[lo_zamoyski]

The OP was making an observation. But I'll bite.

First, human beings are not bees or ants. Our nature vis-a-vis reproduction is quite different. Most human beings do reproduce as that is our nature, or certainly most of us used to with the exception of periods of social collapse (think of Rome). We're in that sort of condition now, where we are having little or no children in the developed world. This does not bode well and at some point the decline of such a society will become irreversible.

Of course, you are right that not everyone must reproduce, that there is no particular obligation for anyone to reproduce, and that those who do not can still contribute to the well-being of their families, the human species, and the common good. And indeed, if you are, say, a Catholic, you would say that while having children is the natural course and the normal path for most people, a small minority are called to sacrifice this natural end for the sake of a higher supernatural, spiritual end, e.g., the priesthood, by which one becomes a spiritual parent in place of a biological one. Certainly, we can be parental figures in non-biological ways as well. Even biological parents do that.

But that's not that we're seeing behind the present demographic decline. Something like the priesthood is an exception, not the rule. Most who can have children of their own are not having them, or many of them, not because of some kind of exceptional higher calling, but rather for morally dubious reasons. Children are demanding. They require sacrifice. They demand the love known as charity. A consumerist is going to view a child not as a gift, but a burden. Furthermore, our society demonizes families, especially large families (perhaps in part stemming from Protestant attempts to restrict Catholic populations in the US). Having many children used to be seen as a blessing, a privilege. Today, we both think we're entitled to having children (IVF is a testament to that), and refuse to have them.

[safety1st]

I'm downvoting this because of the arrogant and dubious notion that people who've chosen not to have children are somehow morally flawed. The fact of the matter is that successfully raising, educating etc. a child is dramatically more expensive than it was a few generations ago. While we can debate the various reasons for the decline in the reproduction rate there's no doubt that this is a big one, not as many people can afford to raise kids.

The factual and pragmatic view today is that if you can't afford a large home, one parent taking a lot of time off of work, and $120K+ in education bills then you are not setting your offspring up for success, this is not based on your personal morality, it is based on economics, and on statistical observations of the population.

Ergo your lionizing of people who have have children actually amounts to a defense of the economically privileged, and you assert that the benefactors of the systemic increase of wealth inequality in our society are the most moral people. It's despicable really. Go eat your cake, pig.

[eks391]

I don't believe whether ones finances allowing someone to have children is the factor for whether they will. From my observation (i have not researched this; this is anecdotal), wealthier people opt to have fewer or no kids, and larger families are usually those of lower income, like there's an inverse relationship between wealth and desired number of children. Even I used to want a large family until I acquired a higher standard of living and certain luxuries that I would likely have to give up if I got married and had kids.

There's a popular line of thought that motherhood is below a working woman, and men and woman alike are enjoying increased ease of living and a consumerism lifestyle. The folk who still have to stretch and sacrifice to make ends meet already have the mindsets needed for children (sacrifice, hard work) and aren't affected by the line of belief that motherhood is 'below' since they already have learned not to compare themselves to others.

Again this is speculation. I am not a sociologist.

[safety1st]

There used to be some truth to that but not so much anymore. It's historically correct that the poor used to have more kids (and I think are still a bit more likely to have them than the middle class). But what started to happen about 10-15 years ago was that everyone became less likely to start a family except for rich people. To be precise if a woman is rich enough to afford childcare she's much more likely to have kids.

Here's an article on the topic: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/25/women-w... - that's about a decade old and the evidence/trend has only grown.

Children are just another one of those things that is increasingly out of reach for the American middle class, along with property ownership, health care etc. For the poster I responded to to ignore the economic data and paint the middle class and ordinary human beings as being selfish and immoral is perverse.

[Dalewyn]

>wealthier people opt to have fewer or no kids, and larger families are usually those of lower income, like there's an inverse relationship between wealth and desired number of children.

I've also noticed this trend, richer societies have less children and poorer societies have more children.

Absolutely no politician (aka the people charged with population and demographic concerns) actually points this out, though. Probably because it goes against a lot of narratives and the simple solution it implies is brutally unpalatable for pretty much everyone.

I also notice that every single would-be or could-be parent inquired says they can't afford it, while also clearly enjoying many luxuries that being poor would actively prohibit. I presume they all keep claiming the issue is money because who doesn't like free handouts from the government just by saying you'll have kids? Get 'em while the getting's good. I'm not talking about just the US, either.

Anyway, I believe the only true solution to declining birth rates is simply to become poor again as a society. It's the only logical solution when becoming richer clearly leads to less children.

[Log_out_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A

[tanepiper]

It's not just economics. I earn a good salary and own my house, but I'm on my second marriage as both my partner and I have ADHD and Autism and in our 40s.

It's not fair to try raise a child in those conditions, so we choose not to for their sake more than ours.

[vlovich123]

No humans aren’t bees or ants. We’re social animals and you can’t ignore society and culture as aspects of evolution.

Regardless, you’ve taken this whole thing in a weird direction bringing up a demographic collapse that is a fringe theory at the moment. As for that hypothesis, there’s no actual indication that humanity is in any danger of a collapse just because the boomer generation is passing and our numbers return to normal. Humans can reproduce quite quick and have a long reproductive lifecycle - if it ever becomes a problem society will change to priority life more. As it is, life has gotten pretty difficult in terms of supporting kids and people having fewer is a symptom of that and not consumerism as you claim. And children are both a blessing and a burden. If they weren’t a burden then the statistics about teenager births and the outcome for the parents and babies wouldn’t be as bad as they are.

[zpeti]

> demographic collapse that is a fringe theory at the moment

Show me the actual numbers where this isn't a massive change in humanity in the future?

This is not a fringe theory. The effects of the collapse we can theorise on, but the collapse will happen now. It's not a question or a theory.

[vlovich123]

The person making the claim gets to present the data supporting it.

It depends on what you mean by collapse. Is it that population will decline globally for a bit to a new equilibrium point? Sure I can believe that because boomers were a huge population bubble after WWII and there have been lots of living standard advancements since then (a huge one being family planning options being more and more available to the world’s population). It’s also important to remember that the population bubble was also driven by significant life extension and health advancements in medicine and nutrition without any real birth control being available so the lag until birth control became available results in another population bubble.

None of that is particularly dire. And btw, it’s not even clear to me that the population will actually start decreasing. And even if it does, believing it’s some runaway effect that can’t be fixed within 20 years once we notice it seems myopic as well.

The position you’re taking though, that population will not only decline but that there’s no bottom to it and society will collapse, is the Elon Musk doomer talking point that this somehow portends the end of countries or civilizations or humanity itself. There’s simply no evidence and no realistic mechanism of action for something that extreme. Human populations have always ebbed and flowed and the exponential growth we’ve seen since the Industrial Revolution is not the norm nor is it sustainable.

> This is not a fringe theory. The effects of the collapse we can theorise on, but the collapse will happen now. It's not a question or a theory

Again - you’ve stated something quite extreme without providing any support and then tried to shift the responsibility for providing evidence to the person doubting your wild claim. That’s not how it works, sorry. It is a hypothesis that there’s demographic collapse until it’s either happened or there’s credible evidence it will happen. Right now afaik neither is true.

[zpeti]

The reason this isn't a doomer Elon Musk theory is that the numbers are very counter intuitive. Add to this the fact that our average age is also rising, hiding the worrying signs even more.

Imagine we have a society with 100 people with a fertility rate of 1, that give birth at 20 and die at 80. Here is how that looks:

---

Year 0: 100 newborns (Population is actually 300 at this point)

Year 20: 100 twenties, 50 newborns

Year 40: 100 forties, 50 twenties, 25 newborns Year 60: 100 sixties, 50 forties, 25 twenties, 12 newborns

Year 80: 50 sixties, 25 forties, 12 twenties, 6 newborns

Year 100: 25 sixties, 12 forties, 6 twenties, 3 newborns

Year 120: 12 sixties, 6 forties, 3 twenties, 1 newborn

within 120 years you've gone from 300 people to 22 people

Korea is worse than this. Japan is close, Europe is getting close. A birth rate of 1 is not impossible worldwide soon.

[vlovich123]

In what world do you imagine a constant fertility rate over a 120 year period? In the 1950s everyone was concerned about overpopulation because it was so high. Now you’re concerned about a collapse because it’s low. It’s a silly fear because it’s a control system with a feedback loop. We’re just not used to seeing it oscillate because we’ve been in exponential growth for a long time, but exponential in nature must plateau and that’s what you’re seeing here.

Also you focus on individual countries and yet worldwide the population keeps increasing.

[zpeti]

You are making a big assumption about it being cyclical. Never in history have we had contraception, it's a huge change to human behaviour. It's not at all obvious that women actually want more than 1.5 children on average in the west.

We also have tinder etc and a bunch of other changes that are HUGE in terms of culture.

I'm not saying any of these are bad, and there's not way we are going back to no contraceptives. But to ignore the effects of these, ESPECIALLY as birth rates are trending down EVERYWHERE, is pushing your head in the sand.

You are making a lot of assumptions, and as my example shows, if your assumptions are wrong for say ~50 years, you've already made a huge dent in your populations makeup.

[overtomanu]

My theory is that, as of now population might be above a "equilibrium". Since it is above equilibrium, it causes increased economic competition to raise kids. So only few economically well off couple have kid's.

After few generations, population comes back to some level where economic competition to raise kids is reduced. Also, most of the lineages of people who chose not to have kids would have been wiped out or atleast somewhat reduced (Natural selection at play). So the people living in the future are likely to have kids on the condition that there is no economic penalty.

So humanity extinction due to demographic decline is less likely. Instead it might happen due to something like nuclear war. More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature...

[InSteady]

I mean, population decline is a thing, and most 'developed' nations, or whatever you want to call us, are experiencing it. Demographic collapse sounds like a a scary term bandied about by people with an agenda (or those who want to proclaim the sky is falling but bizarrely want to ignore climate change and ecological collapse).

I'm just guessing, because I haven't encountered the term and I'm not finding much about it on google. Certainly nothing from scientific or authoritative sources. I guess one article from FT uses the term to describe China's population decline.

[ARandomerDude]

> Furthermore, our society demonizes families, especially large families (perhaps in part stemming from Protestant attempts to restrict Catholic populations in the US)

I think it has a lot more to do with feminism than any Protestant/Catholic divide. In the Protestant church I attend, having 6+ kids is pretty normal. Certainly many evangelicals don’t value large families but I think they’re getting that mindset from the culture, rather than sacred Scipture.

[zpeti]

Some say feminism (and progressivism) is just an offshoot of protestantism, albeit a secular, puritan version.