Birthrates only matter because of mass immigration. If you don't have mass immigration they're irrelevant, especially with the pace at which automation via LLM (including in the material world with PaLM-E and other multimodal models for robotics) is advancing.
It doesn't really matter if South Korea's population falls from 50m to 10m provided two things are true:
Firstly, that total productivity can be maintained (this seems likely with LLMs able to take over a large percentage of white collar labor over the next few years, and robotics + multimodal LLMs likely to take over a large percentage of blue collar labor over the next decade or two). In this case, no economic collapse is likely, and while fiscal policy might need to adjust to redistribute generated wealth, that's not an existential issue.
Secondly, that those very same advances mean that military preparedness isn't damaged by falling number of young men, which again, advances in drone warfare suggest is likely. Plus, North Korea's birthrate is also collapsing (see Kim's recent comments) and it has half SK's population, so any disadvantage is unlikely to be large.
The main reason to be worried about birthrates is demographic competition as in Lebanon, in Israel, in India and so on. If a minority group has much higher birthrates than the native population, the long-term balance of power in a nation is almost guaranteed to shift.
The war in Ukraine is strong evidence that manpower will continue to matter in war.
There is a longterm dysgenic effect with 2 kids per household, because the way human fertility is designed to work is that ~8 births occur and perhaps 1 or 2 of the healthiest go on to have 8-12 births themselves. A norm of 2 births is a norm of decreasing health over generations until the problems become apocalyptic.
In America, even without mass immigration, you have the high fertility of the ultra Orthodox Jews. So unless you want a future without music or art or equality or indigenous Europeans it’s a good idea to incentivize births. Eg 200k in New York, doubling every 20 years means hundreds of millions within 200 years. And they already wield an absurd amount of political power in New York
In America, even without mass immigration, you have the high fertility of the ultra Orthodox Jews. So unless you want a future without music or art or equality or indigenous Europeans it’s a good idea to incentivize births. Eg 200k in New York, doubling every 20 years means hundreds of millions within 200 years. And they already wield an absurd amount of political power in New York
The number of Ultra Orthodox and the number of Amish in the US is actually pretty similar (~400k). Good tfr estimates for both are fraught (both populations are actually experiencing falling birthrates) but many estimates are similar. Of course, neither the Amish or the Ultra-Orthodox in their current forms will ever be the majority in the US because their cultures will undergo huge changes as they become large shares of the population (as they already are in Israel).
A much larger Amish population will necessarily experience urbanization and the cultural and economic change that will follow, and a much larger ultra orthodox population will become more splintered and atomized, and as more men labor (or spend any time) beyond the kollel the whole institutional structure of that society will begin to crumble in places. In both cases, birthrates will fall (as they already are).
Every estimate I have even seen shows an Hasidic doubling every 20-22 years. From 2006 to today. In Israel the Haredi double every 16 years. I have never seen anything even vaguely hinting at the population not doubling that quickly. Do you have a source for why it’s fraught or were you just saying that? It’s actually surprisingly easy to do a head count on how much the ultra orthodox are increasing.
their cultures will undergo huge changes
We have much evidence that this will not be the case. Both Amish and Hasidim have high retainment rates of 85-95% which have not slowed due to any technological advance, and I recall reading that the Amish have a higher retainment now than in the 60s. The ultra-orthodox in America are centered in literally the most culturally diverse and dense part of the country, NYC and neighboring towns, and this has not stopped their increase.
Youre right that the Amish threat can be ignored — at most they will be a large peasant class with little political or financial power, and their way of life conflicts with urban living. But this is not so for the ultra orthodox. The way the community works is that the wealthy landlords and financiers etc disperse their funds to the poorer members who spend their time studying Talmud etc. There’s no shortage of wealthy ultra orthodox doing this. And they are also expanding their influence in shipping, I recall reading that 15% of all Amazon fulfillment in the US is done by ultra orthodox. So there’s no conceivable economic hindrance to their growth minus perhaps an anti-Hasidic boycott movement which I suppose is not out of the question in the future.
I recall reading that 15% of all Amazon fulfillment in the US is done by ultra orthodox
Isn’t Amazon fulfillment mostly contracted out to gig work? Seems a natural economic niche for people with incredibly specific and annoying religious rules governing their every action.
Sorry I think I got it wrong, they aren’t the drivers (haha) but the third party sellers / middle men. Apparently they have pretty insular marketing conferences and organizations to help other ultra orthodox enter this niche. But yeah this makes sense for them if they have to pray a number of times a day and can’t work around women. I was primarily mentioning this as an example of the sustainability of the ultra orthodox economy in light of their growth.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Birthrates only matter because of mass immigration. If you don't have mass immigration they're irrelevant, especially with the pace at which automation via LLM (including in the material world with PaLM-E and other multimodal models for robotics) is advancing.
It doesn't really matter if South Korea's population falls from 50m to 10m provided two things are true:
Firstly, that total productivity can be maintained (this seems likely with LLMs able to take over a large percentage of white collar labor over the next few years, and robotics + multimodal LLMs likely to take over a large percentage of blue collar labor over the next decade or two). In this case, no economic collapse is likely, and while fiscal policy might need to adjust to redistribute generated wealth, that's not an existential issue.
Secondly, that those very same advances mean that military preparedness isn't damaged by falling number of young men, which again, advances in drone warfare suggest is likely. Plus, North Korea's birthrate is also collapsing (see Kim's recent comments) and it has half SK's population, so any disadvantage is unlikely to be large.
The main reason to be worried about birthrates is demographic competition as in Lebanon, in Israel, in India and so on. If a minority group has much higher birthrates than the native population, the long-term balance of power in a nation is almost guaranteed to shift.
The war in Ukraine is strong evidence that manpower will continue to matter in war.
There is a longterm dysgenic effect with 2 kids per household, because the way human fertility is designed to work is that ~8 births occur and perhaps 1 or 2 of the healthiest go on to have 8-12 births themselves. A norm of 2 births is a norm of decreasing health over generations until the problems become apocalyptic.
The number of Ultra Orthodox and the number of Amish in the US is actually pretty similar (~400k). Good tfr estimates for both are fraught (both populations are actually experiencing falling birthrates) but many estimates are similar. Of course, neither the Amish or the Ultra-Orthodox in their current forms will ever be the majority in the US because their cultures will undergo huge changes as they become large shares of the population (as they already are in Israel).
A much larger Amish population will necessarily experience urbanization and the cultural and economic change that will follow, and a much larger ultra orthodox population will become more splintered and atomized, and as more men labor (or spend any time) beyond the kollel the whole institutional structure of that society will begin to crumble in places. In both cases, birthrates will fall (as they already are).
Every estimate I have even seen shows an Hasidic doubling every 20-22 years. From 2006 to today. In Israel the Haredi double every 16 years. I have never seen anything even vaguely hinting at the population not doubling that quickly. Do you have a source for why it’s fraught or were you just saying that? It’s actually surprisingly easy to do a head count on how much the ultra orthodox are increasing.
We have much evidence that this will not be the case. Both Amish and Hasidim have high retainment rates of 85-95% which have not slowed due to any technological advance, and I recall reading that the Amish have a higher retainment now than in the 60s. The ultra-orthodox in America are centered in literally the most culturally diverse and dense part of the country, NYC and neighboring towns, and this has not stopped their increase.
Youre right that the Amish threat can be ignored — at most they will be a large peasant class with little political or financial power, and their way of life conflicts with urban living. But this is not so for the ultra orthodox. The way the community works is that the wealthy landlords and financiers etc disperse their funds to the poorer members who spend their time studying Talmud etc. There’s no shortage of wealthy ultra orthodox doing this. And they are also expanding their influence in shipping, I recall reading that 15% of all Amazon fulfillment in the US is done by ultra orthodox. So there’s no conceivable economic hindrance to their growth minus perhaps an anti-Hasidic boycott movement which I suppose is not out of the question in the future.
Isn’t Amazon fulfillment mostly contracted out to gig work? Seems a natural economic niche for people with incredibly specific and annoying religious rules governing their every action.
Sorry I think I got it wrong, they aren’t the drivers (haha) but the third party sellers / middle men. Apparently they have pretty insular marketing conferences and organizations to help other ultra orthodox enter this niche. But yeah this makes sense for them if they have to pray a number of times a day and can’t work around women. I was primarily mentioning this as an example of the sustainability of the ultra orthodox economy in light of their growth.
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