How population decline will rob us of youth + Democrats Should Be Encouraging Women to Have All the Babies They Want

[Celerity]

The vanishing of youth

The precipitous decline of birthrates throughout the world poses a serious threat to humanity. What is to be done?

https://aeon.co/essays/population-decline-will-rob-us-of-vital-social-force-youth


A boy with his grandparents in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of northwest China, 7 March 2023. Photo by Ding Lei/Xinhua via Getty Images



Apopulation crisis is unfolding – in my family. My paternal grandparents were born in India and had 10 children. I did my part to keep our lineage going (my wife was also involved) yet over the course of three generations, my family’s ‘fertility rate’ plummeted from 10 to less than 1. During this same period, India’s population exploded from 350 million to 1.4 billion, in 2023 surpassing China as the most populous country in the world. But my family’s story mirrors India’s demographic transition. In the mid-20th century, when my parents were born, India’s fertility rate was 6. It’s now 2.

India is a striking case, but fertility rates are declining everywhere. Between 1950 and 2021, the global fertility rate fell from 4.8 to 2.2. American women have an average of 1.6 children. Japan’s fertility rate is 1.2, South Korea’s a startling 0.75. The global population is still growing, for now. But demographers project that humanity’s numbers will peak near the end of this century before beginning a steep decline. I won’t be around by then, but my children will live to see the peak and peer over the precipice.

Is this a crisis? Some say it’s a blessing. Fewer people means fewer carbon emissions. Not only that, our collective pie could be divided into larger pieces. In theory, we’ll enjoy less competition for resources, more affordable housing, and higher wages due to labour scarcity. From this perspective, population decline isn’t a problem but a solution. Alas, these hopes are misplaced. The path forward on climate change is clear: rapid decarbonisation. We must transition as fast as possible from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. If we fail, the future will be disastrous, and population size becomes irrelevant. If we succeed, additional humans won’t impact carbon emissions.



Moreover, the timelines don’t match. Climate change demands solutions within the next few decades; population decline won’t materialise until the next century. Having fewer humans arriving then won’t retroactively cool the planet. Imagine, however, that population decline accelerates. That would worsen rather than salvage our climate prospects. Young people are more likely to support bold environmental policies, become climate activists, and invent green technologies. A shrinking, ageing population means fewer contributors to these efforts.

snip


related:







https://newrepublic.com/article/194471/democrats-pronatalism-brith-rate-more-babies

https://archive.ph/3AHzn


A child holds a sign at the International Women’s Day march in New York City, on March 8

Last week, an article in The New York Times caused a stir on the political left: “White House Assesses Ways to Persuade Women to Have More Children.” The report revealed that “pronatalists” in and around the Trump administration, hoping to encourage higher marriage and birth rates, were weighing policies such as a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new mothers, Fulbright scholarships specifically for people who are married or have children, and educating women on menstrual cycles in order to maximize the chances of conceiving a child. The reactions online ranged from earnest rebuttals to dismissive snark.

There were the predictable references to The Handmaid’s Tale. Some took issue with the perceived coercion (“Why is letting women decide so hard for you guys?” asked Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin) or sexism (“This is the kind of policy you write if you see women as little more than baby-factories,” wrote Illinois Representative Sean Casten). And plenty of others called out Republican hypocrisy on family support and countered with better pro-family policies. “This isn’t complicated,” tweeted Democratic House whip Representative Katherine Clark. “1) Affordable child care. 2) Paid family leave. 3) Stop trying to slash health care for women and kids.” In other words, these right-wingers are acting like the Tim Robinson character in a hot dog costume who crashed his hot dog car into a building: We’re all trying to find the guy who did this!

While it may be satisfying to dunk on conservatives, the left needs a better answer to the right’s pronatalism. Low birth rates pose a threat to nearly every liberal goal—from visions of social equality to policies, including universal childcare and early education, paid family and caregiver leave, and universal health care, that were cited in the wake of the Times article. This is not a uniquely American problem. According to the United Nations, two-thirds of the world’s population lives in countries now on depopulation curves—and this includes countries like Finland and Sweden with the generous welfare policies that Democrats envy. So waving away conservatives as hypocritical sexists simply won’t cut it anymore.

This is a fraught topic, so let me begin with a few caveats. First, much of the decline in birth rates over the past half-century is attributable to positive factors, perhaps none more important than increases in the agency and education of girls and women. Second, much of the “pronatalist” movement is infected by fringe voices who spout ideas riddled with racist, sexist, and fascist overtones. Third, no one—particularly no woman—should ever be shamed for choosing not to have children.

snip

[gab13by13]

1. It's none of my business.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. MAGAts will be parents?

Do women want to have babies with them?

[Diamond_Dog]

3. Support pro-family policy

But leave people alone to make their own decisions.

[Scrivener7]

4. This is absurd. There is 3x the population today as there was in 1960.

Lower population is lower pollution, lower resource exploitation, fewer people competing for those resources, better outcomes for humans in the long run.

I've made my own provisions for my old age. I am not about to tell another woman to have a baby so there will be people to take care of me when I get old.

[Hope22]

5. Simple way to fix low birth rates...

Paid family leave
Universal healthcare
DEI
Quality daycare
Quality public education
Women’s access to contraception and abortion
Tax credit for extended family childcare
Access to healthy, organic food
Subsidized food and housing for low income families

People aren’t going to crap out babies so you can kill them in the factories and on the battle field. Children are expensive and it’s time society started taking that seriously!

[tonkatoy8888]

6. Interesting

and food for thought.

But in our specific case there are, as always, some caveats.

Persistently high home prices have locked young families out home ownership.

Outrageous costs for day care/nursery car make young couples balk at starting a family.

Lack or paid parental leave impacts as well.

Wage stagnation for the last 45 years gives young marrieds less money to spend on the above items.

In short, the lack of a social safety net and higher wages, which all our economic peers enjoy to one degree or another, makes it pretty certain we're not having a baby boom anytime soon. These are structural problems, but in the near term, I'd think people are stocking up on contraceptives rather than picking out colors for the nursery.

[Ritabert]

7. Maybe our government can make some family-friendly policies

Maternal leave, affordable housing and childcare, health insurance, etc. People can't afford more children.