Under late-stage capitalism, and especially neoliberalism with its extreme inequality, it seems that not only is "if you can, you must" true. but the reverse is also often true as well. When something that was once de facto mandatory becomes optional, it quickly becomes an expensive hobby for the rich, and unaffordable for the masses. (I call this phenomenon "choice gentrification.") That is true for anything from horseback riding (after cars became available) to having kids (after birth control and Women's Liberation). That is not to say that we should force people to have kids, or ban birth control or revoke women's reproductive rights or any other rights, far from it. It should always be a choice, and never forced or coerced. We must always treat human beings as ends in themselves, and never solely as a means to an end. But the problem is *systemic*, and the system itself needs to be changed. At the very least, we will need Universal Basic Income (UBI), not for the purpose of raising the birthrate, but simply because it is the right thing to do on principle. But anti-choice ideologies (of any and all flavors) have no place in a free and civilized society, period.
"When something that was once de facto mandatory becomes optional, it quickly becomes an expensive hobby for the rich, and unaffordable for the masses. (I call this phenomenon "choice gentrification.")"
Well said!
"At the very least, we will need Universal Basic Income (UBI), not for the purpose of raising the birthrate, but simply because it is the right thing to do on principle."
Pronatalism is, at best, a razor-sharp, double-edged sword. And the thing about neo-Nazis is really a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the original Nazis first took root in a Europe that was already beset with depopulation fears back then. Fear of a shrinking population is far worse than the actual thing, in other words. And besides, the world is still overpopulated.
People can of course argue overpopulation versus overconsumption till they are blue in the face. But either way, only a fool or an economist (same difference) would believe that infinite growth on a finite planet is somehow possible or even desirable. And simply having fewer kids is the lowest-hanging fruit on the path to sustainability.
The following article should be food for thought indeed:
"infinite growth on a finite planet is somehow possible or even desirable. And simply having fewer kids is the lowest-hanging fruit on the path to sustainability."
infinite growth on finite planet is beyond silly, no doubt. **Stable equilibrium** on finite planet is the goal, no?
If so, and from a purely mathematical point of view:
a) insisting on fewer kids was one thing when TFR was well over 2.1 . The real issue now is if/where/for how long it still makes sense now
b) and when discussing the above, one has to consider that demography takes generations to adjust, so whatever outcome one would like for e.g. 2070, they should start actively going for it yesterday
a) I would say a TFR in the ballpark of 1.5 or so for a few more generations would be good on balance IMHO. Several scientists like David Pimentel (arguably somewhat of a downer), for example, have long believed that the optimum population size for the world is at most 2 to 3 billion people, and at most 150-200 million for the USA. That's if we presume that everyone in the would should have at least some semblance of a decent standard of living, that is. A TFR of 1.5 or so would achieve that in a few (3 or 4) generations, once the current population momentum runs out. And the world seems to be converging on that level regardless now.
Of course, if it drops much lower than 1.5 and stays there, like many East Asian countries, that can cause us to hit a "pothole" on the road to sustainability as well. The drop will likely be too rapid and jarring in that case. Hopefully a genuine progressive agenda (not to be confused with the woke regressive pseudo-left!) with things like UBI, Medicare For All, generous paid family leave, free or subsidized childcare, etc., would keep the TFR from falling to South Korean levels, and allow it to organically rise back to replacement after a few generations of self-rightsizing the population.
b) Indeed, yesterday is not soon enough. Let the planetary healing begin!
Under late-stage capitalism, and especially neoliberalism with its extreme inequality, it seems that not only is "if you can, you must" true. but the reverse is also often true as well. When something that was once de facto mandatory becomes optional, it quickly becomes an expensive hobby for the rich, and unaffordable for the masses. (I call this phenomenon "choice gentrification.") That is true for anything from horseback riding (after cars became available) to having kids (after birth control and Women's Liberation). That is not to say that we should force people to have kids, or ban birth control or revoke women's reproductive rights or any other rights, far from it. It should always be a choice, and never forced or coerced. We must always treat human beings as ends in themselves, and never solely as a means to an end. But the problem is *systemic*, and the system itself needs to be changed. At the very least, we will need Universal Basic Income (UBI), not for the purpose of raising the birthrate, but simply because it is the right thing to do on principle. But anti-choice ideologies (of any and all flavors) have no place in a free and civilized society, period.
"When something that was once de facto mandatory becomes optional, it quickly becomes an expensive hobby for the rich, and unaffordable for the masses. (I call this phenomenon "choice gentrification.")"
Well said!
"At the very least, we will need Universal Basic Income (UBI), not for the purpose of raising the birthrate, but simply because it is the right thing to do on principle."
Fully agree, see here for more:
https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/ubi-ai-and-reality-always-in-the
https://stop.zona-m.net/2020/08/on-work-money-and-purpose-part-1/
Thank you!
Pronatalism is, at best, a razor-sharp, double-edged sword. And the thing about neo-Nazis is really a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the original Nazis first took root in a Europe that was already beset with depopulation fears back then. Fear of a shrinking population is far worse than the actual thing, in other words. And besides, the world is still overpopulated.
People can of course argue overpopulation versus overconsumption till they are blue in the face. But either way, only a fool or an economist (same difference) would believe that infinite growth on a finite planet is somehow possible or even desirable. And simply having fewer kids is the lowest-hanging fruit on the path to sustainability.
The following article should be food for thought indeed:
https://thechaliceandtheflame.blogspot.com/2024/02/mother-nature-knows-exactly-what-she-is.html
Thanks for your comment. About this:
"infinite growth on a finite planet is somehow possible or even desirable. And simply having fewer kids is the lowest-hanging fruit on the path to sustainability."
infinite growth on finite planet is beyond silly, no doubt. **Stable equilibrium** on finite planet is the goal, no?
If so, and from a purely mathematical point of view:
a) insisting on fewer kids was one thing when TFR was well over 2.1 . The real issue now is if/where/for how long it still makes sense now
b) and when discussing the above, one has to consider that demography takes generations to adjust, so whatever outcome one would like for e.g. 2070, they should start actively going for it yesterday
Thank you for your insights.
a) I would say a TFR in the ballpark of 1.5 or so for a few more generations would be good on balance IMHO. Several scientists like David Pimentel (arguably somewhat of a downer), for example, have long believed that the optimum population size for the world is at most 2 to 3 billion people, and at most 150-200 million for the USA. That's if we presume that everyone in the would should have at least some semblance of a decent standard of living, that is. A TFR of 1.5 or so would achieve that in a few (3 or 4) generations, once the current population momentum runs out. And the world seems to be converging on that level regardless now.
Of course, if it drops much lower than 1.5 and stays there, like many East Asian countries, that can cause us to hit a "pothole" on the road to sustainability as well. The drop will likely be too rapid and jarring in that case. Hopefully a genuine progressive agenda (not to be confused with the woke regressive pseudo-left!) with things like UBI, Medicare For All, generous paid family leave, free or subsidized childcare, etc., would keep the TFR from falling to South Korean levels, and allow it to organically rise back to replacement after a few generations of self-rightsizing the population.
b) Indeed, yesterday is not soon enough. Let the planetary healing begin!