Current Events > Prediction: Governments will need to start growing babies due to lack of births

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fertility rates have fallen dramatically in developed countries over the past century. As a country becomes more developed, the fertility rate tends to drop. The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 births per woman, meaning that if a country achieves this fertility rate, its population will stay approximately stable. Virtually no wealthy countries have this anymore, as is shown on the map below:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg

Immigration may be a way for countries to counteract this in the short run, but eventually the same problem will end up emerging. This will become even more true as currently poor countries develop and themselves start to have much lower fertility rates. In the very long run, there wouldn't be enough potential immigrants to go around. And when you think about things like automation, AI, sex robots, etc., the idea of people wanting to have more kids on their own in the future seems pretty unlikely.

At some point, governments will need to take action to reverse this trend. Here is where my prediction comes into play. I predict that governments will start raising babies on their own.

1) Governments will collect sperm and egg samples from the population (likely through voluntary donors that are compensated)

2) Governments will screen these samples and find ideal ones to make babies with

3) The babies will be conceived in a lab and given to a professional surrogate mother who will carry it in her womb (technologically speaking this is already possible and fairly common)

4) The children will grow up as wards of the state. They will not be raised by their biological parents, but instead by a group of coaches. You can think of these as professional parents, though my prediction is that they won't have specific mother and father roles but rather it will be more like a team. These people will do this as their paid profession. Governments will spend significant resources on this.

I don't know how low fertility rates will drop, but these "Children of the State" as I call them could end up outnumbering children born into normal families. Important steps will need to be taken to ensure that these Children of the State don't become some kind of permanent underclass or anything like that, and I think the main way this will be accomplished will be by basically spending a lot of money raising these kids.

Thoughts?
---

the least realistic part of this is the idea of stay-at-home parents being properly compensated for their labour
---

We have immigrants and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of kids in orphanages and the foster care system. We'll be fine.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Thoughts?

dude you gotta pass it sometime or i'm done smoking with you
tired of this shit man
---

It's no longer economically feasible to have kids for most people these days.

You can do it but you'll be poor and divorces are becoming more common.
---

How hard is it to find a girl to bust a nut in?
---

The problem is children are too expensive for the middle class.

Lets say youre a married couple in your mid 20s and think about having a kid. Median household income is 59k, so lets make it 60k.

Before you even think about getting pregnant you need to get a place big enough, more money. You need to budget to add a child on insurance, lots more money.

You need to save a substantial amount for the time off the wife needs to recover and actually bond with her child, because in the USA you get no paid maternity, you get a big old fuck you.

Then the baby is born! Guess what, youre hitting the out of pocket in one shot, fuck you pay me.

Baby needs clothes, crib, diapers, fuck you pay me.

Uh-oh, 6 weeks are up, time for day care. $250- $400 A WEEK!

All that and youre only 3 months into your kids life.
---

CrimsonRage posted...

meh, we have enough people

it's true.
---

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

The problem is children are too expensive for the middle class.

Lets say youre a married couple in your mid 20s and think about having a kid. Median household income is 59k, so lets make it 60k.

Before you even think about getting pregnant you need to get a place big enough, more money. You need to budget to add a child on insurance, lots more money.

You need to save a substantial amount for the time off the wife needs to recover and actually bond with her child, because in the USA you get no paid maternity, you get a big old fuck you.

Then the baby is born! Guess what, youre hitting the out of pocket in one shot, fuck you pay me.

Baby needs clothes, crib, diapers, fuck you pay me.

Uh-oh, 6 weeks are up, time for day care. $250- $400 A WEEK!

All that and youre only 3 months into your kids life.

Not only that, mother's with less education have bigger families. Link education to income levels and things get fun
---

There's tons of births happening, just not the regular kind we would measure.

This isn't just about the US btw. Look at the map in the link in the OP. This will be a significant issue at some point in the future.

It could take many decades, or even a century, before this problem comes home to roost here in America. Japan is going to have to start dealing with this problem much sooner. Same with much of Europe.

In a world where this is a huge problem, governments will be much more willing to spend significant resources on this. Additionally, if automation really does take off, this idea of professional parenting is an example of work that really can't be automated. So I think the idea of governments actually shelling out enough money for this isn't that unrealistic.

I get why this seems crazy given today's current situation in America in particular, but I think this makes sense when you look at it from a really big picture level.
---

We don't need more people
---

DarthAragorn posted...

We don't need more people

When the global birth rate drops below 2.1, if you run the numbers out long enough, the human population will eventually drop to 0.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

We don't need more people

When the global birth rate drops below 2.1, if you run the numbers out long enough, the human population will eventually drop to 0.

Natural Selection.
---

The planet is overpopulated as fuck.
---

Maybe in like 5000 years or something. Currently, OVER population is the problem.
---

nexigrams posted...

Maybe in like 5000 years or something. Currently, OVER population is the problem.

Countries like Japan are already dealing with negative consequences due to low fertility. The problem is closer than you think.
---

I think automation is very quickly going to mitigate the issues arising from stagnating Western populations over the next couple of decades
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

We don't need more people

When the global birth rate drops below 2.1, if you run the numbers out long enough, the human population will eventually drop to 0.

Nobody could possibly be stupid enough to think that the human race will go extinct for this reason.
---

WaffIeElite posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

We don't need more people

When the global birth rate drops below 2.1, if you run the numbers out long enough, the human population will eventually drop to 0.

Nobody could possibly be stupid enough to think that the human race will go extinct for this reason.

I don't think the human race will go extinct. I think that governments will take steps like what I described in order to prevent that from happening.
---

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

I think automation is very quickly going to mitigate the issues arising from stagnating Western populations over the next couple of decades

It could have the opposite effect where people are even less likely to want kids. Who knows?
---

I'm down with letting the human population drop to 5 billion or so, but we have to realize that if we get in a situation where it is rapidly dropping like that, turning the trend around will be very tough. I think it's at that moment when humanity decides to turn the trend around that countries will start growing babies.
---

nexigrams posted...

Maybe in like 5000 years or something. Currently, OVER population is the problem.

It isn't.
---

Antifar posted...

nexigrams posted...

Maybe in like 5000 years or something. Currently, OVER population is the problem.

It isn't.

Yes it is.

The problem is there's no real way to reduce population without massive upheaval of the life of our seniors as they depend on the young to support them.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Antifar posted...

nexigrams posted...

Maybe in like 5000 years or something. Currently, OVER population is the problem.

It isn't.

Yes it is.

The problem is there's no real way to reduce population without massive upheaval of the life of our seniors as they depend on the young to support them.

Real question is though: say we reduce the population to an acceptable level, but we still have negative birth rates? What do we do then? That's where my idea comes into play. Of course, it's hard to make predictions this far out. Maybe cultural attitudes will change and people will embrace having more kids.
---

Dude, no. The world is overpopulated as it is.
---

Families are already on it. Practically all the pregnant women I know have or are having twins.

Mother nature be like: "Well, lack of births, so here comes twins for those who want kids"
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

As a country becomes more developed, the fertility rate tends to drop.

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Not only that, mother's with less education have bigger families. Link education to income levels and things get fun

Turns out the most effective form of population control is a decent standard of living.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

As a country becomes more developed, the fertility rate tends to drop.

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

Not only that, mother's with less education have bigger families. Link education to income levels and things get fun

Turns out the most effective form of population control is a decent standard of living.

Which is basically the entire point of this topic: what happens when the whole world has a really high standard of living? That means no more poor countries sending lots of immigrants.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Which is basically the entire point of this topic: what happens when the whole world has a really high standard of living? That means no more poor countries sending lots of immigrants.

The problem will correct itself, in the long run.
As austerity kicks in, the investment in raising children will have meaningful returns again.

Sativa_Rose posted...

Real question is though: say we reduce the population to an acceptable level, but we still have negative birth rates? What do we do then? That's where my idea comes into play. Of course, it's hard to make predictions this far out. Maybe cultural attitudes will change and people will embrace having more kids.

I don't know what an "acceptable" level is nor is it realistic to reduce to an acceptable level and stay at that level. It's barely realistic to reduce at all except through low childbirth attrition which causes its own problems (see: Japan).

The idea is with a great many number of people gone, a lot of existing economy is redistributed to remaining people one way or another and it no longer becomes an enormous financial burden to have children which encourages more children.

Think of it like a tax cut--except instead you're culling the population.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The idea is with a great many number of people gone, a lot of existing economy is redistributed to remaining people one way or another and it no longer becomes an enormous financial burden to have children which encourages more children.

Japan and some countries in Europe have already been experimenting with generous financial subsidies to new parents to try to reverse this birthrate trend. From what I understand, they have worked to a limited degree but haven't created any super drastic changes. I suppose if governments were willing to provide huge subsidies in the future, birth rates could be increased by a large margin. Like if the government was willing to pay $50k a year per kid or something for highly qualified parents? One thing with these programs is that you also want to encourage the best people to reproduce and not just, for lack of a better term, trailer trash.
---

the best people tend to not reproduce, in america and in japan. alot of college educated people don't want babies anymore.

Zikten posted...

the best people tend to not reproduce, in america and in japan. alot of college educated people don't want babies anymore.

By the time you're educated and settled into a career, you're well into your 30s nowadays. Those eggs have dried up, and a kid will just wreck your career anyway.

Zikten posted...

the best people tend to not reproduce, in america and in japan. alot of college educated people don't want babies anymore.

Yes, this is another concern of mine. It's basically called dysgenics, the opposite of eugenics. It's the idea that dumber/less educated/generally less desirable people are reproducing at faster rates than smart/educated/successful people who we'd want reproducing. Given that the research has indicated that genetics actually plays a significant role in things like intelligence, this could end up being really bad in the long run. We could end up making our species much dumber over time.

This is one of the reasons why I think that if the state takes this up, it will want to use highly qualified sperm/egg donors and these will be extensively screened before the decision to actually grow them is made.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Zikten posted...

the best people tend to not reproduce, in america and in japan. alot of college educated people don't want babies anymore.

Yes, this is another concern of mine. It's basically called dysgenics, the opposite of eugenics. It's the idea that dumber/less educated/generally less desirable people are reproducing at faster rates than smart/educated/successful people who we'd want reproducing. Given that the research has indicated that genetics actually plays a significant role in things like intelligence, this could end up being really bad in the long run. We could end up making our species much dumber over time.

This is one of the reasons why I think that if the state takes this up, it will want to use highly qualified sperm/egg donors and these will be extensively screened before the decision to actually grow them is made.

It's not really a genetic thing. It's the fact that stupid parents raise their kids to be even more stupid. To actually solve the problem you'd have to implement a kind of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep sterilization to people deemed unfit to raise children except that novel is also a post apocalyptic hell so I wouldn't take it as a manual of inspiration for real life.
---

averagejoel posted...

the least realistic part of this is the idea of stay-at-home parents being properly compensated for their labour

lmfao

imagine wanting the government to pay you to raise your own flesh and blood

suck the state's tit more why don't you
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Like if the government was willing to pay $50k a year per kid or something for highly qualified parents? One thing with these programs is that you also want to encourage the best people to reproduce and not just, for lack of a better term, trailer trash.

Move the social engineering around.
Change the child tax credit to a rather large non-refundable deduction, while eliminating entitlement increases past some very low arbitrary number of children.

By the time the population drops enough that this would be an issue I think people would just start fucking without birth control and easily make this a non-issue
---

Weak ass discussion.
Declining birth rate is only an issue when labor/taxes have to shift from a growing population to a stabler one.

Other than that, we have too many damn people on this planet. It's not even a overpopulation issue, it's a focus one.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Antifar posted...

nexigrams posted...

Maybe in like 5000 years or something. Currently, OVER population is the problem.

It isn't.

Yes it is.

The problem is there's no real way to reduce population without massive upheaval of the life of our seniors as they depend on the young to support them.

https://imgur.com/dLLMETk
---