Japan needs babies.

[clearspira]

Shrinking birth rates are a good thing.

Question: If this is true, why does every country that actually faces this problem begin taking drastic steps in order to reverse the trend? Singapore will pay you $3000 for your first child, and up to $18000 for your third. Russia has a 10 year program of subsidies aimed at encouraging women to have children. Spain now has a 'minister of sex' who's primary job is to reverse the declining birth rate. Beatrice Lorenzin is busy in Italy. Are the men and women who lead these countries just stupid? Do they not realize the benefits of a shrinking population? What exactly ARE those benefits, anyway?

The advantage of a shrinking birth rate is less humans on our polluted, overpopulated, overfarmed, overmined planet. This, BTW, is why immigrant labour isn't a bad thing but good luck with that one being crowed.

[Antiboyscout]

Shrinking birth rates are a good thing.

Question: If this is true, why does every country that actually faces this problem begin taking drastic steps in order to reverse the trend? Singapore will pay you $3000 for your first child, and up to $18000 for your third. Russia has a 10 year program of subsidies aimed at encouraging women to have children. Spain now has a 'minister of sex' who's primary job is to reverse the declining birth rate. Beatrice Lorenzin is busy in Italy. Are the men and women who lead these countries just stupid? Do they not realize the benefits of a shrinking population? What exactly ARE those benefits, anyway?

The advantage of a shrinking birth rate is less humans on our polluted, overpopulated, overfarmed, overmined planet. This, BTW, is why immigrant labour isn't a bad thing but good luck with that one being crowed.

Assuming the home nation those immigrants are from don't replace them with more babies. Considering the birth rate of developing nations that is not the case.

[Darth Wedgius]

A smaller population will have a lighter environmental footprint, all other things being equal. At the same time, a smaller population of younger people will have a harder time paying for the care of a larger population of the elderly, all other things being equal. So there is merit to both sides.

But with more automation, taking care of the elderly might be somewhat easier. I understand Japan has made some strides in that area already. I keep trying to think of some way to solve this using giant robots. Who doesn't dig giant robots? I dig giant robots. Chicks dig giant robots.

And if the U.S. establishes a Secretary of Sex, even I think Bill Clinton would be good for the job.

[LittleRaven]

The advantage of a shrinking birth rate is less humans on our polluted, overpopulated, overfarmed, overmined planet.

That is....very vague, and honestly seem out of step with my personal observations. Perhaps the UK is different, but here in the US, people generally want to move to places where there are already lots and LOTS of people. People want to move to New York or LA or Boston or San Francisco...nobody wants to move to Kansas, or Wisconsin, or New Mexico. The places where there aren't very many people are being abandoned in favor of ever more migration to the big cities.

But perhaps more importantly, I'm not sure you answered my question. If having fewer humans on our overcrowded planet is so desirable, why does prospect of that happening appear to scare the crap out of our leadership? Singapore is one of the most densely populated places on the planet, weighing in at a mind boggling 8,274 people per square kilometer...you'd think that if anyone would be down with having fewer people, it would be them. And yet Singapore is also one of the most pro-natal places on the planet, with their leadership becoming more and more panicked about their collapsing fertility rate every day. Why?

This, BTW, is why immigrant labour isn't a bad thing....

No disagreement from me on that. While immigration has it's own problems, it has allowed countries like the US and UK to survive falling birth rates with minimal pain.

[Mecha82]

Shrinking birth rates are a good thing.

Question: If this is true, why does every country that actually faces this problem begin taking drastic steps in order to reverse the trend? Singapore will pay you $3000 for your first child, and up to $18000 for your third. Russia has a 10 year program of subsidies aimed at encouraging women to have children. Spain now has a 'minister of sex' who's primary job is to reverse the declining birth rate. Beatrice Lorenzin is busy in Italy. Are the men and women who lead these countries just stupid? Do they not realize the benefits of a shrinking population? What exactly ARE those benefits, anyway?

The advantage of a shrinking birth rate is less humans on our polluted, overpopulated, overfarmed, overmined planet. This, BTW, is why immigrant labour isn't a bad thing but good luck with that one being crowed.

Indeed. Just like with every other species on this planet human overpopulation is harmful for planet and it's ecosystem that we humans need to survive. After all we need this planet but this planet doesn't need us considering that it was here long before out ancestors evolved and it will be here after we are gone. So really this is for better and immigration is also thing that can help to still keep population levels on different areas stable.

[LittleRaven]

A smaller population will have a lighter environmental footprint, all other things being equal.

True, but of course, all other things are almost never equal. Economies of scale are very much a thing. North Dakota has one of the smallest populations in the country but burns the most energy per capita, while New York has relatively small energy use per capita despite it's massive number of people.

I get what you're saying, but once you get into the nitty gritty of population density, climate, and a thousand other factors, well, it's complicated.

[Darth Wedgius]

A smaller population will have a lighter environmental footprint, all other things being equal.

True, but of course, all other things are almost never equal. Economies of scale are very much a thing. North Dakota has one of the smallest populations in the country but burns the most energy per capita, while New York has relatively small energy use per capita despite it's massive number of people.

I get what you're saying, but once you get into the nitty gritty of population density, climate, and a thousand other factors, well, it's complicated.

It gets complicated where people are involved. When you bring in immigrants you're also often moving people into a nation with higher per-capita energy consumption, which is an environmental downside.

Things would be a lot less complicated without people. Just sayin'.

[Riedquat]

A smaller population will have a lighter environmental footprint, all other things being equal. At the same time, a smaller population of younger people will have a harder time paying for the care of a larger population of the elderly, all other things being equal. So there is merit to both sides.

That's an argument that suggests too rapid a fall isn't desirable. However a gradual one shouldn't cause more problems than a steady population. Short-termist economic only considerations have even steady populations as a problem but quite honestly relying on population growth is a pyramid scheme.

[qupte]But with more automation, taking care of the elderly might be somewhat easier. I understand Japan has made some strides in that area already. I keep trying to think of some way to solve this using giant robots. Who doesn't dig giant robots? I dig giant robots. Chicks dig giant robots.[/quote]
Even without all that additional automation apparently economies are so much more productive than they were just a few decades ago, it shouldn't be an issue. It only is an issue because human nature is to squander that productivity.

In short falling populations should be something to cheer about (as long as they're not being caused by something horrific), and those presenting them as a problem are a serious danger.

[Yukaphile]

@LittleRaven And should we ignore that men's happiness is also decreasing? Depression is on the rise.

[Riedquat]

The advantage of a shrinking birth rate is less humans on our polluted, overpopulated, overfarmed, overmined planet.

That is....very vague, and honestly seem out of step with my personal observations. Perhaps the UK is different, but here in the US, people generally want to move to places where there are already lots and LOTS of people. People want to move to New York or LA or Boston or San Francisco...nobody wants to move to Kansas, or Wisconsin, or New Mexico. The places where there aren't very many people are being abandoned in favor of ever more migration to the big cities.

Different factors going on. People want to move to where they can make a decent living, the downside is that inevitably concentrates and grows large cities. And the UK (England especially) is pretty darned densely populated, which may make a difference. And many of the quieter parts end up with horrendous house prices (and largely retired populations, because they don't have the "need a job" draw) because of their appeal. Different things appeal to different people of course, but for most neither the very crowded nor the very remote are that desirable, although both have their draws for a holiday trip

But perhaps more importantly, I'm not sure you answered my question. If having fewer humans on our overcrowded planet is so desirable, why does prospect of that happening appear to scare the crap out of our leadership?

Because they couldn't give a crap about anything more than the pursuit of economic growth, consequences be damned.

This, BTW, is why immigrant labour isn't a bad thing....

No disagreement from me on that. While immigration has it's own problems, it has allowed countries like the US and UK to survive falling birth rates with minimal pain.

It's the biggest driver for population growth in the UK, and therefore highly damaging IMO. Unless you like increased urban sprawl not far from the next lot of bland urban sprawl, crowded roads etc. It would be beneficial if it was stopping the population falling too rapidly to handle. Pushing it up though - awful.