This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If you were going to increase the birth rate how would you do it?
There's lots of suggestions, most of them bad. For example, Scandinavian countries have been touted as "doing it right" by offering generous perks to families such as paid family leave. But these efforts, despite outrageous costs, have done little or nothing to stem the falling birth rate. Sweden's fertility rate is a dismal 1.66 as of 2020, and if trends hold, the rate among ethnic Swedes is far lower.
I think that, like everything, deciding to marry and have a family comes down to status.
Mongolia is a rare country that has managed to increase its fertility rate over the last 20 years, from about 2.1 children per women in 2004, to about 2.7 today. This feat is more impressive considering the declines experienced worldwide during the same period. It's doubly impressive considering the fertility rate in neighboring Inner Mongolia (China) is just 1.06!
What is Mongolia doing right? Apparently, they are raising the status of mothers by giving them special recognition and status.
https://x.com/MoreBirths/status/1827418468813017441
In Georgia (the country), something similar happened when an Orthodox patriarch started giving special attention to mothers with 3 children:
https://x.com/JohannKurtz/status/1827070216716874191
Now, raising the status of mothers is more easily said than done. But I think it's possible, especially in countries with a high degree of social cohesion like in East Asia. In Europe, a figure like the King of Netherlands could personally meet and reward mothers. In the United States, of course, this sort of thing would be fraught as any suggestion coming from the right might backfire due to signalling. Witness the grim specter of the vasectomy and abortion trucks at the DNC. But the first step to fixing a problem is to adequately diagnose the cause. To me, the status explanation is more compelling (and fixable) than any other suggestion I've seen.
First, I want to mention that almost all population projections I'm aware of completely ignore even the possibility of evolution and selection. Plenty of them are just simple regressions that implicitly assume a homogenous population. This is, of course, complete bunk. The number of (surviving & procreating) offspring is literally the thing evolution selects on, and no human population ever has been homogenous across traits. So this is almost guaranteed to be a transient phenomenon, unless you deny evolution in general. Given that at least in my home country of germany we're already at a TFR of 1.6 again, population differentials in family size and heritability estimates for most traits being in the ballpark of 50%, it's probably a matter of only a few generations until we worry about too high population growth again instead.
That means, aside from having to deal with short-term issues such as a terrible working vs dependent/unemployed ratio for the next decade, the primary question should be: Who do we currently select for and who ought we select for? And there is some negative, but also some positive views on this front. On the negative side, we definitely select for unemployed and low time preference people who fail to take the necessary precautions to not become pregnant. On the positive side, we select for people who want to have children and are as such likely to treat them better and likely to prepare themselves better in general. We select to some degree against both hedonism and doomerism, since both inclinitations straightforwardly lead towards being childless, and instead in favor of certain kinds of optimistic long-termism, which includes in particular religiosity. We select somewhat against education in general, but also more specifically for pragmatic people that don't waste an endless amount of time getting stuck in dead-end endeavours (which includes certain educations) throughout their early adulthood. And so on.
Overall, I'm not entirely sure whether we really need to change anything. There are a few horror stories such as drug addicts with almost one heavily disabled kid per year (a colleague of mine works with such cases in a non-profit), but these are basically rounding errors in practice. Poor/unemployed people have slightly more kids, but not by a crazy amount, and these are still mostly pretty normal people. Down syndrome is a good example of positive development: In theory, the modern world enables heavily disabled people to have arbitrary numbers of children whereas they couldn't provide for them before. In practice, not only do the great majority of people with Down's have no children at all, we also massively reduced the number of de novo cases by screening, since even the people who want to have children don't want a heavily disabled kid.
That said, I think the current issues boil down to a few factors:
We didn't evolve to actually want kids before we have them. We evolved to want partnership and sex, and then to nurture and protect any child that might arise from the union. Furthermore, men and women have very different want profiles on this topic. Unless we force people to have kids against their will, easily accessible, reliable contraceptives will always mean a substantially reduced TFR until we have had time to select in favor of wanting kids directly.
Culturally, we spend an inordinate amount of time and pressure teaching kids to not get pregnant too early, but there often is no conception of having them too late or having too few children. My parents always told me that I should wait (when they heard about our first, their first words were literally "so soon?" I was 27!). TV showed me unhappy teen pregnancies on one side, and endless fun adventure for the childless on the other. Even doctors will misinform women that they can have kids whenever they want, in spite of the data clearly showing that even at only 35 there already is a substantial chance for pregnancies to fail, and an even higher chance for disability. School and university made clear that I ought to postpone children until after I'm finished. And finally, friends and acquaintances treat having children as just one lifestyle choice among many.
We have seen an inversion in the economics of having children thanks to retirement. In the past, children were your retirement, the childless depending on the kindness of strangers or at best their neighbours and friends. Kids could help on the farm as early as the late single digits, and could be gainfully employed by 14. Today, having kids means earning much less money in the first place due to not being able to work as much and due to missing promotions, then of that reduced amount you have to spend substantial money to care for them, and then due to earning less you also have a reduced retirement. Child money across the west is peanuts compared to all this, in particular considering that all retirement systems absolutely require a sufficient number of new humans to function at all.
We can't do much about the first except wait, but for the second and third we can. We should inform people adequately about the biological risks of late pregnancies. Programs supporting grandparents to take time off work to help out with child rearing would also be quite positive, since they usually are in stable employment, will not miss promotions anymore and many have already passed their most productive years anyway. Education needs to be shortened and focus on things that are useful. Likewise wasting more than one or two years in early adulthood should be frowned upon much more. There should be less TV and media, and more activities like outdoors summer camps, since the former will always idealize childless adventuring, while the latter is almost intrinsically family-friendly. Retirement probably needs to be rehauled entirely so that that having kids - be it biologically or adopted - is similarly net-positive for your retirement prospects as earning decent money. We need to get rid of many "child protection" laws that sound good in theory but mean in practice that they can't do any paid work whatsoever. Lastly, I've found that a mentality of "hobbies and most fun activities are for kids" coupled with "adults are primarily allowed to engage in these as long as they do so for the benefit of kids" leads too a much more happy and family-oriented life, since on one side without this it's easy to oversaturate yourself with "fun" at the expense of long-term happiness, while on the other you look forward to having kids so that you can do these things more again. Doesn't mean that the childless aren't allowed to have any fun at all, but just that overindulgence in these things should be socially frowned upon.
Is this number just for Germans or does it include immigrants too?
Afaik it include some immigrants that have a residential or citizen status, but not nearly all. The main origin countries are still poland (1.4), turkey (1.9) and russia (1.5), so the most recent waves from arab countries have not been (fully) incorporated as far as I can see. Also, the TFR of germans without migration background (which is not necessarily ethnic germans, though) has allegedly been increasing as well from the low of 1.4 to somewhere above 1.5.
Can you post a link to the data you're referencing? Overall TFR regardless of ethnic origin is down to 1.34 last year and the number of births so far projects out to a similar or lower figure for 2024. There was minimal upwards movement in the late 00s and early 10s, but this could plausibly be related to immigration, see the jump between 2014-2016. I don't see at all where you're getting the present upwards trend you've mentioned from.
Hmm, I was going by the numbers in the time frame 2016-2020 since I read an in-depth report which only included data up to 2020. I guess that means scratch the part about germany in particular, but the general argument primarily derived from The heritability of fertility makes world population stabilization unlikely in the foreseeable future, doesn't really depend on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link