Declining birth rate

[enchanted]

Is  declining  birth rates the biggest problem humanity  faces? A species that doesn't  replace itself can't survive right?  Declining birth rates might be a bigger problem than climate change or war and might actually be the real case for allowing high levels of immigration, something that politicians and citizens don't want to admit. But what if the immigrants also turn into a culture who aren't interested in family life and start having less kids?

Does anyone know what causes declining birth rates? And what are some possible solutions? How come more people aren't talking about this?

Edited Wednesday at 07:11 PM by enchanted

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

There are no solutions I think. Burden of consciousness and complexity is too heavy to bear and people don't want to pass it down onto another generations; they are far too distracted to even attempt to do so. Entropy is winning LOL

[Spiral]

It’s a societal issue. You can think of societies as creatures, some dominate others are sickly and weak. 

Demographic collapse is like the disease that kills a society, after all societies typically last 250 years. 

We are overdue and it will get messy, but better times lay ahead.

It’s a disaster for the people who live today but not for our species as a whole.

[Lila9]

Short answer: patriarchy.

Longer answer: society punishes motherhood, underestimates it, and underappreciates it. There is no incentive to be a mother, only cons.

It takes a village to raise a child. But now one woman is expected to do it alone, in addition to working in a regular job. 

 

[enchanted]

3 hours ago, Lila9 said:

Short answer: patriarchy.

Longer answer: society punishes motherhood, underestimates it, and underappreciates it. There is no incentive to be a mother, only cons.

It takes a village to raise a child. But now one woman is expected to do it alone, in addition to working in a regular job. 

 

The patriarchy might be one reason but then how does it explain Africa and the middle East where there is more patriarchy and very high birth rates?  And Iceland, a country with the most gender equality, still have low birth rates below replacement?

Edited 20 hours ago by enchanted

[Ramasta9]

Keep those epstein Jabs up then complain about infertility  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Pay woman a wage to raise and have kids.

It's a risk to our bodies and a full time job to raise a child to adulthood. And do it WELL. Which isn't happening.

This would also stop women feeling so unsafe; they wouldn't be trapped in fear not having a living wage and being beholden to just their husbands earnings.

I'm telling ya, there are a TON of women who would love to do this, but cannot. 

[aurum]

58 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Pay woman a wage to raise and have kids.

It's a risk to our bodies and a full time job to raise a child to adulthood. And do it WELL. Which isn't happening.

This would also stop women feeling so unsafe; they wouldn't be trapped in fear not having a living wage and being beholden to just their husbands earnings.

I'm telling ya, there are a TON of women who would love to do this, but cannot. 

Careful though.

Once you socialize motherhood, that opens up a whole can of worms. It's an increase in blurring the lines between private and public life. There will be serious tradeoffs, like additional regulations and politicization around parenting.

Mothers need support. But how much role the state should play is not an easy question.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, aurum said:

Careful though.

Once you socialize motherhood, that opens up a whole can of worms. It's an increase in blurring the lines between private and public life. There will be serious tradeoffs, like additional regulations and politicization around parenting.

Mothers need support. But how much role the state should play is not an easy question.

Oh yeah, I agree there are problems it will introduce for sure. Workers are becoming the commodity - and women are opting out of helping with that supply. 

I can already foresee parenting need to be done in a certain, acceptable WAY as dictated by an external body. 

In my mind it would be a quick fix that would instantly boost birthdates - even if temporarily so we can re-establish stability of population.

The new set of problems it would introduce would need to be addressed.

[aurum]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

In my mind it would be a quick fix that would instantly boost birthdates - even if temporarily so we can re-establish stability of population.

National Shaboink Day 

[zurew]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

Once you socialize motherhood, that opens up a whole can of worms. It's an increase in blurring the lines between private and public life. There will be serious tradeoffs, like additional regulations and politicization around parenting

One easy way to deal with the worry you bring up is to leave unpaid and by that non-regulated motherhood open. If you want to be paid by the government you need to deal with x set of regulations, but you are free to choose the kind of motherhood where those restrictions dont apply to you, its just that in that case you dont get paid for it.

 

 

If you just want to bring up a general heruistic, where we are catious about what new thing we implement, then I can agree with that .  On the other hand, If you want to make a more broad point that it is expected that certain issues will come from blurrying the lines - then I would need to see how that would bring a novel new set of problems that isn't already present to the private-public life issue.

 

I view this similarly to the freespeech absolutist arguments, where a slippery slope worry is brought up like "Well, if we start to regulate speech in any kind of way, then that regulation might be misused to the point where people will be just randomly banned from everywhere and their ability to speak will be taken away forever. Whats stopping instituitions and people from the misuse of power?"

The slippery slope needs to be motivated by some kind of supporting argument for it to be somewhat expected. Like I imagine you wouldnt buy into a free speech absolutist slippery slope argument like "Look, childporn cant be banned because that restriction can be misused in malicious ways, where people can use your computer to upload CP and by that they can get you arrested or they can just maliciously miscategorize the content that you upload as CP when it is 100% not CP".

It is true, that by the move of introducing restrictions we also introduce new possible misuses of power, but the thing that is interesting is: given the moral character of people and given the judicial system and given the incentive structures -   how easy, and how expected it is that people will misuse their powers and how much damage you need to deal with if you dont implement the restriction.

Edited 12 hours ago by zurew

[enchanted]

7 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Pay woman a wage to raise and have kids.

It's a risk to our bodies and a full time job to raise a child to adulthood. And do it WELL. Which isn't happening.

This would also stop women feeling so unsafe; they wouldn't be trapped in fear not having a living wage and being beholden to just their husbands earnings.

I'm telling ya, there are a TON of women who would love to do this, but cannot. 

Good points

[VioletFlame]

We live in a world where in most cases now, the responsible thing to do is to NOT have a child. In my opinion, unless you are healed, psychologically stable, mentally, emotionally, & physically healthy, you are not equipped to have a child and it is IRRESPONSIBLE and wrong to bring a child in this world if you yourself are not a fully developed & grown individual. You must heal your OWN childhood wounds, because we all have them, BEFORE welcoming a new being into this world. Otherwise, you ARE being irresponsible, thoughtless, & ignorant to the child's life and future development. Everything you say or do that child will mimic, you are constantly modeling every little move you make as a parent. That is why it is wise to heal yourself psychologically and heal your own wounds before bringing a child in this world, because otherwise, you WILL project all of your problems onto them, even if you're not realizing it and you WILL pass down your wounds and behaviors onto the child. Children are so sacred. If you want to birth a child, think about the life you will give them, BEFORE THEY ARE HERE. Act as if they are already here and ask yourself, "Would this be beneficial for my future child?" If the answer is no, then strive to make the appropriate adjustments and changes necessary. It is always our fault for being irresponsible, mindless, hypersexual adults. 

Edited 10 hours ago by VioletFlame

[Lila9]

13 hours ago, enchanted said:

The patriarchy might be one reason but then how does it explain Africa and the middle East where there is more patriarchy and very high birth rates?  And Iceland, a country with the most gender equality, still have low birth rates below replacement?

In those areas, like the Middle East and Africa, women are forced to marry and have children. If not by physical force, then by social pressure. Singlehood is seen as a threat. It is also more difficult and dangerous to survive as a single woman in those areas.

Iceland, despite having more equality, still has a patriarchal framework. There is not country in the world without a patriarchal framework. 

In the West, women have the choice and they choose not to, especially since men are more likely to believe in oppressing gender roles, while women are more likely to reject them and believe in gender equality. This is why conservatives in countries like America would like to take reproductive rights away from women and do not support welfare for single mothers with children.

They want to force women back into oppressive gender roles, where they are reliant on men for survival and expected to have children.

Many people don't understand that patriarchy is built like a pyramid scheme. Those on top are dependent on the unpaid labor of those at the bottom.

The motherhood and care labor women do is the most important labor there is, without this labor, society would crumble.

However, this is the most underpaid labor.

If the patriarchal system were to start paying women what they deserve for their care labor, the patriarchy would crumble, and the economy as we know it would no longer exist, which is exactly why motherhood and women's labor are underpaid. This is not a bug, this is a feature.

This is patriarchy trying to preserve itself.

Women and mothers can only be properly supported and appreciated in a non-patriarchal society, which is built more like a sphere than a pyramid. Everyone gets enough for their survival. There is no need to hoard at the expense of anyone.

 

This, of course, can't be achieved in a red-blue-orange society. It can only happen in green and above.

Now, we are at a crossroads. Patriarchy is crumbling and killing itself because it was never a sustainable structure to begin with.

And so, all the ideas related to patriarchy like capitalism, dominance, control, and materialism can't sustain a healthy society for humans.

This is why the birth rate will continue to declain until radical change happens, such as gradually moving towards a more matriarchal structure.

You may refer to the work of this woman on matriarchy. This is very likely the future of humanity if we are to survive these dark ages.

The true foundation of society is children, not captial:

https://substack.com/@nergiz/p-170760646

Humans are matriarchal species:

https://lettersfromayoungmatriarch.substack.com/p/humans-are-a-matriarchal-species?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

Patriarchy created the conditions for epshtein:

https://substack.com/@nergiz/p-187509057

Why a system of "father rule" can never be caring:

https://substack.com/@nergiz/p-165541193

[Jordan of the Shire]

12 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Pay woman a wage to raise and have kids.

It's a risk to our bodies and a full time job to raise a child to adulthood. And do it WELL. Which isn't happening.

This would also stop women feeling so unsafe; they wouldn't be trapped in fear not having a living wage and being beholden to just their husbands earnings.

I'm telling ya, there are a TON of women who would love to do this, but cannot. 

that's an interesting idea. we definitely need to make it safer to have children.

 

2 hours ago, Lila9 said:

In those areas, like the Middle East and Africa, women are forced to marry and have children. If not by physical force, then by social pressure. Singlehood is seen as a threat. It is also more difficult and dangerous to survive as a single woman in those areas.

Iceland, despite having more equality, still has a patriarchal framework. There is not country in the world without a patriarchal framework. 

In the West, women have the choice and they choose not to, especially since men are more likely to believe in oppressing gender roles, while women are more likely to reject them and believe in gender equality. This is why conservatives in countries like America would like to take reproductive rights away from women and do not support welfare for single mothers with children.

They want to force women back into oppressive gender roles, where they are reliant on men for survival and expected to have children.

Many people don't understand that patriarchy is built like a pyramid scheme. Those on top are dependent on the unpaid labor of those at the bottom.

The motherhood and care labor women do is the most important labor there is, without this labor, society would crumble.

However, this is the most underpaid labor.

If the patriarchal system were to start paying women what they deserve for their care labor, the patriarchy would crumble, and the economy as we know it would no longer exist, which is exactly why motherhood and women's labor are underpaid. This is not a bug, this is a feature.

This is patriarchy trying to preserve itself.

Women and mothers can only be properly supported and appreciated in a non-patriarchal society, which is built more like a sphere than a pyramid. Everyone gets enough for their survival. There is no need to hoard at the expense of anyone.

 

This, of course, can't be achieved in a red-blue-orange society. It can only happen in green and above.

Now, we are at a crossroads. Patriarchy is crumbling and killing itself because it was never a sustainable structure to begin with.

And so, all the ideas related to patriarchy like capitalism, dominance, control, and materialism can't sustain a healthy society for humans.

This is why the birth rate will continue to declain until radical change happens, such as gradually moving towards a more matriarchal structure.

You may refer to the work of this woman on matriarchy. This is very likely the future of humanity if we are to survive these dark ages.

The true foundation of society is children, not captial:

https://substack.com/@nergiz/p-170760646

Humans are matriarchal species:

https://lettersfromayoungmatriarch.substack.com/p/humans-are-a-matriarchal-species?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

Patriarchy created the conditions for epshtein:

https://substack.com/@nergiz/p-187509057

Why a system of "father rule" can never be caring:

https://substack.com/@nergiz/p-165541193

 

do you think outright defining patriarchy as a bad thing is perhaps a misalignment of perspective? within patriarchy there are obvious negatives. but there are also positives to the masculine structure oriented firmness of spirit, in partnership with the loving caring nurturing of soul. 

 

10 hours ago, aurum said:

National Shaboink Day 

great idea

 

5 hours ago, VioletFlame said:

We live in a world where in most cases now, the responsible thing to do is to NOT have a child. In my opinion, unless you are healed, psychologically stable, mentally, emotionally, & physically healthy, you are not equipped to have a child and it is IRRESPONSIBLE and wrong to bring a child in this world if you yourself are not a fully developed & grown individual. You must heal your OWN childhood wounds, because we all have them, BEFORE welcoming a new being into this world. Otherwise, you ARE being irresponsible, thoughtless, & ignorant to the child's life and future development. Everything you say or do that child will mimic, you are constantly modeling every little move you make as a parent. That is why it is wise to heal yourself psychologically and heal your own wounds before bringing a child in this world, because otherwise, you WILL project all of your problems onto them, even if you're not realizing it and you WILL pass down your wounds and behaviors onto the child. Children are so sacred. If you want to birth a child, think about the life you will give them, BEFORE THEY ARE HERE. Act as if they are already here and ask yourself, "Would this be beneficial for my future child?" If the answer is no, then strive to make the appropriate adjustments and changes necessary. It is always our fault for being irresponsible, mindless, hypersexual adults. 

i hear yah. similar mentality, but also, people raised by crappy adults can still become really positive people. so perhaps the answer isn't to stop poor people with bad health from having kids, but perhaps to improve the world theyre born in.

it was hard for my parents you know. they werent ready for kids, and given their own circumstances, they didn't have the wisdom to grow. they had their own trauma. but.. in a way, i'm glad my imperfect parents created the conditions for certain things to emerge in myself.

and i wonder what your opinion is on any type of fate-like constructs, where you're born to a family based on some metaphysical reasons. not entirely in our control. 

personally my view isn't complete in this regard. 

better to be healed forsure. probably makes it better for everyone...

what is healed enough? even a well functioning adult can parent poorly. 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Jordan of the Shire

[Lila9]

11 minutes ago, Jordan of the Shire said:

do you think outright defining patriarchy as a bad thing is perhaps a misalignment of perspective? within patriarchy there are obvious negatives. but there are also positives to the masculine structure oriented firmness of spirit, in partnership with the loving caring nurturing of soul. 

Look where we are now: living in a world controlled by pedophilic, greedy, psychopathic, narcissistic, and misogynistic men who destroy the earth. This is patriarchy for you. This is not sustainable for human life or any animal we share space with.

I don’t understand the positives of patriarchy you stated; can you please elaborate more on them?

Masculinity can definitely exist in a matriarchal society and is part of it. 

The main distinction between masculinity in a patriarchal vs. matriarchal society is that masculinity in a patriarchal society is exploitative and dominating, while in a matriarchal society it is protective and nurturing, which is the healthy form of it. Ideally, masculinity should be channeled for the benefit of the community, not against it.

 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Honestly, I believe that this is not so complicated of a topic. This realm we are living in, is simply inherently pretty ass (or perhaps it's our human perception filter that makes it seem as ass, but the conclusion remains unchanged nontheless). The most significant and the deepest difference between areas with low birth rates and high birth rates, is that areas with high birth rates aren't smart and conscious enough to realize that life generally fucking sucks. They are simply ignorant, uneducated, poor. And they are overwhelmingly heavily religious so that's a strong driver, motivator and a cope in one. This is the truest reason, not matriarchy patriarchy BS. Point to any country on the planet and you can explain their current fertility rate situation with this extraordinarily simple logic

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

Look where we are now: living in a world controlled by pedophilic, greedy, psychopathic, narcissistic, and misogynistic men who destroy the earth. This is patriarchy for you. This is not sustainable for human life or any animal we share space with.

I don’t understand the positives of patriarchy you stated; can you please elaborate more on them?

Masculinity can definitely exist in a matriarchal society and is part of it. 

The main distinction between masculinity in a patriarchal vs. matriarchal society is that masculinity in a patriarchal society is exploitative and dominating, while in a matriarchal society it is protective and nurturing, which is the healthy form of it. Ideally, masculinity should be channeled for the benefit of the community, not against it.

 

I wonder if the debate about patriarchy vs matriarchy misses something. What if the question isn't just "who rules?", but "what architecture?" A system that makes care visible, shares its costs, supports diverse family forms, and learns from parents' experience. That's not necessarily rule by women or men, more like good governance design applied to the foundation of society. Either way, how do we get from A to B? From patriarchy to matriarchy if that's what is preferred, and/or to a new architectural design of civilization? Maybe the multiple crisis will trigger enough will to change? Maybe I'm thinking too much in a linear fashion.

Edited 3 hours ago by Bjorn K Holmstrom

[aurum]

8 hours ago, zurew said:

One easy way to deal with the worry you bring up is to leave unpaid and by that non-regulated motherhood open. If you want to be paid by the government you need to deal with x set of regulations, but you are free to choose the kind of motherhood where those restrictions dont apply to you, its just that in that case you dont get paid for it.

Okay, but now that essentially creates a two-tier system, where the rich can afford to opt out and raise their children how they like. Whereas poorer people who need the money will be subject to state regulation and bureaucracy.

It would be analogous to public and private schools. Private schools have become a luxury good.

Is it worth it? Maybe.

The point is simply to not be foolish enough to think that socialized motherhood won't have significant tradeoffs. And to think carefully through what they might be, rather than just plowing ahead like a bull in a china shop.

8 hours ago, zurew said:

then I would need to see how that would bring a novel new set of problems that isn't already present to the private-public life issue

They aren't novel. They are extensions of the same general tension between individualism and collectivism.

8 hours ago, zurew said:

I view this similarly to the freespeech absolutist arguments, where a slippery slope worry is brought up like "Well, if we start to regulate speech in any kind of way, then that regulation might be misused to the point where people will be just randomly banned from everywhere and their ability to speak will be taken away forever. Whats stopping instituitions and people from the misuse of power?"

Nothing this absurd is being proposed.

Free speech absolutism is obviously wrong.

In practice, every society will have to decide how much they want to socialize motherhood. Absolutes tend to be way too politically controversial and impossible to implement. So we end up with some mix.

The question is what is the right mix.

My rule of thumb is subsidiarity. The state should step in when individualism is not enough, but the state should not come first. 

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

18 minutes ago, aurum said:

Okay, but now that essentially creates a two-tier system, where the rich can afford to opt out and raise their children how they like. Whereas poorer people who need the money will be subject to state regulation and bureaucracy.

It would be analogous to public and private schools. Private schools have become a luxury good.

Is it worth it? Maybe.

The point is simply to not be foolish enough to think that socialized motherhood won't have significant tradeoffs. And to think carefully through what they might be, rather than just plowing ahead like a bull in a china shop.

They aren't novel. They are extensions of the same general tension between individualism and collectivism.

Nothing this absurd is being proposed.

Free speech absolutism is obviously wrong.

In practice, every society will have to decide how much they want to socialize motherhood. Absolutes tend to be way too politically controversial and impossible to implement. So we end up with some mix.

The question is what is the right mix.

My rule of thumb is subsidiarity. The state should step in when individualism is not enough, but the state should not come first. 

Many good points. Subsidiarity seems right to me as a heuristic.
But I'd add a motivational layer: people have children when they have a credible image of a future worth inhabiting. GDP as our governing compass doesn't measure that, though some communities have started experimenting with local credits for care work as one way to make that value visible.