Birth rates have dropped 20% since 2007. I don’t think we ever came back from the '08 crash. It’s just been smoke and mirrors.

  • Diuretic_Materialism [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    So I actually have agree with you, people blaming it on people being “too poor” are being reductive. I do think there’s economic factors at play here but I think it’s more complicated than just “too poor”.

    I would point out, birth rates are declining in most of the world, this isn’t purely a rich developed white country thing, and there are some worrying societal implications to that. And yes educated women with more rights have less kids and that’s a good thing, but I do also think there is a phenomenon of women who want children but find they can’t for a variety of social and economic reasons in the modern world and I think that’s also a bad thing.

    I would get more into this but it’s early and I’m having a hard time organizing my thoughts right now.

    • hotcouchguy [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, I have found myself using “too poor” as a shorthand for “no social support of any kind” which is the more general cause.

      And even then, it’s only a problem insofar as people are being denied choices. Overall population is only a problem for bourgeois economics, and even then it’s probably not a top-5 problem.

      I think if people had adequate social support and stability (in a hypothetical socialism or communism) they would tend to have kids at around the replacement rate, and if they didn’t it would balance itself out over a few centuries.

      • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        it would balance itself out over a few centuries

        There is a possibility that it would balance itself by returning to traditionalist agrarian society, which wouldn’t be good.

        • hotcouchguy [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          IDK I could imagine some kind of solarpunk communism 300 years from now with world population that gradually stabilized at 500 million or something. Or a high-tech spacefaring star-trek communism also with 500 million. Or either of those with 20 billion population. I just think population is a relatively small factor compared to all of the rest of economic and social organization.

          • Collatz_problem [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It is a very important factor. After all, all economic value come from labour, not to mention economy of scale and division of labour, which are more efficient with higher population. I really doubt you can get space-faring civilization with 500 million people, satellites and unmanned exploration would be its limit at best.

            Also, I fear a scenario, where the world collapses back into agrarian traditionalism, because it is the only known way to sustain population and all the other societies just decline into irrelevance, and then we get another cycle of class society, until we finally manage to solve this problem.