My YouTube comments give me great post ideas. This time, on a video about fertility, frequent favorite sparring partner FishareFriendsNotFood972 asked, “Do we want to increase the fertility rate, though?
I'm just skeptical of the linkage between fertility and economic growth. I don't have data to back that up. I just am. Malthus was wrong, but not completely wrong. Step changes, like the ag revolution of the 80s, can certainly reset the malthusian problem. On the other hand, can and should we assume that we will always have a step change when we need it? Smaller populations mean less scarcity of natural resources, and also generally mean more economic efficiency per person, higher wages, and better standards of living. A set of parents raising 2 kids they can afford is better than a set of parents raising 18 kids in absolute squalor.
The fertility rate is what it is. I just have so little patience for people getting worried that it's too low. To me, it feels akin to the public being worried about low demand for "pick any random good", like beef. Do we have an objective reason to be worried about softening demand for beef? No, that's dumb. Beef farmers do, but no one else should.
On top of this, the planet and climate could definitely use fewer humans. I don't mean that in an anti-natalist way, just that there are certainly benefits to lower fertility.
But every time I mention these points, someone comes back with "innovation" as a reason. Yeah young people innovate more. Why is that? Is it because they have nothing to lose? Do we have an economy where olds can innovate? Not really. We don't really have an economy that encourages innovation at all. Why don't we just fix that problem instead of trying to manipulate policy to pump out more humans?
I feel you. I was firmly against the idea of caring about fertility rates for a long time, for the reasons you mentioned and just a general dislike/distrust/distaste around the people I saw worrying about it and their motives. I used to self-describe as a "soft anti-natalist" because existence is suffering, ya know?
I meant what I said, however, in terms of it being an interesting and, imo, still open question. Specifically, we still don't know WHY fertility is declining. If it's, as I first suspected, declining mostly because actually having kids kind of sucks, especially relative to other things that require the same amount of time, money, and energy, and most people most of the time want to avoid doing it, well then whomst am I to involve myself?
If, on the other hand, it's declining because of some other reason, like gender, ennui, or inequality, maybe we should do something about the ennui or inequality.
It's also just a way for me to talk about gender, which no one seems to want to talk about, at least in the way I want to talk about it, by talking about fertility, which a lot of people do seem to want to talk about.
One concern with pro-natal policy: policy doesn't last very long. So if we're going to entice people into taking actions that impact the rest of their lives, it seems unfair to later pull the rug out, which we're likely to do.
Not all policies have that kind of commitment problem, though. Lump sum up front baby bonuses don't: once given they can't be clawed back. Same for housing abundance: once you build it you're not going to tear it down.
Well, right, but that's the issue I'm talking about. We give you a one-time payment that leads you to decide, the rest of the world unchanged, to have a baby. Then the rest of the world changes, policy-wise, in a way that makes you regret that decision.
The way they don't consider trade offs in the "how many would you like" question really annoys me. "What would it take for you to have another child" is the more interesting question (for me, I think it would be $100k and a night nurse, but other women may be cheaper).
I also suspect the polls are biased because "I'd like to have another child" is so much less ugly than "I regret my 3rd child" so people with an extra woopsie baby revise up.
One thing with immigration and fertility is that raising babies is an incredible amount of work and immigrants means more people who can do that work. Immigrants provide a lot of childcare, cleaning service, etc.
SAME. That's why I devoted a whole section to it! I've honestly had this rant in the chamber for a long time but it didn't seem worth a standalone post and it didn't really fit into any others and I lost patience. haha.
"I also suspect the polls are biased because "I'd like to have another child" is so much less ugly than "I regret my 3rd child" so people with an extra woopsie baby revise up." That's a great, great point. I hadn't thought of that but of course it makes sense.
I'm just skeptical of the linkage between fertility and economic growth. I don't have data to back that up. I just am. Malthus was wrong, but not completely wrong. Step changes, like the ag revolution of the 80s, can certainly reset the malthusian problem. On the other hand, can and should we assume that we will always have a step change when we need it? Smaller populations mean less scarcity of natural resources, and also generally mean more economic efficiency per person, higher wages, and better standards of living. A set of parents raising 2 kids they can afford is better than a set of parents raising 18 kids in absolute squalor.
The fertility rate is what it is. I just have so little patience for people getting worried that it's too low. To me, it feels akin to the public being worried about low demand for "pick any random good", like beef. Do we have an objective reason to be worried about softening demand for beef? No, that's dumb. Beef farmers do, but no one else should.
On top of this, the planet and climate could definitely use fewer humans. I don't mean that in an anti-natalist way, just that there are certainly benefits to lower fertility.
But every time I mention these points, someone comes back with "innovation" as a reason. Yeah young people innovate more. Why is that? Is it because they have nothing to lose? Do we have an economy where olds can innovate? Not really. We don't really have an economy that encourages innovation at all. Why don't we just fix that problem instead of trying to manipulate policy to pump out more humans?
I feel you. I was firmly against the idea of caring about fertility rates for a long time, for the reasons you mentioned and just a general dislike/distrust/distaste around the people I saw worrying about it and their motives. I used to self-describe as a "soft anti-natalist" because existence is suffering, ya know?
I meant what I said, however, in terms of it being an interesting and, imo, still open question. Specifically, we still don't know WHY fertility is declining. If it's, as I first suspected, declining mostly because actually having kids kind of sucks, especially relative to other things that require the same amount of time, money, and energy, and most people most of the time want to avoid doing it, well then whomst am I to involve myself?
If, on the other hand, it's declining because of some other reason, like gender, ennui, or inequality, maybe we should do something about the ennui or inequality.
It's also just a way for me to talk about gender, which no one seems to want to talk about, at least in the way I want to talk about it, by talking about fertility, which a lot of people do seem to want to talk about.
One concern with pro-natal policy: policy doesn't last very long. So if we're going to entice people into taking actions that impact the rest of their lives, it seems unfair to later pull the rug out, which we're likely to do.
That's a great point.
Not all policies have that kind of commitment problem, though. Lump sum up front baby bonuses don't: once given they can't be clawed back. Same for housing abundance: once you build it you're not going to tear it down.
Well, right, but that's the issue I'm talking about. We give you a one-time payment that leads you to decide, the rest of the world unchanged, to have a baby. Then the rest of the world changes, policy-wise, in a way that makes you regret that decision.
The way they don't consider trade offs in the "how many would you like" question really annoys me. "What would it take for you to have another child" is the more interesting question (for me, I think it would be $100k and a night nurse, but other women may be cheaper).
I also suspect the polls are biased because "I'd like to have another child" is so much less ugly than "I regret my 3rd child" so people with an extra woopsie baby revise up.
One thing with immigration and fertility is that raising babies is an incredible amount of work and immigrants means more people who can do that work. Immigrants provide a lot of childcare, cleaning service, etc.
SAME. That's why I devoted a whole section to it! I've honestly had this rant in the chamber for a long time but it didn't seem worth a standalone post and it didn't really fit into any others and I lost patience. haha.
"I also suspect the polls are biased because "I'd like to have another child" is so much less ugly than "I regret my 3rd child" so people with an extra woopsie baby revise up." That's a great, great point. I hadn't thought of that but of course it makes sense.