To think a declining birth rate is a good (and inevitable) thing

[OptimismvsRealism]

Article in the times today about the "push for Britain to have more babies" on the basis that a declining population will cause economic shocks.

One of the proposals is "fertility checks in your 20s and education about declining fertility in biology classes".

I mean. Isn't it great that people only have babies if they really, truly want them? And isn't it good to have a smaller human burden on the planet (and fewer humans vying for declining jobs as tech replaces us at most of the things we used to do)?

I don't believe for a second that fertility checks would help anyone. Nobody is out there going "trala I'm 45 and really want five babies but just haven't felt like starting yet"!

Russian women get the equivalent of 2 years salary as a bonus for having a second or subsequent child and yet they have one of the lowest birthrates in the world.

The human population is also growing due to momentum.

Women born in the 1940s had lots of babies each in the 1960s/70s. Infant mortality rates were plummeting worldwide so the vast majority of those babies survived to have babies in the 1990s, who are having babies of their own now.

There were far more 1990s babies than there were 1940s babies, so even if all the 1990s women have only 1.5 babies each, those babies still outnumber their 1940s great-grandmothers who are coming to the end of their lives. The population keeps growing for a long time after the fertility rate drops below 2...until it suddenly turns.

I’m very sorry for anyone who experiences fertility issues, I can’t imagine how heartbreaking it must be. However that’s very different to people who just gaily have 5, 6, 7 children, with no consideration not only for the planet but for how hard growing up in a big family is for kids. I think people having fewer children is a good thing. I don’t like the thought of more people having fertility issues however

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/05/30/its-not-just-a-fiscal-fiasco-greying-economies-also-innovate-less

This is an interesting article, behind a paywall (but you get a free article each month if you just sign up) explaining why we will see a decline in innovation as the net number of young people begins to fall - and how some countries have already seen the effects of that.

We might be in the just out of reach position that just when technology can come to the party to fix these big problems, to alleviate the care work with an aging population, to minimize that effects of climate change and whatnot, that we will produce fewer and fewer young inventors who, to date, are the ones most likely to patent "completely novel, discipline-changing innovations".

The economic system we seem stuck with which requires growth in consumers and doesn't care how that's achieved or paid for is at fault and shows no sign of being usurped atm.

It's very frustrating. I don't want to take away anything from current pensioners. I want to make sure that in 20 years time I will also be able to enjoy retirement and feel safe in the knowledge that there is an adequate health and care system in place! But there seems to be this mindset that we can't discuss it because it might be considered disrespectful to the current older generations 🙄

Maybe it's because they have low birth rates that they're incentivising couples to have families. Denmark has similar policies. Immigration is a stop-gap fix that will be a net negative in the long run. They can probably see how the UK has screwed itself over and don't want to copy what us idiots have done.

It won't magically even itself out in time unless fertility rates increase again. If they stay low then the ratio between working age people and people who need support due to age will stay low forever.

Plus, money!
People talk about women prioritising their career first- it's because they've watched generations of women get absolutely shafted because they've had low paying jobs before having kids and then either struggle to get back into work, struggle to climb the ladder in work while being a single parent, or struggle to find work that means they can afford childcare or fit around childcare (while receiving either 0 or a pittance in support from their ex, or not enough to cover a childcare bill)
Women are being more responsible towards themselves and their future children by building their own financial security first, yet they are talked about like they are frivolously chasing career highs.

The birth rate IS declining in every country, including countries in sub-Saharan Africa. They are just a little behind us on the timeline. When you are poor, you need a lot of children to work the fields, children are an economic benefit etc , but as soon as living standards rise, children represent a cost instead, and when women have access to education, they begin to marry later and reduce their family size. It all happens naturally without having to lecture women about contraception.

which is also the reason why immigration is not a long term solution. Soon, every country in the world is going to have the same problem of below replacement birth rate.

I guess it depends upon whether you want to have plenty of doctors and nurses to look after you when you are very old, and the state to be able to pay for it. The smaller the working population, the less tax revenue they will generate, so they will likely suffer much higher taxes than our generation - and the NHS will die a death unless we can entice overseas worker (immigration). A declining population means we will have fewer workers and lots of aged, non workers needing care and services - and a lower GDP as fewer people working means less money spent in our shops and on services. Appreciate the positive impact from an ecological perspective, but the reason many governments welcome immigration is simply because we already don’t have enough younger people to sustain the economy or society.

Leaving aside whether declining birth is good or bad, I don't see the problem with fertility education and fertility health being monitored. For many women it does come as a shock not being able to conceive at 40. Others rush to have babies because they're worried about fertility, when perhaps they have more time than they realise. How is equipping women with knowledge about their fertility and choices ever a bad thing?

@AllIWantIsACuppa yep

Too many people don’t actually understand the issue and think everyone is still having too many babies!

I just don't think that anyone who has spent more than ten minutes mulling the cascade of unintended consequences that will follow a declining birthrate could think it a good thing or is equipped with a modicum of imagination.

You need young people to keep a society progressing and innovating, it’s not ageist to recognise that.

Terrible optics. “I, a rich white American, am working very hard to ensure that black people have fewer babies!”

I might link this thread next time I see someone post on MN, "But why did you have a child you couldn't afford?!?!"

The other thing that changes fertility rates is infant mortality. Once women are confident that their babies will live to adulthood, then they have fewer babies. Clean water and immunisation are crucial.

But the birth rate is also starting to fall in other parts of the world too.

Basically though, if you want an increase in workers - whether they are from a natural UK baby boom or if they come from elsewhere then they need houses. Everyone needs somewhere to live and raise a family. But there seems to be a huge failure in awareness of that fact in the government.

Personally I think the best case scenario is if the population in the UK and worldwide more or less stabilises itself. I don;' think its impossible that that could happen to be honest. We are going to be in some difficulty anyway just because of the increasing life expectancy and the strain that puts on elder care. Which is why it would be good to see more resources directed at extending quality of life/independence not just longevity in years alive.

What's wrong with you?

Since the collapse of the USSR there has been economic uncertainty, eyes opened to western societies, cultural shifts and younger women feel less tied to the domestic life than their mother’s generation. There is still the opinion that after 25 you are seen as an old wife/mother but younger women’s mindset has changed drastically. They have a higher ratio of men to women (54% men). I see it myself in friends and family from Russia, the mindset for young women living in big cities is very different now to when I grew up in USSR. Many women are prioritising themselves, focusing on education, travel and migrating to other countries. Women from 30 years ago would not of had these opportunities apart from the educational aspect.

The Economist did a highly instructive piece on why paying women to have babies doesn't work.

For starters - the vast majority of the drop in births has been in women with low education and income levels, not educated women who want to "have it all". Highly educated women have the same number of babies they had a generation ago. In the USA more than half of the drop in births is due to significant reductions in teenage parenthood, which is something most health authorities have been actively working against for some decades. These campaigns have been very successful. Financially incentivising women to have children hasn't worked. Studies have estimated that the actual cost per birth that wouldn't otherwise have happened is millions of dollars.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/05/23/why-paying-women-to-have-more-babies-wont-work

I'll have to read that next month 😁

I think women realised that ‘you can have it all’ was a lie.

Also a declining birth rate is an issue but the "Population COLLAPSE" predictors aren't really accounting for the fact that birth rates don't work like that. Its not like frogs in a pond. They are usually the sort of people who are really really into the "Pareto principle" and applying it to all forms of human activity for example. Except they completely miss the fact that the Pareto principle doesn't work at all with human reproduction and can't work - its almost the opposite (80% produce 100%). And I have never noticed the people into both theories notice that. Its a massive blindspot and makes me think they don't really understand the mechanisms they are thinking about.

Elon Musk is one who is having loads of children, and publicly arguing that we all need to do this to save the future of the human race. Except Elon Musk has had almost all male children through IVF (probably a choice). Which is the exact opposite to what you would do if you wanted to boost the human population at all costs. Its completely illogical. Its another example of the people who think they are being very rational and cool minded about the issue not being so at all.