

The Fertility Implosion - tokenadult
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/opinion/brooks-the-fertility-implosion.html

======
jacobolus
This is silly.

> _Usually, high religious observance and low income go along with high
> birthrates_

No, usually what goes along with high birthrates is an agrarian peasant
society that has to maintain high birthrates because 50%+ of children die
before the age of 5, and if you want to have several kids of working age
around to help in the fields, you need to aim for 8 or 12 newborns. Agrarian
peasant societies happen to be poor and religious, but those are effects, not
causes. Other contributing factors: women without independent income and
therefore beholden to their husbands, no access to contraceptives, lack of
basic literacy and education especially among girls.

Then what happens when places get improved sanitation and healthcare, pretty
consistently everywhere we look at the data, is that there’s a demographic
bubble when a generation has mothers survive all their pregnancies and all
their 8-12 kids survive to adulthood. Then in the next generation or two, that
falls to 4-6 kids on average because, hey, 50% aren’t dying anymore. Then by
2-3 generations after that, it’s down to 2-3 kids on average, or in some
places even below replacement levels. Other contributing factors: migration to
cities, access to contraceptives, and education especially of girls.

If you work in a factory or an office or a store, and live in a city, it’s
just not convenient to start having kids at age 16 or to end up with 8 kids
running around, even if you’re poor or religious. Already, 50% of the world
population is urban, and within another generation that will be 60%.

> _The speed of the change is breathtaking_

The same demographic changes everywhere else in the world happened or are
happening roughly at the same speed. There’s an incredible drop in fertility
rate within 2-3 generations every time. For example, you see precisely the
same pattern happening within the last few decades in rural Mexico, and if you
look back several generations, the same pattern sweeping across Europe.

That Brooks thinks the changes in Oman &c. are surprising says more about
Brooks than about the changes here.

~~~
rsheridan6
In general what you say is true, but there are some exceptions. The Hasidic
Jews are one of the most fertile groups in the US, and they are low income,
highly religious, but urban (most of them live in New York City).

You might think they're an insignificantly small group, but the
counterintuitively fast nature of exponential population growth means that
they'll become surprisingly large surprisingly quickly. They're culturally
immune to the influences that caused fertility to collapse in others and
they're unlikely to voluntary limit their fertility.

------
felipemnoa
>>But, over the long term, it’s better to have a growing work force, not one
that’s shrinking compared with the number of retirees.<<

Why is this true? It seems to be taken as granted that this is true. I don't
think that having a growing workforce that is barely earning a living is such
a good thing.

It just seems unsustainable to think that we can depend on a growing workforce
indefinitely to support the growing number of retirees. Long term it will be
better to figure out technological solutions to this problem, i.e. robotics.

Hopefully with a reduced workforce we can focus more on quality of life.

Edit: I guess the reason this quote bothers me so much is that increasing the
population in a lot of countries would mean bringing new babies to a life of
poverty and misery. Why not focus on fixing the quality of life thing first?

Edit2: This is a response to the comment:

>>A lot of people would be surprised to learn that the impoverished peoples in
a many those countries are a lot happier we expect. All-in-all they aren't
much less happy than we are.<<

I think you may be right. I was probably just projecting. Still, being below
the poverty line brings a lot of problems. Tens of millions of people die just
from hunger every year or from diseases that are simple to cure or prevent in
the developed world. That is probably the kind of misery I'm talking about.

~~~
blvr
> I guess the reason this quote bothers me so much is that increasing the
> population in a lot of countries would mean bringing new babies to a life of
> poverty and misery.

A lot of people would be surprised to learn that the impoverished peoples in a
many those countries are a lot happier we expect. All-in-all they aren't much
less happy than we are.

Not saying that wealth isn't a good thing, but it doesn't seem to be a major
determining factor in happiness. Not unless you're too poor to get your 1,800
calories or you think you're entitled to wealth you don't have, anyway.

~~~
riffraff
I am not refuting your point ("money does not happiness make") but AFAIK, it
is a known fact that people tend to a state of average happiness no matter
what their condition is (e.g. if they lack the ability to walk or if they own
private jets).

But there is a correlation between the youth/child death rate and the number
of kids, and it can be generally agreed death impairs the pursuit of
happiness.

(Though, quite likely child death implies many kids, not the other way around)

------
astrofinch
American fertility is heavily stratified by education; less educated women
reproduce significantly more:

[http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/09/28/americas-
fe...](http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/09/28/americas-fertility-
crisis/)

~~~
spindritf
And race, and wealth, and even political views:

> Mean number of offspring

> Wealthy liberal women (n = 35) 1.60

> Wealthy conservative women (n = 43) 2.49

> The difference is statistically significant. Wealthy white conservative
> women average 55 percent more kids than their liberal counterparts.

[http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2012/03/fertility-among-
weal...](http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2012/03/fertility-among-wealthy-
white-liberal.html)

------
ebiester
The real moral of the story? Health care startups in the next 20 years will be
hot, as most of our world transitions to taking care of an increasingly
elderly generation, robotics fill highly repeatable labor, and the resource
crunch makes goods last longer.

~~~
jarek
I can already see the reaction to acqui-hires. The sick should love having
their services sunsetted.

~~~
ebiester
Ah, but direct to consumer isn't necessarily the right play in this market.
HIPPA is still a major pain, and the sick (and families of the sick) tend to
have less cash. (Though, they have a lot of points where their lives could be
made better by software. The low hanging fruit has been done in the app store,
of course.)

Further, if you go B2B, the aqui-hire might be more interesting if you have
multiple hospital groups that like your product. (for example) In fact, it
makes you more likely to be acquired for your technology.

~~~
jarek
Or you may be acquired by a bigco and your product killed to eliminate nascent
competition. Frankly, I'm not convinced the usual VC-funded startup ecosystem
is a great match for healthcare. If you think consumers might be afraid of
companies going out of business, you should see how some of a) large
businesses that make all decisions for five years at a time or b) small
practices that still use Access and macros from 2001 because they work feel
about the situation.

------
mwd_
On an abstract level it does seem better to have a large number of young
people to care for a small number of retirees, but that would create an
unsustainable pyramid scheme in a country like China. Many parts of the world
are already overpopulated and low fertility is pretty much the best case
scenario.

All of that aside, I also think that there are factors more important than the
relative number of old people in a given population. Technological
development, public health, etc. are all probably more important, and some of
those factors are at odds with high fertility.

------
ChrisNorstrom
I've always believed in "Quality of Life", over "Quantity of Life". And
reading stories like these gives me hope for the planet. I'm not sure we can
handle 10 billion people living off of it simultaneously. Just look at all the
problems we've got with only 7 billion and the upcoming food and resource
shortages.

Smaller populations living great full lives is so much better than massive
populations living terribly. Economically, investors don't like shrinking
populations because they make their money from growth and consumerism, but
environmentally this is wonderful news.

Looks like, in its own way, nature is starting to balance things out once
again.

~~~
simplefish
I'm not sure why you seem surprised; this is a _very_ long standing trend.
It's also pretty obvious. You aren't the only one to value quality of life
over quantity; in fact everyone else does too. The only problem is that if
you're very poor you don't have a choice. Wherever and whenever the human race
manages to claw its way out of poverty, we immediately stop having so many
kids. It's not magic.

That being said...

1) What upcoming food shortage? Food production is largely a solved problem.
We know how to sustainably produce large amounts of food from a given amount
of arable land, and we have plenty of arable land to feed not just the current
global population, but the projected maximum global population. It's true! We
already have the ability to feed the largest population we'll ever have. True,
Africa _currently_ has food shortages, but as soon as Africa stops relying on
peasant farming, that problem goes away. We can argue about when (or if)
Africa is going to finally have their own Green Revolution[0], but...upcoming
shortages? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :)

2) I might ask what upcoming resource shortage, but that's a more complicated
question, and probably not worth arguing about. Still, you might want to
consider the outcome of the Simon-Erlich wager[1], look at commodity price
trends over the last couple decade, and then look at futures prices. Would you
take Erlich's side in a repeat of the original wager? I wouldn't, and it's
worth noting that Erlich and his ideological allies have repeatedly refused to
do so. Again, what do you know that they don't?

3) Also, this is wonderful news for "investors" too (why beat around the bush?
Call them "capitalists"; you know you want to...). Trust me, the slavering
capitalist dogs are _VASTLY_ more interested in having a rich China full of
consumers than in having a poor China full of workers. It might be nice to
have cheap Chinese labour making iPods to sell to 300m rich Americans, but it
will be _FANTASTIC_ to have cheap robot labour making iPods to sell to 1.3b
rich Chinese. (And that's precisely the scenario you're envisioning.) Lower
costs and higher sales is how capitalists make their money in the real world.

4) Finally, it remains to be seen how good it will be environmentally. In the
short run (say, the next 50 years), it probably won't be. Much as with
population growth, we see an inverted curve. Very poor countries can't afford
to pollute, and very rich ones can afford not to - but right in the middle you
end up polluting a bunch. We went through that period in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries; now it's China's turn. They're producing less pollution
for every dollar of GDP each year, but their GDP is climbing much faster. The
environment is likely to get worse before it gets better. (Of course, look on
the bright side: We are conquering global inequality, and the environment will
recover eventually. Those are both GREAT. But let's not get carried away.)

[0]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution>

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager>

~~~
DanBC
> _What upcoming food shortage? Food production is largely a solved problem.
> We know how to sustainably produce large amounts of food from a given amount
> of arable land, and we have plenty of arable land to feed not just the
> current global population, but the projected maximum global population. It's
> true! We already have the ability to feed the largest population we'll ever
> have. True, Africa currently has food shortages, but as soon as Africa stops
> relying on peasant farming, that problem goes away. We can argue about when
> (or if) Africa is going to finally have their own Green Revolution[0],
> but...upcoming shortages? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :)_

(I had a strong personal reaction to your tone; I find your tone really
unpleasant. I recognise this is my problem. Sorry.)

You're right that there is enough food for everyone to be fed and live a
productive life.[1] But there are still extensive problems sharing that food
out.

Just one example: almost half of children under 5 in Nepal are stunted because
of chronic malnutrition.[2]

Developing countries spend too much money importing food.[3]

There are problems now that are hard to overcome in future - climate change,
desertification, salination, rates of HIV / AIDS in the farming population,
migration, etc. Here's a set of photos showing some problems.
(<http://www.irinnews.org/photo/Slideshow/43/Too-Poor-to-Farm>)

But there are interesting methods that show some promise - such as 'empowering
women'.[4]

I don't think we are conquering global inequality. I think it's getting worse.
And the environment might not recover eventually; it might go into runaway
heating and boil off the atmosphere. Or it might recover eventually, after
having killed off all human life.

[1] (<http://www.wfp.org/hunger/faqs>)

[2]
([http://www.irinnews.org/Photo/Details/201112300839360722/A-y...](http://www.irinnews.org/Photo/Details/201112300839360722/A-young-
girl-waits-at-a-flower-sellers-stall-in-Kathmandu-Almost-half-of-Nepalese-
children-under))

[3] ([http://www.irinnews.org/In-depth/77872/72/A-global-food-
cris...](http://www.irinnews.org/In-depth/77872/72/A-global-food-crisis))

[4] ([http://www.irinnews.org/Report/95038/FOOD-Reduce-hunger-
nurt...](http://www.irinnews.org/Report/95038/FOOD-Reduce-hunger-nurture-
women-farmers))

~~~
simplefish
"I don't think we are conquering global inequality. I think it's getting
worse."

I'm sure you think that, but the numbers are clear, and not really under any
dispute. Global inequality has been falling steadily and rapidly since 1980;
it's the biggest reduction in absolute poverty the world has ever seen. You
can interpret those numbers however you like, but those are the numbers.

"And the environment might not recover eventually; it might go into runaway
heating and boil off the atmosphere."

Not according to the IPCC and the "scientific consensus". :)

~~~
chii
Some believe that equality means that the gap between the rich and poor is
lessened, and if that was your frame of mind, then it does seem like global
inequality has risen.

However, absolute poverty is decreasing just as you said, and i think that
ought to be the real measure. Who cares if the richest of the rich is
100million times better off than the poorest, if the poorest is better off
already?

~~~
simplefish
This stuff is actually not as hard as you seem to be making it. We don't need
all these "some believe" or "seem like" qualifirs.

First, what do we mean by "global inequality"? Well, let's break that down.
We're talking about a metric measuring income dispersion, which is, yes, a
measure of the gap between rich and poor. A common metric is the Gini
Coefficient[1]. And instead of looking at the coefficient of a single country,
if we look at the entire population, we get a metric of global inequality. Not
hard, right?

Second, what have metrics of global inequality been doing since 1980? Why,
they've been falling[2]!

So, yes, the "gap between the rich and poor [has] lessened". I have no idea
why you or anyone else might think that it seems otherwise. Find an op-ed or
column about the global economy from anytime in the past decade, and you've
got a good chance of it either talking about how real incomes in the West (ie,
the global 1%) are stagnating, or how real wages in China (ie, the global 99%)
are booming. There's really no way this could happen and _not_ result in a
significant reduction in the gap between the rich and poor. And indeed, that's
exactly what's resulted. (And to tie it back to a perennial HN favourite, the
mechanism by which this has happened - an unprecedented reduction in global
inequality and a massive reduction in absolute poverty - is exemplified by
Apple and Foxconn.)

(You're also right that we _could_ have a reduction in absolute poverty even
as global inequality increased. But that's now what _is_ happening.)

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient>

[2]: I'm resisting supplying citations because a quick Google search will turn
up, literally, _pages_ of results. Still, if you want one image, this one[3]
isn't bad.

[3]:
[http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/200...](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/20040313/CSF979.gif)

------
robomartin
It will be interesting to see how China's single-child-per-family experiment
plays out. That decision alone might very well trigger a downfall both in
economic and cultural terms.

~~~
marquis
Or they may find the technological holy grail to deal with it. I truly have my
hopes on China deciding to spend their growing wealth on making the next
decades better for all, rather than sinking it into non-renewable energy and
consumables.

------
majmun
This is non issue, if needed, nation state can produce arbitrary number of
children.

~~~
chii
a nation state that can coerce its populace into having an arbitrary number of
children is not one where those children would like to grow up in...

~~~
majmun
...and nation state with 90% old people is? BTW im just claiming this is not
issue. if need arises for fixing this there are known solutions (it is very
easy to reproduce). I dont understand this hype and urgency about aging of
europe. Every once and then this headlines appears for some reason.

------
specialist
Please prefix the pundit neocon's name to these types of submissions.

Linking to David "Bobos" Brooks is the political equivalent of linking to
goatse.

Not to pass judgement, but if Brooks ever manages to tap out anything less
than utterly wrong and contemptible, I'm quite certain someone else said it
first, only better.

~~~
derleth
I don't know about the rest of the people here, but I'd be interested in
hearing why you think Brooks is so contemptible.

~~~
specialist
Unrepentant war monger.

If you really want to get worked up, watch one of his tete a tetes with Mark
Shields on PBS (if they're still doing that). I'm surprised Brooks has the
brain power to breathe.

Anyway. Is it really too much to ask submitters to prefix their links with the
celebrity neocons name?

