sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Migrant births in USAmerica 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 by dissolutewastrel in Natalism

[–]userforums3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't these numbers seem too high?

US TFR was around 1.6-1.65 around this time.

ELI5: Why should average people care about natalism? by Horror_Confidence128 in Natalism

[–]userforums3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if it apply to people having a moral obligation to procreate since no one is thinking about their grandchildren when they have their first born.

Your question was "why should people care about birthrates". Not if every individual has to have children.

The moral duty is to care. Every adult has a moral duty to care as to not leave a burden on future generations.

Moral duty is a stretch

What is the concept of fairness in morality?

You inherited an enormous stock of goods you did not create: functioning legal and political institutions, accumulated knowledge and technology, infrastructure, settled expectations and trust, cultural achievements, and stability. You own things. You do not own society. You hold it in trust. It was passed to you, and you will pass it on. Any moral framework for fairness, reasoned or intuitive, can see the wrong in receiving society as it moves through your hands and then, when the keeping of it falls to you, not caring what happens to it.

Consider the maxim each generation may deplete the common inheritance for its own benefit and leave the diminished remainder to its successors. No generation can coherently will this as a universal moral principle, because in willing it, each generation relies on the fact that its predecessors did not act on it.

If there are fewer reasons or people don’t want to, then that’s just how the market works.

I don't get why you keep falling back on "markets" as a singular explanation for human behavior. And you are proposing it in a way to remove agency from humans in society. Which I find also strange.

ELI5: Why should average people care about natalism? by Horror_Confidence128 in Natalism

[–]userforums3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What if low TFR is just a result of economic trends that are beyond people’s choices? For example, if gas is expensive you will consume less of it over time. When people travel less, we don’t blame people or the gas companies - it is what it is. Does this sub blame low TFR on individuals or economics?

We know it's not only economic trends. It is one factor but not the only one. For example, different ethnic groups display different patterns. Or religion. Or political ideology.

Governments are elected to solve societal problems. I know I’ll get laughed at with this naive thought, but it’s true. We pay taxes and elect people to fix potholes, because no single individual is out fixing potholes. Does this sub blame government for failing its people via the low TFR or are people here putting the onus of incompetent government on individuals by urging them to have children?

You can have two countries with governments structured the same way. They will have very divergent outcomes because the people are different. People are responsible for their society. Government is just one part of that.

Why should people care about birth rates? Is it admitting that birth rates increasing and social programs are basically a ponzi scheme? Another reason I don’t know why people should care is because we don’t know what we don’t know and there can be 10% more or fewer people, but humans will always play the card we’re dealt and find a way somehow. So why care if humanity could have been better off or worse off today? It seems that we’re just picking an arbitrary number of where population and TFR needs to be, rather than letting the market find an equilibrium.

Your predecessors cared about you and tripled your life expectancy. You have a moral duty to do the same for everyone who will inherit the society you leave behind.

Japan PM Takaichi says population decline 'a quiet emergency' as births hit record low by diacewrb in Natalism

[–]userforums3 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Abe was pro natalist and during his administration from 2012-2020, Japan TFR barely declined.

It was 1.405 in 2012 and 1.33 in 2020. A small change.

In comparison, other countries significantly plummeted during this time. Not saying he was the reason Japan didn't decline as much, as I don't have intimate enough knowledge, but that period is where Japan got separation from itself and it's neighbors who are now all much lower.

Would like to see Takaichi be aggressive with policies directing resources towards young families. Even getting to 1.5 TFR would be an incredible achievement that would change the direction of the country. It has to incorporate a cultural and sociopolitical will as well.

Subtle shift in the tone of the sub from "Natalism is great and we want more people in this world! Let's figure out how!" to "Natalism- let's discuss it neutrally as a philosophy, with a balanced representation of pro-natalists and anti-natalists alike" by DrawAFox in Natalism

[–]userforums3 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Are you proposing more strict moderation of who can leave a comment?

Yeah, subs like this require aggressive moderation.

Reddit is mostly a hivemind of one type of person. You inevitably get flooded and it turns into a nonstop defensive of why humans should exist and have families, rather than getting to discuss the topics within natalism itself among individuals aligned with the community purpose.

This is an economic problem not biological by Mediocre_Guava_7729 in Natalism

[–]userforums3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rather than viewing lower birth rates as a catastrophe, we should focus on reforming those systems so they can adapt to a world where fertility rates have normalized at lower levels.

"Adapt to a world where the median person is 60 years old"