Many folks want to save the world. Especially young, single, energetic folks. Especially if they also get to: Support their side in common political/etc. divides. Affiliate with statusful prestigious folks who share their cause.
Your inability to understand why children can be social security, which is in fact a widespread and well attested phenomenon, seems to be based on trying to extrapolate from your own psychology, which is an unusual one to say the least.
Talk about a self-reductio. There is no problem of low population, since low population countries are high in wealth and all things desirable. OTOH, counties where your children are the social security system are poor BECAUSE of their high populations.
Reminds me of Chinese propaganda to make 1-child families palatable.
Why even bother.
If people don't want kids, let them not have kids.
The correct bullet to bite is to limit socialized care for the elderly and make it private. If you can't afford private care, and you're over 85, you're offered a painless death instead.
I could live with that, I don't want to be old anyway.
Two major problems with this article:1) Quoted/Plagiarized two other articles in near entirety2) Increasing fertility will only lead to overpopulation and under-resourced families - The human population has never stopped expanding and has only accelerated in growth rates. This article's old (outdated) opinion needs to be thrown away.
@sestamibi You have no right to suggest any one "to die". Being mom is a omen personal matters because its her who suffer at all. So respect them if they are not willing for it.
You never really made the case that falling fertility is a problem. Scale economies are by no means the only factor affecting growth. To increase productivity, economies of scope are at least as important, and innovations lately tilt input ratios toward capital and away from labor. And the fixation on generational income transfers conveniently distracts us from another way to fund a shrinking world: redistribution. The miracle of compound interest coupled with high and rising inequality, means there's lots of room for that. Redistribution might well have significant positive externalities (though I'm guessing GMU is not big on The Spirit Level), and so could well be pareto optimal, or near enough, on a per capita basis. Anyway, the aging rentiers that endow GMU can afford it.
Then people like you will do the rest of us a favor and die out, while others continue their genetic lines. Just how long do you think the "respect" you get will last? After you're gone, you and your ego will be completely forgotten.
As all the above posts conclude, where women and childbearing are concerned, all the carrots in the world will not work. Only the stick of patriarchy does. Those groups who embrace it will prosper, while others will go extinct.
One way to raise the status of having kids might be to make them cost more. I mean, right now ANYONE can have kids. Not just anyone can have, for example, a new ferrari.
So how could one make kids more exclusive? So that people with resources would view the opportunity cost comparison more favorably?
What about making it so everyone is, at birth, given the right to have, say, 1.05 kids. Or some such. And then those rights are trade-able. But the prices are completely unregulated. (Ignore, for a moment, the issues of how this would be enforceable.)
That would make it so that merely having a kid was a status symbol. Having more kids would be an even greater status symbol.
Just as importantly, it could could help allocate children to those that are really interested in raising them.
Other than the enforceability issue (which I believe could be overcome--look at China), could this work?
The standard issues have already been addressed: reform entitlements and pensions to adapt to longer lifespans, develop cures for aging, and the problem will go away. In the US, simply raising the retirement age to 70 will take care of the budget issues for 20 more years.
Instead, I'd like to make a personal comment: isn't it a bit intrusive to tell people what to do with their wombs? The life of a successful career woman can be a lot more appealing than the life of a household drudge. You're not just asking for the sacrifice of income, but of intellectual stimulation, adult company, and respect.
I'm a woman who hasn't yet had children. The prospect of having kids one day is appealing but terrifying. Up until now, I've been a person. My main skills have been academic; people have listened to what I've said and written. I've even received a little respect for doing what I love. The possibility of losing all that and becoming just "Mommy" is... not pleasant. I wouldn't do that to save a thousand lives.
Three recent papers suggesting that lower population would be good if anything for productivity growth (should all be ungated):
* Comin et al.: "Was the Wealth of Nations Determined in 1000 B.C.?"* Strulik et al.: "R&D Based Growth in the Post-Modern Era"* Elgin and Tumen: Can Sustained Economic Growth and DecliningPopulation Coexist? Barro-Becker Children Meet Lucas
This is a manifestation of the aging process itself. Curing aging and the problem goes away.
Your inability to understand why children can be social security, which is in fact a widespread and well attested phenomenon, seems to be based on trying to extrapolate from your own psychology, which is an unusual one to say the least.
Correlation vs. causation and so on.
I don't understand why kids can be social security for their parents.
I never signed off on such an obligation, my parents can go fuck themselves.
Talk about a self-reductio. There is no problem of low population, since low population countries are high in wealth and all things desirable. OTOH, counties where your children are the social security system are poor BECAUSE of their high populations.
It looks like the people who want to maximise the population are seeking a supply of soldier, not workers
http://tinyurl.com/3ykeej
Reminds me of Chinese propaganda to make 1-child families palatable.
Why even bother.
If people don't want kids, let them not have kids.
The correct bullet to bite is to limit socialized care for the elderly and make it private. If you can't afford private care, and you're over 85, you're offered a painless death instead.
I could live with that, I don't want to be old anyway.
Two major problems with this article:1) Quoted/Plagiarized two other articles in near entirety2) Increasing fertility will only lead to overpopulation and under-resourced families - The human population has never stopped expanding and has only accelerated in growth rates. This article's old (outdated) opinion needs to be thrown away.
One idea is to promote books such as *The 17 Little Miracles* that depict large families as interesting, fun, and desirable.
@sestamibi You have no right to suggest any one "to die". Being mom is a omen personal matters because its her who suffer at all. So respect them if they are not willing for it.
This is a decent suggestion to be considered.
You never really made the case that falling fertility is a problem. Scale economies are by no means the only factor affecting growth. To increase productivity, economies of scope are at least as important, and innovations lately tilt input ratios toward capital and away from labor. And the fixation on generational income transfers conveniently distracts us from another way to fund a shrinking world: redistribution. The miracle of compound interest coupled with high and rising inequality, means there's lots of room for that. Redistribution might well have significant positive externalities (though I'm guessing GMU is not big on The Spirit Level), and so could well be pareto optimal, or near enough, on a per capita basis. Anyway, the aging rentiers that endow GMU can afford it.
Then people like you will do the rest of us a favor and die out, while others continue their genetic lines. Just how long do you think the "respect" you get will last? After you're gone, you and your ego will be completely forgotten.
As all the above posts conclude, where women and childbearing are concerned, all the carrots in the world will not work. Only the stick of patriarchy does. Those groups who embrace it will prosper, while others will go extinct.
Here, read this:
http://tinyurl.com/3ykeej
One way to raise the status of having kids might be to make them cost more. I mean, right now ANYONE can have kids. Not just anyone can have, for example, a new ferrari.
So how could one make kids more exclusive? So that people with resources would view the opportunity cost comparison more favorably?
What about making it so everyone is, at birth, given the right to have, say, 1.05 kids. Or some such. And then those rights are trade-able. But the prices are completely unregulated. (Ignore, for a moment, the issues of how this would be enforceable.)
That would make it so that merely having a kid was a status symbol. Having more kids would be an even greater status symbol.
Just as importantly, it could could help allocate children to those that are really interested in raising them.
Other than the enforceability issue (which I believe could be overcome--look at China), could this work?
The standard issues have already been addressed: reform entitlements and pensions to adapt to longer lifespans, develop cures for aging, and the problem will go away. In the US, simply raising the retirement age to 70 will take care of the budget issues for 20 more years.
Instead, I'd like to make a personal comment: isn't it a bit intrusive to tell people what to do with their wombs? The life of a successful career woman can be a lot more appealing than the life of a household drudge. You're not just asking for the sacrifice of income, but of intellectual stimulation, adult company, and respect.
I'm a woman who hasn't yet had children. The prospect of having kids one day is appealing but terrifying. Up until now, I've been a person. My main skills have been academic; people have listened to what I've said and written. I've even received a little respect for doing what I love. The possibility of losing all that and becoming just "Mommy" is... not pleasant. I wouldn't do that to save a thousand lives.
Three recent papers suggesting that lower population would be good if anything for productivity growth (should all be ungated):
* Comin et al.: "Was the Wealth of Nations Determined in 1000 B.C.?"* Strulik et al.: "R&D Based Growth in the Post-Modern Era"* Elgin and Tumen: Can Sustained Economic Growth and DecliningPopulation Coexist? Barro-Becker Children Meet Lucas
In any case, I think you're wrong. I expect to make it.