Sweden has some of the best policies for having kids: doesn’t cost anything, a year of maternity AND paternity leave for each kid you have, plus they straight up give you money. Birth rate is 1.45.
Anything to help people that want to have children is good.
That seems somewhat unfair towards people with other interests who aren’t being subsidized.
Sadly, when it comes down to it, children are necessary for society to function long-term. They are the people who will be financing and effecting your retirement, at least in a well-functioning society. I think it is a sound policy to make sure people can have children without any unnecessary suffering, there’s plenty of necessary suffering in there already.
Sadly, when it comes down to it, children are necessary for society to function long-term.
It shouldn’t be sad, this is basic reality. We should love kids and want kids and pressure our own countries to make it easier to have families.
I am really getting worried that the left broadly is turning soft anti-natalist and there is no faster way to end your movement than by not having more people. I feel like “birth rates” and “fertility” are terms that we feel have been co-opted by the right because figures like Elon Musk and the manosphere bros.
How many humans should we aim to have, long term? 20 billion? 50 billion? We’re already on track to reach 10 billion in the next 25 years.
I believe that as a society, we should have a long-term plan and a goal for our species’s population count, because simply offering incentives for continued growth in order to continue funding generational gaps in our pyramid scheme of social welfare is untenable. Ultimately we will reach the logistical capacity of a functional welfare state, to say nothing of all the other problems.
How many humans should we aim to have, long term? 20 billion? 50 billion?
That’s not what this issue is about, this isn’t “pro-growth” this is about averting economic and logistical collapse across much of the developed world.
Sure, we could do with a reduced population, but it needs to be reduced slowly enough that we don’t see mass casualties and so that our infrastructure, production and logistics aren’t suddenly unmanned, or many, many people will suffer.
We have to understand that the argument for continued population upkeep is about stability not some desire to perpetually increase population. There’s not a sharp, two-sided binary here, the problem is that many, many people in the developed world are having either no kids or not enough to keep up with expected decline and longer lifespans. When we run out of young people to run our cities, our roads, our offices and our shipyards and rail systems, we end up with collapse.
Look into South Korea for a vision of the worst case and think about what will happen broadly when the same syndrome hits other major world powers and logistical hubs.
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. Continuing to fixate on short-term problems like bridging a generational gap—which incidentally we’ve survived many times in anthropological history—by continuing policies with long-term ramifications is not a good plan.
At some point we need to come to terms with the fact that continuous population growth is not tenable. Whether the population cap is 10 billion or 100 billion, the fact of the matter is that we will eventually hit it. We can’t keep procrastinating because we’re unwilling to resolve the challenges you’ve mentioned in a more effective manner.
Call me an optimist, but if we’re unable to change our habits as a species, perhaps a well-needed revolution will kick us into action.
You and people who raise this notion are all for rapid depopulation when you aren’t imagining it’s you dealing with the impact of billions of people not having enough resources. It sounds a bit entitled.
Desperation?
People don’t want to have kids. I wonder why. Remember the laying flat movement and the 996 culture.
I wonder why.
If only there was an actual solution to this LOLOL…
If I lived under an authoritarian regime, I would not want to bring a child into it.
I agree, but how is that relevant to China? It pretty consistently has the highest government satisfaction rates in the world.
Edit: and before you accuse me of Chinese propaganda, that’s data from western organizations like Pew Research or Ash Institute
Because they jail/disappear anyone who complains? Lol.
Edit: Without entrenched freedom of speech, surveys mean nothing but what respondants think their opressors want to hear.
Dumb take. The data portraying that comes from western institutions like Pew Research or the Ash Institute
You seem to struggle with the simple concept. So badly in fact, that I suspect this is all disingenuous bullshit from a bad faith ideologue.
In the slight chance this is just a high level of ignorance, naievety or low IQ, here is my polite response.
Oppressed people won’t tell anyone anything that can be used against them, western or not. Pew Research isn’t going to protect them. The Ash institute won’t un-disapear anyone. The people speaking to western, even academic sources still have to live under oppression when the survey is done.
Speaking to foreign journalist is a great way to get your family threatened.
https://rsf.org/en/chinese-regime-s-fierce-repression-journalists-hidden-behind-day-celebration
Edit: Never mind. For bad faith arguments I hereby award you a personal block.
Quoting RSF, the western politicized organization that refused to comment on the illegal arbitrary detention of a Spanish journalist in Poland. The organization classifying England’s “Press Freedom Index” as satisfactory while all sorts of reporters bring up the massive repression against anti-zionism in all media. Surely that Montpellier-based organization with branches exclusively in western countries could not be used as a political tool!
You have literally never spoken to a Chinese person living in China, and it shows.
Oppressed people won’t tell anyone anything that can be used against them, western or not
Look. I understand you’ve been exposed to decades of anti-China propaganda, but this is fucking wild. In my university department I’ve been fortunate enough to direct the master’s and bachelor’s theses of some 10 Chinese students. I’ve discussed politics with most of them, between 2020 and 2024 for a frame of reference. We’re talking highly trained young men and women from a variety of backgrounds and provinces. None of them has had any problem talking to me about politics, other than “I’m not really interested” for some of them. Out of those students, only one chose to pursue a career in Germany (highly developed, rich country in Europe), the rest moved back to “authoritarian, evil, oppressive” China.
The one who chose to stay in Germany told me that he came to Europe considering himself an opposition supporter against the government of China, but that when he saw the politics in Europe, he started to be a lot more charitative towards the Chinese government and he’s not so clear about his position anymore. Another student told me she couldn’t understand how the German government did nothing while hundreds of thousands of citizens were needlessly dying of COVID because it didn’t want to infringe too much on “the economy”.
Tell me now: how many actually Chinese people living in China have you spoken with?
Damn. Americans jail even more people and still have a lower satisfaction…
I live in a democracy and don’t want to bring children into this.
Children in China have better lives than those in the US.
And you’re mad about it.
personable as always, .ml
As someone currently in China, I’d rather have a kid here than in the US.
There’s a lot more random shit explicitly for children around, like malls will have basketball courts, arcades, playgrounds, and other things that definitely doesn’t generate as much, if any revenue, so kids aren’t just expected to silently follow their parents around or be on the phone for hours at a time. As a consequence, you see fewer outbursts of children in public. They still have a long way to go regarding mental health in other ways. A mother I talked to was confused that anyone could think it’s possible to teach children to listen without hitting them.
As far as education goes, I see more small, private schools than the US, which worries me as it implies the public schools in the area aren’t as good. It’s notoriously stressful for the children, but then so is living with a real danger of getting shot at school.
The truth is that the strength of a democracy has little relation to the birth rate. If you live in the US, for example, you only live in a democracy if your income is in the top 10%. This has actually been studied. The opinions of the poorest 90% of the population have absolutely zero bearing on what government policy is implemented.
The US and China actually have similar levels of democracy. China forms all its policies from the CCP, an organization of about 100 million people. The share of the population in China that has any impact on policy is actually quite similar to the share that does the same in the US.
While you are correct, taking a piss poor example of democracy against another piss poor example of democracy doesn’t really explain anything. I said authoritarian regime, I stand by that.
What democracy currently have population replacement birth levels?
All the ones in Europe (if you count them as democratic obviously)
lived under an authoritarian regime
I mean… isn’t that just most of history tbh?
Most people aren’t antinatalists lol
