I replied to this comment but by the time I submitted, it was flagged and my reply was blocked. Here it is:
You sound pessimistic. And with reason - declining prospects for family formation in the West are well documented. But it can be done. We can't predict the future. We can do what our ancestors have often had to do in the past – take a leap of faith.
> The pattern was marry early, have children all through marriage, marry late, have children all through marriage, marry late, show obvious signs of controlling fertility.
Western Europe hasn't married early for hundreds and hundreds of years, since long, long before the demographic transition.
> Empowerment of women made "get married and out of your parents house" a less interesting option…Having children is just another bucket list item these days.
It’s a slimy comment blaming women’s opportunities for declining birth rates. How you expect anyone to read that in good faith, I have no clue.
> The issue with this analysis is that culture isn't genetic.
I didn't say it is genetic or mean to imply it is.
> A steady stream of people coming from high birth rate cultures are going to be adopting these modern lower birth rate cultures.
Yes. People from high fertility cultures who move and adopt a different cultural norm, usually adopt the same fertility as well. This happens constantly to immigrant populations who move to Western nations. Western nations are sort of population sinks for the rest of the world.
> I'm 100% serious about this, and it makes me sad and angry nobody is actually really talking about this.
Well in some parts of the world people are already having less children. Even in Africa and Asia the birth rates are going down as people (women in particular) receive higher levels of education. So much so that in a few European nations the governments are actively encouraging couples to have more children. The most recent one I heard of is Hungary. I think the same is happening in some of the Scandinavian countries. In the far east (Korea if I'm not mistaken) there are even university courses on dating. In some of these places (Hungary in particular) the preferred approach is increase the birth rate as opposed to encouraging immigration to the country.
> Seems especially in modern societies the actual cost, effort required, and difficulty of finding a mate and raising children responsibly (e.g. so that they might also be in a position to have children if they desire) is much higher than it was in the past (hence the sharply declining birthrates in all modern nations).
No, not at all. Sociologists do not at all believe that declining birth rates are because its harder to raise kids. It’s never been easier! Healthcare in most of the developed world is taken care of for the majority of people, basic education is free, and food is so cheap and abundant you’d have to actively try to raise a malnourished child today.
The idea that delivering and raising a child was easier or cheaper 100,200, or 500 years ago is ludicrous.
> A counter is that other countries (Japan, Korea, Italy, ...) that enforce traditional values have had a collapse in the birth rate.
Yes, but the value systems (at least in Asia) are quite different than even conservative ones in the US so I don't think that's a fair comparison. In Asia there is an expectation that relationships will lead to marriage, that you will marry well before thirty, that women will exit the workforce following marriage, that married couples will have children quickly, and that enormous amounts of resources will be spent on raising those children (especially in terms of education).
The birth rate has gone down there because it is overly burdensome to be married and have children under these expectations. This is far different than even conservative expectations in the US which basically amount to the father should be able to hold down a job and show up.
> It is. Every couple must have a certain amount of children in order to simply maintain a stable population.
On average. That doesn't mean that every single couple needs to reproduce. In fact, historically, that's certainly not been the case because some couples are just incapable while others reproduce far more than the average.
> > Just a consideration: for many centuries (at least in Germany), arranged marriages were quite a success story, while love marriage are a quite modern invention.
> There are cultures and countries for which this is true but Germany is not one of them.
My grandmother (from Germany) told me how in former generations, it was not uncommon for parents to look out for marriage partners for their children. Formally, this is indeed not an arranged marriage, but de-facto, it mostly is/was.
EDIT: Or even more indirectly, parents send/sent their children to social occasions where the child is very likely to meet the kind of marriage partners that the parents desire. To me, this still has a strong "smell" of (partly-)arranged marriage.
> If I were to follow the logic of your argument then we should expect western countries where teenagers mingle freely to have people marrying early... that is clearly not the case.
That is not a logical extension of my position.
Logic:
if the government does not allow commingling of the sexes, then people will get married at an older age (if p, then q)
You are extending that to:
The US government does not prohibit commingling of sexes, therefore we should expect people getting married earlier (not P, therefore not q)
That is a logical fallacy.
I think we can both agree the US average age of marriage is increasing, and certainly it can be for different reasons. To follow my argument is very easy, there can be other explanations for decreased birthrates and increased average age of marriage, than a sexual revolution, especially if the government is prohibiting men and women from socializing (something I don't think other western countries ever did)
> many demographers still believed that the very low fertility rates then prevalent in Europe ... would eventually ... converge close to two children per woman
Well, wont it? We've not seem European population (as opposed to fertility rate) drop significantly enough for us to determine whether or not there's a bounce-back.
> Fertility is plummeting in places as varied as etc. etc.
Well, if a country has a lot of people, living in relative concentration (cities), and in various kinds of duress - does that not make sense? In other words, and focusing just on the population size: Why would drops in fertility stop because of its own self rather than the population size/density?
> it imposes unmanageable strains on a society.
This is a bit like asking whether accelerating your car does not make you worried about relativistic time dilation.
I mean, sure, if fertility were to drop to half-replacement for a couple of decades there would be strains; but even those would be manageable. The post is discussing a fantastical situation. Especially since a large drop in _population_ would spur an increase in fertility by the increased availability of accommodation, potential useful work etc.
> The question is what happens if young Koreans get accustomed to living single and child-free lives.
Ah, now we're getting to the crux of the matter. Well, the author is conflating several things:
1. bearing children or not
2. raising one's children or not
3. being a single adult or living in a couple (or larger sexual-familial arrangement)
(1.) and (2.) have always been in merely partial correlation for men, nor have (1.) and (2.) - not even (2.) and (3.), although (2.) does imply not-(3.) almost always. As for women - recent decades have seen a great increase in women raising children alone, for better or for worse. Finally, in many societies, children are raised more communally beyond a certain age.
But even having said that - I am willing to acknowledge the theoretical danger of societies cultivating individuals to be emotionally detached, locked in their individual homes, and reclusive sans Internet - leading also to them not having kids. But talk about that, man, don't beat around the bush!
> general public is not clamoring for action... people ... are focused on immediate headaches such as inflation, housing costs or employment.
That _is_ clamoring for action! And by the way, it's interesting to check whether a part of the cause for reduced fertility is how Capitalist society now squeezes so many more work hours from women. Yes, it's more egalitarian, and that's a good thing IMHO, but instead of having women working for a wage (close to) full time, the (alienated) work week should be lower for both men and women.
> On the Left, it is too often dismissed as a non-issue or welcomed as a step toward degrowth – one whose environmental benefits will surely outweigh any social costs.
Many, if not most, on the Left [1] is typically quite concerned about the effects of changes such as demographics on individuals and communities. So, even while welcoming population leveling off in general, it's unfair to suggest that social costs are ignored. At least this is an over-generalization.
----
[1] - I don't mean cultural identity-politics like the US democratic party. But then, the question of what constitutes "The Left" can launch a thousand threads.
>People would have children for emotional reasons even if society does not intervene.
What if that isn't true though?
Fertility is universally falling in rich countries.
Could you give me a number of births-per-woman that would motivate your concern? I think 1 birth per woman is a reasonable number for national concern. South Korea is already at 1.0.
Without a future generation long term concerns evaporate from concern. Maybe this has already happened in some peoples minds with regard to national debt, and the long-term sustainability of social security.
>which made it socially acceptable for men not to commit to raising families.
I'm sure the government assistance rules that discourage marriage (i.e. the several thousand year old stable child raising family unit) aren't stalling that trend.
> culture will co-evolve on a much faster timescale. Cultures that prioritize family, community, regular face-to-face human interaction, strong social support networks, and especially those that have a built-in system for helping young people find spouses, will do better than those that don't.
Maybe I'm wrong, but is there any western culture that values these things?
Maybe east US? Texans etc.
I think countries that are accepting eastern migrants will fare better, since eastern culture typically value these things more, thats in addition to solving the aging solution problem, something westerners are not willing to do(having kids, enough kids).
> But it might just as well have to do mainly with culture.
Absolutely not. Fertility rates have been going down steadily for decades in every developed nation - when children are no longer a requirement to have someone that will care for you once you reach old age, fertility rates start to drop.
> older generation got married at 19 and had stable families
That was then; this is now. All of my cousins started families earlier. None seem to have thrived, and I don't think any of them are together any more. And I don't get the impression that things have gotten any easier for would-be young parents in the generations after my own.
I replied to this comment but by the time I submitted, it was flagged and my reply was blocked. Here it is:
You sound pessimistic. And with reason - declining prospects for family formation in the West are well documented. But it can be done. We can't predict the future. We can do what our ancestors have often had to do in the past – take a leap of faith.
reply