Women and the slowing global population • Hacker News Board

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#11

Post by Sharlin » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:29 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #4

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Although fertility has stabilised at levels above two children per woman in some countries, in the countries of Central Asia, the fertility rate (which had been close to two) has risen to around three children per woman. This is linked to the fact that many women there are having the number of children they want to have. That last fact is interesting. The average ideal family size reported by adults in the US is 2.…

My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life. More specifically, there is something about the information environment that scrambles whatever mechanism we have for determining if we are doing well enough to bring more children into the world. I mean, it has to be that, since objectively speaking families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in…

> yet we are having less children than we want.

How so?

Evolution has not programmed into us any sort of drive for careful family planning to optimized the number of offspring. We simply have a drive to have sex. For the vast majority of human (pre)history, optimization of offspring number occurred the same way as with all sexually reproducing species: natural miscarriage and child mortality.

Now that we have control of our own fertility, there's still nothing that drives us to especially want to raise a somehow evolutionarily optimal number of offspring. As with almost any other human behavior it's up to societal values and norms and individual preferences.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#12

Post by sys_64738 » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:36 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #3

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Although fertility has stabilised at levels above two children per woman in some countries, in the countries of Central Asia, the fertility rate (which had been close to two) has risen to around three children per woman. This is linked to the fact that many women there are having the number of children they want to have. That last fact is interesting. The average ideal family size reported by adults in the US is 2.…

The question arises, "ideal" for what?

To keep a constant population or you end up with a bubble. What people also don't realize until they think about it is that you want a higher rate as that means higher probability that there will be people funding your social security when you are older. That requires 2.2 in the USA and rates like 1.5 mean a bubble of older people and not enough paying in.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#13

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:38 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #11

toasterlovin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life. More specifically, there is something about the information environment that scrambles whatever mechanism we have for determining if we are doing well enough to bring more children into the world. I mean, it has to be that, since objectively speaking families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in…

> yet we are having less children than we want. How so? Evolution has not programmed into us any sort of drive for careful family planning to optimized the number of offspring. We simply have a drive to have sex. For the vast majority of human (pre)history, optimization of offspring number occurred the same way as with all sexually reproducing species: natural miscarriage and child mortality. Now that we have control…

Humans have been able to calculate the present value of children for a long time now. One could easily see the value of extra hands in a farming society, and even now if you can raise a few high earners then you have some backup if/when your retirement doesn't pan out or you need medical assistance and company when you're old.

Personally, I would optimize at 3-5 kids (depending on age of mother), assuming 1 or 2 of them don't turn out to be economically productive for whatever reason. And they also have each other as a support network. I would go for at least 2 kids since economies of scale start working for you and you can reuse all the stuff for first for subsequent ones. One child seems suboptimal as it seems like putting all your eggs in one basket.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#14

Post by thefz » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #11

toasterlovin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet theory is that humans are poorly adapted to modern life. More specifically, there is something about the information environment that scrambles whatever mechanism we have for determining if we are doing well enough to bring more children into the world. I mean, it has to be that, since objectively speaking families in the developed world are able to provide for children at a level higher than anywhere else in…

> yet we are having less children than we want. How so? Evolution has not programmed into us any sort of drive for careful family planning to optimized the number of offspring. We simply have a drive to have sex. For the vast majority of human (pre)history, optimization of offspring number occurred the same way as with all sexually reproducing species: natural miscarriage and child mortality. Now that we have control…

> Evolution has not programmed into us any sort of drive for careful family planning to optimized the number of offspring.

Except it has, and does on a number of other species too. It is well explained in Harari's Sapiens.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#15

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:46 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #3

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Although fertility has stabilised at levels above two children per woman in some countries, in the countries of Central Asia, the fertility rate (which had been close to two) has risen to around three children per woman. This is linked to the fact that many women there are having the number of children they want to have. That last fact is interesting. The average ideal family size reported by adults in the US is 2.…

The question arises, "ideal" for what?

Different people have different goals. Status symbol, experience of raising children, support network for old age. There are even a few cults in the US (and worldwide) that basically pump out as many kids as possible to take over all the local resources and stack elected positions with members of their own tribe.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#16

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:46 PM UTC

sys_64738 wrote: post #12

watwut wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question arises, "ideal" for what?

To keep a constant population or you end up with a bubble. What people also don't realize until they think about it is that you want a higher rate as that means higher probability that there will be people funding your social security when you are older. That requires 2.2 in the USA and rates like 1.5 mean a bubble of older people and not enough paying in.

That particular study isn't talking about mathematical optimization, but the number of kids that individuals subjectively think is "best".

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#17

Post by jatsign » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:47 PM UTC

Ethical question - is it unethical to contribute to a charity/foundation/whatnot that works towards people having fewer children, given that such would inevitably be most effective in third-world countries where the birth rate is highest? Or would that be western imperialism pushing our values on the less developed world?

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#18

Post by namanyayg » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

jatsign wrote: post #17

Ethical question - is it unethical to contribute to a charity/foundation/whatnot that works towards people having fewer children, given that such would inevitably be most effective in third-world countries where the birth rate is highest? Or would that be western imperialism pushing our values on the less developed world?

Such a charity would possibly educate women or increase access to safe sex, how is that a problem? Speaking as a citizen of a developing country, I personally wouldn't mind at all.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#19

Post by samnwa » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:54 PM UTC

jatsign wrote: post #17

Ethical question - is it unethical to contribute to a charity/foundation/whatnot that works towards people having fewer children, given that such would inevitably be most effective in third-world countries where the birth rate is highest? Or would that be western imperialism pushing our values on the less developed world?

Yes it's ethical. No it's not pushing our values on the less developed.

Re: Women and the slowing global population

#20

Post by beerlord » Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

jatsign wrote: post #17

Ethical question - is it unethical to contribute to a charity/foundation/whatnot that works towards people having fewer children, given that such would inevitably be most effective in third-world countries where the birth rate is highest? Or would that be western imperialism pushing our values on the less developed world?

Gentle answer:

No, because there are millions of women who have an unmet need for contraception. You are simply helping them access what they already want. Additionally, having fewer children allows more resources to be concentrated into each individual child, so that they are more likely to receive education and healthcare, and escape perpetual poverty.

Harsh answer:

Africa is simply incapable of handling 4 billion people (forecast for 2100). Already the continent is a net food importer. If they are willing to accept our aid, investment and technology, why should we not expect them to moderate their total fertility in return? By having fewer children now, starvation and destitution is being prevented into the future, particularly as climate change worsens. And what is wrong with pushing our values? As we have seen with the actions of Saudi Arabia and China recently, the West, for all its imperfections, is the best culture that Humanity has available. Generally Western societies are safe, innovative, and wealthy. Why not push the values that make those things possible onto the developing world?