Sinking Fertility
Feb. 23rd, 2021 10:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithReasons likely include less marriage, economic pressures, and women lowering their reproductive goals due to suboptimal circumstances. People take what they can get, not what they want or need.
The replacement rate tends to be slightly above 2 children per woman, but many developed nations have a rate below that, and some far below it. While it is great for the planet to have fewer humans, it's not great for humans. Look at any area where most of the kids move away from home, consider the problems it causes from loneliness to shortage of abled workers, and multiply that by a nation. :/
For all the bitching about unplanned pregnancies and people who can't keep their pants zipped, that stuff turns out to be necessary. When people have the ability to think ahead about the pros and cons of reproducing, and the power to choose whether or not to do so, that cuts the rate by a lot -- and the pattern across developed nations indicates that it usually falls below replacement level.
The replacement rate tends to be slightly above 2 children per woman, but many developed nations have a rate below that, and some far below it. While it is great for the planet to have fewer humans, it's not great for humans. Look at any area where most of the kids move away from home, consider the problems it causes from loneliness to shortage of abled workers, and multiply that by a nation. :/
For all the bitching about unplanned pregnancies and people who can't keep their pants zipped, that stuff turns out to be necessary. When people have the ability to think ahead about the pros and cons of reproducing, and the power to choose whether or not to do so, that cuts the rate by a lot -- and the pattern across developed nations indicates that it usually falls below replacement level.
Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 06:03 am (UTC)Under the current socioeconomic and cultural constraints, yes, it's not great. The preponderant setup (one breeding pair per household) indeed does not hold up well. An economic system based on continued growth in demand declines with the population. And cultural unwillingness to consider other solutions is strangling the impetus for change.
For example, consider a household of five breeding females, some reasonable number of other adults, and eight children. This is the 1.6 fertility rate. There are kids around, nobody gets lonely, there are enough able bodies to do enough of the work, and however much excitement each member of the household is interested in. I think you even have a setting or two like this. Yet control-freak political and religious leaders seem to be heavily invested in not allowing things like this to be tried out, and would rather see their country and its influence collapse.
Also, "abled worker" is becoming a more selective qualifier. Our ingenious species has found ways to do more with fewer people, and needs fewer people whose job it is to just move stuff around. This may be part of why things are adjusting. So we are likely not to have to lower any standards of living or quality of life just because the population is declining. Now add "sustainable" to this, turn it over to a think tank (your readers?) without the usual stack of prejudices, and see what comes out.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 09:48 am (UTC)Even if you change the family structure, you still have to deal with the overall social population balance. If it's top-heavy, it's unstable.
Look at China's 4-2-1 problem. This was obviously going to be a problem stemming from the One Child Policy. One child could be left caring for four grandparents, and one couple for eight -- not to mention the unlucky folks whose single child dies before reproducing, is infertile, or decides not to marry at all.
The same thing, on a smaller or larger scale, happens whenever the population shrinks and therefore ages. A given number of workers can only support so many nonworkers. So if the elders outnumber the working-age population, that's bad.
>> For example, consider a household of five breeding females, some reasonable number of other adults, and eight children. This is the 1.6 fertility rate. There are kids around, nobody gets lonely, there are enough able bodies to do enough of the work, and however much excitement each member of the household is interested in. I think you even have a setting or two like this.<<
I do, and it works on a family scale. I don't know how well it would work on a wider scale, but certainly it would do better than that 4-2-1 nonsense. Polyfamilies (regardless of actual breeding arrangements) are great for acefolks because that lets people take part in a larger family without pressure to mate personally, and also takes some of the weight off the breeders.
>> Yet control-freak political and religious leaders seem to be heavily invested in not allowing things like this to be tried out, and would rather see their country and its influence collapse.<<
They want to keep their culture intact, whether or not the current situation will support that.
>> Also, "abled worker" is becoming a more selective qualifier. <<
We could employ all the disabled folks who can still do some things. Society chooses not to. The tighter the crunch, the more people will be added to the workforce, but I think the crunch would have to get pretty bad to overcome prejudice that deep.
Some jobs still require a lot of physical fitness. While some of those may be switched to mechanical use, others aren't really feasible for that. And then there's the problem of just needing some people around who are strong enough to lift things and have good balance, etc. for lots of everyday things that aren't part of a profession. Too few working adults can quickly become a wide problem.
>> Our ingenious species has found ways to do more with fewer people, and needs fewer people whose job it is to just move stuff around. This may be part of why things are adjusting. <<
Possible.
>> So we are likely not to have to lower any standards of living or quality of life just because the population is declining. <<
I'm dubious about that, because the quality of life is crummy already and adding more strain to the system is unlikely to improve or even maintain it. America has way too much in common with third-world nations. Just to pick one example, the infrastructure is falling apart and needs replacement on a massive scale. Without strong young bodies, that will be greatly hindered. Some of the work can be done with machines, but not enough to change the fact that construction workers have to be pretty fit.
>> Now add "sustainable" to this, turn it over to a think tank (your readers?) without the usual stack of prejudices, and see what comes out.<<
That would be good.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 04:32 pm (UTC)Compare extended families in history. Also compare subcultures where you have to form networked family groups, either because your natal family rejected you or because your natal family was destroyed. (Or in some cases the family still exists, but poverty and similar conditions means that the community as a whole must be ruthlessly communal for anyone to survive, much less have something approaching a good quality of life.)
>>"So we are likely not to have to lower any standards of living or quality of life just because the population is declining.""
I'm dubious about that, ...<<
Me too, but as an emotional reaction.
They promised us a future of wonder and leisure thanks to automation and suchlike 50-60 years back. Not only did it arrive, but the automation and suchlike actually cost a lot of jobs which lowered standards of living.
I don't think an overall reduction in workforce will be beneficial across the board. Likely they'll just say the remaining reducing workers aren't getting the work done because of laziness, and therefore don't deserve a raise. Blegh.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 08:23 pm (UTC)Back when America had the best jobs, villages banded together to send a man over, who would then send money back to repay them. Once that was repaid, he would work on bringing his family over, and the village would start funding the next man.
>>They promised us a future of wonder and leisure thanks to automation and suchlike 50-60 years back. Not only did it arrive, but the automation and suchlike actually cost a lot of jobs which lowered standards of living.<<
Yyyyeah. Well, they also promised us flying cars (bad idea) and more luxurious airline flights.
>> I don't think an overall reduction in workforce will be beneficial across the board. Likely they'll just say the remaining reducing workers aren't getting the work done because of laziness, and therefore don't deserve a raise. Blegh. <<
I think the total amount of work will simply get divided among the remaining workers, the way places currently downsize and pile more work on those left. I also think women will get pressured to work AND have as many kids as they can squeeze out. Not a good scenario.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 10:38 pm (UTC)And all the unpaid work. Argh!
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 10:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-24 06:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-24 04:16 pm (UTC)You have to raise the standard of living (especially for women) *then* the birth rates go down.
As long as people are barely getting by children are a sort of life insurance. Cultural wiring says that you need a lot of them.
Also, the evidence points to lack of female autonomy frustrating birth control efforts. Much of the drop in birth rates comes from women not *having* to let a man run their lives just to survive.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-24 08:29 pm (UTC)Perhaps initially, but not for decades - no nation other than North Korea has had a peacetime famine in decades. Also, the birthrate has been falling *everywhere* for more than 40 years - in much of the the developing worlds it started out quite high, but it's at or near replacement (and falling) in most of the developing world - the only major exception is Africa, where the birthrate is still falling, but started out really high, but by all indications they'll hit replacement (and likely continue to fall from there) in less than 3 decades
(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-24 08:40 pm (UTC)Famine in hunter-gatherer societies is tied to environment and carrying capacity.
Famine in nation-states is tied a bit to environment, but mostly to infrastructure.
Broken infrastructure = famine.
Supply line problems last year, food deserts, food insecurity, Malawi 2002, places where the poor must eat nonfood items because they can't afford food...
Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 08:37 pm (UTC)It takes time for people to realize that if most or all their children survive, they don't need to have 12 in order for 3 to reach reproductive age. Because that always lags behind improvements in health, overpopulation is a predictable problem. But eventually the birth rate does go down; child survival is one of many factors that can push it down.
>> You have to raise the standard of living (especially for women) *then* the birth rates go down. <<
That certainly helps, and is another factor, but not the only factor.
>> As long as people are barely getting by children are a sort of life insurance. Cultural wiring says that you need a lot of them. <<
Children are life insurance under certain circumstances, and a burden under others.
>> Also, the evidence points to lack of female autonomy frustrating birth control efforts. <<
That certainly undermines it, but some women will take their reproductive autonomy by force if it's not given. No matter how brutal the punishment for abortion, there are always some women who try it. Even when birth control was illegal, some women used it. So if it's available, plenty of women will sneak in to get some and just lie to the men.
Much of the drop in birth rates comes from women not *having* to let a man run their lives just to survive.<<
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 08:52 pm (UTC)I read a deconstruction of the Marriage Law fanfic concept that takes this Up To Eleven. As long as she could /have biological kids/ she was magically bound...so she made sure she couldn't and then flaunted what she'd done to the authorities who'd not done anything to stop the binding.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-24 06:27 am (UTC)Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 08:09 am (UTC)I agree that if there were far fewer humans, it would be better for humans and Earth alike.
>> the question is how to do it without causing a social crash and all the attendant problems? <<
1) Make reproductive care and birth control freely available to everyone. It turns out that most women don't want 12 babies. They want 1-3. This step alone would greatly reduce the rate of growth in less-developed countries.
** A caveat: don't use hormonal birth control while dating, as it can tamper with mate selection. Apparently some couples discover they are not actually compatible when they go off the Pill to have a baby.
2) Finance has a huge impact on birth rate, driving it up in less-developed countries (because children earn money and do other work there) but down in more-developed one (because children don't earn money and are much more expensive there). It would be better to remove or at least minimize this effect, which can be done by providing support for parents (e.g. paid parental leave, tax deductions for children, child care, food subsidies), thus enabling people to have the number of children they want.
3) Consider different family models. Several adults might raise children together, thus effectively giving a larger family unit -- and more stability -- without everyone producing large numbers of children. Older adults might live with each other if they don't have children to live with.
4) Get people out of the cities. Crowding is bad for fertility in any species. We're past needing to crowd people into cities for jobs, many of which can be done from home now. In rural areas, especially farms, children have more practical use so families run a bit bigger than in town. A country with a plummeting birth rate could boost theirs by spreading out its people.
5) Facilitate marriage and marital skills. Societies used to do this but have largely quit, which leaves a lot of young people floundering and miserable. Teach homemaking skills. Teach how to do sexual and romantic things responsibly and well. Explain that a courtship is designed to lower barriers slowly and safely so people can learn whether they are compatible before investing a great deal in the relationship. A quick fuck is fine as recreation, but it's no way to start a stable relationship. Many relationships fail because they are not built on common ground, and when children are involved, it's even worse.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-24 08:29 am (UTC)I think that just as people move away from home, some new people may move to that town. It depends, though. Probably on where the work's at, or where people can afford to live (we have a housing crisis here).
There's quite a few ghost towns here, too--towns that started because there was work, then there was no more work to do, and so the people moved on. That was yonks ago, though (methinks, all anecdotal anyway :/).
Thoughts
Date: 2021-02-24 08:39 am (UTC)That's a very common problem.
One thing that really infuriates me about the anti-choice crowd is they never offer any support for women or children. About a third of abortions are financially driven; if the woman could afford to have a child, she would. So they could cut the rate by about a third simply by offering to pick up the slack so those women could afford to have their babies. But they don't. That demonstrates they don't really care about "innocent lives." They just want to punish women for having ovaries. >_<
>> I think that just as people move away from home, some new people may move to that town. It depends, though. Probably on where the work's at, or where people can afford to live (we have a housing crisis here). <<
The problem is too many people want to live in the same places. Many cities are desperately overcrowded, while small towns are hemorrhaging people.
>> There's quite a few ghost towns here, too--towns that started because there was work, then there was no more work to do, and so the people moved on. That was yonks ago, though (methinks, all anecdotal anyway :/). <<
That's normal. What's not normal is trying to prop up towns, suburbs, etc. that everyone is leaving. If nobody wants to be there, stop wasting money on its infrastructure.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-24 04:58 pm (UTC)I would like kids someday, but now is not the right time. If things were better, I might already be paired off and/or have kids. Reasons why I don't, in no particular order:
- Crappy social infrastructure, which is correlated a bit to (my and possibly everyone's) crappy social skills.
- Aforementioned social skills, bad tape, and other issues. (Times...ain't great.)
- Ain't got the money. And most of the jobs I feel qualified for don't pay enough for me to live by myself. And adding kids means I'd be working all day to barely (if that) make even and never see my kids.
- I'm not sure what on earth I'm doing with my life, which seems like something you should know before defining yourself as someone's mom.
- Not currently partnered in a way that would help produce a homemade kid. Not gonna have a fling just to produce a homemade kid. Both options are expensive. Other options are /more/ expensive.
- Not great at socializing. (See social skills.) Having difficulties with the small group of geographically close relatives who don't seem to notice the issues and dont have the extra resources to help with raising a kid (and indeed, may not be able to bc health stuff). More distant close-knit family live halfway across the country*. [*America, so substitute 'continent's if you're from Europe...]
That said, it is entirely possible I could become responsible for a kid if it is an improvement over their current situation, the normal rules have been thrown out the window, etc.
In an evacuation, I'd probably try to pick up an abandoned kid, if I found one. Same with a post-apocalypse scenario, if I had spoons, knowledge and resources such that it would be an improvement over the current situation. I could also see acquiring a kid if someone in my social group was hospitalized, as it would be preferable to foster care.
Please note thet all of these scenarios prerequire change to the social framework, and/or my living arraingements. (My current living arrangements are not conducive to children.)
(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-24 10:13 am (UTC)Well ...
Date: 2021-02-24 10:23 am (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2021-02-24 05:01 pm (UTC)That was /freaky/. Sudden changes to your concept of self are /very unnerving/.
(And yeah, at this point I'd like kids again, but some of the confounding issues are still there...)
Re: Well ...
Date: 2021-02-25 03:47 am (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2021-02-25 06:57 am (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2021-02-25 07:33 am (UTC)Similar things can happen when society behaves in ways a person finds intolerable, and they divest from it even if they can't escape it; or when someone loses a job, that consistently leads to a permanent drop in social engagement.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-02-24 05:27 pm (UTC)Weren't there a few examples where people tried to scare kids into being sexually moral...and then it Went Horribly Right when the new adults refused to pair off and have kids when they were 'supposed' to?
Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-24 08:27 pm (UTC)Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-24 08:47 pm (UTC)[Man]: "I wanna get laid! Give me something to make me irresistible to women!"
[Feminist]: [hands him a copy of Housework 101, and a copy of Cooking for Dummies]
[Man]: "That's not what I meant! You're no help at all!"
...seriously, brushing up on emotional labor and communication skills is probably the most effective way to impress women.
Incidentally, I guess that's why I keep thinking male characters from novels that do a stereotype flip of traditional gender roles are so interesting: He listens! He doesn't demand my time! He washes his own socks! LOL!
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-25 03:55 am (UTC)[Feminist]: [hands him a copy of Housework 101, and a copy of Cooking for Dummies]
[Man]: "That's not what I meant! You're no help at all!" <<
That is what T-America does. They have classes like "How to Handle a Crying Friend" and "Listening Skills 101."
>> ...seriously, brushing up on emotional labor and communication skills is probably the most effective way to impress women. <<
Totally nailed it.
>> Incidentally, I guess that's why I keep thinking male characters from novels that do a stereotype flip of traditional gender roles are so interesting: He listens! He doesn't demand my time! He washes his own socks! LOL! <<
There's a verse from a filksong:
There's one man like no other, like a partner, like a brother,
He doesn't want a mother, nor a goddess, nor a slave
He does not bring me flowers, nor demand all of my hours, is not jealous of my powers --
And my heart will not behave.
I like writing well-balanced men too. Even Shiv, who dislikes sex and is leery at best of conventional romance, is genderdrifted enough to enjoy traditionally feminine skills like cooking ("I like food, and I don't want to set the kitchen on fire again") and knitting ("Hey, it feels good!").
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-25 06:54 am (UTC)...the nurturers [male and female] end up /outright mobbing each other/ as a form of mate selection / companionship selection...
...while the [again, male and female] non-nurturers sit around whining...
...and then get into a fistfight as soon as someone starts being gropey or rudely demanding emotional labor.
>>I like writing well-balanced men too.<<
Writing nontraditional gender roles also has the advantage of knocking us off our usual mental tracks, so we can process stuff without adhering to a single outdated script.
Many of the consent plotlines in Steven Universe would have been percieved differently between different-gendered groupings (or even an all-male group) than same gendered female characters.
Having a storyline where the main objection to being a(n in public) caregiver is an "expression of social status" issue rather than an "expression of masculinity" issue would be fascinating - and would allow one to explore the gender-status dynamic without falling into the old script. (Bonus: caregiving was at certain times restricted by class as well as gender; look at childrearing habits of nobility before about 1910.)
Even expanded beyond gender - Home did a really good analogy for colonialism, which wouldn't have worked as well with a human/human conflict.
And although I haven't heard anyone else say it, Home also touched on Culture Clash, specifically the fact that people from different cultures will have (sometimes funny, sometimes very serious) misunderstandings because of your differences, that this happens even if you really care about each other, and that it doesn't mean you should give up on trying to understand.
>>There's a verse from a filksong:<<
I'll have to look up that song.
>>...is genderdrifted enough to enjoy traditionally feminine skills...<<
He's also got enough manners not to try and force women (or anyone else) into being pleasing.
Now I want to see him totally defuse a ticked off woman...by agreeing with her against some sexist jerk. And possibly offering to speed said jerk on his merry way.
Actually that would be an interesting take on the usual Battle Harem trope - a bunch of women end up platonicly hanging out with a guy because he is nice and not a jerk...and then being fiercely protective against bullies, pushy other women, life crisis/drama stuff, etc. (In Terramagne, I could especially see Heron or Hercules evolving into such a dynamic with several female friends.)
Kind of like how female baboons are fiercely protective of any male that offers to babysit...
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-25 07:13 am (UTC)I actually have a setting where a group of women sat down and dismantled their society's gender framework, then used the spare parts to construct something completely different.
>>Now I want to see him totally defuse a ticked off woman...by agreeing with her against some sexist jerk. And possibly offering to speed said jerk on his merry way.<<
See "Not So Much in Words."
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2021-02-24 10:58 pm (UTC)Actually, I'd be interested in seeing how that would affect AIs that need a metalsuit [as opposed to a human needing a meatsuit].
Humans can theoretically reproduce for free (with some nominal extra fueling costs, and most people add on some sort of medical fees if they can).
A robot metalsuit will always need to be built by somebody, the materials need to come from somewhere and some of the components require high-tech manufacture.
Therefore a corporeal AI that wishes to reproduce will usually have to pay for it, which means quite literally only the rich can conceive. (A tidy inversion of the human phenomenon discussed here.)
Now a non-corporeal AI would need infrastructure to live in, but that would be more analogous to a human population's relationship to food or land: how much you have affects reproduction and quality of life, but you could reproduce without making a down payment on your kid's body.
A non-corporeal AI would however have a hard limit in how much space they can take up. (Much as humans have hard limits for things like temperature or access to water).
This also raises an ethical question: Humans can replicate with (at minimum) two compatible humans, a suitable living space and pretty much nothing else. A corporeal AI requires more expensive materials/gadgetry and specialized knowledge to reproduce.
[Using technology to] prevent humans from choosing to reproduce is widely considered unethical, unless the human(s) in question request it. Would /withholding/ technology* that AIs require to reproduce be similarly unethical? More? Less?
*bc cost/capitalism, resource scarcity, etc...
Also, who the f is going to enforce whatever decision is made, or fix any problems? We are already doing a terrible job at making sure all our human kids are fed...
Robotics version of free lunch: Eddie the Mechanic and junk shop owner fixes stuff with duct tape, cannibalized gadgets and redneck engineering...Hmm that could lead to an interesting set of class markers, too...
And if robots start reproducing we'd need an easy cultural way to quickly flag 'baby robot,' elsewise were gonna have a civil rights movement about not killing robot kids.