This is a linkpost for https://expandingrationality.substack.com/p/the-paradox-of-low-fertility
While reading this essay, I had several questions:
The author starts by stating that resource abundance leads to population growth but then quickly moves to why the human population isn't growing despite this abundance.
It's not accurate to say that the author said that the human population is growing. He said that the human population is "still growing today, by roughly 80 million people per year." He also linked to an essay that talks about this. He also believes that growth can and will go back up without population control and/or major disaster(s).
The author starts by stating that resource abundance leads to population growth but then quickly moves to why the human population isn't growing despite this abundance. Wouldn't it be worth exploring what "abundance" means for modern humans? Could there be some form of scarcity at play?
He wrote a sequel to this essay. Basically, the answer is that birth control has been impeding population growth. That's why it's possible that humans currently live with abundant food and amenities, while the population has
I've always found it puzzling why researchers, when discussing abundance in the context of fertility, focus only on the first two or three levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If we stick to this framework, shouldn't we also consider, even if controversial, the fascinating "Universe 25" experiment by John B. Calhoun? It suggests that abundance (in a closed system) leads to societal collapse.
Maybe, but I don't think we should trust the claimed results of Calhoun's experiment(s). His Mouse Utopia experiments have never been replicated by anyone other than himself, and I see no reasons to believe that abundance would lead to collapse, especially if abundance persists and consistently outpaces the population and its growth.
This leaves two questions unresolved for me: What exactly is abundance?
We could say that abundance is a high quantity of resources, relative to a given population. It's a fuzzy number, not an exact number.
And can we confidently say it influences fertility in only one (positive) direction?
I argued in sections 5.3 to 5.6 of my Population Dynamics FAQs that abundance always leads to higher fertility. That would still be the case too, if it weren't for the widespread existence of effective birth control, as addressed in sections 5.8 to 5.12.
I’ve always been baffled by the fact that, despite governments constantly lamenting declining birth rates, there’s a near-universal shortage of childcare facilities.
Yeah, I think that's a problem too, but probably not among the main barriers to increasing birth rates, as addressed in section 7 and its subsections of those FAQs.
p.s. I don’t want to dive too deeply into Lacanian abyss, but just as a gentle prompt for reflection: Can there be abundance if you lack a sense of lack?
Hmm, I think so. I think that the concept of abundance and the corresponding patterns in reality are independent of how we define words.
Obviously, you have to take a detailed look at what people are abundant in. Floor space, spare time, and nearby relatives are all important.
Yeah, and people are abundant in birth control. It really is that simple.
Floor space
Floor space may be more preferable for having children, but if you're implying that high population densities lower fertility rates, then that's incorrect.
spare time
Yes, that's a major limiting factor among responsible adults who want to procreate. But it's not the ultimate limiting factor. Once again, it's birth control.
nearby relatives are all important
It's not really clear how that's connected to the fertility crisis, unless you're implying that extended families can sometimes help raise more children, which is often true. But nearby relatives still don't affect fertility nearly as much as birth control.
Yeah, motivations that are already near universally advocated by modern Western culture, like avoiding teenage pregnancies, avoiding STDs (encourages condom usage), a culture where having lots of children has lower social status, a culture that advertises career advancement and high socioeconomic mobility (at the cost of having fewer children), avoiding overpopulation, etc.
The bottom line is none of the things that you seem to have implied (i.e. density, time, and families) could hold a candle to the power of birth control. Population growth never would've slowed down if birth control didn't start getting mass-produced, more efficient, and more affordable. That really shouldn't be hard to understand.
As I already wrote in the FAQs, there are other factors that affect fertility rates as well, but it's naive that most people never think about nor consider the importance of birth control. I've never seen a LessWronger with a decent understanding of population dynamics, probably because there are close to none.
Note: I didn't write this essay, nor do I own the blog where it came from. I'm just sharing it. The essay text is displayed below this line.
Modernity has a strange paradox. During a time of great abundance, when most children live to adulthood, fertility has fallen well below replacement.
Abundance normally causes population growth. After a forest fire, light-loving plants have a population explosion, because light is abundant. On a fresh plate of agar jelly, bacteria multiply rapidly. When it rains in the desert, flowers bloom. If you feed the geese in the local park, their numbers increase. Nature abhors an under-utilized resource. Abundance causes populations to increase until scarcity returns. That feedback loop controls populations.
Abundance causes population growth, because organisms are reproducing machines. Their forms were selected to have the effect of reproduction. All types of life have the capacity to increase in number, by excess (above-replacement) reproduction. Populations are limited by premature death, not by voluntary low fertility. Given abundant resources, every type of life reproduces to excess.
Except, apparently, human beings in modern civilization.
In recent history, humans did reproduce to excess. The human population exploded during the last few hundred years, especially during the 20th century. The population explosion was due to modern civilization, which reduced childhood mortality. For most of human history, the population was controlled by war, disease and famine. Modern civilization reduced those causes of premature death. Today, most children live to adulthood, even in developing countries. So, the human population exploded. It is still growing today, by roughly 80 million people per year.
(see the rest of the post in the link)