As a man in his 70s something always strikes me as odd when I read journalism about fertility decline. Your own essay is impressive, evidence-rich and well argued....so well done. And you don't call it a fertility 'crisis' so well done for that too. But here's the thing....when us baby boomers were young there were 3 billion people on the planet and now there are 8 billion. If anyone had any idea of this impending population explosion in the 50 s and 60s they would have been staggered - and horrified. It would have sounded apocalyptic. They just wouldn't have believed it. So how come fertility experts never seem to think this near tripling of the earth's population something even worth mentioning?
Really good article. So making marriage attractive again is the key to both saving society and probably making it happier at the same time. Still, hard to see how that will come about with the current people in charge.
An interesting think piece with some based implications. One major issue is that the conclusions are not fully proven by the article, and narrative overlaying messy trend lines is heavily relied on. What could improve this hypothesis is a multi-national analysis correlating women's rights with fertility decline. Shouldn't be too hard to do. This would link fertility decline with the ultimate cause of feminism, dysgenics, especially through the accumulation of de novo mutation.
"In the long run, it means extinction or conquest by younger and more numerous invaders. It is a very bad thing to have happen to your society."
Younger and more numerous invaders were more of a problem during Genghis Khan's time.
"Women outperforming men in education seems to be a universal feature of the modern world."
This may have some validity in secondary education. But in higher education, not so much. Currently, more women are at university than men, but this is meaningless. What is meaningful is the quality of the studies pursued. Women tend to pursue more mundane majors that provide less benefit to themselves and society. Men, on the other hand, tend to populate the more productive majors that are essential to the growth of our society.
Speaking of quality, the author was concerned about a higher fertility rate; nothing was written about higher quality in the replacement population.
I'm sympathetic to the arguments re marriage as a driver of the baby boom, but I don't see how most of your suggested solutions would be palatable even to moderately conservative people. In places like Scandinavia the now higher status of women in the workplace and society is not something the electorate will want to reverse very easily.
Good points made, however impoverishment of single mothers is not a viable solution.
Recognition of the value of women's work (often unpaid) is sadly lacking and part of the problem.
Just because the pill wasn't legalised in Japan until 1999, doesn't mean women weren't taking it! This point seems disingenuous.
Also, the spread of pornography from late 19th century onwards to the hellscape we have now has vastly reduced ordinary women's "market value" so it's a two way street on that front, men are less keen to marry and give up their virtual imaginary harem.
Rolling back women's rights and going back in time to women being property is not the solution.
Part of the problem is that the policies that made the US one of the freest, most competitive economies in the world turned out to be fundamentally hostile to fertility. This happened as our jobs became the sole place for playing the innate game of status seeking. The unmarried’s natural advantage on this field accounts for the insensitivity of TFRs to financial incentives. But just as there were cultural factors behind the fall in TFRs, culture could be enlisted in the turnaround. Greater progressivity of the income tax, for instance, would over time reduce the female lfpr by tipping the scales for young women in favor of marriage.
This is why I am a paid member, such great analysis on something important and ignored by MSM. The fact that the conclusion is something that should be obvious is even more striking. Keep up the great work Aporia!
Interesting points, but I think this article isn't exactly international enough. What about countries where, at least intuitively, there has been less influence of feminism? Was Saudi Arabia influenced by second wave feminism?
Also, one common hypothesis I see is that the richness of the modern world has created distractions such that having kids is a big opportunity cost. I think this explanation struggles with the Baby Boom (people were more prosperous than they were before yet had more children) and might not hold up to marital fertility data. Also, very rich people probably aren't having tons of children despite it being less of an opportunity cost since others can take care of children for them if they wanted. Alex Nowrasteh has an article in Quilette recently arguing this hypothesis. I think it's worth addressing.
I BELIEVE OUR ANCESTORS LEFT US A WARNING ABOUT THIS PHENOMENON!
So... unbalanced female empowerment lowers fertility and lowers all the downstream benifits.
Consider that the semininal "wisdom parable" of Western Culture is the GARDEN OF EDEN story....where a women eats from the "tree of knowledge" and then everyone is cast out of paradise.
Is it possible that this lesson was learned before?...maybe thousands of times before?....and a warning was coded into the metaphorical wisdom of the ancient texts?
What might have been more useful would have been some ideas that are known to causally increase birth rates. Here, you used a demand for higher birth rates and a weak correlation to argue for the restoration of traditional social structures, which might or might not increase birth rates. My view: attempts to force people to do what you want, instead of what they want, typically result in perverse outcomes where no-one gets what they really wanted.
Incredible post about a vital topic. Bookmarking so I can keep coming back to the data. Make babies, save the world.
As a man in his 70s something always strikes me as odd when I read journalism about fertility decline. Your own essay is impressive, evidence-rich and well argued....so well done. And you don't call it a fertility 'crisis' so well done for that too. But here's the thing....when us baby boomers were young there were 3 billion people on the planet and now there are 8 billion. If anyone had any idea of this impending population explosion in the 50 s and 60s they would have been staggered - and horrified. It would have sounded apocalyptic. They just wouldn't have believed it. So how come fertility experts never seem to think this near tripling of the earth's population something even worth mentioning?
Really good article. So making marriage attractive again is the key to both saving society and probably making it happier at the same time. Still, hard to see how that will come about with the current people in charge.
An interesting think piece with some based implications. One major issue is that the conclusions are not fully proven by the article, and narrative overlaying messy trend lines is heavily relied on. What could improve this hypothesis is a multi-national analysis correlating women's rights with fertility decline. Shouldn't be too hard to do. This would link fertility decline with the ultimate cause of feminism, dysgenics, especially through the accumulation of de novo mutation.
This is extremely interesting. Your prescriptions at the end, the Establishment ain't gonna like, at all, but they make sense.
gem
Very informative article.
"In the long run, it means extinction or conquest by younger and more numerous invaders. It is a very bad thing to have happen to your society."
Younger and more numerous invaders were more of a problem during Genghis Khan's time.
"Women outperforming men in education seems to be a universal feature of the modern world."
This may have some validity in secondary education. But in higher education, not so much. Currently, more women are at university than men, but this is meaningless. What is meaningful is the quality of the studies pursued. Women tend to pursue more mundane majors that provide less benefit to themselves and society. Men, on the other hand, tend to populate the more productive majors that are essential to the growth of our society.
Speaking of quality, the author was concerned about a higher fertility rate; nothing was written about higher quality in the replacement population.
I'm sympathetic to the arguments re marriage as a driver of the baby boom, but I don't see how most of your suggested solutions would be palatable even to moderately conservative people. In places like Scandinavia the now higher status of women in the workplace and society is not something the electorate will want to reverse very easily.
This kind of work takes a sharp and diligent mind. Thanks for your craft.
Good points made, however impoverishment of single mothers is not a viable solution.
Recognition of the value of women's work (often unpaid) is sadly lacking and part of the problem.
Just because the pill wasn't legalised in Japan until 1999, doesn't mean women weren't taking it! This point seems disingenuous.
Also, the spread of pornography from late 19th century onwards to the hellscape we have now has vastly reduced ordinary women's "market value" so it's a two way street on that front, men are less keen to marry and give up their virtual imaginary harem.
Rolling back women's rights and going back in time to women being property is not the solution.
Part of the problem is that the policies that made the US one of the freest, most competitive economies in the world turned out to be fundamentally hostile to fertility. This happened as our jobs became the sole place for playing the innate game of status seeking. The unmarried’s natural advantage on this field accounts for the insensitivity of TFRs to financial incentives. But just as there were cultural factors behind the fall in TFRs, culture could be enlisted in the turnaround. Greater progressivity of the income tax, for instance, would over time reduce the female lfpr by tipping the scales for young women in favor of marriage.
This is why I am a paid member, such great analysis on something important and ignored by MSM. The fact that the conclusion is something that should be obvious is even more striking. Keep up the great work Aporia!
Interesting points, but I think this article isn't exactly international enough. What about countries where, at least intuitively, there has been less influence of feminism? Was Saudi Arabia influenced by second wave feminism?
Also, one common hypothesis I see is that the richness of the modern world has created distractions such that having kids is a big opportunity cost. I think this explanation struggles with the Baby Boom (people were more prosperous than they were before yet had more children) and might not hold up to marital fertility data. Also, very rich people probably aren't having tons of children despite it being less of an opportunity cost since others can take care of children for them if they wanted. Alex Nowrasteh has an article in Quilette recently arguing this hypothesis. I think it's worth addressing.
I BELIEVE OUR ANCESTORS LEFT US A WARNING ABOUT THIS PHENOMENON!
So... unbalanced female empowerment lowers fertility and lowers all the downstream benifits.
Consider that the semininal "wisdom parable" of Western Culture is the GARDEN OF EDEN story....where a women eats from the "tree of knowledge" and then everyone is cast out of paradise.
Is it possible that this lesson was learned before?...maybe thousands of times before?....and a warning was coded into the metaphorical wisdom of the ancient texts?
Absolutely fascinating. Going to be thinking about this for a while
Wow, this was impressive sophistry!
What might have been more useful would have been some ideas that are known to causally increase birth rates. Here, you used a demand for higher birth rates and a weak correlation to argue for the restoration of traditional social structures, which might or might not increase birth rates. My view: attempts to force people to do what you want, instead of what they want, typically result in perverse outcomes where no-one gets what they really wanted.