Impact of decreasing birth rates

Blade Runner

Pelican
STG will probably love this, but I (sadly) foresee a run here during the 20s decade that has a run of biological issues (partially checked off), natural disasters, and war - all of which will be far more meaningful or impactful than what we have experienced in past years - in the US or abroad, at least in the developed economies.
 
Declining birth rates are generally driven by increasing prosperity, as couples have more opportunities and engage in various careers, and that plus lower infant mortality rates, etc., lead to having fewer or no children.

The problem is that even with lower birth rates, the world population continues to rise because of population momentum: large numbers of young people which mathematically offset low birth rates.

Meanwhile, increasing prosperity also means higher energy and material resource use per capita, which in turn creates additional problems due to biosphere limitations.

Increasing prosperity correlate with increasing ideological infection. "Feminism, Hedonistic Lifestyle" and so on.
 

STG

Woodpecker
STG will probably love this, but I (sadly) foresee a run here during the 20s decade that has a run of biological issues (partially checked off), natural disasters, and war - all of which will be far more meaningful or impactful than what we have experienced in past years - in the US or abroad, at least in the developed economies.

What makes you think I will love it?

Just because I am a student of history and human nature and point out how and why history repeats doesn't mean I am looking forward to it.

There is a reason that the average man and family had a nuclear fallout shelter on their property in the near past as these people lived through a period of history where nuclear weapons were used on other humans. Those people are gone today and the idea of nuclear weapons being used on people is considered "tinfoil" by the average person today.

That is human nature for you, if a person doesn't see something with their own eyes and experience it for themselves, it isn't a concern.

Until it is.
 

wojak

Pigeon
I think the impact will be a BuzzFeed listicle entitled "30 reasons why you should welcome your west african replacements as your population fades to nothing"

American/European population growth = bad! climate change! kids are icky! work in a cube till you're 70!
everyone else population growth = woohoo! here come the new americans/french/germans!
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
What makes you think I will love it?

Just because I am a student of history and human nature and point out how and why history repeats doesn't mean I am looking forward to it.

There is a reason that the average man and family had a nuclear fallout shelter on their property in the near past as these people lived through a period of history where nuclear weapons were used on other humans. Those people are gone today and the idea of nuclear weapons being used on people is considered "tinfoil" by the average person today.

That is human nature for you, if a person doesn't see something with their own eyes and experience it for themselves, it isn't a concern.

Until it is.

Yes, they are good points but still just general trends. Many dire predictions haven't happened yet, and all the experts calling for them have been wrong for quite some time now. Having said all of that, I do also agree/believe that a major war will happen this decade. I think also more biological or natural disasters will occur (I'm guessing along the west coast) - not just newsworthy, century worthy.
 
Great topic. Having it in the money matters section is a little limiting, though.

If you look up 'only child' into google, you're going to find all the articles are ardently defending the idea, and almost all are written in your stereotypical sassy list form (10 myths about... 12 truths about). Its way over the top for something that supposedly shouldn't matter much. Thou doth protest too much.

What do you think the implications are?

Extinction, regrettably.


For the kids still growing up right now, I think there's a budding alienation problem that they most likely won't be able to describe to us. The way that I seen it in school, it was the ones with a sibling or two ahead or behind in the grades that never had a bullying problem. Because there was more eyes and ears watching out for them. Ideally they police each other from acting like bastards to other people too. It can do wonders with networking even later in life too, like getting a job. You can abuse that to Brazil extremes, but getting that first dishwashing job for being Tommy's little brother isn't a bad deal.

If that sounds stupid to you, Globohomo's solutions are nannystate anti-bullying snitchfest campaigns and universal basic income, respectively.



You also don't want a society almost entirely made up of old geezers, gents. Its going to sound insensitive to the elderly no matter which way you slice it, but its true nonetheless. I've lived it. Ten to one ratio attending funerals to weddings. Countless retirement center visits to various relatives. And yes, all nursing homes have the same smell no matter where you go.

If you want your aging loved ones to live longer, tell them not to eat junk food, not to take up skateboarding, and not say the n word in an urban neighborhood. But this 'prescribe and procedure' policy on your own folks until they get no less than 95 is a soul crusher, especially when you have to do it several times. Sadly, that's usually where all the money goes at the end of a long life. And hey, maybe avoiding or heavily limiting the amount of kids they had in the prime of life helped them bankroll a lot of personal wealth, but that evaporates instantly if they end up in a nursing home in the last years.
 

Punchitchewie

Woodpecker
If you want your aging loved ones to live longer,

A recurring theme among traditional beliefs and cultures all but forgotten by the modern west in its infinite wisdom. The young give the old life, take a baby or child to see an elderly person (especially one that’s ill) watch the life return to them.
 

AntoniusofEfa

Kingfisher
Probably, not much will change. It will accelerate automation, since the ones having kids (top 10% of earners) are not going to drop their standard of living. There are already butcher robots. There are even Kitchen robots being sold in 2021. Practically everything can be automated, especially in healthcare. The only reason there is no unemployment in the 20% area, is due to Government jobs. There is an enormous amount of pencil pushing Gov jobs, being actively protected by the Gov.

I cannot confirm that birthrate for everyone is declining. In my area of a big German city, the well off families have 3 kids, a house, and some sort of lux SUV. Usually the man will have more kids from other wives. Now to the migrants. Their kids are not having any kids, since they themselves are Westernized. You will have the occasional mixed couple, but this is rare. African and Arab Migrant women are rarely a catch on the market, and they even hate their own men. They want to upgrade to a German/European guy. The migrant men are not attractive for most women here. These guys are usually broke, have no job or education prospects, and are being selected out of the market.

Contrary to what have been told here, the migrants have been imported mostly to just vote for Merkel. This is evidence by the fact that refugees are given a fast track towards citizenship. There is no need for working hands anywhere in Germany. Even the corrupt Heads of Industry knew that they have no use for men who mostly cannot even read their own native language.
 
I cannot confirm that birthrate for everyone is declining. In my area of a big German city, the well off families have 3 kids, a house, and some sort of lux SUV. Usually the man will have more kids from other wives. Now to the migrants. Their kids are not having any kids
?

images (40).jpeg

images (8).png

images (10).png

Don't know whether you are serious here. One can see Moroccan/Turkish weddings everywhere. Judging from personal observation the number of Muslim pupils is getting close to 20-25 percent already

images (9).png
Look at that population pyramid. Haven't seen that in Europe since the baby boom.
 
Last edited:

AntoniusofEfa

Kingfisher
This data generalizes Europe, and puts fresh off the boat and long term resident Muslims in the same category. It does not contradict my statements in any way. The migrants are getting westernized within half a generation at most, and this includes drinking alcohol, not having many kids, and divorce.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
The trends we are seeing, while taken to extreme new levels in our times, seem to be built in to the phenomenon of civilization. We can read the following on the wiki page on societal collapse:

Writing in The Histories, Greek historian Polybius, largely blamed the decline of the Hellenistic world on low fertility rates. He asserted that while protracted wars and deadly epidemics were absent, people were generally more interested in "show and money and the pleasures of an idle life" rather than marrying and raising children. Those who did have children, he said, had no more than one or two, with the express intention of "leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury." (...)

By around 100 B.C. the notion of romantic love started becoming popular in Rome. In the final years of the Roman Republic, Roman women were well-known for divorcing, having extra-marital affairs, and reluctance to bear children.[64] Viewing this as a threat to the social and political order, and believing that the Roman upper-class was becoming increasingly cosmopolitan and individualistic, upon the establishment of the Roman Empire, Caesar Augustus introduced legislation designed to increase the birthrate.[65][64] Men aged 20 to 60 and women aged 20 to 50 were legally obliged to marry; widowed or divorced individuals within the relevant age range were required to remarry. Exemptions were granted to those who had already had three children in the case of free-born people and four in the case of freed slaves. For political or bureaucratic office, preference was given to those with at least three legitimate children. Diminished inheritance rights awaited those who failed to reproduce.[64] In a speech to Roman nobles, the Emperor expressed his pressing concern over the low birthrates of the Romans elite. He said that freed slaves had been granted citizenship and Roman allies given seats government to increase the power and prosperity of Rome, yet the "original stock" was not replacing themselves, leaving the task to foreigners.[66] Roman poet Ovid shared the same observation. (See right.)[5]

But Augustan pro-natal policies proved unsuccessful. (...) Like their Greek counterparts, Roman elites had access to contraception—though this knowledge was lost to Europe during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period—and as such were able to enjoy sexual intercourse without having to rear additional children. In other words, people of high socioeconomic class of the Greco-Roman world were able to control their own fertility. Not only that, this ability likely trickled down to the lower classes. (...) Moreover, population decline coincided with people being less religious and more questioning of traditions, both of which contributed to falling fertility as more and more people came to the conclusion that it was up to them, rather than the gods, how many children they had.
[5]

Uncanny.
 
I think the US will increasingly look like South Africa or Latin America: A small elite, of mostly white/European ancestry who conduct modern business in the global economy, mostly behind gated, secured communities and office towers. The working classes will scrounge for the scraps of the main street economy. White or Asian businesses will have to remain relatively small and anonymous, to avoid attracting attention from the mobs and their politicians. Large legacy corporations that exist today will become de-facto public agencies, as they are taken over by successive waves of low IQ SJWs, and require endless bailouts to prop up their incompetence. I think demographic decline could actually be good (on an individual level) for productive cultures like whites and Asians, as their work ethics will be desperately sought, and competition will be less rife. Obviously demographic decline is bad for genetics as a whole, but maybe it's what whites need to stop destroying themselves and find a collective community again.
 

Punchitchewie

Woodpecker
Capitalist economies depend on working classes becoming more prosperous because that's also the source of consumers.
Hahahahahahahahhahaa
Capitalist pyramid schemes rely on infinite growth.
Since feminism cratered the birth rate. The source of more consumers is simply importing infinite waves of worse and worse immigrants.
It started with Italians, Irish and Greeks that at least shared a common culture with the Anglo stock. Then it was the asians who although have a different culture are hard working and law abiding. Now we are at the indians and Africans....
 
The trends we are seeing, while taken to extreme new levels in our times, seem to be built in to the phenomenon of civilization. We can read the following on the wiki page on societal collapse:

Writing in The Histories, Greek historian Polybius, largely blamed the decline of the Hellenistic world on low fertility rates. He asserted that while protracted wars and deadly epidemics were absent, people were generally more interested in "show and money and the pleasures of an idle life" rather than marrying and raising children. Those who did have children, he said, had no more than one or two, with the express intention of "leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury." (...)

By around 100 B.C. the notion of romantic love started becoming popular in Rome. In the final years of the Roman Republic, Roman women were well-known for divorcing, having extra-marital affairs, and reluctance to bear children.[64] Viewing this as a threat to the social and political order, and believing that the Roman upper-class was becoming increasingly cosmopolitan and individualistic, upon the establishment of the Roman Empire, Caesar Augustus introduced legislation designed to increase the birthrate.[65][64] Men aged 20 to 60 and women aged 20 to 50 were legally obliged to marry; widowed or divorced individuals within the relevant age range were required to remarry. Exemptions were granted to those who had already had three children in the case of free-born people and four in the case of freed slaves. For political or bureaucratic office, preference was given to those with at least three legitimate children. Diminished inheritance rights awaited those who failed to reproduce.[64] In a speech to Roman nobles, the Emperor expressed his pressing concern over the low birthrates of the Romans elite. He said that freed slaves had been granted citizenship and Roman allies given seats government to increase the power and prosperity of Rome, yet the "original stock" was not replacing themselves, leaving the task to foreigners.[66] Roman poet Ovid shared the same observation. (See right.)[5]

But Augustan pro-natal policies proved unsuccessful. (...) Like their Greek counterparts, Roman elites had access to contraception—though this knowledge was lost to Europe during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period—and as such were able to enjoy sexual intercourse without having to rear additional children. In other words, people of high socioeconomic class of the Greco-Roman world were able to control their own fertility. Not only that, this ability likely trickled down to the lower classes. (...) Moreover, population decline coincided with people being less religious and more questioning of traditions, both of which contributed to falling fertility as more and more people came to the conclusion that it was up to them, rather than the gods, how many children they had.
[5]

Uncanny.
Tom Holland touches upon this subject quite frequently in his works.

As a historian he's a bit similar to Peter Brown in that his work is often quite sparsely footnoted and he draws extensive conclusions from very meagre evidence

However his explanation of the changing norms and attitudes in the Late Republic/ Early Empire is quite convincing. In contrast to your explanation he explains it from the angle of exploding slavery (who were often discouraged or unable to have children) and the attitude of equites/patricians (often in the Army) that had started to see marriage as an unmanly and nonsensical way of living

Another decline he explains through natality is the fall of Sparta. According to him it was due to falling birthrates that a dwindling number of Spartans no longer could impose their social system upon others
 
Top