That’s the question!

I think many people on this sub have come to the conclusion that while many economic aspects play into the phenomenon of low TFR, the main driver just might be cultural.

So, let’s brainstorm:

1. What aspects of the culture must change to enable higher TFRs?

2. How can we (ethically!) change the culture in this direction?

Dr. Eliza Filby interviews Dr. Paul Morland.

"In this episode of It's All Relative, I sit down with world-leading demographer Dr Paul Morland, author of No One Left, to explore one of the most important and misunderstood issues shaping our future: demographic decline."

"Together we unpack what falling birth rates really mean for economies, welfare systems, pensions, healthcare, housing, work and the future of generations to come."

"This isn't a conversation about telling people to have children."

TL;DW: The US has been thus far spared from population decline due to immigration, but this is now quickly turning around, and will start affecting social security, business, innovation, etc.

Reasons outlined in the video.

1. Low birthrates.

2. Immigration reduction from 2025 forward. This is new.

3. Emigration and brain drain are now hitting the US. This is new.

Löytyipä mielenkiintoinen gradu ajankohtaisesta aiheesta Suomessa:

"Tutkimuksen perusteella näyttää siltä, että ihannelapsiluku ei ole samalla tavalla sosiaalisesti jakautunut kuin syntyvyys: siinä missä parisuhteessa oleminen sekä korkea sosioekonominen asema nostavat toteutunutta lapsilukua, taustamuuttujien vakioimisen jälkeen ihannelapsiluvun suhteen ei havaita samanlaista yhteyttä. Tämä tarkoittaa siis sitä, että ilman parisuhdetta olevat ja matalaan sosioekonomiseen asemaan kuuluvat kyllä toivovat yhtä paljon lapsia kuin parisuhteessa olevat ja korkeaan sosioekonomiseen asemaan kuuluvat, mutta he silti saavat niitä vähemmän. Näin ollen hedelmällisyyskuilu ilmentää syntyvyyteen liittyvää eriarvoisuutta. Koska kumppanin puuttuminen on kenties suurin syy sille, ettei oma ihannelapsiluku toteudu, ja koska ilman parisuhdetta eläminen on tyypillistä nimenomaan matalaan sosioekonomiseen asemaan kuuluville, voisi eriarvoisuuden vähentäminen olla keskeinen tekijä hedelmällisyyskuilun kaventamiseksi ja syntyvyyden nostamiseksi."

Ärsuomen ajatukset tästä?

https://helda.helsinki.fi/items/809629d9-8bbe-461c-94a2-55aefb310414

TL;DR: I think contemplating on our incredible 300 000 year history as a species can remind us that we didn't make ourselves, Nature did. And we didn't develop our own genes, Nature did. So many young adults are trying to find themselves through a career, or creative pursuits, or self-optimization, or recreation, and those things are all fine and necessary, but they are ultimately auxiliary. They should help us become a part of the human story, not end it. While exceptions certainly exist (there's always been hermits, monks and the like who withdraw from society), for the vast majority of people, denying yourself the obvious way to meaning and belonging, is a path to depression and isolation.

*

None of what I'm trying to say here is novel, but I think we should engage with this topic nonetheless because it is fundamental.

While there may be many material reasons that obviously affect total fertility rates -- a housing crisis, a cost of living crisis, a climate crisis -- I think there is an even bigger, long-standing force at play here: A crisis of meaning. I think we've felt this for a good while. Some more than others. The existentialists wrote about their crisis of meaning over a hundred years ago in well-known treatises. I don't think that the problems they posited have really been solved in a majority-culture sense. We still feel it, and it leaves us either fragmented (I'll make my own meaning, and so will everyone else!) or nihilistic ("There is no meaning, so whatever.")

What does that have to do with fertility? Well, I think there is a big clue in the fact that religious communities often have higher fertility rates. Their frameworks of meaning often differ from the mainstream, and involve shared ideas about how important family and reproduction is. It's done to obey the higher power. Yes, it is true those beliefs can lead to some very problematic outcomes, especially for women. To be clear, I'm not advocating for that, or for any religion, my worldview is scientific.

However, while it is useful and as truthful as humanly possible, a scientific worldview cannot tell you much about what should be or what you, a person, should do. It can describe how things are, which can of course inform our decisions but not make them for us. The "is" does not imply an "ought", as they say. So, as we are all informed by this worldview, we don't really have templates of meaning, as our current knowledge doesn't support all the prior templates we had, and young adults are left to figure it all out themselves.

So we spend our days endlessly just trying to figure ourselves out, trying to "make" ourselves happy, and once we gain even a little self awareness and calm, everything else becomes kind of a threat. "I have finally established myself, why would I risk it all by having a baby? That would mean I can't do any of the things I've used to become a person." And that's kind of the immaterial crisis of meaning as it relates to fertility. To be sure, I'm not saying anything new here, this is a remix of ideas we all know and feel today.

Everyone has watched nature documentaries, though. We watch them because we want to be in awe of the wonder of nature, the circle of life, the weird and wonderful diversity of species. We accept readily the sheer majesty of an ocean, or a rainforest, a mountain range, a gorge or neverending plains. We never question whether these things should exist, we merely take delight in the fact that they do. Even people who don't think humans should reproduce would never say other animals shouldn't, on the contrary, we fear their extinction. I have watched my over the course of my life and visited natural parks to enjoy nature. But I never saw myself really as a part of what happens in nature, I realize that now. Maybe I did on an intellectural level: "homos sapiens is one species on Earth", sure. But not on an emotional level. I didn't feel a sense of belonging to that tapestry of Life. I have been a spectator of it, watching from the outside.

However now, as a father, when I recently watched a documentary on Homo Sapiens, it hit me different. Those people right there, whose actual bones we are studying now, were really my ancestors too. The DNA they sequenced right there, a part of that is in me! Even the species that went extinct have a common ancestor with us, with me, somewhere far, far back. I belong, and I always did, even if I didn't want to, it's not optional. Those people whose bones were are looking at now, they truly live on, and it is freaking miracle that they do. They had only the amazing technology of "big pointy stick" to help them, and they freaking made it work. They passed on the essense of themselves, the thing Nature took so long to craft through trial and error, and it ended up... in little old me. And I passed it on through my son.

This might all have seemed a little twee to me as a young adult. Yes, yes, Lion King, we've all seen it, Circle of Life, Elton John. Yeah, but I hadn't really felt it before I had my kid. He is my connection. I am now a link in a chain, not the end of the line, dangling and holding on to dear life. Like all kids, I wanted to belong all my life, and I thought, subconsciously, that if I did enough cool things, I would buy a ticket into society. Other people would say "wow, now you've truly done it". And I've done pretty cool things in my life, don't get me wrong, and they got me some accolades too. But those accolades didn't last very long. The high wore off. And now I understand why. None of those things will last 300 000 years. Not even close. The things I build will be dust, the ideas I've had will be a faded memory, my career will be insignificant, and certainly any money will spent.

And that is the big picture. That's why any material crises are auxiliary to the crisis of meaning. Because Nature doesn't care about the next 30 years or a 300. We are talking aeons here. That's the big picture of natalism, its real motivation. (Sure, some people might have narrower ideas about why their genes should prevail. There is that perennial spectre of eugenics or racism that is always brought forward, sometimes by critics and sometimes by proponents. But I would call that negative natalism because it just doesn't work with scientific reality -- we are all mixed, as the geneticist David Reich says, so this cannot be about racial purity, because that does not exist and never has.)

That being said, of course there are vast immediate benefits of belonging in my family. I chose them myself. I have a role. I am irreplaceable for my son. Every day, I have purpose. Is it narcissistic? Call it that if you will, I call it a healthy instinct that Nature has put into us to motivate ourselves to see our own reflection in our offspring. I don't pretend to be better than other animals.

After 40 years of life, I find that the most valuable, most lasting contribution I will have ever made, will be the thing that has been utterly devalued in society all my life.

For 300k years, we most often raised children more communally.

Why did we give up the communal benefits in child rearing?