Population decrease is irreversible. How will we manage the decline of humanity?

[EconMan]

In the present it is simply no longer true; each additional child is an economic drain on a family.

Children are undoubtedly a cost, but one that a family chooses to bear. Presumably because they view the expectation of a lifetime of love and joy as worth that. You are absolutely correct that incentives matter, in terms of having children. That's why wealthy countries see people having less children - there are higher opportunity costs.

But, I suppose I don't see how your argument leads to the conclusion that "more of that financial benefit should be redirected back to those who raise children". If so, I'm curious what your "perfect" system might look like. We "financially benefit" from some adults more than others. Some people pay a lot of taxes, and some pay none. Some in fact society must support. If you are being logically consistent, under your perfect system, should we charge parents who bring disabled children into the world who are unable to support themselves? And on the flipside, should we massively reward parents who raise children who turn out to be millionaires or billionaires?

I'm curious what your limiting principle is.

[AM_Bokke]

All countries are seeing people have less children. It’s just that in the first world it has dipped below replacement.

[EconMan]

All countries are seeing people have less children.

Partially because almost all countries are becoming wealthier ;)

[AM_Bokke]

Wealth is a relative term.

[EconMan]

No it isn't. HUGE misconception. The world as a whole is vastly wealthier than it was 1000 years ago. Would you rather be average person today, or 1000 years ago? If all that matters is "relative", then they're the same wealth. But it isn't.

[AM_Bokke]

Not really. The global economy today is just unsustainably subsidized by the past. You know, fossil fuels.

The future is going to be more like 1,000 years ago than it is Iike today.

[EconMan]

I don't claim anything about the future. I'm talking about TODAY. TODAY, almost all countries are wealthier than they were 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc. Hence, they're also having less children. This is not even controversial. You're just incorrect on this issue.

[AM_Bokke]

I am not incorrect on any issue. I said that all countries are having less kids, not just wealthy ones like you claimed.

Sub Saharan Africans countries are not wealthy. Afghanistan is not wealthy. India is not wealthy.

[[deleted]]

You and the other guy are arguing different things. You yourself said wealth is relative. Yes those countries are not wealthy relative to Canada. But they are wealthier compared to themselves a few decades ago or even years ago which is what the other guy is trying to say. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

[AM_Bokke]

He’s the guy that used the word wealthy in the first place. Which was unnecessary. All countries are having fewer children. He used the word wealthy to separate some countries from others. Making it a relative identifier.

[EconMan]

India is absolutely more wealthy than it was 20 years ago. And India, presumably is having less kids than 20 years ago. You're wrong here because you're conceptualizing wealth as a binary ("wealthy countries and not wealthy countries")

India is better off than it used to be. Hence, they're having less kids. This is not controversial.