After the lump passes through South Koreans will look around and see a lack of traffic congestion, abundance of housing, lack of competitors for their now abundant resources, and lack of disproportionately large population of unproductive elderly dependents.
Wanna guess what happens in that welcoming environment? My guess is people feel inclined to make some babies.
I don't understand why people tend to treat these low fertility rates as some kind of invariable biological dysfunction. These aren't infertile masses of people; they're perfectly capable of multiplying like rabbits.
The planet has shitloads of people, maybe we're finally reeling things in from an overshoot and are on the inevitably pendulum-like path towards population stability. There's no reason to panic unless you've got substantial evidence these people are physically incapable of having children.
Edit:
How about some DATA: go to https://population.io, select Rep. of Korea, plug in some age/gender b.s. and scroll down to "Age Distribution" at the left column. Now look to the left of ~20yo (younger than 20), it's a nearly horizontal line. What does that tell you? There's a uniform rate of Korean babies per year under 20 years old. To the right of this, there's a massive lump of elderly people with a slightly smaller lump of middle-aged people. There's no reason to believe this horizontal line left of 20yo won't just continue into the future; it looks quite stable for the last ~20 years.
I would assume the exact opposite given that this will probably probably crank up pressure on working-aged people as more and more old people need to be supported by fewer and fewer young. I would also assume a significant exodus of the young to places with actual opportunities rather than a country sized retirement home where no one wants to invest in the future because anything built to fit the needs of the population at any given moment will be massively overbuilt in the near future.
1. young people leave for better states
2. young people outvote old people (not likely)
3. young people refuse to pay and force the government to raise the social security age to 83.
i hope it's 3. in 1935 the average life expectancy was 60 to a social security age of 65, so 1.08 times the life expectancy. the life expectancy now is 77, so keep the same 1.08 times and we have a minimum age of about 83.
it really baffles me how the same generation that talks about how "millennials and gen z wont work hard" literally wants to force us to pay for their retirement. they had 65 years to save up money, they can pay for it themselves.
How they would be able to "refuse to pay" if payment will come as form of taxes for goods and services? And moreover they won't be able to "force" government to anything since government will be representing and working for the majority of people who voted for them: older generations
> lack of disproportionately large population of unproductive elderly dependents.
Many provinces are barely scraping by, young workers are not only effectively directly supporting pensioners, they are now delaying young workers retirement age, and you better not believe the old folks will willing to eat into their own money.
It will take 90 years for this lump to pass, and another 20 years for the newborns to grow up... you're talking about a recovery that will take a century...
A century of decline seems like a pretty good reason to panic to me...
More like ~53 years for all the current lumps to pass given a life expectancy of ~86.
Yeah, something is definitely wrong with the site because actual population pyramid data looks much more alarming:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2019%EB%85%84_%ED%95...
Or https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Pyr... as mentioned by a sibling comment.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/South_Ko...
Also it matches up with the article, which says 261k babies were born last year. wikimedia show about that, with ~130k male and ~130k female. population.io says 454k which is way off.
Which looks pretty divergent for the last 5 years specifically, judging from
https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Pyr...
Choose your country, chooose Probabilistic Projections, Fertility, then Births.[1]
1. https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/FERT/Birt...
That the data must be wrong, there should be some small variation and it doesn't pass the sanity check of declining birth rates.
> After the lump passes through South Koreans will look around and see a lack of traffic congestion, abundance of housing, lack of competitors for their now abundant resources, and lack of disproportionately large population of unproductive elderly dependents.
I like your optimism, but do we see anything like that in the real word after depopulation? There are many shrinking cities or areas, eg Detroit in the US or East Germany (people moving to the west), and the results are hugely negative and a downward spiral. Instead of people enjoying lack of traffic congestion, shrinking cities can't afford their oversized infrastructure anymore, which begins to deteriorate from lack of upkeep.
Grossly, south korean couples each makes 1 child. So its population is going 1/2. To correct that and return to previous level, every couple formed among those children would have to bear 4 children.
I think they won't and it looks grim.
Calculating the carrying capacity of the world before agriculture would have given you a much different number than after it.
By that logic we shouldn't be applying arguments like "It is quite normal in ecology to see crashes and recovery in the event of overpopulation".
It is not blind faith to say that we should expect that the different dynamics could be different when the rules of the game are different.
Again, if the foxes see the rabbit population declining and can start producing rabbit substitute before they start starving, of course we would expect a different dynamic to be possible.
“Carrying capacity” is a technical term that implies, among other things, that no further population growth can occur.
It doesn’t just mean “too many” or “more than we’d prefer”.
Well look at the bright side of your unrealistic South Korea extinction scenario; no more DMZ and North Koreans will spread southward!
Of course this will never happen, there is no likely scenario for South Korea to have zero inhabitants. Y'all are High-larious.
... millions of Pakistanis, Egyptians and Nigerians moving there to escape their overheated, overcrowded countries.
Housing prices are 9x salary vs 4.5x salary in the 70s and it takes a while to save up. Personal data point: it took me winning an IPO lottery to start thinking about having kids for real. Having kids while earning minimal wage? Terrifying, especially in the US where getting yourself or your kid sick could bankrupt you in the blink of an eye - and if you want multiple kids you increase the risk.
So we think we have to have it all before we start trying having kids and have no sense of community whatsoever. Societal focus on hedonism and career leaves little to no time to raise kids. And at the end of the day you end up having no support from the society that slowly but surely ages.
This nuance is important; it emphasizes the real issue is not economics, but culture! We've created a society that values the pursuit of wealth and comfort more than family, and it's likely this system is not sustainable. Not everybody can be wealthy, because wealth is relative and mediated by what exists. If 30% of people want something and there's only enough for 3%, then it doesn't matter what the relative wealth is among these people: 90% of people won't be able to "afford" it, and that will never change. A post-scarcity society will never exist alongside consumerism; we'll simply take what we can have for granted and lust over the new scarcities.
Unfortunately many people who are not properly equipped to raise children (financially, temperamentally or otherwise) have lots of children and don't make it work. The result is a permanent underclass and a serious crime problem in many of our major cities.
One thing I think gets really overlooked is that college and job searches tear apart extended families, which in more traditional societies are a huge part of the child care strategy.
Monthly mortgage payments are the same though. (Lower interest rates, etc.)
Also building costs gone up. (The plague of single family homes, stricter building codes, higher quality requirements from buyers, while buildings are still produced using the old labor intensive methods.) And due to fucked up zoning building low-cost housing is just not happening :/
So folks are basically forced to buy expensive houses.
I'm not saying people shouldn't take the risk, but it does seem that more people are either not willing to, or the risk profile changed since 70s, or both.
The data for the past few decades (near universal fall in birthrates and increasing mother's age at birth) clearly indicates otherwise.
They didn't wait to have babies.
The world was simply much simpler.
The number of practically available paths forward were less. So why wait? Nowadays people are in an analysis paralysis, so they just wait. (Or try to find better mates, better jobs, better social groups/communities, move around more.)
And due to less homogeneity it's seems harder to find someone. (And probably is harder.)
Also the acceptable mortality was higher. Wars were more common, losing people due to illness was also more common, etc.
And nowadays we have endless alternatives to getting married. Single life is very enjoyable. (see Netflix et al :))
Not really sure what I'm going to be learning from them about raising children in the 21st century.
1. Inverse relationship between household income and fertility rate?
2. Enhanced child tax credit (US), child benefit (UK), Medicaid (kid gets sick?)
3. Insanely progressive taxes on income?
If anything the Korean system is even more intense; at least with American SATs or ACTs it's only three hours, you can retake them as many times as you want, multiple times a year, and getting into a mid-tier university for undergrad is still okay. South Korea has a university test that is eight hours long, only held once a year (so you wait a whole year to retake results) and the chaebols (the South Korean conglomerates that control the economy, like Samsung or LG) only really hire from top tier universities. South Korea has a university graduate unemployment rate of 25%, compared to the US at 4%.
Does the change necessarily have to be societal?
> In 1992, a study found a global 50% decline in sperm counts in men over the previous 60 years. Multiple studies over subsequent years confirmed that initial finding, including a 2017 paper showing a 50% to 60% decline in sperm concentration between 1973 and 2011 in men from around the world. These studies, though important, focused on sperm concentration or total sperm count. So in 2019, a team of researchers decided to focus on the more powerful total motile sperm count. They found that the proportion of men with a normal total motile sperm count had declined by approximately 10% over the previous 16 years. The science is consistent: Men today produce fewer sperm than in the past, and the sperm are less healthy. The question, then, is what could be causing this decline in fertility[0].
[0]: https://theconversation.com/male-fertility-is-declining-stud...
Anyway, sperm counts are not outside the normal range. It was just that certain groups had higher than needed levels.
What doesn't make sense to me is the people that are concerned about society "changing", the native population not having enough kids, we are being "overrun" with immigrants etc. Are the same people that refuse to vote for politicians advocating higher minimum wages, more benefits and fairer taxes.
It can't work both ways, either you want to crush the average person with low wages and taxes, or you want the native population to thrive.
No one is going to subject themselves to poverty to help balance the demographics for the privileged.
This has everything to do with monogamous relationships and marriages in most of the developed human world.
In the natural world, there are many factors at play that help ensure only the "healthiest" males conceive with females. Most factors are indirect, such as males physically fighting each other for a mate wherein the "fittest" male would more likely come out superior and successfully mate.
One direct factor that has been practically eradicated from humanity, however, is direct competition between sperm. Some animals and many plants are polygamous, wherein a female receives sperm (or other forms of genetic material as applicable) from multiple males. The sperm have to compete with each other to reach the egg first and conceive, this encourages males with the "healthiest" sperm to pass their genetic material onto the next generation.
Monogamous relationships and marriages as seen in humans remove this factor completely, the "fitness" of a given male human's sperm is irrelevant to conception because competition between sperm has ceased to exist. Both unfit and fit sperm alike can conceive, assuming other indirect factors at play allow for it. Indirect factors that care not for the "fitness" of sperm.
But in an environment where that doesn't matter anymore, it's only natural that sperm "health" will consequently deterioriate. Natural selection doesn't select for "the best", it only selects for "good enough". And if "unhealthy" sperm that can't move sufficently is "good enough", well so be it. Especially if we take factors like in-vitro and artificial insemination into account, those really remove the "health" of sperm from the equation of pregnancy.
I agree that in-vitro and artificial insemination could remove an important feedback mechanism for sperm evolution, and that would be a cause for worry.
Which by itself is fine, really. Sperm that fails to reach an egg means the genes that made that sperm do not "deserve" to reproduce. However, if people want to make a fuss over low birth rates, and this is one factor behind it, it's going to get attention.
Women gained financial freedom and the ability to choose when they get pregnant. Societies will now find out the market price for birthing children (as well as women finding out the price for not birthing children).
Women basically saying in order for me to risk what I have to risk to have a child(ren), I need <x> security first. Which can manifest as working to save and achieve higher income levels instead of having kids.
But I suppose there could be a huge environmental or whatever biological factor causing reduced pregnancies. Marriage rates might help tease this out.
Edit: from 2019
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/til-death-do-i-s...
> A decade ago, almost 47 per cent of single and never-married Korean women said they thought marriage was necessary.
>Last year, that fell to 22.4 per cent, while the number of couples getting hitched slumped to 257,600 - down from 434,900 in 1996.
One can also frame it as society’s fault for not providing both women and men with sufficient incentive to procreate. Note that the word “fault” typically has a negative connotation, but I am not intending to use it with positive or negative connotation, but simply as a causative factor.
The comment I replied to stated something changed, to which I wanted to clarify what I think the biggest variable that changed. Of course, men also may not want to have as many kids as in previous years, but I would still bet this is a much smaller factor than women saying no.
You could shelve that as "society not providing enough incentives", but to me it looks like a more complex issue than what's covered by carrot/stick mechanisms.
Not all issues leading to forgoing procreating are that complex, but putting any of them as "women chose to xxxx" is I think only useful at a micro level, and kinda misses the reasons why they chose to do so, which are usually not in any individual's hand.
Now that women have freedom, society is imploding in a way, at least in terms of population.
So to get back to replacement levels of fertility, we either need to 1) turn women into slaves again, or 2) look at some other way of running the society. #1 doesn't sound very good if you value human rights.
It’s not an issue of financial struggle since the trend is most pronounced in wealthy countries, especially in those with small wealth divisions.
Would you see a reward system counteract a psychological perception of their current situation ?
Is declining fertility really such a societal and evolutionary danger when we’re talking 1.4-1.5? If you think of us all as one race, the human race, the fact that a few corners of the world are declining in fertility is arguably an environmental victory that could soften some crises’s in the future. We are like 99.9% genetically similar, why risk gutting the carrying capacity of the planet to preserve the 0.001% of genes that give us sparkling blue eyes?
The whole contention that it’s terrible that high birthrate countries are so much more feminist than low birthrate ones, well I mean just because the genetics of feminist counties might wane, that doesn’t mean their cultures will. Memetics is just as powerful as genetics, do rich countries really have to be the world’s stud? Can’t we see the poorer countries investing in people and the wealthier countries investing in things as teamwork?
It is not a few corners of the world. It is currently "developed countries", but we have no reason to believe that the non-"developed countries" will do any better.
> is arguably an environmental victory that could soften some crises’s in the future. We are like 99.9% genetically similar, why risk gutting the carrying capacity of the planet to preserve the 0.001% of genes that give us sparkling blue eyes?
Putting to a side for now the blase attitude to several societies slowly disappearing due to lack of births:
1. Much of society is built around the implicit assumption of there being more people in the future.
2. The carrying capacity of the world is only of interest to us as long as we are around for it. All of humanity suddenly disappearing tomorrow would also do wonders for the world's carrying capacity.
Regarding argument 1, I will say there is no problem with the supply of people, global population is growing. It doesn’t need to grow everywhere simultaniously, insisting that it must will inevitably lead to a bias towards population growth. The population HAS to shrink somewhere for things to stay stable, since it will invariably grow in a few places, and at this point the growing countries outweigh the shrinking ones sharply.
With 2, I’ll expand on this argument. Unrestrained pollution will lead to a future where the earth warms which can rapidly leading to famine and population decline after an era of sharp population growth. You are worried about a decline in children in a set of countries, but that problem is a lot less of a problem when it’s happening in a few countries, than when it’s happening in every country at the same time. Then things go worse for every individual country involved, as immigration is not an option.
Perhaps my use of "society" overemphasized the culture aspect that you pick up on. "perserving culture" is of a secondary importance to me, what's more important is the people themselves. As you say, the memes will be able to fend for themselves and survive even if the people in the society do not. People are not merely the transmission vectors of DNA and memes.
> there is no problem with the supply of people, global population is growing. > and at this point the growing countries outweigh the shrinking ones sharply.
Global population may be growing (for now) but the rate at which its growing is decreasing [0].
Further, (and I wish I had a source at hand) the problem with relying on immigration to sustain population levels in a country is that many countries do too good of a job at assimilation. The fertility rate of immigrants rapidly converges to the local level over the course of 2-3 generations.
> You are worried about a decline in children in a set of countries. I’m worried a decline in children, immigrants, population, in every country in the world simultaneously.
I don't think that's true. You and I are worried about the same thing. I look at Japan and Korean as habringer of what's to come for the rest of the countries in the world (and thus the world as a whole), i.e. an aging population without enough children to maintain any semblence of the current way of life working, much less to replenish the population.
[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/06/2019-Revision-–-W...
I would love to save western cultures and the genetics are part of the culture. They just are. The regional adaptions people's bodies have to their climate and geography and local food sources really does influence their interests and their cultures to a degree. Peoples bodies are different and that makes them do different things, that's one example I can think of genetics influencing culture. If all the whites die off for instance there will probably be less people doing extreme snowboarding while chugging milk.
Yet the concerns I've raised I believe we should at the very least be wary of.
So no, I don't think it is a victory unless human rights and progress don't mean anything. I'm from one of these places where birth rates are high but the quality of life is awful and government corruption is astronomical. Most people there will probably shun you if not actually harm you for doing something that nobody cares about in the US or some western countries. Recently I saw a post about how the Norwegian health ministry released some images of people doing various sexual poses as part of some sex-ed. I thought it was quite neat, and it features multiple sexualities. I will bet my life savings you try doing that where I'm from that it won't go so well and the number of fundamentalist minded people is rising.
One of the key points he made that seemed fairly intuitive is that as your population declines you eventually wind up with significantly fewer long term experts in various fields of science and engineering. This means that the people who train up the next generation of scientists and engineers are spread thinner, and therefore less depth of expertise in those fields as the decline continues.
I'm not sure how much that idea is backed up by evidence, but it at least makes some sense.
Population decline had never really registered as a problem to me until I heard that episode - I always kinda figured that less people around would be a net good. Definitely worth a listen if you're interested in the topic.
> I think it's less about preserving sparkling blue eyes and more about the negative effects of a declining population on a country's economy.
Good thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration is a thing
> One of the key points he made that seemed fairly intuitive is that as your population declines you eventually wind up with significantly fewer long term experts in various fields of science and engineering.
Good thing we have books, the Internet, billions of video recordings, et al.
As for immigration, no arguments there. But that point leads back to the question of why a society hits population decline in the first place. Presumably the same things that cause your "native" population to stop reproducing eventually affects your immigrants after a generation or so, so while it can definitely slow the population decline, it's not a full solution.
To your point about the loss of deep expertise - I think the problem is still worth thinking about. Yes, we can make new experts. And those experts might even be more productive than the last generation of experts. But at the end of the day, it takes longer to make them, and you still have less.
I'm not sure how much I agree with Zeihan, but he makes some interesting points which I hadn't previously considered.
I think it could be a full solution. In theory there could be 2 populations, a slow population and a fast population, and the fast population continually donates people to the slow population via immigration to sustain it. The worry would be if some idea from the slow population infects the fast population and causes it to slow down.
If there is a risk, your risk isn't that you have too few experts to offer training, it's that the young learners are spread too thin. There aren't enough people looking to learn for all the people who have knowledge to pass down and so you lose knowledge in that transition.
--------
With that said, I find the general premise that we would be looking at some kind of dark age with the level of population decline any of us are likely to see in our lifetimes, nearly comical.
The global population now is around 8 billion. It was around 3 billion in 1960 (4 billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1987, 6 billion in 1999). It doesn't seem to me that the pace of change or technological advancement was particularly slow in any of those time periods, and the substantial productivity gains since then would alone suggest that we'd be more efficient for those population levels than things were at that time.
Yes. If modern (western dominated) society is not self-sustaining, this should be a big hint, that there is something deeply wrong with our culture.
> If you think of us all as one race, the human race
But that doesn't mean populations are interchangeable?
"since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too. You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century."
David Reich in the NYTimes (archive https://archive.ph/Zfhc3)
I think there's a typo there.
Every corner of the world is declining in fertility, from South Korea to Niger.
Industrialisation.
The UK began industrialising in the mid-to-late 1700s. Western Europe and North America got going in the early 1800s. Central Europe and Japan followed along, while Russia didn't really industrialise until the Soviet Union. China and Korea, by contrast, just started in the 1950s-70s, easily within a human life time. Their societies made the leap from subsistence farming to CPU design _so_ much faster than most of the developed world, it's unreal.
I'd wager we need a bit more geographically/culturally varied sources to have a fair guess at the truth.
Some other put the "start" of industrialization way before, at the end of the Renaissance.
As I understand it, there was a progressive flow of industrialization that was clearly visible in Belgium/Netherland, and also started brewing in the other surrounding countries, but the "Industrial Revolution" term was coined by a British author for a specific point happening first in England, then in Belgium/France/the US etc. afterwards.
It kinda comes down to where you set the stake of what is meant by "industriailzed", a bit like where you set the beginning of the "space conquest" and thus decide who was first to reach the critical milestone.
By your earlier logic, he shouldn't be trusted with this claim any more than Wikipedia or Britannica should be trusted with the claim of British origins.
Seems like we'd need a non-British, non-Belgian source to make any definitive claim, right? /s
“industrialization” is another thing, and was a more progressive thing that was already prominent earlier than that. That book I cited is widely studied and reviewed…but you’ll have guessed, you’d need to step a bit away from caring about only the (First) Industrial Revolution. And it also mattered mostly to french/duch speaking regions, so again fewer english results is the norm.
Think of it like the ‘Space Race’, it’s a term that is bound to a specific stream of events that was started by the US. Another country starting to “race” to reach “space” won’t be about that specific stream of event.
On the one hand, yes of course: sources matter and you need to consider whether anyone has a motive to mislead, or even merely a motive to not dig too deeply into a claim they might wish to believe.
But on the other hand, a company merely merely being founded decades ago by a someone of a particular nationality does not on its own constitute strong evidence that any claims about that country are tainted or self-motivated. That connection is just too weak — you need to bring other evidence!
Different or opposing opinions are neither dangerous or violent.
Unpopular opinion, I guess.
Timeline seems to be on your side though.
Or maybe the tragedy of the commons was having 6 children per family within living memory? Maybe now by dropping our population we are doing much better for the world society as a whole. It all depends on your perspective I guess. I fail to see the problem with a drop in world population.
> At this rate, there will only be 3m South Koreans in 3 generations. I don't see how you expect a country to survive that decline. In 1960, Pakistan had 45m people compared to South Korea's 25m. Now, Pakistan is forecasted to reach 450m in our lifetime as South Korea implodes. That looks like our future.
Maybe South Korea won't survive in its current form. The world will keep revolving the sun nonetheless.
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.
For most couples, the first 9 months for a child isn’t the problem, it is the costs of the following 2 decades.
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...
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.
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).
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.
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.
Hmmm... Well, we know different women.
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.
Versus other developed countries? South Korea has its pros and cons just like any other.
I don't agree with that statement, but let's follow the logic.
Most countries are not developed. Therefore, by your own definition, South Korea is one of the best places to live on Earth.
Social factors are not considered enough. As societies get more materialistic, and socio-economically advanced, there seems to be more individualistic, privacy[in the wrong way, escalating to extreme isolationism], lack of social interaction and bonding etc.
I myself felt odd during the time I stayed in the US, the whole concept of individualism and privacy was taken too far, and everybody felt lonely in their own way. People moved around in fixed schedules and paths, almost like an open air prison. Given limited social interaction outside work[where you can't even sneeze without offending some one]. This really felt like passion and purpose in life was slowly fading away. I can imagine how a society with this sort of a lifestyle could fare on the longer run. People would want lesser and lesser people around them, and interact with them even lesser as time would proceed.
Countries like India and Pakistan definitely have third world infrastructure, but the social infrastructure is very strong and likely to remain, this is due to socio-religious reasons. For this reason, people get married and have 2+ kids.
There's a scary implication. If having to support more elderly causes one to produce less offspring, we have a positive feedback loop resulting in population collapse.
I think a lot of people in developed countries voluntarily or involuntarily adopt a psychological willingness to not have kids and let their culture collapse because the emotional distress of a life in a post-growth world. A world where your freedoms, privacy, and economic opportunities are shrinking, to extract temporary value and stability for the upper class, out of you and your labour/compliance. The only worldly way out of it is to basically step on the others while going up to implement these changes, which feels horrible to a naturally empathic creature like man. It's a cursed state of being.
That phrase the meek shall inherit the earth, I wonder about lately. The meek, the non power searching types who don’t busy themselves with all the variety of non regenerative endeavors that consume all those who chart courses out into deep space and all its loneliness perhaps avoid these population traps and mentalities that lead to the end of a people. The salt of the earth, those who preserve humanity effectively. What a startling pack of implications seem to be packed into that statement so pregnant with meaning.
Also, if someone actively desires and seeks out the end of humanity maybe they have a reason for that and are fully aware of what they are doing rather than being ignorant about the wonders of poorly planned procreation.
I’ve often pondered seeing in my own children the echoes and higher order harmonics of combinations of traits and proclivities of their living ancestors which show up in their unique combinations of their being. I daydream about perhaps catching glimpses of non-living ancestors whom I never met and what things we inherit from them. That thought translates to other family lines and I wonder about that vast set of traits and peculiarities I will never experience once they’ve departed this life.
Societies with more investment per child have less children. You are getting everything backwards.
While developed nations are below replacement rate, many developing nations are having over half a dozen children per family. The aging population of developed countries is not conducive to production and a healthy economy. This will lead to immigration. If this trend continues, people from the developing nations will eventually inherit the developed world. Until they too fall below replacement rate.
The global average is now 2.5 children per women.
The age of huge population growth is effectively over.
One of the reasons we moved to a country like the US is to be away from a backwards minded, theocratic af, corrupt society. To see that these types of countries are actually booming while highly progressed ones are depressing is super depressing.
Bribes implies quid pro quo. Someone who can "fix" some implies an exclusive network of favors traded with no record.
I had never met, spoken with, or donated to my congressman before this took place.
The only process should be the official process as laid out by the Department of State.
Obviously, the greatest thing that changed over those last 60 years is they're no longer recovering from a war that killed a pretty hefty amount of their population. While I'm sure it didn't need to decline quite so much, fertility rate was never going to stay what it was in the late 50s. You can see a pretty obvious recovery spike here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea#/m.... It was only in the past 20 years that they declined below 1920s level.
.png){kind=link}
It's also worth remembering that being oppressive to women is (definitely at least probably) not a genetically tranmissible trait. If the 22nd Century really does end up being dominated by Pakistanis, you can't just automatically assume they'll stay culturally identical to what they are today. Presumably, the Korea of the 19 century was a lot more oppressive to women than the Korea of today.
The resources of korea and their technology will not go away, they will now be at the hands of fewer people, so more wealth / person. Historically it was small states that dominated the world, the populous ones were ravaged by poverty and famine.
People are calculating (correctly) that our future technology does not need a lot of hands, and that is true. Look at the tech sector , which employs a tiny percentage of the population but has enormous output.
As for the egoist act of genetic heritage/perpetuation, well let's be honest, in 10 years people will be modifying their genes and removing our clunky and faulty dna so there goes our glory.
As for wars/security, those are already fought with drones
> I fear if nothing else changes, developed countries are dysgenically wiping themselves off
The trend will not continue forever
To me , this all highlights that we need to ramp up anti-aging technology fast and hard. It s much higher priority than sending humans to mars
There a tenancy to forget that 60 years ago one working person would have to support a wife and several children.
There are plenty of free activities.
What you call "chasing the joneses" is perfectly expected human behavior. People compare themselves to their current metaphorical neighborhood in time and space (not to their grandparents or to hunter-gatherers) and they make their life decisions based on that: college, career, having children. It's just nonsense to dismiss it as "hey, that's jealousy" at a population level.
For the population to actually grow, some people will need to make three kids. I just don't see that happening at scale at all. Most won't even make two kids, forget about three.
If Pakistan, and other countries like India and China, continues to modernize, eventually the population should stable out and historically that comes with better rights for all.
I'm not convinced you don't have those two reversed. Intuitively, to me, population stability comes after better rights for all.
As the standard of living rises, birth rates are dropping precipitously even in those countries that are relatively more oppressive.
Absent socioeconomic reasons, there are still females that naturally desire having plenty of children, despite there not being any societal pressure in favor (or even against) that. They will be genetically selected for.
Healthcare costs are ongoing, and obscene. Routine newborn vaccines are around $900 per visit even with partial insurance coverage. Not to mention any unforeseen hospital visits that will force you to hit your deductible in the first two quarters of the year ($10k per child in our case).
In most tier 2/3 cities in the US you can expect daycare to cost $1,000-$1,800 per child per month.
In any tier 1 city, especially west coast cities like Seattle and SF, expect to pay at least $2,000/child per month.
On top of that, you’ll have a mortgage. With median housing prices around $1.2-$1.6m and rates in the mid 5% you’re looking at anywhere from $6,500-$8,000/month for a mortgage depending on taxes.
So right out of the gate, you’re at $10k of post tax income just going to daycare costs and a mortgage. You likely have other costs that equal at least $1,000/month. And that’s for 1 kid. Add another kid and you’re easily approaching $15k per month.
If you do the math, you’ll need to make at least $250k if you have one kid considering at least 40% is going straight to taxes (aka military funds since we get nothing in this country for the insane amount of taxes we pay).
Per ACA, all routine newborn care (including vaccines and routine blood draw) is 100% paid by insurance company. The specifics are all listed in the links below.
https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-children/
https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/preventive-care-benefits...
>Not to mention any unforeseen hospital visits that will force you to hit your deductible in the first two quarters of the year ($10k per child in our case).
This is not true for the US. The maximum out of pocket legal limit for 2022 is $17.4k for a family. If you have a half decent employer, deductibles are far lower (in the $3k to $5k range), and so are out of pocket maximums (in the $5k to $10k range at most).
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...
https://www.healthcare.gov/high-deductible-health-plan/
I would budget at least 2 years of out of pocket maximums to have on hand. In our case, we hit out of pocket maximums of ~$5k and ~$7k during the year of birth, otherwise it costs $150 to $250 for a regular pink eye/ear infection consult and $400 to $500 for a specialist consult. This is in a very high cost of living area.
The link you shared says this.
“All Marketplace health plans and many other plans must cover the following list of preventive services for children without charging you a copayment or coinsurance. This is true even if you haven’t met your yearly deductible.”
Maximum out of pocket only kicks in once you’ve hit the deductible on 2+ family members, at least for our plan. So for us, the max is $20k.
>Maximum out of pocket only kicks in once you’ve hit the deductible on 2+ family members, at least for our plan. So for us, the max is $20k.
Out of pocket maximum has nothing to do with deductible. Copays/coinsurance “kick in” after deductibles are reached.
If you had purchased ACA complaint health insurance, then OOP max is simply OOP max, a single number that once you reach, you do not pay further for in network services (and now for out of network emergency services also).
Edit: note that a “Marketplace” (or ACA complaint) plan explicitly transfers wealth from young and/or healthy to old and/or unhealthy, where healthy and unhealthy mean “does not need healthcare” and “needs healthcare”. So by choosing to go with a non Marketplace plan, they are placing their bets on not needing healthcare…which is probably not a winning bet for people birthing and raising young children.
The unfortunate reality is that paying $2000/month to an employer managed health plan is cheaper than going through the federal government ($5,000/month for a family of 4 the last I checked). If marketplace plans had lower premiums and lower deductibles that would be the ideal option.
Here is NJ’s prices, which is a relatively high cost state:
https://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_insurance/ihcseh/ihcra...
For a silver level Horizon BCBS plan (Omnia Silver HSA, pretty broad coverage, never seen a provider not in network), you would be looking at $300 to $700 per person, calculated using the age rating factors at the bottom. And I know from experience the max OOP was $10k or a little less.
Even if you were older parents, the total would come in under $3k per month for a plan that covered 70% of expected healthcare expense, which is what qualifies it to be labeled silver.
I know priced in California were not too much more than NJ. There is a Kaiser pdf showing a detailed breakdown of premiums nationwide, but pretty much everywhere scales from $300 to $1k per month from age 20 to 65 for a silver level plan.
And this is all for buying via healthcare.gov. I would bet all big employers provide far more subsidized ACA compliant health insurance, so if you are employed, I would budget for employers to pay 70% of the premium, so individuals would pay 30% of $2k for family coverage = $700 per month and be subject to $5k per year deductible, and $10k oop max per year.
Basically, you can expect to insure your whole family for unlimited (in network and out of network emergency) healthcare expense for $20k per year if you work for a big company, and $40k per year if you are paying yourself, maybe $45k if you’re over 50 years old.
Also you should specify whether you mean West or East (presumably West) Pakistan’s population numbers. The western half had 51m people in 1960.
Of course. Malthusianism, eugenics.
I think the point was the opposite: countries with limited respect and opportunities for women have higher birth rates because women have less control over whether they have children and if good careers aren’t an option anyway there’s less opportunity cost to staying home with a child.
Just implement a repartition retirement system and small incentive per child which diminish after the third, boom, 2.1 fertility rate for most of the 21rst century.
At least for now, the destruction of our retirement system and our current trend towards capitalization is already killing our fertility rate, and the idiots pushing this will once again realize this too late, because this is what they do.
The adversarial framing here is a poor way to express the same point. Raising children is hard and has significant risks for the mother. If that cost is primarily paid by the mother many women will choose to have fewer children, space them further apart, etc. unless they aren't given as much control of their own lives. That's the oppressiveness we're talking about and it's not a simple “do women have basic rights?” boolean parameter — for example, Japanese women have many rights but there's a strong social expectation that women have to pick an entire package where getting married means they're expected to stop working as soon as they have a child and will stay home taking care of the child and their husband's parents, which extends to things like whether an employer will give them a job.
France is a good illustration of that point (along with Scandinavia) — there are less rigid expectations around family structures (children don't force you to stay in a bad relationship), women aren't considered bad mothers if they keep working, and especially having state-funded childcare and financial support. I've never lived in the EU but have friends from a number of countries and the contrast is pretty stark — the Germans talked about how much better the U.S. is at not shaming mothers for not giving up their professional careers, the French/Danish/Dutch parents talked about how much you have to pay out of pocket for things which are provided by their taxes. (Everyone talked about how much more healthcare costs & how frustrating the billing is, of course.)
This has nothing to do with the policies you mention. It has everything to do with the fact that the most popular name for newly born boys is now "Muhammed" (or some other spelling variant of it).
https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-population-and-societies-...
>Before, society grew with the average working age person only needing to half support an elderly retiree. Now, that same working age person will need to support more than 2 elderly retirees themselves, over 4 times the resources.
and the proposition is to Shangai people into being, with no say in it, to meet this onerous workload, how is that defensible? You could say they aren't going to be forced to labor, but they are because otherwise they will starve and suffer.
Before, society grew with the average working age person only needing to half support an elderly retiree. Now, that same working age person will need to support more than 2 elderly retirees themselves, over 4 times the resources.
Has it occurred to people that, maybe, modern fertility is a tragedy of the commons? If everyone chooses to act in their own interest, society is worse off than collectively pressuring to have more kids? Ideally, that would look like major subsidies and benefits to parents to account for the extra work they are doing for society.
I fear if nothing else changes, developed countries are dysgenically wiping themselves off the planet, and the traditionally oppressive-to-women societies will evolutionarily outlast us.
At this rate, there will only be 3m South Koreans in 3 generations. I don't see how you expect a country to survive that decline. In 1960, Pakistan had 45m people compared to South Korea's 25m. Now, Pakistan is forecasted to reach 450m in our lifetime as South Korea implodes. That looks like our future.