The right wing, the left wing, and then there’s the Alice Evans take
March 24, 2025 1:48 PM Subscribe
Now those difficulties are real, and governments should take those economic concerns seriously. And I’m all here supporting more affordable housing, greater access to safer, accessible childcare. However, I don’t think that explanation is a full story, because it won’t explain why it’s happening everywhere, all at once, even at very, very different levels of income. from One big reason for fewer babies: phones?, an interview with Alice Evans [Vox; ungated]
Not a single mention of queer couples in the article. Straight cis women are not the only people who can or want to give birth. And caring for a child as a single person is incredibly stigmatized and increasingly difficult, yet there is seemingly no formal mechanism for small groups to come together and parent communally, especially if anyone in those groups is queer.
I agree that there is a serious problem of social isolation and lack of support for learning social skills at most school ages - I am a product of these issues myself. But I am not convinced that a local gardening club is going to bring the birth rate up. We have to enact policies at global levels to make immigration safe and feasible, to give PoC caretakers vastly larger incentives to work in countries with aging populations and welcome their children with wide open arms. We have to ensure children aren’t hungry, and a school breakfast program won’t remotely cut it. And yes, there should be ways to stimulate and support the recreation of third spaces for young adults to mingle in person, but they will have to be extremely diverse. It is a big, complicated problem and there are so many aspects that require empathy and coordination between disparate groups.
I’m sure that Alice Evans has a much more nuanced perspective than what is presented in the article. It has to be short and pithy or nobody will read it. But they could have at least gestured to the wide ranging challenges at play, instead of joking about government mandated speed dating.
posted by Mizu at 2:15 PM on March 24 [7 favorites]
I agree that there is a serious problem of social isolation and lack of support for learning social skills at most school ages - I am a product of these issues myself. But I am not convinced that a local gardening club is going to bring the birth rate up. We have to enact policies at global levels to make immigration safe and feasible, to give PoC caretakers vastly larger incentives to work in countries with aging populations and welcome their children with wide open arms. We have to ensure children aren’t hungry, and a school breakfast program won’t remotely cut it. And yes, there should be ways to stimulate and support the recreation of third spaces for young adults to mingle in person, but they will have to be extremely diverse. It is a big, complicated problem and there are so many aspects that require empathy and coordination between disparate groups.
I’m sure that Alice Evans has a much more nuanced perspective than what is presented in the article. It has to be short and pithy or nobody will read it. But they could have at least gestured to the wide ranging challenges at play, instead of joking about government mandated speed dating.
posted by Mizu at 2:15 PM on March 24 [7 favorites]
As an asexual and aromantic person, I had really conflicted feelings about this. I do feel that we're too isolated and would welcome positive steps toward addressing that, but as a means to an end, where the end is "more romantic partnerships and more babies," I dislike it.
I'm extending her the benefit of a doubt because I think she's doing that thing academics do, where they describe a phenomenon and trust that you know that means they don't endorse it (i.e. tying marriage to respectability). This lands them in hot water a lot. Likewise, extending the benefit of a doubt that she's talking about human connection in general, and not romantic relationships specifically, as what makes us human. Still a questionable statement but less so. Deeply important to society as a whole but nothing is what makes us "human."
One thing I was kind of expecting to see discussed, but didn't, is the growing political gulf between men and women. Women increasingly want to be seen as equal partners, and increasingly have the economic and social power to say "no" to bad partnerships. Most men continue to not want that, however. I know more than one straight woman who wants a relationship but is burned out on terrible men and is just kind of on an indefinite break from making the effort to find the exception. And it's not a good environment for fate to provide where effort hasn't.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:24 PM on March 24 [42 favorites]
I'm extending her the benefit of a doubt because I think she's doing that thing academics do, where they describe a phenomenon and trust that you know that means they don't endorse it (i.e. tying marriage to respectability). This lands them in hot water a lot. Likewise, extending the benefit of a doubt that she's talking about human connection in general, and not romantic relationships specifically, as what makes us human. Still a questionable statement but less so. Deeply important to society as a whole but nothing is what makes us "human."
One thing I was kind of expecting to see discussed, but didn't, is the growing political gulf between men and women. Women increasingly want to be seen as equal partners, and increasingly have the economic and social power to say "no" to bad partnerships. Most men continue to not want that, however. I know more than one straight woman who wants a relationship but is burned out on terrible men and is just kind of on an indefinite break from making the effort to find the exception. And it's not a good environment for fate to provide where effort hasn't.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:24 PM on March 24 [42 favorites]
CTRL+F "Global pandemic of violence against women", no results
Huh.
On edit, also what Kutsuwamushi says.
posted by ianso at 2:35 PM on March 24 [26 favorites]
Huh.
On edit, also what Kutsuwamushi says.
posted by ianso at 2:35 PM on March 24 [26 favorites]
I think it's kind of funny that we have put 40 years into 'stranger danger' and 'stop having sex, kids' and 'get a quality job first - the social net is not raising your kids' and people are surprised it all worked and now it's cell phones' fault.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:49 PM on March 24 [51 favorites]
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:49 PM on March 24 [51 favorites]
I am honestly baffled at why we consider declining birth rates to be such a huge problem. I mean, from a capitalist hellscape perspective, I guess constant revenue growth is hard if you don't have more people to sell shit to, but wouldn't the world be better off with a billion or two fewer people arrived at by not making more instead of the ones we have dying of COVID or the USA bombing us?
posted by jacquilynne at 2:50 PM on March 24 [42 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 2:50 PM on March 24 [42 favorites]
Like so many popular articles, I had methodology questions that were unanswered, but her blog post about it answers many of them. The time period in question spans from well before the pandemic and and the trend exists before 2020. There's also an interesting question about how her focus on the Middle Eastern North African countries color the overall take, but the same can be said of my questions being rooted in my own biases as someone who works with demographers in the US and not being a global scholar. My bigger question is, does not having kids reduce the overall number of cohabitating couples?
posted by advicepig at 2:58 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
posted by advicepig at 2:58 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
I got curious and read a few of the links too. How to promote equality without backlash and does women's rise trigger backlash? are interesting but maybe a bit offtopic I guess.
posted by ianso at 3:02 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
posted by ianso at 3:02 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
I came across this article via Patrick Boyle's video on the topic. I think she makes some good arguments, but overall I'm still not convinced.
Fertility rates have been falling dramatically for decades all over the world:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab=line&country=MEX~GBR~USA~CHN~JPN~FRA~BRA
Some countries have seen a more recent drop in the past decade, but there's not an obvious overall coincidence with smart phones.
The reality might just be that there are a lot of different demographic pressures with different causes (changes in the workforce, access to birth control, changes in social pressures, etc), and more of them have been downward than upward. It's tempting to look for one simple explanatory cause, but sometimes there isn't one.
posted by justkevin at 3:15 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
Fertility rates have been falling dramatically for decades all over the world:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab=line&country=MEX~GBR~USA~CHN~JPN~FRA~BRA
Some countries have seen a more recent drop in the past decade, but there's not an obvious overall coincidence with smart phones.
The reality might just be that there are a lot of different demographic pressures with different causes (changes in the workforce, access to birth control, changes in social pressures, etc), and more of them have been downward than upward. It's tempting to look for one simple explanatory cause, but sometimes there isn't one.
posted by justkevin at 3:15 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
yet there is seemingly no formal mechanism for small groups to come together and parent communally, especially if anyone in those groups is queer.
I hear that. It's kind of a growing trend it some types of speculative fiction though, see e.g. A Half-Built Garden. It's basically first-contact near-future science fiction, but also super queer and cozy and a weird mix of post-apocalyptic and vaguely anarcho-communist techno-utopic. More and less far-out notions of creche parenting pop up all over fiction these days, which is interesting.
Anyway, I'd settle for more informal ways that are even on the radar for communal parenting and just generally sharing parenting work. I know some people get this from extended family but more and more of us do not.
posted by SaltySalticid at 3:23 PM on March 24 [8 favorites]
I hear that. It's kind of a growing trend it some types of speculative fiction though, see e.g. A Half-Built Garden. It's basically first-contact near-future science fiction, but also super queer and cozy and a weird mix of post-apocalyptic and vaguely anarcho-communist techno-utopic. More and less far-out notions of creche parenting pop up all over fiction these days, which is interesting.
Anyway, I'd settle for more informal ways that are even on the radar for communal parenting and just generally sharing parenting work. I know some people get this from extended family but more and more of us do not.
posted by SaltySalticid at 3:23 PM on March 24 [8 favorites]
This is a really interesting take - and it seems backed up by good data.
It's a good question she raises: we observe this where we live geopolitically, but this is also true in places which are very different, geopolitically (but have similar online entertainment options). Like this is true of rich countries - but also poor countries - and North America and Europe - and also South America and North Africa - etc.
I was reflecting the other day that I can see such differences from when I was a kid. I could do one of two things as a kid, at home: I could read books, and I could watch TV. And the TV options - I knew it even then! - were bad. GI Joe, Gilligan's Island, Mr. Ed, Get Smart, The Monkees, 60's Star Trek. And even if there were bright spots in there (Star Trek), that's still only like 30 mins out of what might be 4 hours of TV watching.
Now? I could easily sink that into a single game, for weeks. Or I could watch just 1 genre of YouTube, comedy, and see excellent standup (miles better than Get Smart) for free. I'll say this: what she's describing matches up with my experience.
posted by julianeon at 3:24 PM on March 24 [6 favorites]
It's a good question she raises: we observe this where we live geopolitically, but this is also true in places which are very different, geopolitically (but have similar online entertainment options). Like this is true of rich countries - but also poor countries - and North America and Europe - and also South America and North Africa - etc.
I was reflecting the other day that I can see such differences from when I was a kid. I could do one of two things as a kid, at home: I could read books, and I could watch TV. And the TV options - I knew it even then! - were bad. GI Joe, Gilligan's Island, Mr. Ed, Get Smart, The Monkees, 60's Star Trek. And even if there were bright spots in there (Star Trek), that's still only like 30 mins out of what might be 4 hours of TV watching.
Now? I could easily sink that into a single game, for weeks. Or I could watch just 1 genre of YouTube, comedy, and see excellent standup (miles better than Get Smart) for free. I'll say this: what she's describing matches up with my experience.
posted by julianeon at 3:24 PM on March 24 [6 favorites]
I am honestly baffled at why we consider declining birth rates to be such a huge problem.
The problem is not so much declining birth rates as it is aging populations. Seniors need care and a lot of work from younger people. Younger people are generally unwilling to do this work as it is undervalued. But when it is increasingly expensive for seniors to live long lives, that cost also gets laid onto the government and ultimately the younger people are paying for the older people - and when there aren’t enough to balance that out you’ve basically got people being underpaid to take care of seniors and then they pay more for those seniors in taxes and can’t save up for their own old age and the cycle spirals downward.
Of course, a lot of it from conservatives is racism and xenophobia. In South Korea and Japan where this is already a serious issue, a great deal of it could be mitigated if it were easier for immigrants to be welcomed into communities there. I only know about Japan in this context but making money as a foreigner there is very difficult, and that’s not even bringing into the massive racial bias and intolerance, especially of older generations. They are verrrry intense about getting Japanese women to birth Japanese children and it’s a whole thing. Feminism is a different beast in Japan and it has a lot to do with this whole issue.
But it’s not a problem that can be solved by immigration just through sheer numbers. As mentioned in the article the declining birth rate is true in a bunch of cultures, not just white western ones. And as health care and quality of life increases for all, almost everyone is living longer and almost everyone is having fewer kids. Eventually, if we haven’t all burnt to a crisp yet, we will balance out and hopefully societally shift so being old isn’t burdensome, and being a caretaker isn’t self sacrificial. But that will take more than a few generations and in the meantime you’ve got a lot of lonely expensive people and increasingly fewer kids to learn from our mistakes.
I want to mention that I am child free by choice, by the way. Nobody should be forced to or expected to have children. But it is a problem because also, nobody should have to work until their 90th year and not have access to care or community. It’s a societal issue that is, of course, laid on the shoulders of individual women and their choices, because when is it ever not?
posted by Mizu at 3:29 PM on March 24 [28 favorites]
The problem is not so much declining birth rates as it is aging populations. Seniors need care and a lot of work from younger people. Younger people are generally unwilling to do this work as it is undervalued. But when it is increasingly expensive for seniors to live long lives, that cost also gets laid onto the government and ultimately the younger people are paying for the older people - and when there aren’t enough to balance that out you’ve basically got people being underpaid to take care of seniors and then they pay more for those seniors in taxes and can’t save up for their own old age and the cycle spirals downward.
Of course, a lot of it from conservatives is racism and xenophobia. In South Korea and Japan where this is already a serious issue, a great deal of it could be mitigated if it were easier for immigrants to be welcomed into communities there. I only know about Japan in this context but making money as a foreigner there is very difficult, and that’s not even bringing into the massive racial bias and intolerance, especially of older generations. They are verrrry intense about getting Japanese women to birth Japanese children and it’s a whole thing. Feminism is a different beast in Japan and it has a lot to do with this whole issue.
But it’s not a problem that can be solved by immigration just through sheer numbers. As mentioned in the article the declining birth rate is true in a bunch of cultures, not just white western ones. And as health care and quality of life increases for all, almost everyone is living longer and almost everyone is having fewer kids. Eventually, if we haven’t all burnt to a crisp yet, we will balance out and hopefully societally shift so being old isn’t burdensome, and being a caretaker isn’t self sacrificial. But that will take more than a few generations and in the meantime you’ve got a lot of lonely expensive people and increasingly fewer kids to learn from our mistakes.
I want to mention that I am child free by choice, by the way. Nobody should be forced to or expected to have children. But it is a problem because also, nobody should have to work until their 90th year and not have access to care or community. It’s a societal issue that is, of course, laid on the shoulders of individual women and their choices, because when is it ever not?
posted by Mizu at 3:29 PM on March 24 [28 favorites]
I do wonder how much stuff like microplastics or the widespread use of high-fructose corn syrup might be contributing to declining sexual activity and birth rates worldwide. I tried googling up some studies just now and didn't find anything too relevant. Demographic factors definitely play a part, but it seems like all this sludge in our bodies can't help either.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 4:21 PM on March 24 [6 favorites]
posted by Ursula Hitler at 4:21 PM on March 24 [6 favorites]
The glib comments that inevitably pop up on this topic, to the effect of "there's too many people on the planet so why are we worried about backing off a bit," really surprise me. Sure it might be nice to taper smoothly from 8B-10B people back down to a realistic carrying capacity of 6B or 4B or whatever number and then level back out again -- but the assumption that we'll level back out is a pretty big one, IMO. There's no "birthrate knob" we can adjust with any kind of intentionality. When societies drop dramatically below the replacement birthrate, a shifting baseline can occur over the span of a single generation. As Korea is described in this other recent article linked on the blue, we may be quickly headed toward a world where nobody has kids because nobody else has kids. That's unprecedented in human history, and could be a tailspin from which the species does not recover.
posted by Chris4d at 4:34 PM on March 24 [1 favorite]
posted by Chris4d at 4:34 PM on March 24 [1 favorite]
why we consider declining birth rates to be such a huge problemThe problem is that unless you have some kind of deliberate wealth redistribution mechanism (like inheritance and death taxes), in most Western countries population decline means a very very strong accumulation of resources to the old, at the same time as the tax base, and the pool of working age people, shrinks. It means pressure for the poor never to retire. It’s extremely bad news.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 4:37 PM on March 24 [6 favorites]
I think declining fertility is in and of itself great. In the mid-nineteenth century, the US and UK both had c. 30 million people. Now the UK has a bit north of 60 million and the US has 340 million. I would very much not want the US population to double three more times in the next century. I think that as a world we are very capable of adapting to having older populations.
I share the views expressed above that there are probably lots of reasons but dang it would make me sad if Evans were right and loneliness is the big constraint. Imagine telling Thomas Malthus that there would be plenty of food to go around and we would even get a bunch of diseases licked and the population would decline because people were too awkward to get together and stand each other long enough to have a kid. He'd be like "you poor bastards."
posted by sy at 4:37 PM on March 24 [4 favorites]
I share the views expressed above that there are probably lots of reasons but dang it would make me sad if Evans were right and loneliness is the big constraint. Imagine telling Thomas Malthus that there would be plenty of food to go around and we would even get a bunch of diseases licked and the population would decline because people were too awkward to get together and stand each other long enough to have a kid. He'd be like "you poor bastards."
posted by sy at 4:37 PM on March 24 [4 favorites]
I'll believe declining birth rates are a problem when I stop seeing people reflexively fighting immigration.
Like, immigration is a total solution! It not only adds population, it almost always adds younger and childbearing people.
But I always notice that the people who shout the loudest about declining fertility also happen to be those who most vehemently oppose immigration (just look at Elon Musk, or just about any Republican or conservative).
posted by splitpeasoup at 5:09 PM on March 24 [16 favorites]
Like, immigration is a total solution! It not only adds population, it almost always adds younger and childbearing people.
But I always notice that the people who shout the loudest about declining fertility also happen to be those who most vehemently oppose immigration (just look at Elon Musk, or just about any Republican or conservative).
posted by splitpeasoup at 5:09 PM on March 24 [16 favorites]
The glib comments that inevitably pop up on this topic, to the effect of "there's too many people on the planet so why are we worried about backing off a bit," really surprise me
I do think it’s a topic worth talking about because existing societies really aren’t built to deal with population decline. But the very first premise should be that it’s literally impossible for the number to go up forever. So eventually either you’re going to get stagnation or you’re going to get down and up cycles (I don’t think voluntary decline to zero is a realistic outcome) so the relevant question becomes, how do we learn to live with that?
posted by atoxyl at 5:13 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
I do think it’s a topic worth talking about because existing societies really aren’t built to deal with population decline. But the very first premise should be that it’s literally impossible for the number to go up forever. So eventually either you’re going to get stagnation or you’re going to get down and up cycles (I don’t think voluntary decline to zero is a realistic outcome) so the relevant question becomes, how do we learn to live with that?
posted by atoxyl at 5:13 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
Like, immigration is a total solution!
Not really in the longer run, though, because population is on track to plateau globally.
posted by atoxyl at 5:15 PM on March 24 [4 favorites]
Not really in the longer run, though, because population is on track to plateau globally.
posted by atoxyl at 5:15 PM on March 24 [4 favorites]
Like, immigration is a total solution!
Not really in the longer run, though, because population is on track to plateau globally.
The demographic crash is happening, and movement of people that is as free as movement of capital can do a lot to make that crash have a softer landing.
posted by tclark at 5:23 PM on March 24 [10 favorites]
Not really in the longer run, though, because population is on track to plateau globally.
The demographic crash is happening, and movement of people that is as free as movement of capital can do a lot to make that crash have a softer landing.
posted by tclark at 5:23 PM on March 24 [10 favorites]
I've often wondered if being exposed to the thoughts that people should have kept inside their heads is part of it. Like, I don't want to know about a lot of the fetishes, prejudices, and rudeness that is apparently alive in many of the people of the world that, because of the screen of anonymity that the Internet provides, they feel more free to express.
It's similar to the "I liked my relative until they friended me on Facebook and I realized they post transphobic memes all damn day" problem, but on a wider scale. Just a constant erosion of the belief that I'd like most people if I got to know them. Like, I probably would, if I got to know them individually in person, and we'd talk about the yikes sides of our personalities and work it out. But getting to know someone in person after you know them to be a jerk online... sounds fun, you go first.
posted by blnkfrnk at 5:32 PM on March 24 [7 favorites]
It's similar to the "I liked my relative until they friended me on Facebook and I realized they post transphobic memes all damn day" problem, but on a wider scale. Just a constant erosion of the belief that I'd like most people if I got to know them. Like, I probably would, if I got to know them individually in person, and we'd talk about the yikes sides of our personalities and work it out. But getting to know someone in person after you know them to be a jerk online... sounds fun, you go first.
posted by blnkfrnk at 5:32 PM on March 24 [7 favorites]
IME people seem to be a lot more willing to say the quiet parts out loud in the last 15-20 years. I'm trying to expand my friend circle but holy hand grenade there are a lot of people out there where I'll have a lot in common with but they'll say shit that outs them as a TERF or homophobic or deeply misogynistic. IDK, maybe I'm both more aware and less tolerant of intolerance.
That's unprecedented in human history, and could be a tailspin from which the species does not recover.
It'll also take a couple centuries and there are all sort of existential crises that are a lot more pressing than that and most all of them will be at least partially mitigated by less people.
The glib comments that inevitably pop up on this topic, to the effect of "there's too many people on the planet so why are we worried about backing off a bit," really surprise me.
It seems like the people who are researching population replacement decline, or at least the reporting on it, are all breathless about how it's a problem. There is probably a selection bias there as the only people who are drawn to study this are the people who a) think it's a problem and b) are hoping there is a way to reverse the trend. Never even a passing mention that maybe the Earth would be a better place if it only had a billion people. This I think is what draws out the glib comments.
PS: [spoiler for very old SF short story] Anyone remember a SciFi story where an interstellar ship has an unusual gender split like 20:3?
posted by Mitheral at 5:40 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
That's unprecedented in human history, and could be a tailspin from which the species does not recover.
It'll also take a couple centuries and there are all sort of existential crises that are a lot more pressing than that and most all of them will be at least partially mitigated by less people.
The glib comments that inevitably pop up on this topic, to the effect of "there's too many people on the planet so why are we worried about backing off a bit," really surprise me.
It seems like the people who are researching population replacement decline, or at least the reporting on it, are all breathless about how it's a problem. There is probably a selection bias there as the only people who are drawn to study this are the people who a) think it's a problem and b) are hoping there is a way to reverse the trend. Never even a passing mention that maybe the Earth would be a better place if it only had a billion people. This I think is what draws out the glib comments.
PS: [spoiler for very old SF short story] Anyone remember a SciFi story where an interstellar ship has an unusual gender split like 20:3?
posted by Mitheral at 5:40 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
All the arguments against population decline are completely bankrupt in the long run because we are already well beyond carrying capacity for a sustainable global economy, and population must ultimately decline no matter how miserably poor we make ourselves, will we or nill we.
The longer we postpone that ineluctable reckoning, the worse it will be, and it is already going to be really, really bad at best.
posted by jamjam at 5:45 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
The longer we postpone that ineluctable reckoning, the worse it will be, and it is already going to be really, really bad at best.
posted by jamjam at 5:45 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
jamjam, I'm not sure you're prepared for a world in which the only job the few remaining young people have time for is elder care.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:56 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:56 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
I'm extending her the benefit of a doubt because I think she's doing that thing academics do, where they describe a phenomenon and trust that you know that means they don't endorse it (i.e. tying marriage to respectability).
Kutsuwamushi: this is generally a good idea, but tbh i think you'd be wrong to extend that benefit in Evans' case. Her writing is … extremely full of dogwhistles, and has been for years.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:03 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
Kutsuwamushi: this is generally a good idea, but tbh i think you'd be wrong to extend that benefit in Evans' case. Her writing is … extremely full of dogwhistles, and has been for years.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:03 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
we may be quickly headed toward a world where nobody has kids because nobody else has kids. That's unprecedented in human history, and could be a tailspin from which the species does not recover.
Don't threaten Gaia with a good time!
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:07 PM on March 24 [7 favorites]
Don't threaten Gaia with a good time!
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:07 PM on March 24 [7 favorites]
jamjam, I'm not sure you're prepared for a world in which the only job the few remaining young people have time for is elder care.
I somehow suspect that what happens along that road, but before the world actually gets that far, is that the elders stop getting cared for at all. Which isn’t all that much better. But at some point, how exactly are the masses of old people who aren’t even able to take care of themselves, going to compel the able-bodied to do anything?
posted by notoriety public at 6:10 PM on March 24 [11 favorites]
I somehow suspect that what happens along that road, but before the world actually gets that far, is that the elders stop getting cared for at all. Which isn’t all that much better. But at some point, how exactly are the masses of old people who aren’t even able to take care of themselves, going to compel the able-bodied to do anything?
posted by notoriety public at 6:10 PM on March 24 [11 favorites]
dang it would make me sad if Evans were right and loneliness is the big constraint.
sy: except Evans isn't saying that there's loneliness here. She says there's a rise of singleness (and she blames it on technology), but those two things aren't the same. She even acknowledges that! She just doesn't really care! She clearly thinks governments should push people to couple up and have children even if they're totally happy by themselves.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:15 PM on March 24 [1 favorite]
sy: except Evans isn't saying that there's loneliness here. She says there's a rise of singleness (and she blames it on technology), but those two things aren't the same. She even acknowledges that! She just doesn't really care! She clearly thinks governments should push people to couple up and have children even if they're totally happy by themselves.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:15 PM on March 24 [1 favorite]
If we don’t keep having enough children, then who are we going to leave holding the bag? We don’t want to be the ones stuck holding it, after all! And then they can have their own kids to leave holding it, just like our parents did to us!
posted by notoriety public at 6:21 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
posted by notoriety public at 6:21 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.
(Philip Larkin, from "This Be the Verse")
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:36 PM on March 24 [8 favorites]
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.
(Philip Larkin, from "This Be the Verse")
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:36 PM on March 24 [8 favorites]
I think declining fertility is in and of itself great. In the mid-nineteenth century, the US and UK both had c. 30 million people. Now the UK has a bit north of 60 million and the US has 340 millionBut here’s the thing, what happened in the mid nineteenth century to cause those populations to alter between themselves so spectacularly? To give a hint it has absolutely to do and populations in decline and famine.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 6:49 PM on March 24 [1 favorite]
This is dumb, but I’ll suggest one reason for declining birth rates: car dependence and mandatory car seats until approx age 6-8.
I am about to have my third kid and truly the most stressful part of it that I’m preparing for is how to transport these little monsters safely.
posted by samthemander at 7:19 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
I am about to have my third kid and truly the most stressful part of it that I’m preparing for is how to transport these little monsters safely.
posted by samthemander at 7:19 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
car dependence and mandatory car seats until approx age 6-8
you're being tongue-in-cheek a bit maybe, but you're not wrong that so much of contemporary American life seems designed to make childrearing both physically exhausting and socially isolating.
posted by daisystomper at 7:27 PM on March 24 [14 favorites]
you're being tongue-in-cheek a bit maybe, but you're not wrong that so much of contemporary American life seems designed to make childrearing both physically exhausting and socially isolating.
posted by daisystomper at 7:27 PM on March 24 [14 favorites]
Who the hell would want to bring an innocent child into this pit of dust?
Climate Disaster
Rise of Fascism Internationally
The disappearance of the middle class
School shootings
Cost of living outracing all but the uber-privileged
Education and science getting bootjacked
Record levels of depression and anxiety
Parks, schools, social safety nets disintegrating
Nuclear overhang
Deterioration of families
Digital addiction, isolation, and alienation
Etc etc
It seems so inviting. Why wouldn't you want a kid so you can lecture them about the good old days!
posted by jcworth at 7:32 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
Climate Disaster
Rise of Fascism Internationally
The disappearance of the middle class
School shootings
Cost of living outracing all but the uber-privileged
Education and science getting bootjacked
Record levels of depression and anxiety
Parks, schools, social safety nets disintegrating
Nuclear overhang
Deterioration of families
Digital addiction, isolation, and alienation
Etc etc
It seems so inviting. Why wouldn't you want a kid so you can lecture them about the good old days!
posted by jcworth at 7:32 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
People seem to be making a lot of noise about fertility rates lately, but the reality is that rates have generally been declining in most of the world outside sub-Saharan Africa since the 1960s (when hormonal birth control became widely available). In sub-Saharan Africa, fertility rates have been declining since about 1980 (availability of birth control was definitely a significant factor there too, as was improved health care for children). While there have been steeper declines in recent years in some countries, I think the fundamental trend is simply continuing downwards.
Maybe people just aren't that interested in having kids if they don't have to? With birth control, not needing the labour or someone to care for you in old age, and less societal pressure, there simply are a lot fewer external reasons for people to have kids. But this kind of change takes time, so I don't think we should be surprised to see it continuing over a few generations.
posted by ssg at 7:57 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
Maybe people just aren't that interested in having kids if they don't have to? With birth control, not needing the labour or someone to care for you in old age, and less societal pressure, there simply are a lot fewer external reasons for people to have kids. But this kind of change takes time, so I don't think we should be surprised to see it continuing over a few generations.
posted by ssg at 7:57 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
US birth rates plummeted after the 2008 crash. After big finance crashed the world and got a free bailout but the average person got told to pound sand.
Rates have never recovered since.
No one can afford to have kids!
posted by macbot3000 at 8:39 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
Rates have never recovered since.
No one can afford to have kids!
posted by macbot3000 at 8:39 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
Have they considered no-one can afford to have kids? If you can't reasonably afford to have kids until you're 35 you very well might not have any kids. If you do, you have one, and then its not going to be fun times to have another.
That's the case for... almost everyone I know.
posted by pan at 5:19 AM on March 25 [6 favorites]
That's the case for... almost everyone I know.
posted by pan at 5:19 AM on March 25 [6 favorites]
It really feels like there is a biomodal distribution coming, and it makes me wonder how granular the data is. Yes, birthrates are down across the board, but which socioeconomic groups are at replacement, and which are below?
I would lay good odds that the wealthy and the poor are still having kids. The wealthy because they can afford to (by relying on a lower caste of “help” and because there is still societal pressure to do so) and the poor because they can’t afford not too, especially with changes in access to reproductive care and particular abortions.
So is it the middle class that is completely peacing out? Not well off enough to be able to afford kids (at least not comfortably) but well off enough to be able to access reproductive care?
This interacts really uncomfortably with the earlier thread on end of life choices. Does the middle/upper middle class similarly not have access to end of life care (expensive, no longer aided by societal spending, no kids to help) but does have enough funds to choose to end their life on their own terms?
And each set of those individual choices sets up a pattern that you don’t need to be Hari Seldon to see. And that future is a pretty scary dystopia.
posted by susiswimmer at 5:48 AM on March 25 [5 favorites]
I would lay good odds that the wealthy and the poor are still having kids. The wealthy because they can afford to (by relying on a lower caste of “help” and because there is still societal pressure to do so) and the poor because they can’t afford not too, especially with changes in access to reproductive care and particular abortions.
So is it the middle class that is completely peacing out? Not well off enough to be able to afford kids (at least not comfortably) but well off enough to be able to access reproductive care?
This interacts really uncomfortably with the earlier thread on end of life choices. Does the middle/upper middle class similarly not have access to end of life care (expensive, no longer aided by societal spending, no kids to help) but does have enough funds to choose to end their life on their own terms?
And each set of those individual choices sets up a pattern that you don’t need to be Hari Seldon to see. And that future is a pretty scary dystopia.
posted by susiswimmer at 5:48 AM on March 25 [5 favorites]
One of the books that really made me rethink economic history was David Hackett Fischer's The Great Wave (which, I know, controversial, but the tools and data are there even if you don't agree with his analysis). Having read it before the 2008 crash but after 9/11, I was waiting for the demographic bust to hit even before we blew up the world economy. Hackett Fischer isn't like Strauss and Howe: he didn't tell you explicitly we were jumping into a period of instability. But the data analysis he did clearly showed that was where the US/West was going after the long American century of stability and it doesn't look from 2025 like he was wrong.
When times are hard, people delay marriage and kids. And in a time when you can just choose not to have kids, that means more people won't.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 5:52 AM on March 25 [1 favorite]
When times are hard, people delay marriage and kids. And in a time when you can just choose not to have kids, that means more people won't.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 5:52 AM on March 25 [1 favorite]
Now the UK has a bit north of 60 million and the US has 340 million
The "US" is an abstraction. Plenty of places in the US are losing population, and plenty are only holding steady because of immigration. Generally, the largest 'blue states' are all in a state of managed decline.
LA county has lost ~400,000 people since the last census. San Diego has had 0 population growth in the past 4 years. The largest county in New York has lost about 200,000 people, while 'red states' are generally gaining population. TX + 400,000. Florida +200,000.
The entire NYC metro area actually lead population gains this year, but the vast majority was international immigration population growth - local migration (US citizens) - people moved elsewhere.
The entire midwest is basically in a state of managed decline. For some its probably fine, but if you are looking for a job? Probably not great.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:06 AM on March 25 [1 favorite]
The "US" is an abstraction. Plenty of places in the US are losing population, and plenty are only holding steady because of immigration. Generally, the largest 'blue states' are all in a state of managed decline.
LA county has lost ~400,000 people since the last census. San Diego has had 0 population growth in the past 4 years. The largest county in New York has lost about 200,000 people, while 'red states' are generally gaining population. TX + 400,000. Florida +200,000.
The entire NYC metro area actually lead population gains this year, but the vast majority was international immigration population growth - local migration (US citizens) - people moved elsewhere.
The entire midwest is basically in a state of managed decline. For some its probably fine, but if you are looking for a job? Probably not great.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:06 AM on March 25 [1 favorite]
The decline is happening, and I'm less interested in the why (and even less in efforts to pressure people to have more babies) than in our plans to adjust. If the system as it currently is will break, how do we avoid that? Have we even attempted to solve this problem humanely and sensibly or are we just going to wring our hands and let people suffer?
posted by emjaybee at 8:58 AM on March 25 [3 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 8:58 AM on March 25 [3 favorites]
Fertility rates have been falling dramatically for decades all over the world...Some countries have seen a more recent drop in the past decade, but there's not an obvious overall coincidence with smart phones.
Television, video games, and the internet have been proliferating for decades all over the world. Having social media in your pocket is just an acceleration of the trend.
posted by polecat at 11:37 AM on March 25 [1 favorite]
Television, video games, and the internet have been proliferating for decades all over the world. Having social media in your pocket is just an acceleration of the trend.
posted by polecat at 11:37 AM on March 25 [1 favorite]
The fewer young people there are, the richer you have to be to hire anyone to do anything. There's gonna be more people who need oncologists and fewer oncologists. An increasing number of old people competing for the labor of a shrinking number of farmworkers, dentists, plumbers, trash collectors, auto mechanics, therapists, nurses, accountants...
However much money it seems right now like you might need to retire, it's probably gonna be a lot more.
posted by straight at 12:34 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
However much money it seems right now like you might need to retire, it's probably gonna be a lot more.
posted by straight at 12:34 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
There is a limit to that though as things go forward in that you need fewer of those positions too. The hump where you have a switch from growth to decline is a rough (which is why smart governments are trying to cushion it with immigration) but afterwards it shouldn't be much different per capita.
Now the general increase in life expectancies is going to increase demand for labour for those services regardless of the demographic trends.
And on the upside the relative number of teachers, pediatricians, daycare workers etc needed will decline.
posted by Mitheral at 2:07 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
Now the general increase in life expectancies is going to increase demand for labour for those services regardless of the demographic trends.
And on the upside the relative number of teachers, pediatricians, daycare workers etc needed will decline.
posted by Mitheral at 2:07 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
For anyone who thinks declining fertility rates are a problem, I'd recommend consulting Dean Baker for a countervailing (and, to my mind, convincing) opinion.
The vast, vast majority of babies are still the product of heterosexual marriage. Whatever value judgement one puts on that, the fact is that queer couples play very little role in influencing the fertility rate upwards.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:13 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
As a practical matter, there is little reason for the overwhelming majority of the country to be concerned about a declining population. The impact of aging on the living standards is limited and much smaller than other burdens the country has borne in the past, such as paying for the care and education of the baby boom generation when they were children. Furthermore, the gains from higher productivity should swamp the impact of a rising ratio of retirees to workers.Not a single mention of queer couples in the article.
By contrast, the prospect of a declining population and diminished national power in world politics is bad news for the people who write in major news outlets about things like a declining population. This is the most obvious explanation for why we hear so much about this non-problem.
The vast, vast majority of babies are still the product of heterosexual marriage. Whatever value judgement one puts on that, the fact is that queer couples play very little role in influencing the fertility rate upwards.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:13 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
The fewer young people there are, the richer you have to be to hire anyone to do anything. There's gonna be more people who need oncologists and fewer oncologists. An increasing number of old people competing for the labor of a shrinking number of farmworkers, dentists, plumbers, trash collectors, auto mechanics, therapists, nurses, accountants...
The fewer the people there are, the less likely that 'low value' jobs are going to exist, where 'low value' is a capitalistic comparison of value, probably at the behest of oligarchs and billionaires. By 'low value' jobs, I mean librarians, journalists, low-paying care jobs, and low-paying physical care jobs. Something like 25% to 50% of construction jobs in the south and west are done by 1st generation immigrants. There was a thread a few days ago about overnight diners disappearing. Had nothing to do with COVID (as was posited in the thread), it has to do with the people staffing those jobs having better options. Losing population is a real problem, if you are expecting the same standard of living.
From Dean Baker, as paraphrased....
"such as paying for the care and education of the baby boom generation when they were children. Furthermore, the gains from higher productivity should swamp the impact of a rising ratio of retirees to workers."
Debt solves problem #1, so unless you are a miser and control the purse strings it's not really a problem. Productivity gains only help if they are roughly evenly distributed. That's a real problem. Also the US spends an average amount for the care of the majority of its population - medical care expenses are heavily weighted towards the elderly. I don't see any reason to believe that's going to change with less smoking, better diets, etc of gen X and beyond living slightly longer. Lack of people is going to be a problem. It already is a problem. The US seriously needs more people.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:20 PM on March 26
The fewer the people there are, the less likely that 'low value' jobs are going to exist, where 'low value' is a capitalistic comparison of value, probably at the behest of oligarchs and billionaires. By 'low value' jobs, I mean librarians, journalists, low-paying care jobs, and low-paying physical care jobs. Something like 25% to 50% of construction jobs in the south and west are done by 1st generation immigrants. There was a thread a few days ago about overnight diners disappearing. Had nothing to do with COVID (as was posited in the thread), it has to do with the people staffing those jobs having better options. Losing population is a real problem, if you are expecting the same standard of living.
From Dean Baker, as paraphrased....
"such as paying for the care and education of the baby boom generation when they were children. Furthermore, the gains from higher productivity should swamp the impact of a rising ratio of retirees to workers."
Debt solves problem #1, so unless you are a miser and control the purse strings it's not really a problem. Productivity gains only help if they are roughly evenly distributed. That's a real problem. Also the US spends an average amount for the care of the majority of its population - medical care expenses are heavily weighted towards the elderly. I don't see any reason to believe that's going to change with less smoking, better diets, etc of gen X and beyond living slightly longer. Lack of people is going to be a problem. It already is a problem. The US seriously needs more people.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:20 PM on March 26
« Older Goblin Camp Returns | It's like going to the zoo but they're all dead. Newer »
posted by atoxyl at 1:56 PM on March 24 [11 favorites]