> We're going extinct.

I think that is hyperbole, but I agree with your general take.

Maybe we are just at the top of the human population sigmoid curve and this is a normal collective correction. We've hit the carrying capacity of the post-industrialized world. Food isn't the limiter as much as an unconscious 'perceived opportunity for growth'.

It’s amazing that rather than recognize that the rich have too much and we too little, we’d rather organize around them hoarding so much wealth that the population declines.

Like we could not imagine a fairer distribution that would incentivize more people to have children in a positive fashion.

I think we might even go the other direction - circumscribe the rights of women directly to increase the birth rate, Handmaids Tale style.

>I think we might even go the other direction - circumscribe the rights of women directly to increase the birth rate, Handmaids Tale style.

Given recent events, I think the Republic of Gilead will be a real thing in the USA before too long.

People don't want to have kids even with all the incentives in the world. For many, it's now a lifestyle choice. And I mean, who can fault them, no one can be forced to have kids (unless you want to go through some unsavory means).

What incentives? That really depends on where you are. In the US, having kids is horrifically expensive. You can look forward to tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, even with good insurance, just for one hospital birth. Then having to pay tons of money for medical insurance for your kid, plus all the other regular expenses that come from child-rearing. Don't even get me started on the costs for daycare. In the US, there's enormous disincentives to having children.

Here in Japan, it's much better: all medical expenses for children are free. Daycare is still a problem though, but the cost isn't nearly as awful as in America, however availability is a real problem.

Not the US, I mean in Europe, specially Scandinavia. They've tried so many things to incentivize people but still people don't have kids. It seems to be that as countries develop and get richer, the number of kids born tends towards zero.

Scandinavia didn't try anything that could help. Let them try inexpensive houses or 20k Euro tax rebates per child.

Child birth is a small fraction of the cost.

The real costs add up in the 40 hour work week. School, daycare, and even the legal frameworks those operate in are intended for at least one parent to live close to the child and work at most part time.

By and large millennials in the US were the first generation where both parents were raised to work for a variety of good reasons. How many jobs really let parents cut out at 4 to commute home for a 5pm pickup?

Now consider the childcare and opportunity costs of raising children.

>How many jobs really let parents cut out at 4 to commute home for a 5pm pickup?

That's an American problem because of its car culture. In better societies, there's public transit, and/or cities/towns are walkable, so kids can just walk home by themselves. Here in Japan, kids are far more independent and have no trouble getting themselves to and from school, even with non-working parents.

Does that apply when they are under 3?

Kids aren't going to school at 1-3 years old.

> the amount of children has nothing to do with the country,

What a baffling comment to post under an article about the birth rate of a specific country and quite different from that of many others.

I like to joke that microplastics are responsible for social changes, and I don't deny that it has some effect but it is probably minor in the grand scheme of things