Comments on: Fertility rates climb back up in the most developed countries http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/ Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:00:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Brian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4463 Brian Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:22:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4463 The problem is, when EVERY country has declining fertility rates, there is no longer immigration to boost you up if you are below replacement rate. Society is trending in the wrong direction. Look at the U.S., there will be more women in the workforce than men and men are not biologically equipped to stay home and raise 3 or 4 kids as stay at home dads. You can make women men all you want, but you can't make men, women. The problem is, when EVERY country has declining fertility rates, there is no longer immigration to boost you up if you are below replacement rate.

Society is trending in the wrong direction. Look at the U.S., there will be more women in the workforce than men and men are not biologically equipped to stay home and raise 3 or 4 kids as stay at home dads. You can make women men all you want, but you can’t make men, women.

]]> By: Sean Carmody http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4462 Sean Carmody Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:21:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4462 Further to Mark's comment, Mark has now done a follow-up post describing further flaws in the paper. Here is a summary of his findings: <a href="http://mule.posterous.com/dodgy-analysis-in-nature-fertility-not-really" rel="nofollow">http://mule.posterous.com/dodgy-analysis-in-nature-fertility-not-really</a> Further to Mark’s comment, Mark has now done a follow-up post describing further flaws in the paper. Here is a summary of his findings: http://mule.posterous.com/dodgy-analysis-in-nature-fertility-not-really

]]> By: Mark Lauer http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4461 Mark Lauer Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:09:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4461 There are serious problems with the Nature paper, including a substantial statistical bias. See my guest post on the Stubborn Mule: <a href="http://www.stubbornmule.net/2009/09/baby-bounce/" rel="nofollow">http://www.stubbornmule.net/2009/09/baby-bounce/</a> There are serious problems with the Nature paper, including a substantial statistical bias. See my guest post on the Stubborn Mule:
http://www.stubbornmule.net/2009/09/baby-bounce/

]]> By: Jim Thomerson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4460 Jim Thomerson Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:00:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4460 Most of the questions I would ask have been asked. I read an article about Italy which I did not understand. Italy has a declining birth rate to the point that there are not enough young Italians for the needed jobs. Read on down and the article told how young Italian men live at home up to around age 30 because there is no work for them. Somehow this does not compute! Paul Colinvoux, in "Fates of Nations", argues that people tend to have the number of children they think they can afford. Children of affluent parents are very expensive, whereas children of poor parents are both absolutely and relatively less expensive. Therefore poor people tend to have more children than rich people. I've read somewhere that immigrants tend to overestimate how rich they have become, and have more children than one would expect. I think this is the case in the USA. Most of the questions I would ask have been asked. I read an article about Italy which I did not understand. Italy has a declining birth rate to the point that there are not enough young Italians for the needed jobs. Read on down and the article told how young Italian men live at home up to around age 30 because there is no work for them. Somehow this does not compute!
Paul Colinvoux, in “Fates of Nations”, argues that people tend to have the number of children they think they can afford. Children of affluent parents are very expensive, whereas children of poor parents are both absolutely and relatively less expensive. Therefore poor people tend to have more children than rich people. I’ve read somewhere that immigrants tend to overestimate how rich they have become, and have more children than one would expect. I think this is the case in the USA.

]]> By: Vladimir Permyakov http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4459 Vladimir Permyakov Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:42:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4459 That map is wrong. There is no way Muslim nations like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are having below replaceable TFR. TFR is around 2.3 for Kazakhstan and 3.0 for Uzbekistan. It is wrong for Bolivia also. That map is wrong. There is no way Muslim nations like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are having below replaceable TFR. TFR is around 2.3 for Kazakhstan and 3.0 for Uzbekistan. It is wrong for Bolivia also.

]]> By: RonK http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4458 RonK Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:49:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4458 > I think Israel has an unusually high immigration > rate; what of the other outliers? IMO, Israel is an outlier because it is a very heterogeneous society, which is classified by most Israelis into three main groups: Arabs, religious Jews, and secular Jews. The first two groups have much higher fertility rates than the last group for cultural reasons. > I think Israel has an unusually high immigration
> rate; what of the other outliers?
IMO, Israel is an outlier because it is a very heterogeneous society, which is classified by most Israelis into three main groups: Arabs, religious Jews, and secular Jews. The first two groups have much higher fertility rates than the last group for cultural reasons.

]]> By: Nathan Myers http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4457 Nathan Myers Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:37:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4457 If you're worried enough about society collapsing to be willing to do anything about it, you're no libertarian. (I've skipped a few steps in the derivation. They're left as an exercise.) The immigration -> fertile-subculture notion is interesting. I wonder if it can be tested with the data available. I think Israel has an unusually high immigration rate; what of the other outliers? If you’re worried enough about society collapsing to be willing to do anything about it, you’re no libertarian. (I’ve skipped a few steps in the derivation. They’re left as an exercise.)
The immigration -> fertile-subculture notion is interesting. I wonder if it can be tested with the data available. I think Israel has an unusually high immigration rate; what of the other outliers?

]]> By: Stella http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4456 Stella Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:33:09 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4456 You seem to downplay the importance of the long term. If avoiding big challenges is a priority, I can't imagine that increasing fertility rates will succeed at that. If the short-term economic challenges are avoided, they'll only open the way for other kinds of big challenges. What are some alternative solutions to the impending human overpopulation problem? If we make an effort to increase our fertility rates in the short term, it would be wise to have a plan to deal with the consequences. What should be our plan? You seem to downplay the importance of the long term. If avoiding big challenges is a priority, I can’t imagine that increasing fertility rates will succeed at that. If the short-term economic challenges are avoided, they’ll only open the way for other kinds of big challenges. What are some alternative solutions to the impending human overpopulation problem? If we make an effort to increase our fertility rates in the short term, it would be wise to have a plan to deal with the consequences. What should be our plan?

]]> By: Mike http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4455 Mike Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:46:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4455 Fertility rates declined in developed countries because the environment and social conditions changed radically within only a few generations. Genetic (or memetic) evolution didn't have enough time to act to get people to maximize their fertility rates again. Now you have various sub-populations in probably every country that have a higher fertility than the rest of the population. So there is always going to be an eventual trend towards higher fertility rates as those sub-populations expand in number. If one religion tells its adherents to have more children then they will propagate at a faster rate than the other religions. It's all just differential natural selection at work. People who say most countries are going to trend towards a replacement fertility by 2050 are just plain wrong. I also wouldn't equate having a higher fertility rate with good economic prospects. There are many poor countries that have high birthrates, but they are basically just adding to the sum total of human misery with each child. I think it isn't necessarily a bad thing to have a declining fertility rate in developing countries. Productivity increases and this can cause an increase in economic prospects for those remaining. Japan has been developing robots to service its elderly population, for instance. From a utilitarian standpoint I think reducing human suffering entails limiting the amount of conscious minds that are born into the world. I'm a libertarian, though, and dislike the idea of limiting people's birthrates. However, I assume that radical life extension will be more likely within my lifetime. So encouraging people to have fewer children may be paramount to ensure that our society doesn't collapse. Fertility rates declined in developed countries because the environment and social conditions changed radically within only a few generations. Genetic (or memetic) evolution didn’t have enough time to act to get people to maximize their fertility rates again. Now you have various sub-populations in probably every country that have a higher fertility than the rest of the population. So there is always going to be an eventual trend towards higher fertility rates as those sub-populations expand in number. If one religion tells its adherents to have more children then they will propagate at a faster rate than the other religions. It’s all just differential natural selection at work. People who say most countries are going to trend towards a replacement fertility by 2050 are just plain wrong.
I also wouldn’t equate having a higher fertility rate with good economic prospects. There are many poor countries that have high birthrates, but they are basically just adding to the sum total of human misery with each child. I think it isn’t necessarily a bad thing to have a declining fertility rate in developing countries. Productivity increases and this can cause an increase in economic prospects for those remaining. Japan has been developing robots to service its elderly population, for instance. From a utilitarian standpoint I think reducing human suffering entails limiting the amount of conscious minds that are born into the world. I’m a libertarian, though, and dislike the idea of limiting people’s birthrates. However, I assume that radical life extension will be more likely within my lifetime. So encouraging people to have fewer children may be paramount to ensure that our society doesn’t collapse.

]]> By: Charlotte http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4454 Charlotte Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:03:03 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/08/05/fertility-rates-climb-back-up-in-the-most-developed-countries/#comment-4454 Did the authors check for a correlation between increasing birthrate for high HDI values and migration rates? Perhaps this is a tabloid trope, but there's a possible logical progression from better quality of life -> more desirable location for immigrants from poorer countries -> increasing birthrate as migrants reproduce at the rates similar to those normal in their countries of birth. The dates struck me as interesting, along those lines, but then they also coincide with the start of better employment conditions for women. I really need to get myself back to university, so I can get journal subscriptions. Did the authors check for a correlation between increasing birthrate for high HDI values and migration rates? Perhaps this is a tabloid trope, but there’s a possible logical progression from better quality of life -> more desirable location for immigrants from poorer countries -> increasing birthrate as migrants reproduce at the rates similar to those normal in their countries of birth. The dates struck me as interesting, along those lines, but then they also coincide with the start of better employment conditions for women.
I really need to get myself back to university, so I can get journal subscriptions.

]]>