Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's been much painful bleating in the press in recent years about a "birth dearth" and lower TFRs, etc., while pointing out how dire this is or unpatriotic or unholy or a dereliction of duty to avoid motherhood. I've provided a number of links to such articles in my critiques.
"...we tend to talk about not having children as a late-20th-century phenomenon..."
"...you’d think being childless was invented by millennials as another way of shirking our duty to society."
"“Today, we see a form of selfishness,” Pope Francis said last year. “We see that some people do not want to have a child.”
"To Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio, it is an alarming development, possibly even a sign of America’s impending collapse, “for the leaders of our country to be people who don’t have a personal and direct stake in it via their own offspring.” (He blamed the "childless left" for this. Politicians like Vance always run the fear game on gullible voters, the old game of 'bad things will happen if you don't vote for me...because only I can fix it.')
"History is full of women without children: Among white women born in the last third of the 19th century in the United States, the norm was for one in five to have no children; among Black women that number was closer to one in three." (Why would women risk the dismal state of medicine by dying in childbirth or having infant after infant die of diseases prevalent in that era? Why would black women want to have children only to have them subjected to Jim Crow and other racism?)
"Matt Schlapp, the head of the influential Conservative Political Action Coalition, reportedly suggested last May that he supported abortion restrictions not just on moral grounds but also out of concern for America’s population numbers." (I'm rather certain his concern is for America's WHITE population numbers as this has been a fear of white nationalists for decades.)
"When studies ask women today why they’re not having children, their answers are pretty consistent: They don’t have the support networks, money or jobs that would make children possible; they worry about the effects of climate change on the next generation; and some of them simply want lives that prioritize other experiences."
There we have it. There's always been a lot of women who did not want to become mothers, and didn't. Senator Vance, the Pope, and many others are telling us what they'd have us do, and trying to force women to do by overturning Roe and denying birth control products.
As the old saying goes, there's nothing new under the sun.
Why would black women want to have children to have them subject to Jim Crow and other forms of racism? Easy answer, they liked having sex. Oppression never stops childbearing. Looking at my family history, plenty of female relatives during the Jim crow era having 6 - 10 kids. A couple aunts who didn't have any, but this wasn't by choice, likely due to fertility issues. The desire for sex is powerful that even STD risk doesn't scare us humans away. Society can tolerate a small portion of women choosing not to have kids, but not nearly 1/3rd.
There is a company in Texas called Colossal which has a stated mission of resurrecting extinct animal species using genetic engineering. They have attracted a lot of investment.
I think the resurrecting extinct animals stuff is for public consumption. Part of resurrecting extinct animals is building incubators that can carry an animal to term without a mother. That's where the real money is... growing humans.
That's why I hesitate to say birthrates will never rise again. Technology is unpredictable.
.............
I think the resurrecting extinct animals stuff is for public consumption. Part of resurrecting extinct animals is building incubators that can carry an animal to term without a mother. That's where the real money is... growing humans..............
You ain't kidding!
Washington Fertility Center advertises an IVF and Baby Guarantee or your Money Back plan for $39,900. LINK Keep in mind that price is from the place that calls themselves "affordable".
So, that's where the money is, no doubt.
The question is, where will the money come from?........ Will the governments shell out 40 grand per baby in hopes that some day the girl babies will be overcome with the desire to have lots of babies?
Seems doubtful.
The question is, where will the money come from?........ Will the governments shell out 40 grand per baby in hopes that some day the girl babies will be overcome with the desire to have lots of babies?
Seems doubtful.
1 million babies at 40K each is 40 Billion. The US has spent perhaps double or triple that on Ukraine so far. Given that the budget is trillions of dollars currently, 40 billion seems like it is very doable for a million babies a year. Plus many companies give discounts to wholesalers buying in bulk so it would probably be less. That would go a long way towards plugging a population decline in the states.
1 million babies at 40K each is 40 Billion. The US has spent perhaps double or triple that on Ukraine so far. Given that the budget is trillions of dollars currently, 40 billion seems like it is very doable for a million babies a year. Plus many companies give discounts to wholesalers buying in bulk so it would probably be less. That would go a long way towards plugging a population decline in the states.
One million babies would fall very, very short of what would be needed to relieve the coming world wide baby bust, and many people have already posted their position as "Great! There are too many people already!"
I don't think any serious person believes "manufactured humans" of any sort are going to be a solution to the decreasing population. Especially in light of the fact that so many people don't see it as a problem. No matter what technology is used it takes 20 years to create a 20-year-old worker. And until this "creation" is a worker creating income and paying taxes, he is a consumer - a very expensive consumer.
I believe in the not too distant future people are going to be awarded with generous government subsidies the more children they have in order to grow the population. Isn't the worst idea. There can/will never be too many people.
One million babies would fall very, very short of what would be needed to relieve the coming world wide baby bust, and many people have already posted their position as "Great! There are too many people already!"
.
I was commenting on the cost according to what was posted here. 40 billion for 1 million babies isn't cost prohibitive. This was in reference to the US only not meant as a worldwide solution. Insofar as worldwide population dropping, assuming it does, I don't think that is a bad thing. The world doesn't have unlimited resources, so population growth can't continue forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
I don't think any serious person believes "manufactured humans" of any sort are going to be a solution to the decreasing population. Especially in light of the fact that so many people don't see it as a problem. No matter what technology is used it takes 20 years to create a 20-year-old worker. And until this "creation" is a worker creating income and paying taxes, he is a consumer - a very expensive consumer.
Babies are always consumers before they become producers, so the initial cost of 40k according to the website wouldn't be very much in the scheme of things. Granted none of this seems to be possible at the moment. Someday it may become feasible, and if it does, I can see a lot of people in the states taking advantage of it. I am friends with a very wealthy lady who has been trying to get pregnant for 10 years, she is 52 now and actually is pregnant (don't know if child will be viable), she probably would have utilized this sort of option several times. Robert Deniro fathered a child today (number 7) at 79 years old so he is doing 'his job' to keep the planet populated!
I was commenting on the cost according to what was posted here. 40 billion for 1 million babies isn't cost prohibitive. This was in reference to the US only not meant as a worldwide solution. Insofar as worldwide population dropping, assuming it does, I don't think that is a bad thing. The world doesn't have unlimited resources, so population growth can't continue forever.........
Population growth forever?... No. You're right. Growth has to stop at some point. Interesting stuff, though, when you consider governments have never been successful at stimulating growth, or even stability, for that matter.
The US, thanks to immigration, will not have real population decline for a very long time.
In the end, I think, North America will be one of the great gathering points for the world population. And then population in North America will slide downward....
I heard an explanation for a mechanism why birthrates will eventually rise again.
Falling birthrates will decimate pension systems and leave many people without recourse in their later years. The visible suffering of the elderly will put fear into young people about their own futures, and they will revert to the age-old retirement plan of having children.
The failure of public retirement systems will force a reversion to private retirement systems. Now you could also be highly productive while working and save enough to fund your own retirement, and I bet that will be the highest status path. But most people aren't that productive, and will be forced to be reproductive.
I heard an explanation for a mechanism why birthrates will eventually rise again.
Falling birthrates will decimate pension systems and leave many people without recourse in their later years. The visible suffering of the elderly will put fear into young people about their own futures, and they will revert to the age-old retirement plan of having children.
The failure of public retirement systems will force a reversion to private retirement systems. Now you could also be highly productive while working and save enough to fund your own retirement, and I bet that will be the highest status path. But most people aren't that productive, and will be forced to be reproductive.
That's an interesting theory. I think that might only be likely in countries where the cultural norm of having adult children take care of elderly parents/relatives is still widely accepted/expected. I doubt that is the currently prevailing norm in first world countries (but that could of course change if immigration from non first world countries continues to first world countries at a continually increasing rate).
In first world countries, It seems national governments have been embraced as the ultimate protector of elderly citizens thru policies that redistribute resources/wealth to them.
Japan is the best example of a first world country where no matter what encouragement is given to the young to reproduce, they don't care to, no matter what fear they may harbor about their own futures without adult children to care for them.
I've often thought that a great topic for this forum would be 'where does the ultimate responsibility for the elderly lie- with the government or the family.' It would also be very interesting to poll the ages of the respondents...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
