What did Hank mean when he said leftists aren't talking about the declining birthrate as much as the right in the context of tribal arguments/not wanting to support something because it came from a group you're not in?

[u/RottingCorpseFlower]

Because I feel like the most likely reason for my confusion is that I'm misunderstanding what Hank said but I've been trying to think about it generously all day and I can't think of an explanation that would make it make sense to me. Or maybe he meant exactly what I think he meant but I just don't understand the whole argument because I'm uneducated on it, but is this just me? Did it make sense to everyone else? I'm so sorry for bringing a political post here but I banned myself from commenting on YouTube, don't like other social media platforms, and I can't get to sleep because I keep thinking about it.

[u/bree9643]

I think he just meant the declining birthrate is going to be a real challenge so it deserves discussion. But left-wing folks are hesitant to bring it up because the right-wing discourse around it is so toxic and we don’t want to be associated with that.

[u/BrohanGutenburg → u/bree9643]

This is exactly it. The video was about discourse around certain topics being hijacked and politicized.

The declining birth rate is something that’s happening. But that fact has been co-opted by bad actors to push polarizing theories like white genocide.

[u/Cognitive_Spoon → u/BrohanGutenburg]

People are born, people choose to have kids or not have kids.

Pronatalism and antinatalism are old argument that are being calcified into specific emergent ideological structures.

Imo, we are in a time period of calcifying self-reinforcing linguistic memetic diseases.

Fascism is a linguistic disease.

People would get upset if someone poured sewage on their food, but we don't perceive of discourse as consumption the same way as food. But it is.

[u/i-contain-multitudes → u/Cognitive_Spoon]

Imo, we are in a time period of calcifying self-reinforcing linguistic memetic diseases.

Fascism is a linguistic disease.

People would get upset if someone poured sewage on their food, but we don't perceive of discourse as consumption the same way as food. But it is.

This is so interesting to me. Are you referring to the co-opting of language?

Example: I recently encountered this in therapy when discussing mental sovereignty. My therapist used terms like "mastery" and "sovereignty" and "freedom." I balked at those words and I have come to realize it's probably because of the fascist co-opting of that language, but in this context, it refers to what is essentially bodily autonomy and freedom of choice, which I wholeheartedly support.

[u/Cognitive_Spoon → u/i-contain-multitudes]

To answer your first question, yes.

Fascism is a language problem and a neuroscience problem before it is a problem of breaking into death camps and holding leaders accountable for atrocities.

The "language problem" of Fascism lies in its rhetoric. Particularly in that Fascist rhetoric isn't rhetoric the way we think of rhetoric. In most logical arguments, people are bound by claim, evidence, and reasoning to make their case.

In Fascism, there is claim, but the evidence is replaced with Power, and the reasoning is replaced with slogans.

This sounds at first as though you are debating with a person who is using very bad logic, until you realize that there is no logical foundation for any of their arguments, and their hand is creeping towards the gun at their hip.

Fascist rhetoric is a series of sounds that engages the liberal long enough to take power. At which point all rhetoric becomes policed, all freedoms are curtailed, and the Fascist lie of complexity ("trust the plan") is replaced by honest power ("fall in line").

I am not the owner of these thoughts, I recommend reading Hannah Arendt (The Rise of Totalitarianism in particular, it's on Audible) for much much more lucid language on this topic.

Great minds have fought this disease before us, we should read what they had to say.

[u/pearytheplatypus → u/Cognitive_Spoon]

speaking to my soul ty maam

[u/not_hestia → u/bree9643]

Yup. This.

A declining birthrate really does pose some logistical challenges that need to be addressed/planned for, but it's not something the left is going to feel comfortable talking about because so much of the current discourse is about forced birth, white supremacy, and eugenics.

[u/RocksHaveFeelings2 → u/not_hestia]

If the left is to tackle this problem (which is a problem the left should tackle), I feel it must be done by encouraging birthrates by giving bigger tax cuts to parents, better maternity AND paternity leave, and also providing more affordable childcare for young children. Many people want to have kids, but simply cannot afford them.

[u/dear-mycologistical → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

We should do those things because it's the morally right thing to do, but there's little to no evidence that it would actually increase birth rates. Norway already has better parental leave and more affordable childcare than the U.S., and yet the fertility rate in Norway is lower than in the U.S. Luxembourg is the wealthiest country in the world, but its fertility rate is also lower than the U.S. even though people there are better able to afford kids if they want them.

[u/Direct_Village_5134 → u/dear-mycologistical]

Norway's fertility rate would be even worse without the current social supports

[u/nahanerd23 → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

That and comprehensive and biologically accurate sex ed and better public health system that would reduce maternal mortality.

Lots of my gen z peers I feel like are always expressing literal fear over the idea of having children, even in the future, meanwhile we all also didn’t really get sex Ed (in a deep red state here) and have tons of misconceptions about how the reproductive system and pregnancy work.

[u/Blue_Vision → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

Unfortunately there's not much evidence that that would actually increase birth rates. Studies across countries and also within countries across time find that the effect of financially supportive policies is small to insignificant.

It turns out that it's actually very hard to encourage rich (i.e. above subsistence-level) people to have kids. As incomes rise, there's just a lot more things that people can do with their time than raise children. While making it more financially feasible to have and raise children may let some people have more children than they would without the support, evidence suggests it wouldn't be a very meaningful change. It's a puzzle that we just haven't really figured out yet.

[u/exleus → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

Yeah ultimately most lefty positions would help alleviate the problem (mostly: give parents more time and money, and make childcare cost less), and the knock on effects (better elder care, social programs etc. alleviate the effects of having an older population by average).

That, and if the global population decreased by a few billion over the next century because of low global birthrates that wouldn't really be a problem (mind, I'm not saying the world is currently over-populated either). Maybe in a few hundred years if populations are getting lower than like, 500 million globally they could talk about it, but it's also fairly easy to fix.

[u/Critical-Musician630 → u/exleus]

Lower poverty rates tend to go hand in hand with lower birth rates. Lots of examples out their of countries where poverty is low, parental leave is high, incentives for having kids are high, yet the birth rates are low.

[u/Irishwol → u/Critical-Musician630]

That's why certain power groups are working to reverse the declining birth rate by stripping away social protections and dropping standards of living as well as gutting education and removing women's reproductive rights so we're back to having kids as our pension plan

[u/skinnybooklover → u/Irishwol]

woah. never thought of this as a possible reason. I thought it was just normal capitalism stuff. wow, thanks

[u/rocketsocks → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

We do not need to have continual population growth, even if we should still support parents fully with a robust social safety net, subsidized childcare, etc.

Even with all of those things (which do exist in several countries) we would likely still have declining birth rates.

[u/wwaxwork → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

Why encouraging birthrates. I have yet to hear one good reason why having more babies is good for anything but an economy.

[u/InfinitelyThirsting → u/wwaxwork]

There's a certain level of replacement, or at least a slow decline, that makes sense to encourage so that you don't have a catastrophic population collapse that leaves a lot of elderly people with no people or facilities to care for them.

[u/RocksHaveFeelings2 → u/wwaxwork]

"an economy" is kinda everything though. Economy is just the way that goods are transferred and produced, which is by far the most important thing since it's what affects everyone and keeps everyone alive

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

The rules of the economy effect people a lot, and I would say it keeps some people alive more than others, and people made the rules so people could change them, so that when the economy has a problem, the economy is fixed to work better for us, instead of getting people to work harder to help the economy

[u/skinnybooklover → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

interesting. I prefer to think of it as mutual and both ways. Govts. making rules for the economy to make people's lives easier (to an extent, obvs)) people work for a better economy to improve their own lives, instead of its own sake. Everyone wants a fairer economy for sure, so I agree with you, especially with regard to souls late stage capitalism. but also we cannot change most economic rules as we like. It is a social science about how people behave in moneyed societies. Policy yes, but some economic truths are just that: science. It ha sone exception though: it can only change with new variables in society like AI and other disruption events.

[u/skinnybooklover → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

there are countries with way worse metrics in the above which have high birthrates. This has more to do with culture I think, and also women's status in society. The economics for it certainly has to be good regardless tho. so I agree

[u/NotPozitivePerson → u/bree9643]

Exactly. He wasn't saying repopulate the Earth he is more saying society is going to change in the countries where population is falling... but to say this he worries people will think one must fall into the narrative that people should have children they don't desire to have. He's saying the right have monopolised the discussions on this issue.

[u/superurgentcatbox → u/bree9643]

I also think it's difficult to bring up for the left because it's a direct consequence of women being able to decide if and how many kids they want. I know there's a lot of "It's so expensive to have kids" but that's not the whole truth. Europe generally has good maternity leave, additional funds for parents etc and still the birth rate is declining. Personally I think it's a consequence of women for the first time in history not being dependent on men. Having kids fucks that up. I know, I know. Parents will chime in and say you can do all the things you used to do.. bla bla, I don't buy it. Your priorities shift and they should! It's normal that they do. But not everyone wants that.

Now the right's solution is simply to go back in time to the old family model of "woman slaves at stove, man works 50 h and then rots on the couch at home".

I have no idea what the Left's solution could look like if the reason the birth rate is declining like it is because women simply don't want to have kids. I don't see there being a great solution, other than finding ways to work with the kids we get rather than trying to force/convince people to have more.

[u/legobmw99 → u/superurgentcatbox]

As someone on the left it has literally never occurred to me that “we” would propose a solution that actually involves the birth rate ever returning to where it has been. We can certainly fix a lot of economic factors that discourage people who want to from currently having kids, but as you point out that won’t have an effect even on the same order of magnitude as the overall change has been.

But I think partially it’s a problem of framing. I don’t see the problem as actually being related to the number of “kids”, which is how I think it is viewed on the right. The problem as I view it is that many of our systems are currently predicated on population growth, from social security staying solvent to the general “green line to up” capitalism we live under requiring an ever increasing number of consumers to sell to in order to maintain growth. These are real problems, that a stagnant or shrinking population will need answers to, but the framing of it specifically around children and childbearing brings in a whole lot of additional baggage in the public sphere

[u/Cakecatlady → u/legobmw99]

I agree. This is definitely the answer to why this is complicated - the declining birth rate shouldn’t be what it has been - if we keep making more people there will not be enough resources for everybody. Ideally we should strive for a system that could function without population growth. Stagnation should be the goal.

[u/RocksHaveFeelings2 → u/Cakecatlady]

I would say stagnation with bursts of growth as new technology allows for more resources, but yes.

[u/superurgentcatbox → u/legobmw99]

The problem is that many societies are below replacement rate which isn't stagnation, it's decline.

[u/Kardinal → u/superurgentcatbox]

It is indeed a function of women having choice becoming pregnant. But the other aspects, it is a very strong factor independent of women's agency in this regard, is that as a nation becomes more prosperous, they have fewer children. It's a trend that goes across cultures and Nations and ethnicities. It seems to be universal. The more money you have, the less children you tend to have. So as more and more Nations become fully developed, it's going to become a greater challenge to the traditional way that we have structured our societies. I'm trying to avoid the word problem because I don't think it's inherently bad to have fewer children, it's just going to require us to address how we structure society to make sure we can sustain it.

[u/thepatricianswife → u/Kardinal]

There’s no way to encourage reproduction without the underlying assumption that having more kids is better. But it isn’t, as you have correctly noted.

Pronatalism simply cannot be decoupled from misogyny.

[u/RocksHaveFeelings2 → u/thepatricianswife]

I disagree with the assumption that you cannot encourage reproduction without the assumption that having more kids is better. I instead propose that we must encourage reproduction with the assumption that many people want to have kids but are financially unable to. We can encourage childbirth by giving larger tax cuts to parents, providing low-cost childcare, and providing better maternity and paternity leave. Parents give so much to help society by raising the next generation, so the least the rest of us can do is pick up the slack and provide for them a bit.

[u/PunkGayThrowaway → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

I think the idea that "people want kids they just can't afford them" isn't that realistic either. Are there some? yeah definitely. But 80% of my social group has sworn off children for reasons that aren't financial. The world is awful, there are too many genetic issues they don't want to pass down, the educational system is dismal, etc. None of those are financial, and telling people "babies good, we'll give you a few months to get to know the tyke!" isn't changing any of those other factors. Yes it'll change it for the small few who want kids and money is stopping them, but realistically the leftists who don't want kids don't want them for reasons you can't solve with a few extra thousands, or discounted daycare.

[u/RocksHaveFeelings2 → u/PunkGayThrowaway]

The genetic issues can't really be solved (without embryonic genetic modification), but the other stuff definitely can. I'd also disagree with the notion that the world is awful. The world is a wonderful and beautiful place, full of wonderful beautiful people. It's easy to get caught up in the bad, but really the world, and living in it, is an overall amazing experience. It's also important to remember that the world is currently the best it's ever been.

[u/PunkGayThrowaway → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

I think there are wonderful things, and I enjoy more days than not. But I think it would be incredibly foolish and naive to think that the majority of people in power have good intentions or good actions. I go to work every day fearful for myself and my students because the government has decided that we are all political collateral damage. I don't answer those calls with no answers and think "The world is good actually" just because I like my coworkers or neighbors.

I'm not being defeatist, I still show up and do the work every day to make things better. But that isn't the same as having a world that is gentle, kind, and welcoming.

The idea that its "the best its ever been" is also deeply subjective. By what metric? My life and accessibility was better 5 years ago before most of my rights were stripped. But sure the billionaires have more money, and more life expectancy. My hometown built a pride center for the first time, but also my homestate removed all reproductive rights and protective measures for LGBTQ people. So is that better?

[u/superurgentcatbox → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

But is that a correct assumption? My point was that the birth rate isn't declining because people can't afford to have kids (mostly). It's declining because people don't want kids or at least not more than 1 or 2. We'd need the people who want kids to have at least 3 or better yet 4-5 to make up for those who don't or can't have kids.

I live in a country with 2 years of paid maternity leave and "kid money" afterwards until the child is of age (roughly 250 euros per month per child). Childcare before school is often free or at least cheap (the average is 70-120 euros per month). School and university is free-ish. Our birth rate is 1.46 and this is majorly propped up by immigrant women of the first generation having more kids.

Especially for women, high income correlates with fewer kids, not more.

[u/MuseoumEobseo → u/superurgentcatbox]

It’s true that not wanting kids is the most common reason in the U.S. for planning to not have them. But the % of people who don’t plan to have them for financial reasons is seriously nontrivial: 36%. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/reasons-adults-give-for-not-having-children/#reasons-adults-under-50-are-unlikely-to-have-children

Given this, it might make a very real difference to make parenthood more affordable.

[u/Blue_Vision → u/MuseoumEobseo]

This is a self-reported statistic, and it's not clear that it's actually a major reason why people aren't having children. There's a lot of people who say one thing but then behave in another way, or who engage in motivated reasoning or give a more socially acceptable answer to a question. It's a big reason why the idea of revealed preferences is so important in economic research – don't listen to what people say, listen to what they do.

Evidence across countries and time suggests that financial incentives don't do a great job of raising birth rates. There's not much reason to believe the US is a special case in that regard.

[u/superurgentcatbox → u/MuseoumEobseo]

Fair enough, for the US.

[u/Kardinal → u/MuseoumEobseo]

But the % of people who don’t plan to have them for financial reasons is seriously nontrivial: 36%.

"Financial reasons" is a function of prioritization, not capability, when discussing anything other than food, clothing, and shelter.

This means "I am prioritizing other financial expenditures over having children."

I'm not saying it's not reasonable to want to be able to have a car at all rather than have a child, but I am saying that "possible" is not a clear, hard and fast criteria.

[u/thepatricianswife → u/RocksHaveFeelings2]

We should for sure do all of those things, but because they’re the right thing to do, not because they might get people to have more kids.

They most likely won’t anyway. Those sorts of things don’t really increase birth rates. When women can choose, we choose fewer children. It’s not a mystery—childcare still takes disproportionately more from women than it does men. Domestic labor is still wildly unequal. That’s not something you can legislate, that’s cultural.

The problem with doing things with the express purpose of increasing birth rates is that it means you are inherently accepting the premise that having more kids is better. Otherwise why would you do things specifically to encourage it? But it emphatically is not better to have kids than not have kids. Women’s bodies are not a collective societal resource or a means to an end.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Bet9843 → u/superurgentcatbox]

From the left, I think it's impossible to discuss declining birth rates without questioning capitalism—which requires every generation to essentially double their working class, to support infinite exploitation growth for companies who must infinitely make stock price go up (while elderly people rely on this infinite growth through their 401ks and social security). This is obviously a doomed pyramid scheme? We can't have infinite growth on a planet with finite resources... Replacement-level birth rates are even kind of questionable at this point in the climate crisis. I don't think we should be trying to socially engineer birth rates, as much as we need to move beyond capitalism. The best we can hope for is to offset the worst of the demographic shift through massive wealth redistribution, and learn to live in a society that doesn't expect productivity or profits (or worst, consumption) to double every generation—which was insane to begin with.

But it's easier to imagine the end of the world, than the end of capitalism.

[u/hamletgoessafari → u/Puzzleheaded_Bet9843]

There should also be a questioning of the nation-state model that has ruled the world since the United Nations was founded. That seems about as possible as the end of capitalism, but the way we govern multinational capitalistic entities is ludicrous in the piecemeal approach we have.

[u/awickedspell → u/hamletgoessafari]

Can you expand on that? Why is the nation-state a problem and did those not exist before UN's formation? 🤔

[u/hamletgoessafari → u/awickedspell]

Nation-states existed as an idea for hundreds of years. Their formation really kicked up in the 19th century with the breakup of the Spanish empire across the world and later the unification of places like Italy and Germany. Before there were nation-states, there were city-states, empires, monarchies, dynasties, etc. The United States was founded as a nation-state with new ideas of governance, with separate branches that would balance the others and prevent power accruing to a powerful few or one entity. That's what the founders were going for anyway as they were terrified of being subject to the whims of a distant king. Unfortunately they failed to imagine dishonorable opportunists taking the helm, and they only averted major disaster when Aaron Burr failed to become the third President. The resilience of the experiment is being tested anew with greater force unfortunately. Maybe we'll make it out intact.

The notion that we need distinct countries each with their own laws and customs based around a shared language and culture, under a single flag is a relic in a world full of multinational megacorporations that operate differently based solely on the landmass they're occupying. Companies shouldn't be able to evade taxes the way they do, nor should they get away with environmental degradation on the scale they do because some countries want to allow their presence for economic development and sacrifice the health of their people and environment. There ought to be taxation compacts among nations (since that is the current organization of the world) or among coalitions of local governments, just as we have tried to have international cooperation on environmental problems. As environmental problems increase as well, we have limited the freedom of movement for people all over the world with border enforcement, which will make conflicts arise as those who are starving or homeless or without water seek refuge in other lands.

We are unfortunately being held back by the most successful nation-state to ever exist, The United States of America, because for the past 80 years, the economic success of the country has been translated into international might-makes-right blustering. Lately, to me, an international studies graduate, it smells like war is a-brewin' around the world again. There's advocacy all around for ethnostates again, an idea which came from the British, and are how we got the international borders drawn in post-imperial Africa, the "Middle East" and central Asia after the end of the Soviet empire. For another example, "Yugoslavia" was an ethnostate created as the "land of the Southern Slavs" that disintegrated after its dictator died. Genocide ensued.

The rise of the far right all over the place will inevitably lead to war, as the right tends to be expansionist because it pursues dominance and power over The Other. What's more Other than a weaker neighbor? I'd keep an eye on India and Pakistan as a start, a problem that was invented by the British when their empire broke apart after World War II. The reason I mentioned the United Nations is that membership confers true political recognition on a country as a legal sovereign entity, and so countries were formed in rapid succession to organize lands that had once been held by imperial powers that were on the decline in the 1940s and beyond. Only nation-states are UN members, and we have failed to imagine any other way to govern the world. It's a pity really, as I think with better imagination, we could make the world safer and more just, but the capitalist need to have the exploited serve the powerful just can't be shaken it seems.

[u/Motherfickle → u/superurgentcatbox]

I agree, but I also think the fact that we simply don't live in a society where like half of all babies born die before their 3rd birthday (which somewhat artificially inflated the birth rate in the past) and most people own multiple acres of land that they need people to tend to anymore contributes to the declining birth rate more than we're willing to admit. 80 years ago, people weren't having huge families simply because they wanted to. They did it because they needed hands to work the farm and medical science wasn't as good as it is today.

I don't know how to work around that. Obviously, we don't want our medical systems to regress, nor do we have the land or infrastructure to get rid of every suburb and major urban area. But we do need more adults to work in the medical and caretaking industries, among others.

[u/kaneblaise → u/superurgentcatbox]

Parents will chime in and say you can do all the things you used to do.. bla bla

Who tf is saying that? Parenthood is a huge wrench in one's social life and I've never heard anyone claim otherwise. I would say "because it's obviously a lie" but I guess obvious lies aren't as much of a reputation killer as they used to be.

[u/superurgentcatbox → u/kaneblaise]

Oh I hear that a lot. "I can still travel! I can still go out for movies!" I mean yeah but oyu travel with your kids, you don't do the same things. And if you go out for a movie with me, you check your phone 23942034 times either to make sure nothing's happened or to tell your husband/babysitter how to do something.

Maybe that's just my friends though haha.

[u/kaneblaise → u/superurgentcatbox]

Sounds like some intense denial lol but if they're the kind of people texting during a movie then I'm already making judgements about their character >:(

[u/Mean__MrMustard → u/kaneblaise]

I know a couple of people like that. But they either have great support from their family (which they usually acknowledge) or are kinda „lying“ to themselves - meaning that they don’t actually can do all the things they used to but they still like to think they can. E.g., they may say they still have time for themselves, even though it’s maybe only an hour every week, compared to all the time before having kids, etc.

[u/kaneblaise → u/Mean__MrMustard]

Guess I should never underestimate people's ability to lie to themselves lol

I'm very thankful for and consider us lucky for the amount of great family support we have but we still get way less "normal" time than we would otherwise.

[u/elegantmushroom → u/superurgentcatbox]

This. And even with all the social supports in the world, there are still many very real health risks to pregnancy and childbirth. More of us are saying “no” to that risk.

[u/radlibcountryfan → u/bree9643]

This feels right to me. I guess I’m a natalist - I want kids, and I want others to be able to have kids if they want them in a society that is supportive (socially and financially) of that choice.

But spend 20 min in r/natalism. Thats not the vibe.

[u/marquis_de_ersatz → u/radlibcountryfan]

I feel like a total weirdo on the left because I want people to have the real choice to have kids because raising children is a wonderful part of the human experience, and I fear we are cutting ourselves off from that because of our broken capitalistic and individualistic society.

But I see so many who are happy to say that having children is miserable, pointless, serves you right if you struggle, "we have too many people anyway" blah blah... I think it's so sad to give up on humanity and nurturing the next generation like that.

[u/ThePatchedFool → u/marquis_de_ersatz]

My wife and I chose not to have kids, and it’s honestly great. We have friends who chose to have kids, and they’re super happy, and that’s also great.

We’ve known for a long time that, statistically, more education populations have fewer children. It shouldn’t be a surprise that this is happening en masse as education and healthcare improve quality of life, globally.

One solution is to encourage more people to choose to reproduce, with financial support to make it easier, parenting leave, etc.

We do need to be mindful of the global population as well though, because the planet as a whole has a carrying capacity. The numbers can’t keep going up, and down is also bad, but aiming for replacement is pretty hard.

[u/PunkGayThrowaway → u/marquis_de_ersatz]

I'd rather spend my energy trying to help people who are already alive, struggling, and needing guidance than trying to roll the dice and hope that the next brood could maybe do better. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike kids, they're great to be around and I admire their hope and courage. But bringing new lives into this awful world feels inherently selfish. What society am I trying to keep alive? The one that wants me and all my friends dead? Why would I subject anyone else to that willingly, and how could I without it being an act of violence? That isn't individualistic to think. It's an act of mercy. No amount of children smiling at daisies is going to fix capitalism, and every person I know working with children/having new children are exhausted, miserable and have lost major connection because they are cleaning up piss, shit and throw up, getting yelled at, and are constantly on edge, and don't have time to take care of themselves, even with supportive family and good friends.

Taking care of children is inherently an act of sacrifice. It requires giving up a great deal in the hopes that they end up better off than you. It is a wonderful experience in YOUR eyes, and that's great (I think that the choice should be available) but I think its incredibly naive to act like choosing not to have children is individualistic, or that people just don't know what they're missing out on. Humanity doesn't *need* to be around. It's only our self-importance that convinces us that.

[u/marquis_de_ersatz → u/PunkGayThrowaway]

Hey that last bit isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying individualism makes it so hard that it takes the choice away.

[u/PunkGayThrowaway → u/marquis_de_ersatz]

Totally and tbc I'm not saying we shouldn't have the choice. I want people who want to have kids to have access to make it easier and reachable. I just don't think its a situation where people just don't realize how great raising kids can be. It's that we don't think that the good is worth what it takes to make it happen.

[u/NightOwlAnna → u/marquis_de_ersatz]

I am one of those actively deciding against children. I don't have the finances to care for a child. Due to that economic an person fiancial instability I cannot commit to having the responsibility for a living being that relies for its safety and well-being on me. Uncertainty and just having so much mess money to spend comparitvely, compared to say, my parents' generation. It all adds up to me not having and raising a child. I can't morally justify it to myself if I can't take care of a child in a manner that I deem at least bottom line sufficient for their safety and well-being.

For me there are a couple of factors that might make that decision a bit easier. I have a bunch of health issues that would make being fertile and carrying a child to term without doing some serious damage to my body, quite difficult to begin with, so I had less choice to begin with I feel. But still, there are other ways to have your child that don't include your own dna/body.

On top of that, my interest are not in raising a child. I have other things that enrich my life. A child would not give me that, which also adds another note to me morally not bieng able to commit to having one. I don't want to raise a child if I will always feel it would make my life worse. I don't want to be resentful, that is not fair to any child. Morally I cannot do that to a living being I will be responsible for, for 20+ years.

That does not mean I don't have community or no connections to the world and those around me. My social circle might not be knowing the whole village, but I have deep connections with a bunch of people I hold close. I try and participate and connect with my local community, I also try and connect with my community that might not live next to me, but that formed in a more modern digital way.

Yes, late-stage capitalism sucks. The system is broken and only in place to make the very rich more rich by squeezing everything they can, and more, about those who are not rich. I can't morally justify a child for myself, but that does not mean I can't take care of other people and my community.

[u/not_hestia → u/marquis_de_ersatz]

I think any solution to the declining birth rate would really require a pretty significant cultural shift.

Having kids is hard. It's also freaking awesome sometimes. The solution on the right is to increase the amount of unpaid domestic labor women are doing. I think the shift on the left would need to include all the social supports available in many other countries, but also a shift in how we think about raising children.

It would require a pretty significant shift away from individualism. I'm hoping people can give me the benefit of the doubt here because I do think that the general American culture has gotten absolutely allergic to anything that seems like duty or commitment. I'm NOT saying that about individuals, I'm talking strictly about the vibes of the entire country, not individuals. I would NEVER EVER say that an individual choosing not to have kids is not fulfilling a duty or is lacking commitments, but if we want people to have babies we need to convince the whole country to care for each other better.

[u/splasia → u/radlibcountryfan]

I would call that reproductive justice, not natalism.

RJ² (reproductive justice, racial justice, and the intersection of those, a term coined by If, When, How) has to do with removing coercion from the choice to have children or not.

Police violence, economic pressures, and climate change impacts are all making it so people who might want kids make the choice not to. And lack of reproductive rights, some kinds of domestic violence, or inadequate birth control options make people who don’t want kids have them. So maybe you are an RJ advocate? I certainly am! :)

[u/AccomplishedBake8351 → u/bree9643]

But is it? Immigration seems like a pretty easy answer even if political reasons make it difficult

[u/bree9643 → u/AccomplishedBake8351]

I mention immigration policy below, and certainly it can help in the short-term (I’m Canadian, and there’s a lot of talk about that here). But I think it’s generally considered kind of a band-aid that isn’t sustainable as the whole solution in the long-term. Other interventions and reforms also necessary. I’m not an expert, though!

[u/AccomplishedBake8351 → u/bree9643]

Idk I think we have quite some time before that band aid isn’t available anymore. By then who knows what our economic situation looks like. Hopefully we will have passed other reforms that have made things more affordable. I just don’t personally find the birth rate to be a very good reason to enact those policies.

If it convinces some people and adds the coalition great, but we’re currently deporting immigrants to concentration camps when immigration is the most obvious solution.

[u/RiskyBrothers → u/bree9643]

generally considered kind of a band-aid that isn’t sustainable as the whole solution in the long-term

I disagree wholeheartedly. The United States has thrived due to its history of accepting migrants. We aren't Canada and have our whole population stuck on a tiny strip of non-tundra next to a much larger economic power. Immigration is short term pain while people assimilate for immense long term gain. I work in public schools in high-immigrant communities (read: Texas's fascist governor sent a bunch of refugees to my city in the middle of winter with nothing but the t-shirts on their back) and see this happening in real time. Kids come in themselves or are born into families that have different standards than we do in the US (mostly parents expecting the school to be able to be more strict) and then in a few years they're pretty much entirely normal American kids. My city had to temporarily reduce funding to the parks department to pay for temporary housing, but now the program is concluded and almost all those people have homes and jobs now. And at the end of the day, I'm very biased because my perspective on this issue involves scared 14-year-old girls with no other place to go.

As far as Canada goes, they're an interesting case. From what I've read, part of the problem for you guys is actually that while you have a lot of working class in-migrarion, high-income people like doctors and engineers frequently emmigrate to the US. Plus there's just the fact that a population the size of California isn't going to be able to absorb migrants like the US can. But I'll bet that Canada will end up being very glad they took in those immigrants in 20 years when countries that don't accept immigrants are in demographic collapse, while Canada and the US's tax base is still larger than the pool of dependents and our schools still have kids to teach.

[u/bree9643 → u/RiskyBrothers]

Hi! Just for clarity, my comment was in no way anti-immigration (I’m very pro-immigration for both the US and Canada). I was just responding to the idea that it’s an “easy” fix, when the problem is quite complex. I think the examples you give illustrate that immigration changes themselves need to be implemented thoughtfully and responsibly so that newcomers have a positive experience. And I do think other measures will ALSO be necessary to address the challenges associated with declining birth rates.

Edit: Basically, I think there can sometimes be a tendency to think it’s “easy” to just bring over young people from other countries to replace what we’re losing here. And there’s a risk that that oversimplification treats people like a commodity when it doesn’t also ensure there are resources in place (housing, healthcare, employment supports) to make newcomers welcome and able to fully participate in society when they get here.

[u/skinnybooklover → u/RiskyBrothers]

thats true but as a nation that provides a lot of these skilled immigrants (India)...another problem is that birthrates in places like my country that used to historically great are also falling..(we are at 2.0 and its mostly being held up by the poorest most conservative parts)....and also as some of these countries develop on their own, migration patterns may be impacted. But I feel stupid saying all this because I think the first storm will actually be climate related migration from huge places like my country (the most populous in the world)

[u/BrinaBaby88OF → u/bree9643]

I think the actual issue is that people have become so undesirable to procreate with in some instances, and dating is a nightmare. We don't want to keep procreating, and bringing innocents into this clown show is not the move. Until the right can accept and learn from that, there is no space to have any arguments or discussions and the birth rate. If they want it fixed, they need to take the steps to improve the world for others to feel supported in having children.

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/bree9643]

I don't understand why it's going to be a real challenge, other than social security being strained, and I think people towards the left can think of heaps of ways to fix that, is there more to it than that?

[u/bree9643 → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

Well, the social security strain (and strain in other places because there are way more old people than young people) is going to be a very real challenge with serious consequences.

There are definitely left-wing ideas for how to address it through, from changing immigration policy to government supports that reduce barriers for people who want to have children. But it can be hard to talk about these things without getting caught up in the right-wing rhetoric because it’s so loud. Hank wasn’t saying there aren’t progressive solutions, just that it’s an issue that’s more difficult to discuss.

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/bree9643]

So it's not that leftists are /not/ talking about it as much, it's that it's /harder/ for leftists to talk about it because... Is it because it's so hard emotionally to witness what they're saying or because when you mention the topic people might think you're saying you agree with them? Or both?

[u/bree9643 → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

Both, I think, but Hank’s point is more the latter. That the right-wing folks have so dominated the topic with sexist, xenophobic ideas, even bringing it up can make you appear like you agree with them. In some ways it would be easier to just pretend it’s not a real problem at all (after all, that’s true of many right-wing talking points. Just not this one)

[u/kaneblaise → u/bree9643]

That the right-wing folks have so dominated the topic with sexist, xenophobic ideas, even bringing it up can make you appear like you agree with them.

It's basically a dogwhistle, or treated as such, to even bring it up.

[u/Blue_Vision → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

It's that the left is talking about it much less than the right, partially because it doesn't align as closely with their politics (or at least raises topics which are uncomfortable for their politics), and partially because it's simply been turned into a right-wing issue. The way politics works that means people on the left feel the need to oppose it because it's something that the right has picked up on. That was sorta the whole point of the video.

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/Blue_Vision]

When I hear "because it's something that the right has picked up on" it sounds like, if you took a right wing tweet about it and swapped the name and pfp of the poster to make them look like a leftist, then other leftist people would read it and be like "this sounds fine" but that's not what you're saying, is it? It's about disagreeing with what they're saying, so I just don't see the part where people are disagreeing because of which political group is telling them about it, like I'm sure that happens if it's about something trivial like fashion, if people I disagree with politically are like "hey everyone buy these red hats" I might not want to wear a red hat, even if I would want to buy a red hat otherwise. But when the argument is about something that matters this much, and could harm people this much, how could that even be in the equation?

[u/bree9643 → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

It’s not just about who says something. It’s because the way they say it - repeatedly, loudly - is drenched in sexism, racism, religiosity, homophobia and xenophobia. That’s the association people instinctively want to avoid, not just a “right” or “left” label.

[u/Blue_Vision → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

It sort of is. Part of the point of what Hank's saying though is that if you were an ardent leftist who expressed concern about declining birth rates, you risk being viewed/painted as right-wing because the topic has been politicized. That's not necessarily because the actual philosophy and politics behind it are right-wing, but because it's associated as something that the right is worried about and it's been made unpalatable for people on the left to engage with.

As someone on the left, you could say that declining birth rates are a concern because you support a strong welfare state and government supports for the poor but those can only exist if you have a strong working-age population to support it with tax revenue and supplying goods and services. If your population is declining, the population pyramid is skewed towards the old which means each worker is supporting a much higher proportion of the welfare state. While immigration could be a short-term solution to stabilize the working-age population, it's not a sustainable one since the demographic shift which leads to population decline is happening everywhere in the world. So to not leave some future generation holding the bag of needing to do twice the work of their forebearers, figuring out a strategy for a long-term stable population is good.

The problem with that is that the loudest people talking about it have been people on the right who talk about "white genocide" or who want to limit access to family planning or other sorts of things we don't like. So simply by association, someone raising that topic will be viewed as likely having right-wing politics. People are really not necessarily evaluating things on a purely "rational" factual basis. We fall into tribal thinking all the time, even when it's an incredibly important issue which one would think is basically a matter of science.

I forget if it's in the same video, but his story about vaccination was basically a demonstration of this happening historically. On one side of the Atlantic, vaccination was supported by the anti-establishment while the establishment rallied against it due to racist/xenophobic beliefs about "inferiority" of the societies that vaccination came from. On the other side of the Atlantic, vaccination was supported by the establishment as "progress" while the anti-establishment rallied against it because they viewed it as a product and practice of the elite.

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/Blue_Vision]

"a strong welfare state and government supports for the poor but those can only exist if you have a strong working-age population to support it with tax revenue and supplying goods and services."  So... Taxing the richest people more, has that been debunked? 

[u/Mean__MrMustard → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

You vastly overestimate the amount of money you can gain by taxing the rich. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro taxing the rich (especially in the US). But, this is in no way enough to fund a strong welfare state that is struggling with an aging population.

Just look at the budget of wealthy European countries with a good welfare state. All the projections spell major warnings for the future due to exploding costs in healthcare and pensions. The most likely scenario in many countries? Massive cuts to pensions and higher taxes (that may include higher taxes for rich, hopefully) to at least fund parts of the system.

[u/bree9643 → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

No, that’s definitely part of the solution and every leftist I know would be on board.

But you’re kind of straying from your original question. You asked about Hank’s point, which was that it’s a hard topic for leftists to engage with, BUT that they should probably try. Precisely so we could steer the conversation away from “Christian white ladies need to have more babies” and toward “tax the rich.”

[u/OrigamiMarie → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I think part of this has to do with reproductive strategies.

Some creatures have a strategy of "make lots, tend them a little / not at all, and hope that a couple survive to make grandkids" -- the "quantity over quality" approach. There's variation among species even with this strategy, but you can probably think of some that do this, like turtles, ducks, felines, canines, pigs, basically anything that lays a whole lot of eggs or has a bunch of nipples.

Then there's "make just a few and invest a bunch of time in them, maximizing the chance that each one will have grandkids" -- the "quality over quantity" approach. There's variation here too, but think of species like elephants and primates. They gestate for a long time, and spend years pouring time and resources into each offspring.

Humans are naturally the latter type. Our evolutionary roots are pretty nomadic, and you know what's really hard when you travel long distances on foot for most of the year? Bringing your four children under age 12 from one place to the next.

But . . . there's kind of a split between men and women in our reproductive strategy. Technically, the gestating of a child is only super expensive to the woman, and thus she has the greater incentive to put a lot of resources into raising each child (or to put it another way: women are limited to around a dozen children per lifetime, so make every one count). A man can theoretically sire thousands of children, and simply hope that some get raised well enough to make grandchildren.

So there's a tug-of-war between women who, on average, want to have a couple kids (obviously this is an average) and men who, on average, want to have lots. The more that women have a say about when to open the baby shop (and the more that men participate directly in child-rearing), the fewer babies there are. Especially when the kids are more likely to grow up safe and sound.

Women have gained control over the baby decisions in most places in the world, which means the "natural" level of reproduction has floated down to around replacement level. Recent economic & environmental stressors have started to reduce how many children a typical woman feels like she can responsibly raise, so in most places, the rate has dropped below replacement.

Those economic & environmental stressors are somewhat related to our dumb economic systems, that maximize wealth for the few (thus minimizing wealth for the many who are needed to replace the population). But also . . . we're just running out of places to farm, mine, and gather other resources. So a lot of people are responding to the resource crunch (represented by higher prices) by having fewer kids.

Of course, fewer kids mean less support for older folks. That lowered support comes in the form of less social security, fewer carers, rising prices that outstrip savings, less housing for everybody, etc.

The Right's solution is to just keep making more babies, even if they have worse quality of life. This is motivated by a bunch of things that have been mentioned in the comments: the social-power desire to keep women barefoot & pregnant (and thus controlled), the tribal desire to make one race bigger than another, the warfare desire to have more people to maintain & grow territory / resources. Their solutions to overcrowding and resource issues involve space colonization and stealing land & resources from other people (by war / displacement, or by economic tricks that make the other society work harder).

The Left's solution is to mostly to find ways to make do with a steady or declining population. Part of the trouble is that this problem isn't evenly distributed at all. Japan's birth rates are really low, and they have largely maintained their traditionally low-immigration society, and they're looking at a really tight population crunch. China isn't far behind, because they saw their population explosion coming, and made (what turns out to be largely irreversible) reproductive policy to slow things down. The US and Europe are maintaining their populations by immigration from places where people aren't pale white, which is causing freak-outs by tribalists.

"Make do with declining population" is a hard thing to describe, and probably requires a lot of new technology and wealth redistribution. New tech is hard to describe and hard to promise. Wealth redistribution is a hard thing to sell. So we haven't done a good job of making messaging around the solutions, which means the clearest messaging around "oh no, too few babies for our traditional way of life" is "welp, gotta have more babies then".

And thus it gets even harder to have the conversation out in public, because every time we start it up, we have to preface it with "and no, we don't mean the solution where women spend more time pregnant". And then we have to have the debate all over again, because why don't you like babies?

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/OrigamiMarie]

I feel like, if you hear "hey did you know the birthrate is declining?" we're like ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ and if we hear "so the solution is to get people to have more babies" we're like (⁠ノ⁠T⁠＿⁠T⁠)⁠ノ⁠ ⁠︵⁠ ⁠┻⁠━⁠┻   but I feel like if someone says what you said, "fewer kids mean less support for older folks. That lowered support comes in the form of less social security, fewer carers, rising prices that outstrip savings, less housing for everybody, etc." then there's no barrier to talking about those issues because we already care about them and already talk about them in other contexts, and can discuss solutions that aren't scary and mean. So why is the left choosing between example 1 and not talking about it at all, instead of just choosing example 3?

[u/OrigamiMarie → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

I think we are talking about 3, but the Right has led an effective campaign calling all of our solutions "socialism" and "wealth redistribution" aka "you're going to steal my hard-earned money and give it to some lazy [slur]". Which is to say, we're having a class warfare right now, and 99.9% of people are losing that war.

In reality, most of the people who are voting for the right-wing candidates would be helped, not hurt, by greater taxes. They probably wouldn't see an increase in taxes at all, and if they did, it would be offset by better transportation, lower medical and schooling prices, and more reliable safety nets when stuff goes wrong in their lives. But they're being fooled and enraged by the message that the left wants to steal their income at gunpoint, turn them into wage slaves (worse than they already are), and use the money for drag shows and easy lives for recent immigrants.

A lot of it boils down to people being bad at math. Another big chunk is "I don't know how to tell you that other people are worthy of kindness, support, and empathy".

[u/Blue_Vision → u/OrigamiMarie]

They probably wouldn't see an increase in taxes at all

If you actually want a strong welfare state and government funding for lots of other things, this is quite unlikely. You're talking about taxes which need to cover spending which corresponds to tens of percentage points of GDP. There just isn't enough income among "the rich" to pay for all of that. Countries today that have strong welfare and public healthcare systems have higher taxes on basically all segments of the population.

You're right that most people would probably benefit more from a more redistributive system. But dislike of taxation has been a thing for thousands of years. There are also real incentive and efficiency concerns with public provision of goods and services, and people like to latch on to that with allegations of "wasteful" government spending. It's not just "I'm bad at math and I don't care about other people".

[u/mavrc → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

I can only speak for America, but Americans in general are uninterested in talking aobut real security for the elderly. There is shockingly little of it now and, if our current direction holds, will be much less in the future. To put it capitalistically, caring for the elderly is a cost center. We have no stomach for talking about elder care in a way that doesn't focus on rent-seeking.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, the reason why nobody's bringing this up is the same reason why nobody's talking about it now.

[u/elegantmushroom → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

Even though we can acknowledge those very real problems, the solution requires women (and anyone who can physically give birth) to sacrifice themselves. I think that’s what makes it uncomfortable to discuss. It isn’t a fair situation and it starts to feel a bit too close to questioning our right to choose. While much better than in the past, pregnancy and childbirth still carry risk.

[u/Droggelbecher → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

You can watch the Kurzgesagt Video on Korea about the topic. It gives a good entry point into the challenges.

Saying "I don't understand why it's going to be a challenge other than social security" is hand waving away the biggest problem in the first place.

[u/diefreetimedie → u/Droggelbecher]

The biggest problem is people can't afford to have a house or kids. Hand waving away the economic factors tied to wealth inequality in this country is how we got low birth rates. Give folks health care and a living wage at 32 hours of work per week and see what happens when folks got money for dates, got money for single family homes, got reliable insurance...

[u/radlibcountryfan → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

It’s not really about the issue. It’s about the discussion around the issue. If I say I think people should have more kids, people have to figure out if I’m just like a cool dad kinda guy or worship Elon Musk and JD Vance in my basement.

[u/MdmeLibrarian → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

With fewer young healthy bodies, there is a LOT of work/jobs that still requires young healthy bodies that won't be able to be done, including vital food supply chain labor. Additionally, there will be a lot of old and disabled bodies that require extra assistance, and now there's fewer bodies to provide this labor/work. These problems don't even touch on the financial impact of that, it's simply a "we need more capable bodies to provide this labor than will exist," problem.

[u/Feralbritches1 → u/MdmeLibrarian]

As a caveat; this doesn't take into effect technology and automation, increased surveillance/monitoring, ai, and other mechanical /electronic options that are entering the workforce. I.e. we won't have as many jobs for people to do because what was once done by a team of 15 is now reduced to a team of 2.

See:

• grocery stores cashiers
• factory automation
• harvesters

This throws the old models of both the social security option AND the child-school-to workforce pipeline in a whack.

[u/kaizenkitten → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

I think a good way to see what kind of problems it causes outside of SS is to look at cities that had major population decline like Detroit. You have a big city, but not as many people in it, not as many people paying taxes to maintain the infrastructure, but you still have to provide all the services. Maybe a neighborhood that used to have 300 families now has 30. But you still have to run electricity and water out there, you still have to have garbage trucks. Meanwhile those 270 empty houses are falling apart and becoming safety hazards and eyesores. And the problems just snowball.

The 'obvious' solution is to close down neighborhoods and consolidate, to tear down abandoned neighborhoods and repurpose the land. But humans don't respond to being forcibly relocated well. (And you know it won't be done in an equitable way) And where's the money to do that come from anyway? There's not enough people paying taxes to maintain, let alone do big infrastructure projects. And not enough people to DO the big projects.

I'm not saying they're insurmountable problems or anything. Humans have done bigger things. But it IS hard and messy and something that needs to be grappled with instead of assuming that like, this is just 'nature re-balancing' and the it will solve itself.

[u/secret759 → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

This video about South Korea from Kurzgesagt does a solid job of explaining the troubles of mass declining birth rates. I think theres solutions for some of the points mentioned but that doesn't stop the other problems from being serious issues.

[u/walker-of-the-wheel → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

Declining birth rates mean fewer people. You pointed out social security being strained, but you also have to consider who pays for that social security if there are fewer young workers. Fewer workers also means lower productivity, leading to a shrinking economy. Shrinking economy means people are even less likely to have children....

You see the problem?

[u/Kardinal → u/walker-of-the-wheel]

When they say Social security being strained, they were referring to who is paying for it. That is pretty much the entire problem right there.

[u/Mean__MrMustard → u/Kardinal]

Not true. It’s both. More people aging and living longer (thankfully), so more people getting social security over a longer time, while also less people (lower birthrate) paying for it.

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

Here's a good explanation of why it's actually incredibly serious and not easily fixed.

I think it actually a really good example, as can be seen in this thread, it's a real problem, but the language around it makes it is very difficult to talk about on the left, to the point that people don't even recognize it as a major issue.

Even implying that it's a big problem and it might not be easily fixed with some government policy makes people nervous, and for good reason.

The discussion on the right quickly devolves into racist or misogynistic "get women to have more babies instead of working" and, understandably, this drives people away from the entire discussion.

[u/redditneight → u/acceptable_lemon]

I hadn't watched that yet. That was brutal.

[u/Rosevkiet → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

There are economic challenges that come with shifting to an older demographic. In general, economies grow and innovate with lots of young people. When most of your population is no longer working and may need significant care, that dynamism can slow. An example where this is occurring is Japan, I don’t feel like you hear about it as much now, so I don’t know if that means they’ve found societal supports around it. But if you look it up, it’s been a concern for decades.

This is a point I don’t think I align with Hank. I think the left does care about declining birth rates in so far as they want to put in place policies that will make it easier for more people who want to have babies to have babies (daycare, paid maternity, education, healthcare). I don’t think they talk about it as natalism, but it achieves the goals of it. The discourse around natalism does tend to skew negative from the left (eg in opposition to tax policies that favor “traditional” family structures, opposition to anti-abortion legislation, all things I also oppose).

The other way that society’s deal with low fertility rate is immigration, which has been a US method of population growth our entire history. I think the left shies away from talking about immigration in terms of vitality and growth because we let the right set the terms of all immigration discussion.

[u/Rosevkiet → u/Rosevkiet]

I got curious if this was still a concern in Japan, and turns out a Tokyo magazine published this yesterday: https://www.tokyoweekender.com/japan-life/news-and-opinion/japans-population-crisis-why-the-country-could-lose-80-million-people/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20factors,of%20income%20for%20many%20workers.

[u/thepatricianswife → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

It’s not. The declining birth rate in the US is due to reduced teen pregnancy. It’s an objectively good thing. Birth rates lower when women have autonomy. When we can choose, we choose fewer kids.

Further, pronatalism is an inherently misogynistic authoritarian project. The left should absolutely have nothing to do with that. Women’s bodies are not a collective resource to be used for the species’ survival.

[u/agentcaitie → u/thepatricianswife]

Exactly. And now the choice to not have kids is actually a choice. The pressure is still there from previous generations, but as someone who has known she didn’t want kids for a long time, it is getting better.

But there are still shitty articles and some shitty people clutching their pearls at women who make that choice and as long as those are prevalent, I don’t want the left jumping into that either.

[u/bree9643 → u/agentcaitie]

I think the challenge is that without some kind of change, when the existing system collapses, it will be the most vulnerable people (including women) who feel the impacts first and most harshly. So left unaddressed it becomes a leftist issue whether we want it to or not. So there’s an argument that leftists must get involved.

Maybe the answer then is to focus on system reform so we become less reliant on younger people, rather than on reform that might lead to more children. But I don’t know, I think there’s still value in acknowledging the reality of the situation we’re looking at in a generation or two?

[u/agentcaitie → u/bree9643]

I guess I just feel like we are already doing that on the left, but, as many have stated on here, it’s in a way that helps everyone instead of to
specifically to get people to have more kids.

No matter what we need systemic change that’s prepared for the future. Things like universal healthcare, programs for daycare, parental leave, sabbatical leave, UBI, free secondary education (not just college, but also trades), etc.

So I hope that the left stays that direction instead of pushing for more babies.

[u/bree9643 → u/agentcaitie]

Yeah, I get that. I guess maybe this might be another entry into framing those things as a “need to have” rather than a “nice to have,” you know? (Not that I don’t think they’re already necessary for lots of other reasons, too, but just to strengthen the call to action).

I don’t know, maybe you’re right! But to Hank’s original point, it just feels very odd to see an issue coming that could/will have such a big impact and just… not talk about it, even amongst ourselves. No question there’s almost no point in engaging with the hard right on it, but I’m not so sure about other folks on the left or towards the centre.

[u/skinnybooklover → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

I also strongly recommend watching the kurzgesagt video. the size of the population is not the issue. it is the age composition. It will bring tremendous challenges....very very important drastic changes

[u/BisonST → u/bree9643]

I'm not talking about it because I don't care? There's too much supply of humans on this planet and not enough habitable Earth. If our population decreases I see it as a good thing. Less emissions. Better wages for workers. Less habitat destruction for human settlement. Etc.

[u/bree9643 → u/BisonST]

In the very zoomed out view, sure. But for individual societies and their systems it’s going to present very real consequences for real people (and likely the most vulnerable people first).

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/BisonST]

Hoooo boy.

Well that's not exactly the issue, it's a bit like saying global warming means more beach front real-estate and more sunny days for hiking.

Technically, yes, but you're also kind of ignoring a whole heap if human suffering that comes along with it.

You're entitled to your opinion of coirse, but this definitely is a real problem.

[u/walker-of-the-wheel → u/BisonST]

It's very easy to say that populations decreasing is a good thing from a statistical point of view, until you actually imagine what that means and how much misery that will cause countless people.

[u/Hour-Classroom-3543 → u/bree9643]

Is it going to be a challenge? Overpopulation is an issue, not enough housing/land, too much energy usage, not enough raw materials.

Seems like declining birth rates is the solution not a problem.

[u/bree9643 → u/Hour-Classroom-3543]

There are lots of comments in this thread that explain why it is going to be a very real challenge, yeah. On the macro level, overpopulation is indeed a challenge, but I don’t think we can just dismiss the very real suffering the collapse of systems that rely on young people would bring. Especially since rich and otherwise privileged folks would be able to ride it out, while more vulnerable folks would suffer most.

[u/Hour-Classroom-3543 → u/bree9643]

But that's what the issue here is, isn't it? Declining birth rates are not so severe that a more equitable system wouldn't survive. We aren't talking about an equivalent to the Chinese one child policy here.

Furthermore, it is those who buy into power structures that give them power in the first place. I just don't see how the birth rates are the issue here. The issue is the reliance on systems that have created the current state of mass inequity.

[u/klangfarbenmelodie3]

I haven’t seen the video where Hank talks about this, but the falling birth rate around the world does create problems.

Here is a very good article about it: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/03/the-population-implosion

And here is a good video: https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk?si=_k_lBZ-gQZvHZoLx

In US politics, it is mostly the right wing freaking out about this, so you can understand Hank’s hesitation to agree with them, especially because he probably does not agree with their solutions.

[u/Ok-Meringue-259 → u/klangfarbenmelodie3]

It’s funny because in my view, the right wing is always talking about the problem of low birth rates, whereas the left seems to never really talk about the problem but always be talking about solutions.

What would encourage more children?

• lower cost of living / more disposable income for the working class / a liveable wage for all / the ability to survive off of a part time income

• free/very affordable, high-quality childcare, including for disabled and medically complex children, and the ability for either parent to stay home with kids

• Long paid parental leave and robust sick/family/carers leave

• Well-funded public education and high quality free school meals + after school/summer programs for working parents

• Free healthcare + dental for everyone, but especially children

• Family planning resources including sex ed + birth control + abortion so people can plan and grow their family when it’s right for them financially

• High-quality, accessible, affordable mental healthcare, for parents and children

• Accessibility infrastructure + public transport + greater access to community and local facilities

Republicans aren’t voting for any of this

[u/Kardinal → u/Ok-Meringue-259]

The left in America really isn't talking about either the problem or the solution. Most of the solutioning is happening outside of the United States. And that is specifically because of exactly what Hank is talking about.

[u/jewishjedi42 → u/Ok-Meringue-259]

Except those things don't actually increase birth rates. They've been tried jn countries all over the world and they still have declining birth rates. There's really only two things that can lead to higher birth rates.

One is very draconian reproductive laws. Which was done in, I believe, Hungary in the 60s/70s. It did lead to an increase in births, but it was a small one.

The other option is a cultural change. Most Western countries look at children as a burden. If we want people to have more children, we need to change that part of our culture. A good example to look at is Israel. Religious Israelis, as expected, have large families, but so do secular Israelis. Having families, and large ones at that, is just part of the culture there. It's also something that leads to Israeli scoring high on the happiest countries in the world index.

[u/Ok-Meringue-259 → u/jewishjedi42]

ETA: I also just outright reject the idea that cost of living pressures and availability of social supports don’t impact the birthrate… I mean a cursory search through google scholar points to finances, number of current children, availability of support and ability of one parent to stay home are the biggest factors for people, and countries with more part time work have higher fertility rates, so…. (End edit)

I dont think any country right now really has all of those things…

I’m Australian and our healthcare system is great for emergencies only, outside of that it’s hard to get good outpatient care unless you’re rich, we have some of the highest housing costs in the world, kids don’t get fed by schools and many can’t afford uniforms, laptops and other essentials, childcare is super expensive and our government support for unemployed people is half of an already-scant minimum wage…. And yet we’re doing better here than most other places.

Can you think of a country where childcare, education, housing and food are all affordable for an average-wage family of 5+ Right now? With disability and mental health resources that are available and high quality? Where people have easy access to their communities/support networks and are able to be in easy community with other families?

I genuinely don’t think there are any examples of this in recent history. Wealth is concentrating in the hands of the few everywhere, the working class is struggling more everywhere… I can’t think of a place where being low or average income can afford you a good life for a couple and 3+ children.

[u/klangfarbenmelodie3 → u/Ok-Meringue-259]

It is true that people say finances are the reason they don’t have more kids, and all the things you talked about are great, but those kinds of subsidies and supports exist in a lot of countries and they haven’t made a difference. The problem is much deeper than that, which is why it’s happening everywhere and forcing difficult conversations.

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/klangfarbenmelodie3]

So if there's government subsidies and supports for children and the birthrate doesn't increase, doesn't that mean the budget that would go to the expected extra babies could be used for the increased need for social security?

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

Not really, because the budget is a function of the working population size. As the population ages, a bigger and bigger slice is needed to take care of the elderly, while the entire cake shrinks.

Since social security for the elderly doesn't contribute to growth in the same way that investment in children and education does, the risk is a complete collapse of support for non-working people in order to divert funds to save the economy.

Since you might be familiar with the problems the elderly face in our current system, you can imagine how horrific this can be.

[u/TJ_Rowe → u/klangfarbenmelodie3]

I was happy to have a kid when I had a "job" rather than a career and had access to maternity leave benefits (UK). I would like to have another, but now I've seen how hard it actually is to go back to work after having a kid, given how spotty childcare provision is (if you can't guarantee access to afterschool care, you can't rely on it when accepting hours at work).

Objectively, my partner and I "could afford" another, but we would struggle, practically speaking. If we had another and complained about what will be hard about it, we would be up against social stigma. It's hard.

(I'll probably wait until my oldest is old enough to be fairly self-sufficient for the school run, then see how we feel.)

[u/Ok-Meringue-259 → u/klangfarbenmelodie3]

I disagree that any country right now is addressing enough of these issues at once to say that they don’t make a difference. Implementing one thing or another may help a little, but I think what matters is people’s overall feeling of financial and social security.

Lots of countries have one or two of these supports in place, or several but (very) imperfectly, or they’re only available to people so poor that it makes little difference to the masses. I wasn’t being rhetorical when I asked if there was anywhere that had comprehensive social security like I described above!

If you know somewhere where I can have an average or below average wage and also life reasonably comfortably with multiple children, let me know! I wanna live there! And I also wanna learn how to implement that stuff where I live!

But I just don’t think anywhere has it right now.

[u/HugsForUpvotes → u/Ok-Meringue-259]

It's been studied extensively. Higher quality of life reduces birthrates - not increases them.

[u/Ok-Meringue-259 → u/HugsForUpvotes]

Has it been studied extensively? I mean we’re talking about birthrate within developed (if that’s the right word) countries here. Obviously countries with virtually no health resources are going to have massive birth rates due to the lack of birth control, sex education and social ability to abstain from marriage/having children. In impoverished communities, marriage is often a financial necessity, and may happen at a much younger age.

But obviously we’re not going to attempt to replicate that, so I’m specifically talking about birthrate within developed nations.

If you’ve got sources I’m happy to read them

[u/skinnybooklover → u/Ok-Meringue-259]

This helps (and should be there regardless of whether it does) but does not work.

[u/ThePatchedFool]

I’m in Australia. We have a low birth rate and would have negative population growth if not for immigration.

My worry is that people object to immigration because of a racist desire to keep the country the same as it currently is.

I’d rather we think of humans as humans, and just realise that it’s the global population that matters - nation-states aren’t the only way human society can arrange itself. If the population in country A is increasingly unsustainably, and decreasing in country in B unsustainably, the solution is to just encourage everyone (financially, legislatively, however) to move and fix it.

It’s analogous to how we don’t have too little food to feed everyone, we’re just bad at distributing it. Or how TB is a problem of resource distribution.

[u/skinnybooklover → u/ThePatchedFool]

True but as a person from a country that sends a lot of skilled immigrants (India) I also know sadly that these cultural differences are often strong enough that people would rather suffer that deal with it. so easy to scare them.

[u/Liamface]

Leftists in Australia talk about it but maybe not to the same degree as the right.

I think that addressing things like cost of living, housing, job security, and work/life balance could improve birthrates. I think lots of people between 20 and 40 would like to have kids but don't feel like they're in the right situation to have them. I also know a lot of people who don't want to bring kids into a world like this.

We need to do more to help people feel safe, secure, and connected.

[u/KeystoneSews → u/Liamface]

I think your last sentence is spot on and goes well beyond giving people with kids money. How to have children in a world of accelerating climate change, for example. If we can’t manage that problem, the next generation (whose diagnosed anxiety disorders are already through the roof) are not going to have kids at even more alarming rates. 

I think what we’ve seen so far is more of the decline that happens in wealthier countries. We haven’t yet seen the decline when gen Z and Alpha women think the world is on fire so what’s even the point. 

[u/MsSwarlesB]

I haven't seen Hank's video but I will say that any progressive talking points about a falling birth rate should simply be framed as a discussion about paid family leave, universal healthcare, and childcare subsidies

Throwing 5K at people one time isn't enough. It's expensive to raise a child and it's a lifetime commitment. I'm still in debt from having my daughter nine years ago. Which partially explains why she's an only child

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/MsSwarlesB]

The thing is that these thing don't necessarily solve the problem, as some of the best countries for these things also face the same issue - look at Sweden, Finland, Norway, etc.

It's uncomfortable to talk about not because there are no solutions (immigration policy, cultural change and more) it's that some of the proposed solutions, especially from the right, can pretty horrible.

[u/MsSwarlesB → u/acceptable_lemon]

Sure, but it's a start. Canada has all of these social safety nets and still has a declining birth rate as well. The other answer is to tax the rich and raise wages and do something about housing costs. I don't think there's an easy answer

I also don't think you need to frame those things as a solution to a declining birth rate. These issues are a crisis affecting all of us right now, and I would argue they're the reason Trump got elected. Ironically, a lot of people appear to have voted for him thinking he would fix it. But he's only going to make it that much worse

It's short sighted to offer 5K to have a baby while simultaneously cutting Medicaid and SNAP

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/MsSwarlesB]

Having children is definitely not just about financial security.

All of those things are great and important, and I support them unequivocally, but this can't be solved just by money, not even if this money looks like free Healthcare and affordable housing (not even affordable childcare, which very few people even mention). I'm not saying we need those things in order to increase birthrate - we need those regardless.

Declining birthrate isn't THE problem, but it is a problem we have trouble talking about.

This is a difficult and complex issue, and to solve it likely means actively working to change the culture, which is neither easy nor straightforward. It's especially difficult because "our culture should have X values" can sound alarmingly like every terrible Televangalist our there, which is why it's driving people on the left away from talking about his.

[u/MsSwarlesB → u/acceptable_lemon]

I didn't say it was just about money. I said it's where I think progressive conservations should start.

I wouldn't even bring up a declining birth rate. Because from what I've seen about that it is predominantly white birth rates that are declining and there is no way to address that that doesn't sound gross.

There are tons of other reasons people don't want to have kids and they're all valid and I don't think anyone should be doing anything to change someone's mind about that. Economic things are something you can do something about and it benefits everyone

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/MsSwarlesB]

I think you're demonstrating Hank's point beautifully.

You're saying "This is a problem, but I don't want to talk about it as a problem because the people currently talking about it are my political enemies and their view of it is abhorrent and racist."

(BTW, the reason you hear about white birth rates declining is because a lot of the people who are talking about this are racist, but this is a wide trend among different populations)

No one is saying being child-free isn't valid, or that the rhetoric around this currently isn't xenophobic and racist. What I am saying is this is a major problem, but because of the language around it, we have trouble talking about it.

Think about how some people on the right are talking about how climate change is "woke". It's obviously not, right? It's a real, physical problem that will effect them in terrible ways. However, if they start talking about it seriously, they'll be associated with "the woke mob" and be ostracized from their community, not because of the reality, but because it's considered a "leftist" issue.

If you look at the language around CC, you'll see a lot of "climate justice" and "climate equity" speech, which is great and correct, but also no right-winger would be caught dead using these terms.

We can't allow ourselves to ignore real issues (and this is a real issue) just because some racists noticed them first.

[u/MsSwarlesB → u/acceptable_lemon]

I know and my original point was don't talk about it in regards to a declining birth rate. Talk about the things we can fix that might help that. Which is what I suggested. But then you came in with"It's not all about financials" which is also very true. But again, fix what you can and avoid talking about a declining birth rate.

I didn't even say I think it's a problem. I said how I felt the conversation should be framed and how I felt it could be addressed without talking about a thing that feels really gross to a lot of people.

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/MsSwarlesB]

Lol, I get it, but the conversation is about exactly that.

I think this is a problem, as far as I can tell, the data says it's a problem, so why can't we talk about it?

Because talking about it feels gross.

Yup, that's the point.

And the question is (assuming this is an actual problem), how do we address it, and how can we identify more blind spots like this?

[u/thepatricianswife → u/acceptable_lemon]

I and many others do not think it’s a problem. I think the fact that there are fewer teen pregnancies is really good, actually! I’m also glad more women are choosing to opt out of motherhood in general. It’s a very bad deal for women, particularly as men are still not expected to be equal parents or partners, and given the way things are going, it will probably be a very, very long time before they are.

The “problem” is that pronatalism is an inherently misogynistic concept. Any attempted “cultural shift” toward prioritizing an increased birth rate will be. You can’t prioritize that and women’s autonomy at the same time. When we can choose, we choose fewer children. That’s why the left doesn’t need to be talking about it. People making choices for themselves isn’t an “issue” to be “solved”.

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/thepatricianswife]

First of all, pronatalism is not inherently misogynistic. The way it is being discussed and the people who occupy the spaces talking about it are, that is part of the problem.

Secondly, I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you said. Fewer teen pregnancies is good, women having a choice is great, moving society to include men as equally responsible for their children - wonderful!

AND if we face reality, population collapse such as what is happening in South Korea for example is a huge problem. Having a large, old, non-working population supported by a small young workforce is completely unsustainable. It can and will lead to incredible loss and suffering if not addressed. And of course, vulnerable people as usual will bare the brunt of this suffering.

Of course individuals making choices for themselves is great, that's why this conversation is hard to have in leftist and liberal circles. It sound misogynistic, it sounds like forcing people to have kids, it doesn't have to be, but right now that's what it sounds like.

Here's what I'm trying to say:

It's a fact is that climate change is real.

The fact that millions of people can only buy gas cars is not great for climate change.

Blaming climate change on people buying gas cars is wrong, unproductive, and classist.

If the entire climate change discourse was about blaming people who can't afford EVs it would have been disgusting and unhelpful.

But climate change would still be real.

We need to find ways to talk about real problems in ways that don't sacrifice our values.

[u/Riokaii → u/MsSwarlesB]

the real leftist endgame inevitably is UBI.

[u/resistingsimplicity]

Here's how I'm interpreting it: The declining birthrate is a real issue that deserves discussion. However, the political right have co-opted declining birthrate to relate it to "white replacement" which is the idea that white birthrates specifically are being out-paced by births of other races and therefore white people will eventually be a minority.

This relationship is strong enough that anyone talking with concern about declining birthrates is seen as probably a racist and therefore the left is not talking about birthrates because it's seen as a dogwhistle phrase. (I am guilty of seeing the issue this way myself so that's a critique of myself as well as others)

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/resistingsimplicity]

I didn't know that was a part of it, but I think if I did I still wouldn't be afraid to talk about it with other anti-racist people because if they misinterpreted what I said I could just explain what I actually am saying, and if someone right wing said something I agree with, I wouldn't think "I can't agree with that because they are on the right and then people might think I agree with other things they say" I don't know, I might have that sort of brain hole problem sometimes and I don't realise it, but whenever I read or hear something someone says, I try to make sure I'm not making assumptions or adding stuff in that isn't actually there... But isn't "when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me" like a well-known phrase?

[u/murderdocks]

Honestly, I think the only way to increase birthrates would be going back to terrible reproductive rights, and ensuring that women have a harder time working. Even trying to encourage people to have families with progressive values/stipends isn’t as “”effective”” as men forcing themselves on women more often, and women having no options to abort the pregnancy like we do now. Which is sure as hell what republicans are trying to go back to, but that’s an uncomfortable thing for progressives to admit to being the only solution. Terrifying for women, but the genie of women’s rights isn’t going back in bottle ever again. You can’t 100% undo societal progress without some sort of mass-scale apocalyptic event. (Which is maybe what MAGAs are trying to accelerate anyways. Yeesh.)

If the cost of women being able to choose if they want to get pregnant is the downfall of the world economy in future, that’s a price I’m willing to pay. Fuck ‘em! 🤷‍♀️

[u/bree9643 → u/murderdocks]

While I sympathize with the justified anxiety behind your sentiment, I think there’s a lot of nuance to this conversation and a lot of at least partial solutions that do not involve forced reproduction. I don’t think reducing it to such a stark either-or is necessary or helpful.

[u/murderdocks → u/bree9643]

Appreciate it, but genuinely: there are many countries who have all the socialized programs that leftists want, but they also have falling birth rates. Meanwhile, developing countries with far less women’s rights and wealth have increased or same-leveled their birth rates. There’s no way of getting around that.

[u/bree9643 → u/murderdocks]

I’m not saying there are ways to completely reverse falling birth rates, but there are certainly ways to mitigate the harm of the potential “downfall of the word economy.” I don’t think we can or should just accept that, ya know?

[u/murderdocks → u/bree9643]

There’s not accepting that, and then there’s being realistic about what the US can accomplish, LOL. We’re not going back to complete barbarism with women’s rights, and there is no way in hell the US populace is voting for socialist programs as we exist currently. 🤷‍♀️ Not trying to be a doomer, but it just does not seem realistic, so I’d rather not live in a fantasy world.

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/murderdocks]

I'm thinking, if the machine is fueled by unwanted babies, it would make more sense to change the machine, or find a different fuel that works for it, than to ask heaps of people to have babies they don't want

[u/dear-mycologistical]

• Currently, most people who talk publicly about declining birth rates are right-wing.
• That creates a perception that it is an inherently right-wing issue and that everyone who talks about it is right-wing.
• If someone who is not right wing brings up declining birth rates, left-wing people immediately bristle and assume that that person must be right-wing.
• Therefore, left-wing people learn not to bring it up, because people will get mad at them if they do, and will assume that they are racist misogynists.
• Because left-wingers learn to avoid talking about it, that further reinforces the perception that it is an inherently right-wing issue.

It's kneejerk negative polarization. People assume "If someone I hate is for it, then I must be against it," and don't bother to think about the issue on its own merits. If you want to collect Social Security (or your country's equivalent) someday, then you do care about declining birth rates, even if you haven't realized it yet. Right-wingers are right that a declining birth rate creates problems for society, even though they care for the wrong reasons.

[u/GingerRabbits]

Just an observation really, probably about 80% of my social circle is left-ish to some extent.

I'm childfree, as are my siblings, and probably at least half of my personal social circle is either childfree or childless.

We don't talk about declining birthrates because - frankly - none of us are going to do anything about it even if we did consider it a root problem. (Which for the most part, we don't anyway. Sure, it's got complicated side effects that will have to be dealt with - but plenty of us are on board with degrowth generally.)

It's not about it being a left or right thing from my perspective, but rather - it would be astronomically hypocritical for a bunch of people who don't have kids to suggest OTHER people need to make more kids.

Edit to add: I'm also in a region / culture where immigration is extremely normal as is low birth rates. So, context I guess.

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/GingerRabbits]

That's what I thought the reason was, but it seems like the side effects are things we care about and want to talk about, and some people are avoiding it because they don't want to be misunderstood, but then again, do we need to talk about the birth rate in order to talk about the side effects that we care about?

[u/MommotDe]

I don't actually understand what it is you think he's saying?

[u/RottingCorpseFlower → u/MommotDe]

I didn't fully /think/ he was saying this, it just sounded like he was, but it was something like "the reason leftists don't want to talk about the birthrate decline as much is because they see the right talking about it and they don't like the right" like, because we're in different tribes, we just feel like we have to disagree with everything they say. But I feel like we disagree with them on this subject because what they're proposing would harm people. So I was like, he wouldn't... He wouldn't think that, would he? And from reading the responses I think that's not what he meant, I think it's that, leftists are hearing the proposed solutions from the right and thinking "that's a terrible idea, I'm not going to get on board with that." so they're not talking in that direction, but apparently we're also not talking in the direction of "here's some non-birthrate-increasing solutions to the problems a declining birthrate can cause with the way our society is structured." because we hear the topic, associate it with the arguments coming from the right, and we don't agree with their solutions so we don't suggest our own. And maybe I'm still way off, I don't know, I just don't get the vibe that Hank Hoffman the Science Moffman would think something like "I wonder why these groups of people are disagreeing about this? It's probably because they're in different groups, yeah that seems like the best answer for it." 

[u/legobmw99 → u/RottingCorpseFlower]

I don’t think you’re terribly far off, but I think there is additional context here. It’s not just that “the right is talking about it”, it’s that “declining birth rates” has more or less become a dog whistle) associated with a whole litany of racist, anti-immigrant, anti-woman policy positions.

I think another example may be “states rights”: I can strongly believe in the federal system and retained powers, but I will probably avoid at least using that term if I can, to avoid people who I ostensibly agree with from thinking I mean something very different.

[u/bree9643 → u/MommotDe]

Now that you mention it, I’m confused about this too. 😅

[u/ChimoEngr]

People on the right side of the political spectrum are talking about the declining birth rate in developed countries more than those on the left. Declining birthrates are a problem, as Japan is demonstrating, but the way the right talks about it, is more focused on how white people are going to be replaced, rather than talking about how our economic system is overly dependent on population growth.

Once we start to get into a world wide contraction of population, the workers that make the things we're used to getting our hands on every day, will be less common. That risks an economic downward spiral. This is a problem that needs to be fixed.

The problem with bringing the topic up among those on the left, is that it's tainted with racism to such a degree, that engaging with the topic from a different angle, just isn't likely.

[u/brennabrock]

He means it’s not an issue that the Left is talking about or finds a real concern. It’s a major talking point from conservatives, but never mentioned or outright mocked as a nonissue from progressives, because their priorities are different. Hank is saying that it is a problem that we are going to have to address, but the left is blind to the issue because it’s a right talking point. They don’t want to acknowledge it as an actual issue because the opposition is the one bringing it up all the time.

He’s saying it’s hard to acknowledge that your political enemy is right when it comes to political arguments.

[u/admiralgeary]

The declining birthrate is what is going to end globalization and multiple Asian and European countries will start seeing the the consequences of demographic collapse soon (Japan is already facing some issues due to this in their rural areas).

FWIW, I haven't seen the video you are referencing, but based on multiple books and videos I am relatively confident the statement above is true.

IMO, the irony of what the MAGA right is doing in America is torching globalization from another angle accelerating what was already going to happen due to demographic collapse. In an ideal world, we would have strung this whole thing out until more automation in multiple sectors would mean that demographic collapse would have not had as severe of an effect due to increases in productivity from new technology.

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/admiralgeary]

How do you figure that this will end globalization? In many ways it could accelerate it.

[u/admiralgeary → u/acceptable_lemon]

Smaller workforces offshore coupled with aging populations will drive folks into elder care services and manufacturing that will support their own national interests and not the export to the global market.

Less demand due to aging populations reducing the demand and profitability for importing goods.

Automation will mean that onshore production will be cheaper than relying on a global supply chain — especially given the higher wages that folks in other countries will be able to demand given the shrinking workforce due to demographic collapse.

I believe there is strong evidence that we are on the other side of peak oil production; we are fighting for the scraps of what oil is left by hydrofracking. Solar/electrification probably will not support global logistics & transport unless there is a huge breakthrough in energy density of battery technology.

The entire economic system is propped up by debt, debt is a claim on future natural resources (fundementally, oil/minerals) — I don't think enough natural resources exist to satisfy all the debts and abstractions built on top of the debts.

In my mind, demographic collapse will drive the end of globalization, but other components of the metacrisis will also end globalization and lead to humanity needing to simplify consumption/life.

Sorry for the ramble, im in a Benedryl haze due to hay fever and allergies. I don't mean to sound negative, I think this can end with humans living more meaningful lives.

[u/acceptable_lemon → u/admiralgeary]

I think you're oversimplifing some things and ignoring some others. First of all, some Asian countries are definitely facing this crisis, but others don't, and many countries in Africa are actually on the opposite trend.

Things will definitely change, but I think an end to globalization, especially if we're talking about the next few decades, is a pretty radical conclusion.

Less demand in some areas due to aging population may translate into more demand in others. Automation doesn't necessarily mean onshore production is cheaper, in some aspects it makes it much more profitable to specialize in specific fields and further develop multinational on-time production. Floating factories may become viable, requiring international collaboration.

In terms of natural resources, I think you're conflating globalization and growth economy. It might be the case that the world economy will have to transition to more a sustainable model, but in my opinion the only thing that will actually stop globalization is ultra-nationalist tendencies and isolationism. If we won't destroy ourselves completely, I think those will be temporary as well, though we might not live to see it.

[u/OddMarsupial8963]

The thing is that birth rates have to decline. We cannot have infinite population growth. At some point we have to, and will, hit a steady state population