11 ms·

With all the talk of the impending fertility crisis, I very much believe that WFH helps significantly. 1) It makes parenting easier by letting the parent be mo

With all the talk of the impending fertility crisis, I very much believe that WFH helps significantly. 1) It makes parenting easier by letting the parent be more present. 2) It allows parents to buy houses with more bedrooms and more greenspace further from expensive cities. 3) It allows workers to stay in one location for a long time, helping form community. And it's low-carbon to boot.

gumby 2y ago
FWIW it's a fertility "crisis", not the. Globally, the fertility rate exceed the replacement rate -- there are plenty of people being born. Your points are good regardless of the fertility rate.
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  Worldwide average fertility rate is 2.35, just barely above the replacement rate of 2.1, and it's projected to continue to fall well below 2.1.
  - gtvwill 2y ago
    Better get hitched and have some kids then! No point crying about it when the solutions simple!
    - dwaltrip 2y ago
      Amazing! You’ve solved it. We need to get some journalists on the phone.
    - HideousKojima 2y ago
      What makes you think I don't have or want kids?
  - josefritzishere 2y ago
    Is this really a problem though? There are currently 8.2 Billion people. A natural reduction could be a net good.
    - RestlessMind 2y ago
      > Is this really a problem though? Yes, big time > A natural reduction could be a net good. Only if it was uniform. Fewer and fewer kids mean within a few generations, we have more and more old people who rely on others to survive. If a society has 50% people over 60 and 50% young'uns, then they have a big problem.
- 0xcafefood 2y ago
  It's probably too simplistic to just look at a global average. Developed countries (largely Western and Asian ones) have fertility rates well below their replacement levels, while sub-Saharan African nations (many of which are on food aid) have fertility well above replacement levels. These don't cancel one another out in terms of effects on humanity. Not economically, not culturally, not geopolitically.
  - gtvwill 2y ago
    Well pretty sure we know how to fix that. Go have some kids! Seriously folks need to breed more. You wanna spread your ideals? Have a family. Wanna sway politics in the long run to your ideals? Tell your kids to have big families too. Religions have been doing this for yonks. It's not rocket science. It strikes me as absurd the academic class hasn't worked this out.
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      A lot of people want to have families... you're making it sound like there's a marketing problem, but the conversation is on whether or not there's the right platform for the middle class to have children; i.e. childcare, family, home, money, etc. People want to maintain their station in life while having children. But somehow you're looking at the problem like "why don't people know they could achieve religious and political gain by having more kids?" Gosh, these dumb academics haven't figured it out. And who is thinking that academics even has serious political sway on these matters?
      - gtvwill 2y ago
        Hey look I'm poor as I've ever been and have 3 step kids. Gonna send it for another two kids soon regardless of our finances. Why? Well because we want to and we're not getting any younger! Mate childcare, house sizes, money. Eh well make it work. No point worrying about problem that might not even happen. It is a marketing problem largely. People got too high a expectations these days. They expect everything to be perfect and are largely massively selfish in doing it. We might be poor, we might be cramped in a tiny house. But the kids are fed, clothed and are in a loving family. It's better than a lot of wealthy fams I know where the kids are depressed because the parents rarely cross the giant house to have a chat or hang out with them. Everybody is hidden behind thousands of dollars of screens. The middle class has a massive marketing problem re. Having kids and families.
- invalidOrTaken 2y ago
  This map (scroll down to the chart and click the "Map" tab) is worth a look though. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
- worik 2y ago
  > there are plenty of people being born. The reports I hear from demographics is that is not true Depending on your definition of "plenty" Below replacement rate in most developed countries. Upending economic arrangements everywhere. IMO not a bad thing.
  - gumby 2y ago
    > Below replacement rate in most developed countries. So what -- are those people somehow special?
    - worik 2y ago
      No. The economic arrangements since forever are predicated on natural increase
- tivert 2y ago
  > FWIW it's a fertility "crisis", not the. Globally, the fertility rate exceed the replacement rate -- there are plenty of people being born. Right now. IIRC, current projections are for global populations to start to decline before the end of the century, and I think fall sharply in the next. I think only sub-Saharan Africa is the only region that reproduces at much greater than replacement rate, and even there birthrates are declining. Formerly high reproduction rate places like India are now at replacement rate, and their birthrates are continuing to fall.
- Thorrez 2y ago
  The number of babies being born is decreasing each year globally. 2012 was the peek.
skhunted 2y ago
Buying larger houses further spread out decreases population density. This is not low-carbon to boot.
- travisb 2y ago
  There isn't a clear cut answer to this. Lower population density does not necessarily equate to higher carbon footprint, especially when commuting downtown for work has been eliminated. Above a certain point density has diseconomies of scale of its own. For example, if you are comparing, say, a three bedroom house in a large metropolitan area versus a four bedroom house in a small town, the reduced total driving time because driving distances are less in the small town (everything is in town, but town is tiny) can make up for a lot of efficiencies of scale. The common argument is that we should put people into apartments instead, but that isn't always a clear total system win. For example if somebody is really into fishing letting them live near a lake with space to store their own boat will be more carbon efficient than stuffing them into an apartment where every weekend they drive to the storage place on the outskirts of town to pick their boat up, then drive three hours or so to the lake.
  - skhunted 2y ago
    Having houses spread out and lowering population density is bad for environment. More roads need to be built, more infrastructure needs to be built, etc. We consume too much. America is not in danger of having too much population density. We are too spread out as it is.
    - rickydroll 2y ago
      If people want to live in cities, I am all for making it possible. My only request is to control outdoor lighting. Nighttime outdoor lighting has many negative side effects on humans, animals, and plants. However, cities are not for me. I work in my home office on the outskirts of a minor city. Right now I am listening to house finches and goldfinches arguing over places on the thistle feeders and smelling petrichor as rain showers move in. Here is the important takeaway: I would never try to force you to live outside of a city. I hope you can grant me the same consideration and not force me to live in a city.
ActorNightly 2y ago
There isn't a definitive statement that can be made about fertility crisis. The number of 2.1 as the replacement rate is based on some estimate of human labor output. This could very well be lower in reality (i.e humans can be more efficient with technology that is not currently reflected in economics)
- docdeek 2y ago
  I always understood 2.1 to be the replacement rate because it would be two children to 'replace' two parents, with the 0.1 being to cover the inevitable deaths of a person before reproducing or for infertility.
  - UncleOxidant 2y ago
    Maybe what they were saying was that that 0.1 may actually be lower in developed countries with lower infant mortality? Maybe it's more like 2.05 in developed countries? (not sure what "human labor output" has to do with it, though)
- stefan_ 2y ago
  What "human labor output" can make up for a fertility rate below 2? Can you show your work?
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  >The number of 2.1 as the replacement rate is based on some estimate of human labor output. Replacement rate has to do with keeping the actual population number stable, not labor output whatsoever. It's 2.1 instead of just 2 because of infertility, child mortality (and mortality before reproducing generally), etc. It has literally nothing to do with robots or efficient labor. Any TFR lower than ~2.1 will result in the total population shrinking.
  - kbelder 2y ago
    Well, in a sense all babies are a result of human labor output ;)
RestlessMind 2y ago
> houses with more bedrooms > further from .. cities > low-carbon to boot those seem contradictory. How can a suburban/exurban sprawl be low carbon? And even if WFH workers don't drive themselves, someone still needs to drive to ship their Amazon deliveries to their homes or to move groceries and gas to nearby stores.

gumby 2y ago

FWIW it's a fertility "crisis", not the. Globally, the fertility rate exceed the replacement rate -- there are plenty of people being born. Your points are good regardless of the fertility rate.

HideousKojima 2y ago
Worldwide average fertility rate is 2.35, just barely above the replacement rate of 2.1, and it's projected to continue to fall well below 2.1.
- gtvwill 2y ago
  Better get hitched and have some kids then! No point crying about it when the solutions simple!
  - dwaltrip 2y ago
    Amazing! You’ve solved it. We need to get some journalists on the phone.
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    What makes you think I don't have or want kids?
- josefritzishere 2y ago
  Is this really a problem though? There are currently 8.2 Billion people. A natural reduction could be a net good.
  - RestlessMind 2y ago
    > Is this really a problem though? Yes, big time > A natural reduction could be a net good. Only if it was uniform. Fewer and fewer kids mean within a few generations, we have more and more old people who rely on others to survive. If a society has 50% people over 60 and 50% young'uns, then they have a big problem.
0xcafefood 2y ago
It's probably too simplistic to just look at a global average. Developed countries (largely Western and Asian ones) have fertility rates well below their replacement levels, while sub-Saharan African nations (many of which are on food aid) have fertility well above replacement levels. These don't cancel one another out in terms of effects on humanity. Not economically, not culturally, not geopolitically.
- gtvwill 2y ago
  Well pretty sure we know how to fix that. Go have some kids! Seriously folks need to breed more. You wanna spread your ideals? Have a family. Wanna sway politics in the long run to your ideals? Tell your kids to have big families too. Religions have been doing this for yonks. It's not rocket science. It strikes me as absurd the academic class hasn't worked this out.
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    A lot of people want to have families... you're making it sound like there's a marketing problem, but the conversation is on whether or not there's the right platform for the middle class to have children; i.e. childcare, family, home, money, etc. People want to maintain their station in life while having children. But somehow you're looking at the problem like "why don't people know they could achieve religious and political gain by having more kids?" Gosh, these dumb academics haven't figured it out. And who is thinking that academics even has serious political sway on these matters?
    - gtvwill 2y ago
      Hey look I'm poor as I've ever been and have 3 step kids. Gonna send it for another two kids soon regardless of our finances. Why? Well because we want to and we're not getting any younger! Mate childcare, house sizes, money. Eh well make it work. No point worrying about problem that might not even happen. It is a marketing problem largely. People got too high a expectations these days. They expect everything to be perfect and are largely massively selfish in doing it. We might be poor, we might be cramped in a tiny house. But the kids are fed, clothed and are in a loving family. It's better than a lot of wealthy fams I know where the kids are depressed because the parents rarely cross the giant house to have a chat or hang out with them. Everybody is hidden behind thousands of dollars of screens. The middle class has a massive marketing problem re. Having kids and families.
invalidOrTaken 2y ago
This map (scroll down to the chart and click the "Map" tab) is worth a look though. https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
worik 2y ago
> there are plenty of people being born. The reports I hear from demographics is that is not true Depending on your definition of "plenty" Below replacement rate in most developed countries. Upending economic arrangements everywhere. IMO not a bad thing.
- gumby 2y ago
  > Below replacement rate in most developed countries. So what -- are those people somehow special?
  - worik 2y ago
    No. The economic arrangements since forever are predicated on natural increase
tivert 2y ago
> FWIW it's a fertility "crisis", not the. Globally, the fertility rate exceed the replacement rate -- there are plenty of people being born. Right now. IIRC, current projections are for global populations to start to decline before the end of the century, and I think fall sharply in the next. I think only sub-Saharan Africa is the only region that reproduces at much greater than replacement rate, and even there birthrates are declining. Formerly high reproduction rate places like India are now at replacement rate, and their birthrates are continuing to fall.
Thorrez 2y ago
The number of babies being born is decreasing each year globally. 2012 was the peek.

skhunted 2y ago

Buying larger houses further spread out decreases population density. This is not low-carbon to boot.

travisb 2y ago
There isn't a clear cut answer to this. Lower population density does not necessarily equate to higher carbon footprint, especially when commuting downtown for work has been eliminated. Above a certain point density has diseconomies of scale of its own. For example, if you are comparing, say, a three bedroom house in a large metropolitan area versus a four bedroom house in a small town, the reduced total driving time because driving distances are less in the small town (everything is in town, but town is tiny) can make up for a lot of efficiencies of scale. The common argument is that we should put people into apartments instead, but that isn't always a clear total system win. For example if somebody is really into fishing letting them live near a lake with space to store their own boat will be more carbon efficient than stuffing them into an apartment where every weekend they drive to the storage place on the outskirts of town to pick their boat up, then drive three hours or so to the lake.
- skhunted 2y ago
  Having houses spread out and lowering population density is bad for environment. More roads need to be built, more infrastructure needs to be built, etc. We consume too much. America is not in danger of having too much population density. We are too spread out as it is.
  - rickydroll 2y ago
    If people want to live in cities, I am all for making it possible. My only request is to control outdoor lighting. Nighttime outdoor lighting has many negative side effects on humans, animals, and plants. However, cities are not for me. I work in my home office on the outskirts of a minor city. Right now I am listening to house finches and goldfinches arguing over places on the thistle feeders and smelling petrichor as rain showers move in. Here is the important takeaway: I would never try to force you to live outside of a city. I hope you can grant me the same consideration and not force me to live in a city.

ActorNightly 2y ago

There isn't a definitive statement that can be made about fertility crisis. The number of 2.1 as the replacement rate is based on some estimate of human labor output. This could very well be lower in reality (i.e humans can be more efficient with technology that is not currently reflected in economics)

docdeek 2y ago
I always understood 2.1 to be the replacement rate because it would be two children to 'replace' two parents, with the 0.1 being to cover the inevitable deaths of a person before reproducing or for infertility.
- UncleOxidant 2y ago
  Maybe what they were saying was that that 0.1 may actually be lower in developed countries with lower infant mortality? Maybe it's more like 2.05 in developed countries? (not sure what "human labor output" has to do with it, though)
stefan_ 2y ago
What "human labor output" can make up for a fertility rate below 2? Can you show your work?
HideousKojima 2y ago
>The number of 2.1 as the replacement rate is based on some estimate of human labor output. Replacement rate has to do with keeping the actual population number stable, not labor output whatsoever. It's 2.1 instead of just 2 because of infertility, child mortality (and mortality before reproducing generally), etc. It has literally nothing to do with robots or efficient labor. Any TFR lower than ~2.1 will result in the total population shrinking.
- kbelder 2y ago
  Well, in a sense all babies are a result of human labor output ;)

RestlessMind 2y ago

> houses with more bedrooms > further from .. cities > low-carbon to boot those seem contradictory. How can a suburban/exurban sprawl be low carbon? And even if WFH workers don't drive themselves, someone still needs to drive to ship their Amazon deliveries to their homes or to move groceries and gas to nearby stores.