This is interesting. I can see this being a big problem in South Korea bc they make a lot of useful things and we want that to continue. All things being equal, I think replacement fertility is good bc stability is good. But outside of social security which is just a political, not structural problem - raise taxes or print money when few are paying for many - I don’t understand why here and at SB there’s such a push for Natalism. I get why people want govt childcare subsidy and child tax credits because by and large the commentariat has kids and would benefit - and even without kids I agree bc I want cradle to grave luxury UBI for all. But I would much rather, for the sake of the environment and just stability in general, see population decline rather than growth, especially in areas with low state capacity and where David Attenborough films nature, but also in the US. It would be nice to not have to be YIMBY bc population was stable…I dont get the growth is good mindset bc it causes all sorts of problems like decline does. Like bring more immigrants obviously to places that are in decline.
I think you've got it right: stability of slowly growing population (as I see it) in US by merit based immigration. Everything "pro natalist" that I support is, I think, something worth supporting anyway.
Your post doesn't touch upon the cultural and social issues underlying massively declining birthrates. South Koreans aren't even having 1 baby per person. Western European is also graying and dying. These are cultures in which the people, as an ethnicity and culture, have lost the will to live. To me, it is the equivalent of someone slowly starving themselves to death. Not because they want to die but because they cannot be bothered to eat enough food. It's the apathy that is most concerning.
I'm not so sure that the graying population won't lead to instability, war and famine. I recall reading somewhere about Ukraine's precipitous population fall post-WWII. It wasn't Russian's doing this to them. Now look at Ukraine. Weakened with a smaller population, war killing its men and the women and children driven elsewhere, likely never to return. They will marry and settle down into their host countries and being Ukrainian will cease to have any meaning, other than eating beets once a week. What will happen when youthful Africa looks to old, gray and dying Europe for example? Or Turks and Azeris, already numerous, look at a old and dying Armenia, unable to replicate itself. I think the dropping TFR will lead to a new epoch, with conquest and war and death.
It is a fact that demographics that skew young are those most subject to revolution and war. Older cultures are where people have had time to actually educate beyond survival into being in charge, peacefully. A culture that devalues age (such as present American culture) or valourizes fecundity (which *always* smacks of revanche-des-berceaux) is one where the youth feel a certain enablement and inevitability of their ability to overthrow, and yet they are lacking in the perspectives and skills and, finally, institutional knowledge that become a well-governed society.
I wouldn’t equate aging societies a recipe for war and conquest and death, *if 1) they do not calcify, and 2) if they do start valuing whole-life participation properly,* and not just aggregate lifetime salary:tax contribution tables, which is pretty much what they’re all only looking at. However, the deals cut in the post-war years, and the youth movements since the 1960s, have altered the social culture considerably in which most people think it’s all about receipts-to-them if they’ve paid their taxes (and maybe gone on a few marches). I find it bizarre how incentive-oriented we’ve become, which begets the attitude that if something doesn’t have an incentive (and face it: a lot of incentives are warped) then it’s something to be bypassed. There is precious little concept of duty and general social solidarity, and there are no great programs to buttress it and prepare people for life long work and service. Our Human Resources model is completely laissez faire and lets the one who gets on the right escalator, or who can out-clever the “system” (job market, industry, customer), to get the highest salary wins. We have wastes of human potential already in the order of millions, hundred-millions, and billions and it’s a cultural morass of “that’s not how we do things” and market failure. At least market failures point the way to efficiencies and better ways, but there is too much collateral damage (to workers/families/seniors who get hit by any one and then fall by the wayside) to not be constantly improving the Human Resources model that keeps them gainfully employed in right livelihoods (work they have an aptitude for, adjusted for inclination, useful to others, and developed by training and opportunity). We aren’t doing this. Only certain large companies and - somewhat in Europe - some unions look after their people in this way.
We definitely need to change up the fiscal policies for social benefits, and these will be fought by progressives as if they were union members vs. management, as they want Big Anonymous Gov’t to pay for it all without – and here are my objections, which require a response in legislation – any knowledge or involvement of how, and they want it set in stone indefinitely. You can imagine what deals are brokered to give them what they want, and the environment always loses, as it inexorably has since we started keeping score in the 1970s. The evidence is there in spades regarding real estate, and habitat loss is the biggest driver of biodiversity loss, endangerment, and inevitable extinction. But there will be no old growth forests left intact if UBI requires that all those cheques be cut. The money has to come from somewhere, and the government doesn’t get it from the stock market. And people are very amenable to doing stupid sh*t if it gets them big money and attention now.
Especially the young, gathered in large groups, enabled by social media, and with a will to break laws and bust the heads of their enemies.
Gosh no. For me, that’d be a full time job, because all you have to marshall up to be considered legit. I just welcome the occasional opportunity to get off a few of those thoughts when they’re relevant and where they might actually add anything other than noise
This is interesting. I can see this being a big problem in South Korea bc they make a lot of useful things and we want that to continue. All things being equal, I think replacement fertility is good bc stability is good. But outside of social security which is just a political, not structural problem - raise taxes or print money when few are paying for many - I don’t understand why here and at SB there’s such a push for Natalism. I get why people want govt childcare subsidy and child tax credits because by and large the commentariat has kids and would benefit - and even without kids I agree bc I want cradle to grave luxury UBI for all. But I would much rather, for the sake of the environment and just stability in general, see population decline rather than growth, especially in areas with low state capacity and where David Attenborough films nature, but also in the US. It would be nice to not have to be YIMBY bc population was stable…I dont get the growth is good mindset bc it causes all sorts of problems like decline does. Like bring more immigrants obviously to places that are in decline.
I think you've got it right: stability of slowly growing population (as I see it) in US by merit based immigration. Everything "pro natalist" that I support is, I think, something worth supporting anyway.
I'm gung ho for per capita growth
Your post doesn't touch upon the cultural and social issues underlying massively declining birthrates. South Koreans aren't even having 1 baby per person. Western European is also graying and dying. These are cultures in which the people, as an ethnicity and culture, have lost the will to live. To me, it is the equivalent of someone slowly starving themselves to death. Not because they want to die but because they cannot be bothered to eat enough food. It's the apathy that is most concerning.
I'm not so sure that the graying population won't lead to instability, war and famine. I recall reading somewhere about Ukraine's precipitous population fall post-WWII. It wasn't Russian's doing this to them. Now look at Ukraine. Weakened with a smaller population, war killing its men and the women and children driven elsewhere, likely never to return. They will marry and settle down into their host countries and being Ukrainian will cease to have any meaning, other than eating beets once a week. What will happen when youthful Africa looks to old, gray and dying Europe for example? Or Turks and Azeris, already numerous, look at a old and dying Armenia, unable to replicate itself. I think the dropping TFR will lead to a new epoch, with conquest and war and death.
I don't necessarily disagree, but commenting on cultural factors is not my comparative advantage. :)
Sorry for the screed but not sorry, here it is:
It is a fact that demographics that skew young are those most subject to revolution and war. Older cultures are where people have had time to actually educate beyond survival into being in charge, peacefully. A culture that devalues age (such as present American culture) or valourizes fecundity (which *always* smacks of revanche-des-berceaux) is one where the youth feel a certain enablement and inevitability of their ability to overthrow, and yet they are lacking in the perspectives and skills and, finally, institutional knowledge that become a well-governed society.
I wouldn’t equate aging societies a recipe for war and conquest and death, *if 1) they do not calcify, and 2) if they do start valuing whole-life participation properly,* and not just aggregate lifetime salary:tax contribution tables, which is pretty much what they’re all only looking at. However, the deals cut in the post-war years, and the youth movements since the 1960s, have altered the social culture considerably in which most people think it’s all about receipts-to-them if they’ve paid their taxes (and maybe gone on a few marches). I find it bizarre how incentive-oriented we’ve become, which begets the attitude that if something doesn’t have an incentive (and face it: a lot of incentives are warped) then it’s something to be bypassed. There is precious little concept of duty and general social solidarity, and there are no great programs to buttress it and prepare people for life long work and service. Our Human Resources model is completely laissez faire and lets the one who gets on the right escalator, or who can out-clever the “system” (job market, industry, customer), to get the highest salary wins. We have wastes of human potential already in the order of millions, hundred-millions, and billions and it’s a cultural morass of “that’s not how we do things” and market failure. At least market failures point the way to efficiencies and better ways, but there is too much collateral damage (to workers/families/seniors who get hit by any one and then fall by the wayside) to not be constantly improving the Human Resources model that keeps them gainfully employed in right livelihoods (work they have an aptitude for, adjusted for inclination, useful to others, and developed by training and opportunity). We aren’t doing this. Only certain large companies and - somewhat in Europe - some unions look after their people in this way.
We definitely need to change up the fiscal policies for social benefits, and these will be fought by progressives as if they were union members vs. management, as they want Big Anonymous Gov’t to pay for it all without – and here are my objections, which require a response in legislation – any knowledge or involvement of how, and they want it set in stone indefinitely. You can imagine what deals are brokered to give them what they want, and the environment always loses, as it inexorably has since we started keeping score in the 1970s. The evidence is there in spades regarding real estate, and habitat loss is the biggest driver of biodiversity loss, endangerment, and inevitable extinction. But there will be no old growth forests left intact if UBI requires that all those cheques be cut. The money has to come from somewhere, and the government doesn’t get it from the stock market. And people are very amenable to doing stupid sh*t if it gets them big money and attention now.
Especially the young, gathered in large groups, enabled by social media, and with a will to break laws and bust the heads of their enemies.
You have lots of opinions (as do I)
Maybe you should have a Substack.
Gosh no. For me, that’d be a full time job, because all you have to marshall up to be considered legit. I just welcome the occasional opportunity to get off a few of those thoughts when they’re relevant and where they might actually add anything other than noise
It take no more time than you give it. :) But sure, not everyone like to be a show-off, like me. :)
Matt Yglesias focused on this in a book called One Billion Americans - super interesting read you should check it out.