[waterlaw]

Surrogacy will be the next big thing. Women in poorer countries will birth the children for wealthier nations. This will aid in the reduction of family formation in poorer countries and serve as population control. While ensuring no one country becomes too populated.

H.G. Wells pointed out that we cannot have population control in one nation of the world, but not another. It must be worldwide, or it'd result in severe unrest.

Julian Huxley, H.G. Wells, Charles Pincus (and many more) made this one of the defining issues of the 20th century. The Pill and IVF were long in the works and heavily funded as a means to avoid the "Population Bomb."

They envisioned a new world without war or environmental destruction. Their solution was to reduce the birth rate, through various means. The reduction of family formation being one of them.

It's interesting to read through these older works and realize the world they'd envisioned has to some extent come to fruition.

[robocat]

> Surrogacy will be the next big thing

For most couples, the first 9 months for a child isn’t the problem, it is the costs of the following 2 decades.

[waterlaw]

Yeah. Their idea was to reduce the population until you reach a number low enough that is viable for the ecosystem. The population would then be "maintained" at a stable level. Most people would not be able to afford children.

You could make child-rearing unaffordable enough to require government assistance. Then that assistance could be limited by quota. There's a lot of things that could happen in the future. We don't really know. It's just a guess.

Another thing that In vitro fertilization solves is allowing for women to focus on their careers from age 20 - 50. If people in the future are going to live longer and be healthier, then it'd be feasible to have children (through surrogate) at the age of 50. If you'd already amassed enough wealth (or had privy to subsidies), I couldn't see why not...

[octobus2021]

If a woman has a child in her 50s she will spend her 50s (and maybe part of her 60s) taking care of the toddler and then raise them to be 10 years old. These are not easy years I can tell you that having gone through that more than once. And I was in my 30s and early 40s. Then, when she's in her mid-to-late 60s she'll have to deal with a moody and irrational teenager and try to make sure he/she won't screw up so bad as to ruin the rest of their lives. And she won't see them grow up to be independent adults until she's in her 70s. Is that what you envision yourselves doing in your last healthy years (and for many of us beyond that)?

[anon291]

We had our first kid in our early twenties, and by the end of the first two years, I couldn't for the life of me understand how anyone older than 30 can have their first child. Toddlers and babies are incredibly hard on the knees, back, shoulders, and your entire body. They're rough, active, and constantly demand various physical actions that will quickly exhaust anybody.

It's so strange having parents in our neighborhood two or three decades older than we were. It must be really hard.

I'm looking forward to my fifties where my eldest children are past college, hopefully giving me grandchildren to play with. I highly encourage young parenthood. It gets increasingly harder. The money part which so many get hung up on is easy. Babies are incredibly cheap, and your income has 18 years to grow.

[robocat]

Population growth is a solved problem as countries become wealthier. If you want to reduce population quickly, perhaps look at reducing the number of elderly people or reducing their economic dead weight cost (encourage euthanasia, export to cheaper countries, deathly games or sports, encourage pandemics, encourage depression, early payout for future euthanasia, et cetera). This could also solve the housing crisis (and housing is a driver for economic growth, and growth is really the main driver for global harm).

Direct costs for the elderly are currently ~40% of government expenditures in New Zealand and growing.

My guesstimate 23G$ ($==NZD in this comment) for superannuation/pension[1] and 16G$ healthcare costs[2] of 110G$ total expenditure for ~16% of population (789k of 5M in 2020, projected to 20% in 2030, and 25%+ eventually[3]).

That is ~60k$ per person. 50% of people retiring now can expect[4] to live 2 decades i.e. cost ~1M$ (totally ignoring discount value!).

Disclaimer: tongue in cheek: I am middle aged.

[1] https://www.interest.co.nz/news/100033/budget-2019-social-we...

[2] https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/125200191/hey-big-sp...

[3] https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/national-popu...

[4] https://www.stats.govt.nz/tools/how-long-will-i-live

Edit:

> feasible to have children (through surrogate) at the age of 50

If you think it is okay to orphan 1 in 20 children, and that children don't have live grand parents, although maybe benefits of help with elderly care and passing on inheritance? 65 year old helping 90 year old is challenging and very common).

That would definitely reduce population (2 children per 2 adults reproducing at 50 has maybe 40% less total population count, compared against population count if reproducing at 25).

[mensetmanusman]

Wealth is meaningless when there is no one to pay for services. Expect costs to dramatically out-grow savings and interest.

[Kon-Peki]

> Surrogacy will be the next big thing. Women in poorer countries will birth the children for wealthier nations.

So you think women in poorer countries are willing to "pre-sell" their children? That's insanely absurd, and an absolute human rights violation if forced. No. This will not happen.

[throwaway_4ever]

You need to look up what surrogacy means. The surrogate women is doing the "pregnancy" part, with prior agreement and IVF from a different couple.

[Kon-Peki]

> You need to look up what surrogacy means

Thanks, I am familiar with the meaning.

It doesn’t matter if someone provided the fertilized egg. Woman A has a child and then it becomes part of Family B, sometimes with money changing hands and/or the threat of lawsuits or jail if Woman A has a change of heart.

The only way this can possibly be morally acceptable is in very carefully vetted on-off situations AND no penalty or pressure for a changed mind.

There is no morally-defensible way to do this “at scale”. Please do more research if you have even the slightest doubt.

[irrational]

But... why? Most women I know are fine and even happy with the pregnancy part. Why would they want to outsource that part? They love the attention. The birth part? Not so much, but that part is difficult to outsource.

[DFHippie]

> Most women I know are fine and even happy with the pregnancy part. Why would they want to outsource that part? They love the attention.

Hmmm... Well, we know different women.

[exolymph]

Google "perineal tear birth" for a visceral taste of the issues that come along with pregnancy and childbirth. It's a grueling process.

[irrational]

I’ve witnessed 7 births in person (cesarean, vaginal natural, and vaginal with epidural). Though I haven’t experienced it myself, I’m fairly familiar with childbirth.

[mensetmanusman]

Lots of those agreements to date were under duress due to massive income inequality according to reports.

[anon291]

No it won't. Poor countries arent that stupid. Many don't allow surrogacy for ethical reasons. What they want is for current rich countries to impoverish themselves so there's room for more competition.

[spaceman_2020]

> Surrogacy will be the next big thing

It might, but its still not going to change the population decline pattern.

No one is going to have three kids with surrogacy. At most, people will have one or two. Stabilization at best. Not growth.

[Ekaros]

Is the actual process of birthing the limiting factor? Or is there other choices involved?