's not a solution, it's the reality, this is what happens in the environment that GP described.

And I have no idea which problem do you think I meant it for...