
US births decline for fourth year in a row, CDC says - LinuxBender
https://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_9454f4ed6f218afc194d33afddbab430
======
lacker
This doesn't seem sustainable, to me. Just basic evolution. As long as some
subpopulation has a birth rate above replacement rate, that subpopulation will
grow, until the total birth rate at least returns to replacement.

I feel like human culture has still not reached a steady state after the
invention of birth control. I don't know what will happen per se, but it seems
like the world of the future will have to be more encouraging of parenthood,
in some way, than the world of the present. I hope it is a way that is
consistent with the model of a modern free Western democracy.

~~~
xamuel
Relevant article [1] and corresponding HN discussion thread [2]

Daily reminder that in an evolutionary context, the last 200 years are the
blink of an eye.

I'll paste a comment I made there: "If an antibiotic doesn't wipe out its
target, then its target's numbers will be devastated in the short-term, but in
the long-term, its target will evolve immunity to the antibiotic and
ultimately recover. If you think about it, contraceptives are extremely
similar to an antibiotic whose target is human beings. We're still living in
the short-term when the antibiotic seems to be effective."

[1] "The heritability of fertility makes world population stabilization
unlikely in the foreseeable future"
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513817302799#bb0180)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20360626](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20360626)

~~~
namirez
> _If you think about it, contraceptives are extremely similar to an
> antibiotic whose target is human beings._

We don't really know that. There are environmental stressors that lead a
species to adapt; there are also stressors that cause a species to go extinct.
I think time scales are really important here. Bacteria evolve much more
rapidly than humans. But the rate of creating new antibiotics and
contraceptives are probably in the same ballpark.

~~~
xamuel
The newness of the contraceptives doesn't matter as long as they're still opt-
in. No-one's suggesting humans will evolve condom-melting sperm. There's no
need: a much easier trait to evolve is the desire to have kids.

~~~
raducu
But the "desire to have kids" is such and abstract and complex issue; nature
already has it figured for us, we have the desire to have sex, to nurture and
to like kids is secondary.

It would be impossible for nature to evolve such a complex, conscious yet
instinct-like feature as "I want to have kids for the sake of kids... right,
where do I start... I need a fit SEXUAL partner(so that I have healthy
kids)... but just to have kids... totaly not for the pleasure of sex ...
economy be damned, I want kids... kids are extremly hard to raise by modern
standards... scratch that... I need to have kids no matter what".

~~~
quotemstr
> It would be impossible for nature to evolve such a complex, conscious yet
> instinct-like feature as "I want to have kids for the sake of kids..

We have such an instinct now. Women (some men too, I guess) in their 30s
frequently attest to a feeling that their "biological clock" is ticking and
that they feel a yearning to have kids for the sake of having kids. This
desire is probably still secondary to the raw sex drive in humanity, but
evolution is _great_ at taking secondary drives and turning them up to 11.

Keep in mind also that evolution isn't necessarily genetic. Humanity's unique
advantage is culture. We can change our "software" much faster than we can
change our genetic "hardware". Some culture groups, e.g., the Mormons and the
Amish, already have fertility rates very much above average. As long as
fertility is heritable, it doesn't really matter whether the mechanism is
genetics or culture: the future belongs to the people who reproduce.

~~~
raducu
Women have started having children throughout the aeons at a very early age.
It is onĺy in the last 80.000 years that humans have made the conscious
connection between sex and having children.

Womens fertilty declines sharply in their 30' and it is through conscious
understanding of that fact and imitation that they think "their biological
clock is ticking"; they consciously understand that it is now or never, that
all their friends have children and that their looks and chances of attracting
mates are fading.

Also, I'm willing to bet that people in the "my biological clock was ticking"
camp have much, much lower birth rates than average(probably close to 1),
which is an indicator rhat they actually felt pressured not to be childless
rather than a genuine desire to have childreN.

I absolutely agree with your culture argument, I am just claiming that modern
culture will go extinct unless we incorporate higher birthrates into it, not
that the human species will go extinct.

------
neallindsay
The article doesn’t do a good job of highlighting that the decrease in
pregnancy is mostly (maybe entirely?) among teenage girls. Maybe kids today
are having less sex or maybe they’re better at using birth control. Either
way, this is a good thing.

~~~
lawn
Why is teenagers having less sex good?

~~~
hkarthik
Less unwanted pregnancies which result in less abortions, single mothers
relying on taxpayer social safety nets, or extra state money spent on kids
falling through the cracks of the foster care system.

~~~
sametmax
The problem here seems more unwanted pregnancies than with teenagers having
sex.

I se how less sex is an easy solution to the problem, but it is also the wrong
one. Your teenage years are when you have the more energy and hormones, you
are basically built to have sex. Not to mention it's healthy for the mind and
body.

It would be like not allowing teens ride bikes because of possible crash with
cars since stats show teens are more likely to have accidents than adults.

Better find a way to limit the accidents themself: you get healthy kids,
having fun, and they grow into better adults.

~~~
hkarthik
A big part of the stigma around teen sex is rooted in thousands of years of
religious taboo associated with it among the world’s major religions. This is
likely because those belief systems were the original dominant form of birth
control.

This is likely a case where the evolution of human culture hasn’t caught up
with the available medical technology.

------
mensetmanusman
I am a PhD with 5 kids under the age of 10, people think I’m crazy.

My new thing is telling people I have 10 kids, then saying ‘just kidding, only
5’

~~~
souprock
You're a beginner. I have 6 kids under the age of 10, and another 6 aged 10
and older. Not kidding: only 1.2 dekachildren.

You have some catching up to do.

------
spodek
The best book I've read on population is Countdown by Alan Weiss
[https://www.amazon.com/Countdown-Last-Best-Future-
Earth/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Countdown-Last-Best-Future-
Earth/dp/0316097756). If you think we need to grow or that leveling off to 10
billion or even 7 billion helps, you'll appreciate reading the book.

Among other points, he recounts several nations that have lowered birthrate
without coercion to greater abundance, prosperity, and joy -- Thailand, for
example.

It inspired me to 3 podcast episodes on lowering birth rate: episodes 248,
250, and 251 [http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-and-monologues-
vo...](http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-and-monologues-volume-9).

Also Limits to Growth's 30 year update [https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-
Donella-H-Meadows/dp/19...](https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-
Meadows/dp/193149858X)

------
0_gravitas
i can only really see this as a good thing, but im admittedly a bit of an
antinatalist myself

------
propter_hoc
Population change is going to have wide-ranging effects on society and the
economy. Already, the shrinking size of generations is putting smaller
colleges out of business and is expected to hit the housing market hard in the
near future [1].

Immigration will have somewhat of a mitigating effect, but sentiment has been
pretty anti-immigration for a while. Worse, the rest of the world is
experiencing the same decline in birth rates [2], and is developing so fast
that the economic argument for a resident of another country to emigrate to
the West is shrinking. (Why learn another language to live in Denver, when
Shanghai is faster-growing and more modern? [3])

To be sure, there are lots of confounding factors, like the universities and
social freedoms available in the West, but on a 50-year span we should expect
to see some dramatic shifts due to these demographic evolutions.

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/ok-boomer-whos-going-to-buy-
you...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ok-boomer-whos-going-to-buy-
your-21-million-homes-11574485201)

[2]
[https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3039064/chin...](https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3039064/chinas-
ageing-population-prompts-plan-deal-looming-silver-shock)

[3] [https://a16z.com/2019/10/30/the-power-of-qr-
codes/](https://a16z.com/2019/10/30/the-power-of-qr-codes/)

~~~
moonraker
Ironically (given our current Zeitgeist) by the time we start to feel the
effects of the these demographic trends, we'll need more automation to keep up
productivity (and therefore long-term GDP growth)... especially when one
considers the entitlement spending that will be needed to care for the
elderly).

I'd imagine that by then, there will be more individuals advocating for
increased automation and (hopefully) society will become increasingly 'techno-
optimist' as a result

------
dougmwne
Here's a comparison to the rest of the world:
[http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-
fertility-r...](http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-
rate/)

This is an interesting topic for a number of reasons. It's tied up in
political questions like immigration, taxes, healthcare and education. And
there are unresolved economic questions like, "how will capitalism survive the
end of endless growth?" Sociological questions like, "why did everyone stop
having babies?" And then there's the environmental perspective, "Are we
already hopelessly past this planet's carrying capacity?"

------
pm24601
The earth resources are stressed beyond the breaking point with the current
population.

A declining population is not a problem - except to handwringing economists.

From a human perspective, we need to only have workers to fulfill the
production needs of society.

Paying for retirees is solvable by simply aggressively taxing the
billionaires.

In the US, having a kid or kids is an unaffordable luxury item for couples
trying to survive in today's economy.

I know the only way, I can afford my kids is that I got lucky with the stock
market.

~~~
moonraker
Earth's resources are strained, yes. However, taxing billionaires as you
propose wouldn't necessarily pay for all the entitlement spending that the
elderly require.

A solution to both of these problems is increasing total factor productivity
(aka doing more with less). The big rise in living standards during the post-
war boom was largely a result of a huge increase in total factor productivity.

This has petered out since the 1970s and a lot of the 'zero-sum'
mentality/nostalgia for a 'Great America'/fighting over a fixed economic pie
in the US today is because we haven't been increasing productivity (i.e. there
hasn't been _enough_ technological innovation and disruption) at a fast enough
rate.

~~~
moonraker
Cheatsheet source:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_factor_productivity#cite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_factor_productivity#cite_note-1)

For the adventurous/curious:

[https://www.bls.gov/dpr/faqs.htm](https://www.bls.gov/dpr/faqs.htm)

[http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers2/Warr.pdf](http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers2/Warr.pdf)
[PDF]

[https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/36161/frontmatter/9781...](https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/36161/frontmatter/9781107036161_frontmatter.pdf)
[PDF]

------
rpmisms
Shame. I wonder where we fall in the saga of the collapse of the Roman Empire?

~~~
Accujack
Other than in general terms, there's no comparison.

The birth rate declining is normal in terms of industrialized countries...
people educated enough to use birth control and who have availability tend to
have fewer kids. The rest of the world hasn't caught up yet, and probably
won't in time to avoid problems.

The birth rate isn't declining because "America is in decline"... it's
declining because people are choosing not to have children. The wisdom of that
choice is open to discussion, of course.

~~~
rpmisms
Richness becomes childlessness, which becomes poverty, which becomes death.

------
tykj5tyke
Having a kid is hard and usually looks unrewarding from the outside in the US.
I get that having a kid isn't for everyone but for a lot of working class
people the optics look like a choice between having a belligerent room mate
that takes all your money vs. being able to poonhound around on Tinder and
blow my money on fun. Some people might choose the former if the outcomes
weren't so starkly contrasting. The government needs to be doing more to
support families or else we're going to end up in a situation like Germany
where we have to import people from abroad just to prevent shrinkage.

~~~
mensetmanusman
There are over 100,000,000 south of the border who have indicated they would
like to come to the U.S.

------
bamboozled
Do you think some of this has to do with climate change, I mean right now, who
really feels like bringing a child into this world is a good idea ?

I’d personally be quite hesitant at this point.

~~~
serf
question : at what point in modern history would you have been comfortable
doing so, if you aren't now?

The world is getting progressively safer, by the numbers.

~~~
bamboozled
I feel like through all the worst times in the world, there was At least a
relatively safe guarantee the biosphere would be there to support you.

We’re destroying that like never before so I think that it’s a much worse time
for our future prospects personally.

No other thing worries me more right now than climate change.

Having a habitat to live in is important, it might be easy to forget that
we’re animals too but I think as we look around at the extinction at other
species via our smartphones, we don’t realise this is our future too if the
current trajectory doesn’t turn around very, very fast.

------
symplee
When will the narrative that "there are too many people" finally catch up to
the facts?

Edit: Just pointing out that doomsday predictions about population growth have
been consistently wrong for the last 100 years.

~~~
drdeadringer
What are the facts?

~~~
symplee
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth)

