Shoving immigration diatribes randomly into unrelated discussions is really tiresome. Sir, this is a comment thread about nuclear power.
To nuclear power?
If you really think Europe isn't dependent on anything foreign other than energy and labor, you really haven't thought it through.
Because of powering AI?
> And seems to think it can just import people from other, far, away places.
That seems fundamentally OK? The #1 problem leading to humans not having enough to live comfortably is that we have an enormous number of humans and limited resources. We can't unlimit resources. There isn't a very nice way to force people to stop having children. The remarkably low birthrate is an amazing outcome of a superficially intractable problem.
If the Africans catch up with everyone else and stop having too many children, the only thing that needs to happen is better education and the situation is actually good. We're on a reasonable trend with AI and robots. People are choosing not to have kids. That's workable.
It really isn't. The raw materials in our lives are a tiny fraction of our living costs in the west. 200 tons of concrete, steel, and plastic etc. in appropriate proportions is enough for a very nice house, yet it would cost less than a tenth of the sale price of that house: what you need to turn it into a nice house is expensive human labour.
The raw materials are cheap because we have machines to help extract them; before we invented them, those materials were also expensive.
There is the point that how wealthy the competing humans are is also a major factor. But you're trying to bypass an argument about resource scarcity by pretending that resources aren't scarce. If you follow that path to its logical conclusion you're probably going to end up in a very confusing world because then it won't make sense why everyone doesn't just get a house (if someone can't afford a house, why not just upskill and learn how to build one? It isn't that hard and there are a lot of people who don't own a house but really want one and are more than happy to work for the privilege).
What attracts people to a place is often all the other people there. The actual land area is not close to being a limiting factor, we only build on about 1% of it.
> why everyone doesn't just get a house (if someone can't afford a house, why not just upskill and learn how to build one? It isn't that hard
You've not followed Colin Furze, I see. Even his basic concrete and steel tunnel and bunker isn't "just upskill" and done alone, he's got a team.
Clearly you've also never gotten a line by line price estimate for a house where you could save €50k by doing the plastering yourself, like I have turned down.
Some rough estimates for the time it takes to learn the necessay trades; if you think these are unreasonable, ask yourself how come e.g. plumbers cost so much on callout, or how long after graduating you were still a noob at whatever your day job is:
* Basic construction literacy (plans, codes, sequencing): ~1-2 years (or 3-6 months intensive self-study + mentoring)
* Site preparation & surveying basics: ~3-6 months
* Excavation & earthworks operation: ~6-12 months
* Concrete work (formwork, rebar, pouring, curing): ~1-2 years
* Masonry (brick/block work): ~1-2 years
* Carpentry (structural framing): ~2-4 years to solid competence
* Roofing (structure, waterproofing): ~1-2 years
* Plumbing (rough-in + fixtures): ~2-4 years
* Electrical (wiring, panels, code compliance): ~3-5 years
* HVAC installation: ~2-4 years
* Insulation & air sealing: ~3–6 months
* Drywall installation & finishing: ~6-12 months
* Interior carpentry (doors, trim, cabinetry basics): ~1-2 years
* Flooring (tile, wood, laminate): ~6-12 months
* Painting & finishing: ~3-6 months
* Window & door installation: ~6-12 months
* Exterior finishes (siding, stucco, cladding): ~1-2 years
* Project management (budgeting, scheduling, subcontractors): ~2-5 years practical experience
* Health & safety compliance: ~3-6 months initial + continuous practice
A single person can reach "good enough to build a simple house" faster (perhaps 5 years if you skip the optional bits and keep the process count as low as possible), but quality, speed, and compliance will be limiting factors. And you'd need some person or people with all that knowledge to tell you which processes you could get away with not using, otherwise you'd end up with the house equivalent of vibe coded software.
This is also why houses in need of significant maintenence go for so little, sometimes even less than the land they're on.
Heck, if even just *insulation* from that list was as easy as you seem to think an entire house is, the UK would halve its heating bills as fast as its factories could make (or ports could import) foam.
> Clearly you've also never gotten a line by line price estimate for a house where you could save €50k by doing the plastering yourself, like I have turned down.
So how do you explain poverty? Why don't these people spend 12 months learning how to plaster and start making bank?
Could there be some important limitation based on physics that you're failing to account for?
My school education didn't include pouring concrete, plastering, laying tiles, architecture. Just about covered some basic woodworking, but not the structural kind.
> These skills are clearly easy enough to learn.
UK minimum wage times fifteen years is enough to buy a house. After tax. As a 100% mortgage. And then the house would have a guarantee. And you'd have contributed to your own state pension, which you wouldn't have done if you'd simply learned the skills on your own, so hopefully this hypothetical education was a paid internship. And if you'd specialised in literally any one of those skills instead of generalising, you'd be able to earn more.
> So how do you explain poverty? Why don't these people spend 12 months learning how to plaster and start making bank?
Holy non-sequiter Batman!
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salaries/builders-salary-SRCH_KO...
Watch a house getting built some time. There's a lot of people there. Even with UK's poorly thought-out greenbelts and planning permission driving up land prices, a house built in 6 months only takes 10 full time builders to have them be responsible for 50% of the average UK property price.
> Could there be some important limitation based on physics that you're failing to account for?
Physics? No. It's Baumol's cost disease: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
If it was physics, rich nations would just be outbidding poor nations for the resources to build houses. Poor nations do, in fact, have houses; they can afford them because their human labour is correspondingly cheap.
1) Resource constraints are negligible. Other than labour, obviously.
2) The skills to build a house are quick to acquire. It takes a couple of years. Less time than people are already spending anyway under general schooling as I assume the UK has 10 years compulsory education like most of the civilised world does.
3) The payback on a house is huge because the compensation for labour is high.
4) And I suspect you just demonstrated that people need to coordinate in groups of double-digit size to build a new house. Since they can sell the house for a 90% markup on costs they'd probably get wealthy doing it.
So is your argument here that the UK can comfortably house the entire world population? All 8.5 billion? Everyone gets a nice big apartment, maybe 2x the size of the current median? Let alone rental stress and housing unaffordability which are banished problems? Because given that we're ignoring the actual constraints (physical space, capital and materials) I'm not seeing what you think is the limiting factor here that doesn't just scale up as we add in more humans.
>The #1 problem leading to humans not having enough to live comfortably is that we have an enormous number of humans and limited resources.
Taking this as true (it very evidently isn't), then since Europe already has declining birth rates, the logic step would be to prevent migration no? An influx of people would hurt.
>There isn't a very nice way to force people to stop having children. The remarkably low birthrate is an amazing outcome of a superficially intractable problem.
You say this as if this "amazing outcome" came out of nowhere, magically. People are forced into this because finances make it hard. That is not very nice.
>If the Africans catch up with everyone else and stop having too many children
Why would this happen? From your comment, it doesn't seem to be something to expect?
By the way
>People are choosing not to have kids. That's workable.
This sentence is so extremely out of touch as to be insulting.
> Taking this as true (it very evidently isn't), then since Europe already has declining birth rates, the logic step would be to prevent migration no? An influx of people would hurt.
It's more directional than an end goal - for example 10 people is far too few, I'd expect living conditions to collapse. But if the population grows exponentially, there will eventually be too many. There's some optimum and it is probably far lower than 8 billion (I haven't run any numbers, I'd hazard 100-500 million people a continent, maybe lower).
> You say this as if this "amazing outcome" came out of nowhere, magically. People are forced into this because finances make it hard. That is not very nice.
This argument comes up a lot but it doesn't really make sense. Our ancestors had kids while living in conditions that we'd consider bad even for someone impoverished. I get that someone might not have kids because they feel that'd crimp their lifestyle but it is clear that they're setting their expectations high. The position is often literally "if I can't maintain the most comfortable lifestyle of anyone in my evolutionary history I won't have kids" - I meet a lot of people who wouldn't put up with conditions their parents had. That is a choice.
> Why would this happen? From your comment, it doesn't seem to be something to expect?
I dunno. I don't pay much attention to Africa.
> This sentence is so extremely out of touch as to be insulting.
I recommend deep breaths. Always a good option in times of stress.
>People are choosing not to have kids. That's workable.
It sounds like one of those not very nice ways you describe more so than an active societywide choice. People aren't exactly choosing in the wide sense of the word. Their states population keeps going up despite often many decades of below replacement birthrates (thus aleviating pressure in places that retain higher birthrates) whilst they feel like they struggle with housing, childcare, pressure on their wages trough migration (and other things) and leave the parental nest at historically late times.
What states, exactly? The EU as a whole has a population growth rate of 0.3% according to the world bank - that's as close to flat as makes no difference (and that's accounting for immigration!)
The only EU countries with a >1% growth rate are Ireland and Portugal.
The population has not shrunk a single year since the world wars but the natality has been below replacement since the start of the 70's if you take the colloquial replacement natality rate and since the world wars if you take the more realistic one.
I think just about every surrounding country is similar.
That growth is indeed slowing down but that has more to do with the natality continuing to drop.
There are indeed eastern european countries with far less migration which saw declines pulling the average down.
Not particularly. We've ridden massive increases in both quality of life and population (at both the per-country and global scales) over the last two centuries.
The floor is 2-300 USD equivalent, because that's what subsistence farming is, and it took two centuries to go from $1500 to $18811: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-average-gdp-per-ca...
> We want a world where everyone can live at least a 6- or 7- figure salary.
that's a massive shift of goalposts from "not having enough to live comfortably is that we have an enormous number of humans and limited resources".
I actually agree with this vision. But I wouldn't say every human not being a millionaire is "the #1 problem" today.
Don't leave us all in suspense.
I agree that Europe needs to be energy independent. And population decline is a global problem.
Nuclear was the correct solution in the 90s. It's not now. Arguably you need to keep a small amount going to maintain a nuclear deterrent and subsidise it for that purpose, but that doesn't need to be any more than the current level of production.
In my state the immediate costs to parents for raising a kid up to the age of 18 are around eight median gross incomes with the opportunity costs usually estimated about as high. This means having a kid loses parents around one quarter to one third of their total lifetime income. That's before even considering environmental factors. I don't think there's a decision an average person can make that's more ecologically destructive than having a child.
Having kids is a financial and ecological disaster. As an outside observer it's remarkable to me people are still having any kids at all, which speaks to the strong subjective factors overpowering whatever objective considerations one might have about it.
That said, if the most thoughtful potential parents don't have and raise civic-minded children, the percentage of new humans raised by less "enlightened" parents will increase, leading to a downward spiral.
For my part, I'm confident that the world is a better place because my two daughters are in it, and I'm definitely a better person for having been their father.
There's no better investment.
> There's no better investment.
I then asked how is this an _investment_ for the parents. Can you explain that?
I didn't ask about the off-tangent hypothesis, but the investment claim.
If your goal is to get into a debate on the financial returns to yourself based on children as some sort of investment vehicle then this won't go very far.
At a macro level, without children human civilization ceases to exist. That's the extreme case.
At a personal level, you have to look an intentional decision not to have children and compare it to the alternative. I am not including those who are unable to have children in this because I have known many couples through my life who weren't able and I fully realize what a difficult subject it is.
For those who chose not to have children, what is the ultimate financial or life goal? To have more disposable income to buy stuff, eat more fancy dinners? What's the point of investing or saving if you won't be able to pass it on?
Choosing not to have children is the result of years of pandering influence trying to convince people that they can't afford it, they aren't good enough, they'll be less happy, they'll have less avocado toast or a less important career. The goal of the marketing is two fold: either a) pander to a person's selfishness and convince them of all they will lose by having children or b) pander to a person's selflessness and convince them that the world is an overpopulated, terrible place that no compassionate person could possibly bring a child into. Both are coordinated messages designed to convince you not to have children.
Having children, on the other hand, ensures continuity of civilization. Ensures continuity of your family. Everything that you have learned that you feel value to pass on you get to teach to your children. You get to watch them grow up, teach them lessons from your own life, watch them become good citizens helping other people, falling in love, starting families of their own and contributing to society. You spend your life guiding them, helping them through difficulties.
All of the investments that you make financially can be passed on. You teach your children the financial lessons that you've learned and about the areas you wish you knew more about so that they may be able to be good stewards and improve on it from there. You teach them to be generous, to be charitable, to volunteer. You get to watch your children, grandchildren and sometimes even great grandchildren grow. And when you get old, that same family is there to care for you in your time of need.
Everything about your children is a multiplier of your family's values; your values.
Some of the people I mentioned who couldn't have children of their own chose to adopt. Some of them poured their time and energy into the service and education of youth. It's working towards the same goal.
Having children is one of life's greatest gifts. The institutions going out of their way to try to convince people not to have children are some of the most malicious that the world has ever known. If we were to ever quantify the number of lives that simply don't exist today as a result of those messages, the toll would be extreme. For people who have fallen victim to those messages, I hope there's still time to realize the truth.
Kids are an investment, not a sunk cost.
Sure, that's doable. Millions of working parents in powerty in every G7 country can attest how easy it is.
Objectively if no-one has kids then there will be no more humans. I guess you could consider that an ecological win. If you don't, then someone has to have kids.
But Christianity and Western Civilisation can kiss its own arse goodbye if it thinks this is a reasonable ideology to instil in to its young people.
Don’t have kids because it’ll economically ruin your life, and it’s bad for the environment anyway.
Righteo then, get on ya spaceship n fuck off to Mars then. Free up some resources and economy for us who believe having a family is the most important thing humans can do and that Western civilisation is actually pretty neat!
Have you looked at the TFRs in India and more developed Muslim countries lately?
Mostly under 2 and still dropping like a stone. Turkey, Iran or UAE are every bit as much on the road to disastrous demography as Europe is, only with some delay.
Does not surprise me... in both Europe and East Asia, the worst and deepest drops in fertility happened in previously very socially conservative societies (Spain, South Korea), while the trend was less sharp and sudden in, say, Scandinavia.
Israel may be mankind’s only hope.
As far as I’m aware Israel is the only developed Western nation with a fertility rate above replacement.
Of course, it’s more nuanced than that.
Definitely seems to be a positive correlation between religiosity and fertility rate.
That said, medical tech is speeding up like everything else, so non-human surrogacy, artificial wombs, longevity meds, are all likely to impact this balance on similar timescales to such a cultural shift.
Factually incorrect.
The best way to ensure big families is to foster a culture getting marriage younger, stating married, and starting families younger.
Women have their best years of fertility from about 17 to their early thirties. Telling young women to prioritise long educations and a career over family is counter productive to carrying on a civilisation, and has largely gone on to be proven something many women regret - unsurprisingly.
Strong, cohesive, multigenerational families don’t come simply from encouraging young people to have unprotected sex, although yes that is a crude component of it.
The fact is that marriage as it is understood in the west today bears little in common with the institution of the same name in the same place in the 1950s, which itself was different from the institution of the same name in the 1800s depending on if you were in a Catholic or Protestant area, all of which differ from the institution of the same name in the 1500s, all of which differ from the institution of the same name in the 1200s, which themselves varied from Roman and Greek marriage that were different from each other. In the present day, the Mosuo so-called "walking marriage" is essentially indistinguishable from what a European or American would call "teens dating and being allowed to stay the night".
> Strong, cohesive, multigenerational families
I didn't say any of those adjectives.
The Mosuo case demonstrates your claim is false, regardless.
Furthermore, when the fear is a concern of not enough workers in the next generation to pay out the pensions of the old, it is unclear why any of your list of adjectives matter.
You think all cultures are equal?
They’re not.
Only one culture gave us pretty much everything the modern world enjoys today: Western European culture.
Microchips, invented be Westerners. Electricity. Telecommunications. Space travel, space probes, space telescopes. We pioneered and perfected all of those things. First to end slavery. Universal suffrage, gay marriage. We did all of that. Modern medicine, antibiotics. First to solve HIV. Eradicated malaria, tuberculosis, polio. All Western achievement.
Other than the Jewish tradition you mentioned, the others are merely irrelevant.
Other then Israel in the Middle East, basically no one is queuing to get in to countries other then Western ones. Everyone wants to come to the advanced European economies, France and Germany, the UK, and the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia.
Why? Because we’re awesome and everyone wants what we have.
Absolutely insane take imo. You do you man.
As a mid-fourties family-less man, I absolutely regret many of the decisions I’ve made that got me here.
I’ve realised I’ve been playing at a low steaks table. Smashing box and doing drugs is something a guy should do very briefly, if at all, in his early twenties. This is not a Man’s Game.
Then he’d better man up and focus on what is Good and Right or his life will be a fucking waste.
I mean even just purely selfishly, being frail-aged and having no one who genuine cares about me is fucking terrifying.
I had my first kid accidentally in college and dropped out to focus on that. Very grateful for it.
> I had my first kid accidentally in college and dropped out to focus on that. Very grateful for it.
Good man.
That’s about as ecologically true as calling a bunch of crop fields grasslands.
The biodiversity and nature loss around the world are staggering, and the meagre gains on one tiny continent don't offset that.
Also, even if true, a lot is likely due to people leaving the countryside and migrating to the cities during the latter half of the 20th century. To feed these urban populations, an enormous amount of food needs to be imported from other countries. So really the deforestation has been exported, same as pollution from manufacturing.
But since the middle ages, or 500 years ago, how is that common knowledge?